The Intellectual Depth of Anabaptism

[Soloist]

Even though Conrade Grebel was highly educated, I believe his statement "I believe the word of God without a complicated interpretation, and out of this belief I speak." - Conrad Grebel Is in opposition to the intellectualism of the day.

Can you really defend that last statement? It seems to me that Grebel was very much in line with the leading intellectuals of the day, in particular Erasmus. And as for your quotation of Grebel, did he mean “the word of God” in the same sense as Protestant Fundamentalists use the term?

I understand it in today's understanding as everyone else does regardless of how much they read we see it through the lens of our upbringing. My upbringing was taking some theologian's word. When we converted, we took the Scripture as though what was wrote was actually what was meant. Without Dean Taylor or Conrad's input I might add. This led us to many practices that ultimately led us to a conservative Mennonite church. I would need to you explain what you mean by the protestant use to understand if I would agree with that. Grebel may have been well educated but his simple take of the Scriptures was not in line with the "leading intellectuals"

It seems that the Anabaptists did not “teach doctrine” but believed and did everything Jesus (the Word of God) commanded. It seems to me that “doctrine” came later when the descendants of the Anabaptists turned to raising their children as “Anabaptist”.

Doctrine, what I meant was more then what you took me to be saying. I think the original Christians and some of the Anabaptists actually did both Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy. I'm directly referencing how they taught with song for some of the "doctrine" and "practice"

Was it the poor and uneducated or the indoctrinated progeny of the later “Anabaptists” that were “converted” when Mennonites turned away from critical analysis of the scriptures and the world around them?

Seems like you have a bone to pick with the CM's of today. If you lived in that day would you be any different towards the Anabaptists?

[Sudsy]

A few thoughts and I hope they are not received as hurtful. Whether you agree and/or I am way off in my observations, this is how I see it at this point in time.

I have trouble believing anyone takes the scriptures in a full literal way. When Jesus said to hate our family I doubt this was taken as written. And Paul saying men everywhere should pray with their hands raised. And there are many examples where the scripture verses cannot be taken as written to be practised. There needs to be study regarding the setting, who was being addressed, the context beyond a single verse, etc. and even then we end up with a variety of interpretations on various beliefs and practises.

Being raised in Pentecostalism the focus was more on the early church experiences in how the Holy Spirit is to manifest Jesus in our lives. Anabaptists, not all, although the main focus was on Jesus teachings their orthopraxy had much to do with the Epistles. Both, imo, sort of cherry picked how Christianity was to be experienced. For instance, Anabaptists show little manifestations of the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit and are pretty weak in evangelism. Much focus is on being separate from the world. The Anabaptists would refer to the fruit of the Spirit much more than the gifts of the Spirit. I don't think all Anabaptists believe the gifts were for the early church only, yet most I know do not have these gifts active in their church. So, whatever Paul said regarding their use is pretty irrelevant to today's church practise.

When I read commentaries on a text, there often is a common understanding but many times not. And these often come from a study using human intellect and probably most would also think their conclusions were also Spirit led. My understanding of the early Anabaptists was not to just take an intellectual approach to scripture but it was to be the Spirt and the Word. Yet I often hear, just do what is written. Simple, just obey.

Well, according to 1 Cor 2, God does not need intellectually superior people to tell those not so gifted what to believe. He did and still does use those that give an ear to what the Spirit is saying. To some degree, imo, bible colleges are too much about human reasonings on things that require hearing from the Spirit. That sounds too mystical for some and there are many examples of those who go this route and stray from scripture. On the other hand, intellectual understandings of scripture also can't agree. Just look at the basic understandings of God and how He operates comparing a 5 point Calvinist to an Arminian. Both with scriptures to support their views, yet miles apart.

If we only focused on the two all encompassing commandments - Mathew 22:36-40 and allowed the Spirit to lead each of us in His Way and timing it just might be possible to get away from all these things that divide us. But I doubt our human weaknesses won't let us get there until we take on our new immortal bodies and experience the oneness Jesus prayed for.

I do believe the intellect is involved as our minds do need to be transformed but this transformation is an on-going work of the Spirit to get us thinking and acting as a Jesus follower.

[ken_sylvania]

“Here is where the religious right and the secular left are in complete agreement: They both think God doesn’t care about culture.” The secularists believe this because God doesn’t exist; the religious conservatives believe it because God is beyond such questions. Which is why religious culture nowadays bears such a close resemblance to the larger culture, where most talk of religion is considered in bad taste.

“Richard Weaver had this phrase, ‘our metaphysical dreams of the world.’ He meant the way we understand reality and our place in it. I think most practicing Christians have a metaphysical dream of the world that has more in common with their secular neighbors than it has with Augustine or Aquinas or Calvin or Edwards.”

I guess old-order Mennonites and Amish aren't part of the religious right then. They absolutely think God cares about culture. And they get blasted for it all the time by the more "enlightened" folk.

[Neto]

To some degree, imo, bible colleges are too much about human reasonings on things that require hearing from the Spirit. That sounds too mystical for some and there are many examples of those who go this route and stray from scripture. On the other hand, intellectual understandings of scripture also can't agree.

This reminds me of the note one of my Bible college theology professors wrote on a paper I submitted about "The Doctrine of the Trinity". He says: "Are you against the intellect or are you saying that the intellect has limits?" (It was at the end of a semester, and there was no provision for me to answer his question, which was probably more of a statement than a real question anyway. So I never talked with him about it.) I am not "against the intellect", and I would say that the intellect has some serious limits, but what I mean is to be qualified by the injunction to not go beyond Scripture. I think that we should use the brains that God gave us, but not to attempt to fill in some parts he (in his all-surpassing wisdom) chose to leave out. That is where the Calvinists got into trouble with their Remonstrant brothers. I think that understanding the Scriptures requires both the essential revealing work of the Holy Spirit of God, and also the Spirit-let human mind, straining toward the fullest understanding intended by God. The intellect gets us into trouble if we miss the Spirit's voice, and w/o it we will not know enough to understand the written words, to avoid wild interpretations that follow some other spirit. (As a former Bible translator I can attest to the desire to be able to write by the inspiration of God, but I am not one of the authors of Scripture. And so I needed to study many texts over and over, to the greatest ability of my fragile human mind, realizing that it is the holy message of God that I am handling, attempting to convey its meaning to a people who have never heard it before, and do not have the ability to read & understand in some other language.)

[ohio jones]

Even though Conrad Grebel was highly educated, I believe his statement "I believe the word of God without a complicated interpretation, and out of this belief I speak."

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.

Somewhere along the line of history, we lost that.

[Wayne in Maine]

Was it the poor and uneducated or the indoctrinated progeny of the later “Anabaptists” that were “converted” when Mennonites turned away from critical analysis of the scriptures and the world around them?

Seems like you have a bone to pick with the CM's of today. If you lived in that day would you be any different towards the Anabaptists?[/quote]

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.

[Wayne in Maine]

To some degree, imo, bible colleges are too much about human reasonings on things that require hearing from the Spirit. That sounds too mystical for some and there are many examples of those who go this route and stray from scripture. On the other hand, intellectual understandings of scripture also can't agree.

This reminds me of the note one of my Bible college theology professors wrote on a paper I submitted about "The Doctrine of the Trinity". He says: "Are you against the intellect or are you saying that the intellect has limits?" (It was at the end of a semester, and there was no provision for me to answer his question, which was probably more of a statement than a real question anyway. So I never talked with him about it.) I am not "against the intellect", and I would say that the intellect has some serious limits, but what I mean is to be qualified by the injunction to not go beyond Scripture. I think that we should use the brains that God gave us, but not to attempt to fill in some parts he (in his all-surpassing wisdom) chose to leave out. That is where the Calvinists got into trouble with their Remonstrant brothers. I think that understanding the Scriptures requires both the essential revealing work of the Holy Spirit of God, and also the Spirit-let human mind, straining toward the fullest understanding intended by God. The intellect gets us into trouble if we miss the Spirit's voice, and w/o it we will not know enough to understand the written words, to avoid wild interpretations that follow some other spirit. (As a former Bible translator I can attest to the desire to be able to write by the inspiration of God, but I am not one of the authors of Scripture. And so I needed to study many texts over and over, to the greatest ability of my fragile human mind, realizing that it is the holy message of God that I am handling, attempting to convey its meaning to a people who have never heard it before, and do not have the ability to read & understand in some other language.)

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.

[Wayne in Maine]

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.

You get it brother.

[Neto]

Laying awake during the night (as I often do) I thought of something I should have added or qualified in the vein of "not adding to Scripture". In Bible translation, sometimes we must do exactly that, in order to answer the questions that must be answered because of language differences.
For instance, neither English nor Greek makes a distinction between the Inclusive and Exclusive 1st person plural. Banawa does. (The inclusive means that the speaker is including the audience when he says 'we', and the exclusive does not.) So when Paul uses the 'we' pronoun when speaking to Gentiles, for instance,, we are forced to decide if he is speaking as a Jew about the Jewish people or customs, or if he is speaking about believers in Jesus of both Jewish and non-Jewish ethnicity. (He apparently also uses in in an editorial sense, meaning 'I'.)
Another example, the one I thought of during the night. Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss. Banawa does not allow a general statement like this - it requires the speaker to say WHERE he kissed him. "Going beyond Scripture", using the human intellect and making use of extra-Biblical scholarship that others have thought deeply about - we know that a person would normally kiss a rabbi on the hand, and a friend on the cheek. So the translator must decide, without any direct information in the text itself. Mark says that Judas addressed him as Rabbi, suggesting that he kissed him on the hand. But he also says that he "fervently kissed him", suggesting the cheek. (Luke just says 'kissed'.) Matthew tells us that Jesus addressed him as "friend". If we choose to have him kiss Jesus on the hand, then there is a nuance here that is otherwise somewhat lost - Judas addresses Jesus as 'Rabbi', and kisses him in the formal way, not the intimate-friend way, and Jesus calls him 'friend'. I thought that that was the way I had translated it (in Luke), but I didn't - I had him kiss him on the cheek (literally, in Banawa, at the base of the ear). Maybe I did not use my "intellect" enough?

[Bootstrap]

Laying awake during the night (as I often do) I thought of something I should have added or qualified in the vein of "not adding to Scripture". In Bible translation, sometimes we must do exactly that, in order to answer the questions that must be answered because of language differences.
For instance, neither English nor Greek makes a distinction between the Inclusive and Exclusive 1st person plural. Banawa does. (The inclusive means that the speaker is including the audience when he says 'we', and the exclusive does not.) So when Paul uses the 'we' pronoun when speaking to Gentiles, for instance,, we are forced to decide if he is speaking as a Jew about the Jewish people or customs, or if he is speaking about believers in Jesus of both Jewish and non-Jewish ethnicity. (He apparently also uses in in an editorial sense, meaning 'I'.)
Another example, the one I thought of during the night. Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss. Banawa does not allow a general statement like this - it requires the speaker to say WHERE he kissed him. "Going beyond Scripture", using the human intellect and making use of extra-Biblical scholarship that others have thought deeply about - we know that a person would normally kiss a rabbi on the hand, and a friend on the cheek. So the translator must decide, without any direct information in the text itself. Mark says that Judas addressed him as Rabbi, suggesting that he kissed him on the hand. But he also says that he "fervently kissed him", suggesting the cheek. (Luke just says 'kissed'.) Matthew tells us that Jesus addressed him as "friend". If we choose to have him kiss Jesus on the hand, then there is a nuance here that is otherwise somewhat lost - Judas addresses Jesus as 'Rabbi', and kisses him in the formal way, not the intimate-friend way, and Jesus calls him 'friend'. I thought that that was the way I had translated it (in Luke), but I didn't - I had him kiss him on the cheek (literally, in Banawa, at the base of the ear). Maybe I did not use my "intellect" enough?

Let's take this back to intellectual depth. I don't think real intellectual depth comes from wanting to be intellectually deep or from wanting to have a particular status as the smartest person in the room. I think it starts with seeing something important that needs to be understood, realizing you don't understand it, and taking a position of curiosity and persistence, working away at it until it finally makes sense and accounts for all the facts you need to work with.

And the level of intellectual depth required depends a lot on what you are doing. It doesn't take a lot of technical depth to know what to do when you approach a stop sign. It takes a lot more to know how to translate the Bible or how to understand the Kingdom of God theme from Eden to Revelation. It takes a lot more intellectual depth to BE a scholar like Tim Mackie than to UNDERSTAND him, because he explains things so well. It takes a fair amount of intellectual depth to read Richard Hayes, but it's worth it if you want to understand the relationship between New Testament and Old Testament writings.

Different people are curious about different things and have different callings. Different subject areas require different levels of intellectual depth. I was one part of a hiking group, and over time it became clear that it was the source of many marriages. I talked to the leader of the group, and he said he actually started the group because he realized that singles groups were useless for him, the only thing the people in those groups had in common was that they are single and that's not a basis for a relationship, shared interests and passions are much more useful for that. I feel the same way about intellectual depth. I would never join a group whose purpose is intellectual depth. There has to be a purpose beyond that.