The Intellectual Depth of Anabaptism

[Bootstrap]

One of the characteristics of intellectual depth is the ability to distill complexity into simplicity.

When selecting college classes I looked for the ones that were taught by a full professor, or better yet a department head. This doesn't always hold true, but in general the people with the most knowledge and experience in their field can give the clearest explanations out of the depth of their wisdom. This is because they understand the detail, the nuance that underlies that clarity.

The Gateway Arch in St. Louis is an iconic form that everyone recognizes. But the nuts and bolts of the design, the structure, the construction, and even the operation are anything but elementary.

The gospel is simple enough that anyone can understand it, yet a lifetime of study and walking with God cannot exhaust the profound riches that he has made available to those who seek him; there is always something new to discover.

The Anabaptist hermeneutic and the orthopraxy of straightforward obedience that flows from it are an expression of this principle. Simple but not simplistic; logically coherent but not rigidly systematized; authoritative but not authoritarian.

I agree with this, but it's also important to realize that there may be a lot of layers that eventually boil down to this simplicity.

In modern biblical studies, I think people like Jeremy Treat, Carmen Imes, and especially Tim Mackie are presenting simple, compelling overviews of the Bible based on close reading. Tim Mackie's bibliography is overwhelming, and many of the authors he draws from are not easy to read, but without these sources he would not be able to create the much simpler presentations that he creates.

A bridge should be simple to use and beautiful, but the simplicity hides many layers that I would not understand without learning what engineers know. There's no need to dangle formulas on the bridge, but it's helpful to realize that they did something I would have no idea how to do, even if the result looks simple to me. Anti-intellectualism is insisting that I know as much as they do because I can't even begin to see all that I do not understand. Anti-intellectualism turns this into a status game, "I'm just as good as he is". I would not drive over a bridge built by anti-intellectualism.

But the bridge is there for all of us, not only those who could have designed and built it. And many of the people who built it were construction workers who may not be intellectuals. The body needs many gifts.

[Robert]

Threads like this is why MennoNet is here.

I learned long ago that God and Scriptures can handle a hard deep dissection.

Neto may have a different perspective because of his work with Scripture translation. We are not reading Jesus' words in the original language of Aramaic and Paul's letters in Greek while living in the culture of 1st century life. So much can get missed by translation and by cultural shift. Just reading Jesus Yeshua's words that have been translated without understanding the context to what they were spoken to can lead to misunderstanding. It takes some intellectual research and learning to bring that out.

Also understanding the universe that God has created and our part in it is part of that context. One does not have to be afraid of digging deep. God can handle it. We also need each other to make sure what we dig up is understood in the right context and not distorted because of our own biases as we force it to fit our own culture and time.

[Soloist]

I can agree with what you are saying. I have to add though that we cannot attempt to make "scripture" answer questions it does not actually address and we have to make accommodations at times where it appears to contradict what anyone with a brain can see is obvious. The earth is not flat though scripture plainly suggests it is. The Universe is very, very old, though scripture suggests otherwise. We must not let our "simple" (young earth creationism, from the viewpoint of a geologist or physicist, is not in any way simple!) interpretation of scripture deny what is authentically true, we must be intellectually honest.

At the same time, there are very intellectual people out there who believe in young earth based on Scripture and there are also those that would believe in evolution using the exact same concept you present here.
I think that a simple interpretation of the Scriptures in regard to creation is true and the earth is a young earth in the same way Adam was a new day 0 aged creation while being an adult.
I accept that the data gathered although seen through tainted lenses has some validity but this does not contradict Scripture. The Scripture also has verses suggesting that the earth is not flat and to say it plainly suggests it is, is a misuse of Scripture and context.
This of course confirms my view and opinion but likely does the same on your stance too.
Is it possible that there can be multiple views that are intellectually honest? or do you view your view as the only intellectually honest one?
From an intellectual approach, the resurrection is impossible and many would argue using many authentic bits of data. Miracles have to be believed by faith.

Not a bone to pick. Perhaps I just don't agree with the assumption that modern ethnic Mennonites (or Amish or Hutterites) of any stripe are "Anabaptist" when clearly many if not most of them would have a bone to pick with Conrad Grebel, George Blaurock, and Michael Sattler over many things, including the very hermeneutic they used to arrive at their conclusions about what constituted the gospel.

Well we definitely agree here. Just reference the teaching of Menno Simons to someone and they generally object to something he taught.
I personally believe that Anabaptist can mean whatever you want it to mean now days... Are the CM's of today Anabaptists like the Anabaptists of old? Yes. But which ones... You put those three men together long enough and they would disagree about several things... The reason we look at them as inspiring has more to do with the response they generated and how they were hounded from city to city. The doctrine they held was all over the place and I would personally have more room for the diversity then most CM's would.

[Ken]

Threads like this is why MennoNet is here.

I learned long ago that God and Scriptures can handle a hard deep dissection.

Neto may have a different perspective because of his work with Scripture translation. We are not reading Jesus' words in the original language of Aramaic and Paul's letters in Greek while living in the culture of 1st century life. So much can get missed by translation and by cultural shift. Just reading Jesus Yeshua's words that have been translated without understanding the context to what they were spoken to can lead to misunderstanding. It takes some intellectual research and learning to bring that out.

Also understanding the universe that God has created and our part in it is part of that context. One does not have to be afraid of digging deep. God can handle it. We also need each other to make sure what we dig up is understood in the right context and not distorted because of our own biases as we force it to fit our own culture and time.

The King James Bible used in so many traditional churches today was actually first published in 1611, which was 50 years after Menno Simon's death. So none of the early Anabaptists would have known or used it and few of them probably even spoke English. They would most likely have used the Swiss/German Froschauer Bibles which were based on Martin Luther's translation. Or, in the case of educated former priests like Menno Simons, the Latin translations used by the Catholic church at that time.

Yet many of us (myself included) probably grew up thinking that God and Jesus spoke in Elizabethan English

[Soloist]

The King James Bible used in so many traditional churches today was actually first published in 1611, which was 50 years after Menno Simon's death. So none of the early Anabaptists would have known or used it and few of them probably even spoke English. They would most likely have used the Swiss/German Froschauer Bibles which were based on Martin Luther's translation. Or, in the case of educated former priests like Menno Simons, the Latin translations used by the Catholic church at that time.

Yet many of us (myself included) probably grew up thinking that God and Jesus spoke in Elizabethan English

I actually enjoy bringing out the original English KJV Bible to show how much it did change I also really enjoy reading the Latin as its basically the first complete Bible we had... Latin is such a wonderful language...

Its also interesting to me that the apocrypha has been discarded yet Menno quoted from it and virtually all the Bibles back then had it...

[Neto]

Threads like this is why MennoNet is here.

I learned long ago that God and Scriptures can handle a hard deep dissection.

Neto may have a different perspective because of his work with Scripture translation. We are not reading Jesus' words in the original language of Aramaic and Paul's letters in Greek while living in the culture of 1st century life. So much can get missed by translation and by cultural shift. Just reading Jesus Yeshua's words that have been translated without understanding the context to what they were spoken to can lead to misunderstanding. It takes some intellectual research and learning to bring that out.

Also understanding the universe that God has created and our part in it is part of that context. One does not have to be afraid of digging deep. God can handle it. We also need each other to make sure what we dig up is understood in the right context and not distorted because of our own biases as we force it to fit our own culture and time.

I readily admit that there were times when I was very frustrated with the Scripture being so immersed in that long-ago cultural setting which does not mesh well at all with the culture and experiences of an isolated jungle tribe. Just the physical setting itself creates a miss-match of perspective. For the Banawa, the jungle is everywhere - the clearings that form their village sites and slash and burn fields are the exception, they fall within the jungle. For the Bible people, the 'wilderness' is the all-pervading landscape, and the oasises, the places WITH trees, those are the exception. I once told one of my friends that "I enjoy walking in the jungle", meaning, of course, on the trails that go through the jungle. They laughed, and thought I was nuts, because for them, the trail is not part of the jungle. The mental picture for them was of me gleefully fighting my way through the underbrush, thorns, and snake infested thickets.
So in unguarded moments I thought to myself, If I were writing Scripture, I wouldn't do it like this. (And there was actually another mission agency there who advocated translating more than the words of Scripture - "translating' the whole story, people and all into the jungle setting. So Moses was an Indian, who wandered about down the jungle trails, raising sheep & camels? No way! He wouldn't have been raising any animals at all, except for an occasional pet monkey, tapir, or perhaps even a jaguar. (One of the Banawa boys had a jaguar 'kitten' for awhile.)
But the Bible is not like other 'holy books', we firmly believe that it can be translated. And perhaps that is why God allowed Yeshua ha'Mashiach's words to be translated into Greek, possibly before the first accounts were written or widely circulated. He demonstrated right from the beginning that this was not a book that was only valid in the original tongue.

[Neto]

Threads like this is why MennoNet is here.

I learned long ago that God and Scriptures can handle a hard deep dissection.

Neto may have a different perspective because of his work with Scripture translation. We are not reading Jesus' words in the original language of Aramaic and Paul's letters in Greek while living in the culture of 1st century life. So much can get missed by translation and by cultural shift. Just reading Jesus Yeshua's words that have been translated without understanding the context to what they were spoken to can lead to misunderstanding. It takes some intellectual research and learning to bring that out.

Also understanding the universe that God has created and our part in it is part of that context. One does not have to be afraid of digging deep. God can handle it. We also need each other to make sure what we dig up is understood in the right context and not distorted because of our own biases as we force it to fit our own culture and time.

The King James Bible used in so many traditional churches today was actually first published in 1611, which was 50 years after Menno Simon's death. So none of the early Anabaptists would have known or used it and few of them probably even spoke English. They would most likely have used the Swiss/German Froschauer Bibles which were based on Martin Luther's translation. Or, in the case of educated former priests like Menno Simons, the Latin translations used by the Catholic church at that time.

Yet many of us (myself included) probably grew up thinking that God and Jesus spoke in Elizabethan English

There were English people who fled persecution in Great Britain and came to the Netherlands during the lifetime of Menno Simons. In fact, he went out to the ship where they were waiting to get clearance to disembark. Food was taken out to them as well. They were eventually allowed to come ashore, and while many (probably most) went back (forming the English Baptist movement), those who accepted non-resistance stayed. And it is possible that I have British ancestry through this.
It would explain how the name 'Buller' became a 'Mennonite name', when there are far more historical connections of the name in the English speaking countries of the world than there are in Holland, etc. General Redvers Buller, whose statue is in Westminister Abby, Buller Mountain in Australia, Buller River in New Zealand, which flows through Buller Gorge, in Buller Province. While all we have here is Buller Avenue in Gossel, Kansas.

[Sudsy]

One can have a deep level of intellect or knowledge on a subject and be able to be logically quite convincing yet lack wisdom on how to use it to the glory of God.

Knowledge can exist without wisdom. Wisdom requires knowledge but it is a gift we can have if asked for - James 1:5,6. However, there is a condition to receiving it and that is faith without doubting. And if we have it, it is described in detail in James 3 :17. If this does not describe our application of knowledge, then we lack biblical wisdom. Check it out.

My guess is there is a great deal of knowledge today regarding what the scriptures meant ( i.e. our access to the various studies on a text) when spoken to the immediate crowd but the lack is more on the wisdom end. It is the wisdom to rightly apply knowledge that brings God glory.

[Josh]

The King James Bible used in so many traditional churches today was actually first published in 1611, which was 50 years after Menno Simon's death. So none of the early Anabaptists would have known or used it and few of them probably even spoke English. They would most likely have used the Swiss/German Froschauer Bibles which were based on Martin Luther's translation. Or, in the case of educated former priests like Menno Simons, the Latin translations used by the Catholic church at that time.

Yet many of us (myself included) probably grew up thinking that God and Jesus spoke in Elizabethan English

I actually enjoy bringing out the original English KJV Bible to show how much it did change I also really enjoy reading the Latin as its basically the first complete Bible we had... Latin is such a wonderful language...

Its also interesting to me that the apocrypha has been discarded yet Menno quoted from it and virtually all the Bibles back then had it...

One of my hobbies is finding early church leaders (including John Holdeman) quoting the apocryphal texts and in turn quoting them.

The Amish will probably be using the apocrypha long after the rest of us are dead and gone.

[Bootstrap]

I readily admit that there were times when I was very frustrated with the Scripture being so immersed in that long-ago cultural setting which does not mesh well at all with the culture and experiences of an isolated jungle tribe. Just the physical setting itself creates a miss-match of perspective. For the Banawa, the jungle is everywhere - the clearings that form their village sites and slash and burn fields are the exception, they fall within the jungle. For the Bible people, the 'wilderness' is the all-pervading landscape, and the oasises, the places WITH trees, those are the exception. I once told one of my friends that "I enjoy walking in the jungle", meaning, of course, on the trails that go through the jungle. They laughed, and thought I was nuts, because for them, the trail is not part of the jungle. The mental picture for them was of me gleefully fighting my way through the underbrush, thorns, and snake infested thickets.
So in unguarded moments I thought to myself, If I were writing Scripture, I wouldn't do it like this. (And there was actually another mission agency there who advocated translating more than the words of Scripture - "translating' the whole story, people and all into the jungle setting. So Moses was an Indian, who wandered about down the jungle trails, raising sheep & camels? No way! He wouldn't have been raising any animals at all, except for an occasional pet monkey, tapir, or perhaps even a jaguar. (One of the Banawa boys had a jaguar 'kitten' for awhile.)
But the Bible is not like other 'holy books', we firmly believe that it can be translated. And perhaps that is why God allowed Yeshua ha'Mashiach's words to be translated into Greek, possibly before the first accounts were written or widely circulated. He demonstrated right from the beginning that this was not a book that was only valid in the original tongue.

In some settings, like Africa, a lot of things make sense that are outside of our experience. Animal sacrifice. Concubines. Polygamy. Living a simple lifestyle, at subsistence levels, with hunger always a possibility and illness a constant threat. Dying in childbirth. Nomadic tribes.

The Bible is from a culture foreign to all modern cultures. It is just as foreign to us as it is to any other culture. Realizing that is an important first step for modern American Christians to understand what Bible translation is and how our own culture's Christianity relates to the Christianity of the rest of the world.