Back to Statements Index
The Reformation and the Anabaptists
Steps to Reconciliation
26 June, 2004,
Zurich, Switzerland
___________________________________
Reformed-Mennonite Dialogue in Zurich:
Reflections on its Significance for the Unity of Christ’s Body
by John Rempel, Elkhart, Ind.
If we remember that the first Mennonite meetinghouse in Switzerland was not built until 1896, we can imagine how momentous it was for Mennonites there when the Reformed Church of the canton of Zurich offered to apologize for persecuting Anabaptists in past centuries. So precarious was Mennonite existence in Switzerland three-and-a-half centuries after the movement began that Mennonites worshipped in the privacy of homes and fields lest their public presence endanger them.
As a result of contact made two years ago when German, Swiss and North American Mennonites requested a memorial marker for Felix Manz, the Swiss Reformed church initiated conversations about the conference. After an initial meeting with John Sharp in July 2003, the Reformed church invited Swiss and North American Mennonites, Amish and Hutterites, and Swiss Mennonites to consider an invitation to attend. The invitation was then extended globally through Larry Miller of Mennonite World Conference.
The details of this occasion have already been described in the press. My task is to take a few elements of this rich encounter and reflect on their significance for unity in the body of Christ.
The event took place in the Grossmünster, the mother church of both Reformed and Anabaptist Christianity in Switzerland. It was here that Zwingli preached the liberating message of the Bible. It was just down river in the council hall the two great disputations of 1523 were held in which Grebel, Hubmaier, and others pressed their vision of renewal upon Zurichers, who had become evangelical by an act of the city council in January. These disciples of Zwingli found themselves increasingly at odds with their mentor
It was from Zwingli’s pulpit that Larry Miller, executive secretary of the Mennonite World Conference, preached a message of healing and challenge. It was from the baptismal font that the president of the cantonal church declared with evident emotion that the Reformed had contradicted their own understanding of the Gospel by using coercion in matters of faith.
In the early evening the assembly adjourned to the spot along the Limmat River where it is thought that the first Anabaptist martyr at the hands of the Protestant church, Felix Mantz—named after the patron saint of Zurich, himself martyred in the 4th century—was drowned. There a city councilor declared on behalf of the council its apology for using state power to violate human rights. He spoke with poignant conviction about the wrongness of the persecutions.
What should we make of this extraordinary gesture? I came away with enormous gratitude, and with a lingering sense of unfinished ecumenical business. On the one hand, I found it remarkable that an institution of power had asked for forgiveness. I rejoiced in the clear evidence that not only individuals, but also institutions are able to repent. That is surely a sign of the Gospel. Our Reformed hosts put an aspect of their own history into question. And they did so in the year dedicated to the accomplishments of Zwingli’s successor, Heinrich Bullinger. In the midst of an elaborate exhibit lionizing Bullinger stood a display documenting the ferocity of his persecution of the Anabaptists and prominently featuring a photograph of a believers baptism in a Swiss Mennonite congregation today. Bullinger had not prevailed on that front!
Thomas Gyger, president of the Swiss Mennonite Conference, and Larry Miller did exactly the right thing when they responded to the Reformed overtures with humility and grace. They both emphasized that an ancient wound is now healed and a new era has begun. Mennonites in the North Atlantic world are no longer a persecuted people: we can discard that picture of ourselves once and for all. Now our calling is to live out the reconciliation the Holy Spirit has worked in us. How can we carry this reality into the scholarship and church life of Reformed and Mennonite communities? How can this reality become a sign in the midst of other conflicts that repentance is possible?
What about my lingering sense of unfinished business? While I was in Zurich I made it a point to converse with as many Reformed ministers as possible. They were all gracious, receptive, and inquisitive about our ways. But they were also committed to the notion of a state church as firmly as in the 16th century. A military chaplain with whom I served on a panel made her opposition to armed ways of conflict resolution clear. But she was also emphatic about the fact that when soldiers are conscripted, the church has the duty to stand by them and contribute to the well being of military personnel. A minister committed to reaching unchurched people confided his discouragement to me. Later in the conversation I suggested that part of the problem in making the Gospel appealing might be the union of church and state. He was shocked. He couldn’t imagine the church surviving without the financial and administrative support of the state.
In the end, it felt as if the Reformed had searched their conscience and the Gospel and concluded that coercion in matters of faith was wrong. They had the courage of their conviction. (That prompted some appropriate self-criticism among Mennonites present.) But what we saw was a self-searching about one aspect of the Christian life: regarding the freedom of the church from the state, nothing seemed to have changed. Our task now is to imitate the spirit of repentance, and repent of our own sins. And when we’ve become good at that there might come a day when we can engage our Swiss friends in more dialogue about our contrary understandings of the church.
______________________
John D. Rempel became assistant professor of historical theology at Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary in 2003. Prior to that he was the minister of Manhattan Mennonite Fellowship and Mennonite Central Committee Liaison to the United Nations in New York City. He has been active in ecumenical work over the years, including membership on the MC Inter-church Relations Committee.