I am a cafeteria Mennonite, Part Deux

Nathan Lilje's comment on my I am a cafeteria Mennonite post is so good I'm posting it here, hoping it'll get the attention it deserves:

Well, one might say by this logic that most modern-day Mennonites are also cafeteria Mennonites. The Anabaptist commitment to nonviolence arose in a time when the whole tradition consisted of converts from Catholicism, focused on propagating their beliefs, and facing severe persecution for it. Eventually the Anabaptist sects decided to largely abandon proselytizing in order to remain alive. Consequently, the voluntary nature of the church is mostly a formality; participation in Anabaptist traditions is more genetically determined than for any mainline tradition. To say that the Mennonite commitment to nonviolence stems from the voluntary nature of the church is merely an historical formulation--it continues not because of the free choice of believers but because of the persistent influence of tradition. This is evident by the fact that the Quakers, who have no baptism whatsoever and wide tolerance for divergent beliefs, have maintained their commitment to nonviolence as well. There is no theological reason a Reformed pacifism or a Catholic pacifism could not be just as stable, they just doesn't have tradition behind them. In fact, I could formulate an argument that infant baptism is more conducive to nonviolent Christianity (were there to be a infant-baptizing tradition committed to this) than "believers" baptism, as it is currently practiced. It is true that once upon a time believers baptism implied a commitment to the ethical values of the church (including nonviolence when applicable). This was a time when most people in these sects were baptized in their 30's, and no one younger than their 20's. Today? The average Mennonite baptism is 13 (and in Baptist churches children are often baptized at nearly half that age). What does emphasizing the centrality of personal decision mean when you encourage people to make these decisions by age 13? Who takes seriously decision they make at 13? This seems to me to be a clear case of building your house on a foundation of sand. Thus, it might be argued, that Mennonite theology is undermined by current Mennonite practice. By contrast, the practice of infant baptism deemphasizes personal commitment and instead emphasizes God's calling. Of course, the Reformed theology is also undermined by current Reformed practice, as most Protestants no longer have their children baptized. But were this practice and theology to be wedded to a nonviolent ethical tradition, I think it would be equally conducive to this purpose as the old practices of the voluntary church, and more so than current Mennonite practice. For it posits that one's ethical commitments are not dependent upon personal volition, which is always changing, but upon God's immutable and inescapable calling, as evidenced by the practice of infant baptism. My point is, the Mennonite commitment to nonviolence isn't dependent upon their theology and practice but upon their historical tradition. Thus, I would say, why shouldn't everyone else admire them for that and ignore the rest if they don't buy it, to say, "Hey, maybe we should import their commitment to nonviolence to our different theological/sacramental tradition"?

Comments

[melissa f-b]

I agree that the problem is pulling pacifism away from the larger picture of Anabaptist commitments, but not because we have to be most serious about credo baptism. As Chris Huebner most helpfully illuminates, Anabaptisms highest principle is not infant baptism or peace. It's the openness to questioning, to perpetual reformation. I think you bring up some good questions about the non-violent nature of adult baptism. For me these issues are most present in relation to the baptism of those with profound cognitive disabilities. Yet I'm also aware that credo baptism emphasizes not the rational, Cartesian decision but the draw of the individual towards discipleship, discipleship that may be tested in martrydom. And this individual is only capable of this discipleship in the community of the church. Yes, this practice is historically located, but that moment is the return to rethinking our own practices in light of new challenges. I'm not as interested in pacifism without this looping back in history as pacifism is irrelevant without this commitment to non-violent history making (what does pacifism even mean?). For me, that's the piece located most fully (though not exclusively) in the Mennonite tradition, and that's the piece you have to take as a whole.