Brian Hamilton

Raising Questions

A few interesting points that have surfaced amidst various readings, for later reflection:

Shunning and the ban. Dutch Anabaptism practiced shunning, while the Swiss Brethren did not (and certainly no one in the South did, since they were all spiritualists). Earlier on, though, the Swiss Brethren had been decried as the legalists. What did their ban look like, if shunning wasn’t part of it? Other notes: Menno is more lenient than Dirk or Leenaert, not wanting to force a woman to shun her husband, but gets gradually pushed to the back. The Waterlanders were the liberal bunch, rejecting Menno’s name because of his disciplinary zeal (or because of Dirk’s?)—and they’re liberal in part because the don’t require rebaptism of other Anabaptists. Is this common practice even for the Swiss Brethren, requiring rebaptism upon every move from congregation to congregation? (Again, southerners wouldn’t care, since “congregation” doesn’t mean much to them.) We’re incredibly liberal now, evidently; ecumenical generosity demands that we don’t rebaptize anyone, whether they’ve been baptized as an adult or not.

Mediation. It seems a fairly common practice for the early Anabaptists—maybe also for the early reformers?—to call on mediators to settle theological disputes. Jakob Hutter left a permanent mark on the Hutterites precisely because he was able to reconcile Moravian communities; Menno’s influence seems in part to rely on his trustworthiness as a mediator. (Menno was called to mediate the above case, whether the woman should have to shun her husband. He said she didn’t, but Dirk and Leenaert overruled him. Menno later came to agree with the stricter discipline.) How common is this practice now among Mennonites? Or have we moved the responsibility of “mediation” from a third-party gifted disciple to the pre-set authority of denominational bureaucracy?

5 October 2005 |
tags: Anabaptist, Ecclesiology