October 29th

Defenseless Identity

Not too long ago, I cracked open the Martyr’s Mirror for the first time in a while. I flipped through the first sixty pages of the prefaces and introductions (as well as the page of original language poems) and took a look at the first page of the actual narrative. If you’ve ever seen that opening page, you might remember the editing nightmare of titles, subtitles, headings and subheadings that is staring you down.  It looks something like this:

FIRST PART

_____________

THE BLOODY THEATER

— OR —

MARTYRS MIRROR

— OF THE —

ANABAPTIST OR DEFENSELESS CHRISTIANS

WHO SUFFERED AND WERE SLAIN FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS

 CHRIST, THEIR SAVIOUR, FROM THE TIME OF CHRIST

UNTIL THE YEAR A. D. 1660

…

There’s actually a couple more subheadings after that, but I’m sure you get the point.  Nonetheless, this particular time I couldn’t help but zero-in in on that term “defenseless.” I’m not sure I had really reflected on this historical self-designation of our Anabaptist tradition before (though, it turns out that both the historically Anabaptist “Fellowship of Evangelical Churches” and “Fellowship of Evangelical Bible Churches” had used this term in their former denominational name: respectively “Defenseless Mennonite Church of North America” and “The Defenseless Mennonite Brethren in Christ of North America”).  

It’s eye-opening to think that this notion of defencelessness used to be such an important identifier of Anabaptists. As many of our congregations and regional churches have gotten into the modern rhythm of doing strategic planning or “revisioning” or “renewal” processes, I’d be curious to find out if any of them considered, or even brought up, the possibility of including such an idea.  Do any of our groups self-identify as defenceless, or vulnerable?  Do any of our congregations or regions have defencelessness, or weakness as part of our mission or vision statement? It certainly wasn’t considered during our congregation’s last renewal process. I wonder if it would be considered anathema to identify in such a way today? 

Or perhaps it was always anathema, or at least “foolishness to those who are perishing” (1 Cor. 1:18). Anabaptists, after all, didn’t come up with such an idea. It was something they discerned in scripture, in the self-giving life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and the letters of Paul, especially to the Corinthians.  In those letters from Paul, we see how a fundamental part of Jesus’ crucifixion narrative is how it demonstrates the posture of human weakness and vulnerability in order to create space for God’s resurrection power (2 Cor. 12:9-10). So even though it is “foolishness,” defencelessness, weakness, and vulnerability is the posture of discipleship, a crucial part of the way we walk through this world. Paul celebrates Christian weakness as something that aligns us with the crucifixion of Jesus.  

Another way to summarize this defenceless posture may be in the term “cruciform” or “cruciformity” (that is, “cross-shaped” or “conformity to Christ crucified”). Bible scholars like Michael Gorman have especially nurtured this idea and I have found it to be a very helpful corrective. To whatever extent we want to be able to evaluate “success" as Christians, congregations or denominations, perhaps cruciformity - if not vulnerability and weakness - is a faithful corrective.  I wonder what it would mean to our congregations or regional churches if cruciformity or weakness was a central characteristic of our identity again.  Imagine a Vision statement like: “God calls us to be followers of Jesus Christ and, by the power of the Holy Spirit, to grow in weakness and cruciformity for the sake of God’s love and healing in this world.”