Attached is J. Denny Weaver's first of three lectures on the non-violence of
God. He takes some strong stands like,
"Theology has never been more crucial to the future of Mennonites as
faithful Anabaptists, as a Peace Church, than at this moment. In fact,
I think it is perhaps the most important factor in Mennonites remaining a peace
church."
Come prepared to "take him on" or endorse his positions or anything in
between. Everyone will have an opportunity to share views.
RayTitle:
|
For
Conference on The Scandal of the Nonviolent Atonement 30
September - 1 October 2005 Anabaptist/Mennonite
Perspectives on Theology J. Denny
Weaver Introduction Theology has never been more crucial to the future of
Mennonites as faithful Anabaptists, as a Theology is a relatively new enterprise for Mennonites.
One of the first conferences by Mennonites to talk about theology as theology
occurred at AMBS in June 1983. That conference is one event from which to date
that beginning of the modern era of Mennonite theology. The event in 1983
focused on methodology. In the slightly more than two decades since that date,
methodologies have been articulated and whole schools of thought have developed
that had only embryonic existence if that in 1983. Given the recent arrival of
theology as a discipline for Mennonites, it may seem quite audacious to claim
it as the key to the survival of Mennonite as a peace church. What I will do in
this presentation, and in the two following ones, is to show how and why
theology is so important, and to pose the kind of theology that I think is
necessary for the peace church. When I say theology, I am specifically including the
doctrines of Christology and atonement. In classic language, Christology and
atonement identify and expound the person and the work of Christ. These formulations
constitute the doctrinal foundation of any version of Christian faith. Every
Christian tradition claims these doctrines for Christian identity. And if
theology is becoming the primary tool for expressing who we?Anabaptists and
Mennonites?are as a community of faith, then how we discuss Christology and
atonement are exceedingly important. This presentation is the first of three. In these
presentations, I am suggesting the need for a new approach, specifically a
peace-church approach, to Christian theology. The genesis of this new approach
is the peace church, but it is also a Christian paradigm that begins with the
narrative of Jesus. It is a Christian paradigm that I intend to challenge
anyone who claims to be Christian. It is only gradually that I have come to see
the extent to which I am challenging the prevailing paradigm and calling for a
new one. In fact, preparing these three lectures was itself a step of
confirmation that a new paradigm is what I am calling for. And I welcome your
responses as a valuable part of understanding and developing a new paradigm. In the lecture tonight, I will comment on two factors
that contribute to the importance of theology for Mennonites today. One is the
demise of ethnic identity. The second, more important factor is the phenomenon
called postmodernity. I will argue that postmodernity presents an
unprecendented opportunity to articulate this new paradigm, and I will show how
I think that sixteenth-century Anabaptism opens the door to this new paradigm.
In the lectures tomorrow I will focus primarily on atonement theology, which is
a central part of the standard theological paradigm. In the presentation
tomorrow morning I will analyze the prevailing models of atonement, and point
to their violent dimensions?the way that they embody and model and support
violence of various kinds and at varying levels. In the afternoon, I will
present my alternative understanding of atonement. It is an intrinsically
nonviolent understanding. It is a new paradigm of atonement, which I think
responds to all the problems of violence resident in the standard paradigms.
Your job will be to tell me if I am successful in that response. Demise of ethnicity The first reason that theology is important for
Mennonites is ?the demise of ethnicity.? Until recently, Mennonites had a
rather visible ethnicity, represented by Germanic language, plain clothes and
so-called ?Mennonite names.? It was always fashionable to say that these ethnic
identifiers did not ?save.? But these visible markers that set us off from
society did serve as a reminder that we were the people of God, and they made
it easier to remember our commitment to the peace and nonviolence of Jesus that
society at large did not follow. But as we all recognize, for the cultural Mennonite
folks in this room and for the overwhelming majority of The demise and abandonment of ethnicity is an impulse
from within the Mennonite experience that highlights the importance of
theology. Coming from outside, the contemporary phenomenon called
?postmodernity? adds legitimacy and credibility to the effort to develop a new
theological paradigm for the peace church. Postmodernity Postmodernity is one of the current buzz words in all
kinds of contexts and discussions, both inside and outside of academia. For
context, we need a brief history of postmodernity. The name tells us that what
preceeded postmodernity must be ?modernity.? Modernity is not simply a way to
refer to the present. When used in the context of the discussion of this paper,
?modernity? is a philosophical outlook. The philosophical condition of
?modernity? is the belief that there is or at least ought to be one universally
recognizable and universally accessible truth, if we could just locate it. The
modern project is the effort to locate or develop a universal, philosophical
standpoint that everyone can recognize as the ultimate source and norm of
truth. The point of modernity is that this sought-after truth is assumed to be
recognizable and accessible to all people of good faith. Even if this truth is
not yet known in its entirety, the assumption is that it could be known and
accessible to everyone once it was identified. For centuries, it was assumed that the church was the
institution that held the key to and defined what this universally recognizable
and accessible truth was. Theological and philosophical arguments within the
church were about the shape of this presumed universally recognizable and
accessible faith. The eighteenth-century philosophical movement called
the Enlightenment challenged the assumption that it was the church which held
the key to this universally accessible truth. After observing all the wars
fought in the name of religion, Enlightenment philosophers decided that
religion was the problem rather than they answer. Wars resulted, philosophers
argued, because various people were defending their own, biased version of
truth under the guise of religion. Philosophers thus shifted the search for the
assumed universally accessible truth to a foundation outside of the
church--placing the supposed foundation in rational thought or reason that was
independent of the church that had sponsored so many wars. This foundation
outside of the church, in Reason, was presumed to be neutral and unbiased, a
foundation that all people of good will could recognize and accept.
Enlightenment philosophers did not challenge the assumption that there was or
ought to be one universally accessible and universally recognizable truth. They
just shifted the search for it from sources inside the church to sources
outside the church. The idea and the hope was that with religion removed from
government, and with politics based on reason rather than theology, the result
would be peace based on rational, reasoned discourse among nations. That hope was dashed. Wars can be, were, and still are
fought in the name of Enlightenment?s supposedly universal rational principles
like democracy, freedom, justice and sovereignty just as wars were fought in
the name of religious principles. People and nations now fight wars?they kill
people?because they supposedly have the wrong philosophy of politics (wrong
definitions of freedom, democracy, justice) whereas they used to fight
wars?kill people?because they had the wrong views of the sacraments. This
failure of the Enlightment project to find the rational basis of truth can be
called the ?crisis of modernity,? or it is called ?postmodernity.? For purposes
here, I will call it postmodernity Postmodernity is the name given to the awareness that
there is no universally accessible and universally agreed upon beginning point
or foundation that can validate ultimate truth claims?neither inside the church
nor outside the church. Repeat: Postmodernity is the recognition that there is
no universally accessible and universally agreed upon beginning point or
foundation that can validate ultimate truth claims. Stated crassly,
postmodernists now argue that there is no universally recognized source of
appeal by which we can show Muslims or Buddhists that it is simply irrational
not to believe in Jesus. In the same way, there is no universally agreed upon
and accessible source of appeal by which Muslims or Buddhists can show
Christians that it is irrational and unreasonable not to be Muslim or Buddhist.
Postmodernity can sound scary. Hearing that there is
no universally recognized and universally accessible vantage point from which
to validate truth leads folks to fear postmodernity as a wide open claim that
there are no standards, that anything goes, and that it no longer makes sense
to believe anything. Postmodernity may sound like unbridled relativism. But
that need not be the case. In fact, when we know what we are doing,
postmodernity is actually an ally of the Anabaptist peace church. Responding to postmodernity Just because there is no universally accessible
foundation from which to validate the truth of Jesus Christ does not mean that
Jesus is not the basis of truth. It just changes the way that we witness to the
belief that Jesus is the source of ultimate truth. In fact, if that universally
accessible foundation that could prove the truth of Jesus did exist, it would
actually be a higher authority that Jesus. Thus postmodernity is not really
undercutting the truth Jesus at all. It just disabuses us of the idea that
there is a supposedly ultimate, reason-based argument for the truth of Jesus.
We are brought to the point of seeing that a different kind of witness to the
ultimate truth of Jesus is required. At this point, I accept John Howard Yoder?s answer. It
is quite clear that the condition depicted by the term ?postmodernity? does not
require anyone to believe anything. And in that setting, where nothing is
required and where no answer can be deemed to meet some universally
recognizable and accessible standard of rationality and reasonableness, how do
we testify that Jesus Christ really is the way, the truth, and the life. John
Yoder said that we testify to the truth of Jesus by living like Jesus did when
it is not required and even when it proves dangerous or costly. In a context of
seemingly relativism, we give witness to the belief that Jesus really is the
source of ultimate truth by choosing to live in Jesus? story when it is not
required, even to the point of martyrdom. That uncoerced choice is a testimony
to our belief that Jesus is ultimate truth and the ultimate norm of truth. At this point, it becomes apparent that the historic
Anabaptist idea of discipleship or following the way of Jesus coincides with
the way one witnesses to the truth of Jesus Christ in the context of
postmodernity. The stories of Anabaptist martyrs in Martyrs Mirror are
elegant testimony to the Anabaptists?s belief that their faith in Jesus was
more true than the supposedly universal claims of the churches of Christendom.
Anabaptists did not ?invent? or discover postmodernity, but their choice to
reject the presumed universal option of Christendom in the sixteenth-century is
one of the several phenomena that has contributed to the perspective that today
is called postmodernity. Living by the story of Jesus is an answer to those who
assert the relativity of all views. Living within the story of Jesus when we do
not have to is a confessional action. Choosing to live within the story of
Jesus when it is costly is a profound witness that all stories and all claims
to truth are not equally valid. Living within the story of Jesus when we do not
have to is a confession that we believe that of all the stories claiming to be
true, the story of Jesus is the one we believe to be most true.[1] But not only is there a way to witness to the truth of
Jesus within postmodernity. The condition called postmodernity actually offers
the opportunity of heightened viability for an Anabaptist, peace-church
theology. The
The postmodern doubt about the possibility of
identifying one universal Truth encompasses both religious Truth and
philosophical Truth.[2] This
questioning and doubt both offers a opportunity and poses a significant
challenge to the project of Mennonite theology. The doubt of postmodernity
stripes Christendom?s theology and the Enlightenment?s philosophical claims of
the mantle of generalness or universality. And two things happen when
Christendom?s theology loses its mantle of universality. One is the obvious.
The presumed general and universal traditions, such as the theology of
Christendom, are revealed not to be universal at all. Without the mantle of
universality, they are revealed to be the theology of a particular tradition
with a particular history emerging out of a particular context. And second and
subsequently, the views of some small religious traditions, particularly
Mennonites, have begun to attain visibility, and to attain a new level of
credibility. These two developments clearly have the potential to
benefit Anabaptists. When it is recognized that every faith and every tradition
has roots in a particular context, then no particular theology is accorded a
universally recognized, a priori status as the correct one; and if the argument
is fair, the supposedly lesser theological traditions?such as Anabaptists?have
no greater burden of proof than that which rests on the previously presumed
general tradition. With specific reference to Christendom and Anabaptism,
the postmodern condition means that the theological tradition that emerged from
the church of the Constantinian synthesis and that continued in the Protestant
Reformation*the so-called mainline denominations*now appear as particular
traditions and would not necessarily have an a priori or favored place over the
several Anabaptist movements who dissented from Christendom?s fusion of church
and state. What passes for standard theology?the theology that it is presumed
should be accepted by everyone?is revealed to be the particular theology of the
church after A particular theology for Mennonites as a peace church
can now assert its version of truth on a logically equal footing with the
theology of Christendom. The context of postmodernity thus offers Mennonites an
opportunity virtually unprecedented since I do need to point out that this claim to an equal
footing for an Anabaptist, Mennonite theology exists only in an abstract sense.
Even if Mennonite theologians claim equal footing, Christendom theologians
often presume some kind of a priori privilege. Christendom exercises a two-fold
hegemony?both theologically and practically?as they claim (even if they should
not) to set the terms of the discussion and the questions to answer. And due to
numerical dominance, they surround us with the thought that pervades all our
efforts at theologizing. The advent of postmodernity has not therefore made it
easy for Mennonite theology to assume an equal voice in the discussion. But it
does mean that an opening now exists for Anabaptist Mennonite theology.
Mennonite theologians speaking from a particular Mennonite assumptions cannot
presume that others will listen merely because postmodernity has called Reason
into question and pointed out the particularity of all traditions. Nonetheless,
there is an opening, if arguments are made persuasively and Anabaptists are
willing to enter the discussion. Characteristics of Anabaptism To make a persuasive case for an Anabaptist theology,
we have to know who Anabaptists are. I will give a brief characterization of
Anabaptism as I have come to understand it. (For a long version, see much
revised second edition of Becoming Anabaptist, that was released just a
couple weeks ago.) In a single sentence: sixteenth-century Anabaptism developed
and constituted a new way to be the church within a particular socio-political
context. Although descriptions of this way of being the church have varied
considerably for both sixteenth-century and contemporary versions, they almost
always included some form of the following characteristics. Interrelated themes describe this church. The new
model emerged when Christians decided to follow Jesus as their authority for
ethics?discipleship?particularly for issues related to baptism,
economics, and the sword. Since choosing to follow Jesus as a norm was a
decision made by an adult, this church was a voluntary community; its
members chose to leave the established or state church. The new church
positioned itself as an alternative society both to the social order with its
government that exercised authority in religious affairs, and to the
established church which depended on the government for support and pretended
to encompass all of that society. Thus Anabaptism was a reform movement that
rejected the state church?the action that earned it so much grief. However,
more than rejection of a state or established church, Anabaptism also rejected
the idea of a ?Christian society,? or a professed belief that the cause of the
reign of God is identified with a particular nationality or social order.
Discipleship?Jesus as ethical authority?received a specific application in the rejection
of violence and the sword?although quite obviously not all
sixteenth-century Anabaptists rejected the sword. The voluntary community
founded on discipleship to Jesus is perforce a peace church that rejects the
sword of war?as Jesus did. In theological terms, this church lives as an
outpost of the reign of God in the world that has not yet come to acknowledge
the rule of God. Additional ideas and practices are derived from or
closely related to these three characteristics. Such additional ideas include separation
from the disobedience of the world, the practice of church discipline, mission
or the acquisition of new members, freedom of conscience, some form of
mutual aid or community of goods, rejection of oaths, refusal
to hold public office, baptism of adults, absence of a hierarchy,
and a symbolic view of the Lord?s Supper. Anabaptists appealed to the Bible as the source of
these beliefs and saw themselves as working to restore New Testament
Christianity. However, the entire Reformation asserted the authority of the
Bible as a counterweight to the Roman church?s assertions of the authority of
the pope and tradition. Thus taking the Bible seriously or emphasizing the
authority of the Bible cannot in themselves be singled out as characteristics
unique to Anabaptists. They did, however, develop a distinctive way to
emphasize the Bible that differed in two ways from both the medieval church and
the magisterial reformers. While the Reformers tended to retain the right of
interpretation for the authoritative teachers and Catholicism retained an
authoritative teaching tradition, Anabaptists put the Bible in the hands of
laypersons and involved every member in interpretation by making the believing
community of voluntary members the locus of interpretation. Further, the
assumption of the normative value of the teaching and example of Jesus and also
of the early church gave a priority to the New Testament, and particularly to
the narratives about Jesus over other parts of scripture. Anabaptists read the
Bible not as a flat series of propositions and timeless allegories, but with a
sense of direction and development from Old Testament to New Testament. There
developed what later interpreters could call a hermeneutics of obedience,[3] that is,
the idea that biblical interpretation resulted from the commitment to read the
Bible with a view to discovering how to live in its story, and in particular,
to live in the life of Jesus. Anabaptism as I describe it did not arrive on the
sixteenth-century stage as a whole entity after a few folks in This picture of Anabaptism is a characterization of a
new movement, a new way to be the church in the sixteenth century. Omitting any
of its characteristics changes the character of the movement. Nonetheless, some
characteristics are derivative of or dependent upon other themes, and one principle
above all gives meaning to this story. The characteristic that gives meaning to all others is
the commitment (or profession of faith) to Jesus? life and teaching as the
authoritative source of truth. The will of God is revealed in the particular humanity
of Jesus, which forms the base line against which Christians evaluate their own
activity. Second, if most of the social order does not have this
particular commitment to Jesus as authoritative ethical source, it follows
almost as a matter of course that the church which accepts Jesus as that source
will produce a new social reality?a new community visibly different from the
society in which it lives. That is, to follow Jesus involves a new way of life
which expresses itself in redeemed attitudes and relationships among people
both within and without the church. Third, if the particular story of Jesus is a norm for
behavior, then peace and the rejection of violence also follow as a
matter of course as a particular manifestation of discipleship or of following
the example of Jesus. Jesus? specific rejection of the violent option of the
Zealots through his nonviolent confrontation of evil belongs in a central way
to the nature of the reign of God revealed in Jesus? life and teaching. You may recognize these three characteristics as
revised versions of Harold Bender?s characterization of Anabaptism in his
well-know statement, ?The Anabaptist Vision.? These central convictions of Jesus as ethical norm,
the church as a witness to the social order, and the inherently peaceful nature
of the community of Jesus? followers, as well as those convictions or
principles derived from them, describe a way to be the church that was new to
the sixteenth-century. The theme of of this lecture is on Anabaptist,
Mennonite perspectives on theology. To bring that theme clearly into focus,
let?s review briefly the terrain we have covered so far. I began by telling you
that theology was very important for the continuation of Mennonites as a peace
church. Then I spoke about postmodernity in order to show that the demise of
the philosophical stance of the Enlightment, the demise of ?modernity,?
actually provides an opening unprecedented since Theology for Anabaptists The
case for standard theology For some Mennonite theologians, the question whether
Anabaptists have or should have a distinct theology has already been answered
with a ?no.? The claim is made that not only do Anabaptists not have a specific
theology, but that contemporary Anabaptist, Mennonites should accept some
version of the standard theology of Christendom and build on the historic
creedal theology of Christendom.[4] In other
words, the argument goes, Anabaptists and Mennonites do not have a specific
theology. Rather, their theology should ?borrow? or learn from one of the
theologies of Christendom. There is no unanimity among these voices about which
version of standard theology to espouse, but most often the call is to identify
with either some form of Evangelicalism or with the Catholic creedal orthodoxy. I have several times referred to ?standard theology.?
I need to be clear about what I mean by ?standard theology? that some
theologians want to espouse and that I think Anabaptist theology should pose an
alternative to. Standard theology is the theology professed by the dominant
traditions of Christendom. To state it very sharply?standard theology is the
theology espoused by the traditions that burned Anabaptists in the sixteenth-century.
While there are multiple versions of Christendom, there is a loose, general
agreement about the core content of standard theology among these versions of
Christendom. For Christology, the foundation of standard theology is the
decrees from the councils of Nicaea (325 C.E.) and Chalcedon (451 C.E.), and
the trinitarian terminology suggested by the late fourth-century writers
Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil of Caesarea, and Gregory of Nyssa, who are called
the Cappadocian Fathers. A bit later, an atonement doctrine was added to these
Christological formulas. Although a specific atonement doctrine never attained
the status accorded these creedal formulas, the satisfaction theory of
atonement, given its first full articulation by Anselm of Canterbury in his Cur
Deus Homo (1098), builds on the Nicene-Chalcedonian formulas and has been
the obviously dominant atonement motif for many centuries. Those who want Anabaptist Mennonites, the peace
church, to build on this standard theology of Christendom make several
arguments. I summarize three such arguments. One point is that Anabaptists came along only in the
sixteenth-century. Therefore, since the church had been using these formulas
for many centuries before Anabaptists even existed, how Anabaptists as a youthful
entry into the long Christian tradition possibly have anything important to say
to the Christian tradition in Christology or atonement. In fact, the argument
goes, it is intrinsically audacious and prideful for the ?new? movement of
Anabaptists and Mennonites to presume to have something unique or distinct to
say about doctrines such as Christology and atonement, when Anabaptists and
Mennonites have a history of barely five centuries in a movement that is two
millennia old, and whose standard formulas have been around for fifteen or
sixteen hundred years. In other words, the argument goes, Anabaptists and
Mennonites are just to new (and small) to have anything important to say to
other Christians concerning theology. A second argument is that Mennonites are Christians
just like every other Christians. We need to express our common foundation with
other Christians, it is said. To argue for a specific peace church theology, as
I do, can sound like a call to continue the kind of separation that was marked
by German language and plain dress. To folks who want to build on Christendom?s
standard theology, my call for a specific peace church theology sounds like a
renewed call for separatism just as we have overcome the embarrassment of
previous separation. A third argument, stated with some persistence, is
that sixteenth century Anabaptists themselves used and affirmed the classic
creeds and formulas of Christendom. And if they did, then affirming the
standard theology of Christendom is actually the ?Anabaptist? thing to do. If
sixteenth-century Anabaptists did not have a problem with the standard
theology, it is argued, then modern Anabaptists should also affirm this
standard theology, both because it is an ?Anabaptist? thing to do, and because
it affirms the common foundation that Mennonites supposedly share with other
Christian traditions. I have answers to these three arguments and more. Response
to Standard Theology I will discuss the formulas of standard theology in
more specifics tomorrow morning. For now it is sufficient to say that the
significant point about the formulas of standard theology is that while they do
make strong statements about Jesus, they do so in abstract categories and
formulas that provide nothing of the particularity of the story of Jesus that
contributes to being Christ-like, the particularity that would enable what
Anabaptists called ?discipleship.? These abstract theological formulas make
real claims about Christ, but their abstractness poses no challenge to
supposedly Christian ethics that most certainly does not originate with Jesus
Christ. An obvious public example is claiming Jesus as favorite political
philosopher while launching an aggressive war based on fabricated evidence.
That profession of Jesus can be coupled with the lie-based, manufactured war if
Jesus is defined in an abstract way that does not include ethics. What do Mennonites as a peace church have if these
several formulas of standard Christology and atonement are touted as the
intellectual, theological foundation for the peace church? The answer is that
we have an identifying theology that relegates peace and nonviolence to the
margins, if they are mentioned at all. The standard theology of Christendom is
quite inadequate for maintaining the peace church as a peace church. Think
about it?if it were the basis for maintaining the peace church as peace church,
the churches of western Christendom would already be pacifists. If those
formulas devoid of ethics or that harbor violence are the theological
foundation of the peace church, the Anabaptist peace church is, I fear, on an
evolutionary path toward becoming just one more of the nationalistic,
violence-supporting denominations of Christendom. Thus I advocate that Anabaptists can and should
develop a theology that makes visible and is shaped by the nonviolence of
Jesus. Thus I am indeed making the audacious argument that the ?new-comer?
Anabaptists do have something unique to contribute to the discussion of
Christology and atonement, and that Anabaptists Mennonites as a peace church
need to develop a specific theology that makes visible the peace and
nonviolence of Jesus Christ. When I state that I think Anabaptists should develop a
specifically peace-church shaped theology, I want to make one point very clear.
I believe that the standard theological formulas are discussing important
questions about the relationship of Jesus to God, and about the way that Jesus
life, death and resurrection lead to reconciliation with God. I do not suggest
posing alternatives because I do not take Jesus as seriously as they do. I
suggest posing alternatives because these formulas and symbols ignore
important parts of who Jesus is. I think that the particularities of Jesus?
story, and in particular the way his life demonstrates the rejection of
violence, should be visibly manifested in our theology. The standard formulas
ignore that dimension of Jesus. The results are a centuries-long Christian
tradition that believes that nonviolence is not a part of the meaning of Jesus.
I am posing alternatives to the standard theology because I take Jesus
seriously enough to make Jesus nonviolence visible in our theology about Jesus. The argument is made that the Anabaptist tradition is
too recent and too small to have anything unique or relevant to add to the
discussion of what I have called standard theology. But I think that our
earlier discussion of postmodernity overturns that argument. Postmodernity
reveals that standard theology may be the most widespread but it is certainly
not a timeless, universal entity. Rather, quite specifically it is revealed to
be the theology produced by the war-accommodating Thus asserting a nonviolence shaped theology
overagainst the presumed general standard formulas is not at all a move of
separation and separatism. Posing a nonviolence-shaped alternative overagainst
Christendom?s theology is actually an act of engagement with all of
Christendom. Jesus? rejection of violence is certainly not the possession of
Anabaptists alone, and posing a nonviolence-shaped alternative is what
demonstrates that an Anabaptist theology does address every person who claims the
name of Jesus Christ. The claim is made that sixteenth-century Anabaptists
cited and used the standard formulas and symbols. And that claim is
correct--Anabaptists did in fact use those formulas. But that is not the most
important observation, and it is far from the end of the story. I make two
points. First, the Anabaptist approach to the Bible I
discussed earlier already has an indicator about how to respond to standard
theology. Anabaptists came into existence as a distinct movement precisely
because they refused to accept the standard churchly traditions, and instead
began articulating theology and practice anew on the basis of their
understanding of the story of Jesus. This approach to the Bible is far from a
mere starting over or ignoring of history. In fact it must take history very
seriously in order to discover and correct deviation from the gospel that
begins with the story of Jesus. Appealing to authoritative tradition, as
opponents of Anabaptism in the sixteenth-century were wont to do and as the
modern-day Mennonite advocates of standard theology are now doing, actually
denies the possibility of correction. On the other hand, correction happened in
the sixteenth-century and is still happening when Anabaptists read the
scripture again in the community that empowers every member. The Anabaptist
approach holds open the possibility for new light from God as the community
reads the Bible with a view to expressing the good news of Jesus in their
current context.[5] This is
what I call a ?looping back,? a continual return to the narrative of Jesus, in
order to ask again, in the new situation in which we find ourselves, how this
narrative will shape our understanding and our actions in this new context.[6] This
process of looping back is what Anabaptists in The second point about Anabaptist use of the standard
formulas is that sixteenth-century Anabaptist writings actually display this
kind of correction that comes from rethinking theology from the perspective of
the story of Jesus. The significant thing is that where Anabaptists cited one
of the so-called standard formulas or used the creed as the outline of a
writing, they actually did a great deal of adding to and amending of the
standard forms and formulas precisely because they were inadequate. The last
chapter of the new, second edition of Becoming Anabaptist has a section
that demonstrations such additions and ammendments. My colleague Gerald Biesecker-Mast has written a book
that will appear in about two months. The title is Separation and the Sword
in Anabaptist Persuasion. Gerald analyzed a number of important Anabaptist
texts, showing how they ammended and added to the supposed standard formulas.
One particular noteworthy example is Peter Riedeman?s Account of Our
Religion, which follows the outline of the Apostles Creed. But once
Riedeman?s additions and commentary are finished, Biesecker-Mast says, the
Creed as Creed is ?hardly recognizable anymore,? and Riedemann has ?rendered
untenable the idea that the Creed represents a core of Christian beliefs held
to by all Christians.?[7] The book Anabaptist
Theology in Face of Postmodernity, which some of you know, has chapters
that indicate various versions of the need to add to, ammend, or complete the
supposed standard theological formulas in sixteen, nineteenth, and twentieth
centuries. This voluminous evidence indicates that it is simply not true that
sixteenth-century Anabaptists did not original theologizing and merely repeated
Christendom?s standard theology. These additions and adaptations that Anabaptists made
to standard theology are more than mere additions and adaptations. The significance
of this ?more than? mere additions and adaptations sneaks up on us with a
surprisingly important point. It is actually the case that adding to the
supposed standard theology reveals something very significant about that
supposed standard theology. Adding to it changes fundamentally the light in
which we should see it. It is the claim of the standard theology that there is
nothing beyond it, that it transcends everything else to be the unquestioned
given, the foundation that one accepts with dispute. But adding
to that supposedly unquestioned foundation actually challenges the claimed
character of the foundation. Needing to add to it shows its inadquacy. Needing
to add demonstrates its limitations and its limitedness. And with its inadquacy
and limitedness on display, it is no longer the unquestioned foundation and
standard that all Christians should accept. And further, that which provoked the additions and
adaptations is actually functioning as a higher authority than the supposed
authoritative foundation that is being added to. When historic Anabaptists and
Mennonites felt compelled to make changes and adaptations in the inherited
theology of Christendom, they were implicitly acknowledging a higher
theological authority than Christendom?s standard. Adding to the presumed
standard formulas from a peace church perspective displays the peace church?s
commitment to a different foundation than the standard theology of Christendom.
And equally important, it also the displays particular genesis of the standard
formulas as the theological foundation of the church that is not a pacifist,
peace church. With the standard theology?s inadequacy exposed, with
its context exposed as the theology of the church that does not espouse the
nonviolent life and teaching of Jesus, it is shown to be no longer the
necessary standard theology. It is no longer the unquestioned given, the
unquestioned foundation that its proponents in Christendom have claimed. The additions and adaptations to standard theology
discussed in the writings I have mentioned show that the Anabaptist, Mennonite
peace church has professed commitment to the story of Jesus Christ from within
a reading of the story that makes explicit and visible Jesus? rejection of the
sword. It is this story of the nonviolent Jesus that should be expressed and
given explicit visibility in a theology for the peace church, rather than
merely building on the formulas of Christendom, which reflect nothing of the
life and teaching of Jesus. Theology for the peace church should be theology
that is specific to the story of Jesus, rather than building on fourth and
fifth and eleventh-century formulas whose authority comes from the Conclusions What I have done tonight is to explain why theology is
important for our future as a peace church. The phenomenon called
?postmodernity? gives us an unprecedented opportunity to articulate a
nonviolence-shaped theology for the peace church as a model for what the
Christian church should be. And in the last section I gave some indicates of
the way that sixteenth-century Anabaptism is the beginning of that new
theological paradigm, and can and should function as a guide today to our
attempt to articulate a theology shaped by the narrative of Jesus. Endnotes
[1] This
statement clearly has many implications. What is the relationship between
Christianity and other religions? How do we dialogue with other religions? Are
they completely false or just less true that Jesus? How do relate to Christians
who understand the story of Jesus quite differently that does the peace church?
In this essay, I am focusing only on the implications for theology for
Mennonites. [2] Although
postmodern thinkers are suspicious about Truth (whether religious or
philosophical), they are nonetheless interested in truths be they
philosophical, religious, or historical. As example, one need only note to turn
to religious truths in the recent work of Jacques Derrida. [3] Ben
C. Ollenburger, ?The Hermeneutics of Obedience,? in Essays on Biblical
Interpretation: Anabaptist-Mennonite Perspectives, ed. Willard Swartley,
Text-Reader Series (Elkhart, Ind.: Institute of Mennonite Studies, 1984),
45?61. [4] There
are a number of such examples. Among the most well-known is J. Nelson Kraybill,
?Is Our Future Evangelical? Let?s be Bold and Modest in Our Beliefs,? The
Mennonite, 5 March 2002, 14?16 and the articles of James Reimer, which are
collected in his A. James. Reimer, Mennonites and Classical Theology:
Dogmatic Foundations for Christian Ethics ( [5] See
John H. Yoder, ?The Hermeneutics of the Anabaptists,? Mennonite Quarterly
Review 41, no. 4 (October 1967): 300?04; John Howard Yoder, The Priestly
Kingdom, 63?65, 123?25; John Howard Yoder, The Jewish-Christian Schism
Revisited, ed. Michael G. Cartwright and Ochs Peter (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
William B. Eerdman?s Publishing Company, 2003), 138. [6] What
I have informally called looping back, John Howard Yoder described as an
ongoing ?restitution,? a ?continuing series of new beginnings, similar in shape
and spirit, as the objective historicity of Jesus and the apostles mediated
through the objectivity of scripture, encounters both the constants and the
variables of every age to call forth ?restitutions? at once original and
true-to-type, at once unpredictable and recognizable.? John Howard Yoder,
?Anabaptism and History,? in The Priestly Kingdom: Social Ethics as Gospel
(Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame, 1984), 133. [7] Gerald
Biesecker-Mast, Separation and the Sword in Anabaptist Persuasion: Radical
Confessional Rhetoric from Schleitheim to |
