Merlin's Mustache

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