Anabaptists and the Authority of Scripture

[mike]

Plain Anabaptists in the 21st century have mostly resorted to elevating the magisterium and church tradition. Very few churches are sitting down with the Bible, reading the New Testament together, and making adjustments in their practices and lifestyles based on what they read. Many Sunday school discussions, devotionals, and sermons are a reconfirming of what is already believed and practiced, and a making of excuses for what is not.
Thankfully there are numerous exceptions to this. There are always individuals and small fellowships within the movement who are trying to adjust their practices to what they read in the NT, but it seems they are a minority.

1. What is the Anabaptist version of the magisterium?
2. What problems do you see with the elevation of the magisterium and church tradition?
3. Is there a better alternative with a proven track record of intergenerational faith and dedication to the following the teachings of Jesus?

1. It can be the ordained folks in a conference or fellowship. It can also be unofficial "authorities" from affiliated and unaffiliated churches who act as the magisterium.
2. In most places, many topics cannot be discussed openly by the congregation. Some places allow for discussion but there can basically be no changes to the church's belief and practice, which can be frustrating. And worst-case scenario, anyone challenging the status quo is viewed as divisive or promoting false doctrine.
3. I wish I could point to a good alternative, but none are coming to mind.

In regard to 2. our church allows for discussion and does allow changes to belief and practice, but the consideration process is long and tedious and rarely results in substantive changes. In theory, this results in a fairly stable system, which has some value. In actuality there's some frustration, non-compliance, and other sorts of things you would expect.

[mike]

I’m not so sure about Estep’s last sentence, especially the “and remained” part. The curmudgeon in me would aver that some conservative Anabaptists have developed a congregational form of conciliarism, where the authority of The Brotherhood rivals if not supplants that of Scripture. And some liberal Anabaptists seem to place human opinions (or at least the ones they agree with at the moment) at the pinnacle, reinterpreting or ignoring Scripture if it conflicts.

Going back to this from the second post in this thread.

Well then, it seems that both conservative and liberal Anabaptists potentially have this problem of human opinion rivaling/supplanting/reinterpreting Scripture.

I come from the conservative perspective, so my question would be, how can the authority of the brotherhood, which in my view does have biblical basis at least in terms of the local congregation, be kept from supplanting scripture? What are safeguards to keep that from happening, or good remedial steps where it has already happened?

[Ken]

I’m not so sure about Estep’s last sentence, especially the “and remained” part. The curmudgeon in me would aver that some conservative Anabaptists have developed a congregational form of conciliarism, where the authority of The Brotherhood rivals if not supplants that of Scripture. And some liberal Anabaptists seem to place human opinions (or at least the ones they agree with at the moment) at the pinnacle, reinterpreting or ignoring Scripture if it conflicts.

Going back to this from the second post in this thread.

Well then, it seems that both conservative and liberal Anabaptists then have this problem of human opinion rivaling/supplanting/reinterpreting Scripture.

I come from the conservative perspective, so my question would be, how can the authority of the brotherhood, which in my view does have biblical basis at least in terms of the local congregation, be kept from supplanting scripture? What are safeguards to keep that from happening, or good remedial steps where it has already happen?

MCUSA cites scripture for every single one of its articles of faith. https://www.mennoniteusa.org/who-are-me ... -of-faith/

As does probably every other Protestant church that even has articles of faith.

So I don't think it is a issue of conservatives or liberals supplanting scripture. It is more an issue of which points of scripture you prioritize and which you focus less on. And, of course how you interpret them.

[joshuabgood]

So I don't think it is a issue of conservatives or liberals supplanting scripture. It is more an issue of which points of scripture you prioritize and which you focus less on. And, of course how you interpret them.

Indeed. The Anabaptist idea is that they are interpreted through Jesus as a congregation. The Catholics are handed the interpretation by the priests, who get it from the bishops, who get it from the Cardinals, who get it from the infallible Pope, the mouthpiece of God. The Protestants, famously stated by Luther, believe that any shepherd boy behind the bush with a Bible is better off that a Catholic constituent. Protestants emphasize things like "personal convictions."

The aspiration of Anabaptism is perhaps that the congregation, with many eyes, in the multitude of counselors, interpret through Jesus, and apply together as a group, the principles.

[Ernie]

1. What is the Anabaptist version of the magisterium?
2. What problems do you see with the elevation of the magisterium and church tradition?
3. Is there a better alternative with a proven track record of intergenerational faith and dedication to the following the teachings of Jesus?

1. It can be the ordained folks in a conference or fellowship. It can also be unofficial "authorities" from affiliated and unaffiliated churches who act as the magisterium.
2. In most places, many topics cannot be discussed openly by the congregation. Some places allow for discussion but there can basically be no changes to the church's belief and practice, which can be frustrating. And worst-case scenario, anyone challenging the status quo is viewed as divisive or promoting false doctrine.
3. I wish I could point to a good alternative, but none are coming to mind.

In regard to 2. our church allows for discussion and does allow changes to belief and practice, but the consideration process is long and tedious and rarely results in substantive changes. In theory, this results in a fairly stable system, which has some value. In actuality there's some frustration, non-compliance, and other sorts of things you would expect.

When I wrote this, I was thinking of churches that allow discussions about full beards with mustache, but it is not going to change in the next decade.
Or
Discussions about permitting submersion baptism. Same way. Not likely in the next decade or two. I have a niece in one such church who really wanted to be submersed. The church appears fairly progressive (by Plain standards). But submersion baptism is a no-go in that church.

[Neto]

I’m not so sure about Estep’s last sentence, especially the “and remained” part. The curmudgeon in me would aver that some conservative Anabaptists have developed a congregational form of conciliarism, where the authority of The Brotherhood rivals if not supplants that of Scripture. And some liberal Anabaptists seem to place human opinions (or at least the ones they agree with at the moment) at the pinnacle, reinterpreting or ignoring Scripture if it conflicts.

Going back to this from the second post in this thread.

Well then, it seems that both conservative and liberal Anabaptists potentially have this problem of human opinion rivaling/supplanting/reinterpreting Scripture.

I come from the conservative perspective, so my question would be, how can the authority of the brotherhood, which in my view does have biblical basis at least in terms of the local congregation, be kept from supplanting scripture? What are safeguards to keep that from happening, or good remedial steps where it has already happened?

Ken mentions that the MCUSA statement gives Scripture references for each item. That would be, I think, the first step. (But I also suggest not mixing congregational standards or applications of doctrine into the part that comprises the doctrinal statement, whether the main list, or a supplementary list that is added to a standardized statement of faith, such as the 1963 Mennonite Church statement. My reasoning is to avoid the moral confusion that can result when something that was seemingly earlier listed as a 'sin' is dropped from the "don't do this" list.)

Secondly, I think that exegesis should be shown for the cited Scriptures, providing commentary support as a matter of course. (I have seen items added into a 'statement of conduct' that are written as though they are doctrine, and the cited passages actually have nothing to do with the thing they are represented as supporting or condemning, doing severe violence to the Scripture text. All conduct items should reference an item in the statement of faith, the main doctrinal statement, or a supplemental one. There is such an item in our own congregation's statement of conduct or "guidelines", one which was added in its entirety, and, as I recall, without congregational discussion.)

[A statement of faith can have a summary section, then another with more detail. Most congregational faith statements you see on church websites are so vague and general that you really cannot tell much at all of what they actually believe.]

[Nomad]

My point of harmonizing the Bible means that the scripture maintains its meaning and context as you read it. It doesn't transform into a different meaning. In other words, shadows and types aren't swallowed up by the archetype and thus making the previous type meaningless.

True, but their meaning is the thing they point toward. They are not self referential.

Yes, you are right, they are not self referential. But they are an important link in the storyline of Gods overarching theme as told in the Bible, which is, His Kingdom.

My point is that the Bible isn't just some book that provides self-help or a way for the individual to find peace by being like Jesus, it IS that, but its also more than that. Its about God restoring His creation and He is going to do that by establishing His Kingdom via Jesus reign as the last Adam upon His creation. We as Anabaptist do a good job at emphasizing our citizenship to this Kingdom...but sometimes, I think, as we hone in on that theme we miss the overarching, big picture theme which is the consummation of His Kingdom. The Bible gives us the full message of what His plan is as He establishes His Kingdom over His creation.

[Neto]

My point of harmonizing the Bible means that the scripture maintains its meaning and context as you read it. It doesn't transform into a different meaning. In other words, shadows and types aren't swallowed up by the archetype and thus making the previous type meaningless.

True, but their meaning is the thing they point toward. They are not self referential.

Yes, you are right, they are not self referential. But they are an important link in the storyline of Gods overarching theme as told in the Bible, which is, His Kingdom.

My point is that the Bible isn't just some book that provides self-help or a way for the individual to find peace by being like Jesus, it IS that, but its also more than that. Its about God restoring His creation and He is going to do that by establishing His Kingdom via Jesus reign as the last Adam upon His creation. We as Anabaptist do a good job at emphasizing our citizenship to this Kingdom...but sometimes, I think, as we hone in on that theme we miss the overarching, big picture theme which is the consummation of His Kingdom. The Bible gives us the full message of what His plan is as He establishes His Kingdom over His creation.

Like a short-sighted view of the Kingdom?

[Bootstrap]

I do not differ with what you said in the first paragraph, but the last sentence seems to be saying something different. If the Scripture is not our only authoritative source (per Menno), then what other authoritative sources do you think Menno recognized or accepted?

Would you agree that within the Reformation, no group took Sola Scriptura more seriously than the Anabaptists?

I think early Anabaptists took the authority of Scripture very, very seriously. I'm not convinced that they believed in Sola Scriptura.

I know Menno Simons best. He believed that human traditions were taking the place of the clear teachings of the Bible. He was clear that tradition was valid only if it was based in Scripture. But I think he did believe that tradition has a role to play. He taught that our practice and beliefs must also align with Scripture, but believed in the role of the church interpreting and applying Scripture.

But I don't think he ever said Scripture is the only source of authority.

I think he saw Jesus as a primary source of authority:

Since then, dear reader, we find it testified and proclaimed throughout the Scriptures that Christ Jesus is the promised Messiah, the true Savior of the world; that He is the only, eternal, and undeceiving way to eternal life; the throne of grace; the mediator of the new covenant; our mercy-seat, reconciliation, atonement, and redemption; yea, our only and eternal High Priest, Prophet, and King; therefore, I repeat it, all who desire to enter into life eternal, let them seek Christ with all diligence; let them hear and follow Him, as the voice of the Father commands; let them, in their weakness, do according to His example and will, and not listen to the voice of a stranger, who, under a fair appearance, deceives the poor people with the doctrines and commandments of men. This I say in order that all might understand that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, alone, and no other, is the foundation and essential head of His church, and that He will have no strange head besides Himself. Christ is the bridegroom; the church is His bride; Christ is the shepherd; the church is His flock; Christ is the bridegroom; the church is His spouse. Therefore He alone, and none other, is worthy of our obedience and has the right to command us. He alone has taught us rightly, and is the only Savior to whom we must cleave with all our hearts and minds. For this reason, we are resolved, with the aid of the Lord, not to accept any other doctrine than that of Christ, nor hear any voice except His; not to follow any teaching except the pure word of God. This must be our ground and guide for faith, according to the will of God, from which no human opinion, custom, nor councils shall ever move us.

And the Holy Spirit:

True evangelical faith is of such a nature it cannot lie dormant; but spreads itself out in all kinds of righteousness and fruits of love; it dies to flesh and blood; it destroys all forbidden lusts and desires; it seeks, serves, and fears God; it clothes the naked; it feeds the hungry; it comforts the sorrowful; it shelters the destitute; it aids and consoles the sad; it does good to those who do it harm; it serves those that harm it; it prays for those who persecute it; it teaches, admonishes, and reproves with the Word of the Lord; it seeks those who are lost; it binds up what is wounded; it heals the sick; it saves what is sound; it becomes all things to all people. The persecution, suffering, and anxiety that come to it for the sake of the Lord’s truth have become a glorious joy and comfort to it. And it is nothing else than flesh and blood do; that those who are born after the Spirit live according to the Spirit; they eat and drink, they think, they speak, and hear things of the Spirit, thus, they honor, acknowledge, and praise the Father, and glorify the precious name of God. This is the nature of the true evangelical faith, which lives by and brings forth these fruits.

And the example of the apostles (this quote is also from Foundations of Christian Doctrine):

We believe and confess with the holy apostles and with all the true witnesses of Jesus Christ, that there is but one gospel, one faith, one church, one baptism, and one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all in us all. We believe and confess that the Christian church must follow the teachings and practices of the apostles, and must, in doctrine and life, conform to the Word of God, as it was in the beginning, and must continue to be as it is written in the Scripture. We are willing to accept only that which is in accordance with this rule, and nothing else. We reject all additions, which may have been introduced by men without the authorization of the Scriptures. It is this that we desire to uphold, and it is this that we confess. This, we believe, is our duty as Christians. We find ourselves duty-bound by the example and life of the apostles and the early Christian church to follow the commandments of the Lord alone, and we reject those inventions and ordinances of men that deviate from the example of the holy apostles.

And martyrs as models of faith:

We testify before you, dear brethren and sisters in the Lord, that many godly men and women, whom the world neither knows nor loves, have testified by word and deed, by their whole life, and have attested with their blood, that our doctrine and faith are the true doctrine and faith of Jesus Christ; and that they were sincere and sure of what they testified by God’s help, even unto death; for they sealed it with their own blood and lives, and thus proved it to be true. For this faith and doctrine have been held by true believers since the beginning, as their steadfastness, confession, and witness prove. This faith and doctrine have been upheld by the faithful saints of God, who have been imprisoned, tortured, exiled, and have faced all manner of suffering and persecution for its sake. Their sufferings, endured willingly, are a testament to the truth that we preach, and they serve as a powerful example to all who would follow the Lord. Let us, therefore, not shy away from such a holy confession, but rather take courage from the testimony of these martyrs, and let us press on in the path of Christ, bearing witness to the truth even if it should cost us all that we have.

And even conscience, God's law written on our hearts:

Since then God has written His law upon every heart, and men naturally understand that they should not kill, nor commit adultery, nor steal, nor bear false witness, nor covet another’s goods; and that they should be merciful to the needy, and should assist the afflicted; therefore, since they are well instructed by the law of nature and conscience in all these matters, they are without excuse when they knowingly transgress. Thus, my reader, if we transgress knowingly against God, we do not only err against His Word, but also against nature and conscience. It is true, therefore, that while the conscience may not be perfect, and the law of nature may not be the same as the law of grace, there is yet a witness within every person that speaks of what is right and what is wrong, and this testimony itself is in harmony with God’s Word. Let no one think they are without accountability, for God has left in each heart a guide, a testimony of what is righteous, and He has shown us the truth in His holy Scriptures. Therefore, let us not only be instructed by the law of nature, but let us cling above all to the holy Word, which is our ultimate guide and light.

As you said, everything contrary to Scripture must be discarded:

We certainly hope no one of a rational mind will be so foolish a man as to deny that the whole Scriptures, both the Old and New Testament, were written for our instruction, admonition, and correction, and that they are the true, scepter and rule by which the Lord's kingdom, house, church, and congregation must be ruled and governed. Everything contrary to Scripture, therefore, whether it be in doctrines, beliefs, sacraments, worship, or life, should be measured by this infallible rule and demolished by this just and divine scepter, and destroyed without any respect of persons.

But I don't think that means Scripture is the only authority. It does mean that all other authorities must be tested against Scripture.

[Bootstrap]

So I don't think it is a issue of conservatives or liberals supplanting scripture. It is more an issue of which points of scripture you prioritize and which you focus less on. And, of course how you interpret them.

Indeed. The Anabaptist idea is that they are interpreted through Jesus as a congregation. The Catholics are handed the interpretation by the priests, who get it from the bishops, who get it from the Cardinals, who get it from the infallible Pope, the mouthpiece of God. The Protestants, famously stated by Luther, believe that any shepherd boy behind the bush with a Bible is better off that a Catholic constituent. Protestants emphasize things like "personal convictions."

The aspiration of Anabaptism is perhaps that the congregation, with many eyes, in the multitude of counselors, interpret through Jesus, and apply together as a group, the principles.

I think I would add "by the Holy Spirit given to us, together", with Jesus as the central lens for understanding the Scriptures. The Holy Spirit is an important part of this, and the idea that the Holy Spirit works among us in discernment, not primarily in every individual separately.