On a choir tour from Emmanuel Bible College, I was billeted with a family that did not attend a Missionary Church. In the bathroom, getting ready for bed, I noticed a small black book on the window sill. I am a bibliophile, so I was curious. It was a Freemason text, which strictly required that it not be revealed to non-initiates. Next morning it was gone.

Freemasons initiate members by requiring oaths and continue the requirement through all their levels of initiation. They are a textbook case of an “oath-bound secret society.” A well-known American Bible publisher produced the book, which fair or not, has influenced my feelings about that publisher ever since. I had those feelings because as a young Missionary Church member, I had already been taught to reject oath-bound secret societies. Where did that come from? Rejecting oaths entirely is not in many mainstream church constitutions. Militaries, the courts, citizenship ceremonies; all use swearing of oaths. It’s very common.

Vows are similar to oaths, but there is a difference, according to Nazarene scholar Richard Taylor. A vow “relates to a future action or performance, while an oath is a commitment to the truth, usually invoking Deity or some sacred object.”¹ As a species of promise, vows are related to the image of God which defines us as human, for God makes promises and keeps his covenants. We can sharpen the definition of oaths more: “invoking Deity” means calling on God to testify about our truthfulness or falsehood and punishing if we are false.

Building on teaching of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5: 33-35, 37), the first Anabaptists, the Swiss Brethren, immediately accepted that true Christians would not strengthen their statements or promises by an oath. Their Schleitheim Confession (1527), the first statement by European Anabaptists on doctrine, rejected swearing oaths.² Later, Menno Simons in Holland wrote in 1552 and again in 1556 defending the rejection of oaths.³

The Mennonite Brethren in Christ’s predecessors continued and the MBiC supported the “non-swearing of oaths.” Doctrinal statements for many years said oaths were “strictly forbidden.”⁴ Even in 1965, the United Missionary Church statement called oaths “forbidden.”⁵ At the merger of the Missionary Church Association and the UMC, a different paragraph was introduced which stated that the “Christian’s life should be so transparent…that his word can be trusted without the swearing of an oath either in personal or judicial situations.” In 1988/ 89, the “formal oath” was said to be unnecessary, but a judicial oath was allowed.⁶ The explicit permission to take a judicial oath was dropped in later statements so the EMCC of today has a soft statement in the Articles of Practice (2013) affirming that a “Christian’s life should be so transparent…that his or her word can be fully trusted without swearing on the Bible in judicial situations or taking the Lord’s name in vain.”

This issue of swearing of oaths descends from the Dordrecht Confession that many Mennonite groups in North America used as a teaching text for candidates for baptism.⁷ That’s why the EMCC still has the article in its Constitution. This was contrary to the last of John Wesley’s 25 Articles (simplified from the Anglican 39 Articles), which accepted judicial oaths, probably originally in response to Anabaptist rejection of them.

We’re not talking here about profane talk, cursing, cussing, expletives. “Taking the Lord’s name in vain” and abusive talk are rejected by, for example, Exodus 20:7 and Colossians 3:8-9.

It’s in the Bible. Jesus said, (and his half-brother James agreed), that a follower of his, whatever was practiced in the past, would speak in such a way that their “Yes” would mean “Yes” and their “No” would mean “No.” He said, “Do not swear an oath at all.” Anything beyond that, Jesus said, was from the evil one. (Matthew 5:33-37 NIV, also James 5:12). Paul seems to be echoing the teaching in 2 Corinthians 1:17. The biblicism of Anabaptists led them (and numerous groups in Christian history) to reject oaths. Among the Anabaptists there were some shades of application, but the majority defended the non-swearing of oaths.⁸ The GAMEO article mentions early Church fathers as Tertullian, Origen, Gregory of Nazianzus and John Chrysostom affirming the rejection of oaths, along with Medieval groups (not all orthodox) such as the Cathari, Albigenses, Waldenses, Beguines, Beghards, Wycliffites, Hussites, and Bohemian Brethren.⁹ They understood the New Testament to be a perfecting of the Old, so even if OT saints used oaths, in the NT, Jesus stepped up the level of truthfulness required of his disciples. Many magisterial Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Anglicans) read the Bible’s two testaments more on a level, rather than as two dispensations, so all the OT examples of oaths in the OT were used as evidence for continuing the practice, while Anabaptists did not.¹⁰

Much has been written to limit the application of Jesus’s prohibition, usually to confine it to abusive language, or false judicial swearing. John Calvin represents this whole class admirably.¹¹ The Brethren at Schleitheim anticipated several of Calvin’s objections and I think answered them. The judicial oath intends to bind state servants to a promise to fulfill their trust, or witnesses in a court to tell the truth. Non-fulfillment then becomes a crime the courts can use against the one who swore the oath (as perjury for example.) But false testimony in court is already prohibited in Exodus 20:16. People continue to believe they need to strengthen their statements or promises by calling on the power of God to punish them if they do not tell the truth or uphold their promises. Swearing on a Bible (or Quran and so on) in court reflects this belief. Of course, in human history, all kinds of powers are called on to strengthen such promises—gods, demons, powers of the universe and so on. “May [God] punish me/ God do to me and more also/God is my witness [and may he reveal me as false] if I do not keep my promise.” The writer to the Hebrews commented on the normal practice of swearing oaths, not in judicial situations only. “People swear by someone greater than themselves,” the writer observes (Hebrews 6:13-18), because those greater can punish the liar.

In practice, we see some public figures lying all the time, because they are not guilty in human law until they take an oath in court and try to lie. It is a great abuse of truth. This proves they have no fear of God to begin with.

So Anabaptists/ Mennonites and later Quakers,¹² rejected swearing of oaths in judicial situations in addition to many ordinary transactions, which put them at odds with the use of oaths of loyalty expected in European societies. In fact they were treated as treasonous subjects, or as subjects and not citizens. We can thank the Quakers for suffering long enough to gain freedom from judicial oaths for any who object from matters of conscience in many countries with law codes descending from England. In a similar way, Mennonites suffered and gained some accommodations in scattered places in Europe. I myself have used the provision in an Ontario court to affirm rather than swear.

I saw the power of telling the truth in an almost trivial situation when playing friendly games of volleyball at the YMCA years ago in Sudbury. We didn’t have line judges to say whether the ball was in or on the line, in or out. Somehow it shifted to me if the ball was in my area, that if I said the ball was in, there was no dispute, I hope because I called it truthfully, whether it hurt my team or not.

I have not seen much evidence the members of the MBiC, the United Missionary Church or the EMCC have used the provision of Canadian law to affirm. My impression is that since pastors rarely mention the situation, members do not use it in legal cases where swearing to tell the truth is expected. But I have no stories except my own, one way or the other. In casual talk, people easily use the phrase “I swear,” not meaning very much by it, to emphasize the truth of their words, however, exactly as Jesus said not to.

Perhaps to get around the objection to oaths, most documents I sign are a written version of saying “yes, my statements are true,” whether it is income tax or mortgage forms. My word is to be good and reliable as I can be.

Missionary Church changes. Some years ago, the early 1980s, Missionary Churches were asked in their districts, to agree to alter the wording of the Church’s opposition to non-swearing of oaths. A friend of mine stood to argue against the change, but the best he had was that it was against our tradition. He meant Mennonite tradition, but he couldn’t say that because we had not been “Mennonite” in name since 1947. I knew that wouldn’t fly, because of the propaganda against “tradition” in evangelical church circles as being mere human rules, not revealed Scripture. Jesus’ words in Matthew 15 or Mark 7 or Colossians 2:8 are usually quoted. This claim ignores that in fact all of us interpret the Bible from our background, a tradition, in other words, and the apostles’ teachings can be themselves a tradition (eg I Corinthians 11:2). Those who say they “just read the Bible without following any tradition” do not recognize that that is a tradition itself, with its own selected rules of interpretation.¹³

At that point in the conference debate I was called out of the conference hall to help count ballots as a teller, so I missed what else was said. I thought I heard that one of the strong arguments in favour of dropping total opposition to oaths was that Paul himself used oath-formulas in his letters, eg Galatians 1:20 (NIV), “I assure you before God what I am writing you is no lie.” Or Romans 1:9, “God…is my witness…” (also 2 Corinthians 1:23, 1 Thessalonians 2:10.) Therefore, the argument went, the NT cannot really be against swearing of oaths. I do not know why the issue came up. I assumed (it may not be true) that there was pressure for American military chaplains, who were Missionary Church members, to be allowed to take oaths as members of the armed forces of their country without contravening a covenant of church membership. It seemed at the time like an example of cultural accommodation.

The 2013 EMCC statement on oaths is phrased as advice (“should be”) and applied to one situation and one speech habit: “The Christian’s life should be so transparent in its honesty and integrity that his or her word can be fully trusted without swearing on the Bible in judicial situations or taking the Lord’s name in vain.” The Scriptures cited are the familiar ones of Matthew 5:33-35, 37 and James 5:12 with Exodus 20:7. I will leave it to the reader whether this advice, while certainly true, is a sufficient biblical instruction or not.

Banner: A Canadian citizenship ceremony. Credit: https://allaboutcitizenship.ca/canada-citizenship-test-chapter-1-understanding-the-oath/

1Richard S Taylor, “Vows,” in Richard S Taylor, ed, Beacon Dictionary of Theology (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill of Kansas City Press, 1983) p 542-543.

2Schleitheim Confession (1527), Article 7, “The Oath.” Available in various sources. I am using the text in John C Wenger, The Doctrines of the Mennonites “Appendix I: The Schleitheim Confession” (Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing House, 1950) p 69-74. https://courses.washington.edu/hist112/SCHLEITHEIM%20CONFESSION%20OF%20FAITH.htm

3Menno Simons, “Confession of the Distressed Christians,” (from 1552), The Complete Writings of Menno Simons (Scottdale PA: Herald Press, 1956) p 517-521 and “Epistle to Martin Micron,” (1556) p 922-927.

4 Eg MBiC Discipline (1924), Article XXIV, “Oaths,” p 24.

5The Constitution and Manual of the United Missionary Church (Elkhart, IN: Bethel Publishing, 1965) p 24.

6Constitution of the Missionary Church (Fort Wayne, IN: General Conference, 1989) p 12. An identical statement was accepted for the Constitution of the Missionary Church of Canada (Kitchener, ON: General Assembly, July 1988) p 25.

7Dordrecht Confession (1632), Article XV, “Of the Swearing of Oaths,” in Wenger, p 82. Not to be confused with the famous Canons of Dort (Dordrecht), a Reformed statement of 1618.

8Edmund Pries, Anabaptist Oath Refusal: Basel, Bern, and Strasbourg 1525-1538 (Waterloo, ON: Pandora Press, 2023).

9Christian Neff, Harold S Bender and William Klassen (1958) “Oath,” GAMEO https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Oath

10Myron S Augsburger, The Communicator’s Commentary: Matthew (Milton Keynes, England: Word Publishing, 1987) p 79-80.

11 John Calvin, A Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke Vol 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B Eerdmans, 1972) p 191-193.

12https://quaker.org/quaker-history-introduction/

13Roger Olsen, The Mosaic of Christian Belief: Twenty Centuries of Unity and Diversity (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002) p 51-52.