Not for Today?

Many conservatives Anabaptist leaders today avoid any teaching about the Holy Spirit. Our parents and grandparents saw a charismatic movement that wasn’t always aligned with Scripture.  They saw and heard of some crazy things being done in the name of “Holy Spirit leading”.  Many in our circles then rejected any teaching pertaining to the Holy Spirit as being false without even checking for biblical evidence.

Many of our people also discredit any miracles or gifts of the Spirit because they don’t believe that the Holy Spirit works like that today. The book of Acts is treated gingerly by some and if it is read or studied by groups or individuals much, they are often viewed with suspicion. 1Corinthians 12 and 14 do not get treated with nearly the amount of attention that 1Corinthians 11 does.

I don’t believe that miracles and gifts of the Spirit were only for a certain time in history any more than I think the head covering was only for the church of Corinth. I have been taught so often, while growing up in a conservative Anabaptist setting, that the entire New Testament is for all of us today– that I believe it.

A Backward Look

Interestingly enough, as I was doing what I often do– looking back at the earliest Anabaptist church to see how they did things–I ran across some information that I was never taught in my local Anabaptist history lessons.

We tend to hear names like George Blaurok, Conrad Grebel, Felix Mantz, Dirk Philips, or Menno Simons. But while I was reading about the earliest Anabaptist views on the work of the Holy Spirit, I ran across the name, Pilgram Marpeck.

Marpeck was a writer and leader of the Anabaptists in South Germany during the sixteenth century, but his is not a name heard much in our circles. Some of this is because we are taught mostly Swiss and Dutch Anabaptist history, and some of this is because not much was known about Marpeck until more recently.1

There were three main branches of Anabaptists:

• Switzerland (Blaurok, Grebel, Mantz)
• North Germany and Netherlands (Dirk Philips, Simons, Melchior Hoffman)
• South Germany and Austria (Hans Denck, Hans Hut, Marpeck)

However, because of persecution, many within these groups emigrated and mixed together. Though they were different from each other, they were all recognizably part of the same group.  All of the leaders from these groups interacted through letters, visits, and conversations.  They exchanged ideas through this interaction and often debated or admonished each other.2  It was no secret that early Anabaptists found much to disagree about.

Opponents of Anabaptism accused Anabaptists of being both Literalists and Spiritualists. It seems that within these groups there was a tendency of some towards overt Spiritualism and some towards overt Literalism (legalism).  The early Anabaptist leaders’ writings, to their critics and to each other, addressed these topics at times.  The Swiss groups tended towards literalism and the South German/Austrian groups tended towards spiritualism. The North Germany/Netherland group seemed to have more of a mixed group with some of both extremes. In their interaction with each other and with their critics, they challenged and admonished one another about these tendencies.

In much of the writings of Pilgram Marpeck, we also find this addressed, but his was often the voice of reason.  Much of his writing was an attempt to be a mediator between the two groups and he encouraged them to learn from each other.3

Stuart Murray describes Marpeck as resisting “divergent tendencies towards excessive literalism and legalism on one hand and a spiritualizing approach that risked jettisoning biblical teaching on the other”.4

Much could be said about the differences between these two complex extremes, but for the sake of sticking to my original topic, I will refrain from doing much of that in this post. I will give a brief summarizing description of the two opposing views and for those of my readers who wish to read more on this; check out some of Stuart Murray’s writing (you will find some of his books listed in the footnotes).

Accusations of Literalism-

Some of the Spiritualists that were not part of the Anabaptist movement, such as Caspar Schwenckfeld and Sebastian Franck, accused them of being so interested in keeping the letter of the Word that they quenched the Spirit and missed the Spiritual significance that lay deeper within the Word. The Reformers also at times chastised them for focusing so much on the literal sense of Scripture rather than its spiritual or allegorical senses. Many of the South German Anabaptist leaders also admonished the Swiss Brethren about this with concern that their literalism caused legalism, formalism, and works righteousness. 5

Accusations of Spiritualism-

The Reformers also simultaneously accused Anabaptists of spiritualism because they didn’t approve of Anabaptists’ lack of regard toward scholarship and for some of their use of allegory. There were also fringe groups that the Anabaptists sought to remove all association from, such as those associated with the Peasant War, the Munster Uprising, and those with apocalyptic leanings that the Reformers pointed to. The Swiss Brethren also admonished some of the South German groups and those within the Melchiorite movement of straying from actual texts and “relying on spiritual meaning that was subjective and detached”.  Hans Hut was also criticized for relying too much on dreams and visions. 6

Many of us in conservative Anabaptist circles will find many of our beliefs mirroring more closely those of the Swiss Anabaptists’ tendencies towards literalism, legalism, and a “works righteousness”. We would do well to consider that maybe there are things we could learn from the other side as well.  Because of this, I was more interested in the writings of Marpeck in which he addressed those with leanings towards literalism/legalism.

Pilgram Marpeck

In Marpeck’s writings, he chastised Spiritualists for prioritizing “inner spirituality” too much and chastised the Literalists for focusing on externals too much. He saw the two groups as both being extreme positions that needed to be bridged and addressed the errors on both ends of the spectrum. He has been referred to as an ecumenical Anabaptist. 7

In A Clear Refutation, Marpeck wrote against those who wanted to exclude miracles and the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the church stating, “Nor does Scripture assert this exclusion…God has a free hand even in these last days”.8 He denied that miracles were only for the early church in Acts and spoke of miraculous happenings still occurring. He made some further statements that were astonishing when he spoke of some who were even raised from the dead:

“Many of them have remained constant, enduring tortures inflicted by sword, rope, fire and water and suffering terrible, tyrannical, unheard-of deaths and martyrdoms, all of which they could easily have avoided by recantation. Moreover one also marvels when he sees how the faithful God (Who, after all, overflows with goodness) raises from the dead several such brothers and sisters of Christ after they were hanged, drowned, or killed in other ways. Even today, they are found alive and we can hear their own testimony… Cannot everyone who sees, even the blind, say with a good conscience that such things are a powerful, unusual, and miraculous act of God? Those who would deny it must be hardened men.”9

Charismatic Inclinations

I personally had not ever heard of any charismatic phenomena among Anabaptists, so this evoked some curiosity in me. I have since found quite a number of others who also wrote of things like this among our ancestors.

Stuart Murray makes the claim that even in the Swiss congregations there was evidence of an experience of the Holy Spirit in the earliest groups that was in similarity to that of the South German groups. He writes of the Swiss Brethren stressing that it was only the work of the Holy Spirit that empowered them to live differently. Grebel, Mantz, and Blaurock were all reported to have had dreams and visions. 10

In Thuringia, there was an account of about forty Anabaptists that were in prison and spent their time singing, dancing, and experiencing visions. When they went before the judge, they came with joy and peace.  When they were sent to their execution, they went “as if in a trance”.11

Jacob Hutter wrote in a letter, in 1535, that God had given him a blessing. “He has made His Word alive in me and in many to whom I proclaimed His will, sealing it through the working of His Holy Spirit with mighty miracles and signs.”12

George Williams wrote about a group of Anabaptists that were “excited by mass hysteria, experienced healings, glossolalia [speaking in tongues], contortions, and other manifestations of a camp-meeting revival”. 13

Alan Krieder’s extensive research of the Martyr’s Mirror pointed to a 1531 story about a man named Martin who was led across a bridge to be executed. As he was led across, he prophesied saying, “This once yet the pious are led over this bridge, but no more hereafter.”  A short time later, such a violent storm came that the bridge was consequently destroyed by a flood and carried away.14

Menno Simons and Dirk Philips were wary of visions and prophesies because of claims of such visions in Munster and in the Spiritualist groups. However they accepted them as long as they were validated by and subordinated to Scripture.15  Marpeck also added his admonishment to this, warning his readers not to “force the Holy Spirit” nor to “allow personal desires or opinions to masquerade as the Spirit’s leading”.16

Holy Spirit’s Help in Interpreting Scripture

The early church believed that the Holy Spirit within them would help them to interpret Scripture. They believed this was much more trustworthy than the help of scholars, traditions, or official representatives of state churches.  They trusted that the Holy Spirit would guide them actively in understanding it more than reliance on their own reasoning abilities and hard work.  One of their complaints about the Reformers is that they felt the Reformers equated the Spirit’s work with that of human reasoning.  They criticized the Reformers for quenching the Spirit and said they could not be relied on to interpret Scripture in a trustworthy fashion.  Marpeck complained that “the dull teachers have lost the sharpness of the Word, and the sword of the Spirit has been stolen from them and given over to human power.  Thus the discipline of the Spirit, the sharpness of Word, has been discontinued and blasphemed”.17

Imprisoned Anabaptists claimed that the Holy Spirit gave them such an understanding of Scripture that they were able to “confound” those questioning them, even though their inquisitors were educated men. This seems to be true as their opponents were often astonished and had a grudging admiration for their understanding and ability to explain biblical texts. 18

Anabaptists did not just believe the Holy Spirit would give them understanding, they also believed that the Holy Spirit within them would change their lives so they would then live out what they understood. Even their enemies noted that they lived holy lives.  Franc Agricola, a Roman Catholic opponent seemed confused when he wrote of them:

“As concerns their outward public life they are irreproachable. No lying, deception, swearing, strife, harsh language, no intemperate eating and drinking, no outward personal display, is found among them, but humility, patience, uprightness, neatness, honesty, temperance, straightforwardness in such measure that one would suppose that they had the Holy Spirit of God!”[emphasis mine]19

And interestingly enough, sometimes non-Anabaptists were arrested on suspicion of being Anabaptists because they lived upright lives. They could escape prosecution if they could convince their accusers that they weren’t really Anabaptists.  They did this by cursing freely and convincing their accusers that they weren’t as holy as they appeared.20

Anabaptists Today in Regards to Holy Spirit Leading

My concern with our people today is that we don’t have those in our circles that teach much about the Holy Spirit. Often, when someone teaches anything that puts us out of our comfort zones, we push them out.  We have grown so comfortable in our literalist/legalism views and with no push back from any other views, it seems we are contently staying in our ditch.

Our views regarding the Holy Spirit’s leading are not the same as those of our ancestors. Even the most literalist Swiss groups seemed to have at least some understanding.  We have done well through the generations of teaching truths from Scripture, but without teaching about the Holy Spirit’s role in making that Word come to life in us, it is easy to approach the Word like a rule book of do’s and don’ts.

We want to pass on our culture and belief system to the next generation, so we make rules to insure that, but no amount of rules could ever “pass on” the Holy Spirit in the lives of our descendants. All we can do is faithfully teach what Scripture says about Him and point to His work in our lives.  Could it be that we don’t want to risk trusting Him to do His work in our children/descendants, so we attempt to force them into the mold we choose instead?

I don’t think that we need to idolize or view the earliest Anabaptists through rose colored glasses, but there is much we can learn from our history. We need more “Pilgram Marpeck” leaders who will speak up and give us a balanced viewpoint without just pointing to another ditch.

---

1. http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Marpeck,_Pilgram_(d._1556)
2. Murray, Stuart, The Naked Anabaptist: The Bare Essentials of a Radical Faith– Fifth Anniversary Edition, (Herald Press, Harrisonburg, Virginia, 2010, 2015) pg. 180
3. Ibid. pg. 174
4. Murray, Stuart, Biblical Interpretation in the Anabaptist Tradition, (Herald Press, Scotdale, Pennsylvania/Waterloo, Ontario, 2000), pg. 64
5. Ibid. pg. 126-127
6. Ibid.
7. http://www.anabaptistnetwork.com/node/150
8. Klassen, William, Klassen Walter, The Writings of Pilgram Marpeck (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1978), pg. 49-51
9. Ibid
10. Murray, Biblical Interpretation, pg. 131-133
11. Hans-Jurgen Goertz, The Anabaptists (London: Routledge, 1996), pg. 21
12. Murray, Biblical Interpretation, pg. 133
13. Williams, George H., The Radical Reformation, (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1992) pg. 443
14. Thieleman van Braght, Martyr’s Mirror, (Scottdale, PA:Herald Press, 1950) pg. 440
15. Murray, Biblical Interpretation, pg. 134, 147
16. Ibid. pg. 145
17. Ibid. pg. 137-138
18. Ibid. pg. 141
19. In Against the Terrible Errors of the Anabaptists (1582)https://www.goshen.edu/mhl/Refocusing/d-av.htm
20. Murray, Naked Anabaptist, pg. 66

 

Radical Shepherding

The Radical Reformation began with men who boldly stood up for what they knew was Biblical truth. They were willing to speak fearlessly and even to die for what they believed. Somewhere through the generations since then, however, we have changed to become a people imprisoned by fear. We became the “quiet in the land” so that we would no longer need to fear losing our lives or our families. We began standing for values that were also motivated by fear. We fear losing our culture. We fear our children will lose their heritage of plainness. We fear outsiders may have a greater influence on us than we do on them. We fear teaching on the Holy Spirit; we fear hearing the voice of God because of what it could lead to.

Many of our rules are developed out of fear of what things may lead to. We fear that God’s standards as outlined in Scripture are not enough to keep our people, so we add fences around them to make sure we don’t break any commandments. We fear being questioned about some of those rules that we don’t really have a Biblical answer for, so too often our response is anger at those who question the rules.

Fear is rooted in not trusting God. Fear manifests itself in attempting to control whatever situation we feel insecure or powerless in. But the One who is actually in control wants us to stop trying to do what He never meant for us to do. Only He can take away our fear of “what might happen” if we don’t do everything in our power to keep our people where they need to be.

It is time for us to take a radical, fearless stand once again for Truth. We have access to Truth, and that Truth is enough. Nothing more, nothing less.

We will see the beginnings of real change occurring among our Anabaptist people when leaders begin stepping up to fearlessly lead the charge. I have heard leaders say, “I believe we are not aligned with Scripture in the way we refuse communion to other believers who worship with us, but it’s no use trying to change it. Our people are not ready for change like that.”

My response is “Why not?”

Fearful Sheep

When a shepherd leads his sheep to a regular spot to feed, and suddenly realizes that there are plants growing that are toxic to his sheep, he leads them to a different spot to feed– whether or not the sheep want to change their grazing spot. Sheep that trust their shepherd will follow even if it is outside of their normal routine. If a shepherd cannot lead his sheep away from their normal routine, he does not have their hearts or their trust.

This can happen when a shepherd does not spend enough time with his sheep. In Bible times, a shepherd’s duty was to lead his sheep to good places to graze and drink, and to fend off animals that came to attack the sheep. He was with his sheep constantly and was a familiar, trusted person to them. They kept close to him and followed willingly because they knew he loved them and would look out for their bests interests.

In the western world today, sheep are often kept in fenced-in pastures. The sheep are familiar with their shepherd, but the relationship is much different. They may only see their shepherd occasionally. The fences that are erected keep out dangers and keep them where they need to be. The shepherd’s main job is to make sure there is water and food available to them. The shepherd can have another job and there is no need to be with the sheep constantly. This arrangement works fine until something changes in the routine. When it comes time for sheering the sheep, or needing to herd them somewhere for any reason; these shepherds have a much more difficult task than shepherds of longer ago did.

It seems the we have traded in the Biblical model for shepherding our Anabaptist churches for a more westernized version. Our shepherds must earn a living since they can not make a living being a shepherd, so they have no other option but to build fences to keep their flocks where they need to be. They check in when they can and make sure food and water is available, but they can’t be available to their flocks all the time because they must be out earning their living. This arrangement works until anything out of the ordinary happens. How far can we really trust our leader when he wants to do something different than what we have been doing most of our lives?

I have recently been hearing about and observing an Anabaptist congregation that has made some incredible changes in the past ten years. This was once a small, struggling congregation from a more liberal conference and there was very little life left in the flock. A new leader took charge who wished to lead them to a more Biblical mind set. Without making a single outward rule about dress or head coverings, this congregation is now a flock that is a thriving, Spirit-filled, Biblical church that has grown and is continually adding to their flock. They are also reaching out and making a huge impact on their community.

The first thing Anabaptists always want to know is whether or not the head covering is practiced, so I will address that first. When the new pastor came in, there were only a few who practiced it, but most did not. Now ten years later, about eighty percent of them do.

However, people don’t all look alike. There are many different colors, shapes, and sizes of head coverings. There are many different people with many different styles of clothing. People from the community have begun attending and have gotten saved and have turned away from lives of sin and bondage. Lives are changing and the Holy Spirit is present and noticeably at work.

So what is the point I am trying to make?

Shepherding Without Fences

Here is a church that is doing what our typical Anabaptists churches say is impossible. We are told it’s impossible to keep a church where they need to be without extra rules. Without fences in place to keep the sheep where they belong, we know that the flock will all be scattered. And when you look at the American model of raising sheep, that is a valid point. Sheep that are used to being fenced in will scatter if they suddenly have their fences removed.

But what if we were to ask shepherds from Bible times if they needed fences to keep their sheep from scattering? They would probably tell you that most of the sheep stay right with  their shepherd and follow him where ever he goes. The ones that wander off are noticed and brought back by a vigilant shepherd that stays tuned in to his sheep and knows them all by name.

So why do we shepherd with a fenced in model when the other is more likely what Jesus had in mind when He told Peter to tend and shepherd His sheep?

15 So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Tend My lambs.” 16 He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, “Tend My sheep”.(John 21:15-17 NASB)

This was also the only model Peter and Paul knew of when they spoke of elders shepherding the church.

Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. (Acts 20:28 NASB)

1.Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, 2. shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness;   3. nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock.(1Peter 5:1-3NASB).

Could it be that one of the reasons the “fenced in model” is the one we use is because we don’t pay our shepherd/pastors?

17 The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard [a]at preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.” (1Tim. 5:17-18 NASB) 

13 Do you not know that those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple, and those who attend regularly to the altar have their share [a]from the altar? 14 So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel. (1 Cor. 9:13-14 NASB)

When our shepherd/pastors are forced to be only part-time shepherds because they must still work another job to earn their a living, they can’t be available to their sheep/congregation all the time. Therefore they must use fences just like real American shepherds do that can’t be with their sheep constantly. And in doing it this way, they can not spend the time needed to build the type of relationship with the individuals in their congregations that they would otherwise.

Fences are fine until change is needed or a shepherd must take his flock through unchartered territory. Will the flock have enough trust in their shepherd to follow?

So back to the previously mentioned church… This church has a full-time, paid pastor who is devoted to his sheep. He pours into them. He is a man filled with the Holy Ghost and power who feeds, prays, weeps, and rejoices with his flock. They know him well and he has their hearts. When he began to preach Scripture that went against what they had been practicing for a long time, they followed because they knew it was Truth (Titus 1:9) and they trusted that he had their best interests in mind.

He didn’t try to control people with Truth by making rules to force them to comply. Rather, he loved them truthfully by speaking and teaching Truth and allowing the Holy Spirit to convict. When people were contentious with him, he showed love, but did not change his stand for Truth. Those that aligned themselves with Scripture did it because it was Truth, and because they found freedom in living that truth. This is different than obeying because of a fence erected to force obedience. Is this not shepherding like Jesus did?

Think of Jesus speaking truth to Peter when Peter was stubborn– He didn’t try to force Peter to change. He spoke truth and allowed Peter to learn, even if that meant the hard way. When His disciples argued over who should be the greatest, Jesus didn’t try to force them to change. He spoke truth, set an example, and gave God room to work in their hearts. Jesus didn’t try to force Judas to change; He didn’t try to control Thomas’s doubt but dealt truthfully and patiently with him. This is the example of shepherding that under-shepherds need to imitate.

This is radical shepherding.

Our Head Covering Applications

What does Jesus think of me? How does He view my people, those of my culture, my denomination? Are there things in my culture that are contrary to His teachings and need changing? These are good things to ask ourselves occasionally because it is so easy to move away from His heart, His desire for us, if we are not heedful to stay connected to the Vine. Moving away from Him– regardless of which direction– will be just enough to cause us to miss the mark.

Jesus was born into a Jewish culture. The religious leaders of His culture rejected Him and His teachings because it was so different from their mind set and the way they had been doing things for so long. Are there things in my life or my culture that cause me to reject what Jesus taught because we have “done it this way” for so long that anything different can’t even be considered?

When the religious leaders confronted Jesus about not keeping their oral laws, He pointed out how their traditions/oral laws were keeping them from obeying some of God’s commands and causing them to be blinded to God’s original intention for His commands.

It made me wonder if we have done this with any Biblical commands? Have we become like those religious leaders in any way? Are there ways that we are imitating the Pharisees and turning Jesus away by our commitment to some man made traditions/applications?

 

Did the Pharisees know the difference between a command from God and an application?

The religious leaders took commands (given by God) and seemingly added to them to make sure that the common folk would know how to follow them correctly. We could call this the application part of the command.

For example, the law said that Aaron and his sons were to wash their hands and feet before going into the tabernacle or coming near the alter. By the time Jesus was on earth, there had been much added to this command and the Pharisees taught that one should wash his hands before and after eating. They considered anyone who didn’t do this to be no better than a pagan. They “induced men to” do it by teaching that an evil spirit, called Shiybta’, sits on their hands by night, and has a right to sit on the food of him who does not wash his hands.1

Even though there was no direct command in the law regarding washing hands before eating, only traditions pertaining to that law, the Pharisees had no problem confronting others, specifically Jesus, for this perceived sin. (Mat. 15, Mark 7)

Another example would be the law of keeping the Sabbath. They were not to work, or carry a “burden”, or “kindle a fire”. (Exodus 20, 35; Jeremiah 17 are a few passages that refer to this) The Jews then added “commandments of men” or “traditions” to this commandment as applications of it. They had a total of 39 categories of activities that were prohibited. They also had a much shorter list of activities that were allowed on the Sabbath.2

When Jesus did not keep their oral traditions/applications, it became very obvious that they held their applications as high as– if not higher than–God’s commands.

 

Jesus’ response to the Pharisees and their applications

Jesus healed a lame man (John 5) on the Sabbath, then told the man to “take up his bed and walk”. He seemed to see the common sense of not leaving the man’s bed there just because it was the Sabbath day. He knew that it was needful for the man to have his bed. Jesus showed that legalism was not part of His plan for the Sabbath. He also showed that mercy and acts of necessity on the Sabbath were lawful.

The Pharisees, however, completely ignored the lesson that Jesus was trying to show. They didn’t even seem to notice what a great miracle from God had just occurred! All they saw was that their interpretation of a Sabbath law had been broken.

The fact that Jesus healed people on the Sabbath day and did other things that contradicted their beliefs regarding Sabbath keeping seemed to be particularly offensive to them because of their many traditions concerning that law. But in Mark 2:27, Jesus told them, “Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”.

This admonition came right after they had confronted Jesus and His disciples for picking corn and eating it on a second Sabbath (Luke 6:1 –which is when the first fruits were to be offered). Jesus was not stressed about it, but had a ready answer. In Matthew 12:7, we hear Jesus telling the Pharisees that He would rather have mercy and not sacrifice (regarding a hungry person eating that which was meant for a Sabbath sacrifice) showing even more clearly what was in His heart regarding the Sabbath.

In Matthew 23, we hear Jesus talking to the multitude and his disciples about the scribes and the Pharisees. He warns them not to do like the scribes and Pharisees. Jesus’ words about them were, “…they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders…all their works they do to be seen by men.” (4-5)

In verses 23-28, He describes them further and says how they demand an exact tenth of even the smallest herbs but omit the “weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith”. Jesus calls them “Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.” He depicts them as “whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness.”

 

Are applications wrong to have?

When God gives a command, how we live it out is our application of it. That is not wrong. But if my application of a Biblical command causes me to disobey another direct Biblical command, then my application can become wrong.

What if I hold my application as high as a Biblical command and teach it as such? Is this wrong? Maybe a better question would be, what did Jesus think of the Pharisees who did that? He described the Pharisees like this, “…they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders…”

And what were those burdens? Was it not their applications that they insisted that everyone must follow just as much– if not more than– God’s commands?

Dwight Gingrich says it like this, “The mere act of treating man’s word as weightily as God’s word is blasphemy against God’s word, a de facto demotion of God to the status of man.”3

And I could add here that treating man’s word as weightily as God’s Word could also be viewed as the attempt to promote man to the status of god.

 

Anabaptist applications

We have many applications/traditions within our Anabaptists circles. They don’t seem odd to most of us because we have grown up with them. We know them well, and for the most part, do not question them. When outsiders view our applications though, they often question why we insist on doing things this specifically. When we defend our applications so religiously that we hold them equal with a command of God, it makes me wonder if we know how to tell the difference between our applications and a Biblical command. Dwight Gingrich addresses this more in depth here .

Dwight also has another essay showing how applications/traditions can be a positive thing when they are done correctly. You can find that here .

 

The head covering– Biblical command or application?

The head covering is a good example of a Biblical command that Anabaptists have added applications to. I have my own preferences for my wife and daughters in regards to our application of this command. However, I doubt that everyone else around me has that exact application. And if I insist that everyone must do exactly as I do or I can not consider them to be a true brother/sister in Christ, something is wrong.

The only thing 1Corinthians 11 says is that women are to pray with their heads covered and the men with their heads uncovered. If God did not deem it necessary to say exactly what that head covering should look like, could it be that He wanted a variety? Maybe He doesn’t prefer robot replicas all doing the same thing– maybe He likes to see colors and diversities of styles. I don’t know what His reason is for not spelling out, but it just seems if He thought what it looked like –color, shape, size, style– was so important, He would have said so.

It seems to me that God probably cares more about what the covered head is supposed to be symbolizing than He does about what that symbol is supposed to look like (since He didn’t spell it out). When we take our focus off the act and onto the symbol, we often end up missing the point.

Women are often confronted quicker for head coverings that aren’t up to code, than they are for not living out the headship order it is supposed to represent. But which of these is actually a commandment of God? Do you think He is more grieved about the actions of a woman that is wearing the correct church standard covering while being disrespectful or non-submissive to her husband, or with the non-Anabaptist woman who is in right relationship with her husband and wears a scarf or some other covering? Would Jesus words to the Pharisees apply here? “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.”

When someone from outside our Anabaptist traditions attempts to join our group, one of the first things we do is to make sure that their head covering is “up to standard”. Is it the right shape, color, size, etc.? If not, we let them know they need to change it before they can join our fellowship. Sometimes the woman in question may be wearing a covering that covers more of the head than most Anabaptist women’s coverings do, and still we insist she must change because we must have “unity”. But is this unity–or is it just uniformity?

Just because an entire congregation agrees to do something a certain way does not make it Truth or make it equal to a command of God. In fact, it sounds a bit like the post-modern belief of saying truth is relative (truth is truth because we all agree on it).

We say that we must add rules to the covering command to ensure that it is followed and that we don’t lose this practice. But what good is the practice if there is no change in the heart? When our long list of head covering rules is the only thing keeping everyone looking right, all we get is a lot of correct looking “Christians” who are like plastic imitations of the real thing.

In Acts 20:38-32, Paul is addressing some church leaders about dangers that the church would face regarding being drawn away from truth. He warns the overseers of these churches that “wolves” that would enter into the church to “draw away the disciples after them”. But he doesn’t tell them to make a long list of rules and guidelines to protect their flock or to keep them from falling away. He doesn’t tell them to start their own sub-culture to make sure their godliness is passed down to the next generation. In fact Paul warns that some of the danger would come from within their own group (vs. 30). Even if they could keep the “wolves” out, what about the “sheep” within their group that would also be doing the same thing?

So what was Paul’s “solution”? He only exhorts them to “take heed”, to “watch and remember” that he had “not ceased to warn them” and then he says, “I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified..”

Have we just decided within ourselves that Paul’s solution is not sufficient? Have we looked at God’s Word and decided that it is not enough–that we must do more than what God says because we have a better way?

 

 

---

 

1. Adam Clark commentary on Matthew 15:2

2. http://www.thenazareneway.com/sabbath/39_prohib_sabbath.htm

3. http://dwightgingrich.com/tradition-in-nt-1-bad-examples/

Radical Baptism

The Radical Reformation that began Anabaptist history was a time of aligning back up with Scripture on many points. The early Anabaptists desired to radically follow Scripture on all points regardless of persecution. And just like the earliest persecution of the Church, their persecution came from the religious groups that were in power at that time.

If Anabaptists would have practiced their faith and their re-baptizing of adults quietly, they probably could have avoided a lot of persecution. But they went out and preached, trying to convert and baptize as many others as they could. They took Jesus’ command in Matthew 28:19 very seriously:

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Emphasis added)

They wouldn’t be quiet! (The title “quiet in the land” definitely would not have described them) They went to Scripture to see how Jesus and the early church did it and they followed what they read. When a new believer converted, he was baptized immediately and publically.

The religious leaders were against the re-baptizing of adults (which is generally all we ever hear about). But even if they would have accepted that, the fact that the Anabaptists were not examining the converts enough (or letting the leaders do the examining) or waiting for the right time would have been a problem as well.

Anabaptists pointed back at Scriptural accounts of baptism. When Jesus was baptized (Matthew 3:14-15), He asked John to baptize Him and John questioned it. But Jesus said to him, “Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” (NKJV emphasis mine)

This account and all the other baptisms recorded in Scripture followed immediately upon the request of the converts.

But as time went on, the church changed things, especially during the Dark Ages. The church began a policy of examining a convert seven times before baptism was allowed. They also would baptize converts at only two specific times: Easter and Pentecost. 1

Anabaptists, on the other hand, would give teaching and instruction for several hours, or in some cases, several days. But when the ones being taught came to believing faith, any new converts were baptized immediately.

Early Anabaptists saw no conflict between pouring or immersion. They did both. Where the baptism happened did not matter either– in rivers or ponds, barns, caves, mills, forests, or where ever they happened to be.

Anabaptists tied faith, repentance, and baptism together and did not postpone any of the three. They couldn’t wait to baptize until a more convenient time because there was no convenient time. They baptized at once because they believed baptism is the outward testimony of the inward new birth itself. 2

Anabaptists believed strongly that the new birth and baptism were both incomplete by themselves. So they always tied both together in one event.

It wasn’t that they thought if they baptized a sinner, it would immediately make him a saint. Nor did they wait until someone had proven themselves to be a saint before they baptized them. They just baptized people who confessed faith in Jesus as their Savior and expressed a desire to follow Him. Only repentance and faith were necessary for baptism. And then from this Anabaptists expected the Christian life to spring forth. 3

Anabaptists and Baptism Today

Flash forward five centuries later… Anabaptist beliefs today look a bit more like those of the religious leaders that persecuted the early Anabaptists for their beliefs than they look like the beliefs of their Anabaptist forefathers. Most conservative Mennonites today only baptize about once a year. Even then, baptism is only for those that have gone through instruction class and meet all the requirements of church membership. Conversion and baptism have been conveniently separated again. Converts must, once again, prove their worthiness of baptism (today by their dress standard and lifestyle) before they can be baptized.

How did this lapse happen again? I believe it came about in part a couple centuries after the first Anabaptists, when Instruction Class was first introduced. Originally, Instruction Class was not intended for new converts. It was a class started for the purpose of bringing young people to conversion. 4

I can easily see that from there it began to be a requirement for all young people because the churches wanted to be sure the young people all understood well. And soon it became a requirement for all converts, young and old. Something that was started with perfectly good intentions easily became an extra-Biblical requirement for all believers– just as it did in the Dark Ages.

We do want converts to understand what repentance and faith are before they are baptized, but does it need to be a three to six month class? Could it not be explained in a couple hours? And those young people who have been taught by their parents already are ready for baptism as soon as they choose to make the decision to follow Christ. Even those who don’t have a life long teaching can ask questions if there is areas they don’t understand. And who of us understood everything when we converted? Does that not come in the weeks, months, and years following conversion?

Did not Jesus Himself say, “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”? (John 14:26)

Anabaptists used to stand out from the rest of the religious groups mainly because of their radical willingness to baptize or re-baptize any new believers immediately upon conversion. But today they are known to be the opposite of that. We want people to prove that they are “true Anabaptists” before we will baptize them. And the only thing that seems to make us Anabaptists is our dress and separated life style. And we equate that outward look and separate lifestyle to be evidence of true faith.

History has a tendency to repeat itself. Who will be the Radicals this time? Who will turn back to Scripture and re-align themselves concerning baptism– regardless of religious persecution? Will this be the generation of Anabaptists to again take a Biblical stand?

---

---

1. Menno Simons, Dat Fundament des Christelycken leers . . . 1539  “We are informed by those who know history that baptism and the time of its administration was changed. In the beginning of the holy commune, people were baptized in ordinary water. They were baptized as soon as they professed the faith and on the confession of their faith, according to the writings. Afterward a change was made. Church leaders began to examine people seven times before baptizing them. After that they were baptized only at two special times, at Easter and Pentecost.”

2. Peter Hoover, The Secret of the Strength, chapter 12 “On to Commitment”

3. Peter Hover, The Secret of the Strength, chapter 11 “On to Baptism”

4. Peter Hoover, The Secret of the Strength, chapter 12 “On to Commitment”   In the footnotes (number 3) of this chapter “No Anabaptists held ‘instruction classes’ for converts. Instruction classes for the young people (Jugendunterricht) did not develope until centuries later. Even then they were not intended to be classes for “converts.” Their purpose was to bring young people to conversion and baptism. This is still their stated purpose in Old Order Mennonite churches.”

History of Communion and Baptism in the Anabaptist Movement and its Leaders

Throughout history, the Anabaptist Movement began and changed because of strong beliefs regarding Communion and Baptism. The earliest Anabaptists wanted reformation in these two core issues so strongly because they wanted to be in alignment with what God’s Word said. They were willing to lay down their lives rather than to not live their lives in accordance to Scripture on these two issues. These two issues have also been the core issues that set them apart from others and later caused divisions within their movement.

Anabaptists Original Beliefs on Baptism and Communion

When the Anabaptist movement began, it was the doctrine of baptizing only adults on the confession of their faith that set them apart from the other reformers. But wanting a change in Communion was the first thing that set them apart from the Roman Catholic Church and then also even from those that followed Luther’s teachings.

Luther and his followers believed that the Roman Catholic church erred in the belief that the bread and wine became the literal body and blood of Christ. The Roman Catholic church believed it was necessary to take communion in order to stay forgiven.

Luther believed that the bread and wine only became the spiritual body and blood of Christ. This was on of the issues that started the Reformation.

But Zwingli differed from this in that he believed the bread and wine was only symbolic of the body and blood of Christ. The earlist Anabaptists were originally Zwingli followers, but then the issue of baptizing only adults caused the schism that divided them, followed by persecution from Zwingli himself.

So here we see how the sacraments of Communion and baptism were what began the Anabaptist movement and set them apart.

Menno Simons Original Beliefs on Baptism and Communion

In 1524, during the first year that Menno Simons was ordained into priesthood, he began to have some questioning doubts about Communion. He wondered how the bread could become the literal physical body of Christ. It was a disturbing thought to him and he quickly dismissed it as a doubt from Satan. But the more he pushed it away, the more he struggled with it. He finally decided to read the New Testament to see what it said about it. Always before he had avoided reading the Bible because he was afraid that it would corrupt him as it had Luther and Zwingli.

But when he did finally read it, he found his answer– that it was not the literal body of Christ. This brought relief to his mind and persuaded him that the symbolic interpretation of the Lord’s Supper taken by the Sacrementists was correct.

However, history does not show us that he did anything differently at that time. But then in 1531, he began questioning infant baptism and came to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church erred in two of the Sacraments, Communion and baptism.

However, he still did not join the Anabaptist movement until 1536, when his brother was killed while in an Anabaptist group.

Jacob Ammonn Schism in Regards of Baptism and Communion

The first prominent schism that history shows happening within the Anabaptist group was in 1693, when Jacob Ammonn called for a meeting with the other Anabaptist ministers of that region (Switzerland). He had several things he wanted to discuss with the other ministers, but the three main issues on his agenda were related to either Communion or baptism in some form.

At this time, Anabaptists followed the teachings of Menno Simons in regard to banning those who practiced outward sin from partaking in Communion. This was in accordance to 1 Corinthians 5.

Jacob Ammonn wanted to change some things and add some things. He brought three main issues that he wanted to discuss with the other ministers. They were as follows:

1. Shunning of those excommunicated

2. Whether liars should be excommunicated

3. Whether people could be saved who did not “follow God’s Word”

There were also other issues brought up; such as feet washing, frequency of communion, and dress and beard styles. But the afore mentioned three things were the issues for which Ammonn originally called the meeting.

1. Shunning

Jacob Ammonn felt that if someone was excommunicated, (banned from partaking in Communion) the rest of the group should also shun them socially. Some of the other ministers felt that refusing to give them communion was enough. This was because of disagreement concerning 1Cor. 5:11 “But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.”

There was disagreement whether the word “eat” referred to Communion or just eating in any social setting.

2. Liars

Not much has been recorded regarding the second issue. It can be assumed that since he thought liars should be excommunicated and since they are not listed in this verse, Ammon wanted to add liars to the list.

3. Salvation of adults who would not take the step of re-baptism

This one was because during this time, there was still persecution, but many were sympathetic to the cause and helped them. But even while they were sympathetic, they were not willing to join their group and get re-baptized –whether out of fear of their lives or lack of belief. Jacob Ammonn believed they could not be saved if they did not join them– thus should not partake in communion.

The meeting did not go well, ending with Jacob Ammonn excommunicating all the ministers that did not agree with him. Those that followed Ammon were later called Amish and those that did not follow him were called Mennonites.

Anabaptists on Baptism and Communion Today

What about today? Are there areas regarding these two issues that Anabaptists today have strayed away from Biblical accuracy? Do we need to take a look at these core issues and to realign ourselves to Scripture even if it means “persecution” from those in our Brotherhood communities?

Our forefathers were never afraid of taking a stand if they had Scripture that backed up their beliefs. I believe there are some things in these two core issues that need reformation in. Since the first controversial issue in Anabaptist history was Communion, that will be the first one that I will be addressing as well.

---

sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakob_Ammann

http://www.angelfire.com/ne/onebrickshort/menno.html

https://uwaterloo.ca/grebel/publications/conrad-grebel-review/issues/fall-2006/challenge-menno-simons-symbolic-view-lords-supper

John Horsch, Menno Simons, His Life, Labors, and Teachings

The Reformation

In 1517, Martin Luther nailed his ninety-five theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenburg, Saxony. For many, this marked the beginning of the Reformation of the Church. Zwingli and Calvin were also considered to be fathers of the Reformation.

Out of that Reformation, the Anabaptist Movement (to baptize over again) was born. One difference between the Anabaptist movement and the and the rest of the Reformers was that most of the reformers were willing to stand up and fight for what they believed and the Anabaptists were willing to lay down their lives for what they believed– and many did.

The Anabaptists were considered radicals because they believed in taking the whole Bible literally. Regardless of severe persecution (or maybe because of), the movement grew and spread throughout the world.

Mennonites and Amish trace their roots to this movement within the Reformation. Many changes have happened to these groups through the centuries–some of these changes were good, but some of them have caused a bondage of legalism, fear, and rejection of others.

Perhaps its time to take a step back and examine where we are at. Is it time for a new reformation among our people? Not that we need to throw out our heritage– but to take a closer look at some of the things we do that aren’t lined up with Scripture and reform our ways.

If the reason the Anabaptist movement began was because we wanted to adhere to Scripture in all areas, then do we still care deeply about doing that? Or, have we moved away from Scripture because of our traditions that we have accumulated through the centuries that are now more important to us than what the Bible says?

Could it be time for another Radical Reformation among the Anabaptists?