Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 19

Terry J Zehr

Christian Tradition II
February 10, 2011
Term Paper

John Calvin and Menno Simons on Excommunication:


A Blend of Resonance and Dissonance

Abstract:
In this paper, I will argue that Menno Simons and John Calvin shared
similar convictions regarding the necessity of excommunication, but that their ap-
plication was born of significantly different understandings of church, humanity,
and salvation. Both taught that excommunication protected the purity of the
church and was to be redemptive for the individual caught in doctrinal error or
sin. Each applied discipline along the three fold rule of Matthew 18 unless its se-
riousness necessitated immediate expulsion based on 1 Corinthians 5. They
also agreed that excommunication included avoidance, which Menno Simons
took further than Calvin who sharply disagreed with the Anabaptist practice.
Their differences arise with regard to human depravity, predestination,
salvation as justification alone, ecclesial and civil authority, and the visibility of
church. Calvin and Simons disagreed significantly in each of these, demonstrat-
ing that their underlying assumptions ought not be minimized even if their appli-
cation of excommunication appears similar.

Introduction

John Calvin (1509-1564) and Menno Simons (1496-1561) take their place in the

history of the Protestant Reformation as contemporaries that gave significant shape to

their respective confessional traditions, though neither is considered its founder. Martin

Luther and Huldrych Zwingli could be considered first generation reformers, with Calvin

and Simons belonging to the second.1 While Martin Luther is the name most associ-

ated with the reform movement, Zwingli is a close second. John Calvin and Menno Si-

mons are most noted for their influence in two distinct streams flowing out of the ferment

of church reform. Calvin, along with Zwingli, is considered a father of the Reformed

Church movement, while Simons belongs to the Anabaptist segment of the Radical

1 Timothy George. 1988. Theology of the Reformers. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman. 20.
Reformation. Though Calvin was key in shaping the Reformed Church, Simons was

perhaps even more significant to Anabaptism by unifying it in a time when disintegration

and fanaticism were significant threats.2

It is appropriate to compare Calvin and Simons surrounding the general issue of

church discipline, and in particular the practice of excommunication. In contrast to Lu-

ther and Zwingli, both regarded discipline to be of absolute importance for the church.

They each taught and practiced discipline that included excommunication at its extreme

measure. As will become obvious, Calvin and Simons have a complex blend of reso-

nance and dissonance in terms of their understanding and practice of discipline. They

often share similarities in the priority and practice of discipline, but their underlying con-

victions and assumptions regarding the nature of church, salvation, and humanity are

significantly different. In exploring the issue of church discipline as it was understood by

these two important reformers, similarities in both the priority and practice of excommu-

nication will be shown to emerge from differences that should not be minimized, and in

fact, are uniquely situated for contemporary conversations within Christianity.

Discipline as a Priority

The Augsburg Confession (1530) advocates that “The church is the assembly of

saints in which the gospel is taught purely and the sacraments are administered

rightly.”3 Calvin affirmed this Lutheran understanding when, in 1539, he wrote “Wher-

ever we see the Word of God purely preached and heard, and the sacraments adminis-

tered according to Christʼs institution, here, it is not to be doubted, a church of God

2 Michael T. Girolimon, 1995. John Calvin and Menno Simons on Religious Discipline : A Difference in Degree and
Kind. Fides et historia 27 no 1 (Winter-Spring):5.

3 Robert M. Kingdon, 2007. Calvin and Church Discipline. In John Calvin Rediscovered. Louisville, Ky: Westminster
John Knox Press. 29.
exists.”4 Calvin does not specify discipline as a third mark of the true church. Yet, he

regards discipline so highly that it is never separated from the two. He continues,

“Hence as the saving doctrine of Christ is the life of the church, so discipline is, as it

were, its sinews… All who either wish that discipline were abolished, or who impeded

the restoration of it… certainly aim at the complete devastation of the Church.”5 In other

words, Calvin believed that discipline was the critical component which ensured the ef-

fectiveness of word and sacrament.

Simonsʼ list of the signs of the true church include pure doctrine, scriptural sac-

raments, obedience to scripture, brotherly love, bold confession of God and Christ, and

the endurance of oppression and tribulation for the sake of the Gospel.6 Like Calvin,

discipline does not make this particular list. Likely, in Simonsʼ view, the issue of disci-

pline is subsumed within one or even several of the signs which define true church, be-

cause he clearly holds it as critical to the life of the church. In similar fashion, the list

does not include adult baptism, the primary sign by which Anabaptists were known,

though obviously it was critical to him. Menno was not a systematic writer as was Cal-

vin, who enjoyed a largely settled life with time to write and reflect deeply. Instead he

was a pastoral leader within the often chaotic and persecuted Anabaptist movement.

His writings exhibit a pragmatic, pastoral concern, which is one of the deep underpin-

nings of Simonsʼ understanding of excommunication as discipline. In the final of three

specific treatments of the subject, he writes, “It is evident that the congregation or

4 John Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Book IV, Chapter 1, Section 9
5 Ibid., IV: xii: 1
6 Menno Simons. 1554. Reply to Gellius Faber. In The Complete Writings of Menno Simons, edited by J. C. Wenger.
Scottdale, PA: Herald Press. 743
church cannot continue in the saving doctrine, in an unblamable and pious life, without

the proper use of excommunication.”7

While both Calvin and Simons share the priority of discipline, their reasons for its

critical nature contrast at least in part. Simons understood discipline to be necessary for

two reasons: protecting the purity of the church and a genuine concern for the salvation

of the individual.8 Excommunication was used to prevent the contamination of the

church with false doctrine or sin, but always with the intent to bring a wayward believer

to repentance. The process was centered in redeeming individuals back to pure faith

and was to be done out an attitude of love rather than judgment. Calvin agreed that the

purpose of discipline and excommunication protected the church from the contamination

of sin and false doctrine, but his primary concern was the honor of God. If sin was al-

lowed to exist within the church, the disgrace fell at least in part, on Christ as its head.9

In his words, “There are three ends to which the church has respect in thus correcting

and excommunicating. The first is, that God may not be insulted…”10 It was only within

the priority of the honor of Christ that he would then address the concerns of the indi-

vidual.

The Biblical Mandate for Excommunication

Both Calvin and Simons shared a common priority to allow scripture to be their

teacher and authority, consistent with the other major reformers. Further, they agreed

7 Menno Simons. 1558. Instruction in Excommunication. In The Complete Writings of Menno Simons, edited by J. C.
Wenger. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press. 962

8 Frank Peters. 1955. The Ban in the Writings of Menno Simons. Mennonite Quarterly Review 29 no.1 (January): 25.

9 Wiley, Charles. 1993. "Hand This Man Over to Satan" : A Comparison of John Calvin and Menno Simons on Ex
communication. Fides et historia 25 no 3 (Fall):27.

10 Calvin, IV, xii, 5


on the primary texts which informed the appropriate use of excommunication in the

church:

Matthew 18: 15-17: 15“If another member of the church sins against you, go and
point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you
have regained that one. 16 But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along
with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three wit-
nesses. 17If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the of-
fender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and
a tax collector.”

I Corinthians 5:1,5, 9-13: “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality
among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living
with his fatherʼs wife... 5 you are to hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of
the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. 9I wrote to you in my
letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons—10 not at all meaning the im-
moral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then
need to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with any-
one who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is
an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. 12For what
have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to
judge? 13 God will judge those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among
you.””11

Applying the Biblical Texts

Calvin and Simonsʼ interpreted the texts similarly, but applied them in ways that

suggest that they saw them a bit differently. Calvin understood the application of disci-

pline leading to excommunication to involve two pairs of dynamics considered simulta-

neously: public/private sins, and minor/major sins12 . Private admonition was the first

step if, as Calvin writes, “one does not do his duty spontaneously, or behaves insolently,

or lives not quite honestly, or commits something worthy of blame” 13 These offenses

were considered fairly private and minor, meaning that discipline started with lower in-

11May, Herbert Gordon, and Bruce Manning Metzger. 1973. The new Oxford annotated Bible with the Apocrypha.
Rev. standard , containing the 2d ed. New York,: Oxford University Press.

12 Girolimon, 12.

13 Calvin, IV, xii, 2.


tensity. Following the Matthew text, the process continues up to and including excom-

munication should the person not submit to the admonition. However, when the sin was

deemed serious and public enough, Calvin invoked 1 Corinthians 5. He writes that in

these cases, “it is necessary to employ not only admonition and rebuke, but a sharper

remedy… punish him with excommunication as soon as… informed of the crime.” 14

Simons, until his later writings, adhered almost exclusively to Matthewʼs three

steps of admonition moving from private, semi-public, to public, after which came ex-

communication. As time went by however, Mennoʼs position changed. In his last treat-

ment, “Instruction on Excommunication”, Menno writes, "I would earnestly admonish the

reader that about eighteen years ago, I published a little admonition in which I made no

distinction of sins but through my inexperience spoke without differentiation of three

admonitions."15 Out of serious situations which included sins such as fornication and

adultery, experience convinced Simons to develop an understanding where transgres-

sions between believers were to be handled by the three-fold admonition process (Mat-

thew 18), for a heretic one or two (Titus 3:10) and in the case of public blatant sin, no

admonishment except immediate excommunication (1 Cor. 5). In his thinking, the per-

son who committed such offensive sins had placed themselves outside the congrega-

tion by virtue of their actions. They had in effect, excommunicated themselves.16

Though they may have had some variability of practice, one of the significant

points of resonance between Menno and Calvin was to apply discipline regardless of

the person. This was of particular significance in Calvinʼs context where he was faced

14 ibid., IV, xii, 4.


15 Simons. 974.
16 ibid., 28.
with persons across the fabric of the social order. He declared, “No person, not even

the sovereign, [is] exempted from this discipline.”17 In the case of the ruling class, Cal-

vin believed it was more important for them to experience rebuke because they hear so

much flattery in their courts. Menno did not have to concern himself with the ruling

classes of society. Nevertheless, he was faced with significant challenges where he

maintained a consistent posture. Even in the case of husband/wife or parent/child,

where one of the pair is excommunicated he writes, “Godʼs Word judges all flesh with

the same judgement and knows no respect of persons.” 18 One of the major issues for

Menno was to teach the limits of excommunication with regard to avoidance. This was

particularly complex within families, where Menno taught a more lenient level of avoid-

ance when it came to spouses.19

The Practice of Excommunication

When it came to actually living out the process of excommunication, Simons and

Calvin differed significantly with regard to authority in placing the ban and the rigidity

with which it was held. The reasons behind these differences begin to expose their dif-

ferences both contextually and theologically. In basic terms, Calvin understood ex-

communication to be discerned and enforced by a Consistory made up of the ministers

of Geneva and 12 lay elders20 whose authority extended only to ecclesial matters. In

cases where admonition had failed, excommunication was their highest punishment. In

17 Calvin, IV,xii, 7.
18 Menno Simons. 1956. A Clear Account of Excommunication. In The Complete Writings of Menno Simons, edited by
J. C. Wenger. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press. 478

19 John Horsch. 1939. Menno Simons' True Position on "Avoidance". Mennonite Quarterly Review 13 no 3 (July):210.

20 Girolimon, 16.
addition to the Consistory, Calvin also understood that civil authorities had more exten-

sive authority, given to them by God, in the case of heresy which could be punishable

by death.21 With regard to the magnitude of discipline within the church, Calvin urged

and practiced moderation.22 Most often, the excommunicated remained so for only a

few months, thereby missing only one quarterly Eucharist celebration.23

Mennoʼs understanding was significantly different, with which Calvin took excep-

tion. He writes, “Excessive rigour [is] to be avoided… in this respect the Donatists erred

most grievously, as do also the Anabaptists in the present day.”24 Simons advocated

that the authority to practice discipline was congregational, and was to be primarily ap-

plied using the three fold rule of Matthew. Excommunication, he writes, “is to be done

by the church, that is, no one shall ban by himself or at his own pleasure. It shall be

done by the congregation of God, after proper admonition” 25 This process of admoni-

tion was not done quickly. In some cases Menno advised waiting up to two years be-

fore invoking excommunication.26 Once in place, however, the ban was rigidly enforced

through avoidance. While Calvin and Simons agreed that excommunication meant

avoiding unnecessary or intimate association, Simons advocated a significantly stricter

practice. When a person was excommunicated, the church was to avoid “communion,

21 George, 245.
22 Calvin, IV, xii, 9.
23 Girolimon, 16.
24 Calvin, IV, xii, 11 & 12.
25 Simons, 469.
26 Wiley, 22.
company, walk, intercourse, presence, usage, conversation, and dealings”27 with them.

Calvin, along with others, deemed this to be cruel.28 Simons responded to these

charges by describing the attitude under which this was to be carried out as well as its

ultimate purpose. He writes:

“Avoid him if he rejects the admonition of his brethren, done in sighing, tears, and a
spirit of compassion and of great love… For we do not want to expel any, but rather
to receive; not to amputate, but rather to heal; not to discard, but rather to win back;
not to grieve, but rather to comfort; not to condemn, but rather to save… But those
whom we cannot raise up and repentingly revive by admonition… these we should
put forth from us, not without great sadness and godly anguish of soul, sincerely la-
menting the fall and condemnation of such a straying brother; lest we also be de-
ceived and led astray...29

The priorities of excommunication are clearly articulated as being the protection of the

church, and genuine love and concern for the salvation of the individual caught up in sin

or error. Mennoʼs understanding was that the church never expelled anyone unless

they had first removed themselves from the congregation by stubbornly clinging to false

doctrine or improper conduct.30 In this way, the church was simply acknowledging the

truth of the situation rather than exercising excommunication as a punitive response.

It is important to note that Calvin and Simons shared the same desired outcome,

which was the restoration of the individual to the communion of the church. Excommu-

nication was never the end of the discipline procedure. Restoration was allowed and

sought after, but again looked slightly different for each. The first requirement, shared

by both, was a statement of repentance by the individual. For Calvin, this was enough

27 Simons, 474.
28 Wiley, 20.
29 Simons, Menno. 1541. A Kind Admonition on Church Discipline. In The Complete Writings of Menno Simons, edited
by J. C. Wenger. Scottdale PA: Herald Press.412, 413.

30 ibid., 413.
as he states, “When a sinner gives testimony of his repentance to the church, and by

his testimony wipes the offense as far as he can he is not to be urged any further.”31

Menno went further than Calvin on this point. Restoration was not complete upon re-

ceiving a statement of repentance. It was to be accompanied by an extended period of

time whereby the evidence of a changed life could be observed. In some cases, this

probationary period could last a year or longer, after which there was a brief, formal re-

institution ceremony in front of the congregation.32

Underlying Assumptions

At this point, it might easy to conclude that the major differences between Calvin and

Menno were primarily governance and scale. After all, Calvin was a magisterial re-

former endorsed by the civil authorities, while Menno Simonsʼ Anabaptist were literally

outlaws.33 It makes sense that Calvin would make use of a formal ecclesial structure

such as the Consistory, while Simons had to rely on the congregation in the absence of

formal organization. In terms of the rigidity and scale of excommunication, one could

easily draw the conclusion that this was a preferential decision based on how they each

believed restoration would best take place and how close to perfection they believed a

person needed to be before restoration could occur. However, drawing this conclusion

ignores some major underlying assumptions which were significantly dissimilar, and re-

quire examination in order to truly grasp how Calvin and Menno understood the church,

salvation, and humanity.

31 Calvin, IV, xii, 8.


32 Girolimon, 26.
33 George, 20.
The Church

As was earlier stated, Calvin was a magisterial reformer endorsed and supported by

civil authority. His convictions regarding the need for reform did not include the basic

assumption of Christendom. In other words, he assumed a society in which all were

Christian, having been baptized into the faith at birth. He saw the civil government as

the Churchʼs co-vicar of God, but with distinct spheres of authority.34 In this way, he

emphasized that the church had the obligation to discipline up to the level of excommu-

nication, but the state had the right to of capital punishment in cases of heresy. Out of

this contextual understanding, Calvin argued for the enforcement of a uniform cate-

chism for the entire community to ensure that everyone understood Christian doctrine.

Discipline was the tool he used in order to maintain a community behavior pattern that

was Christian in nature.35 Some have argued that the ultimate effect of this was to cre-

ate the first “Puritan” society in Geneva.36

Menno Simonsʼ rejected the medieval amalgamation of Church and State. In-

stead of assuming a Christian society, he understood authentic church to be a voluntary

community of faith that existed distinct from the world around it. It was a fellowship

rather than an institution. Adult baptism undertaken without coercion was the binding

covenant for a believer to walk in the way of Christ within the community of faith.

Church for Menno Simons and the Anabaptists was visible and distinct, as opposed to

much of Protestantism which continued to understand the authentic church to be invisi-

34 Girolimon, 22.

35 Kingdon, 25.
36 Mark J. Larson, 1998. John Calvin and Genevan Presbyterianism. Westminster Theological Journal 60 no. 1
(Spring):66.
ble, in that true faith could not be always determined for everyone in a society.37 As

such, Simons understood discipline, including excommunication, as a reminder of oneʼs

conversion and baptismal vows where they had committed their lives to serving Christ,

from which they had turned away.38

The Nature of Conversion

Continuing a layer beneath their fundamental disparity of view with regard to the

authentic church, Simons and Calvin also did not see conversion in the same way. Lu-

theran and Reformed theology put major emphasis on the issue of justification by faith,

which was essentially a change in status before God. Simons took this further by be-

lieving that in addition to justification, true conversion resulted in a fundamental change

in the nature of the Christian, in other words, a new birth.39 This change allowed the be-

liever to live a righteous and holy life. In his own words: “In the same manner those

who are begotten of the living, saving Word of our beloved Lord Jesus Christ are by vir-

tue of their new birth so joined to Christ, are become so like unto Him, so really im-

planted into Him, so converted into his heavenly nature, that they do not teach nor be-

lieve any doctrine but that which agrees with the doctrine of Christ.”40 Where Calvin

called for a changed life in response to justification by faith, Menno believed that a fully

holy life was possible through obedience because of the change wrought by God within

the believer.

Augustineʼs Total Depravity, Original Sin, and Predestination

37 Girolimon, 22.
38 Wiley, 19.
39 ibid., 19.
40 Simons, 410.
Underneath the question of conversion was the issue of sin and its effects on

humanity. Calvin adopted a largely Augustinian understanding of original sin when he

defines it, “a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of

the soul, which first makes us liable to Godʼs wrath, then also brings forth in us those

works which Scripture calls ʻworks of the fleshʼ”41 Because of this total sin depravity,

Calvin saw salvation in terms of predestination whereby God chooses certain persons

to be saved because humanity has no capacity, in and of itself, to accept the sacrifice of

Christ.42

Menno apparently did not study Augustine. Rather than seeing sin as total cor-

ruption, Simons emphasized it along the lines of the evil inclinations and tendencies of

humanity. As a result, Simons did not adopt predestination as the determinative factor

in salvation history. Instead, he asserted that humans had the capacity to respond to

the grace of God through an act of the will. Charles Wiley summarizes it thus, “Menno

believed human beings, by virtue of their obedience, could live lives genuinely faithful to

what Christ commanded. Authentic obedience was not only possible, but required.”43

Pulling it Together

Having dug deeper into fundamental beliefs, we can now draw basic trajectories

for Calvin and Simons which result in their overall understanding and exercise of church

discipline leading to excommunication. John Calvin understood God to choose His own

church out of sovereign will, and this true Church existed within the larger society. Be-

cause sin had ultimately corrupted humanity, and salvation did not change this funda-

41 George, 214 quoting Calvin, II,i,8.


42 Wiley, 30.
43 ibid., 26.
mental nature, but was simply a change in status before God, human response to Godʼs

grace could not be expected to be pure in terms of righteousness. Nevertheless, Godʼs

honor was at stake when fallen, but forgiven, believers transgressed. Discipline was the

means given the church to protect both Godʼs honor and the full implications of sin in a

believers life. By using the Consistory and state authority as the tools for discipline, the

behavior of the population was also controlled for the purpose of creating an ordered,

Christian culture.

In contrast, Menno believed that every human had the capacity to respond to

Godʼs initiative and, by an act of will, choose conversion. This conversion was a new

birth in which Godʼs grace initiates an ontological change of nature as the believer is

joined with Christ, making holy life possible through a yielded life of obedience to God,

which included choosing believers baptism. The church was called to sanctified living

as a pure community distinct from the world around it. Discipline was a pastoral gift to

the church whereby the church was kept pure, and transgressing believers were re-

minded of their baptismal vow to give their life over to Christ fully and without limit.

Summary

In considering John Calvin and Menno Simons with regard to excommunication

as church discipline, one can readily see that they shared much in common. They both

were concerned about the church being contaminated with unsound doctrine and sin.

Both understood excommunication to be a redemptive act toward an individual in order

that they receive appropriate admonishment toward repentance and restoration. Both

enjoined the same scripture texts and followed similar patterns in considering the sever-

ity of the offense and escalating admonishment to determine when excommunication


was appropriate. Though the length and severity of avoidance of the excommunicated

was different in scale, they both required a lack of intimate contact in order that the ad-

monishment be keenly felt. In these ways, Calvin and Menno would have resonated

with each other.

However, digging beneath the actual application of discipline in order to under-

stand their theological convictions and assumptions regarding Church, State and soci-

ety, Simons and Calvin would have experienced dissonance with each other. These di-

vergences could be minimized by limiting dialogue only to the practice of church disci-

pline leading to excommunication as they applied it in their contexts. But to do so trun-

cates important fundamental theological convictions giving rise to the practices, how-

ever similar they might appear.

Contemporary Concerns

Our current context makes the comparison of Calvin and Simons all the more in-

triguing when the death of Christendom is considered. For many Christians, the cultural

ideal is represented by Calvinʼs Puritan society. It is viewed as a culture based on

Christian principles that is ordered, ethical, and controlled. For them, the demise of

Christendom is a crisis. Church discipline, practiced the way of Calvin is no longer ap-

plicable in the Western context with its blend of ecclesial and civil authority, however

much some wish it to be so. As the church of Jesus Christ is increasingly marginalized,

the notion of an invisible church within a larger society becomes less possible. In this

regard, Menno Simons seems to have an edge in our contemporary situation, with a

church called to exist as a distinct, holy people who are in, but not of, the world around

it. Even so, we are left with the underpinning theological questions of sin, human will,
and ontological change that need to be considered. Some questions rise to the surface

in such a dialogue. Is a pure, holy church possible, when raw data indicates other-

wise?44 Mennonites, Wesleyans, and Nazarene traditions, among others, would cer-

tainly believe it to be so. In a context which continues to change with regard to higher

levels of individual autonomy, how does a church practice truly redemptive discipline

when people are likely to leave one church for another? Within the Emergent Church

movement, how is discipline being shaped? It would seem that the question of church

discipline including excommunication is complicated and worthy of continued dialogue

in our contemporary context. John Calvin and Menno Simons were brilliant churchmen

during a time of turmoil and change within church and culture. Perhaps in the current

situation of deep shift, we can appreciate the passion of these men for the Church of

Jesus Christ and listen deeply to their writings, seeking what God would say through

them to us as we move into postmodernity as the Church.

44 Sider, Ronald J. 2005. The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience : Why are Christians living just like the rest of
the world? Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.
Annotated Bibliography:

Primary Sources:

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Arnold Hatfield 1539. Available from
http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/books/institutes/.

This website contains a 1599 English translation of Calvinʼs major work. The
section in question is contained in Book IV, Chapter 12 entitled “Of the Discipline
of the Church, and its Principal Use in Censures and Excommunication”. The
primary emphasis that concerns this paper is contained in the first fourteen sec-
tions dealing with the importance and application of discipline to common people.

Wenger, John C., ed. 1956. The Complete Writings of Menno Simons. Scottdale PA:
Herald Press.

This is a comprehensive compilation of the writings of Menno Simons, which
have been translated from Dutch to English and edited by J.C. Wenger. The
specific writings in question include “A Kind Admonition on Church Discipline”
(1541), “A Clear Account of Excommunication” (1550), and “Instruction on Ex-
communication” (1558)

Secondary Sources:

George, Timothy. 1988. Theology of the Reformers. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Hol-
man.

This book presents four Reformers who arguably epitomize the significant
changes taking place in the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther and Huldrych
Zwingli are identified as first generation, while John Calvin and Menno Simons
understood as second generation reformers.

Girolimon, Michael T. 1995. John Calvin and Menno Simons on Religious Discipline : A
Difference in Degree and Kind. Fides et historia 27 no 1 (Winter-Spring):5-29.

This journal article traces both Calvin and Simons common commitment to
church discipline as a necessary component to authentic church. It identifies
their individual theological convictions and describes its shape, practices and
authority within church life.

Horsch, John. 1939. Menno Simons' True Position on "Avoidance". Mennonite Quarterly
Review 13 no 3 (July):210-212.

This journal article deals with the practice of “avoidance” with regard to individu-
als that had been excommunicated from the congregation. While there was no
disagreement as to the need for strict discipline, questions around the way in
which a person was avoided caused Menno Simons to define the practice over
several years in order to ensure that it was properly defined, especially in the
case of marriage where one spouse was excommunicated.

Kingdon, Robert M. 2007. Calvin and Church Discipline. In John Calvin Rediscovered.
Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press.

This journal article describes the convictions and the practices of John Calvin
with regard to church discipline. Though he does not name it as a mark of the
true church, discipline is clearly critical in church life for Calvin. The author de-
scribes Calvinʼs use of the Consistory as the means for discipline and its impor-
tance in establishing correct Christian beliefs and practices in Geneva.

Larson, Mark J. 1998. John Calvin and Genevan Presbyterianism. Westminster Theo-
logical Journal 60 no. 1 (Spring):43-69.

This journal article traces John Calvinʼs establishment of the consistory as the
ecclesial authority and the development of church governance. The author
seeks to identify how Calvinʼs “Institutes of the Christian Religion” influenced the
Westminster Confession and the development of Presbyterianism.

Peters, Frank C. 1955. The Ban in the Writings of Menno Simons. Mennonite Quarterly
Review 29 no 1 (January):16-33.

This journal article traces the convictions and development of Menno Simonsʼ
convictions and authority for the use of the ban as church discipline. He identi-
fies the central biblical texts, who they applied to, how they were put into prac-
tice, and how Simonsʼ writings demonstrate ongoing discernment as he sought to
practice them faithfully.

White, Robert. 1985. Oil and vinegar : Calvin on church discipline. Scottish Journal of
Theology 38 no 1 (1985):25-40.

This journal article emphasizes the consistency and priority that John Calvin
gives to church discipline throughout his writings. Though he affirms the Ausburg
Confession of authentic church having two marks, preaching and the administra-
tion of sacraments, Calvin asserts that church discipline is the necessary compo-
nent which ensures the efficacy of both.

Wiley, Charles. 1993. "Hand This Man Over to Satan" : A Comparison of John Calvin
and Menno Simons on Excommunication. Fides et historia 25 no 3 (Fall):16-32.
This journal article compares John Calvin and Menno Simons in their under-
standing and practice of excommunication as a tool of church discipline. It de-
scribed the similarities in terms of central biblical texts, as well as the way in
which excommunication was to be practiced. The article also describes several
significant anthropological differences between the two men, causing them to
have different emphases, and in some cases, practices when it came to the pur-
pose of excommunication.

Вам также может понравиться