Brian Hamilton

The Demystification and Re-creation of the Holy

• Klaassen, Walter. Anabaptism: Neither Catholic nor Protestant. Waterloo, Ont.: Conrad Press, 1973.
• Elton, G. R. “The Radicals,” in Reformation Europe, 1517-1559. New York: Harper, 1963.

Interesting that Klaassen begins with the early Anabaptists’ demystification of the sacred (which Ben pulled from J. H. Yoder just the other day), precisely where I’m most uncomfortable with their convictions. How dreadfully reactionary of dear Menno to call Catholic confession and holy days and fasting “nothing but human invention, self-chosen righteousness, open seduction of souls, manifest deception of the soul, an intolerable make-a-living and gain of the lazy priests, an accursed abomination, provocation of God, shameful blasphemy, an unworthy despising of the blood of Christ” and on and on and on! I’ve at last come around to a solid anti-clericalism, I’ve shed myself of the need for a sacred person, but I have not yet been able to shake the appeal of sacred places or sacred times. The steady cycle of the Christian year, the mystical awe of an intentionally silent cathedral, even predefined steps of penance and confession seem to me endlessly fulfilling practices (if I can invoke McIntyre or at least McClendon and Hauerwas) capable of creating and renewing precisely the sort of discipleship so dear to the hearts of these early Anabaptists, and I firmly believe to the heart of the Christ.

I agree enthusiastically with Marpeck’s insistence that “the bodily celebration of the Sabbath [or, probably, other similarly hallowed practices] can be good provided it is done in freedom of the spirit and not bound to time, state, and person by a law.” But if the disciples of Christ habitually gather on Sunday, does that day not become holy to us? Ah, perhaps the key words here are to us. Perhaps the early Anabaptists were reacting to a universally-defined “holy,” some “holy” which every gathering of disciples was by some power (which turned out to be the sword) required to observe. That explains why I’m increasingly disgusted with the idea of sacred people—because Mennonites have elevated a clergy—but increasingly amazed by the possibilities of sacred time and place (and maybe even words and things)—because Mennonites have only rarely developed meaningful practices relating to time or space (or words or things).

So I want to say to my people: this place, this time, these words, these things, none of it matters, and none of it is holy by itself—but let’s make it holy! Let’s create habits for ourselves that work to sanctify us through the mindful and creative use of what we have before us. (I remember that Volf had a name somewhere for things, or maybe acts, being different when Christians use them intentionally in memory or imagination. Ben, you should remember this.)

There’s more to say about Klaassen’s fine, if fairly predictable, overview; his citations were thorough and helpful, and his emphases insightful. But most of the same themes will appear in greater detail through the rest of the course, so I’ll hold off for now. This I will say: I’m surprised at the relative invisibility of early Anabaptist ecclesiology throughout, and wonder how the political and social climate of the early 70’s influenced Klaassen’s choice of themes (the sacred, ethics, legalism, idealism, revolution). I mean that entirely uncritically—that I missed the ecclesiology already betrays one of my own interests. His biographical sketches of several Anabaptist leaders (p. 84) are extremely valuable, and I expect to return to them often.

Elton’s chapter on The Radicals, rightly cited as a wonderful example of antiquated Anabaptist historiography, taking Münster as primarily descriptive, deserves its own entry. Perhaps tomorrow.

31 August 2005 |
tags: Anabaptist