Participating Witness. Anthony G. Siegrist

46. This and following references to the Brethren in Christ view of baptism are drawn from the “Articles of Faith and Doctrine” of the BCNA: http://www.bic-church.org/about/ articlesoffaith.asp.

47. This and following references to the “Confession of Faith in Mennonite Perspective” can be located at http://www.mcusa-archives.org/library/resolutions/1995/index.html.

48. Miroslav Volf has developed an argument from a Free Church perspective toward similar ends (After Our Likeness, 160–68).

      2

      In Favor of Ecclesial Mediation

      It was the duty of the trumpeters and singers to make themselves heard in unison in praise and thanksgiving to the LORD, and when the song was raised . . . the house, the house of the LORD, was filled with a cloud, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud; for the glory of the LORD filled the house of God.

      (2 Chr 5:13–14)

      Could a Mennonite be an atheist and still be a Mennonite? On the face of it, the question deals with boundaries and culture, orthodoxy and tradition. Oddly enough, it is also related to the line of thought being explored here. It is a question that arises when one functional alternative to my proposal is pushed to its logical end. My thesis is that Anabaptist communities need to express more clearly how the church mediates the presence and work of God. Extending the analysis begun in the last chapter will show that there is actually some precedent for this in Anabaptist thought. Nevertheless, some readers might wonder about other options. This chapter explores two alternatives, one related to the puzzling possibility of Mennonite atheism. After evaluating these, I turn in a more positive direction. Acknowledging that certain developments and applications of ecclesial mediation do not fit the larger body of Anabaptist theology, the second part of the chapter charts the conceptual outlines of an appropriate form of this concept.

      Anabaptism and the Church’s Mediating Role

      The unwillingness of Anabaptists to see baptism as a practice that mediates God’s work in their midst is of a piece with the ambiguity that surrounds their views of the function of the church in the Christian life more generally. The Anabaptist view is best described as “ambiguous” because, despite what is said about the church and about baptism, there actually are points at which Anabaptist belief and practice are amenable to a notion of ecclesial mediation. This is true even though the concept is usually not employed directly. The more common stance of Anabaptist ecclesiology is such that the presence of the church and its work are clearly distinguished from God’s in favor of a more individualized, divine personalism.

      Discipline, Discipleship, and Ecclesial Ambiguity

      In a further analysis of Anabaptist confessions it is evident that the process of church discipline, or formalized structures of discipleship, is often described differently than baptism. Church discipline can be seen as an instance of ecclesial mediation. This is not new. The sixteenth-century Schleitheim agreement shows its origins. It states: “[E]verything which has not been united with our God in Christ is nothing but an abomination which we should shun.”49 The abominations these Anabaptists intended to avoid included “winehouses”; the “works and idolatry, gatherings, church attendance” of Protestants and Catholics; as well as the use of “diabolical weapons of violence.” The goal of this “shunning” is for true Christians to be prepared for “the service of God and the Spirit.” The initial result would be the perceptibility of the true body of believers. Not only is this body apparent, but it plays an important role in calling members to ongoing obedience to Jesus. This is most evident through the description of the ban: “The ban shall be employed with all those who have given themselves over to the Lord, to walk after [Him] in His commandments; those who have been baptized into the one body of Christ, and let themselves be called brothers or sisters, and still somehow slip and fall into error and sin, being inadvertently overtaken.” According to Schleitheim, the ban was to be carried out “according to the ordering of the Spirit of God before the breaking of bread,” in order that the unity of the Spirit in charity would be preserved.

      About a century after the Schleitheim agreement was produced, a second prominent statement known as the Dordrecht Confession made similar claims about the availability of the true church to human perception:

      We believe in, and confess a visible church of God, namely, those who, as has been said before, truly repent and believe, and are rightly baptized; who are one with God in heaven, and rightly incorporated into the communion of the saints here on earth. These we confess to be the chosen generation, the royal priesthood, the holy nation, who are declared to be the bride and wife of Christ, yea, children and heirs of everlasting life, a tent, tabernacle, and habitation of God in the Spirit . . .50

      Here we notice that the ambiguity of the relationship of actions such as true repentance, right baptism, unity with God, and communion with the saints—the same sort of ambiguity that was observed in contemporary Anabaptist documents in the last chapter—is present in this much older confession. Nevertheless, the Dordrecht Confession calls this body “the habitation of God in the Spirit.” Among several identifying markers of Christ’s church are “the fruitful observance, practice, and maintenance of the true ordinances of Christ.” Like Schleitheim, Dordrecht claims the necessity of the ban to maintain the true practice of the ordinances:

      Concerning the withdrawing from, or shunning the separated, we believe and confess, that if anyone, either through his wicked life or perverted doctrine, has so far fallen that he is separated from God, and, consequently, also separated and punished by the church, the same must, according to the doctrine of Christ and His apostles, be shunned . . . and no company be had with him that they may not become contaminated by intercourse with him, nor made partakers of his sins; but that the sinner may be made ashamed, pricked in his heart, and convicted in his conscience, unto his reformation.

      The purpose of the ban seen in this last clause is consonant with the Spirit’s work. The confession further clarifies that the goal of this harsh practice is not that the individual be condemned but that he repent and reform. This should not be carried out, the same document tells us, as if these persons are enemies but precisely because they are siblings, in hope that they might know and turn from their sins, “so that they may become reconciled to God, and consequently be received again into the church.”

      Without whitewashing the hazard of perfectionism and the inherent potential for abuse, we must acknowledge that the ban functions as an example of a point at which these historic Anabaptist confessions describe the interweaving of the actions of the church and the actions of God.51 God works through the discipline of the church; likewise, as the “habitation of God in Spirit,” the Christian community is the place where God is present. Obviously, the concept of ecclesial mediation is not entirely foreign to the Anabaptist tradition. This is quite remarkable since many of these early Anabaptists would have been keenly aware of the violent and stifling potential of this assumption.52

      The view of church discipline in the contemporary Anabaptist denominational documents introduced in the last chapter resonates with the theology of these two historic statements. These resonances occur under a variety of topical headings including, “Discipline within the Church,” “Discipleship,” or “Mutual Accountability.” The strictures have softened since the seventeenth century, but theological similarities remain. The Conservative Conference’s statement of practice is one example:

      We believe Jesus Christ has given authority to His church to exercise corrective discipline within the community of believers. This discipline is intended to bring those who are in error to repentance, helping them to receive the forgiveness, grace, and love that are available in Jesus . . . At any point if the erring one hears the admonitions brought and repents, he/she is restored to full fellowship with Christ and His church. The purposes of discipline include maintaining the integrity and witness of the church, restoring to fellowship those who are in error, building faithfulness in the believers, and strengthening godly teaching and conduct.53

      Similarly,