Healing Memories

A Review ofthe Report ofthe Lutheran-Mennonite

International Study Commission

Jo h n R. S t e p h e n s o n

υ Β ί^ Η Ε η IN 2 0 1 0 , Healing Memories: Reconciling in can attest to his learning and lucidity but th in k it relevant that

Φ Christ is the fruit of the work of the International $tudy

Commission jointly established in 2 0 0 2 by the Luther-
an W orld Eederation (EWE) and the M ennonite World Con-
ference.* Already in July of 2 0 1 1 the eleventh assembly of the
his core convictions derive from sources other than Sacred
Scripture, the C hristian tradition, and the Lutheran Confes-
sions. This was m anifest as he played a leading role at the 2‫ﻫ ﻪ‬
Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Eutheran Church in
‫و‬

EWE, meeting in btuttgart, Germany, gave its approval to the America.

report and its conclusions. It unanim ously passed a resolution
expressing repentance and asking forgiveness (from Almighty
God and present-day Mennonites) for the part played by six-
foenth-century G erm an Eutheranism in the sometimes bloody
persecution of the Anabaptists who emerged on the fringes of
the Reformation. The report laments how “we (Lutherans and
Mennonites) have been separated not only by theological dis-
agreements from the sixteenth century, but also by the legacies
of violence from that formative period,” which all adds up to a
“parting of ways” with “a particularly painful history” (5).
By its action, the EWE assembly leapt aboard the bandwagon
set in m otion by the late Pope John Paul II. He observed the mil- o fthe seventeenth century and that were enshrined in the laws
lennialyear 2 0 0 0 w ith a series of much-publicized apologies for of many states in the course of the next two centuries. More-
the perceived past sins of members of his church body against
various groupings of people both inside and outside of Holy
Christendom. It m aybe that the source of Pope Wojtyla’s grand
gestures is to be located in one of his favorite books. In Four
Loves, a classic ofm oral theology, c. s. Eewis had observed that
the church may not expect the world to take her seriously until
she truly repents of the undoubted atrocities that some of her
members have notoriously com m itted in the name of Christ.
Part Two of the report, which takes up almost half its space
(“Telling the $ i^ e n th -C e n tu ry $tory Together: Lutheran
Reformers and the C ondem nation of Anabaptists,” 20-72),
consists of a historical review that sets forth the emergence, de- W hile the A nabaptist takeover of M ünster in the mid-1530s,
velopment, and m ainly unhappy fortunes that befell the Ana-
baptist movement that began in the early 1520s.
On these pages, which are not w ithout scholarly m erit, I
detect the fingerprints of Tim othy W engert of the Lutheran
G eological $em inary at Philadelphia, who became Eutheran
cochairm an of the com m ission in succession to G ottfried
$eebass, who held this position until ill health forced him to
step down. O n the basis of one m eeting w ith Dr. Wengert, I
W hen pursued in a theological context, the discipline of his-
tory is — to adapt the famous statem ent of the ?russian general
von C la u w itz —dogmatics pursued by other means. The at-
titudes evident throughout Part Two, to which the Lutheran
participants in the dialogue obviously gave their full-hearted
consent, are not derived from classical Eutheranism in particu-
lar nor from historic Christendom in general, but are from the
governing elites of the contem porary W estern world. In short,
Euther and his colleagues are continually rebuked for not prac-
ticing and prom oting the interconfessional religious toleration
that slowly emerged in England and Holland in the second half
over, and more disturbingly, the entire narrative breathes an
undercurrent of reproach directed at any who take revealed
truth seriously and draw appropriate consequences from this
conviction in the m atter of church fellowship.
The historical narrative that forms the core of the report
gives a y m p a th etic, even deferential, account of the three
distinct groups custom arily brought together under the “Ana-
baptist” umbrella. These consist of the $wiss Brethren (who,
as the report does «٥‫ ؛‬say, took U lrich Zw ingli’s premises to
the logical conclusion that he lacked the clarity or courage to
reach), the M oravian Hutterites, and the Dutch M ennonites.
which gave a startling preview ofthe reigns of terror character-
istic ofthe Erench and Bolshevik revolutions, is briefly covered,
the report gives the impression that the leaders of this famous
episode of Reformation history were um epresentative of the
movement as a whole.
Between r524 and r525 (24), the long-Hmmering discontents
of G erm any’s rural lower classes erupted 0‫ س؛‬the violence ofthe

* Healing Memories: Reconciling in Christ: Report ٠/ the Luther-

John R. S t e p h e n s o n is Frofessor of H istorical Theology at Concor- an-M ennonite International stu d y Commission (Geneva: Lu-
dia L utheran G eolog ical Sem inary at St. C atherines, O ntario, and a th eran W orld Federation, 2010). Available from http://w ww .lw f-
C ontributing Editor to L o g i a . a S S O Í T lb ly .0 rg /L 1 p lo a d s /1 n e d ¡ a /R e p o rt_ L L 1 th e ra n -M e n n o n ¡ te _ S tL 1 d y _ C 0 1 n 1 n ¡s s ¡ o n .p d f.

‫ق‬5
26
Peasants’ War. After the peasants’ defeat at Frankenhausen in
May 1525, princes on both sides of the R om an-L utheran divide
(carrying out to the letter some intem perate counsel offered by
Luther in an infamous pamphlet), exacted grisly retribution
on the rebels. In this climate the authorities moved decisively
against those representatives of what we now call the Radical
Reformation who followed the $wiss Rrethren in rejecting in-
fant baptism and introducing the practice of rebaptism carried
out on adults.
The reportfinds Lutherguilty ٠/
inconsistency and even ofbetrayal
ofhis own maxims.
One of the two major issues identified by the authors of the
report, for which its Lutheran coauthors are m inded to do pen-
ance, is captured in few words: “The theologians and princes of
Europe were so troubled by A nabaptist teachings that two- to
three-thousand A nabaptists were executed during the course
of the sixteenth century, and m any more were im prisoned, tor-
tured, and exiled” (25). Admittedly, a goodly num ber of these
executions were carried out by Reformed authorities in $wit-
zerland, and m ost can be laid at the door of princes loyal to
Rome, but the rep o rt’s authors are particularly mortified that
“the total num ber of A nabaptists killed in [Lutheran] $axony
was likely around one h u n d red ” (26).
The report finds Luther guilty of inconsistency and even of
betrayal of his own m axim s inasm uch as, at the outset of his
Reformation, he opposed the infliction of capital punishm ent
on heretics, a proposition for which he was condem ned in the
papal bull of ^com m u n icatio n . Later, as the 1520s drew to a
close, he emphasized the civil authorities’ duty to promote and
enforce true religion, even to the extent of upholding their right
and duty to punish “blasphemy” with death.
As presumably guided by Dr. Wengert on the basis of a fa-
mous essay by Karl Holl, the report admits that Luther was un-
able to conceive of the peaceful coexistence of two confessions
in one territory (55). Yet it fails to point out that his exuberant
optim ism of 1520, when he supposed that the whole W estern
Church would rem ain united in a single confession offaith, was
rudely shattered by the emergence of the Zwickau prophets, the
defection of Dr. Karlstadt, and the aberrations of Zwingli and
his $wiss colleagues. The report seethes w ith anachronistic
resentm ent that Luther in the last two decades of his life did
not adopt the m indset of a fom foenth-century parliam entary
democrat.
Lo express vicarious repentance for the judicial acts of six-
foenth-century Lutheran rulers that were self-evidently right
to their perpetrators would be meaningless; to express regret
LOGIA
for these deeds would be possible, yet redundant. A quiek surf
to the LWF website will show how passage of the m otion ex-
pressing repentanee towards the Mennonites and their follow
Anabaptists was followed by a Prineess D iana/O prah-style
feel-good emotional extravaganza. Rather than being swept
away on this tide of emotion, let us test the spirits, to see wheth-
er they be of God (1 John 4:1).
The exeeution by some Lutheran prinees, whether for sedi-
tion or blasphemy, of a small num ber of their Anabaptist sub-
jeets is not, in faet, the m ain issue dealt with by the report. It
is ultimately more eoneerned about the reeurring “eondemna-
tion” of Anabaptists in several artieles of the Augsburg Confes-
sion, an overall judgm ent that reeurs in the elosing artiele of the
Formula of Coneord. In an address to M ennonites in Paraguay
in July 2‫ ﻫ ﻪ‬, ‫و‬LWF General $eeretary Ishmael Noko (the son of
an Anabaptist mother, his “memories o f . . . separation at the
ho rd ’s $upper” from the m aternal side of his family “are still
vivid”), spelled out the agenda of both the report and the 2011
LWF assembly resolution as he spoke of the eondemnations
voieed in the Augustana:
I have deseribed the history of these eondemnations as like
the poison whieh a seorpion earries in its tail. We have not
struek out with this poison for some tim e —but we still
earry it with us in our system. We are now on a path which
will lead us to expel this poison from our body, to allow us
to live together with you, our sisters and brothers in Christ,
in new ways. (7)
The report is correct to dem and that m odern Lutherans
diligently enquire whether those condem ned in the Rook of
Concord actually held the opinions our confessors attributed
to them; it is indeed possible that their positions were unchari-
tably interpreted or m alignantly articulated. Moreover, it is es-
sential that we carefully establish what the successor bodies of
those critiqued in the Rook of Concord actually teach at the
present time. Caricatures abound in polemical literature, and
Lutherans are undoubtedly both villains in and victim s of this
genre. There is thus no need for us to dissent from all aspects
of the r^ssessm en t dem anded by the report, and perhaps we
should be open to such reassessment as we practice compara-
tive symbolics and engage in ecumenical dialogue.
That said, our eyebrows may fitly be raised by recurring sen-
tim ents expressed throughout the report that indicate a deter-
m ination on the part of the Lutheran coauthors to relativize
the Lutheran Confessions to such an extent that the distinction
between tru th and falsehood becomes unim portant to them,
so long as all antitheses are anesthetized under the chloroform
of “reconciled diversity.” Thus the report laments how, by the
mid- to late-1530s, “the Augsburg Confession itself was taking
on a new role, beyond its original function as a confession of
faith, to serve increasingly as a norm for teaching and theology
in the lands of princes who had subscribed to it” (61). Again,
the report expresses dismay that the m andate issued by Duke
C hristoph of W ürttem berg on 25 June 1558 against “the Ana-
baptists, ac ram en tarian s, $chwenkfelders and anyone else like
H E A L IN G M EM O RIES
them ” “even cited the Augsburg Confession as a standard for
determ ining heresy” (68).
The rep o rt’s fourth p art can be given its subtitle “Moving
Beyond Condem nations” (91) for the simple but sad reason that
its Lutheran coauthors have, so to say, “moved beyond confes-
sion.” It just does not occur to them that the authors of the
Book of Concord regarded its contents as true and hence as a
solemn confession to b e professed before Alm ighty God and all
posterity (FC SD V I I , 2 9 - 3 1 ; X I I , 4 0 ) . Given this core conviction
of their fram ers, how could the several confessions deposited
in the Book of Concord ever have been conceived as anything
other than norm s of doctrine and standards of discipline?
God's clear word must be obscured
in to avoid ruffling pacifist
Mennonitefeathers.
The woeful and flippant dismissal of G od’s word that rever-
berates through the whole report, which foEmately breathes the
m indset of the ruling elites of the W estern world, can be noted
in its talk of “Paul’s apparent affirmation of the tem poral sword
of governm ent” (emphasis added) in Romans 13 ( 7 9 ) . G od’s
clear word m ust be obscured in order to avoid ruffling pacifist
M ennonite feathers. A breathtaking relativism is at work when,
having alleged that the A ugustana’s condem nations of Ana-
baptism in articles ٧, X I I , and X V I I no longer apply ( 7 5 - 7 7 ) , the
report attem pts to crack the harder nut of article IX , on bap-
tism. After setting forth the contrasting confessional positions
( 8 5 - 8 8 ) , the coauthors on both sides simply refuse to take “no”
for an answer, but talk blithely of “significant divergence that
calls for further dialogue” (88): “The members of this study
com m ission hope that neither the AnabapEst-M ennonite re-
jection of infant baptism nor the condem nation of Anabaptists
in Article IX will rem ain a church-dividing issue” (8 9 ) .
By this stage, surely. General Secretary Noko is no longer
separated from his m other’s side of the family at what purport
to be celebrations of Holy Com m union —except that, unless
celebrant and congregation intend the consecration, distribu-
tion, and reception of the Lord’s true body and blood, “it is not
the Lord’s Supper that you eat” (1 Cor 1 1 :2 0 ; FC SD V II, 3 2 ).
Moving beyond condem nations, then, the report’s Lutheran
coauthors have moved beyond confession, a “stepping for-
ward —proagoon” of which 2 John 9 speaks unfavorably. O f
course, if we no longer recognize original sin and its deadly ef-
‫ق‬7
fects (AC 11), then we are no longer lost apart from Christ and
his work (AC II I ) , whieh means that it makes no sense to eonfess
that “baptism is neeessary for salvation . . . and that ehildren
should be baptized” (AC IX, Latin). Thus we understand how
in eertain ehurehes w ithin the LWF . . . a growing num -
ber of Lutheran parents are withholding baptism of their
children until they are old enough to make their own deci-
sion about being baptized. Although the theological basis
for this practice is not always elaborated explicitly, these
parents seem to assume that their children are saved. Lu-
theran churches generally do not criticize these parents for
a practice that could be taken to “assert that children are
saved without baptism.” (88-8 ‫)و‬
A little leaven leavens the whole lump, and honest observers
will adm it that our own churches show signs of the selfsame
infection that has w rought destruction on m any churches of
the LWF to push them perhaps even over the brink of apostasy.
C. F. W. W alther would make waves were he to reappear in our
m idst to repeat the teaching he gave in the second footnote of
page 141 of his Pastoraltheologie, where he followed up a quota-
tion from Luther urging no delay in the baptism of newborns
with the rem ark that
this rem inder is surely nowhere more needful than pre-
cisely here, where the pernicious sect of the Anabaptists is
so widespread and so powerfully influential. We have here
made the firm rule [feste Ordnung] that, except in case of
necessity, each congregational mem ber is to have his new-
born child baptized no later than the second $unday after
its birth.
Regret, if you will, the inability of our ^ ^ e n th - c e n tu r y Lu-
theran forebears in the ecclesiastical and political estates to fast
forward to the interconfessional toleration of later times, but
please avoid throw ing out the dom ifocal-^iptural-confession-
al baby with the tainted bathwater inseparable from all epochs
of earthly Christendom.
May Lutheran C hurch—Canada and her International Lu-
theran Council and other sister churches keep their distance
from the report here reviewed and from the decision taken
by the LWF at its eleventh assembly. The proper authorities in
W innipeg and St. Louis might reasonably enquire as to why the
LWF m ember churches of Latvia, Lithuania, and Kenya, all of
which are in com m union with the Lutheran Church—M issouri
Synod, did not see fit to breach the unanim ity allegedly reached
in Stuttgart in July of 2011. Let us hope, at the very least, that
their representatives practiced Stoic detachm ent during the
em otional extravaganza that followed passage of the resolution
that em anated from the report here reviewed. I B
 ‫آلﻣﺂورلم؛‬

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your resp ective ATT,AS subscriber agreem ent.

No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)’ express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission
from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ٥ ۴ ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author o fth e article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use ‫ آس‬covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initia‫ ؛‬funding from Liiiy Endowment !)٦٥.

The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property o fthe American
Theological Library Association.