Printer Friendly

Patient separation in Marpeck's theological rhetoric.

Abstract: In current Anabaptist historiography and theology, Marpeck is typically seen as a more flexible and politically engaged church leader, by way of contrast with the disciplined separation associated with Swiss Brethren communities. This essay argues that Marpeck saw a relationship between the coercive sword of the magistrate and the disciplining ban of the Gemeinde, urging separation from the impatient use of both practices insofar as they were expressions of worldly power. On this view, Marpeck understood separation less as a defensive posture of withdrawn purity and more as an active practice of Christian freedom. Hence, Marpeck's commitment to patience in church discipline can be interpreted as upholding a more, rather than less, vigorous separation from the world compared with the Swiss Brethren whose "worldly" practices of hasty banning he criticized.


In the past several decades, the scholarly projection of Marpeck has increasingly highlighted his social and political engagement while at the same time downplaying the role of a separated ecclesiology in his writings. Already in 1976, in Anabaptists and the Sword, James Stayer argued that Pilgram Marpeck represented what he called "a more moderate type of apoliticism" and a "tamer Anabaptism" when compared with the Anabaptism of Michael Sattler and the Schleitheim Brotherly Union. (1) For Stayer, the more "thoughtful, conciliatory Marpeck theology" made Marpeck's communities both less threatening to the establishment and more appealing to contemporary scholars. (2) Stayer recognized that Marpeck was opposed to the Christian exercise of the sword, in line with the Schleitheim Brotherly Union, but insisted that he was not "a model of separation from this world and its institutions," given his role as chief engineer of the Strasbourg Council and his numerous remarks on the possibility, even if unlikely, of Christian political rule. (3)

Following Stayer's cue, and pushing the point even further, Stephen Boyd presented Marpeck's political theology as supporting the Christian exercise of coercion, so long as this coercion was not directed against personal and religious conscience. (4) Sorting through a number of seemingly contradictory texts by Marpeck, Boyd claimed that Marpeck in fact counseled a "critical participation in the use of coercive force," including possibly even police or military service, so long as it did not involve killing. (5)

Mennonite theologian Tom Finger, in his magisterial survey of historic Anabaptist theological positions, disagreed with Boyd's conclusion, arguing that even though Marpeck accepted Christian involvement in "government's socially beneficial functions," he found no evidence that Marpeck included coercive ones. (6) However, Finger did grant that Marpeck was "less dualistic" than Schleitheim-type Anabaptism. (7)

More recently, Walter Klaassen and William Klassen, in their biography of Marpeck, offer a careful assessment of Marpeck's articulation of the relationship of the faithful church to structures of governance, arguing--in contrast to Stayer and Boyd--that Marpeck was completely opposed to the exercise of any lethal power by faithful Christians, thereby refusing to cross the line into violent coercion, without ruling out altogether every single function of governance as a valid Christian occupation, especially given that he had exercised such functions himself. Yet, Klaassen and Klassen also emphasized the extent to which Marpeck should be seen as a man of action, of flexibility and of accommodation, distancing him from what they regarded as the more rigid stance of the Swiss Brethren and their Schleitheim Brotherly Union. (8)

Neal Blough's book on Marpeck's sacramental theology concludes with perhaps the clearest proposal for posing Marpeck's theological legacy against the separation-minded legacy of the Swiss Brethren and the Mennonites. Permitting himself some pastoral comments in the last chapter of the book, Blough writes that "Anabaptist particularity has taken shape in the lives of communities who saw themselves as 'separate' from the world." By contrast, Blough argues, "Marpeck's ecclesiology has the opposite thrust: instead of 'pulling out,' it 'sends' the church into the world." (9)

These illustrations of Marpeck's appropriation to a contemporary Anabaptist identity of engagement and activity are to some extent plausible inflections of Marpeck's legacy. There is certainly warrant for seeing Marpeck as offering a flexible and congenial posture that contrasts in some ways with legalistic forms of Anabaptist witness. John D. Roth provides perhaps the most precise and historically grounded characterization of Marpeck's position when he describes Marpeck as defending both a "disciplined, visible church" and at the same time challenging the "biblical literalism" and "legalistic forms of church discipline among the Swiss Brethren that he thought obscured the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit." (10)

Yet, in the context of a largely assimilated North American cultural ethos, Marpeck's critique of legalism by itself is easily misunderstood as a defense of tolerance, rather than as an expression of his concern for the church's visible witness. By contrast, this essay will argue that Marpeck's critique of legalism is best understood as a stance of patient separation that he maintained despite his political and cultural involvements. As such, Marpeck's position is most relevant to contemporary Anabaptists who are tempted to forget the distance that remains between the body of Jesus Christ and the body of the nation. This view comports with William Klassen's claim: "There is no evidence that the Marpeck brotherhood was critical of Schleitheim at any time, even though there were tensions between the Marpeck brotherhood and some Swiss Brethren." (11) Klassen's claim, even though it was made in the mid-twentieth century, is sustainable in part because Schleitheim, as Martin Rothkegel has recently remarked, "is a text, not a community." (12) In other words, the basic premises of the Schleitheim Brotherly Union can be seen as an argument that traveled beyond the specific cultural and historical settings of the Swiss Brethren to become useful and persuasive topoi by which other Anabaptist communities--such as the more cosmopolitan fellowships served by Marpeck--could articulate their ecclesial relationships. Rothkegel has made a persuasive case that Marpeck identified most closely with the Austerlitz Brethren--a network of Anabaptist congregations that survived the Austrian persecutions of 1535, distinct from both the Hutterites and the Swiss Brethren. (13) If this is so, then Marpeck's critiques of Swiss Brethren legalism can be seen as an expression of Anabaptist interdenominational rivalry, reflecting some genuine differences in circumstance and adaptation, especially in the practical details of how Anabaptist churches regarded civil authority. At the same time, as will become clear from the analysis that follows, Marpeck's writings relied on the theological and political distinction between the church and the "world" proclaimed at Scheitheim, to the extent that later Swiss Brethren came to recognize his writings as reflective of their own convictions. (14) If Marpeck comes to be seen as an Austerlitzer minister, then it should be clear that he brought to that community an evident commitment to a church under the rule of Christ, as distinguished from the "self-will of carnal liberty," which he described in a letter of admonition to the Austerlitz leader Cornelius Veh.(15)

Steven Siebert has written that:
  one cannot read Marpeck without seeing that, for him, belief in
  the mediated presence of God in the unique Christ and in a
  particular embodied church calls us to a more specifically
  Christological and "churchly" response, one that risks being
  seen as marginal, sectarian, even arrogant, from the perspective
  of the larger dissenting traditions. (16)

Another way to put this is that there is a biblical particularity in Marpeck's Anabaptist witness that distinguishes it from a mere liberal activism, even when contemporary Mennonites are inspired by his complicated, cosmopolitan and courageous life.


Critical to this biblical particularity was Marpeck's acceptance of the same distinction between the carnal authority of civil governance and the defenseless perfection of Christ that is articulated in the Schleitheim Brotherly Union. The Brotherly Union poses the worldly sword against the church in two different ways. On the one hand it argues that the sword is diabolical, part of the earthly Babylon and Belial to which the church was opposed in a relationship of antagonism: an "abomination to shun." (17) On the other hand, the sword is also portrayed as having a complementary place in the providence of God, albeit outside Christ's perfection, and is thereby acknowledged to protect the good and punish the evil. (18) The clear and consistent emphasis in the Schleitheim Brotherly Union, however, was on the antagonism between the church and the sword, not the complementarity between the two forms of authority. Because of the example of Christ who refused to take up the sword or to accept earthly kingship, Christians also refuse to take up the "diabolical" sword, even "for the sake of love." (19)

With the Schleitheim Brotherly Union as backdrop, it is intriguing to examine the arguments found in a 1532 pamphlet, The Uncovering of the Babylonian Whore, now convincingly attributed to Marpeck. (20) Uncovering elaborates far more than did Schleitheim on the nature of the imperfect good associated with the sword and carnal authority. Marpeck recognized that the power of the sword helps to preserve temporal peace, wherever the true peace of God is not accepted; it is the lesser of two evils, a practice that helps avoid "total destruction." (21) At the same time, Uncovering lays out even more thoroughly than did the Schleitheim Brotherly Union the reasons why Christians should refuse to wield the sword. Arguing that the sword of governance is analogical to the sword given to Moses to enforce the moral law, Uncovering distinguishes between the office of Moses and the office of Christ--which is understood to be "a greater commission" than that of Moses. (22)

The way of Christ is said to also be the way of Christ's followers, who desire the peace of Christ more than they desire worldly peace, which is concerned "only for the securing of property and position." (23) The way of Jesus Christ refuses all domination, coercion or rule. Echoing the Brotherly Union's observation that Christ did not pass judgment, Uncovering points out that Jesus Christ "accuses no one" and that this is "the mirror in which we can see whether we have the stature of Christ or not." (24) Rather than seeking to judge or exercise carnal authority over others, the one who follows Jesus Christ practices patience and love, "does not have nor desires to have either Authority or subjects, but is one in Christ." (25)

Insisting that "there is no godliness outside of Christ" and that "in Christ, through faith, the only sword is the Word," Uncovering warned readers to "avoid and separate themselves from all who don't believe this, until they are converted." (26) Maintaining such distinctions between the world that is identified with the carnal sword and the body of Jesus Christ that practices loving service instead was a crucial activity for Marpeck. When people mix up the sword of Moses with the spirit of Christ, they are simply advancing the work of Satan "who tries to confuse the making of distinctions in order to preserve his glory and kingdom." (27) Moreover, Marpeck associated such confusion with the mistake made by the church in the time of Constantine, when "the pope as a servant of the church was married to Leviathan, that is temporal power," which resulted in the birth of the Antichrist. (28)

This distinction is not absolute, of course. A Christian witness to the carnal authority is valid, whenever that authority "protects wickedness, destroys godliness, loves the lie, and persecutes the truth." (29) In Uncovering, Marpeck argued, for example, that even carnal authorities were not authorized to pursue vengeance, which never belongs to man. (30) But such witness against lies and vengeance must take the form of defenseless witness, not violent coercion. "Be content to admonish that Authority, which is God's servant, to be converted," Marpeck urged, "and leave vengeance to God." (31)

It is quite clear that in this tract Marpeck opposed two ways that Christians were tempted to muddle the distinction between the carnal sword and the godly spirit. First, they were tempted to use the sword to defend or impose a particular religious regime--to coerce the consciences of others--a practice that Marpeck believed was always wrong. Second, they were tempted to take up the sword in the spirit of Moses in order to maintain social order through violent coercion, an occupation that Marpeck believed was wrong for Christians to pursue. "True Christians will not rule or dominate anyone with force," he insisted. (32)

As Neal Blough and others have pointed out in describing the social context for publishing this tract, Marpeck and his circle were disappointed that their evangelical Protestant neighbors had begun making the same mistake that they attributed to the Catholic Church--the mixing of worldly and spiritual authority. (33) Protestant leaders had decided to defend their Reformation by forming the Schmalkaldic League in order to resist with military force the effort by Charles V to impose Catholicism on the Lutheran princes. In the mind of Marpeck and other Anabaptists, such an effort to defend the Gospel by force clearly violated the rule of Jesus Christ, which was willing to witness against the cruelty and violence of the sword, but was, by definition, defenseless and "subject to all creatures for the sake of God and Christ." (34) However, as we will see, Marpeck was also able to critique his fellow Anabaptists for seeking to rule and coerce, even if they did not explicitly use a sword.


In a number of letters to the Swiss Brethren, Marpeck critiqued their legalistic practice of church discipline, arguing that faithful discernment and judgment in the church must not be hasty or coercive, but rather practiced in a context of love and freedom, seeking improvement rather than imposition. Walter Klaassen has demonstrated that Marpeck's view of church discipline is related to his understanding of how the Holy Spirit brings together the inner, spiritual reality of Christ with the outer, visible existence of Christ's body in a public witness that reflects both the spontaneity and flexibility of the Holy Spirit and the humility and suffering of Jesus Christ. (35) For example, in Marpeck's first letter to the Swiss Brethren in St. Gall and Appenzell he distinguished between the deathly compulsions associated with worldly legalism and the free rule of the Holy Spirit. Those who are concerned with making rules and prohibitions are subject to the same kind of logic that the worldly system of law and punishment follows; however, for those who have been redeemed by the work of Jesus Christ, "the law and commandments also fall," and instead "Jesus Christ lives in them, through the law of grace and the voluntary spirit. ..."(36)

Perhaps the most apparent concrete outcome of living under the freedom of the Spirit instead of the legalism of the world involves the exercise of patience with respect to a church member who appears to have sinned. The temptation is to judge such a person immediately without waiting to see the outcome or the fruit associated with the actions of the offending member. But, according to Marpeck, to make such a premature judgment is to run ahead of Jesus Christ: "Whoever presumes to decide and to judge, before the revealing of guilt, is a thief and a murderer."(37) Elaborating on the biblical metaphor of fruits as the true evidence of guilt or virtue, Marpeck insists that actions deemed offensive should be regarded as blossoms or leaves, not the actual fruit to be judged. Time is needed to see what the results of such actions really turn out to be. (38)

Of course, once the results of such actions are clear, judgment can be made, so long as the judgment is rendered via the sword of the spirit and "not, as the world does, with the carnal sword." (39) Indeed, "no one may judge except he who has first judged and sentenced his own life through the grace and mercy of God." (40) Such judgment then is undertaken with love and humility, recognizing that those who render hurtful and hasty judgments will be tolerated less by God than "open sinners." (41) Indeed, for Marpeck, love is the singular rule for believers: "the truly free are given no other commandment than to love." (42)

Judgment is thus a very precarious activity, full of great temptation toward aggrandizement rather than improvement. Whenever judgment is undertaken as a protective measure, out of fear of sin for example, the slavery of sin expands and love contracts. Moreover, individuals who judge are tempted to act as if they were rulers rather than servants of Christ:
  whoever presumes to preserve, rule, and lead the kingdom of Christ
  through law, commandment, and prohibition, yes, through the law of
  God, not to mention human inventions, no matter how pious it
  appears, it, too, thrusts the voluntary Spirit of the Lord Jesus
  Christ, the proper Ruler of hearts, out of His place and puts
  himself in the place where he ought not to be. (43)

By contrast, "Love gets the victory over the fear of the body" and "the fullness of love erases and drives out the fear of sin and punishment by the law to everlasting damnation." (44)

Up until this point it may seem that Marpeck is simply a liberal Anabaptist, nonjudgmental and peace-loving rather than dogmatic and pushy. John Rempel, for example, has depicted the position of Marpeck as a kind of golden mean between separatism and realism. (45) Indeed, when contrasted with the practices of the specific group of Swiss Brethren he addressed, whom Klaassen and Klassen describe as prone to harsh discipline and frequent excommunication, Marpeck does appear at first to be more tolerant and "middle-of-the-road." (46)

However, Marpeck's developed posture resists such a liberal or moderate interpretation. His stance quite clearly assumes his own submission to the rule of love that he sees as the basis for the true church of Jesus Christ, against the false churches in which the rule of Jesus Christ is usurped by human authorities. Marpeck wrote that "the true saints of God and children of Christ are those whose ruler is the Holy Spirit in the Word of truth." (47) He hoped that he would never be separated from such a community of faith ruled by the Holy Spirit. However, such subjection to the rule of the Holy Spirit is clearly linked to separation from those systems and societies in which the rule of love is not observed. On this point Marpeck does not sound liberal or engaged, but rather more like a Schleitheim-oriented sectarian: "I will have nothing to do with any other sect, faction, or gathering, no matter what they are called in the whole world." (48)

This can sound contradictory until we understand the role that separation plays in Marpeck's theology. Separation is not for the sake of purity or protection from sin and worldliness; it is not withdrawal from the world. Rather, separation is about liberation from the bondage of legalism, defensive prohibitions and worldly power. The temptation to exercise worldly authority through the use of the sword is of the same kind of sinful bondage as the temptation to make premature judgments in the church through the hasty use of the ban. In the list of worldly practices to avoid, the one temptation naturally follows the other one.
  I will especially avoid those who use the bodily sword, contrary to
  the patience of Christ, who did not resist any evil and who likewise
  commands His own not to resist tribulation or evil, in order to
  rule in the kingdom of Christ. I avoid those who institute, command,
  and forbid, therewith to lead and rule the kingdom of Christ. (49)

If Marpeck is sometimes seen as providing a mediating position between separationist Anabaptism and engaged Protestantism, as Rempel and others seem inclined to do, this passage should put that impression to rest. Marpeck is arguing here that in their legalism the Swiss Brethren at St. Gall and Appenzell are too much like the worldly churches, rather than too separated from them. He is arguing for separation not just from the carnal sword but also from the hasty ban. He assumes throughout that the faithful church must separate itself from practices and structures that run ahead of Christ, that have lost patience, that seek to impose by force what sinners refuse to receive as a gift of God.

The church's witness depends on this separation. As Marpeck wrote several years later, "The true church is separated from the world, for it is a witness over it." (50) In other words, for the church to he a light to the nations, to show the way beyond the divisions and hatreds that place groups and territories and countries and ethnicities against one another in the struggle for rule, the church must separate itself--that is, distinguish itself--from the divided and warring world. Put more succinctly, for the church to indeed achieve the universality that it presumes, it must disassociate itself from all other hostile and violent claims to universality--whether that be the carnal sword of the fallen nations or the hasty ban of the worldly churches.


John Stahl-Wert has described the temptation for churches to take up arms on behalf of the nation as an instance of "mission drift"--a forgetting of the church's first love and first calling to serve its neighbors, rather than to rule them. (51) Marpeck helps us see that focusing on the exclusion of sinners from the church is also an example of mission drift. The church's call is to invite all to become part of the reign of God where love is the only rule. But Marpeck also helps us to see how the fullest inclusiveness is possible only as an outcome of a more rigorous separation of the church from, those partisan worldly identities and commitments that compromise the church's universality--its expression of God's comprehensive and loving redemption of the whole cosmos.

Benjamin Kaplan's recent book on early modern toleration establishes a context for Marpeck's remarks on separation that brings home what is at stake in the defenseless separation of Anabaptist communities from the territorial and civic churches. While his book focuses on the complicated array of tactics that early modern European Christians invented in order to manage religious differences without resorting to violence, he also notes that one of the early modern practices that posed the greatest obstacles to peace was precisely the desire to maintain the unity of civic and sacral communities. (52) The Anabaptist focus on the voluntary nature of the church, alongside a tendency toward schism, challenged such powerful civic and sacral unities and presented a weak rather than strong form of confessional uniformity. (53) Kaplan includes in his book the image from the Martyrs Mirror of Simon de Kramer, an Anabaptist vendor who refused to kneel before a communion procession. Such public processions often functioned in early modern communities as controversial rituals of community identity, sometimes accompanied by violence between supporters and dissenters. (34) Although Kaplan does not make this point explicitly, it seems apparent that Simon's act was a public refusal to grant authority to the visible display of sacral and civic unity, an act of separation from the community signified by the procession. A public witness of distinction or separation is a condition of possibility for claiming a broader or more universal identity than the narrow one contained in territorial or civic religion.

Two contemporary examples from Mennonite church life illustrate this point. For the church to give full expression to the interethnic gathering of every tribe and nation that composes the messianic community, it needs to undertake a struggle against the racism that continues to grip the unsanctified imagination, both conscious and unconscious, of Christians who have been assimilated to the racist social identities of North American societies. (55) Likewise, when the church seeks to engage in dialogue with Muslims, peace churches have precisely more credibility for such conversations when they have separated themselves from the narrow imperial nationalism that plagues so much of American Christianity. (56) In other words, a peace church witness that seeks to be a genuine voice for reconciliation must take seriously the "worldly" assimilation that plagues all gestures toward the universal community of Christ.

However, the tendency in contemporary Mennonite activism--whether it is against abortion or against war--is to conflate too easily the mission of the community of Christ with the mission of the world's caretakers. The current effort, inspired partly by the work of John Howard Yoder, to find a middle path between pacifism and just war, such as the concept of "just policing," to enable a peace church contribution to local, national and global forms of security has thepotential for such assimilation. Although the discussion has promising possibilities for distinctive witness as well, many cautionary voices involved in this project, among the most notable being John Rempel, have already registered its potential to hasten assimilation. (57) In seeking to be relevant and engaged, the church may confuse its mission and the purpose of the nation, and in doing so compromise the universality that should underwrite the church's authentic witness.

Paradoxically, in order to be able to present a witness for the whole world, the church must separate from it. This paradox is confirmed by the Scriptures, but also by as unlikely a source as Slavoj Zizek, a contemporary social theorist who sounds like Marpeck in postmodern form: "But Christian universality is not the all-encompassing global medium where there is a place for all and everyone--it is rather, a struggling universality, the site of a constant battle. Which battle, which division? To follow Saint Paul: not the division between Law and sin, but between, on the one side, the totality of Law and sin as its supplement, and, on the other, the way of Love." (58)

* Gerald J. Mast is a professor of communication at Bluffton University, Bluffton, Ohio.

(1.) James M. Stayer, Anabaptists and the Sword (Lawrence, Kan.: Coronado Press, 1972), 186-187.

(2.) Ibid.

(3.) Ibid., 178-179.

(4.) Stephen B. Boyd, Pilgram Marpeck: His Life and Social Theology (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1992), 162-163.

(5.) Ibid., 165-167.

(6.) Thomas N. Finger, A Contemporary Anabaptist Theology: Biblical, Historical, Constructive (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 297.

(7.) Ibid., 296.

(8.) Walter Klaassen and William Klassen, Marpeck: A Life of Dissent and Conformity (Scottdale, Pa: Herald Press, 2008), 333-349.

(9.) Neal Blough, Christ in Our Midst: Incarnation, Church and Discipleship in the Theology of Pilgram Marpeck (Kitchener, Ont.: Pandora Press, 2007), 240.

(10.) John D. Roth and James M. Stayer, A Companion to Anabaptism and Spiritualism 1521-1700 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 356.

(11.) "Leopold Scharnschlager," The Mennonite Encylopedia, 4:445.

(12.) Conference on "Anabaptist Convictions After Marpeck," held at Bluffton University, June 25-28, 2009.

(13.) Martin Rothkegel, "Die Austerlitzer Bruder oder Bundesgenossen--Pilgram Marpecks Gemeinde in Mahren," in Grenzen des Taufertum/Boundaries of Anabaptism. Neue Forschungen, ed. Anselm Schubert, Astrid von Schlachta and Michael Driedger (Gutersloh: Gutersloh Verlagshaus, 2009), 232-270.

(14.) Arnold Snyder, "The (Not-so) "Simple Confession" of the Later Swiss Brethren: Part 1: Manuscripts and Marpeckites in an Age of Print," MQR 73 (Oct. 1999), 709.

(15.) William Klassen and Walter Klaassen, eds., The Writings of Pilgrim Marpeck, trans. William Klassen and Walter Klaassen (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1978), 404.

(16.) Steven Siebert, "Reading Marpeck for the First Time," MQR 78 (Jan. 2004), 103.

(17.) John H. Yoder, ed., The Legacy of Michael Sattler, trans. John H. Yoder (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1973), 38.

(18.) Gerald J. Mast and J. Denny Weaver, Defenseless Christianity: Anabaptism for a Nonviolent Church (Telford, Pa.: Cascadia Publishing House, 2009), 58-59.

(19.) Yoder, The Legacy of Michael Sattler, 38-40.

(20.) Walter Klaassen, "Investigation into the Authorship and the Historical Background of the Anabaptist Tract Aufdeckung der Babylonischen Hurn," MQR 61 (July 1987), 251-261.

(21.) Later Writings by Pilgram Marpeck and His Circle, trans. Walter Klaassen, Werner O. Packull and John D. Rempel, vol. 1 (Kitchener, Ont.: Pandora Press, 1999), 31.

(22.) Ibid., 31-32.

(23.) Ibid., 32, 38.

(24.) Ibid., 32.

(25.) Ibid., 37.

(26.) Ibid., 41.

(27.) Ibid., 32-33.

(28.) Ibid., 38-39.

(29.) Ibid., 29.

(30.) Ibid., 27.

(31.) Ibid., 29.

(32.) Ibid., 35.

(33.) Blough, Christ in our Midst, 82-86.

(34.) Later Writings by Pilgram Marpeck and His Circle, 37.

(35.) Walter Klaassen, "Church Discipline and the Spirit in Pilgram Marpeck," De Geest in Het Geding: Opstellen Aangeboden Aan J. A. Oosterbaan, ed. I. B. Horst, A. F. de Jong and D. Visser (Alphen aan den Rijn: H. D. Tjeenk Willink, 1978), 169-176.

(36.) Klassen and Klaassen, The Writings of Pilgram Marpeck, 320.

(37.) Ibid., 325.

(38.) Ibid.

(39.) Ibid., 326.

(40.) Ibid.

(41.) Ibid.

(42.) Ibid., 328.

(43.) Ibid., 331.

(44.) Ibid., 329-330.

(45.) John D. Rempel, "Ambiguous Legacy: The Peace Teaching, Speaking Truth to Power, and Mennonite Assimilation through the Centuries," At Peace and Unafraid: Public Order, Security, and the Wisdom of the Cross, ed. Duane K. Friesen and Gerald W. Schlabach (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 2005), 356-357.

(46.) Klaassen and Klassen, Marpeck: A Life of Dissent and Conformity, 222.

(47.) Klassen and Klaassen, The Writings of Pilgram Marpeck, 331-332.

(48.) Ibid., 332.

(49.) Ibid., 332.

(50.) Ibid, 423.

(51.) John Stahl-Wert, "For He is our Peace," presentation to The Pittsburgh Offensive, Pittsburgh, Pa., 2003.

(52.) Benjamin Kaplan, Divided by Faith: Religious Conflict and the Practice of Toleration in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), 415.

(53.) Ibid., 45.

(54.) Ibid., 81.

(55.) Jody Miller Shearer, Enter the River: Healing Steps from White Privilege Toward Racial Reconciliation (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1994), 124-137.

(56.) James R. Krabill, David W. Shenk and Linford Stutzman, eds., Anabaptists Meeting Muslims: A Calling for Presence in the Way of Christ (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 2005), 566.

(57.) Rempel, "Ambiguous Legacy," 349-363.

(58.) Slavoj Zizek, The Parallax View (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2006), 35.
COPYRIGHT 2011 Mennonite Historical Society
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2011 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Pilgram Marpeck
Author:Mast, Gerald J.
Publication:Mennonite Quarterly Review
Article Type:Essay
Geographic Code:4EXSI
Date:Jan 1, 2011
Previous Article:Critically appropriating tradition: Pilgram Marpeck's experiments in corrective theologizing.
Next Article:Being the essence of Christ: the call to service in the writings of Pilgram Marpeck.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters