MennoNet.com

This is a thread to discuss content from The Earth is the Lord's, by John L. Ruth.

I want this to be a thread to promulgate the faith of the early Anabaptists and see what we can learn of value from this book.

If you are looking for a place to castigate other members on this forum, or cause strife and debate, please find another thread to do that. (or better yet, don't do it all). And please don't bring US political persuasions into this thread.

I envision taking a sentence or paragraph or a summary of a section of the book and discussing it.

Pages 43-58

The book begins with Anabaptist history in Europe around the year 1613. The first part of the book attempts to give a glimpse into the life and thought of the spiritual and biological forbearers of Mennonites who settled in Lancaster County, PA.

The first main character in the book is minister, Hans Landis, who was imprisoned and then martyred about a year and a half later. Landis's martyrdom at age 70, in Zurich, took place about 90 years after the first martyrdom (Felix Manz) and was done within sight of the first martyrdom. This time it was done with the sword.

The kneeling amid the crowd along the Limmat, the old preacher bowed his neck, and the church-blessed sword of Zurich sliced downward. Turning to the city treasurer, Paul Vollmar asked the ritual question: "Have I executed this man rightly?" "Yes," came the reply, "you have executed this poor man.

Page 46

Hans Landis and his flock

The council had arrested both Hans and Jacob [Isler] (who would not admit having charge of deacon funds) and jailed them in the tall Wellenberg, a tower rising out of the middle of the Limmat several hundred yards upstream from the town hail.
But strict interrogation had not budged Hans. Though with all other Christians he confessed faith in God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, he insisted that such faith was genuine only when evidenced by "good works." He said he could not conscientiously attend the Lord's Supper in an official church that openly allowed people of "un-godly" behavior to participate with the "godly." Such tolerance was a mockery of what the church of Christ was supposed to be. The true church could not subject its discernment of spiritual questions to the direction of Zurich's officials or to those of
any other city.

From the very beginning, this view of the Lord's supper has characterized Anabaptist life and thought. It is what made them separate from the state church. It was a precious concept that they lived and died for.

I do find it perplexing as to why some people might want to identify themselves as Anabaptists, but not embrace this foundational understanding of the church and of the Lord's Supper. Why do some Anabaptists advocate for open communion with anyone who "believes and is baptized" and aren't particularly concerned whether communicants are living a godly life. Why is there a minimizing among some Anabaptists regarding the call to live a devout and holy life and only commune with such?
I understand very well the many Anabaptists who have gone overboard in this and have added all sorts of criteria for communion that are not found in the New Testament. I get why there is a reaction to that.
But I don't understand the justification of having both wheat and known tares in the church, or not caring enough to see if there are known tares in the church before inviting people to commune, and yet still want to identify as Anabaptist.

Ernie wrote: ↑Sat Jan 03, 2026 8:41 pm I do find it perplexing as to why some people might want to identify themselves as Anabaptists, but not embrace this foundational understanding of the church and of the Lord's Supper. Why do some Anabaptists advocate for open communion with anyone who "believes and is baptized" and aren't particularly concerned whether communicants are living a godly life. Why is there a minimizing among some Anabaptists regarding the call to live a devout and holy life and only commune with such?
I understand very well the many Anabaptists who have gone overboard in this and have added all sorts of criteria for communion that are not found in the New Testament. I get why there is a reaction to that.

This is something we have been struggling with for years. We have changed practice several times to adjust to the way it is perceived and abused. I imagine we will adjust again should conditions call for it.

We open the Lord's supper for all believers who have been baptized as believers (not as infants but because of their own faith) and who are walking in faith and repentance. Part of the reason behind this is to acknowledge we are not the one true church and saving faith is alive in others which makes them our brothers, it is the Lord's supper, not ours.

This does leave an opening for unworthy participation which we address in two ways. First, we alternate by month between observing the Lord's supper as apart of the primary service and as a dedicated service in the evening. Those who make the effort to come to the dedicated service are not doing so casually and holding a dedicated service for it creates an atmosphere of respect that discourages causality when it is held in the primary service. Second, the leadership take note of unknown or unworthy participants to engage them after the service about their walk with God. I try to open with questions like "I notice you participated in the Lord's supper, what can tell me about your walk with God? Or what can can you tell me about your baptism? Or what challenges have you been facing in your daily walk with God? This doesn't happen often but it is almost always a good interaction and it communicates a certain seriousness about participation. This has kept casual participation at a minimum but it's not always easy to implement.

barnhart wrote: ↑Sun Jan 04, 2026 8:09 am

Ernie wrote: ↑Sat Jan 03, 2026 8:41 pm I do find it perplexing as to why some people might want to identify themselves as Anabaptists, but not embrace this foundational understanding of the church and of the Lord's Supper. Why do some Anabaptists advocate for open communion with anyone who "believes and is baptized" and aren't particularly concerned whether communicants are living a godly life. Why is there a minimizing among some Anabaptists regarding the call to live a devout and holy life and only commune with such?
I understand very well the many Anabaptists who have gone overboard in this and have added all sorts of criteria for communion that are not found in the New Testament. I get why there is a reaction to that.

This does leave an opening for unworthy participation which we address in two ways. First, we alternate by month between observing the Lord's supper as apart of the primary service and as a dedicated service in the evening.

Why not have communion once a year like the Swiss Brethren?

Personally, I’m okay with the concept of opening communion to all of those that testify that they’re walking in holiness unless there’s an objection with evidence.
I ran into this a few times where people talked about their objection to the closed or close communion system that the Mennonites have, and then refused to take communion with me because they didn’t know me well enough.

Soloist wrote: ↑Sun Jan 04, 2026 8:55 am Personally, I’m okay with the concept of opening communion to all of those that testify that they’re walking in holiness unless there’s an objection with evidence.

I am as well. Of course, holiness needs to be defined by someone or some thing.

Ernie wrote: ↑Sun Jan 04, 2026 9:38 am

Soloist wrote: ↑Sun Jan 04, 2026 8:55 am Personally, I’m okay with the concept of opening communion to all of those that testify that they’re walking in holiness unless there’s an objection with evidence.

I am as well. Of course, holiness needs to be defined by someone or some thing.

Yes I think that is clear but I don’t think we need to interrogate someone who professes. I think it’s sufficient to tell them what we believe and ask if they are in unity by how we view holiness and sin.

Soloist wrote: ↑Sun Jan 04, 2026 9:46 am

Ernie wrote: ↑Sun Jan 04, 2026 9:38 am

Soloist wrote: ↑Sun Jan 04, 2026 8:55 am Personally, I’m okay with the concept of opening communion to all of those that testify that they’re walking in holiness unless there’s an objection with evidence.

I am as well. Of course, holiness needs to be defined by someone or some thing.

Yes I think that is clear but I don’t think we need to interrogate someone who professes. I think it’s sufficient to tell them what we believe and ask if they are in unity by how we view holiness and sin.

I agree.

Next topic... The blood of the Martyrs is the Seed of the Church

Page 59

The execution of their staunch leader, Hans Landis, did not break the spirit of Zurich's rural Anabaptists. Many of their neighbors were sympathetic and outraged by the city council's harshness. As for the sixty-year-old, newly widowed Margaretha Hochstrasser Landis, she refused to recant within the two-week deadline decreed by the council and as a result was placed in solitary confinement in the city hospital.' Some of her grandchildren were to frightened that they did begin to attend the official church. Surprisingly, though her sons, Hans Jr. and Felix, stood firm in their convictions, the magistrates seemed less bent on troubling them on their farms at Hirzel.
Perhaps this was because Pastor Jakob Breitinger, spiritual head of Zurich's clergy, had son that making Anabaptist martyrs or threatening Anabaptists with galley service seemed only to strengthen their resolve and gain them sympathy. "The Taufer hold onto their opinions to the death," he observed. "The common man says, `Would to God that I would be where these Taufer are going." However, with his predecessor Ulrich Zwingli's old optimism about the force of the gospel of Christ when it is rightly preached, Breitinger still felt that the "stiff-necked" Taufer opinions could be changed. An ardent patriot, this pastor of Zurich deeply resented the Taufer as "a tear in the fabric" of his society. Dealing with them was part of his wider campaign to renew Zwingli's reform of a century earlier; this included a revitalizing and purifying of the sometimes unexemplary life of the canton's Reformed clergy.

I am reminded again that I do not know very much about suffering and hardship for the Gospel.

And I am once again impressed how that neither pious statements nor persuasive preaching avail very much, unless they are accompanied by good fruits. The same is true today.

Onlookers watched influential religious people persecuting their godly neighbors and they wished they could go wherever the martyred saints were going.
Are we living lives of sacrifice that onlookers find more attractive than that which is generally esteemed in our society?