CHURCH: History and Today Feb. 24

The Radical Reformation

Two weeks ago we talked about the pastor and theologian John Calvin. Today we are going to take a look at the start of the Anabaptist movement. This is important because ultimately this is where our roots start as Mennonites. But to do that we have to go back to the start of the Reformation in Zurich, Switzerland, under Ulrich Zwingli.

Going back three weeks ago, I mentioned that Zwingli had insisted in his church reforms that only those things that are found in the Bible can be part of Christian practice. But there were some who soon found out that - at least according to them - Zwingli was not following his own teaching to its ultimate end. Here I want to read a quote from Gonzalez’s book again. But before that, let’s begin with a question.

What do we know about the first Anabaptists? What were some of their main differences with the Catholic church and the other Reformers?

We can safely say that the one point that drew all the Anabaptists together was adult baptism (it’s in the name!) Beyond that, there were a few other key points that most (but not all) Anabaptists agreed on. When we think about Anabaptist theology, we need to keep in mind that it is quite different compared to the Reformers. At the start of the Anabaptist movement, there were several key leaders, whereas the Reformers each had one leader for the different movements. John Calvin, Martin Luther, and Ulrich Zwingli were the main ingredients in their reforms, but with Anabaptist reformation, there were many ingredients. As a result, Anabaptist theology and practice would look very different in the various parts of Europe. Another major difference between the Anabaptists and the other Reformers - or even the Catholic church - is that the Anabaptists focused on one specific area of theological need. Rather than sit down and write out a whole book about Anabaptist theology (such as Calvin did with Reformed doctrine), Anabaptist leaders usually wrote mostly about the major issues at hand that they disagreed on. As a result, Anabaptist theology is not as well structured or as clearly spelled out as Roman Catholic, Calvinist, or Lutheran theology.

The Start

Here I’ll read another block quote from Gonzalez.

Because of different leaders and different emphasis on Christian life, the Anabaptists in various parts of Europe became known for different aspects of faith. But to start it all off, we start in Switzerland. Some of Zwingli’s followers thought that he was not going far enough in his reforms of the church, and thought that true believers in Christ should be baptized as adults who could profess and confess their faith and desires baptism. This contrasted with infant baptism, which the Catholic church and all the Reformers still practiced. Those who agreed on this point called themselves ‘The Brethren.’ When it became obvious that Zwingli would not go along with this change, they decided to do this for themselves. So, in 1525, just 8 years after Luther officially started the Reformation, a few men met together in Zurich, Switzerland. There, Conrad Grebel baptized George Blaurock, and then Blaurock baptized Grebel and the rest. They started meeting on their own independent of the official church in Zurich led by Zwingli, and it became clear that by doing this they were breaking off of that church to worship and partake in the Lord’s Supper as the true church.

It was here that persecution started too. Only a short while after the movement started, the first Anabaptist (which means ‘re-baptizer’) was killed. Felix Manz was led to the river, rowed in, and dumped overboard. Some called this a “second re-baptism.” From there, it only grew.

The Anabaptist Identity

Something that shaped the Swiss Anabaptist identity was their focus on the word. To them, things were very black and white. Either you are a Christian or you are not. If you are a Christian, you are one of us. If you are not, you belong to Satan. And if you are a Christian, it will be obvious in your life that you have accepted Christ as your Savior by how you live, for you will know them by their fruit.

Does this sound familiar? How much do we today associate Christian life with how we live? If we don’t see certain ‘fruits’ in someone’s life, do we doubt their salvation? Why or why not?

German Anabaptism

While all Anabaptists agreed with the Word of God being the final authority, the emphasis was different for certain groups. While the Swiss Anabaptists became known for their focus on the word, the South German Anabaptists became known for something else. To them (and to other Anabaptist communities), it seemed as if certain church groups weren’t giving the Holy Spirit the focus He deserved. And while all Anabaptists agreed on paper with the Reformers about the Holy Spirit, in practice it often looked quite different. Walter Klaassen writes that the reason it looks different is because “the Anabaptists talked more about the Spirit than others did. They believed that they were living in the age of the Spirit, the time when every child of God would have the Spirit. They often spoke, almost naively, about being led by the Spirit, and being given divine illumination.” (Klaassen, 72)

Along with this, there were Anabaptist across Europe who would meet together in worship and Bible study. At many of these meetings, charismatic spiritual gifts occurred, such as prophesying and speaking in tongues. Many early Anabaptists emphasized the Holy Spirit much more than other reformers, and this showed in their church meetings.

Persecution

Is this focus on the Holy Spirit still a strong aspect of Anabaptist faith today?

Anabaptist Confessions of Faith and Points of Agreement

While there was a lot of diversity regarding the Anabaptists, there were a few things that characterized the vast majority of them. Michael Sattler, one of the main Anabaptist leaders in the beginning, felt the need to record and unify some of the basic Radical Reformation teachings. So in 1527, several key Anabaptist leaders met together in Schleitheim, Switzerland to draw up a document of the main points and practices that most Anabaptists held. This became known as the Schleitheim Confession, and is the oldest Anabaptist Confession we have. It is quite short, especially compared to John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. It has seven parts, each only a few paragraphs. There is a translation into English of this Confession available online, translated by J. C. Wenger. We’ll just go through the main points here.

Baptism - is given to those who repent, believe, and walk in the resurrection of Christ. “This excludes all infant baptism, the highest and chief abomination of the pope.”

The Ban (Excommunication) - Practiced among those who follow the Lord, for those who slip and fall into error and sin, and possibly prior to partaking in the Lord’s Supper.

The Eucharist (Communion) - Only those who have been baptized into the body of Christ can partake in Communion (that is, adult baptism). “Whoever has not been called by one God to one faith, to one baptism, to one Spirit, to one body, with all the children of God’s church, cannot be made [into] one bread with them, as indeed must be done if on is truly to break bread according to the command of Christ.”

Separation of the Saved - There are only two classes of creatures, good and bad, darkness and light, the world and those who have come out of the world. Those not in the light are in darkness. Anyone who has not united themselves to God is an abomination before Him, and nothing but darkness can come out of them. As a result, the creatures of light will separate themselves from the world that the devil has filled with wickedness.

Pastors in the Church of God - Pastors must have good standing with the people. “This office shall be to read, to admonish and teach, to warn, to discipline, to ban in the church, to lead out in prayer for the advancement of all the brethren and sisters, to lift up the bread when it is to be broken, and in all things to see to the care of the body of Christ, in order that it my be built up and developed, and the mouth of the slanderer be stopped.” Pastors will be supported by the church when in need. Two or more witnesses are needed if he has done something that requires discipline.

Concerning the Sword - “The sword is ordained of God outside the perfection of Christ.” But in Christ only the ban is used to discipline - simply the warning and the command to sin no more. Christ teaches and commands us to learn from and follow Him. In mercy and forgiveness and warning, we follow this attitude in putting away the sword. Public office is not to be held, as Christ fled when they tried to make Him a king. Christ called us to deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow Him. The government is according to the flesh, the Christian is according to the Spirit. The Kingdom of God is not of this world, and though we live in this world, our citizenship is in Heaven. “The weapons of [the world’s] conflict and war are carnal and against flesh only, but the Christians’ weapons are spiritual, against the fortification of the devil. The worldlings are armed with steel and iron, but the Christians are armed with the armor of God, with truth, righteousness, peace, faith, salvation and the Word of God...”

Concerning the Oath - Christ prohibits swearing of oaths (), and also told us to let our ‘yes’ be yes, and our ‘no’ be no.

Is there anything that stands out to you in this list of articles? Do we agree with them? Why or why not? How has Anabaptism stayed the same or how has it changed in the last 500 years?

Something that Reformed leaders took offense with in this Confession is that it implies that anyone who is not an Anabaptist is not a Christian. The early Anabaptists were very keen on being separated from the rest of the world in a community of holiness. Also, by their separateness, they were not swearing their fealty to the countries they lived in, and by not being willing to do this or serve in the military, they looked pretty treasonous.

But one of the biggest differences with other articles at the time is how theologically light the Schleitheim Confession is. Where Calvin wrote over 1500 pages about Reformed teaching, Michael Sattler and the other leaders wrote only several paragraphs. Not only that, but these few words had very little to do with topics of theology like the knowledge of God, the incarnation and so on, but most of them talked about church practice. I know I’ve been quoting books a lot today, but the writers seem to do such a good job of saying certain things that I’ll keep quoting them! Here Reeves talks about the Confession’s lack of theology.

Something else that had a tremendous impact on Anabaptist faith was the Sermon on the Mount, found in . To them, it was not just a figurative message, or a lofty goal that is impossible to live out fully. For the Anabaptists, if Jesus taught these things to His disciples, He meant that they should follow them, and that it WAS possible to live out the teachings in the Sermon on the Mount. They held to a literal and obedient understanding of it, and this can be seen in the Schleitheim Confession

How is the Sermon on the Mount reflected in the Schleitheim Confession? Feel free to open your Bibles and take a look.

The sermon on the mount - literal and obedient understanding. NOT DONE CONTINUE HERE

Particularly when we look at articles 6 and 7 we see this take effect. “Love your enemies” doesn’t seem to leave a lot of room for killing them, and “Swear no oath at all,” well, it’s pretty obvious what that means.

Persecution

As was mentioned before, both Catholics and Reformers didn’t like what the Anabaptists were teaching. As a result, both parties started persecuting them severely. As Anabaptism started in Zurich, persecution started there as well. Zwingli, as well as Luther, actively persecuted them and many were killed as heretics. Many were burned. Ironically, many were drowned. Some were torn apart by red-hot pincers after first being tortured. One writer says that probably more people were killed in Anabaptist persecution than those who were killed in the Roman world in the first 3 centuries AD. Here, I will add one more quote for the day, from Reeves.

How do we feel about the persecution our heritage went through? Would we hold to our faith the same way? Do we have the same attitude towards the rest of the world as they did?

To close off, I think it would be fitting to read a passage from the Sermon on the Mount, . These are words that the early Anabaptists held to, and believed could be obeyed.

Matthew 5:38–48 NIV

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Matthew 5:38:

Matthew 5:38:48