Mennonites in Dialogue: Official Reports from International and National Ecumenical Encounters, 1975–2012

By Fernando Enns and César Garcia

Ecumenical dialogue is not an end in itself. It serves as an indispensable instrument to overcome the divisive, mutual misinterpretations of the past. Ecumenical encounters pave the way toward healing painful memories and lead to a deeper understanding of the church's given unity, thus becoming a more credible witness of that truth.
Mennonites in Dialogue is a collection of all conversation texts involving Mennonites on international and national levels, covering forty years of encounters with Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, and Seventh-Day Adventists, among others. The texts illustrate growth in agreement as well as identify the remaining convictions that still divide.
Several texts appear here for the first time in English. An introductory essay provides an overview of the motivations for dialogue, the challenges faced--both in the processes of dialogue and in their substance--as these conversations evolved, the achievements gained, and the prospects for the future. A detailed index enables a more effective comparison of the topics and issues throughout the collection.
Mennonites in Dialogue is an indispensable resource for anyone seeking to understand the process of identity formation within the Christian tradition through encounter with the other, as well as a rich introduction to the theology of that global peace church--the Mennonites.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Release date: Jul 6, 2015
• ISBN: 9781498203647

Book preview

9781498203630.kindle.jpg

Mennonites in Dialogue

Official Reports from International and National Ecumenical Encounters, 1975–2012

edited by Fernando Enns and Jonathan Seiling

Translations by Jonathan Seiling

foreword by César García

Pickwicklogo.jpg

MENNONITES IN DIALOGUE

Official Reports from International and National Ecumenical Encounters,

1975

–

2012

Copyright ©

2015

Wipf and Stock Publishers. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions. Wipf and Stock Publishers,

199

W.

8

th Ave., Suite

3

, Eugene, OR

97401

.

Pickwick Publications

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199

W.

8

th Ave., Suite

3

Eugene, OR

97401

www.wipfandstock.com

ISBN

13

:

978-1-4982-0363-0

E

ISBN

13

:

978-1-4982-0364-7

Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Mennonites in dialogue : official reports from international and national ecumenical encounters,

1975

–

2012

/ edited by Fernando Enns and Jonathan Seiling ; translations by Jonathan Seiling ; foreword by César García.

xx +

474

p. ;

23

cm. Includes bibliographical references.

ISBN

13: 978-1-4982-0363-0

1.

Mennonites—Relations—Roman Catholic Church—Congresses.

2.

Mennonites—Relations—Lutherans—Congresses.

3.

Mennonites—Relations—Reformed Church—Congresses.

4

. Mennonites—Relations—Reformed Church—Congresses.

5

. Mennonites—Relations—Baptists—Congresses.

I.

Enns, Fernando,

1964–. II.

Seiling, Jonathan R

. III.

García, César.

IV.

Title.

BX8128.P4 M46 2015

Manufactured in the U.S.A.

Table of Contents

Title Page

Foreword

Translator’s and Editors’ Preface

Abbreviations

Introduction

Part I: Mennonites—Roman Catholics

Preface

Introduction

I. Considering History Together

II. Considering Theology Together

III. Toward a Healing of Memories

Appendix A

Part II.1: Mennonites—Lutherans

I. The Historic Heritage

II. The Current Dialogue: State of Convergences and Divergences

III. Coexistence and Encounter between our Churches Today

Part II.2: Mennonites—Lutherans

Report on the Dialogues

Joint Declaration

Recommendations to Congregations

The Lutheran Position

Position

Explanation of the Mutual Invitation to Communion

Part II.3: Mennonites—Lutherans

Introduction

Appendix A

Appendix B

Part II.4: Mennonites—Lutherans

Preface

Part 1: Introduction

Part 2: Telling the Sixteenth-Century Story Together

Part 3: Considering the Condemnations Today

Part 4: Remembering the Past, Reconciling in Christ

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Part III.1: Mennonites—Reformed

Introduction

Summaries

Part III.2: Mennonites—Reformed

Mennonites—Reformed

Part III.3: Mennonites—Reformed

Introduction

The History

The Situation Today

Baptism, Peace, and the State

Part IV: Mennonites—Baptists

Preface

Introduction: Historical Summary of the Theological Conversations

Part V: Mennonites—Seventh-day Adventists

Mennonites—Seventh-Day Adventists

Part VI: Churches of the First, the Radical, and the Magisterial (Second) Reformations

Prague I: The Heritage of the First and Radical Reformations

Prague II: Eschatology and Social Transformation

Prague III: Christian Faith and Economics

Prague IV: Towards a Renewed Dialogue

Prague V: Justification and Sanctification

Prague VI: New Life in Christ

Prague VII: The Significance of Reforming and Prophetic Movements for Church and Society

Appendix

On the occasion marking forty years of

Mennonites in official dialogues:

This volume is dedicated to the future participants and leaders of ecumenical dialogues, Mennonites and non-Mennonites alike, both official and unofficial representatives, who engage in earnest, truth-seeking acts of conversations and conversions in order to witness to the gospel of peace.

A peace church is a church called to bear witness to the gospel of peace grounded in Jesus Christ. The peace church places this conviction at the centre of its faith and life, its teaching, worship, ministry and practice, calling Jesus Lord and following him in his nonresistant and nonviolent way. A peace church is nothing other than the church, the body of Christ. Every church is called to be a peace church.

—Called together to Be Peacemakers (Catholic-Mennonite Dialogue)

Foreword

César García, General Secretary of Mennonite World Conference

Dialogues among Christian world communions have marked the second half of the twentieth century and continue to influence the global church during this current time. Mennonites (and other Anabaptist-related communities), as the oldest free church of the Reformation traditions and well known as a historic peace church, have not been oblivious to this reality.

Mennonite World Conference (MWC) alongside other global communions sees interchurch conversations as part of the biblical mandate for reconciliation with fellow Christians and the clear evangelical need for common Christian witness in the world.¹ In spite of representing a multiplicity of views, experiences, cultures and theological convictions, the leadership of MWC has maintained an active engagement in this kind of dialogue.

The documents collected in this volume are the fruit of interchurch conversations in which our communion has participated. These sometimes reflect a particular Mennonite tradition. Not all documents represent the views of all Mennonites, especially those documents of national dialogues in a particular context. Therefore some of these documents are also an opportunity for Mennonites to consider their internal differences and similarities, while noting differences and similarities with non-Mennonite traditions. Accordingly, one of the goals of this volume is to serve our communion in the process of identity formation. As the German Cardinal Walter Kasper, President Emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, once affirmed, identity is dialogical.²

In at least two of the Mennonite encounters with other global communions, the image of Dirk Willems (†1569), based on the copper etching by Jan Luyken of the sixteenth-century Anabaptist martyr that appears in the Martyrs Mirror,³ has been introduced as an Anabaptist paradigm. Nancy Heisey, President Emeritus of MWC, explains: The etching depicts the moment in the account when Dirk, having escaped from prison where he was being held as an Anabaptist, turns to pull his pursuer out of icy water, after the latter has fallen through the ice that the prison-starved Dirk managed to cross. As the account goes on, the ‘thief catcher’ then re-arrests Dirk, who is further examined about his beliefs and then executed.⁴

Dirk Willems is a model for Mennonites relating to other global communions because he evidences a spirituality that has as its cornerstone mutual love among Christians, even to the point of giving up one’s own life. It is that spirituality that allows us to understand the dialogue partner in a deep way. It has to do with the spiritual experience of understanding the other, by listening and speaking to the other in love.⁵

Such spirituality is found only in the cross of Christ. In the words of the German Reformed theologian, Jürgen Moltmann, the ecumenical movement toward the unity of the church is essentially a movement coming from the cross of its one Lord.⁶ Interchurch dialogue may be motivated by the need for a unified witness that missionaries perceive when they face non-Christian contexts; or by the pastoral need of churches that face mixed marriages between Christians; or by the need of unity in the midst of violence, suffering and persecution. However, as Dirk Willems understood, relations with other Christians have to be motivated by the cross of Christ. In the words of Chiara Lubich, Italian Catholic activist and leader and founder of the Focolare Movement, in the cross, Jesus presented himself to us not only in order to be contemplated, but above all as the model to imitate in all trials, and especially—we must say so at once—in the sufferings of disunity.⁷

In a context of violence, injustice, and persecution Jesus gave his life in order to reconcile and heal those relationships that were broken among humans and between humans and God. It is this attitude that challenges our pride, our resentment, our lack of love, and our judgmental view of others and invites us to a radical love in our approach to them. There can be no ecumenism without personal sanctification and conversion,⁸ affirms Cardinal Walter Kasper.

It is my prayer that this volume may help us to build identity, to facilitate the knowledge and reception of the dialogues that MWC and member churches at national levels had with other communions, but above all, to develop a spirituality that reflects Dirk Willems’ love, namely, a spirituality of sanctification and conversion in the shape of Jesus’ cross.

1. See Introduction to Jeffrey Gros, Thomas F. Best, and Lorelei F. Fuchs, eds., Growth in Agreement III: International Dialogue Texts and Agreed Statements,

1998

–

2005

(Geneva, Switzerland: WCC,

2007

) xiii.

2. World Council of Churches, Joint Working Group between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches: Eighth Report,

1999

–

2005

(Geneva: WCC,

2005

)

78

.

3. Published first in Dutch in

1660

and edited by Thieleman J. van Braght, this is a large collection of texts and accounts of Anabaptist martyrs, which in many editions included printed images from engravings by Jan Luyken. These images have become iconic representations of martyr experiences in the Mennonite tradition.

4. Nancy Heisey, Remembering Dirk Willems: Memory and History in the Future of Ecumenical Relationships, Journal of Ecumenical Studies

47

, no.

3

(

2012

)

355

.

5. See World Council of Churches, Joint Working Group between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches: Eighth Report,

1999

–

2005

,

76

.

6. Jürgen Moltmann, The Open Church: Invitation to a Messianic Life-Style (London: SCM,

1978

)

82

.

7. Gabriella Fallacara, ed., Living Dialogue: Chiara Lubich on Christian Unity (London: New City,

2009

)

57

.

8. Ibid.,

8

.

Translator’s and Editors’ Preface

Jonathan Seiling

The present volume comprises the bilateral ecumenical dialogues in which Mennonites have participated on national and international levels since 1975, with the addition of the multilateral Prague Consultations. This publication has been prepared in anticipation of the Assembly of the Mennonite World Conference in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, July 21–26, 2015, with the goal of offering the global gathering of Mennonites this identity-formative resource in English. At the same time this volume acts as a complement to the four volumes of ecumenical texts edited and published by the World Council of Churches under the titles Growth in Agreement.⁹

Selection of Texts

This volume presents the key reports, some of them for the first time in English, which stemmed from the official ecumenical dialogues involving Mennonites over the past forty years. In general this collection replicates the German volume, Heilung der Erinnerungen—befreit zur gemeinsamen Zukunft: Mennoniten im Dialog (Lembeck/Bonifatius, 2008), and extends it to include the reports that have appeared since that publication. Most reports are given here in full, a couple only in part. Some dialogues and conversations also contain attachments, sometimes hundreds of pages in length, plus lists of materials for further study, in which readers can further investigate the papers that were presented over the course of a dialogue. These extra resources can be consulted in the original publications.

While the French and German language texts appear here for the first time in English, the Dutch dialogue produced a text that is an exception to the norm. The dialogue, which proceeded primarily along the lines of an academic exchange, was sanctioned by both the Dutch Mennonites (Algemene Doopsgezinde Sociëteit) and the partnering Dutch Reformed denominations (Generale Synode der Nederlandse Hervormde). While it resulted in an officially-sanctioned Dutch-language report that was in fact vetted by the participating denominations, it did not produce jointly-held resolutions, such as one finds in the other reports in this volume. The original Dutch-language publication of the joint papers included an introduction summarizing the course of the dialogue and naming the participants. In 1986, an English-language summary of the papers was published, but it excluded the original introduction. Here, for the first time, an English translation of the original Dutch introduction is made available, along with the previously-published English summaries of the joint papers.

Documentation of Published Reports

A table of contents is provided at the start of each report. In cases where sections of the original were omitted from the present edition, the detailed table of contents will indicate these omitted sections in brackets, e.g. [Introduction]. Otherwise, unless indicated, the texts have been reproduced as found in the original, preserving the original regional spellings. Footnotes found in the original documents are reproduced or translated into English. Except for footnotes where the translator simply explains a foreign language term or translates the name of an organization, additional editorial notes not found in the original are indicated by [ed.]. At the start of each report, next to the years in which the dialogue took place, the original publication details are provided in a footnote, which also states the permission and copyright details. Additional translations of the document are also noted.

Timeline and Official Titles of Churches

A chronology of the various dialogues appears in the appendix, Historical Timeline of Ecumenical Dialogues with Mennonites. Since many of the participating denominational bodies are in Europe and their official names are not in English, an attempt has been made here to translate the names of non-English communions in the footnotes. A listing of the official abbreviations of the denominational bodies mentioned throughout the volume follows the preface.

Translation of Key Terms and Scripture

The French, German and Swiss dialogue reports along with the Dutch introduction are published here for the first time in English. In these texts the biblical quotations are taken from the New Revised Standard Version, the translation that is most widely accepted in ecumenical circles. Where texts that are referred to in the documents already exist in English translation, every effort has been made to make use of and document the source of these published texts, some of them being available online.

The documents contain key terms, most notably the terms for church/congregation, which both bespeak the ecclesial understandings of Mennonites in those contexts, and the distinctive manner in which these understandings are expressed in their respective languages. The German term Gemeinde could be translated either as local church or as congregation, but to translate it simply as church does not adequately distinguish Mennonites’ ecclesial understandings from those of their dialogue partners. In French the term communauté, like Gemeinde, can also simply be translated as community; however, these terms almost always refer here to a local ecclesial community. The purpose of the dialogues was not to erase such distinctions, but to express differences honestly and clearly, therefore the English translation of the respective terms attempts to preserve these distinctions. When the word Church appears capitalized, it refers to the official name of an institution. The German term Volkskirche is difficult to translate into English, because it is a European concept that is not generally found in the English-speaking world. Although it could be rendered as majoritarian or people’s church, here it is translated as national church. A similar but not identical term, State Church, in which the state has some control over the church and vice versa, appears with capital letters. In some texts it was necessary to alter the original capitalization in order to conform to the publisher’s style guide, which uses the lowercase as a rule for church, as a general term. The various terms for communion with bread and the cup have been consistently translated from German and French as the Lord’s Supper. There are also differences between the texts concerning the terms dialogue and conversation. Sometimes the encounter was explicitly considered a conversation, conveying a less official meaning than a dialogue, but for Mennonites the difference likely bears no weight in terms of the text’s significance.

Translation of Non-English Texts

The translations from German, Dutch and French have not been authorized by the respective denominational bodies, although the publishers have granted permission for the translations to be made. The translations of the dialogues in France, Germany and Switzerland and the Dutch introduction were made by Dr. Jonathan Seiling.

Acknowledgments

Prof. Dr. John Rempel, Director of Toronto Mennonite Theology Centre, Rev. Rainer Burkhart, German Delegate to the Mennonite World Conference General Council, Prof. Dr. Neal Blough, Director of the Centre Mennonite de Paris, and Rev. Drs. Fulco van Hulst, Research Assistant at the Mennonite Seminary, Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, have generously reviewed the translations from German, French, and Dutch respectively for accuracy and clarity. The task of translation has benefited richly from their input and commitment to crafting an appropriate and faithful translation. The translator wishes to express deep gratitude for their partnership in this process.

Financial support was generously provided by the Oosterbaan Fonds, the Algemene Doopsgezinde Sociëteit, and donations by private individuals who support the work of the Institute of Peace Church Theology in Hamburg, Germany. We are also grateful for the encouragement and support received from Conrad Grebel University College, Toronto Mennonite Theological Centre, Mennonite World Conference, Mennonite Church Canada, and Mennonite Church of Eastern Canada.

9. Harding Meyer and Lukas Vischer, eds., Growth in Agreement: Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level (New York: Paulist, 1984); Jeffrey Gros, Harding Meyer, and William G. Rusch, eds., Growth in Agreement II: Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level,

1982

–

1998

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000); Jeffrey Gros, Thomas F. Best, and Lorelei F. Fuchs, eds., Growth in Agreement III: Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level,

1998

–

2005

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007); a fourth volume is expected to replicate Dokumente wachsender Übereinstimmung, vol. 4, the German edition of texts ending in 2010 by Johannes Oeldemann, Friederike Nüssel, Uwe Swarat, and Athanasios Vletsis.

Abbreviations

ADS Algemene Doopsgezinde Sociëteit

AEEMF Association des Églises Évangeliques Mennonites de France

AKf Arnoldshainer Konferenz

AMG Arbeitsgemeinschaft Mennonitischer Gemeinden in Deutschland

BALUBAG Bayerische Lutherisch-Baptistische Arbeitsgruppe

BWA Baptist World Alliance

CPCE Community of Protestant Churches in Europe

DÖSTA Deutscher Ökumenischer Studienausschuss

EBF European Baptist Federation

EKD Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland

ELCA Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

ETG Evangelische Täufergemeinden

KMS-CMS Konferenz der Mennoniten der Schweiz (Alttäufer)—Conférence Mennonite Suisse (Anabaptistes)

LWF Lutheran World Federation

MCUSA Mennonite Church USA

MWC Mennonite World Conference

SEK-FES Schweizerischer Evangelischer Kirchenbund —Fédération Eglises des Protestantes de Suisse

SES Schweizerische Evangelische Synode

VELKD Vereinigte Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirche Deutschlands

WARC World Alliance of Reformed Churches

Introduction

Fernando Enns

I. Ecumenical Profile of a Peace Church

Doctrinal dialogues are not the primary expression of Mennonites’ ecumenical profile. The voices of Mennonites documented in the following dialogue texts repeatedly demonstrate that the theological convictions of this tradition are expressed foremost as living testimonies of faith in a concrete context. The gathered congregation in worship and in service to others is considered as the primary reality of the church of Jesus Christ; for Mennonites faithful religious practice (orthopraxy) was always at least as important as correct doctrine (orthodoxy). This leads to significant challenges for the current ecumenical methodology in interdenominational doctrinal dialogues, in which official representatives of the churches engage with each other, explain their own doctrinal understandings—mostly on the basis of their confessional texts—and adopt mutually binding formulations.

The first challenge arises from the strong tendency toward the congregationalist constitution of Mennonite churches. For most Mennonites the local congregation is largely autonomous in all aspects of teaching and administration, although it is not isolated from larger, institutionalized associations and conferences. Thus, over the centuries a great diversity has developed within the Mennonite community of churches, which nevertheless considers itself as a unity.

The absence of church hierarchies or doctrinal offices equipped with authority can be noted as the second challenge. Ecumenical dialogue partners usually ask for binding or reliable doctrinal statements, which could support potential interdenominational agreements. Given that Mennonites are also rather skeptical about written confessions and always interpret common confessional texts within the limits of their local and temporal context, in dialogues these texts can only serve in a limited way as a final expression of Mennonite doctrine.¹

This alternating, variable structure of the church among Mennonites provides challenges for both sides of the dialogue. The dialogue partners legitimately enquire as to whether the outcomes are binding, and Mennonites face the challenge of following a methodology that does not exactly concur with their church’s realities or ways of thinking.² However, this mutual challenge includes the opportunity for a dialogue that begins in a slightly different way.

The starting point for dialogues with Mennonites is usually not with historically-fixed doctrinal differences, but the description of the current congregational realities. This initially opens up the possibility of a mutual understanding, which does not begin with the differences of the past, thereby potentially exhausting all energies in order to dissolve them as much as possible. Rather it begins with the present situation of believers themselves and their questions about the challenges for their faith in contemporary contexts and the future concerns.

From this starting point, the particular effort of the dialogue partners to consciously position themselves within a corresponding tradition allows them to ask in return, how and why certain beliefs and theological doctrines have emerged, how they have been updated alongside the formation of the tradition and which arguments and justifications have been preserved to the present. Thus there emerges the potential for a common learning process through the encounter with the other; while the dialogue can never be confined to a repetition of previously fixed doctrinal systems, it can lead to a common exploration of history and a joint review of theological understandings from the vantage points of the respective traditions. Not infrequently it is also recognized that the assumed differences do not always necessarily run along confessional lines, but often are transverse in relation to them. An effort at questioning or even correcting previous elements of tradition is not to be excluded; the self-understanding of Mennonites as ecclesia semper reformanda is impressively illustrated in this way.

Dialogues do not therefore need to lead to a relativization of one’s own identity and toward arbitrariness, rather they should serve precisely to sharpen identities in their own way. Due to the direct and personal experience of the encounter with the other, this sharpening is then no longer based, as so often happened in church history, on the polemical devaluation of a different tradition. Rather a church should gain stength through describing its own experience and the positively-grounded argumentation of its own insights. Then the other denomination can then be experienced in a new way as becoming sister churches who listen to each other. Such an attitude of mutual respect can liberate one to assess a different position without necessarily needing to share it. On the contrary, only through the clearest possible statement of differences can one then carry out the crucial testing of the enduring disagreements; only in this way can one determine whether and which differences are of a church-dividing nature, or if they should be seen as expressions of a legitimate pluralism and a freedom of interpretation within the one church. In this respect, identity is not relativized in dialogue, but upheld.

Motivations and Objectives

Mennonites’ approach to dialogue, namely, using the present realities as points of departure, allows also for conclusions concerning the motivations of bilateral encounters. In no way is the stated goal of any dialogue the institutional unification of churches. Rather, in the face of common, current challenges, dialogue aims first of all at understanding and explaining influential theological positions of a particular denomination. Ecumenical dialogues could therefore be described as translation aids, which enable the rudimentary learning of another denomination’s language. This then offers the chance to explain in one’s own mother tongue, which positions are of fundamental importance and have become historically established. Sometimes it may be possible then to express what is particular to one church tradition in the foreign language of the other. Hence there is no need for consensus to result, but in many cases convergences can be identified where strict differences were previously assumed, sometimes even representing a recognition of the complementarity of theological statements.

A second stated goal of all the dialogues presented here is to provide a new basis for the relationships between church traditions. Except for the relationship with Baptists and Adventists, the history of Mennonites in relation to other faith traditions has usually been marked by harsh, mutual condemnations. Since these were expressed especially in the sixteenth century confessional texts that are still in use in the churches, even in the form of condemnations, the memory remains present in the current encounters. The many martyrdoms that Anabaptists and Mennonites had to suffer because of their interpretations and the particular ethical form of their Christian faith has been deeply etched in their confessional memory. In this respect, the present-day official encounters have also been marked by the first-time recognition of the guilt toward Mennonites and by a search for ways to overcome these (sometimes mutual) condemnations, now moving toward a healing of memories.

In order to actually achieve these goals Mennonites always enquire as to the practical consequences of the outcomes of a dialogue. Therefore, the reception process of an ecumenical dialogue must be considered and structured as an integral part of the dialogue itself. It can be observed that newly perceived identities enable major steps of mutual awareness and respect in all cases stemming from the dialogue. Sometimes concrete agreements for future joint projects have resulted. The long-term effect of the dialogues then results in other occasions for contact and meetings at different levels, in which the dialogue texts come to fruition in serving as translation aids; in inter-denominational marriages, in the preparation of religious instruction, with questions about church transfers, in diaconal programs, in socio-political engagements and mission projects.

Catholicity and Peace Witness

Ecumenical dialogue is not an end in itself. The actual motivation arises from the earnest effort to ensure the credibility of Christian witness. For a church that is divided into separate, mutually judgmental churchdoms, can hardly be convincing in its proclamation, or in its actions. If one understands the church of Jesus Christ in its true catholicity, meaning in its actual unity in Jesus Christ himself, and not artificially limited to one’s own denominational identity, then the effort toward the visible unity of Christ’s church must take a central place in life itself, as a confession of the individual believer, as also for families of denominations. Without such an ecumenical profile the claim of one’s own denomination’s catholicity is hollow.

For Mennonites the final abolition of all doctrinal differences is not a necessary condition for such visible unity, as they themselves can even demonstrate impressively with their congregationally based plurality. But this plurality must aim toward a reconciled diversity in the community of churches, because it is in such a way that the church’s peace witness becomes tested and gains credibility. As a peace church Mennonites need to be dialogical in how they are structured as well as in their thinking per se. In the past it has often been very difficult if not impossible for this peace church to seek reconciliation with other denominations. Due to condemnations and persecution by others, the only way that remained was separation. Then with the beginning of the recent ecumenical movement and the general willingness of all denominations for ecumenical dialogues, an opportunity arose to expose their peace theology to the inter-confessional relationships and to test and practice an ethic of nonviolence so that the possibility of reconciliation as a gift from Christ might become a reality. The willingness for dialogue and the distinct peace commitment are not mutually exclusive, but one is a fundamental expression of the other.

II. Individual Dialogue Processes

a. Catholics and Mennonites: Called Together to Be Peacemakers

In the 1958 English translation of the article ‘Catholicism and Anabaptism’ in the earlier German Mennonitisches Lexikon (1937) it is stated in summary: There are unbridgeable differences between Catholicism and Anabaptism.³ Although the 1988 updated article in GAMEO notes significant shifts in Mennonite scholarship, the updated section begins with the words, the opening statement in the 1958 article on ‘Catholicism and Anabaptism’ (above) namely, ‘this is a theme which has not yet been thoroughly studied,’ remains as valid in 1988 as it was in 1955.⁴ On the Anabaptist-Mennonite side there had always been a latent anti-clericalism,⁵ which explicitly expressed its own identity more or less in anti-Catholicism. While Catholics previously viewed the churches of Anabaptist origins primarily as schismatic and heretical sects that follow a Pelagian-oriented theology of free will and reject sacramentally mediated grace,⁶ the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) fundamentally reoriented their relationship with other denominations. This shift modified the Catholic attitude towards the Anabaptist tradition.

The dialogues between the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Mennonite World Conference (MWC) were undertaken in the spirit of friendship and reconciliation. The difference between the dialoging church traditions could hardly be more obvious: On one side is the centrally-structured global church, with its hundreds of millions of members, and on the other, the diverse, congregationally-constructed minority church; the High Church officialdom with its distinctive doctrine of the sacraments over against the grass-roots, bottom-up, congregationalist church that is ever carried by the laity, and which always saw the practical way of life in discipleship (Nachfolge Christi) as taking precedence over doctrinal uniformity. On the one hand, there is the tradition-conscious church, carefully respecting apostolicity in offices of succession and hierarchical structure, while the other is more engaged with the ever-present challenges of the faithful in specific places; with one there is even a separate state apparatus upholding diplomatic relations, and the other, since the Reformation, maintained a radical separation from the state as a historic peace church, referring to the teaching of the anti-clerical and pacifist-minded Anabaptists.⁷

The title of the final document suggests that the common call to be peacemakers is a particular motivatation and interest. The common belief that peace is the heart of the Gospel is regarded as a particularly compelling reason for dialogue. With the surprisingly far-reaching convergences in regard to the theology of peace, a comprehensive, theologically reasoned appeal and commitment to peace by the church was jointly formulated, keeping in mind the eschatological dimension. This chapter of the dialogue concerning peace theology seems to be the part which makes the changing relationship between Catholics and Mennonites most visible. The newly dicovered common ground led to a joint contribution of Catholics and Mennonites to the World Council of Church’s Decade to Overcome Violence: 2001–2010.⁸

In addition to the discussions of the relevant theologoumena, those that separate and those that unify (ecclesiology, baptism and communion), the joint interpretation of the common history of the church comes as a promising step on the road to reconciliation. Contemporary historical studies point to medieval sources of spirituality that Anabaptists/Mennonites and Catholics have in common. This can be read as an illustration of the fact that many painful separations not only occured because of different theological views, but different interpretations of history have often prevented a sufficient understanding of the theological statements of others.

Denominations develop their own interpretation of history, naturally highlighting the periods that were especially formative for them. At points of division from others they exhibit in particular their own version of the events that increase the plausibity of the theological insights they gained during these conflicts. Thus the interpretation of history and theological understandings that crystallized in confessional texts often only become clear in the ways they specifically oppose each other. This can lead to biases and one-sided descriptions of the historical events. Further results include negative views of each other and to the reemergence of the constrictive stereotypes that were formed in the eras of the great theological polemics. This dialogue expresses the hope that a common memory of history can finally free us from the prison of the past and lead to a healing of memories. This goal determines the structure of the individual parts of the dialogue. The selected theological themes are discussed in parallel with the interpretations of historical events or epochs that have caused or enabled divisions (Constantinian era, medieval times, sixteenth century).

The dialogue does not raise the important issue of power or powerlessness, which seems to have shaped the respective positions and the corresponding theological reflections on the relationship of church and state, or on freedom of religion and non-violence. This could become relevant for the many fields for further study that have been named in order to take into account the growing integration of Mennonites into the larger society as well as the experience of Catholics as increasingly becoming a minority in society. In the end this aspect could correct the denominations’ respective self-images, freeing Mennonites from their mentality of being a persecuted minority and encouraging Catholics to take responsibility for mistakes of the past.

Despite the significant theological differences that make full communion between Mennonites and Catholics impossible, the stated substantive content of the apostolic faith, which one can now mutually certify and jointly establish, allows for the members of the Catholic and the Mennonite delegation to recognize each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. The document concludes with a prayer and a request for blessing, expressing gratitude and appreciation for the new quality of community gained through this dialogue.

In North America a stable movement of sacramentally-minded Mennonites and peace-minded Roman Catholics (Bridgefolk), has been established in order to further clarify the relationship and celebrate commonalities between Catholics and Mennonites, without an official mandate.⁹ In Germany the Catholic Conference of Bishops invites all evangelical free churches on a regular basis since 2002 to discuss theological differences. Mennonites take part in these conversations.¹⁰

b. Lutherans and Mennonites: Complementary Theological Convictions and a Process of Reconciliation

Between 2005 and 2008, an official international dialogue took place between the Lutheran World Federation and the MWC. This was able to build on the outcomes of three national dialogues: France 1981–1984, Germany 1989–1992 and the United States 2002–2004. Following the dialogue in France, Marc Lienhard emphasized that one might consider that we have now passed from the difficult conflict of the sixteenth century to one of pro-existence, which is more than peaceful coexistence. The Lutheran-Mennonite relationship in France is an interesting example of recognition without actual ecclesial community . . .¹¹ Similar are the outcomes from the dialogues between the Lutheran and Mennonite churches in Germany. Challenges remain due to the incompatibility of the synodal/episcopal constitution on the Lutheran side and the congregational/synodal structure on the Mennonite side, plus the enduring differences relating to the mutual recognition of baptism; Mennonites are not ready to desist their practice of a second baptism of those adults who have already received infant baptism according to the Lutheran tradition but now explicitly ask for adult baptism. For these reasons, full pulpit and table fellowship has not been possible, but Eucharistic hospitality could nevertheless be declared.¹²

Considering the horizon of a new coexistence and encounter between the churches today, the central concern is the examination of the harsh condemnations of Anabaptists in the Augsburg Confession (1530) so as to develop pastoral perspectives for the life of the churches. The authority of the confessional statements in both traditions is based upon the principle of sola scriptura. The Lutheran side in the French dialogue explains that it had been legitimate to distinguish themselves from heretical teachings based upon Matt 10:32, interpreted in terms of the intention for church unity. Unacknowledged is the fact that the Anabaptist/Mennonite tradition used this same reasoning of preserving the inner unity of the (true) church when applying to Matt 18 as a basis for its congregational ordinance. In fact, this represents an early approach of nonviolent conflict resolution. The difference arises in the selection criteria: on one hand orthopraxy is the criterion for unity, on the other it is orthodoxy; for one side the gathered congregation is the supreme authority, for the other it is the church leadership. The dialogue in Germany led the Lutheran side to the opinion that the condemnations in the Augsburg Confession do not pertain to the contemporary Mennonite dialogue partners (or in the case of Article XVI—Of Civil Authority—not to the same extent), and that the continuing differences between the churches are no longer of church-dividing nature.

The Joint Statement of the Lutheran-Mennonite Dialogue Commission as an outcome of the German dialogue was divided thematically and largely corresponds to those in France: Scripture – Word of God and Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ, justification and sanctification (discipleship), church/congregation, church and state, Word and sign (sacraments). More decisively than in dialogues with other churches, it became clear how the Mennonite tradition has produced an ecclesiology of the missional church, although in the course of the twentieth century it has at times adopted characteristics of a State Church. The Lutheran tradition has produced a state church ecclesiology, although in the secularized context of contemporary societies it assumes an increasingly missionary character. This sociological convergence could find even greater consideration in future dialogues, as several divergent, formerly church-dividing statements are now described as complementary perspectives: The recte credere (right believing) and recte vivere (right living) are not in conflict, but it is exactly their complementarity that prevents the dangers of works righteousness on the one hand and cheap grace on the other. For ecclesiology one can recognize in analogy that the idea of the church as a corpus permixtum or as a professing church illustrate different perspectives and that these only lead to one-sidedness when they become separated instead of simply being differentiated. In the different views on baptism and communion, this complementarity is again expressed through the sacraments/ordinances that are inseparable aspects of prevenient grace, faith and confession.

The main differences appear to be grounded primarily in the different perspectives, which then reveal their divisive character especially in the ethical implications, most notably on the issue of nonviolence. A church that claims to be the state church will tend toward statements that declare, in which cases (military) violence—as a last resort—ultimately appear legitimate. And a confessing church, according to its self-understanding of being a discipling and prophetic church that rejects the claim to be a state church, becomes a performative model for a different quality of community in which the exercise of violence is no longer an option. The model of the state church with its corresponding indiscriminate infant baptism is then challenged by the demand for a free, individual, personal confession prior to baptism. The practice of believer’s baptism, so crucial for the Mennonite tradition, corresponds to an ecclesiology that emphasises the visibility of a discipling community. In 2012 the issue of baptism was taken up in a new series of trilateral dialogues between the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, the Lutheran World Federation, and the MWC, under the title Baptism and Incorporation into the Body of Christ, the Church.

c. Reformed and Mennonites: Twin Sister Churches

¹³

There have been many official encounters between Reformed and Mennonites. In 1975 multilateral dialogues already began between Mennonites, Baptists, and various Reformed traditions in The Netherlands. Mennonites and Baptists saw themselves jointly as representatives of the Anabaptist tradition in contrast to the Reformed tradition. The following focal themes emerged in this discussion series: the covenantal understanding, the relationship between the Word and the Spirit, Christology, the nature and mission of the church, baptism, the messianic way of life.

In 1983 a joint communion service was held in Switzerland with representatives of the Evangelical Reformed Church of the Canton of Zurich, along with the Baptists and the Mennonites, in which the Reformed Church formulated an admission of guilt in the form of a prayer. This step opened the possibility for international dialogue between the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and the MWC. Due to the common Reformation heritage, wide-ranging theological convergences were discovered, namely, solus Christus, sola scriptura, sola gratia and sola fide, as a common basis for all theological reflection. Similarly characteristic for both traditions is the emphasis on the sanctification of life, as a function of justification by grace. Christians owe obedience to Christ as their way of life, in public as well as in private. The dimension of community is emphasized in both denominations, each in different ways, but in common opposition to sacramentalism and ritualism.

Due to changed social conditions both traditions see themselves encouraged in new ways to approach each other, because in contrast to the European societies in the Reformation period, which formed a relative unity in the corpus christianum, once again the Reformed and Mennonites today are both minorities in pluralistic societies. For this reason the traditional Reformation topoi or issues should be particulary noted as consistencies against the ever-changing, secular horizon, which has become a common challenge for all church traditions. Thus, the classical topics such as the understanding of Scripture, the relationship between the Word and the Spirit, or the nature of the church came up for discussion, especially with regard to their ethical implications: the relationship with powers/authorities (political, social, economic), questions of war and peace, violence and nonviolence, the form of Christian discipleship, and then, in this context, the importance and meaning of baptism, and finally, eschatology. Once the changed context of a pluralistic and secularized society is taken into account as opposed to that of the sixteenth century, the corpus christianum can no longer be the negative background which showcases the Mennonite position. Rather, a common participation in society is sought for the purpose of renewal, which demonstrates the church’s public responsibility. Today, both denominations jointly confess the transforming function of the Christian faith in relation to the dominant culture.

The question of violence is perceived with a more nuanced view of the state, and it still remains that the idea of non-violence is a central axiom of peace church ecclesiology, because the church in discipleship is a visible testimony and confession in eschatological anticipation of the Kingdom of God. The comments on the understanding of baptism serve to illustrate this point. Discipleship itself is understood here as a process in which the possibility of failure is considered, in contrast to a perfectionistic congregational ideal.

Recalling the condemnations of the Anabaptists in Reformed written confessions, the discussions were focused and deepened concerning the following critical issues: baptism, peace ethics, and the relationship between church and state. At the end of the clarification process the Reformed could declare, that the condemnations do not pertain to today’s Mennonite partners and they must not stand in the way of community. Both traditions can admit that as churches they have changed. Differences are to be found not only between denominations, but also within the respective traditions. In view of the methodology of the dialogue, therefore, for both traditions, there was the general challenge of how a pluralist denomination can adopt binding statements.

In recent years, particularly in Switzerland, mutual interest continued to increase, such that the Swiss Evangelical Protestant Churches (SEK-FES) and the Conference of Mennonites in Switzerland (KMS-CMS) entered into a formal dialogue in 2006. This dialogue was accompanied by a variety of events to commemorate the origins of the Anabaptist movement in Switzerland.¹⁴ Among Christians the errors that were committed were acknowledged: violence and persecution on one side, an attitude of insolence that was shaped by contempt and repudiation on the other side.¹⁵

d. Baptists and Mennonites: Differences between Churches of Anabaptist Heritage

At the start of the dialogues between the Baptist World Alliance and the MWC, there was a recognition that the originally close, personal contacts and theological conversations between Baptists and Mennonites had simply ceased in 1630. The aim of the new dialogue from 1989 to 1992 was to take up the call to represent their respective histories and theologies, with the goal of improved mutual understandings and to explore new areas of agreement. Convergences or even consensus should not have been a surprise for two church bodies that are similarly rooted in the Anabaptist movement of the sixteenth century.

For both of them the church is first and foremost the assembly of believers, the voluntary congregation, clearly separated from the state. Consequently, both are congregationally structured and can be jointly called evangelical free churches, Believers’ Churches (believers who consider baptism by faith or adult baptism as the appropriate form and practice) and non-credal churches. From this emerges the striking structure of this dialogue process. Differences and convergences are not methodically derived from research on common historical sources, which, at first glance, seem to offer an entry point to dialogue, but instead the current state of each denomination is deliberately chosen as a starting point. The advantage of this approach lies in its immediate reference to experience, with the disadvantage of a tendency to generalize the experience of those participating in the dialogue.

Despite common historical roots, significant differences became apparent. The Mennonite understanding sought to clearly disassociate itself from the danger of individualism that it recognized on the Baptist side, and on the other hand it emphasized the communal dimension: it is not primarily the individual but the congregation as a whole that owes its commitment to following Jesus and the responsibility towards others. Therefore, the mission of the church aims not primarily at individual conversions but is always socially-oriented (in the form of charity and work for justice and peace). This difference seems to be especially apparent in peace ethics. While Mennonites adhere to a generalized ethos of nonviolence, Baptists tend to represent the doctrine of just war.

In this dialogue it becomes even more evident than in others, how strongly certain theological emphases are dependent upon the horizon of experience of the respective delegation members. This is particularly evident when the witness of these two traditions is brought in parallel with those found in the multilateral dialogues between Mennonites, Baptists, and various Reformed Churches in The Netherlands in 1975. Depending on the dialogue partners and conversation contexts, very different aspects are accentuated. Therefore, a renewed and more updated dialogue encounter between Baptists and Mennonites would seem appropriate.

e. Seventh-Day Adventists and Mennonites: More Commonality than Expected

Here, then, the otherwise dominant issues of the condemnations of Anabaptists in the sixteenth century play no role, nor do differences on the question of baptism. It is an important experience for Mennonites to have, not simply to conduct ecumenical dialogues solely from the perspective of being the former victims of persecution, but to act as an older sister in a conversation with a younger Protestant church. This international dialogue mainly served the purpose of mutual acquaintance and appreciation, in order to prepare the way for healthy and fruitful relationships at local levels.

In July 2011, the MWC began the first round of dialogues with the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, which ended in May 2012. Although the contexts of their historical development are fundamentally different (Adventists find their origin in the Second Great Awakening of the nineteenth century in the USA), as minority churches they have more in common than was initially expected: They share a desire to recover the authenticity and passion of the New Testament church, a similar understanding of Christian history, and a strong commitment to be followers of Jesus in their personal lives and in their corporate witness to the world.¹⁶ Both traditions practice only believers’ baptism. Together they understand their task as that of shaping Christian life in the world, although they themselves are not of the world. Here, then, the otherwise dominant issues of the condemnations of Anabaptists in the sixteenth century play no role, nor do differences on the question of baptism. It is an important experience for Mennonites to have, not simply to conduct ecumenical dialogues solely from the perspective of being the former victims of persecution, but to act as an older sister in a conversation with a younger Protestant church. This international dialogue mainly served the purpose of mutual acquaintance and appreciation, in order to prepare the way for healthy and fruitful relationships at local levels.

f. A Multilateral Dialogue Process between Churches of the Reformation: A Common Heritage

The multilateral dialogues on the common heritage of the Reformation(s) initially led a group of churches together that often locate themselves in a common tradition, but until then had not been led to establish direct dialogue as such. These included: the Church of the Brethren, the Hussite Church, the Evangelical Church of Czech Brethren, the Hutterites, Mennonites, Moravians, the Society of Friends and the Waldensians.

This series of meetings that began in the mid-1980s was motivated by the question of whether there would be a joint contribution to the ongoing ecumenical movement from the perspective of these churches. They named situations of violence and injustice, particularly in view of the economic issues involved, as the primary, contemporary, ecumenical challenge. In all of these traditions one can find a strong hope of the transforming and renewing power of the coming Kingdom of God: the First Reformation emphasized the message of the Gospels and stressed the eschatological aspect in particular, and the Radical Reformation sought an alternative to Constantinian Christianity.

The First Reformation, which appeared in the Waldensian (twelfth-thirteenth century) and the Hussite movements (fifteenth century), unleashed faith perspectives that inspired the later upsurge of the sixteenth century Reformation movements. Yet it would be wrong to reduce those earlier movements to a role of a mere precursor. They were carried by the faith that Jesus Christ is Lord of the world and that the social order should be shaped by his Lordship.¹⁷ The modern day heirs of this tradition are quite self-critical and seek to translate leading theological axioms into the present, in conversation with others. This also characterizes the heirs of the Radical Reformation. By confessing the lordship of Christ, representatives of the sixteenth century Anabaptist movement saw itself as being called immediately to concrete discipleship, and accepted Scripture not only as a basis for teaching, but also for the way of life. They pursued the goal of the restitution of a primitive Christian congregational ideal.

After three meetings in Prague the convening church traditions took on the challenge of including representatives of the Second Reformation because it became increasingly apparent that their understandings would supplement their own traditions. For even the Magisterial Reformation of the Lutheran, Calvinist and Zwinglian traditions were, in a certain way, tied to these earlier reform efforts, although they more pointedly raised the issues of justification by grace through faith and freedom through the gospel. This consultation in Geneva (Prague IV) was organized by the World Alliance of Reformed Churches in cooperation with the Lutheran World Federation and the MWC. Observers from the Methodist, Baptist and Roman Catholic churches were present. Through a common understanding and a common interpretation of their heritage of the Reformation(s), would those churches today be able to make a joint contribution to ecumenical social ethics?

The subsequent discussions concerned the relationship between justification and sanctification (1998),¹⁸ Life in Christ (2000) and the importance of reformist and prophetic movements for church and society (2003).¹⁹ At present no further dialogues have been planned. Each dialogue process seems to find its moment. In fact, it is neither necessary nor is it something worth striving for to continue each of these dialogues, in the same form, indefinitely. It seems more important to clearly mark specific stations along the common ecumenical path, in order that the achievements can then be put to the test in the practical formation of relationships on local, regional, and global levels.

III. Wider Ecumenical Involvements

The selection of the texts collected here primarily includes bilateral dialogues. Some multilateral dialogues have taken place, insofar as