Author: Merlin Erb

Be aware this third post is the longest of the four, as taken from Keller’s book, The Freedom of Self-Forgetfulness as it details the meat and the essence of the spiritual truths that Paul alone describes in detail as the path to true Christian joy. I rejoice that both Paul and Tim Keller persevered in order that we too, might better understand and then experience this elusive joy, as Christ followers. Enjoy. 

See what he says. In verses 1 and 2, he reminds them that he is a minister and that he has a job to do. But then he tells them that, with regard to that role, he cares very little if he is judged by them or any human court (vv. 3, 4). The word translated ‘judge’ here has the same meaning as the word ‘verdict.’ It is the thing Madonna craves – that elusive verdict or stamp of approval. Paul does not look to the Corinthians – or to any human court – for the verdict that he is somebody.

So Paul is saying to the Corinthians that he does not care what they think about him. He does not  care what anybody thinks about him. In fact, his identity owes nothing to what people say. It is as if he is saying, ‘I don’t care what you think. I don’t care what anybody thinks.’ Paul’s self-worth, his self-regard, his identity is not tied in any way to their verdict and evaluation of him.

 Paul’s identity may not be tied to other people’s opinion of him – but how do we reach the point where we are not controlled by what people think about us? How do you think we get there? Most people would say it is very obvious. Practically every counselor I know would say that it should nor matter what other people think of us. They tell us that we should not be living according to what other people say. It should not be their standards that count. It should not matter what they think about us. The only thing that should concern me is what I think about me. It is not about other people’s standards. I should only mind about what I think my standards should be. I should choose my own standards. So the counselors’ advice is ‘Decide who you want to be and then be it’ because it only matters what you think about yourself.

If some one has a problem with low self-esteem we, in our modern world, seem to have only one way of dealing with it. That is remedying it with high self-esteem. We tell someone that they need to see that they are a great person, they need to see how wonderful they are. We tell them to look at all the great things they have accomplished. We tell them they just need to stop worrying about what people say about them. We tell them they need to set their own standards and accomplish them – and then make their own evaluation of themselves.

Paul’s approach could not be more different. He cares very little if he is judged by the Corinthians or by any human court. And then he goes one step further: he will nor even judge himself. It is as if he says, ‘I don’t care what you think– but I don’t care what I think. I have a very low opinion of your opinion of me – but I have a very low opinion of my opinion of me.’ The fact that he has a clear conscience makes no difference. Look carefully at what he says in verse 4. ‘My conscience may be clear – but that does not make me innocent.’ His conscience may be clear – but he knows that even if he does have a clear conscience, that does not necessarily mean he is innocent. Hitler may have had a clear conscience, but it does not mean he was innocent.

What would Paul say to those who tell him to set his own standards? He would say it is a trap. A trap that he will not fall into. You see, it is a trap to say we should not worry about everyone else’s standards, just set our own. That’s not an answer. Boosting our self-esteem by living up to our own standards or someone else’s sounds like a great solution. But it does not deliver. It cannot deliver. I cannot live up to my parents’ standards – that makes me feel terrible. I cannot live up to your standards – and that makes me feel terrible. I cannot live up to society’s standards and that makes me feel terrible. I cannot live up to other societies’ standards – that makes me feel terrible. Perhaps the solution is to set my own standards? But I cannot keep them either – and that makes me feel terrible, unless I set incredibly low standards. Are low standards a solution? Not at all. That makes me feel terrible because I realize I am the type of person who has low standards. Trying to boost our self-esteem by trying to live up to our own standards or someone else’s is a trap. It is not an answer.

So Paul does not look to the Corinthians for his identity. He does not go to them for a verdict that he is a ‘somebody’. He does not get that sense of identity from them. But he does not get it from himself either. He knows that trying to find self esteem by living up to a certain set of standards is a trap. Now we start to discover where Paul finds that sense of self, that sense of identity. Be warned! At this point, he moves right off our map. He moves into territory that we know nothing about.

Paul was a man of incredible stature. I think it would be hard to disagree with the view that he is one of the six or seven most influential leaders in the history of the human race. One of the most influential in history. He had enormous ballast, tremendous influence, incredible confidence. He moved ahead and nothing fazed him. And yet in I Timothy, he says ‘Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I’m chief’ (I Timothy 1:15 NKJV). Not I was chief, but I am chief. Or ‘I am the worst’. This is off our maps. We are not used to someone who has incredible confidence volunteering the opinion that they are one of the worst people. We are not used to someone who is totally honest and totally aware of all sorts of moral flaws – yet has incredible poise and confidence.

We cannot do that. Do you know why? Because we are judging ourselves. But Paul will not do that. When he says that he does not let the Corinthians judge him nor will he judge himself, he is saying that he knows about his sins but he does not connect them to himself and his identity. His sins and his identity are not connected. He refuses to play that game. He does not see a sin and let it destroy his sense of identity. He will not make a connection. Neither does he see an accomplishment and congratulate himself. He sees all kinds of sins in himself – and all kinds of accomplishments too – but he refuses to connect them with himself or his identity. So, although he knows himself to be the chief of sinners, that fact is not going to stop him from doing the things that he is called to do. 

We could not be more different than Paul. If I think of myself as a bad person, I do not have any confidence. If I think of myself as a sinner, as someone who is filled with pride, someone filled with lust and anger and greed and all the little things that Paul said he is filled with, I have no confidence. No, because we are judging ourselves. We set our standards and then we condemn ourselves. The ego will never be satisfied that way. Never!

Paul is saying something astounding. ‘I don’t care what you think and I don’t care what I think.’ He is bringing us into new territory that we know nothing about. His ego is not puffed up, it is filled up. He is talking about humility – although I hate using the word ‘humility’ because this is nothing like our idea of humility. Paul is saying that he has reached a place where his ego draws no more attention to itself than any other part of his body. He has reached the place where he is not thinking of himself anymore. When he does something wrong or something good, he does not connect it to himself anymore.

C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity makes a brilliant observation about gospel-humility at the very end on his chapter on pride. If we were to meet a truly humble person, Lewis says, we would never come away from meeting them thinking they were humble. They would not be always telling us they were a nobody (because a person who keeps saying they are a nobody is actually a self-obsessed person). The thing we would remember from meeting a truly gospel-humble person is how much they seemed to be totally interested in us. Because the essence of gospel-humility is not thinking more of myself or thinking less of myself, it is thinking of myself less.

Gospel-humility is not needing to think about myself. Not needing to connect things to myself. It is an end to such thoughts as, ‘I’m in this room with these people, does that make me look good? Do I want to be here?’ True gospel-humility means I stop connecting every experience, every conversation, with myself. In fact, I stop thinking about myself. The freedom of self-forgetfulness. The blessed rest that only self-forgetfulness brings.

True gospel-humility means an ego that is not puffed up but filled up. This is totally unique. Are we talking about high self-esteem? No. So it is low self-esteem? Certainly not. It is not about self-esteem. Paul refuses to play that game. He says ‘I don’t care about your opinion but, I don’t care that much about my opinion’ – and that is the secret.

A truly gospel-humble person is not a self-hating person or a self-loving person, but a gospel – humble person. The truly gospel-humble person is a self-forgetful person whose ego is just like his or her toes. It just works. It does not draw attention to itself. The toes just work, the ego just works. Neither draws attention to itself.

Here is one little test. The self-forgetful person would never be hurt particularly badly by criticism. It would not devastate them, it would it would not keep them up late, it would not bother them. Why? Because a person who is devastated by criticism is putting too much value on what other people think, on other people’s opinions. The world tells the person who is thin-skinned and devastated by criticism to deal with it by saying ‘who cares what they think? I know what I think. Who cares what the rabble thinks? It doesn’t bother me.’ People are either devastated by criticism – or they are not devastated by criticism because they do not listen to it. They will not listen to it or learn from it because they do not care about it. They know who they are and what they think. In other words, our only solution to low esteem is pride. But that is no solution. Both low self-esteem and pride are horrible nuisances to our own future and to everyone around us.

The person who is self-forgetful is the complete opposite. When someone whose ego is not puffed up but filled up gets criticism, it does not devastate them. They listen to it and see it as an opportunity to change. Sounds idealistic? The more we get to understand the gospel, the more we want to change. Friends, wouldn’t you  want to be a person who does not need honor – nor is afraid of it? Someone who does not lust for recognition – nor, on the other hand, is frightened to death of it? Don’t you want to be the kind of person who, when they see themselves in a mirror or reflected in a shop window, does not admire what they see but does not cringe either? Wouldn’t you like to be the type of person who, in their imaginary life, does not sit around fantasizing about hitting self-esteem home-runs, daydreaming about successes that gives them the edge over others? Or perhaps you tend to beat yourself up and to be tormented by regrets. Wouldn’t you like to be free of them? Wouldn’t you like to be the skater who wins the silver, and yet is thrilled about those three triple jumps the gold medal winner did? To love it the way you love a sunrise?Just to love the fact that it was done? For it not to matter whether it was their success or your success. Not to care if they did it or you did it? You are as happy that they did it as if you had done it yourself – because you are just so happy to see it.

You will probably say that you do not know anybody like that. But this is the possibility for you and me if we keep going where Paul is going. I can start to enjoy things that are not about me. My work is not about me, my skating is not about me, my romance is not about me, my dating is not about me. I can actually enjoy things for what they are. They are not just for my resume. They are just not to look good on my college or job application. They are not just a way of filling up emptiness. Wouldn’t you want that? This is off our map. This is gospel-humility, blessed self-forgetfulness. Not thinking more of myself as in modern cultures, or less of myself as in traditional cultures. Simply thinking of myself less.

The final chapter is titled ‘How To Get That Transformed View Of Self.’ and will post in a week, March 1. Perhaps today we use the word ‘transformed’ in church circles rather loosely. The dictionary defines it ‘to make a thorough or dramatic change in the form, appearance, or character of’ … but if and when one’s ‘self’ is transformed, what then is obvious? More than merely form, appearance & character? Is there yet another dimension?                Blessings As YOU GO Forth>>>>    Merlin

Today we begin reading Chapter One of Tim Keller’s three chapter book, The Freedom of Self-Forgetfulness: The Path to True Christian Joy. The Introduction posted last week and the final two chapters will post on subsequent Fridays. In my estimation, this is a monumental little book we’d best understand if we’re serious about enjoying the trip and finishing strong whether we claim to follow Jesus or not. And yes, it does require multiple reads. Why else do you think Tim Keller was able to start from scratch a staunchly Biblical based church of 4000 comprised of predominately professional intellectuals in their thirties in NYC, specifically Manhattan? He presents Truth simply but sometimes our minds have difficulty absorbing the depths, hence the necessity of multiple reads!

In verse 6, Paul urges the Corinthians to have no more pride in one person over another. Nothing new, we may think. Of course, pride is inappropriate. But we need to realize the word Paul uses here for pride is not the hubris word for pride, but physio. It is an unusual word. Paul uses it here and another five times in this particular book and once in Colossians  2. You will not find it anywhere else in the Bible as it is used only by Paul. Many commentators now realize it is a special theme of Paul.

By using this particular word, Paul is trying to teach these Corinthians something about the human ego. This word used here for pride literally means to be over inflated, swollen, distended beyond its proper size. It is related to to the word for ‘bellows’. It is very evocative. It brings to mind a rather painful image of an organ in the human body, an organ that is distended because so much air has been pumped into it. So much air, that it is over inflated and ready to burst. It is swollen, inflamed and extended past it proper size. And that, says Paul, is the condition of the natural human ego.

Because it is such an evocative and interesting metaphor, I think we are supposed to reflect on the image and what Paul is trying to say. Perhaps I can put it this way: I think the image suggests four things about the natural condition of the human ego: that it is empty, painful, busy, and fragile.

First, empty. The image points to the fact that  there is emptiness at the centre of the human ego. The ego that is puffed up and over-inflated has nothing at its centre. It is empty.

In his book Sickness Unto Death, Soren Kierkegaard says, it is the normal state of the human heart to build its identity around something else besides God. Spiritual pride is the illusion that we are competent to run our own lives, achieve our own sense of self-worth and find a purpose big enough to give us meaning without God. Soren Kierkegaard says the normal ego is built on something besides God. It searches for something that will give it a sense of worth, a sense of specialness and a sense of purpose and builds itself on that. And, of course, as we are often reminded, if you try to put anything in the middle of the place that was originally made for God, it is going to be too small. It is going to rattle around in there. So, the first thing about the human ego is that is empty.

And secondly, it is also painful. A distended and over-inflated ego is painful.

Have you ever thought about the fact that you do not notice your body until there is something wrong with it? When we are walking around, we are not usually thinking how fantastic our toes are feeling. Or how brilliantly our elbows are working today. We would only think about that if there had been previously  something wrong with them. That is because the parts of our body only draw attention to themselves if there is something wrong with them.

The ego often hurts. That is because it has something incredibly wrong with it. It is always drawing attention to itself – it does so every single day. It is always making us think about how we look and how we are treated. People sometimes say their feelings are hurt. It is the  ego that hurts – my sense of self, my identity. Our feelings are fine. It is my ego that hurts.

Walking around does not hurt my toes unless there is something wrong with them. My ego would not hurt unless there was something terribly wrong with it. Think about it. It is very hard to get through a whole day without feeling snubbed or ignored or feeling stupid or getting down on ourselves. That is because there is something wrong with my identity. There is something wrong with my sense of self. It is never happy. It is always drawing attention to itself.

So, first of all, it is empty. Secondly, because it is like a bloated stomach that is distended, it is also painful. And, thirdly, the ego is incredibly busy – in other words, it is always drawing attention to itself. It is incredibly busy  trying to fill the emptiness. And it is incredibly busy doing two things in particular – comparing and boasting. You can see them both in the passage. First of all, notice in verse 6 there is no full stop after the word pride. Paul does not say ‘Then you will not take pride in one man over  against another.’ That is the very essence of what it means to have normal human ego. The way the normal human ego tries to fill its emptiness and deal with its discomfort is by comparing itself to other people. All the time.

In his famous chapter on pride in Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis points out that pride is by nature competitive. It is competitiveness that is at the very heart of pride.

‘Pride gets no pleasure out of having something, only having more of it than the next person. We say people are proud of being rich, or clever, or good looking, but they are not. They are proud of being richer, or cleverer, or better- looking than others. If everyone else became equally rich, or clever, or good – looking there would be nothing to be proud about.’   

In other words, we are only proud of being more successful, more intelligent or more good – looking than the next person, and when we are in the presence of someone who is more successful, intelligent and good-looking than we are, we lose all pleasure in what we had. That is because we really had no pleasure in it. We were proud of it. As Lewis says, pride is the pleasure of having more than the next person. Pride is the pleasure  of being more than the next person. Lust may drive a man to sleep with a beautiful woman – but at least lust makes him want her.  Pride drives a man to sleep with a beautiful woman just to prove he can do it and to prove he can do it above the others. Pride destroys the ability to have any real pleasure from her.

When I was at school, my mother kept saying things like, ‘You know, honey, you ought to join the chess club.’ I would say, ‘Mum, I hate chess.’ ‘Yes, I know,’ she would say, ‘but it would look so good on your college application.’ She would try again. ‘Don’t they feed the homeless and hungry downtown, every Saturday morning? Why don’t you volunteer for that?’ ‘Mum,’ I’d say, ‘I hate that kind of thing.’ I would get the same response, ‘I know, honey, but it would look so good on your college application.’ So, at school, I did all kinds of things that I had absolutely no interest in doing for themselves. I was simply putting together a resume. That is what our egos are doing all the time. Doing jobs we have no pleasure in, doing diets we take no pleasure in. Doing all kinds of things, not for the pleasure of doing them, but because we are trying to put together  an impressive curriculum vitae. By comparing ourselves to other people and trying to make ourselves look better than others, we are boasting. Trying to recommend ourselves, trying to create a self-esteem resume because we are desperate to fill our sense of inadequacy and emptiness. The ego is so busy. So busy all the time.

And lastly, as well as empty and painful and busy, the ego is fragile. That is because anything that is over-inflated is in imminent danger of being deflated – like an over-inflated balloon.

If we are puffed up by air and not filled up with something solid, then to be over-inflated or deflated comes down to the same thing. A superiority complex and an inferiority complex are basically the same. They are both results of being over-inflated. The person with the superiority complex is over inflated and in danger of being deflated; the person with an inferiority complex is deflated already.  Someone with an inferiority complex will tell you they hate themselves and they will tell themselves they hate themselves.. They are deflated. To be deflated means you were previously inflated. Deflated, or in imminent danger of being deflated – it is all the same thing. And it makes the ego fragile.

Empty, painful, busy and, therefore fragile. Let me give you a perfect example of this. I am not trying to lift her up as being worse than other people at all. She actually shows a tremendous of self-awareness and I have a lot of admiration for her. But, if you want a perfect example of what I am talking about, here is an excerpt from an interview with Madonna in Vogue Magazine some time ago where she is talking about her career.

This is what she says:

‘My drive in life comes from a fear of being mediocre. That is always pushing me. I push past one spell of it and discover myself as a special human being but then I feel I am still mediocre and uninteresting unless I do something else. Because even though I have become somebody, I still have to prove that I am somebody. My struggle has never ended and I guess it never will.’

I will tell you one thing: Madonna knows herself better than most of us know ourselves.Every time she accomplishes something, these are the kind of thoughts she has: ‘Now I have got the verdict that I am somebody. But the next day, I realize that unless I keep going, I am not. My ego cannot be satisfied. My sense of self, my desire for self-worth, my need to be sure I am somebody – it is not fulfilled. I keep thinking I have won it from what people have said about me and what the magazines and newspapers have written. But the next day, I have to go and look somewhere else. Why? Because my ego is insatiable. It’s a black hole. It doesn’t matter how much I throw into it, the cupboard is bare. I keep putting all sorts of things into it every morning, feeding it, and the next night it is bare. I have become somebody – but I still need to become ‘somebody.’ We might be tempted to think she is neurotic. No, she knows herself. She is ahead of most of us.

That is the normal state of the human self. It is what Paul is talking about to the Corinthians. All these people who are fighting over him and claiming a special relationship with him are showing tremendous amounts of pride. They are unable to enjoy the fact they know Paul. They have to use their relationship with him for one-upmanship over each other in the church.

Paul wants them to know the difference the gospel makes and how the gospel has transformed things for him. Look at verse 3 and 4. He shows them how the gospel has transformed his sense of self-worth, his sense of self -regard and his identity. His ego operates in a completely different way now.

I anticipate Chapter Two “The Transformed View of Self” will post Friday the 22nd. Blessings as YOU GO FORTH>>>>      Merlin

I am compelled to share this powerful book with you. It is a quick 30 minute read written by Tim Keller in 2012 for Christians grappling with self-esteem; whether yours or theirs! What follows below is the Introduction for his book “The Freedom of Self-Forgetfulness:  The Path To True Christian Joy” The three points at the end constitute the three chapters in this quick read that belongs in every serious Christian’s library. I’ll attempt to post the three chapters in a “timely manner” but I suggest you invest now or download a sample from either Kindle or Audible. His subtitle, The Path to True Christian Joy” is spot on. Enjoy.

What are the marks of a heart that has been radically changed by the grace of God? If we trust in Christ, what should our hearts be like? It is not simply a matter of morally virtuous behavior. It is quite possible to do all sorts of morally virtuous things when our hearts are filled with fear, with pride or a with a desire for power. We are talking about hearts that have been changed, at the root, by the grace of God – and what that look like in real life.

We will be focusing on a section of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians – I Corinthians 3:21 –4:7. “So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world of life or death or the present or the future– all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God. So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God. Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful. I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God. Now brothers, I have applied those things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.”Then you will not take pride in one man over against another. For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not? I Cor 3:21 – 4:7.

The Corinthian church was filled with division. It had originally been planted by Paul. But as we see from the references to Apollos and Cephas, other evangelists had come to Corinth later on. As a result, different people had connections with different prominent ministers. So one person was mentored and discipled by Paul, another was mentored and appointed in leadership by Apollos (another great teacher) and so forth. Instead of everybody being happy that they had a relationship with Paul or Apollos, these relationships are now the basis for power-play. Parties have arisen and divisions are tearing the church up. One person argues that he should be the leader because he was discipled  by Paul, the Saint Paul. Another lays claim to a particular relationship with some other prominent minister. And so on.

In this passage, Paul shows that the root cause for the division is pride and boasting. That is the reason we cannot get along, the reason there is no peace in the world and the reason we cannot live at peace with one another. Have a look. Verse 21 starts off ‘no more boasting’, chapter 4:7 says ‘why do you boast …?’; and note verse 6 especially when he urges them not to ‘take pride in one man over another’.

‘No pride, no boasting,’ says Paul. So we are after the trait of humility. And that means we get into the very interesting subject of self-esteem.

Up until the twentieth century, traditional cultures (and this is still true of most cultures in the world) always believed that too high a view of yourself was the root cause of all the evil in the world. Why are people abused? Why are people cruel? Why do people do the bad things they do? Traditionally, the answer was hubris – the Greek word meaning pride or too high a view of yourself. Traditionally, that was the reason given for why people misbehave.

But in our modern western culture, we have developed an utterly opposite cultural consensus. The basis of contemporary education, the way we treat incarcerated prisoners, the foundation of most modern legislation and the starting point for modern counselling is exactly the opposite of the traditional consensus. Our belief today – and it is deeply rooted in everything – is that people misbehave for lack of self-esteem and because they have too low a view of themselves. For example, the reason husbands beat their wives and the reason people are criminals is because they have too low a view of themselves. People used to think it was because they had too high a view of themselves and had too much self-esteem. Now we say it is because we have too little self-esteem.

A few years ago, there was an article in the New York Times magazine (Feb 3, 2003) by psychologist Lauren Slater called ‘The Trouble with Self-Esteem‘. It was not a ground-breaking article or a bolt out of the blue. She was simply beginning to report what the experts had known for years. The significant thing she says is that there is no evidence that low esteem is a big problem in society. She quotes three current studies into the subject of self-esteem, all of which reach this conclusion and she states that ‘people with high self-esteem pose a greater threat to those around them than people with low self-esteem and feeling bad about yourself is not the source of our country’s biggest, most expensive social problems.’

It would be fun to explain how that works and why that works and so on. But, for now, let’s just say she is right when she says it will take years and years for us to accept this. It is so deeply rooted in our psyche that lack of self-esteem is the reason why there is drug addiction, the reason there is crime, wife beating,and so forth. Slater says it is going to take forever for this view to change.

You see, the big thing about the ‘low self-esteem theory of misbehavior’ is that it is very attractive. You do not have to make any moral judgements in order to deal with society’s problems. All you have to do is support people and build them up. In traditional cultures, the way you dealt with these problems was that you clamped down on people and convicted them and called them bad!

What is intriguing about this passage in I Corinthians is that it gives us an approach to self-regard, an approach to the self and a way of seeing ourselves that is absolutely different from both the traditional and the post/modern contemporary  cultures. Utterly different!

The three things that Paul shows us here are:

1. The natural condition of the human ego.
2. The transformed sense of self (which Paul had discovered and which can be brought about through the gospel).
3. How to get that transformed sense of self.

Part Two of  Two

Discipleship

First and fundamental in the Anabaptist vision was the conception of the essence of Christianity as discipleship. It was a concept which meant the transformation of the entire way of life of the individual believer and of society so that it should be fashioned after the teachings and example of Christ. The Anabaptists could not understand a Christianity which made regeneration, holiness, and love primarily a matter of intellect, of doctrinal belief, or of subjective “experience,” rather than one of the transformation of life. They demanded an outward expression of the inner experience. Repentance must be “evidenced” by newness of behavior. “In evidence” is the keynote which rings through the testimonies and challenges of the early Swiss brethren when they are called to give an account of themselves. The whole life was to be brought literally under the lordship of Christ in a covenant of discipleship, a covenant which the Anabaptist writers delighted to emphasize. The focus of the Christian life was to be not so much the inward experience of the grace of God, as it was for Luther, but the outward application of that grace to all of human conduct and the consequent Christianization of all human relationships.

The great word of the Anabaptists was not “faith” as it was with the reformers, but “following.” And baptism, the greatest of Christian symbols, was accordingly to be for them the “covenant of a good conscience toward God” (I Peter 3:21), the pledge of a complete commitment to obey Christ, and not primarily the symbol of a past experience. The Anabaptists had faith, indeed, but they used it to produce a life. Theology was for them a means, not an end.

That the Anabaptists not only proclaimed the ideal of full Christian discipleship but achieved, in the eyes of their opponents, a measurably higher level of performance than the average, is fully witnessed by the sources. The early Swiss and South German reformers were keenly aware of this achievement and its attractive power. Zwingli knew it best of all, but Bullinger , Capito, Vadian, and many others confirm his judgement that the Anabaptist Brethren were unusually sincere, devoted and effective Christians. However, since the Brethren refused to accept the state church system which the reformers were building, and in addition made “radical” demands which might have changed the entire social order, the leaders of the Reformation were completely baffled in their understanding of the movement. In Zwingli’s last book against the Swiss Brethren in 1527 for instance, the following is found: “If you investigate their life and conduct, it seems at first contact irreproachable, pious, unassuming, attractive, yea, above this world. Even those inclined to be critical will say their lives are excellent.”

And the Roman Catholic theologian, Franz Agricola, in his book of 1582, Against the Terrible Errors of the Anabaptists, says: “Among existing heretical sects there is none which in appearance leads a more modest or pious life than the Anabaptist. 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 amongst them, but humility, patience, uprightness, neatness, honesty, temperance, straight forwardness, in such measure that one would suppose that they had the Holy Spirit of God.

2. Brotherhood

A second major element in the Anabaptist vision, a new concept of the church was created by the central principle of newness of life and applied Christianity. Voluntary church membership based upon true conversion and involving a commitment to holy living and discipleship was the absolutely essential heart of this concept. This vision stands in sharp contrast to the church concept of the reformers who retained the medieval idea of a mass church with membership of the entire population from birth to the grave compulsory by law and force.

It is from the standpoint of this new conception of the church that the Anabaptist opposition to infant baptism must be interpreted. Infant baptism was not the cause of their disavowal of the state church; it was only a symbol of the cause. How could infants give a commitment based upon a knowledge of what true Christianity means? They might conceivably passively experience the grace of God (though Anabaptists would question this), but they could not respond in pledging their lives to Christ. Such infant baptism would not only be meaningless, but would in fact become a serious obstacle to a true understanding of the nature of Christianity and membership in the church. Only adult baptism could signify an intelligent life commitment.

The world would not tolerate the practice of true Christian principles in society, and the church could not tolerate the practice of worldly ways among its membership. Hence, the only way out was separation, the gathering of true Christians into their own Christian society where Christ’s way could and would be practiced. On this principle of separation Menno Simon said: “All the evangelical scriptures teach us that the church of Christ was and is, in doctrine, life, worship, a people separated from the world.

In a sense this principle of nonconformity to the world is merely a negative expression of the positive requirement of discipleship, but it goes further in the sense that it represents a judgement on the contemporary social order, which the Anabaptists called “the world,” as non-Christian, and sets up a line of demarcation between the Christian community and worldly society.

A logical outcome of the concept on nonconformity to the world was the concept of the suffering church. Conflict with the world was inevitable for those who endeavored to live an earnest Christian life. The Anabaptists expected opposition: they took literally the words of Jesus when he said, “In the world ye shall have tribulation,” but they also took literally his words on encouragement, “but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.”

Perhaps it was persecution that made the Anabaptists so acutely aware of the conflict between the church and the world, but this persecution was due to the fact that they refused to accept what they considered the sub-Christian way of life practiced in European Christendom. They could have avoided the persecution had they but conformed, or they could have suspended the practice of their faith to a more convenient time, but they chose with dauntless courage and simple honesty to live their faith, to defy the existing world order, and to suffer the consequences.

3. Love and Nonresistance

The third great element in the Anabaptist vision was the ethic of love and nonresistance as applied to all human relationships. The Brethren understood this to mean complete abandonment of all warfare, strife, and violence, and of the taking of human life. Conrad Grebel, the Swiss, said in 1524: “True Christians use neither worldly sword nor engage in war, since among them taking life has ceased entirely, for we are no longer under the Old Covenant … The Gospel and those who accept it are not to be protected with the sword, neither should they thus protect themselves.

In this principle of nonresistance, or biblical pacifism, which was thoroughly believed and resolutely practiced by all the original Anabaptist Brethren and their descendants throughout Europe from the beginning until the last century, the Anabaptists were again creative leaders, far ahead of their times, in this antedating the Quakers by over a century and a quarter. It should be remembered that they held this principle when both Catholic and Protestant churches not only endorsed war as an instrument of state policy, but employed it in religious conflicts as well.

There were two foci (cornerstones) in the Anabaptist vision

• The first focus relates to the essential nature of Christianity. Is Christianity primarily a matter of the reception of divine grace through:
• A sacramental-sacerdotal institution (Roman Catholicism),
• Or chiefly enjoyment of the inner experience of the grace of God through faith in Christ (Lutheranism)
• Or is it most of all the transformation of life through discipleship (Anabaptism)

The Anabaptists were neither institutionalists, mystics, nor pietists (movement within Lutheranism in reaction to the Churches formalism and intellectualism) for they laid the weight of their emphasis upon following Christ in life. To them it was unthinkable for one truly to be a Christian without creating  a new life on divine  principles both for himself and for all men who commit themselves to the Christian way.

• The second foci relates to the church. For the Anabaptist, the church was neither:
• An institution (Catholicism)
• Nor the instrument of God for the proclamation of the divine Word (Lutheranism)
• Nor a resource group for individual piety (Pietism)
• But rather a brotherhood of love in which the fullness of the Christian life ideal is to be expressed. (Anabaptist)

The Anabaptist vision may be further clarified by comparison of the social ethics of the four main Christian groups of the Reformation period, Catholic, Calvinist, Lutheran,and Anabaptist.

Catholic and Calvinist alike were optimistic about the world, agreeing that the world can be redeemed; they held that the entire social order can be brought under the sovereignty of God and Christianized, although they used different means to attain this goal.

Lutheran and Anabaptist were pessimistic about the world, denying the possibility of Christianizing the entire social order; but the consequent attitudes of these two groups toward the social order were diametrically opposed. Lutheranism said that since the Christian must live in a world order that remains sinful, he must make a compromise with it. As a citizen he cannot avoid participation in the evil of the world, for instance in making war, and for this his only recourse is to seek forgiveness by the grace of God; only within his personal private experience can the Christian truly Christianize his life.

The Anabaptist rejected this view completely. Since for him no compromise may be made with evil, the Christian may in no circumstance participate in any conduct in the existing social order which is contrary to spirit and teaching of Christ and the apostolic practice. He must consequently withdraw from the worldly system and create a social order within the fellowship of the church brotherhood. Extension of this Christian order by the conversion of individuals and their transfer out of the world into the church is the only way by which progress can be made in Christianizing the social order.

 However, the Anabaptist was realistic. Down the long perspective of the future he saw little chance that the mass of humankind would enter into such a brotherhood with its high ideals. Hence he anticipated a long and grievous conflict between the church and the world. Neither did he anticipate the time when the church would rule the world; the church would always be a suffering church. He agreed with the words of Jesus when He said that those who would be His disciples must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow him, and that there would be few who would enter the strait gate and travel the narrow way of life. If this prospect should seem too discouraging, the Anabaptist would reply that the life within the Christian brotherhood is satisfyingly full of love and joy.

Summary

The Anabaptist vision was not a detailed blueprint for the reconstruction of human society, but the Brethren did believe that Jesus intended that the kingdom of God should be set up in the midst of earth, here and now, and this they proposed to do forthwith. We shall not believe, they said, that the Sermon on the Mount or any other vision that He had is only a heavenly vision meant but to keep His followers in tension until the last great day, but we should practice what he taught, believing that where He walked we can by His grace follow in His steps.

                           THE END —- Your Response?

Part One of Two

Today I am compelled as I witness the North American Anabaptist landscape to introduce you to the scholarly presidential address by Harold S Bender to the American Society of Church History at Columbia University in NYC in 1943. The address has remained predominately in circles of the theologians and historians and few of today’s 500,000 NA Anabaptists in the pews have actually read it or discussed its significance.

Harold S Bender held degrees from Goshen College, Garrett Biblical Institute, Princeton Theological Institute, Princeton University and Heidelberg University. He was ordained to ministry in 1933 as well as the Dean of Goshen College, and from 1944 until his death in 1962 he served as Dean of the Goshen College Biblical Seminary. He became the President of Mennonite World Conference in 1952 and in 1927 he founded the scholarly quarterly, The Mennonite Quarterly Review and served as its editor until his death. 

This entire address of 35 pages plus 11 pages of extensive footnotes is available on Amazon or you may Google “the anabaptist vision summary” and the second choice, “The Anabaptist Vision by Harold S Bender – Goshen College” will take you to the address in its entirety. Here is my Reader’s Digest Condensed version if you prefer.

The Anabaptist Vision

“Judged by the reception it met at the hands of those in power, both in Church and State, equally in Roman Catholic and in Protestant countries, the Anabaptist movement was one of the most tragic in the history of Christianity; but, judged by the principles, which were put into play by the men who bore this reproachful nickname, it must be pronounced one of the most momentous and significant undertakings in man’s eventful religious struggle after the truth. It gathered up the gains of earlier movements, it is the spiritual soil out of which all nonconformist sects have sprung, and it is the first plain announcement in modern history of a program for a new type of Christian society which the modern world, especially in America and England, has been slowly realizing – an absolute free and independent religious society, and a state in which every man counts as a man, and has his share in shaping both Church and State.”

These words of Rufus M. Jones constitute one of the best characterizations of Anabaptism and its contribution to our modern Christian culture to be found in the English language. They were brave words when they were written in 1908, but they have been abundantly verified by a generation of Anabaptist research since that time. There can be no question but that the great principles of freedom of conscience, separation of church and state, and voluntarism in religion, so basic in American Protestantism and so essential to democracy, ultimately are derived from the Anabaptists of the Reformation period, who for the first time clearly enunciated them and challenged the Christian world to follow them in practice. The line of descent through the centuries since that time may not always be clear, and may have passed through other intermediate movements and groups, but the debt to original Anabaptism is unquestioned.

The sixteenth-century reformers understood the Anabaptist position on this point all to well, and deliberately rejected it. The best witness is Heinrich Bullinger, Zwingli’s successor in Zurich, whose active life-span covers the first fifty years of the history of the Swiss Anabaptists and who knew them so well that he published two extensive treatises against them in 1531 and 1561. According to Bullinger, the Swiss Brethren taught that:

“One cannot and should not use force to compel anyone to accept the faith, for faith is a free gift of God. It is wrong to compel anyone by force or coercion to embrace the faith, or to put to death anyone for the sake of his erring faith. It is an error that in the church any sword other than that of the divine Word should be used. The secular kingdom should be separated from the church, and no secular ruler should exercise authority in the church. The Lord has commanded simply to preach the Gospel, not to compel anyone by force to accept it. The true church of Christ has the characteristic that it suffers and endures persecution but does not inflict persecution upon anyone.”

Bullinger reports these ideas, not in commendation but in condemnation urging the need of rigid suppression. He attempts a point by point refutation of the Anabaptist teaching, closing with the assertion that to put to death Anabaptists is a necessary and commendable service.

But great as is the Anabaptist contribution to the development of religious liberty, this concept not only does not exhaust but actually fails to define the true essence of Anabaptism who had not only clearly defined goals but also an action plan of definiteness and power. In fact the more intimately one becomes acquainted with this group the more one becomes conscious of the great vision that shaped their course in history and for which they gladly gave their lives.

Before describing this vision it is well to note its attractiveness to the masses of Christians of the sixteenth century. Bullinger wrote in 1531 that “ the people were running after them as though they were living saints.” Another contemporary writer asserts that “Anabaptism had spread with such speed that there was reason to fear that the majority of the common people would unite with this sect. Zwingli was so frightened by the power of the movement that he complained that the struggle with the Catholic party was “but child’s play” compared to the conflict with the Anabaptists.

The dreadful severity of the persecution of the Anabaptist movement in the years 1527-60 not only in Switzerland and South Germany, but in all the  Austrian lands as well as in the Low Countries, testifies to the power of the movement and the desperate haste with which the Catholic, Lutheran, and Zwinglian authorities alike strove to throttle it before it should be too late. In 1529 the decree issued by the Diet of Spires summarily passed the sentence of death upon all Anabaptists, ordering that “every Anabaptist  and re-baptized person of either sex should be put to death by fire, sword, or some other way.” Even judges and jurors who had scruples against pronouncing the death sentence on Anabaptists, be removed from office and punished by heavy fines and imprisonment.

The authorities had great difficulty in executing their program of suppression, for they soon discovered that the Anabaptists feared neither torture or death, and gladly sealed their faith with their blood. Therefore, since the customary method of individual trials and sentences were proving totally inadequate to stem the tide, the authorities resorted to sending out mounted soldiers and armed executioners to hunt down Anabaptists and kill them on the spot singly or en masse without trial or sentence.

The Anabaptists bore all the torture and agony without fear. The things of this world they counted in their holy mind only as shadows, having the assurance of greater things. They were so drawn to God that they sought nothing, desired nothing, loved nothing but God alone. Therefore they had more patience in their suffering than their enemies in tormenting them. The prisoners sang in their prisons and rejoiced so that the enemies outside became much more fearful than the prisoners and did not know what to do with them. Many were talked to in wonderful ways, often day and night. They were argued with, with great cunning and cleverness, with many sweet and smooth words, by monks and priests, by doctors of theology, with much false testimony, with threats and scolding and mockery, yea, with lies and grievous slander against the brotherhood, but none of these things moved them or made them falter.

Before defining the Anabaptist vision, it is essential to state clearly who is meant by the term “Anabaptist,” since the name has come to be used in modern historiography to cover a wide variety of Reformation groups, sometimes thought of as the whole “left wing of the Reformation” (Roland Bainton), or “the Bolsheviks of the Reformation” (Preserved Smith). There is no longer any excuse for permitting our understanding of the distinct character of this genuine Anabaptism to be obscured by Thomas Munster and the Peasants War, the Munsterites, or any other aberration of Protestantism in the sixteenth century.

The Anabaptists were concerned most of all about “a true Christian life,” that is a life patterned after the teaching and example of Christ by establishing congregations in which repentance was evidenced by fruits from their newness of life in Christ. The Anabaptists believed the reformers, such as Luther and Zwingli, did not secure among the people true repentance, regeneration, and Christian living as a result of their preaching.

There is abundant evidence that although the original goal sought by Luther and Zwingli was “an earnest Christianity” for all, the actual outcome was far less, for the level of Christian living among the Protestant population was frequently lower than it had been before under Catholicism. Luther himself was keenly aware of the deficiency. Between 1522 and 1527 Luther repeatedly mentioned his concern to establish a true Christian church, and his desire to provide for earnest Christians who would confess the gospel with their lives as well as with their tongues. Zwingli faced the same problem; he was in fact specifically challenged by the Swiss brethren to set up such a church; but he refused and followed Luther’s course. Both reformers decided it was better to include the masses within the fold of the church than to form a fellowship of true Christians only. In taking this course, the Anabaptists said the reformers surrendered their original purpose, and abandoned the divine intention. Others may say they were wise and statesman-like leaders.

The Anabaptists, however, retained the original vision of Luther and Zwingli, enlarged it, gave it body and form, and set out to achieve it in actual experience. They proceeded to organize a church composed solely of earnest Christians, and actually found the people for it. They did not believe in any case that the size of the response should determine whether or not the truth of God should be applied, and they refused to compromise. They preferred to make a radical break with 1500 years of history and culture if necessary rather than to break with the New Testament.

Luther’s expressions of his partial failures and dejection are well known. Contrast this sense of defeat at the end of Luther’s outwardly successful career with the sense of victory in the hearts of the Anabaptist martyrs who laid down their lives in what the world would call defeat, conscious of having kept faith with their vision to the end.

Therefore, by having defined genuine Anabaptism in its Reformation setting, we are now ready to examine its central teachings. The Anabaptist vision included three major points of emphasis: 1.) Discipleship, 2.) Brotherhood, and 3.) Love and Nonresistance.These three will be reviewed in the next posting. Blessings as you ponder the significance of either your heritage or the spiritual integrity of the martyrs for all believers.   Merlin