Two Kinds of Obedience – Michael Sattler

[Bootstrap]

Two Kinds of Obedience – Michael Sattler

Obedience is of two kinds, “have to” and “want to.” The “want to” has its source in the love of the Father, even though no other reward should follow, yea even if the Father should desire to destroy His child. The “have to” has its source in hoping to get paid, or springs from self-love. “Want to” obedience always does as much as possible, without needing to be told to. “Have to” obedience does as little as possible, yea nothing except what is directly commanded. The “want to” is never able to do enough for Him; but he who renders “have to” obedience thinks he is constantly doing too much for Him.

The “want to” rejoices in the chastisement of the Father, even though he may not need chastisement because he has not transgressed in anything. The “have to” wishes to be without chastisement, even though he may do nothing right.

“Want to” obedience has its treasure and righteousness in the Father whom it obeys for the sole purpose of manifesting His righteousness. The “have to” person’s treasure and piety are the works which he does in order to be pious.

The “want to” remains in the house and inherits all the Father has. The “have to” wishes to reject this and receive his legally due pay.

The “have to” looks to the external and to the exact letter of the command of his Lord. The “want to” is concerned as well about the inner witness and the Spirit.

“Have to” obedience is imperfect, and therefore his Lord finds no pleasure in it. “Want to” obedience strives for and attains perfection, and for that reason the Father cannot reject him.

“Want to” obedience is not the opposite of “have to” obedience, as it might appear, but is better and higher. And therefore let him who is obeying because he “has to” seek for the better—the “I want to” obedience. In no way should he have an “I have to do this” attitude.

“Have to” obedience is Mosaic and produces Pharisees and scribes. “Want to” obedience is Christ-like and makes children of God. The “have to” is either occupied with the ceremonies which Moses commanded or with those which people themselves have invented. The “want to” is focused on the love of God and one’s neighbor; yet he also submits himself to the ceremonies for the sake of those who serve because they “have to,” so that he may instruct them in that which is better and lead them to “want to” obedience.

“Have to” obedience produces self-willed and vindictive people; “want to” obedience creates peaceable and mild-natured persons. “Have to” obedience is wearisome and is glad when the job is done. But “want to” obedience is light and directs its gaze to that which endures.

The “have to” is grumpy, deep inside wanting to do his own will; the “want to” would gladly have all men to be as himself. The “have to” is the Old Covenant, and had the promise of temporal happiness. The “want to” is the New Covenant, and has the promise of eternal happiness, namely, the Creator Himself.

The “have to” is a beginning and preparation for happiness; the “want to” is the end and completion itself. The “have to” endured for a time; the “want to” will last forever. The “have to” was a figure and shadow; the “want to” is the reality and truth.

“Have to” obedience was established to reveal and increase sin. “Want to” obedience follows to do away with and eliminate the revealed and increased sin.

[silentreader]

Two Kinds of Obedience – Michael Sattler

Obedience is of two kinds, “have to” and “want to.” The “want to” has its source in the love of the Father, even though no other reward should follow, yea even if the Father should desire to destroy His child. The “have to” has its source in hoping to get paid, or springs from self-love. “Want to” obedience always does as much as possible, without needing to be told to. “Have to” obedience does as little as possible, yea nothing except what is directly commanded. The “want to” is never able to do enough for Him; but he who renders “have to” obedience thinks he is constantly doing too much for Him.

The “want to” rejoices in the chastisement of the Father, even though he may not need chastisement because he has not transgressed in anything. The “have to” wishes to be without chastisement, even though he may do nothing right.

“Want to” obedience has its treasure and righteousness in the Father whom it obeys for the sole purpose of manifesting His righteousness. The “have to” person’s treasure and piety are the works which he does in order to be pious.

The “want to” remains in the house and inherits all the Father has. The “have to” wishes to reject this and receive his legally due pay.

The “have to” looks to the external and to the exact letter of the command of his Lord. The “want to” is concerned as well about the inner witness and the Spirit.

“Have to” obedience is imperfect, and therefore his Lord finds no pleasure in it. “Want to” obedience strives for and attains perfection, and for that reason the Father cannot reject him.

“Want to” obedience is not the opposite of “have to” obedience, as it might appear, but is better and higher. And therefore let him who is obeying because he “has to” seek for the better—the “I want to” obedience. In no way should he have an “I have to do this” attitude.

“Have to” obedience is Mosaic and produces Pharisees and scribes. “Want to” obedience is Christ-like and makes children of God. The “have to” is either occupied with the ceremonies which Moses commanded or with those which people themselves have invented. The “want to” is focused on the love of God and one’s neighbor; yet he also submits himself to the ceremonies for the sake of those who serve because they “have to,” so that he may instruct them in that which is better and lead them to “want to” obedience.

“Have to” obedience produces self-willed and vindictive people; “want to” obedience creates peaceable and mild-natured persons. “Have to” obedience is wearisome and is glad when the job is done. But “want to” obedience is light and directs its gaze to that which endures.

The “have to” is grumpy, deep inside wanting to do his own will; the “want to” would gladly have all men to be as himself. The “have to” is the Old Covenant, and had the promise of temporal happiness. The “want to” is the New Covenant, and has the promise of eternal happiness, namely, the Creator Himself.

The “have to” is a beginning and preparation for happiness; the “want to” is the end and completion itself. The “have to” endured for a time; the “want to” will last forever. The “have to” was a figure and shadow; the “want to” is the reality and truth.

“Have to” obedience was established to reveal and increase sin. “Want to” obedience follows to do away with and eliminate the revealed and increased sin.

In my opinion, that is what is at the heart of Christian liberty, the 'have to' becomes 'want to'.

[RZehr]

Really good.
Growing up my Dad would tell us to do something and we would ask "Do we have to?" He would say, "You don't have to if you want to." And if we didn't want to then we had to.

We'd try to come up with really complicated explanations of how we really would like to, but how unfortunately it just wouldn't work out this time to do it even though we really did want to.

[appleman2006]

Really good.
Growing up my Dad would tell us to do something and we would ask "Do we have to?" He would say, "You don't have to if you want to." And if we didn't want to then we had to.

We'd try to come up with really complicated explanations of how we really would like to, but how unfortunately it just wouldn't work out this time to do it even though we really did want to.

Yep my Mom used to say the same thing. Did not know it was an Anabaptist saying.

[Sudsy]

Not too sure about this one -

“Have to” obedience is imperfect, and therefore his Lord finds no pleasure in it. “Want to” obedience strives for and attains perfection, and for that reason the Father cannot reject him.

I wonder what he means by '“Want to” obedience strives for and attains perfection' ? Did Sattler believe we could reach a level of perfection in this life ?

I think the 'have to' versus the 'want to' is that battle Paul speaks of between the flesh and the spirit in every born again believer - Romans 7

So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

As we deny the flesh we move from a 'have to ' state into more of a 'want to' state.

So, is the concept of rules or standards one that these are our rules to obey even if some you don't 'want to' because we believe eventually you will 'want to' ?

[MaxPC]

Really good.
Growing up my Dad would tell us to do something and we would ask "Do we have to?" He would say, "You don't have to if you want to." And if we didn't want to then we had to.

We'd try to come up with really complicated explanations of how we really would like to, but how unfortunately it just wouldn't work out this time to do it even though we really did want to.

Yep my Mom used to say the same thing. Did not know it was an Anabaptist saying.

Mine too and she wasn't Anabaptist. It's one of those wonderful parental sayings that cause children to ponder and to think beyond themselves.

[steve-in-kville]

I think there is such a thing as having hardcore convictions for certain things, and obedience out of love of the brotherhood.

For example, some years ago when the issue of having internet in the home (or even in a business setting) was the hot topic in just about every plain church, I sat through a mens' meeting discussing the issue. We each went around the circle and expressed our feelings on the issue.

My turn came. My response: "I would have the internet at home if allowed. But out of love and respect for the brotherhood, I don't." It wasn't a conviction issue for me. It was an obedience issue.

[Hats Off]

In our church settings, we have some of both but the "have to" actually become "want to" when we agree to accept the church standards; when we agree to lose our individuality for the community. Having said that there can still be matters that we would like to change for the good of the community but for now at least we want to continue doing what we feel is right, hoping to eventually get the community to agree that this is actually a "have to". One example of this is in the area of alternative healthcare practices where I am convinced much of the healing comes through the wrong spirit.

[Bootstrap]

In my opinion, that is what is at the heart of Christian liberty, the 'have to' becomes 'want to'.

I think that's half of what Sattler said in this section. The other half is the focus on love of God and neighbor at the heart of everything:

“Want to” obedience is not the opposite of “have to” obedience, as it might appear, but is better and higher. And therefore let him who is obeying because he “has to” seek for the better—the “I want to” obedience. In no way should he have an “I have to do this” attitude.

“Have to” obedience is Mosaic and produces Pharisees and scribes. “Want to” obedience is Christ-like and makes children of God. The “have to” is either occupied with the ceremonies which Moses commanded or with those which people themselves have invented. The “want to” is focused on the love of God and one’s neighbor; yet he also submits himself to the ceremonies for the sake of those who serve because they “have to,” so that he may instruct them in that which is better and lead them to “want to” obedience.

But I wonder how that relates to Sattler's rejection of the Catholic ceremonies which most Christians accepted. He certainly was not willing to accept some of the ceremonies he believed people themselves had invented.

God wants our hearts and our desires, not just external obedience. And he wants our hearts and desires to be deeply rooted in the God kind of love.

[Sudsy]

In my experience when the church 'have tos' are allowed to operate in personal convictions and not required orthopraxy, then the true ''want tos' show up. Those who acted in a 'want to' mode for their scriptural reasons continued regardless of what others did. Those who, in their heart, wished to get out from under the 'have tos' often sought or wished for more 'want tos'. Those who like 'have tos' seek and hope for more 'have tos'. They, not all but in my experience many, say more 'have tos' are the road to higher spirituality when their concern is really more for the glory of their own piety than it is God's glory.