Attitude toward the State
Servants rejected any overt involvement in the state’s military activities, including refusing alternative-service projects related to war. At the same time, differing from transformers and especially resisters, they affirmed the government’s right to institute conscription, even in peacetime.
All three Peace Churches shared a positive attitude toward compromise with government in its carrying out the draft law, though they differed some among themselves. Mennonites had the strongest servant tendencies, with Brethren and Quakers having more transformer and, in the Quakers’ case, even some resister tendencies.
Those with servant tendencies believed that the testimony of love could be rendered even within the framework of conscription. They articulated a philosophy of responding to arbitrary governmental authority by “going the second mile.” A Mennonite Civilian Public Service (CPS) leader expressed it this way:
“In place of gaining its point by law…[this philosophy] operates on the level of love which restores the broken fellowship; in place of using the tactics of pressure to gain its point, it expresses instead its concern on the basis of principles involved; it does not insist on personal rights, but rather gives thought to the obligations and duties that one has when under the Spirit and direction of Christ. When compelled to go one mile, the non-resistant Christian does not resist the compulsion, but rather stands prepared to volunteer the services of the second mile.”
Servants did not focus on issues such as personal liberty, restrictions on the travel and the movement of conscientious objectors (COs), on the place and particular nature of their work assignment, and on leaves and furloughs. They believed government restrictiveness need not keep them from performing significant works of service and therein showing the world a powerful witness of true pacifism.
Servants, characteristically Mennonites, respected state authority. They readily cooperated with Selective Service (SS) in administering CPS, willingly accepting the terms and conditions the government laid down, and submitting to whatever hardships it imposed upon churches or individual COs. The Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) did reserve the “right of conscience to reject forms of service which contribute to war or coercion in any form or to any other social evil.” But it did not feel a “nonresistant church” could appropriately make further demands of SS or actively oppose it.
Servants generally had no objections to alternative civilian service in lieu of Army service. They rejected, on the one hand, the possibility of noncombatant service in the Army as being too militaristic and, on the other, any course of action that would repudiate civilian service under conscription as being too rebellious. Most objected to war, not to conscription per se. Servants also did not object to administering the CPS camps which hosted their conscripted members, even though a government agency (SS) administered by an Army general had ultimate supervision of CPS camps.
Servants posed no threat to the alternative service system. One of the MCC camp newspapers contained an editorial declaring: “CPS is a privilege!…We intend to serve our country to the best of our ability. And we intend to do that without the unjustified grumbling and complaining that has been evidenced among some COs.”
Albert Gaeddert, a Mennonite CPS administrator, asserted that COs should be grateful to the state’s “generosity” for allowing alternative service:
“Through the generosity of a democratic government, it is possible to offer our services for constructive purposes. And with this I would list the first purpose and objective toward which we are setting our aims: to render constructive service to our government and humanity. Although we refuse to become a part of the war machine, we are willing and eager to give our service where we feel it is employed toward the harm of no one and to the upbuilding of the abiding interests and welfare of humanity. It is interesting today to find those who look at issues and their implications in terms of a long period of time. It is doubly encouraging to hear a statement such as this coming from one in government employ: The greatest defense work we can do in our nation today is to defend the soil, upon which and by which we live. It may seem insignificant to go out to do soil conservation work when we think only in terms of each shovel full of dirt that we throw over the bank, but when we view the program as a means of preserving what the Eternal has entrusted to us then the work takes on a personal significance because it concerns people—individuals, families, communities, and nations.”
CPSer Roland Bartel echoed these sentiments:
“We have been drafted into service for our country along with more than a million men. We may differ from the majority of the draftees in the kind of service we have chosen to give, but in some respects we are all agreed. Have we not recognized certain principles by the mere fact that we have submitted to the draft, regardless of the kind of service we chose? First of all we have recognized the government’s rights to expect sacrificial service from its citizens. At the same time we have demonstrated our willingness to work for our country. May we never misuse the kind of service we are permitted to give and may we serve zealously.”
Some Mennonites even went so far as to express their gratitude formally to the government for its tolerance, as in from a letter from the Franconia Conference of the Mennonite Church bishops sent to General Hershey October 14, 1946:
“The Franconia Mennonite Conference, at the recent semi-annual meeting, by a rising vote moved that we express our gratitude to our Federal Government for granting exemption to our conscientious young men from both combatant and noncombatant service in the army. We realize that this unique exemption can be found in very few other countries; we therefore must thank God that we live in a nation whose Constitution grants us the precious privilege of religious freedom. We appreciate the work that your department has done in setting up the Public Service camps and are happy that amicable relations existed between our unit and the Government so that defenseless Christians had no need of violating their consciences and could do something that was of National importance.”
This perspective was by no means universal among servants, however. Some opposed peace-time conscription. Unlike resisters and – to some degree – transformers, servants objected not so much to losing personal freedom as they did to a negative impact on the church (“There is no question but what alternative service has proven a valuable experience for many men and the government, but what has it done for the church?” one Mennonite asked, asserting that neither CPS nor any other possible alternative to conscription would be in line “with the motives and purposes of the church.”
Attitude toward Social Change
Servants tended to have a variety of perspectives regarding social change. Many wanted to transform the social order and, in particular, eradicate war. Others believed such concern to be out of the purview of true nonresistant COs.
For all servants, however, loyalty to living faithfully to their church community’s traditional commitment to non-involvement in warfare took priority over concern for social change. Servants strongly emphasized the positive side of their convictions—that is, performance of deeds of service to people in need and to the land. Unlike transformers, servants did not directly connect this concern for service with notions of radical social change.
CPSer Mahlon Wagler, an Amishman, made a sharp distinction between perspectives on who determined the importance of CPSers’ work.
“Do we stress too much the fact of ‘national importance’? What are we interested in is doing work of “Christian importance.” In that light, it matters not what the government calls work of national importance as long as it is not against our conscience. If the work becomes drudgery, it makes a more accurate test of our convictions, and certainly holding fast to convictions is vital to our Christian lives. Through it we can become stronger Christians. I would know of no better advice to you in CPS than to make the best of the present conditions being thankful for such a place to serve your Lord. Take advantage of the many opportunities offered and prepare yourselves for the time when you will be free again. Be not discouraged, but remember the fiery trials of our ancestors and their faith in God. I believe the majority of campers will emerge from CPS better fitted to take their places in the churches and the communities.”
Servants as a rule differed greatly from resisters in their attitude toward the wider society. They tended to see war and conscription as part of the basic pattern of society as it actually existed. The servant’s concern focused on how he could do those kinds of work that conformed with his convictions within the framework of such a society. As well, he was concerned with rendering those services which would best reflect his own religious impulses.
For servants relief activities, conservation, medical experimentation, hospital work—and, indeed, almost any type of civilian work—expressed their desire to perform alternative service in lieu of military service. Even when performing such work under compulsion (as in CPS camps) servants argued that they could overcome its compulsory nature—counteract it—by working beyond the requirements and thus make the work their own. Neither one’s pay for such work nor the issue of the work being performed under a conscription law had much importance. The servant did not focus on changing institutions but rather on simply being of service of others. This attitude hopefully neutralized even the most oppressive of institutions.
Servants had little concern with applying their pacifism to affairs of state. Vocational and relief training blossomed, but not attempts to raise political concerns. Most servants simply had little interest in peacemaking at the national or international level, because they never considered these issues particularly relevant either to what they did today or wanted to do tomorrow.
Many servants worked on educational programs in CPS. Mennonites in MCC camps focused on Bible study and church history, particularly the history of their tradition. One Mennonite CPSer referred to his CPS experience being “as educational as going to college.” But the education he referred to did not include political action.
Servants suspected attempts to articulate a political program based on pacifist ideas. A speaker at an MCC CPS camp, Mennonite pastor Donovan Smucker, expressed a widely-held critique of political pacifism.
“While granting that [the] method [of Nonviolent Direct Action] was a vast improvement over war, yet [Smucker] claimed that it does not go far enough. He believes that much of the confusion of thought about this is due to Gandhi’s superimposing Christian ideals upon basically unchristian modes of action. He agreed that Gandhi is a saintly man but that his saintliness is necessarily compromised by his participation in politics. Jesus’ injunction of nonresistance cannot be reconciled with aggressive nonviolent action. For to coerce a person’s will does not always change his heart and that is primary in the Christian approach. Christianity, we know, is a ‘second mile’ religion. Saintliness is only attained by a complete submission to God which alone will develop that overwhelming dynamic love necessary to create a just and durable peace.”
In practice, servants tended to be ambivalent in their attitude toward political action. All three Peace Churches lobbied actively in 1939 and 1940 to convince the government to institute tolerant provisions for conscientious objection. And even Mennonite leaders were willing to petition the government in opposition to post-war conscription, as seen in this statement of December 1944:
“We are opposed to military conscription. A delegation has been appointed to register our concerns to government on this point. Opinion is divided as to how much individual persons should do in testifying by correspondence with Congressmen. This attitude of testifying against conscription is expressed in a statement of policy drawn up by the Peace Problems Committee of the Mennonite Church: ‘That we express to the government our concern and fears regarding the possible evil effects of permanent peacetime conscription for military training and service, particularly with regard to the dangers of militarization as it effects the moral and spiritual welfare of youth and freedom of religion and conscience.'”
An incident that illustrates the servants’ approach to a major social problem (i.e., racism) – in sharp contrast to that of the resisters in prison which we looked at above – occurred in 1944 when MCC agreed to establish and administer a new public health unit in Mississippi limited to white assignees. It defended its action on the grounds of the impossibility of an interracial camp in the situation, arguing that by carrying on a program which served both white and black families, and quietly demonstrating a belief in human solidarity, more could be accomplished toward a solution of the race problem in the South than by having no project at all. Mennonite assignees appear generally to have supported this stand; the unit had full staffing and continued beyond the conclusion of the CPS program as a volunteer service of MCC. The Brethren Service Committee (BSC) took much the same position. It affirmed the principle of racial equality in its administration of CPS and pledged itself to work toward elimination of racial discrimination in its units, but it would only consider withdrawal of units if it judged that “such action is the wisest method of achieving racial equality.”
Dallas Voran, the educational director of a Mennonite CPS camp, explained the rationale for MCC’s attitude regarding the unit in Mississippi.
“We do not agree that if we can not have an ideal arrangement—in this case racial equality—at the outset, we should stay out. We do not agree that more good can be done by refusing to go into such a situation than by going in and trying to improve conditions by working on the local scene. Just as men in CPS must believe that by being in CPS they are doing the most possible under existing conditions to live their convictions about war, so we believe that by going into Mississippi rather than staying out, we can live our ideals on race most effectively under existing conditions. If we choose to avoid the situation where we must tolerate segregation which is certainly not Christian, to be consistent we would also have to avoid patronizing or cooperating with any individual or organization which does not measure up to Christian ethics in its methods. If we make a deal with race-baiters by going into a camp where segregation is inevitable, do we not also make a deal with many unbrotherly men who exploit labor and carry on un-Christian business practices by buying their products or letting them repair our cars or attending their movies? Do we not also make a deal with militarism by submitting to conscription.”
Sources of Central Influence
Servants tended to emphasize the New Testament, especially the teaching of Jesus. For most of them, especially Mennonites, this reading occurred through the eyes of their church tradition. They suspected more politically-oriented perspectives such as the Social Gospel and Gandhian non-violent resistance of being less than Christian.
Even as they became increasingly acculturated, Mennonites retained a strong commitment to non-resistance and its corollary aversion to political involvement. The different branches of Mennonites expressed this commitment differently and with varying degrees of rigor. Nonetheless, it remained central for all of them.
Mennonite CPSer Clarence Hershberger expressed the christological basis for most servants’ pacifism:
“I am spending my time in CPS because I do believe the way of Christ and his teachings as I understand them. We see in His word where he healed the sick, rebuked devils, raised the dead, and still there were those who found fault. Nevertheless, Jesus kept on doing good. I would say if the world today would come back to the Jesus way of living there would be no more war and strife among the people, and I think that is where our CPS program comes in. It shows a better way or a higher plane of dealing with our fellowmen. As we read in Matthew 5: 44: ‘Love your enemies…’ I think this gives each one of us a challenge to live up to what God says and that through this CPS program we may show to the world what we think is the right way to live, and through this bring peace into the world.”
Denton Burns, a Mennonite CPSer, spoke to the christological basis for pacifism. Like others, he emphasized the centrality of personal conversion to constructive conscientious objection:
“Every man in CPS, in order to have the proper vision of CPS, must have a basis for that vision. That basis is a personal, real, and continual experience with Jesus Christ. The CPS man must recognize the vastness and complexity of the problems involved in CPS and the nonresistant way of life. A nonresistant Christian gives himself wholly into the service of God in order to give to the world a true picture of the ‘Jesus’ way of life. The camper who “goes along,” rendering halfhearted service, has not caught the CPS vision. The martyr spirit has no part in the proper CPS vision. Sacrifice is good only if it comes as a result of obedience to the promptings of God. Willingness on the assignee’s part to do relief work, hospital service, ‘guinea pig’ work, etc., is commendable when it stems from a desire to alleviate suffering in the name of Christ and lead men to God. This is truly a part of the CPS vision. Ulterior motives such as travel, adventure, etc., reveal the absence of the proper vision.”
Burns and many other servant types who wrote about their central influences apparently did not perceive how much their church connections shaped their interpretation of the Bible and their commitment to pacifism/non-resistance.
Most Mennonite COs experienced conditioning from a very early age to make the conscientious objection commitment. When asked why they originally chose to be COs, many now speak of the expectations of their church communities and families. At the same time, in many cases Mennonite COs had brothers who went into the military. This step generally came after a decision not to join the church. Hence, a Mennonite did not automatically become a CO. However, once he joined the church he most likely would refuse to join the military.
Wilbur Miller perhaps represented many Mennonites’ experience. He had a conversion experience at age 18, just prior to facing the draft. This experience emboldened him to take a CO stand. Mennonites generally assumed, based on church teaching, that God’s will required them to be nonresistant. A personal conversion experience would move a person toward that stance. The Mennonite not taking that stance likely did not have a close spiritual relationship with God. Spirituality served as the crucial locus of a commitment to nonresistance—much more than theology, ethics, or politics.
Mennonites had a very practical spirituality, stemming from teaching and example experienced from early childhood on up. Mennonite CPSer J. Mark Martin recognized this reality:
“Why am I a conscientious objector? First, I was taught to live peaceably with all men from childhood. Certainly I am grateful for the fact of having Christian parents who instilled in me the principles of a nonresistance stance. Second, I have witnessed the practice of the nonresistant life as exemplified in the lives of others. Third, I have found the principle of nonresistance to be practical in my own life. Truly the practice of nonresistance is essential to a happy Christian life.”
Some non-Peace Church COs such as Herman Sanders also fit into this category.
“My reason for coming to CPS was that I have been a member of the Church of Christ for 10 years. There I learned to know Christ, and have learned from his Word that he does not want his people to fight and kill each other. When I appeared before the draft board, I told them that I was willing to do anything that there was to do during this war except to take up arms and go our and kill my fellow men; that if I did such a thing I would be going against my Savior’s wishes. I have been taught from childhood up that it is wrong to fight and to kill. My father was in the last war and he took the same stand which I am taking now, only in the last war I understand that they had different means of putting the COs to work. I am very proud of our government that they give us an opportunity to stand up for our convictions.”
Experience with Regard to Prison
Even fewer COs with servant tendencies went to prison than transformer types. Out of more than 4,5000 Mennonite COs who were inducted during the War, only four went to prison, and these were likely due to mistaken classification.
In his random survey of the records of over 1,000 COs who entered CPS, Gordon Zahn discovered that while 7.4% of the Quaker CPS population went from CPS to prison (as compared to an overall percentage of 1.2% of all CPSers), not one Mennonite – out of 394 cases surveyed – went from CPS into prison.
We cannot say that no COs with strong servant tendencies chose to go to prison; nevertheless, of the four types under consideration here, the servants clearly had by far the least likelihood of doing so. They felt much better about cooperating with CPS and had fewer scruples against compromise with the conscription system. Also, most servants (unlike many transformers, who were part of nonpacifist churches) would have had little trouble in getting CO designations because of their membership in a Peace Church.
Attitude toward CPS
As a rule, servants tended during and after the War to be very positive about the CPS system and to be very cooperative within it.
Servants saw CPS as an alternative to military conscription rather than a phase of it. They did not deny the existence of injustices in the system, but still felt it was the best of possible choices. They hoped through the work projects to contribute materially to the conservation of both the human and the natural resources of the world. Some regarded such a service as an opportunity to “witness” for peace, to demonstrate to the world a way superior to that of war. Others felt that CPS served as a practical means of conserving the peace belief among pacifists themselves.
The large amount of support generated for CPS by the Mennonite churches reflects their support. Of the peace churches, Mennonites gave by far the most to CPS—in total amount and in proportion to their membership—and supported CPS with more unity. Churches with a total membership of about 120,000 contributed over $3 million during the War.
Besides cash, Mennonites contributed a vast quantity of foodstuffs to their camps. That project assumed major proportions for the average Mennonite community, tying it closely to the CPS program. In a Pacific coast district one year, sewing circles from 300 families canned 4,500 jars and dried 1,600 pounds of food. These donations reduced costs, provided for CPSers a more adequate diet than was possible with rationed foods, and provided tangible evidence of church support for the COs’ stand.
Servant-type COs often testified regarding the positive nature of their CPS experience. CPSer Dwight V. Yoder issued a representative endorsement:
“There is a positive side to CPS. To us, it is an expression of our willingness to serve our country so long as the service does not contradict Jesus’ teaching. It gives us an opportunity to show that living our convictions is more important than where, or under what circumstances we are permitted to live them, and that following in Jesus’ steps is more important than gratification and fulfillment of selfish desire. To the world it is proof of the strength of our faith while we stand the test of the pressure of war and public ridicule. For the church it gives opportunity to rethink in practical ways our principles of peace as based on the word, and preserves for the church of the future a principle that has been a major factor in its origin, growth, and witness. To men in CPS it gives opportunity to apply the principles of peace and nonresistance in their close association with others of various beliefs and practices who have been thrown together because of this strong common interest.”
The Old Order Amish had a larger percentage of its membership in CPS than any other Mennonite group. The Amish worried about the forced acculturation its young men received in the camps and sought to protect them as much as possible. Amish leaders regularly visited the camps and even established a camp in Maryland just for Amish CPSers. Nevertheless, no doubt many young Amishmen left the Amish faith due to their exposure to the wider world in CPS. However, most returned to their communities with very positive judgments of CPS, as reflected in this statement by Amish CPSer Mahlon Wagler:
“Looking back now, I can say the time was well spent, and was truly worthwhile. It is not the memories of the lang days of hard labor that stand out, however well I remember them, but they are overshadowed by memories of hours spent in worship, study, recreation, of fellowship with other campers and of friendships formed. Those are the most cherished memories. I learned much, during the experience, to appreciate and respect the views and beliefs of other men, to be more patient and more cooperative. Much can be learned when fellows from many walks of life work and live together and listen to, or engage in discussions and friendly arguments. The religious life at camp meant much to me. Many soul inspiring sermons were heard from ministers of many denominations. Many new and interesting views and thoughts were gathered from Sunday School lessons. Consolation is found in prayer and devotion as never before.”
A general attitude of respect for governmental authority and a desire to be helpful and cooperative with Selective Service greatly facilitated servants’ positive attitude toward CPS.
Mennonite CPSer Elmer Ediger’s statement characterizes servants’ acceptance of the CPS system:
“I am convinced that I can and should accept CPS under wartime or peacetime conscription. Even if I were fully convinced that conscription in itself would inevitably lead to great evils, I would still accept CPS. The basic Christian principles that helped me most: (1) As a Christian I can obey and comply with unchristian methods used on me, even though it would be a sin for me to use those methods on others. (2) The ‘second mile’ and ‘good for evil’ principles teach me as a Christian to accept compulsory service and then seek to reconstruct this compulsion into a voluntary service of good will. (3) I believe government (not anarchy) is desired by God to make for orderly group living, and therefore I obey government except when I am asked to sin.”
The pleasant reception accorded Selective Service leaders Victor Olson and Franklin McLean when they visited MCC CPS camps reflects the positive relationship servants had with government (unlike the relationship between resisters and government). The following accounts tell of these visits.
“The entire camp turned out to hear Victor Olson of Selective Service’s Camp Operations Division, who was in rare form combining sound, practical advice and information with an ingratiating sense of humor. Some of the excerpts of his well-accepted talk: ‘Selective Service is a friend of the people. We are looking out for your welfare. CPS camps are on the honor system; there is no need for policing, and we don’t want to either.…I feel those who enter CPS are just as patriotic as those who go into the Armed Service.…You should see to it that your service is not a failure, and so far it hasn’t been a failure.'”
“During the short visit here McLean made several remarks about the camp. He said, ‘The project was exceedingly interesting and worthwhile,’ also that he liked very much the attitude as a whole among the fellows as they are all going about their individual jobs. His impression was that the campers were fairly well satisfied as very few questions were asked in the meeting. However, he also pointed out some points of possible improvement such as keeping our lockers in a little more orderly fashion and keeping all fire equipment in good shape especially during the critical fire season. He spoke very favorably about the West, in fact his home was in the West some years ago and he remarked that the western climate and hospitality was the best anywhere. He has always been a very good friend to the purpose of CPS and has a very good understanding of the program. He has had experience with the Civilian Conservation Corps and as a teacher in the past years. We enjoyed his stay at our camp very much and gained much from personal interviews as well as from the talk he gave, and hope to have him back.”
Mennonite CPS camp director Jacob D. Mellinger expressed his gratitude for government tolerance:
“It is the first time in the history of the church that so many of our young men had a chance to witness to so many corners in our own US with such a wide spread effort through so many channels even with the help of our own government. Our government was surprised at the ability and concern of the churches to take care of their own, and they often expressed their appreciation for what the men were willing to sacrifice for their religious convictions. We ought to thank God for the patience and charity our government exercised toward the CPS men. The CPS program was a means hitherto unknown among us and was a great privilege for the church to keep her Christian youth in a group where they could have their own worship, rather than be under a military environment. From here these young men could make daily contact with many people whom the church probably would never have reached. Truly these young men owe a great debt of gratitude to our God, our government, our church, and all those who made it possible to serve our church and country in this unique way.”
The Mennonites had several distinct advantages in helping them cope with the CPS system and contributing to their quite positive view of their CPS experience. Their camps were comparatively quite homogeneous, they had practical and effective educational programs, and their general attitude toward authority left them comfortable with the authority structures of CPS.
Mennonites put major emphasis on four tasks in their CPS educational programs: careful instruction in the Mennonite “heritage and mission in the world;” understanding the Christian’s relation to the state and the community; deepening Christian experience; and promoting personal growth, especially through the development of skills and aptitudes having post-war occupational value. Not wanting to divorce its organized educational program from the rest of life in CPS, MCC asserted that “the intimate daily contacts of camp life—working together, worshiping together, living together, solving common problems together” would produce “the real educational experiences of CPS.” MCC’s basic “curriculum” pivoted on a three months’ “core course” – “Our Mennonite Heritage” – which MCC camps strongly urged CPSers to take upon arrival. Mennonites’ administrative organization also indicates the importance they attached to organized educational activities. This included from the start an education director in each camp, an educational secretary attached to the headquarters, and an “educational advisor” or “dean” who provided the counsel of a professional educator in planning the overall program.
Donovan Smucker, a Mennonite pastor who spent a great deal of time visiting CPS camps, articulated the Mennonite view toward authority, pointing out the advantages within the CPS system of that viewpoint:
“The average American has been brought up on the belief that he has the right to do exactly what he pleases. When that conviction is brought into CPS, trouble often results. Experiments in some of the camps operated by other administrative agencies has shown conclusively that this is an anarchism too radical for human happiness and harmony. The Mennonite theory is that all authority ultimately rests on God; that the church should honestly seek God’s guidance in selecting leaders; that these leaders must make decisions in a spirit of brotherly love, ‘speaking the truth in love;’ that scriptural authority must be given for these decisions. There is no compulsion to join the Mennonite community; but once having joined one must abide by its shared standards which stand under God’s grace. If the Mennonite leader lacks holy imagination, lacks love, makes himself and not God the authority, then there will be trouble. But CPS works quite well, I observed, when the leaders with this authority understood the basis on which they wield it and the spirit in which it must be expressed.”
The Paradigmatic Fruit of This Tendency
For those with servant tendencies, the paradigmatic fruit was two-fold. The amount of work done at the base camps constitutes one fruit, especially in contrast with the efforts of the resisters. Servants committed themselves to the work much more than other CPSers. The establishment of alternative mental health institutions, in contrast to transformer efforts to transform the mental health system, constitutes the second fruit. Many Mennonite COs who worked in mental hospitals shared with others a revulsion at the existing situation and an urge to effect change. However, almost exclusively, those who continued to work on this after the War put their energies into establishing alternative hospitals. No Mennonites continued to work with the National Mental Health Foundation in its efforts to bring about change within the existing mental health system.
CPSers did a significant amount of work in the areas of soil conservation and forest management (including fire-fighting); significant both in absolute terms and also because little if any of this work would have been done otherwise, given the lack of available workers during the war years. The prevention and fighting of forest fires under the direction of the US Forest Service, the National Park Service, and the General Land office, the largest work of the COs, occupied some 1.7 million work-days or about 25% of all their work time. The battle against soil erosion took up about 17% of the work-days with a substantial record of accomplishment.
This work lacked glamour and did not provide transformer-type CPSers much sense of directly addressing major human problems. Servants more easily accepted this type of work and more willingly put significant energy into it. Being less idealistic about changing the world, servants felt less frustration when those ideals could not be met. Also, many servants, being farmers, more highly valued the significance of managing natural resources.
CPSer Ora DeLauter expressed that point of view:
“Pacifists are uniquely fitted to accomplish what is needed in the uses of the land. Most of them are farmers. Most of them are now working at some aspects of these considerations. Their temperament, dispositions, and habits all are such as lend themselves to such long-time programs. The government has permitted many of its younger group to assist in the tools and methods of soil conservation. It is likely that many of that same group will need to return to the land after the war. What better contribution could the pacifist make to a new world than to be used in large numbers to assure the conserving of the soil? Therefore it seems to me that we pacifists should accept the challenge of the need presented to us in this field and dare to lead the farming world into acceptance of methods and procedures of soil conservation. Who knows but this is our day. A day of peaceful adventure into a work of eternal proportions.”
MCC supported the work of the Mental Hygiene Program of CPS, providing finances and other forms of institutional support. Many CPSers working in mental hospitals believed that much needed to be done. They realized that the War would end and CPSers would probably leave, and then conditions would very likely revert back to what they had been before CPSers came on the scene unless something of a more permanent nature were established. The two major products of this realization highlight the difference between the transformer-type and the servant-type.
The transformers founded the Mental Hygiene Program. Though MCC supported that program and provided four staff people from MCC camps, only one of those was a Mennonite, and that person did not continue in that position after the War ended. The Mennonites, reflecting their servant tendencies characterized by nonresistance and separation from the world, instead developed parallel institutions, a paracultural approach to systemic problems.
For Mennonites, as servants, the systemic evil which keeps one from effectively doing works of service is not directly confronted. Attempts to force institutions to change are not made. Rather, they simply focus on creating alternative institutions which provide a better context for doing works of service.
Mennonites saw an opportunity in the mental health area to do something constructive. About 1,500 Mennonite men and many of these men’s spouses had served in mental health institutions by 1946. Many emerged from this experience convinced that they must, as Christians, do something for those unfortunate people in the hospitals. At its 1945 assembly, the General Conference Mennonite Church passed a resolution to cooperate with MCC in establishing a mental institution, soon to be matched by actions from other Mennonite groups. By 1947, MCC started Mennonite Mental Health Services (MMHS) and began work to start three such institutions, one in the East, one in the Midwest, and the other on the West Coast. Brook Lane, near Hagerstown, MD, became the first hospital to open, in 1949. Kings View Hospital in Reedley, CA opened in 1951 and Prairie View Hospital at Newton, KS opened in 1954. A fourth hospital, Philhaven Psychiatric Hospital, originally founded by the Lancaster Mennonite Conference near Lebanon, PA in 1952, also eventually affiliated with MMHS.
Servant-types were fruitful in one other important way also. In their cooperation with the government in running CPS, they made a contribution to religious liberty in the US. They therein explored the means of assuring independence of religious thought and action from state control, even under conditions of war which appear to dictate the absorption of all of life by the state. By accepting organizational and administrative responsibility under government authority, they undertook to defend the separation of religious principle from state control. In this attempt, they achieved notable results. They suffered increasing encroachments upon their administrative autonomy, but they vigorously resisted the dictates of the government when clear issues of conscience or religious belief were at state; Selective Service almost uniformly yielded at these points (e.g., assignment to work of military significance). In contrast to the respect accorded religious administrative agencies, the government customarily brushed aside as of little consequence the representations of the churches “outside.”
As would be expected based on what we have seen thus far about servant-types, they burned-out or left CPS for prison or the military much less often than did resister or transformer types. They felt much more patience and acceptance in CPS as the War continued.
There are several reasons for this. For one thing, servant types did not have the high expectations of transformers regarding the significance of their CPS work, being less prone to frustration over failed hopes. They also more likely valued the work they did do, given their generally more rural, farm-oriented backgrounds and received a much higher level of support—both emotionally and materially—from home communities and families. Many servant-type COs, in sharp contrast with resisters, accepted the government’s perceived right to institute conscription and, in fact, felt gratitude for the existing CO provisions. This attitude clearly made their alternative service situation more palatable.
Certainly, the dominance of servant-type perspectives on the part of the Peace Church leadership affected the very structure of CPS and made it more likely to be amenable to COs with servant tendencies. That CPS’s structure provided primarily for activities such as work projects of natural resource preservation, and the limited humanitarian service of mental hospital and public health work and in-camp religious education contributed to increasing frustration of resister-types. These latter COs desired more possibilities for social action and direct war resistance.
That servant types did not find these limitations as problematic as other COs increased their ability to make out of CPS what they could. This attitude certainly meant a greater ability to maintain their energy and commitment to their course of action.
Of the factors that contributed to maintenance of servants’ positive attitude toward CPS, the support of their home communities perhaps had the greatest significance. Knowing the support of family, friends, and fellow church members significantly effected morale.
To the CPSers, receiving food from home communities provided a genuine boost to morale. For a CPSer to open his lunch out on project and see on the label the name of someone he knew, perhaps even his mother, proved to the young man that he did not carry his conviction alone. It showed to him that the church, the folks at home, and he himself were in a cooperative way practicing their pacifist faith.
Eldon Boese, a CPSer in an MCC camp in central Oregon, echoed this sense of encouragement.
“We in camp #60 were abundantly blessed when two brethren from the Willamette Valley drove into camp with eight tons of food stuffs. These donation were sent from the Pacific Coast District Sewing Circles. We want to extend our deepest appreciation and thanks for this large gift. With renewed feeling, we knew that the people at home have this CPS camp at heart, supporting it in prayer and gift. This gift has been evaluated at about $1,000. This supply is helping a great deal since canned goods are so hard to get and in some cases not obtainable.”
Mennonite Communities and their CPS camps both worked at maintaining a sense of connectedness. This can be seen in the publication and distribution of camp newspapers and the sending of campers out to the churches to speak. The Pike View Peace News, the newspaper of the Mennonite CPS camps in Colorado Springs, Colorado, reported two examples:
“The main objective of this paper has been to provide constituency with news about the camp and to offer individual campers the opportunity to present their views on the present and future aims of the CO. That the home communities are interested in such material has been verified by the steadily swelling mailing list. When the decision was made to print the paper, computations were based on a tentative goal of 200 subscribers. Three weeks after the first issue was mailed, 500 names appeared on the list. Their number steadily increased so that the 1,000 mark was passed last month and the present total is 1,040. All of these are paid subscriptions with the exception of about 40 exchange copies with other camps.”
“Furlough time was used to good advantage by two groups of campers who appeared on the conference programs at Tabor College and at Hesston College during the past week. The annual Tabor Bible Conference featured a regular session devoted to the discussion of CPS. Campers from Denison, IA, gave a picture of their camp in the Saturday afternoon session. Sunday afternoon men from both camps joined in a forum discussion about the camps. On Monday afternoon the men from this camp appeared on the program. Jesse Harder discussed the peace testimony and the CO position. Ray Schlichting reviewed CPS history and discussed the community relationships of the camp. Robert Kreider spoke on the values of camp life. The annual Christian life conference at Hesston provided an opportunity for Ernest Kauffman, Glen Greaser, and Orie Gingerich to participate in discussions of CPS. The young people’s group voted to include in its budget $125 for the support of CPS camps. The conclusion of the campers who had these experiences was that the home communities are eager to know more about the challenges and the possibilities of CPS.”
A more positive attitude toward the state practicing conscription and a willingness tacitly to accept that practice by cooperating with CPS led to a happier experience within CPS, according to pacifist leader A. J. Muste, though Muste did not himself hold to that attitude:
“The one consistent attitude toward conscript alternative service from the standpoint of Christian vocation—if one accepts such work at all—is that which regards submission or nonresistance to the evil which the state imposes upon him when it interferes with his normal occupation, as the vocation or duty of the Christian man. Any other attitude seems to me to involve a considerable measure of rationalization. The Mennonites came nearest to adopting this non-resistant position and the fact that the experience of Mennonite youths in CPS was less frustrating and brought better results than was the case with others, save in exceptional instances, seems to me to bear out my analysis. Those who nonresistantly take their cross of conscription should bear it joyously and be ready to carry it the second mile.”
The relative harmony of MCC camps no doubt also owed something to the homogeneity of those camps. They differed a great deal among themselves in their openness to the expression of non-Mennonite ideas in the camps. The camps in the East tended to be more restrictive. Many of the camps in the Midwest and West often had speakers from the Fellowship of Reconciliation, War Resistors League, and other denominations such as Brethren, Friends, and Methodists. The camp directors had a great deal of control over these matters. One of the more restrictive was Sanford Shetler, director of the camp at Sidelong Hill in Pennsylvania. As this quote indicates, though, he did not gain the approval of MCC with his actions.
“The camp got a lot of literature from the FOR, WRL, and a lot of Quaker propaganda. The Quakers have a very humanistic view of church-state relations. Well, there I was a dictator. I admit it. I just absolutely censored these materials. I just would not allow any FOR or WRL books in the camp. We actually burned them. An FOR speaker wanted to come to the camp but I wouldn’t let him in. I was taken to task for this by Henry Fast, the General Director [of MCC CPS]. But I told Henry, ‘If he comes in, I leave.’ Now he didn’t want me to leave, so he didn’t push it. I was a bit dictatorial because it wasn’t our historic position.”
Although Shetler’s attitude no doubt characterized only a small minority among MCC camp directors in his overt and total censorship, Mennonite cultural isolation and the makeup of MCC camps (i.e., 75-90% Mennonite with many of the rest being servant and separatist types from conservative churches) did not facilitate the existence of an environment of people particularly interested in the types of ideas Shetler was trying to stop. Hence, little need existed for overt censorship in maintaining a general unity of perspective. Without question, this unity contributed to the relative lack of frustration and burn-out among these campers.
Proportion of Total CO Population
COs with servant tendencies by far made up the largest of the four types, especially within CPS. Over 4,600 of the 12,000 CPSers were Mennonites, and the vast majority of Mennonites fit in the servant category (perhaps a few of those from very conservative groups such as the Amish might, in some ways at least, fit in the separatist category). Most of the Church of the Brethren CPSers and many of the Quakers would also likely fit here, bringing the total to around 6,000.
It is very difficult to estimate the number of servants from among the dozens of other different religious groups with members in CPS. My guess is that the largest number would fit in the servant category for two reasons. One is that most cooperated within the program, seeking quietly to perform their work. The second is an assumption that most CPSers chose to go into CPS for altruistic reasons, out of a desire to be of service in a situation where they could not – due to deeply held convictions – perform the type of service most of their fellows in American society performed, namely fighting in war. Of the nearly 5,000 non-Peace Church CPSers, probably 1,500 or so fit in the transformer category, and about the same number can be equally divided between resisters and separatists. That leaves about 2,000 servant-types.
Servants in CPS thus totalled about 8,000, 66% of all CPSers. Since few servants went to prison, we can conclude that servants made up about 45% of the total CO population.
Major Communal Identity
Most servants belonged to Mennonite churches, though many Brethren had servant tendencies, as did others from a wide variety of denominations. For most of these, their church community provided their major communal identity.
Mennonites, though much more successful than the Friends and Brethren in having their young men take the CO stand, had a disappointing number of their young men join the military. The Mennonite Church, the largest of the 14 Mennonite-related groups which supported MCC, with slightly more than 50,000 members, asserted that 1-A-O service was not acceptable and rejected its young men going 1-A. Nevertheless, 41% of the Mennonite Church young men who were inducted to service of any kind under the draft law joined the military in either a non-combatant of full-combatant capacity. For most of those who went into the military, breaking with the church on that issue signified leaving the church altogether. Of the approximately 1,300 men who joined the military only 29% returned to the church after the War, generally only on the condition that they “repent” of their decision to join the military.
Many of the other Mennonite groups succeeded even less in maintaining the commitment to conscientious objection. Of all the Mennonite men from all the branches who rendered service during World War II, only 45.9% went into CPS, 14.5% accepted the 1-A-0 classification as non-combatants, and 39.6% went into full military service.
Of course, in relation to the other Peace Churches, the Mennonites were extremely successful. Despite almost complete consensus among the national church leaders and agreement among the vast majority of pastors in favor of CPS, a very small percentage of the Church of the Brethren young men took the CO route. Nearly 90% of those inducted chose regular military service, 5% chose non-combatant service, and only 5% chose CPS. The Friends paralleled those percentages.
Brethren leader Rufus Bowman, a strong advocate for CPS, tried near the end of the War to explain this situation:
“Why did Brethren go into the military? According to the replies from local churches given the statements from the young men themselves, duty to country, social pressure, the economic problem, inadequate peace teaching, the feeling that the war was forced upon them, indifference to the church, and lack of sympathy with the CO position were the primary reasons why Brethren boys went into the Army. If the Brethren had carried on a thorough peace-education program in the local churches, it is probably that more young men would have withstood social pressures and the influence of propaganda. The reports show that propaganda, the economic problem, and the influence of friends and community have been stronger in motivating action than the program of the church.”
Inclinations on an Individualistic/Communal Spectrum
COs with servant tendencies had strong communal inclinations. At times they used language of individual conscience, but even then the sentiments expressed never quite approached the individual-vs.-everyone-else approach that we saw among many resisters.
Mennonites, especially, had very strong communal referents. Many Mennonite COs attributed their pacifist commitment to growing up in the church, and certainly their capability for successfully functioning within CPS owed a great deal to church emotional and material support. Many observers pointed out how Mennonites generally respected authority figures within CPS, and rarely, if ever, did individual Mennonites rebel against CPS.
Gordon Zahn provides evidence for this tendency based on his survey of the responses draftees made on the forms they were required to fill out in order to substantiate their claims for CO status. The Mennonite replies to the question asking prospective COs to substantiate their claims show a distinct contrast to those given by the Friends. Instead of being highly intellectualized arguments for a personal stand against war, the Mennonite statements are brief and direct, often limited to scriptural quotations citing chapter and verse. In great part they even gave the impression of being “form answers” prepared in advance and made available for those being drafted. Many stated that they received help from their pastors or other official advisors provided by the church, a fact that may account for the close similarity of expression among the different Mennonites. This reality indicates that these men received such strong encouragement and support in their stand against the war that they could turn with complete confidence to members of their families and religious community for direct assistance in the preparation of these most important documents.
Zahn notes that interestingly many Mennonite COs responded to surveys after the War by saying that the church had not provided adequate peace education; in his view, this undoubtedly is evidence of a high level of internalization of the peace traditions on the part of these respondents.
A personal account which highlights the communal nature of Mennonite CPSers comes from Richard C. Hunter, a CPSer from a Methodist background who found himself in a Mennonite CPS camp early in the War.
“I began to recognize that [CPS] Camp #5 [in Colorado Springs] was not just a camp for a collection of unrelated COs operated by MCC, but that it was a Mennonite community, within which non-Mennonites were permitted to reside. I began to see that ‘Mennonite’ was not just a name of a church denomination, but was a church-centered culture which commanded far greater loyalty and allegiance among its constituents than I had ever experienced as a member of the Methodist Church. Although I could tell the difference between Kansas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska Mennonites, there were some well-defined and encompassing boundaries which brought together those who were on the inside and established for me my place on the outside.”
Hunter questioned the reality of true personal commitment to pacifism among the bulk of the Mennonite campers at first, due in large part to their apparent lack of individual focus and expressiveness.
“While I was developing a great deal of respect for the leadership of the church as I had an opportunity to observe it in people like Albert Gaeddert, our first camp director and fellow campers such as Robert Kreider, Ray Schlichting, and Elmer Ediger, I had questions about whether the rank and file among the campers who had grown up in a tightly-controlled culture were objectors on the basis of their own conscience or of the community from which they came. Pacifism was not actively discussed as it might have been in a college dorm. It was difficult to comprehend the depth of a conviction that was never verbalized. I tended to question the personal commitment of people who seemed to be able to go on day after day patiently putting up with the discomforts of camp and the disruption of their lives. It was then a revelation when one day, an Amish crew leader out in the field on an assignment, proceeded without any discussion to load his crew into the trucks at midday and bring them back to camp when he and others in the crew realized that they were involved in the initial stages of preparing for what later became Ft. Carson. There was not a lot of talk and debate, nor was the action dramatized for public consumption. When conviction called for action, it was taken quietly and effectively.”
A later CPS assignment helped Hunter to see in a deeper way the value of the communal orientation of Mennonite CPS.
“[After Colorado Springs,] for a year I served in the Methodist-operated unit in Asheville, NC, as a ward attendant. Working conditions were reasonably good. Living conditions were certainly better than barracks. The members of the unit and the hospital staff were congenial and intellectually stimulating, but it was a situation in which I was neither an insider nor an outsider, for there was no group standard or expectation. I was one of several individuals, each having his own personal convictions. It was a group lacking in the strength and character of an organized culture. Consequently, when, after ten months in Asheville, I received an inquiry from MCC about my possible interest in a position in the Marlboro, NJ, State Hospital, I accepted without hesitation [in order] to return again to the happy role of ‘outsider’ in a Mennonite unit.”
Relative Articulateness, Especially as Concerns Outside World
Mennonite CPSers worked very hard at communicating with their church constituencies. The various Mennonite groups published numerous popular-level periodicals which during the War contained many first-person accounts of CPS and related stories. Mennonites also produced several post-war studies of the CPS experience, some published and some not.
At the same time, very little Mennonite-produced literature reached the wider world, and few Mennonite CPSers found other avenues for communication to the wider world. They certainly lacked access even had they wanted to communicate their experiences and perspectives more widely. However, at least two other significant reasons can be cited for this situation.
For one thing, Mennonites had little interest in being widely influential. Servants differed sharply from transformers and resisters in their lacking a strongly-felt sense of responsibility for changing the whole world. Hence, they generally lacked an urge to tell their story to an unknown and likely unfriendly audience. A second reason is that Mennonite pacifists tended not to be interested in apologetics regarding their point of view. Since they generally came from supportive environments, they had little occasion to feel the need to justify their stance with sophisticated arguments. As a result, they simply were less articulate. Of course, they also tended to be less educated than resisters and transformers.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Servants had a very strong and historically established, though not always explicitly articulated, belief system deeply integrated into their pre-reflective beings. They combined this with a communal support structure of church community, family, and friends. The quiet strength of these bases for commitment allowed them to function very constructively in the war context, a context where virtually all societal structures are geared toward winning the war and which allowed very little outlet for the energies of resisters and transformers.
Without absolutism or overly optimistic expectations, servants could focus on the creation of practical possibilities for service while remaining free from involvement in warfare. Their communal solidarity contributed to community renewal and creativity, especially among the Mennonite churches, instead of fragmentation and alienation. Servants responded to the same situation that engendered the transformers’ National Mental Health Foundation by forming alternative mental hospitals. This response models the potential of “alternativism” as a creative possibility for effecting long-range social change.
On the other hand, many servants tended to be quite provincial in often being primarily just concerned with their church communities and the rural world in which they had grown up. Thus, they often expressed lack of interest in learning from others with different experiences and ideas, especially of the resister or transformer types. They could validly at times be criticized for being more concerned with taking care of their own kind than with facilitating the good of CPS and the broader pacifist community as a whole.
Many servants avoided having their personal ownership of pacifist convictions tested very strenuously. Many took a relatively easy route of going along with their faith community’s desire for them to be COs, facing no resistance from local draft boards, and spending the War years in base camps surrounded by people from similar backgrounds and doing the same kind of work they had grown up doing.
Quoted in Mulford Q. Sibley and Philip E. Jacob, Conscription of Conscience: The American State and the Conscientious Objector, 1940-1947 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1952), 310.
Quoted in Sibley and Jacob, Conscription, 313.
Quoted in Lawrence S. Wittner, Rebels Against War: The American Peace Movement, 1941-1960 (New York: Columbia University, 1969), 82-83.
Albert Gaeddert, “Why Civilian Public Service Work?” Pike View News 1.3 (Oct. 4, 1941), 5.
Roland Bartel, “We’re in the Service Now.” Pike View News 1.2 (Sept. 20, 1941), 2.
Cited in Willard Hunsberger, The Franconia Mennonites and War (Souderton, PA: Franconia Mennonite Conference, 1951), 137.
“Symposium on Post-War Conscription,” Mennonite CPS Bulletin 3.7 (Oct. 22, 1944), 4.
Mahlon Wagler, “Thoughts from a Discharged Camper,” in The Story of the Amish in Civilian Public Service, eds. David L. Wagler and Roman Baber (Boonsboro, MD: CPS Camp #24, 1945), 73-74.
Sibley and Jacob, Conscription, 42-43.
Sibley and Jacob, Conscription, p. 192.
Interview with Ralph Kaufmann, Phoenix, Arizona, December, 1986.
Harold Peterson, “Donovan Smucker,” The Turnpike Echo 3.7 (Mar. 1944), 6.
“Conscription – Mennonite Attitudes and Position,” Mennonite CPS Bulletin 3.11 (Dec. 8, 1944), 1.
Sibley and Jacob, Conscription, 158.
Dallas Voran, “CPS in Mississippi,” Box 96 1.12 (March 1945), 2, 4.
James C. Juhnke, A People of Two Kingdoms: The Political Acculturation of the Kansas Mennonites (Newton, KS: Faith and Life, 1975), 156.
Clarence Hershberger, “Take Time to Think,” High Sierra Vistas 1.6 (March 1943), 9.
Denton Burns, “The CPS Vision,” Mennonite CPS Bulletin 3.21 (May 8, 1945), 3.
E.g., interviews with Paul Davidhizer, Vincent Krabill, Eugene Hershberger, and Ralph Kaufman, Phoenix, Arizona, December, 1986.
Interview with Wilbur Miller, Phoenix, Arizona, April 1987.
J. Mark Martin, “That’s Why!” The Turnpike Echo 1.13 (Aug. 17, 1942), 5.
Herman Sanders, “Reasons for Choosing CPS,” Weeping Water News Drops 1.1 (Aug. 8, 1942), 3.
Neal M. Wherry, Conscientious Objection (Washington, DC: Selective Service System, 1950), 326-327.
Gordon Zahn, “A Descriptive Study of the Social Background of Conscientious Objectors in Civilian Public Service During World War II,” (Ph.D. dissertation, Catholic University of America, 1953), 130.
Sibley and Jacob, Conscription, 315.
Sibley and Jacob, Conscription, 327.
Dwight V. Yoder, “CPS at the Crossroads,” Skyliner 1.10 (Oct. 1943), 3.
Mahlon Wagler, “Thoughts from a Discharged Camper,” in Wagler, ed., Story, 72.
Elmer Ediger, “Is It Right to Accept CPS?” The Snowline 3.4 (April 1945), 2.
Gerhard Buhr, “From Washington, DC,” High Sierra Vistas 1.5 (Feb. 1943), 2.
Albert A. Miller, “Col. McLean Visits Camp,” New Horizons 1.8 (Aug. 1943), 3.
Jacob D. Mellinger, “A Director’s Viewpoint of CPS,” in Mary Roher and Peter Roher, eds. The Story of the Lancaster County Conference Mennonites in Civilian Public Service (Smoketown, PA: self-published, 1946), 29.
Sibley and Jacob, Conscience, 182-183.
Donovan Smucker, “Mennonite Administration,” Mennonite CPS Bulletin 3.4 (Aug. 22, 1944), 1.
Sibley and Jacob, Conscription, 128, 130.
Ora DeLauter, “Pacifists Can Make a Contribution to Soil Conservation,” The Soil 1.12 (Oct. 1943), 1.
William Keeney, “Experiences in Mental Hospitals in World War II,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 56 (1982), 8.
Keeney, “Experiences,” 15.
Samuel Floyd Pannabecker, Open Doors: A History of the General Conference Mennonite Church (Newton, KS: Faith and Life Press, 1975), 250-251.
Sibley and Jacob, Conscription, 474-475.
Theodore Wachs, “Conscription, Conscientious Objection, and the Context of American Pacifism, 1940-1945,” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, 1976), 134.
Hunsberger, Franconia, 102, 104.
Eldon Boese, “Food Donations,” New Horizons 1.2 (Feb. 1943), 7.
“Constituency Eager for Camp News,” Pike View Peace News 1.11 (Feb. 7, 1942), 3.
“Campers Speak at Conferences,” Pike View News 1.11 (Feb. 7, 1942), 1.
A. J. Muste, Of Holy Disobedience (Wallingford, PA: Pendle Hill, 1952), 17.
Quoted in Alan J. Beitler, “The Impact of Social Context on Theological Belief and Political Involvement: The Life Stories of Three Mennonite Men,” (MA thesis, Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminaries, 1985), 49.
Hunsberger, Franconia, 87.
Hunsberger, Franconia, 90.
Zahn, “Descriptive,” 117.
Wherry, Conscientious, 322.
Rufus Bowman, Seventy Times Seven (Elgin, IL: Brethren, 1945), 45.
Zahn, “Descriptive,” 117-118.
Zahn, “Descriptive,” 285.
Richard C. Hunter, “From the Inside Out,” in If We Can Love: The Mennonite Mental Health Story, ed., Vernon Neufeld (Newton, KS: Faith and Life Press, 1983), 296.
Hunter, “From,” 297.
Hunter, “From,” 297-298.