We're delighted today to be speaking with dr. john de rempel. Dr. rempel formerly served as senior fellow at the Toronto Mennonite theological Center at the Toronto School of Theology, and is also author of the text that we'll be discussing today, recapturing an enchanted world ritual and sacrament in the Free Church tradition. Dr. Rebel, thank you for joining us today.
It's my pleasure, Dr.
Rambo. In your book, you argue that Christian theology is necessarily sacramental, and that Christians from what you call liturgically lien traditions, especially those of us from those traditions ought to make concerted efforts to recover a sacramental worldview. How did you first come to this perspective and persuasion,
I was always growing up, I was always attracted to them somewhat lean rituals that we had in church, but something about God spoke to me at those points. And then when I was baptized, and had my first participation in the Lord's Supper, we had been told and being prepared to be baptized, what was going to happen and yet, for me, I had this amazing sense that that more was happening here than we had words for. And that carried over into the communion service as well. And that that left a lasting mark on my both personal and theological pursuits as a Christian. When I finally was working on my doctoral dissertation, which was on the on the Lord's Supper in in 16th century, on baptism, I slowly came to the realization that the Incarnation is is the key to a sacramental view of the world that that, I think, seems obvious to many people today, but it wasn't for me at the time. And so this idea that, that Christ taking on our flesh, our life, are honored that life that he was willing to become one of us and be like us. And so I saw in that what you might call the incarnational principle, that that matter, can mediate spirit, and these two are not completely separate worlds, as we commonly think they are.
Marvelous, if you would be willing to share what was the what was the content of that dissertation project you were working on? And perhaps were you working with a particular theologian when you came to see this most clearly,
I was that the the, the dissertation was the the role of, of Christology in arriving at theology of the Lord's Supper in early Anna baptism. And that was at the Toronto School of Theology. And the, the interesting factor was that there were very few theologians there from Free Church traditions. And my dissertation director was, was a Presbyterian, who at least was closer to the world that I came from historically. But but with the, the Anglican and Catholic theologians who were on my committee, I had to find a way of, of taking some of these principles that I've just mentioned here in brief form, and saying, No, I don't think we see this exactly the way they do. So I have to become more articulate and saying how someone from a lean Protestant tradition might look at sacramental questions. So I was already kind of honing my, my thinking as a grad student, rather than just sort of reinforcing what the professor was saying.
Dr. Rendell, you write this text, presumably to a Free Church reader, so You're writing to free, those of us who are most fluent with free church traditions, and therefore, who interpret our practice of the sacraments in a minimalistic way, Dr. rempel, from your perspective, what is lost when we interpret the practice of baptism and the Eucharist in a sacramentally, minimalist way,
the first thing I can say about that, that might surprise some people is that this minimalism has, in my research, at least, has turned out to be as much derived from the Enlightenment, as from our denominational traditions, in in early Mennonite and Baptist history, which are the area that I've done, the most detailed work in, there was still a sense of the spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Enlightenment, which is a very complex phenomenon, but but I think one can say that, that the Enlightenment made a sharp distinction between spirit and matter and matter was that which was measurable, so only the material world consisted of things that we can surely know, there was another spiritual world, which had to do with subjectivity. And but it had, it had nothing to do with the material world. And it's, it's my judgment, that, that churches like like the ones we're focusing on here, we're unintentionally influenced by this through through popular culture through university culture. So if, if we, if we stay there, we lose the sense of God acting invisible, outward ways. And I think, in order to correct that kind of a loss, we need to be willing to read some things differently in the New Testament. And just to get to give an example, it's common in the way I grew up and learn to think I'm that Romans six, the big baptism passage, that that we, we take on Christ and we Die with Christ in baptism was usually interpreted as saying, well, Paul didn't really mean that literally. He meant that once you've had an inner spiritual conversion, the outward sign that you give of that, is water baptism. But in fact, Paul doesn't say that. He says that in baptism, we put on Christ and in baptism, we die. And I found it very helpful in my own thinking, to read George. What I'm forgetting his name for Beasley Murray, he wrote a great book on baptism in the New Testament, in the in the 60s. And he does an exhaustive exegetical study of baptismal references. And at the end of that, as a Baptist, he says, we've read this scripture, we've done bad acts to Jesus, because it doesn't say what we wish it would say that at a minimum, to be honest with Scripture, we have to allow for what I think he called the kind of simple biblical realism, but one in which God is at work in the outward act as well as the inward act. Yes, in terms of our loss, I think one of the ways in which one of the things we need to do in order to recover from that is to realize that that that we have overcorrected at the time of the reformation, and even after that, there were settings This wasn't true of all Catholics, but there were settings in which sacraments had taken on a kind of magical quality
and we reacted so far against them. That, if you take my reading of Roman six, we were unable really to read exactly what Paul was saying. In more liturgical churches, at least in some circles, there is a great concern for the personal dimension of our relationship with Christ in those churches and as part of their sacramental life. Dr. rempel, thank
you so much for that reflection. Concerning the sacrament of baptism. Few of our churches have discovered ways beyond these traditional impasses should we baptism baptized people via sprinkling or only immersion, infant baptism or adult baptism? These seem to be real impasses beyond which our churches have not really made even the first steps? What is your approach? is some version of an ecumenical theology of baptism possible? Or? Or are these going to continue to be intractable intractable differences into the deep future?
Um, this is that very relevant question. And and very difficult one, because as you say, it has sort of dogged the church throughout much of its its history. Um, I would say, the, the first step, perhaps, in, in overcoming some of the antagonisms is to say that, that if you approach this subject, from a sacramental point of view, you're concerned not only with the human actions in baptism, but also the divine action. And so if we allow that, and say that, in some sense, that makes the debate look a little different. If we say, Yes, we believe that God could be at work in the baptism of an infant. So that that would be one thing, or we are willing to go that distance, and see that something from God's side is really happening. A second thing is that in my limited experience of churches in the global SOS, I repeatedly encounter people who had who had a sacramental sense, they might not use that term. But for them, outward things could have spiritual power, if you want to state it in that simple way. And so even in churches, where we're infants were being baptized, they, for them, it was axiomatic that, that there still needed to be faith on a very personal level on the part of the parents or the godparents for this for, like for the, for the divine initiative and the human response to be matched up. So that that gave me a different model to work with than the one I did some of my studies in Berlin. And so I became involved in in church life in Germany, and the the churches that are tied very close to the state. And that's changing now. But even when I was there, I had the sense that children were being baptized without the parents necessarily having a personal faith or intending to raise the child as a Christian. And so the the encounters with with churches in the global SOS helped me see that in a different light, that it that baptizing infants doesn't necessarily happen if you like as a as a cultural ritual at anybody a part of who is a part of that culture goes through. And, and in subsequent studies, I saw to my to my historical studies, going back to the early patristic period, I saw that there were unmistakeably places where it were the liturgy for example, that of her politics at the beginning of the third century, or perhaps even earlier than that, um, talks about preparing the baptismal candidates In a way that that I could easily identify with. And then at the end of his instruction, and he says, if there are little children to be baptized, they should be baptized first. And I puzzled over that and kept returning to it and talking with colleagues about it. But But relevant to our discussion here about about baptism. It left me with a sense that if I want to be honest, I have to admit that early in the church's history, infants were baptized. Now in the promises liturgy, and in other places, it says specifically, that they are baptized on the faith of the parents, and in a community that cares for them.
And to go fast forward for six years in from ninth 2011 to 2017, I was involved in a dialogue on baptism between the the Catholics, Lutherans and Mennonites, all three of them together, but with different teachings on baptism. And, and there, I discovered again, that, that especially in in global South settings, but also increasingly, in the in the West, churches were beginning to think of themselves as covenanted communities. And in that it didn't make sense to baptize infants, if their parents weren't Christians who wanted to raise them, oriented to Christ. So I think what I'm seeing here is, the debate has changed in my mind. And I'm not sure that everybody has kept up with it. On the other side of the ledger, you know, I am still, by intention, a member of a church that that practices only baptism on confession of faith. And that's the baptism that I see in the New Testament, and in the very early church.
But
I wonder, if this might with with a great deal of prayer and care, might become an issue between Christian churches in which the the free churches they've with believers baptism might be able to say that we see aspects of the gospel in the baptism of children, if it is done under the circumstances of a sincere belief by the parents. And so you might say, it's, it's, it could be a legitimate form of baptism, because it's trying to ground baptism in Christ, and in the Holy Spirit, and all of these things that are central to faith. Might it be possible maybe 50 years from now, for churches to say, we respect or for us, our kind of church, to say to the other churches, we we respect your baptism, in the sense that I've been talking about as, as one that seeks to express the gospel and lead people into the gospel. We respect these other forms of baptism as as, as ways of bringing people to Christ.
Dr. rempel Thank you so much for that response. If we can pivot to discuss the Eucharist briefly together. The positions on the Eucharist in among different churches are usually categorized as four different positions. We have transubstantiation, real presence, spiritual presence and Memorial ism. And again, these positions appear at least to be completely irreconcilable. You offer hope, for a Christian mutual understanding, what is your proposal concerning our understanding of these four positions of the Eucharist?
This, again, is a profound question. You know, and and has been wrestled with throughout the history of the church. And so we have to be prepared to engage each other as churches and as individual Christians with a A great deal of patience and understanding how to take these four positions. What I'm what I'm proposing is that there is something in each of those positions that we share, even though we might not recognize it historic way. But, but that there is that I'll try to give examples in a moment. And that if we could, if you like, receive the gift from different churches in those four different traditions, they would, they would shape a much richer understanding of the Eucharist. Okay. So, for example, the the the teaching of transubstantiation in the in the Roman Catholic Church, as I understand it, came about in order to ensure that this was a real presence of Christ, the language they used was the substance of his body and blood. And then it was an objective reality, not merely a symbol, and, and not dependent on the disposition of the person taking communion. So we could make many comments, appropriate ones, I think, asking questions about that, but, but perhaps the common kernel is, of Christ being present in a surpassing way that we really receive him in this sacrament. Okay, then, if we go on to the real presence, position, which, which I think is his best embodied by the Orthodox churches and by Lutheranism. They were, those churches were more cautious in describing how this unique presence of Christ comes about, they, they talked more about mystery, and, and didn't use technical language. So what they contribute, perhaps, is a sense of the mystery of the Lord's Supper, that, that we shouldn't claim to be able to explain it. We certainly gain insights from Scripture and our experience of worship. But but that that sense of mystery is is is essential to it if we want to understand it in a gospel way. And then the the the spiritual presence. I think some people from those other churches might say that, that is that is too subjective. But But what is emphasized there and, and historically, a number of churches have taught this spiritual presence, including the Mennonites and Baptists, and the reformed churches. And the Anglican churches along each of those traditions have also had other ways of talking about the supper. But the concern there is, with the the Lord's Supper as an action, and, and in which the sharing of the bread is the means by which Christ is made present, not the elements of in themselves, but the elements are the sort of promissory note that Christ has promised to be present where we break bread in his name. And, and the emphasis there is on encounter with Christ.
So those the movements in those various denominations that have champion this offer everyone a sense that this is an action, it's an encounter. And then they also can learn from these other traditions, you know, the memorial position, which was present in all of these, this last group of denominations as well and is is thought to be the most common one in North America has the I think the most profound thing that it has going for it in when, when these when the Lord's Supper is is reverently practiced, is a kind of awe inspiring, inspired remembrance of the vastness of God's love in sending Christ to die for us. At the same time, this relies on a subjective orientation. In other words, the intensity of my remembering marks what I will get out of communion. So that tradition, I think, could learn from the real presence, traditions and even the spiritual presence one. And so, I mean, we could go on with that. But that's, that's essentially my point that I think we're in the process of overcoming some of these extreme antagonisms. And, and being able to look for what I would say, is a very arguable case, that that there are aspects of all four of these that are essential for for a complete communion. And if we could learn from each other, we'd have a richer sacramental life.
Dr. rempel, you are one of the few theologians whom I've met who is explicitly working on this project of what an ecumenical theology could look like. So I'm fascinated by your views and insights, as that ecumenical theology and doing precisely the type of your work is part of what this program has been pursuing. What, in your opinion, are the real roadblocks to ecumenical theology today?
Another far reaching question? Um, I think the biggest one is that we don't yet have clarity on the nature of the church. In some sense, most Christian communions would say the church is the body of Christ in history. In other words, there's, there's something objective about it. There's something visible about it. But beyond that, and there there are traditions that wouldn't quite say that, but I think most most Christian traditions would. But beyond that, there is a second question immediately. And that is, what is the relationship between the body of Christ and the institutions of the historic church, you know, and other other churches, through various renewals and church life would sort of go to the other end, and say, well, the institution doesn't matter, as long as you have a heartfelt experience of Christ and follow Him. So that I think that divide is still there, although it's, it's being lessened in time, again, partly in the West, because church institutions don't have the status they once did. And, and more and more the weight is being put on on congregational life. How do we experience church there. So I would say, if if, if, if people across the spectrum again, could be willing to learn from each other. That would, that would be a great step forward. As far as overcoming obstacles to to, to the Ecumenical Movement. Another thing I would say, that I think we're already doing, but let me give it a name, and that is a hierarchy of truths, that some things are more foundational than others. In other words, if I, if you if you don't believe in God as Trinity, then you end up with a different picture of God. So, so that's at the top of the hierarchy in the sense That without it, we can't find other commonalities among us. And then it decreasing there, there are things that are more or less essential.
And
I think seeing this more clearly that, that that that some things matter more than others, and and have been contested throughout history, but the church has gone on. That's that sort of thing. could could there be with just to take one of the hot issues of the day? Could there be a way of, of Christians and churches respecting and trusting each other on on their different views, say, of the place of gay people in the church? Or is it such a difference that they can't trust or respect each other. And even when they respect and trust each other, they could still challenge each other. But it wouldn't be a kind of walking away from each other. And the the the third thing, as a principal, I would say, is this notion of reconciled diversity, which I was really leading into, from with the comments I made. In other words, there are some things that we can have different convictions and behaviors about that don't lessen our loyalty to the gospel. They're there in a, you know, a mysterious realm within the limits of human beings, even though we have the Holy Spirit. So we can consider them reconciled. differences. Because we allow each other a different interpretation, even though we're still convicted about the one that that we represent. So those would be three things. I think that could that could move us forward.
Dr. rempel, thank you so much for your comments. If I can ask a question and a closing question that we've been asking all of the interviewees on this program, and that is this, what would it mean for the church to be united today? How would we recognize this unity? And what is it that we can do as individual believers to pursue the Unity for which Jesus prayed and john 17?
I would say that if if we as as individual Christians, and as churches, held each other or held ourselves accountable to the views of other Christians? And what I mean by that? It is, is it let's say the the alternatives to accountable is to is either indifferent, or or
judgment.
To be to be accountable means that my own or our own as a denomination, our own existence is incomplete without the the gifts of other Christians and other traditions. And I think we're very, very slowly moving in that direction. I mean, there are various alliances among various denominations you know, we were alliance of evangelicalism is one of them. And what it what it what it means is, is an ability to combine conviction with humility. There's always a danger that we might be giving up something precious, and we don't want to do that. But But I think in many cases, there's a kind of maybe unspoken arrogance. In that we we think we're simply right. And so if we're accountable to other people, and other churches, it implies that we're not complete on our own. So what would that look like? What what consequences could we draw from that that's, that would be my little contribution. To your wonderful question.
We've been delighted today to be speaking with dr. john de rempel, author of the text that we've been discussing today and recapturing an enchanted world ritual and sacrament in the Free Church tradition, available from IVP academic rebel. Thank you for joining us today.