There is a predictable tendency when reading the 16th century to highlight the fact that the Magisterial Reformers of the Continent (Luther and Calvin), although breaking from the Roman Catholic tradition and initiating the Protestant Reformation, were still deeply catholic. What do I mean when I say this?
The mainstream of the Protestant Reformation (Luther, Calvin and followers) held to a magisterial notion of the relationship between church and state. The state was the political arms and legs of the church, and when the state had to use violence in war or repress political or theological dissent, most of the magisterial reformers supported the state in its use of violence to do so. It is significant to note that although the Protestant Reformers held high the authority of the Bible, they were quite selective in both how the Bible was interpreted and applied. The Sermon on the Mount became a crossroads criteria that highlighted the fact some texts had greater authority than others. The Sermon on the Mount has much to say about loving enemy, being peacemakers and living a prophetic vocation.
The more the Magisterial Reformers were willing to give the nod to the state in the use of violence and persecution, the clearer the paths taken from the crossroads became. Much hinged on the prominence of the Sermon of the Mount as the ethical path to be taken or not taken. Yes, the Bible was the authority for the Magisterial Reformers, but whose interpretation and application of it should be heeded and why? This became, in the 1520s-1530s, the dominant question, and answers went in different directions.
The recent publication of The Naked Anabaptist: The Bare Essentials of a Radical Faith (2010), by Stuart Murray, is both a critique of the way many modern Mennonites have assimilated into the mainstream and a call to return to the foundation peace tradition of the Anabaptists. The problem with The Naked Anabaptist is this: there were many forms of 1st generation Anabaptists. Whose position should take the final position and why? There is no doubt that 1st generation Anabaptists had a passion for peace, and the Sermon on the Mount was held high, but there were differences on how the Sermon on the Mount should be interpreted and applied. The Schleitheim Confession (1527) of Michael Sattler represented and emboded one perspective of 1st generation of Anabaptists, and it was roundly attacked by both Zwingli and Calvin. Did Hubmaier, Marpeck, Denck, Grebel and Simon all uncritically salute before the Schleitheim Confession? It would be simply inaccurate and untrue to history to assume they did. The older and rather dated notion of a single (mongenesis) 1st generation Anabaptist vision has gone the way of all flesh. Most now hold to a position of polygenesis. There can be little doubt that 1st generation Anabaptists had a unique commitment to the Sermon on the Mount and peacemaking, but there was no collective and communal agreement on how the Sermon on the Mount should be interpreted and applied in the public realm by society or the state. Some Anabaptists took the position that the true church had to be separate from the compromised church (both the protestant magisterial reformers and the roman catholics) and the state, whereas other 1st generation Anabaptists such as Pilgrim Marpeck and Balthasar Hubmaier were less convinced by the rather stark separation between church and state. There can be no doubt, though, that 1st generation of Anabaptists, for a variety of reasons, turned against the magisterial reformers as those that refused to carry the reform of the church to her true end-- such an end could be only known by a living from the demanding ethical standards of the Sermon on the Mount.
Erasmus was the elder and most significant Theologian of Peace of the early 16th century, and most of the leaders of the 1st generation of Anabaptists were children of Erasmus. Erasmus spent a great deal of his middle and later years in Northern Switzerland (Basel) and Southern Germany (Freiberg), and many of the 1st generation Anabaptists were from Switzerland (Basel-Zurich) and Southern Germany. There has been a historic tendency for some Anabaptist-Mennonite historians to ignore the impact and shaping influence of Erasmus’ peace theology on the 1st generation of Anabaptists, but in the last few decades, a closer read of this period of history is taking shape. I did a Masters of Christian Studies (MCS) at Regent College from 1979-1981, and one of my Advanced Seminars was on ‘The Reformations of the 16th Century’. There were just a few of us in the seminar (taught by Dr. Ian Rennie), and when we focussed on the varied Anabaptist positions, Dr. Rennie invited Dr. Davis to lead the class. Dr. Davis had done his Ph.D. thesis on ‘Anabaptism and Asceticism: A Study in Intellectual Origins’ and his thesis had been published as a book in 1974. So, we were quite fortunate to have Dr. Davis lecture to us on the older and deeper roots of 16th century Anabaptism. I found both the book and lecture intriguing for the simple reason that Dr. Davis had argued (and this was in the 1970s) that Erasmus had been one of the primary ‘Agencies of Mediation’ to 1st generation Anabaptism. This was rather cutting edge stuff in the 1970s. Most Mennonites at the time simply assumed their founders had turned to a purer read of the Bible in opposition to the Magisterial Reformers and the Roman Catholics. The idea that a Roman Catholic would have played a leading role to shaping Anabaptist Peace Theology and activism was only on the horizon for some and did not exist for most Mennonites. Dr. Davis succinctly summarized his research on Erasmus-Anabaptists with these telling words: ‘ Erasmus had copious direct and indirect contact with many of the founding leaders of Anabaptism ... the Anabaptists can best be understood as, apart from their own creativity, a radicalization and Protestantization not of the Magisterial Reformation but of the lay-oriented, ascetic reformation of which Erasmus is the principle mediator’ (p292.)
I was quite taken by the connections made by Dr. Davis in his tome like book and seminar. I had lived in Switzerland from 1972-1974, and from 1973-1974 lived at L’Abri with Francis/Edith Schaeffer. The Schaeffers had pronounced reformed leanings of a rather narrow confessional type, and Erasmus did not fit well into their commitment to Calvin, Zwingli and Farel. Erasmus was viewed as a Renaissance Humanist that could not really be trusted. Luther had turned on Erasmus as had Farel and Zwingli, so how could Erasmus be part of the reformed canon and a person to be trusted? But, I found myself more agreeing with Erasmus than with Luther, Calvin, Zwingli or Farel. These sorts of thoughts sat with me until I took the seminar 5 years later at Regent College. The 1st generation Anabaptists had learned much from Erasmus, Erasmus held high the authority of the Bible as did the protestant reformers, but Erasmus and the Anabaptists differed with the protestant reformers about the role of the Sermon on the Mount and other hard saying of Jesus and the apostles. The issue, then, was not really about the authority of the Bible----it was much more about whose interpretation of the Bible was authoritative. It was this second level of interpretive authority (deuterocanonical) that was the real defining authority that fragmented the reformers of the 16th century. But, let us return to the main trail.
Most Mennonites in the last few decades have come to realize that Erasmus stands at the trailhead of many of their unique perspectives. Their interpretation and application of the Bible has been mediated to them through Erasmus. The more recent publication of Erasmus, the Anabaptists, and the Great Commission(1998) by Abraham Freisen , has more than confirmed and reinforced the insights of Kenneth Davis. Freisen summed up his position in a poignant and not to be missed manner: ‘It was indeed the impact of Christian humanism in general, and that of Desiderius Erasmus in particular---only partially mediated by Ulrich Zwingli—that gave rise to Anabaptism’ (p.19). There you have it. There have been many articles, monographs and books that have left the tarmac in the last few decades that have clearly demonstrated that Erasmus had a substantive impact as a midwife in the birthing process of Anabaptism.
I think an important question does need to be asked at this point of the essay, though. We know that the 1st generation of Anabaptists parted paths with the magisterial reformers and why they did so. But, Erasmus never became an Anabaptist (even though he did not publically criticize them in the way many magisterial reformers did). But Erasmus took a more difficult route than did many Roman Catholics and Magisterial Reformers. Why did Erasmus not become an Anabaptist? How was his view of the church and the relationship between church and state, faith and politics different from the 1st generation of Anabaptists? The answer to this question can be found in the sources Erasmus turned in his vision of faith, the church and peace politics.
There has been an Anabaptist tradition that has ignored the impact Erasmus had in the beginnings of Anabaptism, and in the last few decades this error has been corrected. But, there are serious differences between Erasmus and the Anabaptists, and these differences (and the reasons for them) must be duly noted). There are serious implications for heeding Erasmus or the Anabaptists. I am much more Erasminian in my theology, ecclesiology and politics than Anabaptist.
Erasmus made his first visit to England in 1499, and in this visit (of which there were many thereafter) he met John Colet and Thomas More. Both Colet and More were prominent intellectuals, Biblical exegetes and public activists in England. They were part of a group called the London Reformers. When Erasmus met Colet and More, he met two men (and many others like them) that were committed to reforming the Roman Catholic church and transforming public life in England at the highest political levels---peace and justice were at the forefront in the thinking of Colet and More. Erasmus was feeling his vocational way at the time, and when he met Colet and More (and other English bishops, priests, scholars and activists), he came to see their rich organic vision of church and society, learning and life.
The integrated and unified vision of what the church could be (when the garden was weeded rather than destroyed) was held high before Erasmus. The notion that the church should be divided, fragmented and schismatic was an anathema to the London Reformers. They thought such a vision much too thin and reactionary. The notion that the state could not be trusted and must be separated from was foreign to the London Reformers. Erasmus imbibed such Classical insights, and he never would have accepted an anarchist view of church and politics. The vision that Erasmus took in when in England meant that his notion of faith, church and peacemaking is quite different from the Anabaptists. The Classical tradition of Erasmus is about unity at many levels, whereas the Anabaptist approach heralds the beginning of fragmentation and is the birth of the modern and postmodern. I know where I turn for insight and guidance, and it is to those like John Colet, Thomas More and Erasmus. The recent interest in The Naked Anabaptist is merely a déjà vu replay of something Erasmus, More and Colet would say No to when day is done. Erasmus stands within an older classical, conservative and red tory way. Many of the 1st generation Anabaptists and The Naked Anabaptist are merely furthering the modern liberal ideology.
Ron Dart
@ Brian: "I'm trying to find a way hold to the Jesus ethic of nonviolence without collapsing into a Christian anarchism. It's tricky."
That statement describes my situation so well that I had to quote it.
cheers
ehj
Posted by: Eric H Janzen | October 26, 2011 at 12:20 AM
Thank you, Ron.
I like a lot of the Radical Orthodoxy stuff...though how it applies in an American context is a bit of a challenge.
A strong commitment to the Sermon on the Mount in the context of a church hosted by a military superpower tends to push one toward the Anabaptist position...or so it seems.
I'm trying to find a way hold to the Jesus ethic of nonviolence without collapsing into a Christian anarchism. It's tricky.
I think I'm with Stanley Hauerwas when he says (only half joking), "I'm a high church Mennonite."
BZ
Posted by: Brian Zahnd | October 25, 2011 at 02:01 PM
Brian,
Many thanks for the good question. I have a great deal of affinity with much of the work of the Radical Orthodox—their Platonic Anglicanism is deeply rooted and grounded in some of the best thinking in theology and philosophy in the Christian Tradition.
There is a depth and breadth in the Radical Orthodox that is rare in our contemporary ethos, and the RO come as rigorous critics of both modernity and postmodernity. You might be interested to know that some within the RO movement (and there are differences and distinctions within the tribe) are indebted to the
well known Canadian George Grant (who Brad is doing his PH.D. thesis on in Bangor/Wales). I do prefer, though, Rowan Williams to the RO (although many within the RO clan were students of Williams). I have some serious questions about Phillip Blond’s ‘Red Tory’. Blond is, in some ways, the political voice of RO, and he has both pilfered and distorted the language of Red Tory (an indigenous Canadian political term). So, a Sic et Non to RO, more praise for Williams and serious questions about Blond. I hope this, in brief, is of some help.
RSD
Posted by: Ron Dart | October 24, 2011 at 09:42 PM
Great article Ron. History is so much richer and complex than we usually think. I suppose the early Anabaptists were struggling with the question that I have struggled with (surprise I am from the Anabaptist tradition!); What does it mean to be in the world but not of the world? And how do you respond/react when what you see in the Church is more a reflection of World values/system than a reflection of Jesus and his Kingdom? I recognize in myself the spiritual anarchist who is always ready to resist the System that Jesus overcame. The problem with the anarchist lens is, of course, that it leads to myopic cynicism instead of genuine prophetic critique. After what seems like endless centuries of perceived failings in the Church (and not just Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox, but all of the streams) the Anabaptist tendency to separation from the System(s) is, at least, understandable. However, I have a problem caused by none other than yourself (ha!). In a conversation we had once, you made the point: Love never opts out. God's Love is a call to a higher Way, as we all ought to know, and that Love never quits, never reaches a point of saying 'I've done enough and now I can opt out.' I suspect that the London Reformers held a deep view of Love in this same way. Despite the overwhelming odds that failure would be the result of their efforts to reform the System, they were committed to a Love that would not opt out.
I have to confess that ignorance of this 'No option to opt out' principal would make my life a lot simpler. I think for folks like me, closet anarchists who tend towards cynicism, the challenge is what can we do? It seems like the leaders who hold the position to be reformers are the ones most eager to toe the line and keep the status quo in place. As such, I suppose, they are not genuine leaders, but they have the ears of the people. Where are the reformers of our age? Are they out there and I just don't know? I Love Jesus. I actually love the Church as well, as much as she makes me angry and confused. God gave me a soft spot for the Church some years ago. For all her problems, she is the Bride after all. Thus, though I want to withdraw to a Hermit's cave somewhere atop a mountain, I can't. I can't opt out even while I live with the tension of not wanting to opt in.
Long ramble ... apologies.
cheers
eric h janzen
Posted by: Eric H Janzen | October 24, 2011 at 12:25 PM
Ron,
This may not be the place to ask this question, but here goes anyway. What's your take on Radical Orthodoxy; John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock, etc.?
BZ
Posted by: Brian Zahnd | October 24, 2011 at 09:44 AM