Category Archives: Anabaptist history

How Charles de Gaulle Shaped My Theological Odyssey, by J. Denny Weaver

Guest post photo of author J. Denny WeaverWhen President Joe Biden traveled to France for the D-Day commemoration in June 2024, he and French President Emmanuel Macron emphasized the closeness of their relationship and the alliance between their two countries,. That closeness was most certainly not present in the 1960s, when French President Charles de Gaulle, who in my mind towers over his era in a way no politician does today, changed the course of my professional career.

It might be hard to imagine, but the story of Charles de Gaulle’s impact (and even potential implications or lessons for today’s national and global political dynamics) begins with my first stint in seminary. For the first time, I learned that the Old Testament had a plot. I was fascinated by the study of the prophets, whose writings I learned were commentary on the kings of Israel and the need for the people of Israel to seek justice. I immersed myself in the Hebrew language, with its unusual letters and reading right to left, and I became quite good at it. It was the onset of my career goal of becoming a religion professor in college or seminary. After this seminary work, I decided to pursue Old Testament as my particular focus.

The war in Vietnam was heating up. After two years of seminary, I volunteered for a term of alternative service with Mennonite Central Committee (MCC). MCC sent my wife Mary and me to Brussels, Belgium, for a year of French study, and then to Algeria, where I was an English teacher in an Algerian lycée (high school). After this interlude, I intended to finish seminary and then pursue graduate study in Old Testament.

During the years 1966-68 that we lived in Algeria, I listened to both French and Algerian news on the radio and read French and Algerian newspapers. At the news shop in town I could buy Le Monde, the influential and internationally-known French paper. In 1968, French president Charles de Gaulle was much in the news. As I recall, notable actions and policies of le grand Charles, as the 6-foot 5-inch de Gaulle was nicknamed, included the following: vetoing British entry into the Common Market, refusing to sign a nuclear test ban treaty, expelling NATO headquarters from Paris, boycotting Israel after the Six-Day War, attacking the U.S. dollar as the standard for international currency, instituting university reforms that had students rioting in the streets of Paris for a month.

He also put wind in the sails of Quebec separatism when he traveled to Canada and bypassed the capital in Ottawa. Heading directly to Quebec, de Gaulle gave a speech that concluded with the words, “Vive le Québec libre! Vive le Québec libre!” (Live free Quebec!). Such actions perplexed and angered both French and American peoples.

I certainly did not understand what de Gaulle was about. When I asked my French colleagues at school what de Gaulle was doing, the majority said, “C’est vieux est fou“ (that old man is crazy), as they referred to the seventy-eight-year-old president. Le Monde even had an editorial with the headline “Est-il fou?” (Is he crazy?)

When I asked Jacques, my best French friend, what was going on with Charles de Gaulle, he had a different answer. It usually began “You have to understand,” followed by a longish policy or history lesson.

One day, probably weary of my questions, Jacques gave me a set of books and explained that everything I needed to know was in those three volumes. These books, profusely illustrated, gilt-edged, bound in embossed leather, were a limited edition of de Gaulle’s war memoirs, his Mémoires de Guerre. Jacques’s father was a Gaulist member of the French parliament. De Gaulle had prepared 600 copies of this special edition as gifts for his members in parliament. Jacques had his father’s copy to loan to me.

De Gaulle’s tomes proved fascinating reading. Written two decades earlier, the memoir read like a suspense novel. I spent several spellbound weeks reading about the experiences of le grand Charles in two world wars, as he led the forces of truth and justice, namely the French, against an array of opponents.

The account was enlightening. Jacques was correct—what I needed to know was in these volumes. I learned that de Gaulle believed that in World War II, the United States and Britain had failed to accord him the role and the respect that he thought he and France deserved. Thus he simply did not trust them.

As I read his story, it became clear to me that his policies in 1968 were all designed to counter British and United States influence and to raise the profile of France at their expense. We might even say that he was getting even with Britain and the United States for their earlier attitudes. Rather than being the chaotic policies of a crazy old man, as most of my French colleagues said, the policies of 1968 reflected a coherent strategy, shaped by de Gaulle’s experiences more than two decades earlier. One certainly did not have to agree with his actions, but the story brought clarity to them and would give insight to those who sought to counter the policies.

From this reading in de Gaulle’s war memoirs, what I realized for the first time was how significantly historical understanding can clarify issues in the present. In this particular case, an account decades before explained the 1960s tumultuous context in France. After seeing how a bit of history clarified events in France, this insight about the potential impact of historical understanding convinced me to change my graduate school focus from Old Testament to church history.

And that redirected my entire career. Without Charles de Gaulle’s memoirs, I would have had a much different career. De Gaulle launched me on a new path. Eventually this led to my developing a new approach to atonement theology that garnered international attention. The path to that atonement image was neither smooth nor direct. Learning came from a variety of sources, sometimes with embarrassment. For the entirety of that story, see my memoir, New Moves: A Theological Odyssey

In that book, the historical context insights I learned from de Gaulle help me understand how multiple views of the atonement came to be. I tell of how my own personal and especially theological history shaped me to move, ultimately, beyond understandings I came to believe supported violence rather than the ways of peace Jesus taught and invites us to live out even amid today’s many violences.

J. Denny Weaver, Madison, Wisconsin, is Professor Emeritus of Religion who taught for over 30 years in the Religion Department of Bluffton University. Well known as the developer of a nonviolent approach to atonement theology, he is author and editor of many books, including The Nonviolent Atonement, Becoming Anabaptist, Defenseless Christianity (with Gerald J. Mast), Living the Anabaptist Story (with Lisa Weaver, and his memoir, New Moves: A Theological Odyssey. As senior editor of the C. Henry Smith series, he oversaw 13 volumes.

Pondering Across Two Traditions Both Shadowed and Hallowed

Barn image, Michael A. King Kingsview & Co post For a year I’m the Anabaptist-Mennonite contributor to a conversation on “Following Jesus” among writers from 12 different Christian traditions. Each month a writer makes a main presentation on her or his tradition and the remaining writers offer responses. Here at Kingsview & Co I’m posting my contributions along with links to the larger conversation.

* * *

Robert Millet’s winsome portrayal of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints took me first back to my growing-up years. As has been true in the case of many traditions I’ve responded to, my early formation in Anabaptist-Mennonite communities and theologies predisposed me to view the Mormons, as we then knew the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with suspicion. I was taught by my tradition that Mormons were a cult. They based their views on the false foundation of the Book of Mormon claimed by then-New Yorker Joseph Smith to have been written on mental plates derived from an angel.

Mormons, it was said, falsely believed that they were the highest, most faithful version of Christianity due to their founding ultimately by Christ in New York  long after the other traditions. They believed in polygamy and tried to convert others to this lifestyle and problematic beliefs.

There are similarities here with Anabaptist-Mennonites. We often have seen ourselves as restoring the true church of Christ. We rescued the church from wrong directions taken from about the time of the Emperor Constantine and across the centuries of Catholicism and of Christendom (church and nation intertwined) expressions still partly maintained by the Reformers.

Mennonites also, it seems to me, have sometimes been careful to interpret our own history in ways that favor our preferred understandings of ourselves. This may be one reason some of us have favored a “monogenesis” view of having emerged largely from 1525 Zurich when Conrad Grebel rebaptized a number of other Anabaptist leaders. This can enable at least some carving away of the more shadowed historical details. In contrast, a “polygenesis” view that Anabaptists emerged from multiple streams and settings makes it harder to say well this is Anabaptism but that wrong turn is not.

For example, perhaps the most troubling dynamic in Anabaptist history emerged at Münster in Germany in the early 1530s. Anabaptists attempted to impose a theocracy on the city through what came to be known as the Münster rebellion. Jan Matthys was one of the noteworthy Anabaptist leaders until the bishop they had exiled besieged the city, killing Matthys and others. For a time the Anabaptist rebels still held considerable sway, as this paragraph from the Anabaptist encyclopedia GAMEO (Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online) summarizes:

The 25-year-old John of Leiden was subsequently recognized as Matthys’ religious and political successor, justifying his authority and actions by claiming visions from heaven. His authority grew until eventually he proclaimed himself the successor of David and adopted royal regalia, honors, and absolute power in the new “Zion.” There were now in the town at least three times as many women of marriageable age as men, so he made polygamy compulsory,[3] and he himself took sixteen wives. (John is said to have beheaded Elisabeth Wandscherer in the marketplace for refusing to marry him, though this act might have been falsely attributed to him after his death.) Meanwhile, most of the residents of Münster were starving as a result of the year-long siege.

For centuries thereafter, Anabaptist-Mennonites have wrestled with this. Are Münster and its leaders part of Anabaptist history? Or an aberrance to be bracketed out?

I pay attention to this example because it illustrates the complexities of my own tradition’s history and because there are  striking overlaps with Mennonite takes on Mormonism. Perhaps finding a path that didn’t affirm Münster or other thought-to-be-mistaken Anabaptist streams contributed to what I experienced growing up: Certainly Mennonites were not prepared to cede the one-true-church or the highest-expression-of-the-church mantle to Mormonism. This contributed, I’d guess, to the Mennonite tendency to form in its members the often-stereotypical perceptions I’ve summarized.

Eventually I went to college and seminary. I learned more nuanced understandings of other traditions. However, I have less often encountered sensitive interpretations of Latter-day Saints history and beliefs. It has been a privilege then to participate in conversation with such a generous sharer of his tradition as Robert Millet. And I want to spend some more time in, precisely, affirming Millet’s interpretations rather than questioning them.

Before I proceed, however, I do wonder if Millet would be willing to comment on the common perceptions–or surely often misperceptions as Millet has in other responses movingly reported–of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (When I invited Millet’s commentary he in fact responded generously and comprehensively.) Perhaps hinting at a kind of polygenesis of Mormonism, the Latter-day Saints offer, as I understand it, a preeminent (and non-polygamy-affirming) but not sole expression of Mormonism.

I note Millet has not mentioned the stereotypical takes on his tradition; I’d expect that’s intentional. Why focus on what may be misinterpretations when given the opportunity to write not so much a defense as a proactive statement of the visionary principles that guide the Latter-day Saints of today? Still, it would be informative to learn more of how Millet might address critiques of his or other Mormon branches. It would also be valuable to learn how Millet, who as highlighted below affirms Scripture, views Church of Jesus Christ specifics. For example, what is the role of the Book of Mormon, which I’d imagine few other traditions are prepared fully to embrace?

But turning beyond the shadows, I am struck that Millet helps me make sense of something of a turning point in my own impressions of the Latter-day Saints. Some years ago I was letting Spotify’s algorithms take me hither and yon. That particular night I was tempted to say the algorithm was Holy Spirit, but I doubt Spotify has itself achieved this though who can say how the Spirit may use Spotify!

At any rate, I was in something of a troubled mood and looking for the comforts of music. There were hints of this in various songs. But suddenly I stumbled across a version of “Brightly Beams Our Father’s Mercy,” by The Lower Lights, about whom I knew nothing. I got goosebumps. I turned up the sound. I let the music fill my home and soul. I looked for more Lower Lights music and found many gems.

Then I looked up the group’s background. I was startled to learn that they are . . . Latter-day Saints. That caught my attention. What a clash between what I had been taught and what I was experiencing. I don’t want to claim there was a major theological impact, though once I knew about the Latter-day roots I could hear Latter-day influences in some of the songs. What really tugged at me was that above or beneath whatever the theological overlaps or differences might be, The Lower Lights were blessing me. My heart opened as it rarely had before to paying attention to Latter-day Saints’ gifts.

Then came Millet, who helps us understand core Latter-day Saints commitments and helps my mind continue the journey The Lower Lights have already helped my heart make. I see much for Mennonites to honor in Millet’s “Walking in His Steps: How Latter-day Saints Seek to Follow Jesus” summary:

Millet emphasizes the Latter-day commitment to search the Scriptures daily. As Millet summarizes, “There is a power inherent in scripture, a power unlike anything else we may read or study.” Meanwhile, at our best (which we don’t always manage), Mennonites are committed to believing as we do because we take the Bible seriously as a guide to daily living. We emerged from visionary leaders and communities that sought to read the Bible for themselves. They became convinced that the Jesus they found in this Bible was to be followed even when teaching such radical precepts as adult baptism or that enemies are to be loved.

Mennonites are perhaps not as known for being a praying people as adherents of some traditions. In fact, when I looked for prayer in the 1995 Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective, I couldn’t find an article on it. I did find prayer appearing in footnotes, for example in the article on the Holy Spirit, in a note summarizing that “the Spirit of Christ is in the midst of the church in its gathering for prayer and praise.” I see Millet as speaking well for Mennonites in his descriptions of how Latter-day Saints practice being a praying people.

Millet describes Latter-day commitment to serving and loving others as Jesus did. This is in effect a Latter-day variant of one of the five core commitments of Mennonites I summarized in my post on Mennonites.

Latter-day Saints are deeply committed to church attendance–and this includes emphasizing community. As Millet puts it, “Christianity entails more than prayer, fasting, and searching the scriptures–more than an individual effort to live the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As vital as personal devotion and individual effort are, Christianity is fully lived out only in community.” In turn a core Anabaptist-Mennonite precept is that we are to live not primarily as individual Christians. We are to journey as followers of Jesus who through adult baptism commit ourselves to live as members of the body–or community–of Christ.

Many thanks, Robert Millet, for these valuable admonitions and for contributing to my own personal pilgrimage toward grasping the treasures in your tradition.

Michael A. King is blogger and editor, Kingsview & Co; and publisher, Cascadia Publishing House LLC. He has been a pastor and seminary dean and is currently participating in Harold Heie’s Respectful Conversation project within which a version of this post was first published.