Lisa, I think your first point is highly illustrative of a stark contrast between the Anabaptists of yore, and the Anabaptists of today–between the spirit of Schleitheim and the spirit of Shenandoah: although they did at times express it in sinful ways, the old Anabaptists recognized that truth matters, and truth divides. Would you agree with that?

We may have inclusion without boundaries, or we may have truth. We may not have both. What do you do with Jesus’ words, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother…”?

Far from unqualified pacifism and inclusion, the Jesus of the Bible is THE dividing figure in history–which brings us to another unavoidable bifurcation: Will we worship the God of the Bible, or a God we have imagined? As a wise man once said, “A god who can be fashioned by our own thoughts is no more a God than an image produced by our own hands.”

Matt,

Aha, I think we are getting to the bottom of the disagreement. My personal theology, which I worked for in my part of the confession process, is markedly different from the kind of substitution atonement that you are laying out here. To me — though I should make it clear that I don’t speak for the group — I could never confess to such things, because I simply don’t think of them that way. I find myself more along the lines of Ted Grimsrud, who does a strong Anabaptism without substitutionary atonement. It seems too Calvinist for me, and I can’t reconcile my intellectual needs with the transactional nature of atonement.

I hope that you can appreciate the fact of the confession being theological at all, which is certainly a step forward from the kind of secular academicism that Hope (below) is upset with. Unfortunately, the struggles between theologies have made it unsavory for less theologically-inclined intellectuals to approach the topic at all. I think the coup of the Shenandoah Confession is that it acknowledges the roots of pacifism as fundamentally Christian, whether that is doctrinally palatable to all of us. Anyhow, thanks for engaging us, and for your honesty in this forum. I would invite you to the next ICPF conference, where we can talk further about our specific views of theology.

v/r,
Evan

Evan, you can use as many Christian terms as you like, but without definitions you’re not communicating anything meaningful about the heart of Christianity. I don’t mean to be needlessly critical, but the quote about the “care of the shepherd and the strength of the lamb” you keep posting says nearly nothing of substance. Is the *Kingdom* of God the source of life? Why was the lamb slain? Jesus, savior of whom? How? From what? If God’s Kingdom is everywhere, and we’re merely recognizing it, why would we need strengthening? I would expect some definitions in a confession of an objective and historical faith such as Christianity, but they are conspicuously absent. What *are* we saved from? What are we saved *by*? What are we saved to? Or do we even need to be saved? Did Jesus do anything we couldn’t have done for ourselves? Based solely on the explicit content and emphasis of your confession, I’d believe we hope to be saved from human oppression and injustice, through our own non-violent efforts, to a utopian society. That’s “seriously theological,” to be sure, but it’s certainly not unique to Christianity, and it takes no moral courage to assert, or regenerate heart to affirm–it’s actually a very popular idea in some very large secular circles. In contrast, the essential *Christian* message is inherently offensive to fallen man: that we are saved *from* God’s wrath against our sins, *by* the substitutionary atonement of Christ, *to* a restored fellowship with our Creator. Our most pressing need, and that of every human, is not social justice, but forgiveness and justification.

For Christians, “Living into our times” means holding forth timeless truth that is eminently relevant not because it is like the world, but because it is different–not because it parrots the offenses du jour (colonialism, patriarchalism, “green sins,” etc.) of all those evil guys, but because it uniquely confronts each of *us* with our own offenses against a holy God, and holds forth His offer of salvation and eternal life secured through Christ’s suffering of God’s wrath in our place on the Cross.

I think it is important to recognize a few things:

1) The early Anabaptists were not perfect. At the conference I pointed out that while they professed to love their enemies and pacifism, they were decidedly hateful to each other on many occasions and had no tolerance for minor theological differences. When the Netherlands sent boats to help Anabaptists escape persecution in Berne, the Anabaptist followers of Hans Reist and Jakob Amman refused to get on the same boats together because they hated each other so much. And Amman said “if even one hair on my head was for reconciliation I would pluck it out”. That type of behavior does not illustrate the Way of Jesus.

2) The language of the early Church and early Anabaptists was not time-less. It too represented the very patriarchal nature of governance at the time – which is why there is so much language of “Kingdoms” as this was the way the world was organized then. Language is always dated. And the language of the early church is important for us to understand. But for many, there are other ways of speaking about the Way of Jesus that are more meaningful.

3) If we stopped trying to understand and make the Bible relevant to the world around us today, we wouldn’t be Anabaptists… The exercise of applying Jesus Way of Love as the primary rule of living in today’s world requires us to use new language to describe new phenomena in the world. I have little doubt we will be speaking of the environment more in the future, not less.

4) This was a conference exercise. It isn’t perfect. It isn’t meant to replace other church confessions. Please remember the content of this Confession came from students who were practicing speaking boldly about their beliefs and honor it for what it is…

Again: I am not “criticizing academic thinking,” but find it unfortunate that so much of the language used in this document will date it so early, clearly and narrowly. I predict the demise of the term “environmentally sustainable” within the next 5 years, and the term “historically marginalized” within 10 years. Not because they’re bad. But because this kind of language evolves, quickly, and it evolves driven by the academy, not the church.

And nowhere have I said that there is no theological language present in the document, but I happen to be the future of the church, too, and would like stuff around that wont make my kids feel like we feel now when we read academic manifestos from the 70s…

I would disagree heartily. I know that there can sometimes be a dearth of theology in the academic field, but I don’t think you’re being fair. This confession of faith should count as a victory for the theologians, especially in an era when the Mennonite church is getting old demographically, and working hard to remain relevant.

If you think that this is too “thin” then pen something better, and bring it to the next conference. The young people who worked on this will still be around in ten years, and are the future of the church. Instead of vaguely criticizing academic thinking, I would encourage you to bring your sentiments forward and engage the community. By all means, if you can find some theological language somewhere that is stronger than “the blood of the lamb” and that is still pacifist, then I’d like to know.

Hope,

Like I said in response to Mr. Stutzman, how do you get more theological than this: “may the care of the good shepherd and the strength of the lamb who was slain sustain you in your efforts to recognize God’s Kingdom which, according to the most holy teacher and savior, Jesus of Nazareth, exists among and within all creation and is the source of life everywhere…” ?

Evan

Well, there are a number of specific points of reference to fairly precise, rigorous theological language.

From the preface: “may the care of the good shepherd and the strength of the lamb who was slain sustain you in your efforts to recognize God’s Kingdom which, according to the most holy teacher and savior, Jesus of Nazareth, exists among and within all creation and is the source of life everywhere…” It’s hard to get more Christian than that. Also, ” let us confess ourselves in the hopes of a new and prophetic life in Immanuel, who is God with us.” This is calling for prophetic leadership, not secular leadership.

The whole first article lays the basis for any peace/political activities as faith in Christ, and Jesus of Nazareth is specifically referred to a number of times in the document. From the first explication: “We seek the realization of the one we follow, Jesus, that the good of all is the work of servants; and in the tradition of him who laid down his life for all people, we embrace our identities as his followers knowing well the consequences of the burden of the cross. We admit that there can be no higher calling than the gospel call to nonviolent action in accordance with the will of the Holy Spirit, and the imminent fullness of the kingdom of the lamb, who does justice with mercy.”

From the first article to the closing, there is serious theology going on. From the conclusion: “watered in the innocence and strength of the lamb of God…”

Perhaps all the secular social organizations are seeking the specific points of difference that you’ve pointed out. Perhaps they are Anabaptists and just haven’t realized it yet.

Well, all communication is inevitably theological, but with all due respect, I don’t think there is any theological language of a distinctively Christian nature in this latest confession. Christian terms such as “faith,” “Christ,” “God,” and even “Love” have been co-opted so extensively that they are meaningless without definition. Can you show me, other than a nebulous reference to “faith in Christ, (with no further definition) any part of the confession that would not be heartily affirmed by any secular social activist organization?

Here’s a sample of the un-cool theological language from Schleitheim: “May joy, peace and mercy from our Father through the atonement of the blood of Christ Jesus…be to all those who love God, who are the children of light…” See how peace is clearly predicated on the atoning work of Christ–in His death in our place? That is the heart of catholic Christianity embraced in Schleitheim. That is the essential truth with which we ought to engage people and institutions.

Matt,

This is an interesting point you bring up about contextuality and historicity. Us young people want to live into our times, and many of us strongly believe that the point of Anabaptism — of all Christianity actually — is to engage other people and institutions in the Holy Spirit. I don’t think we would have used theological language if we were concerned with looking cool.

I would add that the Schleitheim confessors saw themselves not as Anabaptists per se, but as catholics (or ex-catholics?) trying to do reform. I think that the spirit of the Schleitheim confessors lives on in our Shenandoah document, and that those (ex?)catholics would be proud of the group and its statement. I hope that these sentiments make sense.

Peace,
Evan

Barbara,

I don’t think the participants in our process had any intention of perpetuating patriarchy. I invite you to come and participate in the Intercollegiate Peace Fellowship in the future, and add your voice to the mix. If there is an issue you feel strongly about, it should perhaps be brought up in the conference itself. I am sure that the ICPF is interested in hearing your stories.

Evan