Menno Simons as a boring author

[PetrChelcicky]

As I've perhaps said before I am collecting material for a pamphlet about "the historical peace churches in their time" as opposed to the radical progressives of their time, starting with the opposition of Petr Chelcicky to the Hussites. The basic difference is that the radical progerssives tried to conquer the world and take over the traditional power structures whereas the Peace Churches tried to create a "parallel society" or "subculture", starting a new libertarian-pluralist tradition.

In this great conflict of the 16th century, Anabaptists were on both sides. The theologians of the "Peasant's revolt" (like Muentzer) and the Munsterites on the one side, most Swiss and Menno on the other. So I read a book abut Menno's writings (a German doctoral dissertation by Chr. Bornhaeuser) and found it very disappointing.

Of course Menno started writing only after the fall of Munster (whereas Petr Chelcicky wrote during the success of the Hussites). So he didn't need to dicuss the Munsterite theology in a thorough way. He seems to have constrained himself to some of the grosser deficits, like Matthys claiming to be a "prophet" or Bockelson's case for polygamy. He was careful to deny any personal connection (even if he seems to have been baptized by Matthys' missionaries), he was completely silent about the revolt in Amsterdam and he treated the conquest of Oldeklooster as a mere defensive act, Anabaptists protecting themselves. Following Bornhaeuser he seems to have admitted that his brother was part of that latter event - the Wikipedia author maintains that the Peter Simons in Oldeklooster was not a brother of Menno.

In his early years he wrote about adult baptism, but seemingly only about its roots in the Bible, not seeing or mentioning its revolutionary meaning: the recreation of the Christian Church as a voluntary association which opened up the way to a general freedon of association (destroyed only by the Civil Rights Legislation with its emphasis on non-voluntary inclusion).
In his late times he wrote about the ban in a quite reasonable way: treating the ban as an inevitable part of the church (as a voluntary association), but pleading for a cautious use of it.
Between both there is his work about a comprehensive theology in general which made him the leader of Dutch Anabaptism.
Even if he did not plea expressively for Anabaptists to take political responsibility themselves, he had no qualms to tell the politicians what they had to do. In fact I don't see that he is much different from Luther - only Luther allowed the politicians also to decide about the outward form of the church (but not about the doctrine).The Dutch in general seem not to have been as adverse to political power als the Swiss.

That's my impression following Bornhaeuser's book. Do you think that it is a correct description?

[PetrChelcicky]

By the way - in "kingdom" matters I distinguish between the "futurists" (the kingdom comes to us in the future) and the "beyondists" (the kingdom already exists and we go to it) Menno, like most theologians of his time, was a futurist and even a near-futurist (the kingdom comes soon), even if not an "accelerationist" (we must do something to quicken the coming of the kingdom). Luther was a near-futurist, too.

[Bootstrap]

That's my impression following Bornhaeuser's book. Do you think that it is a correct description?

No.

But I suggest you read Menno Simons directly and not judge him via Bornhaeuser. In general, I don't think your descriptions match his writings:

http://www.mennosimons.net/completewritings.html

For instance, this is how Menno Simons sees the significance of baptism:

http://www.mennosimons.net/ft009-baptism.html

Behold, this is the word and will of the Lord, that all who hear and believe the word of God, shall be baptized (as above stated), thereby to profess their faith, and declare that they will henceforth not live according to their own will, but according to the will of God. That for the testimony of Jesus they are prepared to forsake their homes, chattels, lands and lives, and to suffer hunger, affliction, oppression, persecution, the cross and death; yea, they desire to bury the flesh with its lusts, and arise with Christ to newness of life, even as Paul says, "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life," Col. 2:11, 12; Rom. 6:3, 4.

I think that is the revolutionary meaning of baptism.

[Soloist]

I have read his work several times and I don't think that is a fair judgement of his writings. Read his work, then judge it, don't read an opinion piece on his work, go to the source.

[Neto]

I don't know how much the Dutch language has changed since all of Menno's writings became available in that language. But the Dutch version is also available on-line (in two sections) as PDF files. Of the other available translations, I am not a reader of German, so I don't have any input regarding the quality or ease of reading that translation, but of the two English translations, I strongly prefer the one done directly from the Dutch, rather than the Dutch to German to English one (by John Funk, and also the one Boot linked to; the Dutch to English one is still under copyright protection).

I echo what the others have already said, although I have never read Menno from a political standpoint, nor have I ever read much in Luther and nothing at all from the author you mention. (I HAVE tried to transcribe the booklet from John a' Lasco to which Menno responded, into modern script, in order to 'google translate it' into Portuguese. I would like to compare the brief quotations Menno includes in his response to the context in a' Lasco's writing. But not knowing Latin, I cannot guess at what words each of the many abbreviations are for. W/o that I cannot run the translation process. I did a lot of searching before I finally got a PDF scan of an old printed copy, in Latin, and only with the help of a professor from the Bible college I attended. If a translation of it is available in any language, I am not aware of that.)

Now Dietrich Phillips' book I find tedious, but I wouldn't say 'boring'. (I contribute this difficult to read status to the fact that the one I have is not a direct translation, but Dutch to German to English, like the old Menno English translation, which I also find to be tedious reading.)

[ohio jones]

(I contribute this difficult to read status to the fact that the one I have is not a direct translation, but Dutch to German to English, like the old Menno English translation, which I also find to be tedious reading.)

I expect there could be improvements in the translation, but what makes Menno challenging to read (not boring) from the Complete Writings website is that he tends to make lists (first, second, third, etc.) that can be several levels deep, and if you're not paying close attention it's easy to lose your place. If I were doing an in-depth study I'd want to paste the text into a document and format it with indenting and outlining to be easier to follow.

[Ernie]

In fact I don't see that he is much different from Luther - only Luther allowed the politicians also to decide about the outward form of the church (but not about the doctrine).
That's my impression following Bornhaeuser's book. Do you think that it is a correct description?

No.

Among many things...
Menno Simons taught returning good for evil. Luther wanted to see various people including the Anabaptists exterminated.
Menno taught repentance from sin. Luther encouraged sinning boldly.

There is an eternity of difference between the two.

[Sudsy]

In fact I don't see that he is much different from Luther - only Luther allowed the politicians also to decide about the outward form of the church (but not about the doctrine).
That's my impression following Bornhaeuser's book. Do you think that it is a correct description?

No.

Among many things...
Menno Simons taught returning good for evil. Luther wanted to see various people including the Anabaptists exterminated.
Menno taught repentance from sin. Luther encouraged sinning boldly.

There is an eternity of difference between the two.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/arti ... in-boldly/

[Soloist]

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/arti ... in-boldly/

I can’t see what it says, but I can remember reading his own writing describing how he tried much to overcome his own sin and continually failed. He had a revelation and concluded that we were never meant to overcome. He determined following this that the book of James should have been thrown out amid other things, I’d have to read it again but he may not have said to sin boldly but his actions and beliefs reflect someone who believed you can’t overcome sin and thus it doesn’t matter.

[Sudsy]

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/arti ... in-boldly/

I can’t see what it says, but I can remember reading his own writing describing how he tried much to overcome his own sin and continually failed. He had a revelation and concluded that we were never meant to overcome. He determined following this that the book of James should have been thrown out amid other things, I’d have to read it again but he may not have said to sin boldly but his actions and beliefs reflect someone who believed you can’t overcome sin and thus it doesn’t matter.

I haven't studied Luther's beliefs but I think the reference to him writing to 'sin boldly' is sometimes mis-used, imo. I do agree that we saints are also sinners in practise. If we think we have reached a point that we don't sin the scripture says we are lying.

Some Christians get so down on themselves with their sinning that they give up trying to overcome certain sinning. Others sin constantly but have ignored the Holy Spirit, the convicter of our sinning, to the point that they do not even recognize how sinful they really are.

Everyone one on this forum sins and perhaps daily. There is lots of sinning going on here in this forum and often not being repented. We all fall short of being sin free in our practise yet in Christ we are His spotless bride.

As Paul writes we are saints if we truly have been born again and as we rely on the Spirit's empowerment to overcome sinning, we get closer to reflecting less sinning. My position in Christ is a Saint. My practise in this life will always involve some sinning. I personally do not believe one can reach a perfect state of no longer sinning.

What also often occurs is we point our finger at other's sins as if we have arrived at being sin free ourselves.

I doubt Luther is saying our sinning doesn't matter in the sense of how it hurts us and others but rather a sin or sins will not cause us to lose our salvation as that is based on Christ's righteousness and not our own. If so, I agree.

Well, I got side-tracked again as this thread is about Menno not Luther.