Two Kinds of Obedience – Michael Sattler

Christian ethics and theology with an Anabaptist perspective
Hats Off
Posts: 2532
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:42 pm
Affiliation: Plain Menno OO

Re: Two Kinds of Obedience – Michael Sattler

Post by Hats Off »

I would also suggest they were not actually promoting obedience to the brotherhood - they were creating the brotherhood. Sattler was one of many, all who had equal opportunity or right to suggest or recommend what is the correct approach.
0 x
User avatar
Wayne in Maine
Posts: 1195
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:52 am
Location: Slightly above sea level, in the dear old State of Maine
Affiliation: Yielded

Re: Two Kinds of Obedience – Michael Sattler

Post by Wayne in Maine »

Bootstrap wrote:
Wayne in Maine wrote:What I find interesting about Sattler's two kinds of obedience is that he was writing at the very genesis of the Anabaptist movement, to first generation believers, not to 10'th generation Mennonites. Obedience to the regulations of the church is a pretty settled part of ethnic Mennonite (and Amish and Hutterite) culture.
I'm not at all sure whether Sattler thinks of obedience in terms of regulations of the church.

In Hutterite teachings, obedience and Gelassenheit are to the brotherhood, not directly to God, but I don't know if Sattler thought that way. I do know that many plain Mennonites seem to read Sattler through that lens (as you can see in other posts in this thread).
I think Hutterite teachings are much closer - rather are rooted in the earliest Anabaptist understanding of the individual and the church. It is not so much "obedience and Gelassenheit are to the brotherhood", it is "we together as a brotherhood submit and are obedient to God". The church is the bride of Christ - the individual is not. This does not fit well with our American individualism and our Jesus as personal savior, but I believe it is a more historic Anabaptist attitude.
0 x
User avatar
Wayne in Maine
Posts: 1195
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:52 am
Location: Slightly above sea level, in the dear old State of Maine
Affiliation: Yielded

Re: Two Kinds of Obedience – Michael Sattler

Post by Wayne in Maine »

Hats Off wrote: ... if the church is obviously wrong, we would be wrong to be obedient to it, we must be obedient to God first.
I suspect the early Anabaptists would say that if it is wrong it is not the church, and so we must join the assembly of those who are obedient to God.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Two Kinds of Obedience – Michael Sattler

Post by Bootstrap »

Here is the last section:
Michael Sattler wrote:“Want To” Obedience Contrasted with “Have To”

According to the Old Testament, only he who murdered was guilty of judgment; but in the New, he also who is angry with his brother. The Old gave permission for a man to separate from his wife for every reason; but not at all in the New, except for fornication [edit:–or desertion, 1 Cor. 7:15]. The Old permitted swearing if one swore truly, but the New will know of no swearing. The Old has its stipulated punishment, but the New does not resist the evil.

The Old permitted hatred for the enemy; the New loves him who hates, blesses him who curses, and prays for those who wish one evil. It also gives alms in a manner that the left hand does not know what the right has done. It says his prayer secretly, without evident and excessive babbling of mouth. It judges and condemns no one. It takes the mote out of the eye of one’s brother after having first cast the beam out of one’s own eye. And it fasts without any outward pomp and show.

The New is like a light which is set on a candlestick and lightens everyone in the house. It is like a city built on a hill, being everywhere visible. It is like good salt that does not become tasteless, being pleasing not to man, but to God alone. It is like a good eye which illuminates the whole body. It takes no anxious thought about clothing or food, but performs his daily and upright tasks.

The New does not cast pearls before swine nor that which is holy before dogs. It seeks, asks, and knocks; finding, receiving, and having the door opened for him. It enters through the narrow way and the small gate, and guards himself from the Pharisees and scribes as from false prophets. It is a good tree and brings forth good fruit. And it does the will of his Father, hearing what he should do, and then doing it.

The New is built upon Christ the chief cornerstone. It stands against all the gates of Hell, that is, against the wrathful judgment of the Pharisees, of the mighty ones of earth, and of the scribes. It is a house and temple of God, against which no wind and no water may do anything, standing secure. Everything which withstands the teaching which proceeds from the New, denying its truth, will itself finally give evidence that the New is where God really dwells—although it is now maligned by the Pharisees and scribes as a habitation of the devil.

Yea, in the end those who obeyed because they “wanted to” shall hear, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them, and be their God,” etc. But of the house of the Pharisees and scribes (who didn’t put their heart in their obedience), it shall be said, “Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird,” etc. But to God be all honor, praise, and glory through His beloved Son, our Lord and Brother Jesus Christ, Amen.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Post Reply