The tag-line on the back of this book says, “OK, so the church is broken, now what?” As soon as I saw that line, I was drawn into a discussion. The majority of books coming out of the “emergent” movement have been very good at describing what is broken about the church. They’ve even done a good job at breaking some of the mainstays of the church as it comes out of modernity. What has been lacking in most books, however, has been discussions about the “now what?”

So, the authors of this book aim to address the “now what” question. They address this question by telling the story of their departure from a more traditional church and their efforts to birth a new expression of church which they call nexus (http://nexuschurch.com/), located in Canada. In a conversational style (each author taking turns speaking) the authors share their personal experiences and describing their ecclesiology and how that is played out in their church.

To begin, the authors share how they no longer feel like they fit in the Evangelical Movement. As I read these sections of the book, I felt drawn back to a previous book I reviewed, specifically The Naked Gospel, by Andrew Farley. Like Farley, the authors react to the highly legalistic trends in much of the Evangelical Movement, instead opting for what I would call “radical grace.” They (both Farley and the authors of this book) make it clear that pleasing or impressing God is not the aim of the Christian faith. Rather, Christianity is about God’s work of redemption and sanctification.

Unfortunately, the authors of the Colors of God did not clearly talk about the transformational work of grace (as did Farely). They are correct, in my opinion, that a person’s relationship with God “doesn’t need management” (on our part). What they fail to clearly state that it DOES requirement management from God. That’s the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. That’s not to say that humans are passive in the process, but rather that faith is the constant surrender of the self to the work of God.

The bulk of the book following the authors time of “story sharing” has to do with the development of neXus and how their non-legalistic, emergent style and theology is played out in that fellowship. At this point, they begin to speak Colors. Four primary colors are identified as being expressions of what is primary about faith and practice of neXus. These are not to be understood as creedal formulas, but rather the base from which the congregation expresses its ecclesiology.

Blue refers to FAITH in the finished work of grace in Jesus Christ, through which we find rest in the knowledge that we are loved, accepted, and offer peace with God.

Green is the color of HEALTHY LIVING. The scriptures offers guidance, the authors says, that directs us to spiritual, emotional, relational, and physical health and well-being. These are all intertwine, valid, and necessary, according the neXus community.

Red is the color of COMMUNITY. Such community, as a fulfillment of the Gospel, is inclusive and diverse, characterize by the biblical virtues of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness and self-control.
Yellow is the color of CULTURE. neXus aims to be meaningfully engaged in its culture. Their understanding is that God is already intimately connected and actively involved in culture. To not be engaged in culture, then, disconnects them from experiencing a full expression of God, while also hindering their efforts to embody and proclaim the Gospel.
As I read this book, I was struck by the Anabaptist flavor of their ecclesiology. Sure enough, when visiting their website at http://nexuschurch.com/ you will find a series of sermons drawing on the Anabaptist tradition as foundation to their life together as a faith community. I have been writing extensively on my own blog (http://nieporte.name) about the idea that the Anabaptist tradition has a great deal to offer churches emerging from post-modernity. Feel free to read my posts under the subject: “the transition zone.”
While the book has some flaws, I still feel it is an excellent read and I highly recommend it.

This review can also be seen at http://viralbloggers.com/2010/07/the-colors-of-god-by-dave-phillips-quentin-steen-randall-peters/comment-page-1/#comment-908

Anabaptism developed at a time when a synthesis had developed between the state and the church.  As we noted in earlier blogs, support for this synthesis was evident not only in Roman Catholic theology, but also in the theology of the Protestant reformers.  The Anabaptists, however, rejected this synthesis and sought to separate themselves from what they called “the world.”  This is not to say that the Anabaptists did not see the need for government.  They, in fact, affirmed that government was essential for the ordering of society.  What the Anabaptists said, however, was that they had little to do with society.  The Anabaptists believed that society was essentially secular and sinful. [i]  In his book Neither Protestant Nor Catholic, Walter Klassen writes:

Anabaptists took a radical position in that they refused to participate in the exercise of governmental power.  They appealed to Jesus’ words when he said: ‘You know that in the world the recognized rulers lord it over their subjects, and their great persons make them feel the weight of authority.  That is not the way with you; among you, whoever wants to be great must be your servant . . .” (Mark 10:42-43, NEB).  Rather than putting their energies into the existing order which was built on violence and coercion they set about to actualize in the midst of the old system a new order in which the old rules of coercive power no longer applied.  This took the form of a caring, loving, forgiving, disciplined community in which each member…made his uniquely individual contribution to the strength and vitality of the whole.[ii]

The burden of the Christian was not the reconstruction of secular society, but rather the building of a new society totally responsive to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.  For this reason, the Anabaptists did not seek to be unified with secular society.  Instead they sought to be separated, unique, and distinct.

At first glance, the assertion that society is essentially secular does not appear to be that radical a declaration—at least not in our society.  Many Christian writers assert that we are living in a post-Constantinian era, a time when the synthesis between the church and state has been broken.  Is this true? 

• Consider, for a moment, that the rise of the Nazis took place primarily due to the unity between the German state and the Lutheran church. 
• Think about the fact that predominately Roman Catholic Latin America, which has produced some of the most vicious and repressive dictatorships of this century, has usually experienced the  mutual support of church and state.[iii] 
• Even in the United States there are powerful movements at work seeking to unify the church and the state.   Efforts by famed televangelists like Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition, come to mind.  Robertson has advocated a religious test (only Christians can be elected to public office) despite the constitution’s clear instruction that religious tests are prohibited. 

It may be accurate to say that the Constantinian synthesis between church and state has been broken, but there are many folks trying to reassemble the shattered pieces. 

The Anabaptists remind us that as Christian disciples we are citizens of Christ’s kingdom and do not need the sanction of the state to practice our faith.  In fact, the first step toward church apostasy takes place when Christians seek the authorization and support of the state.  The Anabaptists believed that disciples of Jesus have been set at liberty from the powers and principalities of this world.  They believed that no state could wield power or authority over their conscience.  It was possible, however, for the church to sacrifice its freedom by becoming wed to the state.  That’s what had happened to the church following the days of Constantine—and that also is what the Anabaptist identified as the major flaw of the Protestant Reformation.  The Anabaptists rejected the synthesis of the church and the state and separated themselves from the values, morals, methods, and principles of secular society to keep them from making the same mistake made by the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches. 

In “the transition zone,” this time of cultural upheaval, there is a move afoot to reestablish the church as the primary power broken in society.  If history shows us anything, however, it is that when the church is the power broker, the church is the entity that ends up broken.  Today’s church would benefit by recovering the Anabaptist notion of separation from society.  This is better for the church and allows it the opportunity to fulfill its calling as a prophetic community of justice.

[ii] Klaassen, Neither Protestant Nor Catholic, 81-82.

[iii]Ibid., 73.

The thesis of these blogs has been that the contemporary church can develop a meaningful theology of evangelism in a postmodern world (“the transition zone”) by recovering the Anabaptist vision of the church.  Thus far we have defined postmodernism, investigated the roots of the Anabaptist tradition, and examined the major tenets of the Anabaptists’ approach to ecclesiology and evangelism.  The next several blogs will discuss some of the areas of renewal that I believe the Anabaptist vision could bring to the church in the transition zone.

Christian Community in an Age of Individualism

In the book Habits of the Heart, Robert Bellah characterizes Western society as marked by rampant individualism. This characterization touches at the very essence of North American culture.  “Individualism is a calm and considered feeling which disposes each citizen to isolate himself from the mass of his fellows and withdraw into the circle of family and friends; with this little society formed to his taste, he gladly leaves the greater society to look after itself.”[i]  In other words, in Western society the individual is an independent unit.  Social relationships with others are viewed as a restriction of an individual’s liberty.  In such a culture the only purpose for entering social relationships is personal gain.  Even basic social systems such as the family and the church are seen as “a collection of individuals created by individuals for their own individual advantages.”[ii]  In this self-centered “dog-eat-dog” world, other persons are not colleagues, but competitors. The individual is of supreme importance—the rest of society must bend to the whims and wishes of the one.

The result of this excessive emphasis on individualism is a widespread feeling of isolation—individuals rejecting their link to others and even God.  The outcome of isolation is a sense of despair and loneliness. Art Gish laments our society’s disposition towards individualism, saying

“Often it results in a directionless wandering usually mistaken for a pilgrimage.  It means that we become our own authority, cutting ourselves off from others and the meaning of our existence.”[iii]

In the transition zone, the communal aspects of Anabaptist ecclesiology can provide an alternative to the lonely isolationism of rugged individualism by reminding us of the political and social dimensions of biblical salvation.  Of course, in many religious circles it sounds odd to refer to salvation as either political or social.  Salvation is thought to be a purely private relationship between an individual and God.  As such, the church (as a social and political body) is in no way integral to salvation.  Instead, the church is merely a group of saved individuals who occasionally gather for reassurance and inspiration.  The primary problem with this view of salvation is that it denies that the structures of society and the relationships between individuals also need redemption.[iv]  Those who claim that social justice has no place in the ministries of the church have missed a major part of the biblical witness.   The Anabaptist tradition can help the church bring the biblical witness to social justice back into perspective. 

The early Christians believed that the work of God through Christ was the climax of a battle between the demonic powers of darkness and the heavenly forces of light.  In Christ’s resurrection all the forces of evil were defeated.  The resurrection vindicated Christ’s teachings and confirmed his authority as Lord.  Because of His resurrection, the Christian community could follow Christ, obeying his teaching, despite the persecution brought against them.  The resurrection confirmed that there was another sociopolitical reality of surpassing importance—that being the kingdom of God of which they were citizens.  With Stanley Hauerwas we observe that

It was the presumption of those Christians that they were participating in a grand drama of God’s salvation of all creation.  Salvation was cosmic, as in Christ’s resurrection the very universe was storied by God’s purposes.  The church did not have an incidental part in God’s story but was necessary for the salvation wrought in Christ…Without the church the world literally has no hope of salvation since the church is necessary for the world to know it is part of a story that cannot be known without the church…God in Christ has defeated the powers so that as disciples we can confidently live as a cruciform community in a world that has chosen not to be ruled by such love.[v]

The Anabaptists correctly affirm that God’s salvation is both political and social.  First, God’s salvation is political in that it affirms the Lordship of Jesus Christ over and against the authority claimed by the presidents, potentates, and power structures of this world.  As such, Christian community exists to be what liberation theologian Juan Luis Segundo called a sign community of the coming reign of God.[vi]  The church exists to express to humanity what life is like under the rule and reign of God.  In his book, Forming Christian Disciples, David Lowes Watson writes,

Pending the fullness of God’s salvation, the task of the church, and of the Christian disciples who make up its work force, is to direct the world toward the kingdom which Jesus announced and inaugurated.[vii]

Second, the Anabaptists also assert that God’s salvation is social. Anabaptists understand the church to be a community of individuals who have experienced the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in response to that grace are committed to loving and caring for others in need.  They believe that the individual cannot experience the fullness of God’s redemption without first caring for his or her fellow human beings—specifically their material needs.

One of the ways that individualism is exemplified in Western society is in its pervasive preoccupation with material possessions.  Material possessions are nothing more than another resource for gratifying the individual’s wants and desires.  Recovering the Anabaptist understanding of the social dimension of salvation might serve to liberate Christian people from our society’s captivity to materialism. Certainly generosity and ministry must be broader than the giving of material possession.  Nonetheless, in a culture marked as it is by individualistic materialism, it is precisely the sharing of possessions that will provide our society with a powerful and visible witness to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. 

It is no secret that our contemporary society is addicted to materialism and is dysfunctional in interpersonal relationships.  Unfortunately this is also true of the vast majority of churches in America.  Rather than being places where people gather to worship, pray, care for each other, and become freed from their bondage to our society’s preoccupation with power and possessions, the church has instead become a place that confirms those addictions.  The best way to begin to rectify this problem, I believe, is for would-be disciples to repent of their acquisitions and convert to a lifestyle that more closely reflects citizenship in God’s kingdom.  In this way the church will become a vision of what life is like in God’s new order.  That is the type of vision Anabaptist ecclesiology offers the church.

[ii] Kraus, The Community of the Spirit, 32.

[iii] Gish, Living in Christian Community, 54.

[iv] Denny J. Weaver, Becoming Anabaptist, 132.

[v] Stanley Hauerwas, After Christendom:  How the Church is to behave if freedom, justice, and a Christian nation are bad ideas, (Nashville:  Abingdon press, 1991), 36-37.

[vi] Juan Luis Segundo, The Hidden Motives of Pastoral Action:  Latin American Reflections, (Maryknoll:  Orbis Press, 1978), 72, quoted in David Lowes Watson, Forming Christian Disciples:  The Role of Covenant Discipleship and Class Leaders in the Congregation, (Nashville, TN:  Disciple Resources, 1991), 24.

[vii] Ibid.

Preacher's Kids

In previous blogs under “the transition zone” thread, I have shown that the Anabaptists considered the life of discipleship to be the fundamental aspect of the Christian religion.  Obviously this life of discipleship, as defined by the Anabaptists, could not be lived in isolation.  When the Anabaptists spoke about discipleship, they also spoke to the need for a new society where the radical values of God’s kingdom could be put into practice.  For this reason the Anabaptists saw the need for a community of believers.  

Now, obviously, this community was not for everyone.  This community was for those who by repentance had placed themselves under the authority of God’s rule and were therefore disciples of Jesus Christ.  They were a “Believer’s Church.”[i]  This is a term that is considered offensive to many, especially in this age of ecumenism. Donald F. Durnbaugh says that the term “. . . smacks of partisanship and self-satisfaction.  It seems to regulate all not of that persuasion to the camp of the unbelievers.” Though it sounds rather presumptuous, the term “Believer’s Church,” with all its partisanship, is still a historically accurate way to describe Anabaptist ecclesiology.  Those from the “Believer’s Church” tradition “sincerely held that they were Believers in a sense in which they had to deny others.”[ii]  They contended that the Roman Catholic Church and Protestant Reformation Church were not really the true church, but rather corrupt facsimiles.[iii]

In no place is this clearer than by their practice of Baptism.  While the Reformation traditions and the Roman Catholic Church baptized infants into their fellowship, the Anabaptists did not.  Only those who made a commitment to be a disciple were granted entrance into the church.  This prompted the Anabaptists to practice believer’s baptism.  This radically new understanding of the meaning of Baptism quickly became a symbol of this new ecclesiastical movement.[iv]  The Roman Catholic and Protestant Reformation churches sought to maintain a state church in which all were included because of their baptism as infants.  They postulated that a state church was necessary for a stable society.  In contrast, the Anabaptists were never concerned with forming a state church.  For them, the church was exclusively made up of those who had made a conscious decision to become a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ.  Only by making such a decision could a person be baptized into the “Believer’s church.”  Since infants could not make such a decision, they could not be baptized into the church. It was in large part the Anabaptist’s practice of “Believer’s baptism” that caused so much antagonism between them and the leaders of the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches.  The leaders of the state church considered the rejection of “infant baptism” to be revolutionary, politically seditious, and a threat to society.  Their response was to order that all Anabaptists should be put to death.

While those who practice “Believer’s baptism” today are no longer burned at the stake, this practice still remains the primary doctrine that seems to separate the Believer’s Church from other expressions of the Christian faith.  What is at issue is not a question about the proper age for performing a baptism, but rather a profoundly different meaning of baptism and a radically different form of ecclesiology.  Baptism is not a peripheral issue, as many assert, but rather is the central question that “goes to the heart of the meaning of church and Christian commitment.”[v]

The Roman Catholic tradition understands baptism as a sacrament.  In this tradition, when the church administers baptism to an infant, the ritual becomes a means of grace by which the mark of original sin is covered, making it more likely that the child will become a follower of Christ as an adult.  The classical Reformation view is quite similar.  Like Roman Catholics, the Reformers viewed baptism as a means of grace.  That’s why they continued to practice infant baptism. Baptism serves to awaken faith in those whom God has elected or predestined to eternal salvation.[vi]  Through Baptism persons are accepted into the Christian community and conveyed the gift of new birth in Christ[vii]—a gift that will either be rejected or affirmed at confirmation.  Reformation leaders spoke about Baptism as a divinely instituted symbolic act combined with a word of promise about forgiveness that made it efficacious for the dispensing of grace.  

The Anabaptists’ response did not deny that children were privy to God’s grace, since God’s grace was given to all.  What they denied was that baptism either mediated grace or was a sign of God’s grace.  Instead, the Anabaptists said that baptism was a sign of Christian discipleship, a symbol of the individual’s response to God’s freely given grace.  Infant children, like all people, are beneficiaries of God’s grace.  Infant children, however, ought not be baptized because they cannot respond to that grace by committing themselves to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.[viii]

Additionally, there are some supporters of infant baptism who deny any sacramental understanding of the act, instead saying that baptism symbolizes the covenant between God and the community of faith in which children are included.  Again, the Anabaptists affirmed that children ought to be included in the life of the community. What they rejected as unbiblical was the thought that baptism should be seen as some sort of baby dedication rather than as a sign of an individual’s decision to follow Jesus Christ.

Anabaptists believe that Christian baptism symbolizes an individual’s voluntary decision to respond to the grace of God by becoming a disciple of Jesus.  Commitment to Jesus as Lord, therefore, is the only prerequisite to entering the waters of baptism.  But such commitment is not without cost.  First, individuals must confess and repent of their sins.  Such a confession is offered in a spirit of both humility and celebration—humility because of a personal failure, but celebration in the knowledge that God loves and forgives.  Additionally a person must also confess faith in the Lordship of Jesus Christ, placing himself or herself under the authority of Christ teachings and the accountability of the community.[ix]  As Manz, Grebel and the others were baptized, they made such a commitment as they pledged themselves to a life of discipleship and Christian community.

Aspects of Christian Community

In general, a community is a group of individuals held together by a common center, focus, interests, laws, and direction. Community can be centralized around just about anything—a charismatic individual, a political ideology, a powerful adversary, or a philanthropic cause.  This being the case, community can be judged as either negative or positive, depending on its center.

For Christian disciples, community is centered on Jesus Christ. The Christian community is made up of individuals who are drawn together by a common commitment to follow Jesus Christ.  Arts Gish writes of the centrality of Jesus Christ in the Christian community, saying, “He is the basis, the cohesive force, the guide, and the goal of Christian community.  He is Lord, President, and Chairman.  He draws us to Himself.  We follow Him.  His is our rock, our salvation.”[x]  Engendering a warm sense of congeniality or feelings of community is not itself the focus of the church.  Rather the focus of the church as a Christian community is on the collective decision to follow the Jesus Christ as the Lord. 

What are some of the more important aspects of the Christian community in the Anabaptist tradition?  Only a few can be mention here.

First, Christian community is purely voluntary.  Speaking of Christian community, Harold S. Bender writes, “Voluntary church membership based upon true conversion and involving a commitment to holy living and discipleship was the absolutely essential heart of this concept.”[xi]  Of course, this stands in stark opposition to the idea of the church maintained by the Roman Catholic and Protestant reformers who envisioned a church made up of an entire population by virtue of infant baptism and by coercive force.

If the heart of the Christian religion is discipleship, then the church of Jesus Christ, the Anabaptists reasoned, ought to be made up only of those who were disciples.  Infants could not be baptized into the Christian community because they could not make a decision to become followers of Jesus.  Compulsory religious laws enforced by the dictates of the state were rejected because they infringed upon the individual’s right to voluntarily decide whether to become a follower of Jesus.

Second, Christian community is a visible manifestation of the kingdom of God.  Clarence Jordan, founder of Koinonia Farms, once likened God’s kingdom to a demonstration plot.  A demonstration plot is a parcel of land dedicated to the production of a new crop to see how it might grow in a given environment.  Jordan says that this was God’s purpose for the church.  The church is a demonstration plot for God’s kingdom—a community of faith demonstrating to the world what it means to be a follower of Jesus.[xii]

Paul Minear identifies four major motifs in the New Testament that describe the church.  These are:  the people of God, the new humanity, the fellowship of believers, and the body of Christ.[xiii]  Each images points to a visible community of people who demonstrate, by their corporate life, their obedience to God.  These images are the biblical foundation for the Anabaptists’ understanding of the church as a visible community.  Paul M. Lederach writes:

For them the church was a called-out group, a holy people, visible because of the quality of life lived as followers of Jesus Christ.  The Anabaptists saw the church as the body of Christ, not as invisible, lost in the masses, but as a group of holy brethren and sisters, highly visible because of their life of love and holiness.[xiv]

A third aspect of the Anabaptist idea of the Christian community was that the church could express a visible witness to the world was by sharing possessions so that the needs of others could be met. In reading the New Testament Anabaptists saw that the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost prompted the early disciples to “share all things in

common” (cf. Acts 2:44-47).  Because they sought to pattern their communal life after the model established in the New Testament, the Anabaptist communities were marked by a propensity to share with one another.  In fact, in AD 1557, a Swiss Brethren community in Strasbourg asked baptismal candidates whether “if necessity required it, they would devote all their possession to the service of the brotherhood and would not fail any member that is in need, if they were able to render aid.”[xv]

What was the motivation for sharing?  Quite simply, sharing was a natural response to the love they knew in Jesus Christ.  Jesus Christ had given up all that he possessed to bring humankind salvation.[xvi]  Since they have experienced such love, Christians are in the process of being liberated from selfishness and greed.  The natural response to such liberation is to love and care for others.  Such visible expressions of love were not merely items for speculative consideration, but were actually put into practice.[xvii]  Anabaptist leader Balthasar Hubmaier said:

Concerning community of goods, I have always said that everyone should be concerned about the needs of others, so that the hungry might be fed, the thirsty given drink, and the naked clothed.  For we are not lords of our possessions, but stewards and distributors.[xviii]

In the fourth place, the Christian community is also nonconformist.  In other words, it stands apart from the values, morals, and principles of the world.  A nonconforming community is the unavoidable result of a voluntary fellowship of person committed to demonstrating the values of the kingdom of God by their life together. Art Gish writes:

The people of God are those who have left all to follow Jesus.  Because they have a different Lord their whole existence stands in contrast to the world around them.  Their relation to the world is one of the marks of their new life in Christ.

The New Testament describes God’s people as strangers. Pilgrims, and aliens.  We are strangers in that we do not feel at home here.  We are pilgrims, for we are on our way to a new city.  We are aliens, for our citizenship is in another kingdom.  We are exiles who can accept no privileged position in society.  We have different values from those who have a settled life.[xix]

In a sense, the principle of nonconformity is simply a “negative expression of the positive requirement of discipleship.”[xx]  Additionally, the principle of nonconformity goes further to set up a boundary between the Christian community and worldly society.  The world cannot accept the practices of true Christians in its society, while the church cannot embrace worldly values among its membership.[xxi]  As a manifestation of God’s kingdom, then, Christian community stands as an expression of judgment against the status quo.  The Christian community marches to the beat of a different drum.  While worldly society caters to the whims of the rich and famous, the Christian community expresses God’s partiality for the poor.  When the world calls people to become warriors against an enemy, the Christian community follows the call of Christ to become peacemakers.  In a society that operates largely on the principles of power politics and coercive force, the Christian community operates on the ideals of humility and sacrificial love.  Because of its unwavering loyalty to the kingdom of God and the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the Christian community always exists in tension with the powers and principalities of this world.  The more they openly follow Jesus Christ as Lord, the more likely they are to run the risk of being separated from the larger society. 

A fifth aspect of Christian community for the Anabaptists was that the church was the focus of God’s redeeming work in earth.  Anabaptists found themselves in basic agreement with the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus.[xxii]  For the Anabaptist, salvation was understood in terms of becoming a member of the “household of God,” or experiencing “baptism into the body of Christ.”  Salvation meant becoming a part of “the family of God,” or a citizen of God’s new “nation” or “people” (cf. Romans 8:23; 12:1; Eph. 2:11-19; 4; Col. 2:19, and 1 Peter 2:9).  It must be noted that all these biblical images are corporate in nature.  For the Anabaptist, salvation was a corporate matter, not private or individualistic. 

This soteriological theory stands in opposition to both the Roman Catholic and Protestant Reformation views of salvation.  In the case of Catholicism, salvation “progressively became equated with the gift of immortal life and freedom from the penalty of sin.”  As such, the church eventually became perceived as the “agent of salvation.”  Through the consecration of the sacraments the “guilt of sin could be relieved and escape from deserved penalty assured.”  For the Roman Catholic tradition, extra ecclesiam nulla salus combined with a sacramental view of grace, placed the keys of salvation in the possession of the institutional church.[xxiii]

The Protestant reformers rejected the tendency of Catholicism to link the redeeming work of God to the institution of the church. For them, salvation was a purely supernatural act, “an inward spiritual transaction (justification) which could not be directly related to ethical behavior and human relationships.”[xxiv]  As such, the identity of the truly saved were known only to God.  This being the case, salvation seems to becomes merely an intellectual exercise and the true church was considered an “invisible” community of the truly saved that theoretically existed within the larger institutional church.[xxv] 

In the soteriological views of both the Roman Catholic church and Protestant Reformation church, the social dynamic of biblical salvation is lost.  C. Norman Kraus writes,

Rather than an experience of God’s renewal and life together in a visible community of God’s people, salvation was seen as a private transaction.  Rather than including psychological and ethical renewal, salvation was largely restricted to the intellectual (correct thinking) and to the religious aspects of life.  Since the “spiritual” is a discreet, private category known only to God, life together in the Christian congregation was lived under the umbrella of orthodox doctrine and sacrament.[xxvi]

The Anabaptists offered a third view of salvation.  Quite simply, they suggested that “salvation by grace through faith” should be “understood in terms of new birth, conversion, and life in the visible body of Christ.”[xxvii]  Jesus provided the gift of salvation, but this salvation is realized in its fullness within the community he came to establish.  Salvation is neither a matter of receiving the sacraments nor confessing orthodox doctrines—it is a matter of becoming a part of a community where Jesus Christ is present as Savior and followed as Lord.  In such a community Christian disciples are formed; the Holy Spirit is present; God is honored and worshipped, mutual aid and support are experienced; and persons are freed from their bondage to sin.  For the Anabaptists salvation by grace involved a commitment to live life as a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ within a community of fellow disciples.  While the Protestant reformers said, “the just shall live by faith,” Anabaptist leader Menno Simons said, “the just shall live their faith.”[xxviii]  Speaking to the social dynamic of Anabaptist soteriology, Robert Friedmann writes,

Now, then, the central idea of Anabaptism, the real dynamite in the age of Reformation, as I see it, was this, that one cannot find salvation without caring for his brother, that this ‘brother’ actually matters in the personal life . . . This interdependence of men gives life and salvation a new meaning.  It is not ‘faith alone’ which matters (for which faith no church organization would be needed) but it is the brotherhood, this intimate caring for each other, as it was commanded to the disciples of Christ as the way to God’s kingdom.  That was the discovery which made Anabaptism so forceful and outstanding in all church history.[xxix]

Last, but not least, the Anabaptists viewed the Christ-centered community as the place where followers of the Jesus Christ were nurtured in their commitment to discipleship.  The Anabaptists believed that baptism and church membership was not the end of the redemption process, but rather its beginning.  A new birth implied a new life to be lived.  Baptism and church membership were merely the first steps on a journey that would encompass the individual’s remaining life.  The Christian community was to be present to guide a person in the ways of discipleship for the remainder of his or her life.[xxx]

Anabaptists believe that Christian community nurtures disciples in two ways.  First, it provides a place for spiritual growth, support, fellowship, worship, study, and corporate ministry—in keeping with the model established in the Book of Acts. The Anabaptists believe that such positive communal disciplines are necessary to inspire those who take seriously their commitment to Christ.  They recognize that each individual is limited in his or her ability to understand and apply the Christian faith.  Helmut Harder writes, “A community of people helps us to understand biblical passages and to decide upon good courses of action.”[xxxi] 

Second, the Anabaptists believe that Christian community nurtures disciples by correcting them when they have gone astray.  This aspect of church discipline was the second article in Anabaptist Schleitheim Confession of AD 1527:

We are agreed as follows on the ban:  The ban shall be employed with all those who have given themselves to the Lord, to walk in His commandments, and with all those who are baptized into the one body of Christ and who are called brethren or sister, and yet who slip sometimes and fall into error or sin, being inadvertently overtaken.  The same shall be admonished twice in secret and the third time openly disciplined or banned according to the command of Christ.  Matthew 18.  But this shall be done in according to the regulation of the Spirit before the breaking of bread, so that we may break and eat one bread, with one mind and in one love, and may drink of one cup.[xxxii]

The idea of church discipline is the most misunderstood aspects of Anabaptist ecclesiology, primarily because it has been the most misused. There was a tendency among many Anabaptist groups to use the ban in a highly punitive, legalistic and negative fashion.[xxxiii]

Used appropriately, the Anabaptists’ practice of church discipline was an invaluable tool in the formation of Christian disciples.  Church discipline reminded each member of the community that the pattern for discipleship was not a matter of personal preference, but of fidelity to Christ’s example.  The aim of church discipline was not punitive punishment, but rather a process of calling  the fallen person to repentance and reconciliation.  The purpose of church discipline was not to hold individuals captive, but to free them from their sin so that they could more faithfully follow Christ.  The Anabaptists recognized that not only was the individual a witness to the gospel, but also the community.  As such both the individual and the community had to be seen as faithful to the high moral and ethical standards of the reign of God.[xxxiv]

[ii] Durnbaugh, The Believer’s Church, ix.

[iii] The Anabaptists rejected the Roman Catholic and Protestant Reformation notion of an “invisible church” of “earnest Christians”  which could be found within the larger institution called the church.  Rather, the Anabaptist affirmed only a “visible church” made up only of  “true believers.”  For the Anabaptist, the church was visible, “not because it embraced all people, but because it could be identified by the quality of the lives of those who are in it.” Lederach, A Third Way, 40.

[iv] William R.  Estep, The Anabaptist Story.  (Grand Rapids, Michigan:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975), 145.

[v] Arthur G. Gish, Living in Christian Community, (Scottdale, PA:  Herald Press, 1979), 194.

[vi] Ted A. Campbell, Christian Confessions:  A Historical Introduction.  (Louisville, Kentucky:  Westminister John Knox Press, 1996), 176.

[vii] Ibid., 179.

[viii] Ibid., 198.

[ix] Marlin Jeschke, Discipling in the Church:  Recovering a Ministry of the Gospel, (Scottdale, PA:  Herald Press, 1988), 69-73.

[x] Gish, Living in Christian Community, 34.

[xi] Bender, The Anabaptist Vision, 26.

[xii] Clarence Jordan, The Substance of Faith and Other Cotton Patch Sermons By Clarence Jordan, ed. Dallas Lee, (New York:  Association Press, 1972), 56-61.

[xiii] Minear offers 96 New Testament images for the church but suggests that these four encompass the main themes of the church.  Paul S. Minear, Images of the Church in the New Testament, (Philadelphia:  Westminster Press, 1960).

[xiv] Lederach, The Third Way, 41-42.

[xv] Quoted in Durnbaugh, The Believer’s Church, 269.

[xvi] See Philippians 2:5-11.

[xvii] Bender, The Anabaptist Vision, 31.

[xviii] Quoted in Durnbaugh, The Believer’s Church, 269.

[xix] Gish, Living in Christian Community, 276-292.

[xx] Bender, The Anabaptist Vision, 28.

[xxi] The Anabaptist motto for nonconformity is II Corinthians 6:17 which reads “come out from them, and be separate from them.” 

[xxii] “Outside the church no salvation”—attributed to Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, and quoted in C. Norman Kraus, The Community of the Spirit: How the Church is in the World, (Scottdale, PA:  Herald Press, 1993), 103.

[xxiii] Kraus, The Community of the Spirit, 103.

[xxiv] Ibid.

[xxv] Lederarch, A Third Way, 77.

[xxvi] Kraus, The Community of the Spirit, 104.

[xxvii] Ibid., 106.

[xxviii] Quoted in Kraus, The Community of the Spirit, 106.

[xxix] Robert Friedmann, “On Mennonite Historiography and on Individualism and Brotherhood,” Mennonite Quarterly Review, 18 (April 1944): 121.

[xxx] Gish, Living in Christian Community, 133-171.

[xxxi] Harder, Guide to Faith, 101.

[xxxii] Quoted in J.C. Wenger, The Mennonite Quarterly Review, (July 1945): 244-45.

[xxxiii] Jeschke, Discipline in the Church, 135.

[xxxiv] See Jeschke, Discipline in the Church and Gish, Living in Christian Community, 137-171.

We continue in this series of blogs aimed at examining what it means to do evangelization in this post-modern era (what I am calling “the transition zone”).  It is my conviction that the church of today has much to learn about “doing” Christianity from the Anabaptist tradition.  Earlier post have introduced the basic of Anabaptist ecclesiology (their doctrine of the church).  In addition, several post also examined what it means to be a part of a post-modern culture.

Today we continue examining what kind of church and theology of evangelism might emerge from an Anabaptist ecclesiology in our kind of world. 

Our most recent post looked at the goal of  the evangelization process – and how that related to the “kingdom of God.”  In this post we continue that line of thought, looking at the notion that a new convert is a disciple, not simply one who has acquiescence to certain propositional doctrines.[i]  Nor is a Christian a person who has had the subjective experience of grace as mediated through the institutions of the church.  Certainly the Anabaptists had some use for doctrines or religious experiences.  What they refused to believe was that such experiences and doctrines would necessarily lead to the transformation of life.

The Anabaptists understood discipleship to be the essence of Christianity.  This is a point made clear in The Anabaptist Vision, Harold Bender’s classic essay on Anabaptist ecclesiology.  Bender writes:

First and fundamental in the Anabaptist vision was the conception of the essence of Christianity as discipleship.  It was a concept which meant the transformation of the entire way of life of the individual believer and of society so that it should be fashioned after the teachings and example of Christ.  The Anabaptist could not understand a Christianity which made regeneration, holiness, and love primarily a matter of intellect, of doctrinal belief, or of subjective “experience,” rather than one of the transformation of life.  They demanded an outward expression of the inner experience.  Repentance must be “evidenced” by newness of behavior…The focus of the Christian life was to be not so much the inward experience of the grace of God, as it was for Luther, but the outward application of that grace to all human conduct and the consequent Christianization of all human relationships.  The true test of the Christian, they held, is discipleship.  The great word of the Anabaptists was not “faith” as it was with the reformers, but “following.”  And baptism, the greatest of Christian symbols, was accordingly to be for them the “covenant of a good conscience toward God” (I Peter 3:21), the pledge of a complete commitment to obey Christ, and not primarily the symbol of a past experience.  The Anabaptists had faith, indeed, but they used it to produce a life.  Theology was for them a means, not an end.[ii]

Anabaptists do not “accept Jesus Christ as the Savior,” rather they follow Jesus Christ as Lord precisely because he is the Savior.  Menno Simons wrote, “Whosoever boasts that he is a Christian, the same must walk as Christ walked.”[iii] For the Anabaptists, discipleship is the patterning one’s life after the example set by Christ.  Discipleship, as the essence of Christianity, means obeying and following the Lord Jesus Christ.

Since such discipleship is the essence of Christianity, it stands to reason that such discipleship is also the essence of the Christian’s witness to faith.  According to the Great Commission, the primary goal of the Christian’s evangelistic witness is to make “make disciples of all nations”  (cf. Mt.  28:18-20)  The Anabaptists took the Great Commission to heart, allowing it to became the crux of their understanding of the nature and mandate of the church.  They were an evangelistic people.  The goal of their evangelistic witness was to make disciples.  The primary form of that evangelistic witness was their living the life of a Christian disciple—a follower of Jesus.  Myron S. Augsburger writes:

Evangelism is anything that makes faith in Jesus Christ a possibility for persons.  It is the loving deed in the name of Christ as well as the loving word.  Evangelism is sharing the joy of the new life in Christ in fellowship and friendship.  It is inviting persons to open their lives to the lordship of Jesus…

 When we commit our lives to Jesus we become a part of his people.  The New Testament calls his worldwide fellowship of believers “the body of Christ.”  As a person’s body gives visibility to his/her personality, so the covenant community, the church, makes Christ visible in the world.  Every Christian disciple becomes a responsible participant in this new community.  Here each lives by the Word and Spirit of Christ, expressing in love and holiness a new quality of life in the grace of God.

Evangelism is the practice of Christian community.  It is the daily experience of the presence and position of the risen love in its midst.  It is inviting persons to acknowledge him as Lord and become participants in his kingdom.  When persons respond to Christ with faith and commitment, they experience a “new birth.”  This is the beginning of a new life.  It is living with a new Lord, a new motive, a new fellowship, a new directive, and a new pattern of life. We should regard evangelism as an essential aspect of the life of the church.[iv]

 To pattern one’s life after Christ—to experience new birth as the beginning of a new life—naturally entails that one should be aware of Jesus’ life, work, and teachings.  For this reason, Anabaptists place a great deal of emphasis on the authority of the scripture as the story of God’s self-revelation through Jesus Christ.  Like the Protestant reformers, the Anabaptists accepted the claim that the Bible was the final authority for Christian living—standing above church tradition and human reason.

Accepting the Bible as authoritative, the question must next be asked:  how is the Bible to be interpreted?  To this question, the Anabaptists gave a two-fold answer.  First, they began with the centrality of Jesus Christ, declaring that the entire Bible should be interpreted from the standpoint of Jesus as he is represented in the Gospels. The Anabaptists understood the advent of Jesus Christ to be the most important event in the history of Israel.  They believed Him to be the Messiah, the clearest revelation of the person of God, and the supreme teacher of God’s will and way for human life.  They correctly recognized Jesus not only as Savior—but also as prophet, teacher, and Lord.  As such, the life, work, and teachings of Jesus were understood as the starting point for understanding the entire Bible.  The 1963 Mennonite Confession of faith says:

We believe that God has revealed Himself in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the inspired Word of God, and supremely in His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.[v]

 A second aspect of the hermeneutical principle of the Anabaptists was their affirmation of the work of the Holy Spirit.  Like the Protestant reformers, Anabaptists wholeheartedly agreed that Christians were gifted with the Holy Spirit for the purpose of interpreting the Bible.  The difference between the Reformers and the Anabaptists was the loci of the Holy Spirit’s work in the interpretive process.

Protestant Christianity has long considered that the ordinary individual, gifted with the Holy Spirit and equipped with his or her basic intelligence, has all the resources needed to properly interpret the Bible.  The problem here is that the individual ultimately becomes “master” over the scripture.  The scripture is then forced to submit to the influence of the individual’s religious experiences, perceptions, and political ideologies.[vi]  In a sense, then, the Bible is divorced from the church and placed into the hands of individuals.

The Anabaptists rejected (and still reject) this individualistic approach to the interpretation of the scripture.  How does the Anabaptist approach the scriptures?  He or she approaches the scriptures as a member of the faith community.  The Anabaptists believe that the Holy Spirit works primarily within the community of faith as it struggles to understand the meanings of the scriptures and apply them to daily life.[vii]  The Bible is not understood to be the book of the individual Christian.  Neither is it viewed as an objective collection of propositional doctrines to be examined using the instruments of pure reason. What is the Bible?  It is the story of God’s working in human history.  It is the religious community’s source-book for Christian spirituality.  For this reason it is to be interpreted communally, from the perspective of the Christian community.  The Anabaptists realized that without the authoritative guidance of a community that honors Jesus Christ as Lord, the Bible simply does not make sense.

If discipleship is the patterning one’s life after the example set by the Christ, then it stands to reason that another (third) aspect of discipleship will be that of suffering and cross-bearing.  Art Gish writes,

The symbol of our relation to the world is the cross.  Our relation to the world is one of love, but often the reaction to that love will be separation and hostility.  The New Testament repeatedly warns us that if we remain faithful we can expect persecution.  To drink of the cup which Jesus drank from will mean suffering and death, rejection and humiliation.  The true church is a suffering church, hated and despised by the world, for those committed to the prince of darkness cannot bear to see the light.[viii]

The Anabaptists considered suffering to be an essential aspect of true discipleship.  Why?  Because they were keenly aware that faithfulness to the call of Christ would  put them at odds with the  powers and principalities of this world.  Following Jesus would make them the enemy of the societal status quo.  Whenever expectations of society contradict the call of Christ, they believed that Christian disciples are expected to remain loyal to the will and way of God.  Such is the path of cross-bearing.

The way of cross-bearing and martyrdom is recognized by the Anabaptists as the indispensable result of faithful discipleship. To the world, the way of cross-bearing seems like weakness and utter nonsense.  For the disciple, however, the way of the cross proves to be the “power of God for salvation” (cf. Romans 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:18).   In the end, the faithful community will be victorious.  In the end, the truth of the gospel proclaimed by that community will be vindicated.  The Anabaptists postulated the victory and vindication of the faithful community because they believed that those who shared in Christ’s suffering would also share in his glory (cf.  Romans 8:17). 

A fourth aspect of Anabaptist discipleship involves what J. Lawrence Burkholder calls “the separated life of holiness.”[ix]  Not only were disciples of Jesus Christ expected to take up the cross of suffering for the sake of the gospel, they were also expected to cast aside all the works of darkness such as obscene conversation, gossip, conceit, debauchery, and sexual immorality.  Anabaptists held themselves to a very high standard of morality.  While others sought a reformation of doctrines, the Anabaptist sought a reformation of morals. 

Not only did Anabaptists proclaim a high standard of morality, they also held themselves to that standard, as their witness and the witness of their opponents indicate.  In Zwingli’s last book against the Swiss Brethren, we read the following:

If you investigate their life and conduct, it seems at first contact irreproachable, pious, unassuming, attractive, yea, above this world.  Even those who are inclined to be critical will say that their lives are excellent.[x]

 Roman Catholic theologian Franz Agricola wrote:

Among the existing heretical sects there is none which in appearance leads a more modest or pious life than the Anabaptist.  As concerns their outward public life they are irreproachable.  No lying, deception, swearing, strife, harsh language, no intemperate eating and drinking, no outward personal display is found among them, but humility, patience, uprightness, neatness, honesty, temperance, straightforwardness in such measure that one would suppose that they had the Holy Spirit of God.[xi]

 One of the strongest indications that the Anabaptists were successful in upholding a high standard of personal morality is illustrated by the fact that good moral values often became the initial reason for suspecting that a person might be an Anabaptist.  For example, Hans Jager of Vohringen in Wurttemberg, was brought to trial on the conjecture that he might be an Anabaptist essentially because he did not curse, but lived an irreproachable life.  On the other hand, Casper Zacher of Wailblingen in Wurttemberg was accused of being an Anabaptist, but court records indicate that the charges were dropped because he was shown to be an envious, quarrelsome individual known to curse and carry a weapon.[xii]

A fifth distinguishing quality of Anabaptist discipleship is its emphasis on peace.  Of course, this aspect of discipleship meant that true followers of Jesus Christ would not participate in war.  From the beginning Anabaptists rejected the call of the state into military service as contradictory to the gospel of Christ. Conrad Grebel wrote, “True, believing Christians. . . use neither the worldly sword nor engage in war, since among them taking human life has ceased entirely…”[xiii]  Felix Manz said, “No Christian smites with the sword, nor resists evil.”[xiv]  Menno Simons wrote, “The regenerate do not go to war, nor engage in strife.  They are children of peace . . . and know not of war.  Their sword is the sword of the Spirit which they wield with a good conscience through the Holy Ghost.”[xv]

Anabaptists believe that the message of peace is an essential ingredient in the gospel of Jesus Christ.[xvi]  It should be noted, however, that the Anabaptist doctrine of peace meant more than  merely the refusal to take up arms.  On the contrary, the Anabaptists emphasized a gospel of love that promotes constructive, rather than destructive, service in the world.[xvii]  Anabaptists’ concern for peace evolved out of their conviction that God had called them into a new society where Jesus Christ, the prince of peace, was recognized as Lord.  Since Jesus Christ, not the state, was lord over their conscience, it would be impermissible for them to do violence against another.

The final element of the Anabaptists’ understanding of discipleship was the belief that the task of evangelism was the central vocation of all disciples. Franklin H. Littell has indicated his conviction that nothing that Jesus said was given more serious attention by the Anabaptists than the Great Commission.[xviii] All other concerns in life—shelter, food, clothing, family—were to be seen as subordinate to the missionary task.  Nothing was more important than the proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom. 

It might be said that Anabaptists were preoccupied with discipleship, whereas the reformers such as Luther were more concerned with the orders of creation.  Burkholder writes

Luther reinterpreted the medieval idea of Christian “calling” to  give the work of the world high religious significance.  He . . . shifted the locus of discipleship roughly from the order of redemption to the order of creation.  He divided the secular realms into “callings,” “offices,” and “ranks.”  The three main groups of order within the secular realm were the family, the government, and the empirical church. . . True Christian discipleship was conceived largely in terms of what makes for a stable social order rather than, as in the case of the Anabaptists, that which advances a new and different order called the kingdom of God.  As between staying home and being a good Christian father or mother within a settled religio-social system and going from village to village to preach the Gospel of repentance, Luther’s conservative and socially responsible attitude emphasized the former.  The latter was interpreted to mean social revolution, whereas Luther’s real interests lay in reinforcing traditional patterns by the broadest conceivable diffusion of Christian graces.[xix]

As far as the Protestant Reformers were concerned, the Great Commission was already fulfilled by the advent of Corpus Christianum.  The Anabaptists, however, believed that the first candidate for an evangelistic witness was the so-called great “Christian” culture. They believed that the church had gone astray from its biblical foundations.  The primary goal of the Anabaptist movement was to restore the church to its New Testament model.  The best way to accomplish this task, they believed, was for them to “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything the Lord Jesus Christ has commanded…” (cf. Mt. 28:19-20).

[ii] Harold S. Bender, The Anabaptist Vision, (Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald Press, 1944), 20-21.

[iii] The Complete Writings of Menno Simons, ed. J.C. Wenger (Scottdale, PA:  Herald Press, 1956), 225.

[iv] Myron S. Augsburger, Evangelism as Discipling.  (Scottdale, Pennsylvania:  Herald Press, 1983), 7-8.

[v] Paul Erb, We Believe:  An Interpretation of the 1963 Mennonite Confession of faith for the Younger Generation, (Scottdale, PA:  Herald Press, 1969), 11.

[vi] Stanley Hauerwas, Unleashing the Scripture:  Freeing the Bible from Captivity to America  (Nashville:  Abingdon Press, 1993), 15. 

[vii] Walter Klaassen, Anabaptism:  Neither Catholic Nor Protestant,  (New York: Conrad Press, 1973), 80.

[viii] Gish, Living in Christian Community, 295.

[ix] Burkholder, “The Anabaptist Vision of Discipleship,” 148.

[x] S. M. Jackson, Selected Works  of Huldreich Zwingli, (Phildelphia, 1901), 127, quoted in Bender, The Anabaptist Vision, 22.

[xi] Karl Rembert, Die Wiedertãufer im Herzogtum Julich, (Berlin, 1899), 564, quoted in Bender, The Anabaptist Vision, 23.

[xii] Quellen zur Geschichtr der Wiedertaufer, I. Band Herzogtum Wurttemberg, ed. Gustav Bossert, (Leipzig, 1930), 216-217, quoted in Harold S. Bender, The Anabaptist Vision, 25-26.

[xiii] J.C. Wenger, ed. The Doctrines of the Mennonites, (Scottdale, PA:  Mennonite Publishing House, 1952), 35.

[xiv] Ibid.

[xv] Ibid.

[xvi] The scope of this paper does not allow a complete examination of the Anabaptists’ understanding of the biblical teachings about peace.  Suffice it to say that as the Anabaptists sought to conform themselves to the pattern of living established by Jesus Christ, they found it impossible to take up arms against others.  In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus teaches his followers to be peacemakers, turning the other cheek when attacked by the evil one, and loving even one’s enemies (Matthew 5:9, 39, 44). 

[xvii] Helmut Harder, Guide to Faith, (Newton, Kansas:  Faith and Life Press, 1979), 132.

[xviii] Franklin H. Littell, The Anabaptist View of the Church, (Chicago:  American Society of Church History, 1952), 94.

[xix] Burkholder, “The Anabaptist Vision of Discipleship,” 139-40.

As we continue this series of blog, seeking a theology of evangelism for “the transition zone,” our next challenge is to consider the goals of the evangelization process?  Earlier we noted that the evangelistic invitation of the Anabaptist tradition is to “turn around—to come back to God—to reorient one’s life according to the rule of God.”  The goal of the evangelizing process, then, is that people enter the kingdom of God, as disciples of Jesus Christ, in the fellowship of the Christian community—to become a part of God’s eschatological covenant community.

The Kingdom of God

What do we mean when we say “the kingdom of God?”  As I have said earlier, it is a reference to the realm where God is sovereign—where God is acknowledged and obeyed as ruler.[i]  The dawning of this kingdom took place in the advent of Jesus Christ, it continues today through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, and it will come again in its fullness at the paorusia which God ultimate purpose for all creation will again be brought to fruition.[ii] 

At a time when one world view is dying (modernity) and a new and as of yet undefined world view is being formed, the Christian community has the unique opportunity to inform the developing paradigm with the message of the kingdom—God’s vision for the world.  Stanley Grenz says that God has given us this opportunity when he writes:

In our proclamation, therefore, we lift up a new world view, a view of the world under God.  And we assert that acknowledging the God who is at work in the world is the only sure alternative to the myriad of competing loyalties, which despite their lure fall short of ultimacy.[iii]

If the focus of our evangelism is the proclamation of the kingdom of God, and our goal is to invite people to enter the kingdom through repentance and the reorientation of their lives, then our next question must address the qualities of kingdom life.  What is life like in the realm where God is sovereign?  How is life different for those who place themselves under the rule of God?  In short, what is the kingdom life?

There is no clear systematic presentation of the kingdom of God in scripture.  Nevertheless, the kingdom of God is central to the teaching of Jesus, especially in the Gospel of Matthew.  In Matthew, Jesus offers several descriptions of the kingdom of God, making use primarily of parables as his teaching instrument.  Yet while teaching through parables is one of the primary ways that Jesus communicates his lessons about the kingdom, it is not his exclusive method.  Jesus also illustrates the presence, power, and meaning of the kingdom through prophetic acts, the casting out of demons, the healing of the sick, and the raising of the dead.  By examining the deeds and teachings of Jesus, we can begin to develop a picture of the kingdom.

Jesus said that the kingdom of God is in the middle of conflict[iv]—conflict between what Paul would later call the “dominion of darkness” and “the kingdom of his beloved Son”  (cf. Col. 1:13)  This conflict is revealed in the parable of the farmer who planted good seeds in a field, only to have an enemy come behind him to plant weeds in the same field (cf. Mt. 13:24). This meaning of the parable is that conflict exists between the kingdom of God and the powers and principalities of this world (cf. Eph. 6:12).  As a result, those who place themselves under the rule of God will be rejected and despised by the world (cf. Mt. 5:10-12).  Historically this has been a very important to the Anabaptists who understood their suffering and persecution to be a sign of the conflict between the two kingdoms.

The kingdom starts small, but eventually permeates all of society.[v]  Jesus told two parables that illustrate this aspect of the kingdom.  One was about a mustard seed—the smallest of seeds—that eventually becomes the largest plant in the garden (cf. Mt. 13:31).   The other parable was about yeast permeating bread causing it to rise (cf. Mt. 13:33).  This is how the kingdom will advance in the world.  It will start small, but will move through society like yeast in dough until the whole load has risen.  It will be impossible to stop the kingdom.  Even the gates of hell will “not prevail against it.”  (cf. Mt. 16:18).

Jesus also taught that the kingdom was a possession of great value.[vi]  Two parables were told about the worth of the kingdom.  One was about a man who had found a great treasure in a field, the other about a person who had found an exquisite pearl (cf. Mt. 13:44-45).  In both cases Jesus said these individuals sold all they had in order to possess the treasure.  Jesus taught that the kingdom was so valuable that it was worth everything a person possessed.

The kingdom is also a realm of forgiveness.[vii]  Jesus told a parable about a man whose servant owed him a great deal of money.  The master wanted to settle the account so he called the servant before him.  The servant—who did not have the money to pay the debt—pleaded for mercy.  In response to his plea the master canceled their debt.  The servant then left the master’s house and came to a fellow servant who was indebted to him.  When he demanded payment, the fellow servant pleaded for mercy, but none was extended to him.  The servant, who had just had his debt canceled, ordered the fellow servant cast into prison for failing to pay what was due.  When the master heard about this he became so angry that he tossed this servant in prison because he did not extend to his comrade the same mercy that he had been given.  Jesus concludes this parable with a word of warning.  If you receive grace—the blessing of a forgiven debt—you are bound to share that grace with others.  Those who fail face judgment (cf. Mt. 18:23-35).

The kingdom of God is also a realm of grace.[viii]  To illustrate this point, Jesus told a story about a man who hired several employees to work his fields.  Each was hired for a substantial day’s wage (cf. Mt. 20:1-16). At several different times during the day, the land owner canvassed the community in search of more persons to work his field.  At the end of the day he paid each person the same wage—whether they had worked one hour or all day. Many of the workers complained about the apparent injustice.  A person working one hour should not be paid the same as a person who works twelve.  But this is not how the grace of God functions in human life.  God gives grace to all—and God’s grace is not dependent upon the labor.

Jesus also taught that God’s kingdom requires “sobriety and alertness,” as illustrated by the parable of the ten virgins waiting for the arrival of their bridegrooms (cf. Mt. 25:1-14).  Five were wise and had enough oil for their lamps.  Five were foolish and had insufficient oil. The unprepared missed their bridegroom.  In like manner, those unprepared for the arrival of the kingdom will miss its blessings.[ix] 

In these stories Jesus offers a description of what the kingdom of God is like.  Mennonite Pastor Paul Lederach summarizes these lessons, saying:

This, then, is Jesus’ view of the kingdom.  It is conflict.  It grows.  It penetrates.  It is worldwide.  It is the forgiving, gracious rule of God.  Where God is present in saving power, where God is acknowledged, where God us obeyed, where God’s will is being done—there is God’s kingdom![x]

One of the primary goals of evangelism is to invite persons to respond to the announcement of the nearness of the kingdom by repenting of their sin and reorienting their lives under the sovereignty of God’s leadership.  We are not simply talking about repentance as it is so often viewed in contemporary society—as sorrow for one’s sin.  The New Testament view is different.  The Greek word translated “repent” in the New Testament is metanoeo.  It means “to think differently or afterwards,”  “to reconsider.”  Entrance into the kingdom—the central goal or purpose of the entire  evangelistic enterprise—requires such repentance.  It requires a change of values, outlook, and allegiance.  

Such a change, however, does not take place overnight.  It is a process—a pilgrimage.  As such, evangelism also has as a primary goal the making of disciples—the making of kingdom citizens or followers of Jesus Christ.  This will be the subject of our next blog post.

The Essential Elements of the Christian Gospel

We are in the process of exploring a theology of evangelism for “the transition zone” – that period of time following modernity, often called “post-modernity.”  If you’ve been following along, you know that I am operating under the conviction that the Anabaptist tradition has a great deal to offer during this period of transition.

The first part of this Anabaptist definition of evangelism involves the process by which the Christian community ascertains the essential elements of the Christian gospel. This part of our definition asks the basic question:  what is the content of the gospel?   

Generally speaking, Christians have used the word “gospel” to designate the message and story of God’s saving activity worked out through Jesus Christ.  In other words, the content of the gospel is the message that God saves. On this subject Baptist theologian James McClendon writes: 

The new that comes in Christ—life redeemed, healed, transformed—is a primary element in Christian teaching…It sounds also at that place in the Nicene Creed that confesses “For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven.”  And perhaps a like conviction guided the editors of successive editions of the Methodist Hymnal to begin with “O For a Thousand Tongues to Sing,” a placement that goes back to John Wesley in 1780:

He breaks the power of canceled sin,

He sets the prisoner free;

His blood can make the foulest clean;

His blood availed for me.

East and West, north and South, this gift from God in Christ shapes the Christian faith.[i]

There is apparent unanimity among Christians concerning the conviction that God saves.  For many, however, the meaning of this salvation is a matter of great theological debate.  The origins of this debate are not found in the academic halls of theological inquiry, but in the scriptures themselves. In the New Testament the story of the saving work of God in Christ has two dimensions: the story of Jesus the Proclaimer of the Kingdom and the story of Jesus the Risen Lord.[ii]   

Jesus the Risen Lord 

The story of Jesus the Risen Lord is well known in most contemporary churches.  Found primarily (though not exclusively) in the Gospel of John and the Pauline epistles, it is the story about the gift of salvation God has made available to all humankind through the atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross and from the empty tomb.  It is the story of the “word of God” that became flesh and dwelt among us” as a revelation of God of God’s glory, grace, and truth (cf. John 1:140. It is the story about the one whom John the Baptizer called “the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the earth” (cf. John 1:29, 36).   It is the story about the one whom the Apostle Paul referred to as “our Passover lamb” who has been sacrificed (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:7).  It is the story about the redemption from sin and reconciliation with God was accomplished through the atoning death of Jesus Christ.  In general, the story of Jesus the Risen Lord is the message about the salvation God wrought through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

For many Christians, this is the totality of the Christian gospel—the full content of the evangelistic message.  For such individuals the message of the gospel is easy to systematize and mass produce as series of propositional statements passed off as “spiritual laws” or a “plan of salvation.”  What such approaches fail to take seriously, however, is the other important dimension of the New Testament’s understanding of the gospel—namely the story of Jesus the Proclaimer of the Kingdom.

Jesus the Proclaimer of the Gospel

While the story of Jesus the Risen Lord finds its New Testament foundations in the Pauline epistles and the Fourth Gospel, the story of Jesus Proclaimer of the Kingdom—the one he preached and taught—finds its expression primarily in the synoptic gospels (though teachings about the kingdom can also exegetically be found in other sections of the New Testament).  The story of Jesus the Proclaimer of the Kingdom makes references to Jesus numerous announcements about the nearness of the kingdom.  According to the preaching of Jesus, the proclamation about the nearness of the kingdom demands a response.  Mark summarizes Jesus preaching: “’The time has come,’ Jesus said. ‘The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!’” (cf. Mark 1:14)

The good news proclaimed by Jesus, then, was the message the kingdom of God was near.  It is what Mortimer Arias called “kingdom evangelization.”[iii]  In the light of this good news, the invitation of Jesus was that his hearers believe this good news and become citizens of the kingdom and members of God’s eschatological covenant community.[iv]

A general perusal of the contemporary evangelical church reveals that this latter mentioned dimension of the gospel is being neglected in the church.  In most congregations with which I am familiar whenever the topic of evangelism is discussed the focus is always on telling the story of Jesus the Risen Lord—the message of how God’s obtained our redemption through the cross and resurrection.  Seldom is there discussion about the message proclaimed by Jesus—His call for people to renounce old allegiances and place themselves under the authority of God’s sovereignty. Exegetically there is no conflict between these two aspects of the gospel.  However many in the contemporary church seem focused only on the story of Jesus the Risen Lord.  As a result, the church often finds itself proclaiming a truncated gospel.  We have not heeded John Wesley who said:  “We are to proclaim Christ in all His offices—prophet, priest, and king.” 

A Basic Account of the Gospel

What does this mean for the contemporary evangelist?  It means that as we take under consideration the essential elements of the gospel for the purpose of communication, we must include both the story of Jesus the Risen Lord and the story of Jesus the Proclaimer of the Gospel.  David Lowes Watson has done this very important work in a lecture entitled “A Generic Gospel.”  In this lecture Watson presents “seven planks of the gospel.”[v]  The seven planks that Watson mentions are as follows:  creation, sin, God’s initiative, death on the cross, resurrection, God’s work in history, and human response. 

(1)  Creation.  God is the Creator of all that exists and what God has created is good.  God has created humankind in God’s own image.  Human beings exist to bring glory to God in creation and voice all of creation’s praise for the goodness of God.  Human beings are privileged  in  creation to experience the blessing of an ongoing, unfolding, loving relationship with God.

(2)  Human sin.  Human beings have rebelled against God’s purpose for their lives.  As such, we are unclean and alienated from God.  Our sin not only affects ourselves, however, it also has an effect on all creation which now suffers decay, chaos, violence and evil.  These things are not a part of God creative process, but are an aberration of that process caused by human sin.

(3)  God’s initiative. God covenants with humankind to provide a means of salvation from the destructive consequences of our sin and creation’s brokenness.  In the Old Testament this covenant is revealed in the relationship God establishes with the people of Israel.  In the New Testament this covenant is extended from the people of Israel to all humankind through Jesus of Nazareth.  In Christ, God becomes a Jewish Rabbi, linked to the covenant history of the Israelites.  In Christ God reaffirms the covenant not to abandon us. 

What does Jesus do?  Jesus comes proclaiming the kingdom of God.  He comes announcing that God is still at work seeking to fulfill the ultimate purpose of creation.  How does Jesus reveal this saving work of God.  Jesus reveals the salvation of God by teaching, healing, and dying.

(4)  The Death of Jesus on the Cross.  Why was Jesus crucified on the cross? Jesus came proclaiming the kingdom of God.  He invited people to reorient their lives according to the rule of God over their lives.  He wanted to restore what was lost in creation as a result of human sin.  By living according to the standards and principles of the kingdom of God, however, Jesus exposed the extent of human sin. As such, he was crucified because he was a threat to the status quo.

In both his incarnation of the kingdom and his crucifixion on the cross, however, Jesus revealed something important about the nature of God.  He revealed that God has identified with the suffering of humankind as a result of our sin.  On the cross, Jesus Christ felt the effects of the uncleanness, alienation, violence, evil, and suffering brought about by sin.  As the Apostle Paul writes:  “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us…” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

(5)  The Resurrection.  The death of Jesus Christ was not the end of his story.  On the third day the scriptures tell us that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead.  What does this mean?  First, it means that the life and teachings of Jesus Christ have been validated by God.  God’s purposes in creation will one day ultimately be fulfilled.  Death—humanity’s greatest enemy—can’t  put an end to the kingdom.  Second, the resurrection of Jesus Christ reveals that Jesus is God’s anointed Savior.  In him there is victory over sin and death and the possibility of wholeness, healing, and eternal life.

(6)   The work of God in history.  Even the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ are not the end of the gospel story.  The Book of Acts makes it clear that the work of God in human history continues through the ministry of the Holy Spirit.  For the Anabaptist, the Holy Spirit works in the world primarily through the ministry of the church.[vi]  The Holy Spirit gave to the church understandings of the teaching of Jesus.  The Holy Spirit empowered the church to be witness to the gospel.  The Holy Spirit equipped the church to minister to the needy and heal the sick.  Ultimately, the work of the Holy Spirit brought together those who had placed themselves under the sovereignty of God, making them a community that serves as a sign of the kingdom.[vii] In their life together the Anabaptists believed that God’s Spirit had created them to be a sign of the kingdom.

(7)  Response.  What is the appropriate response to the proclamation of the gospel?  When Jesus proclaimed the gospel, he said that the appropriate response was to “repent.” The individual who hears the gospel is challenged to turn around and reorient their life according to the rule of God.  In short, the response God intends is for people to become disciples.   Unfortunately, since the church has so often preached a truncated gospel, this has not been the response for which we have asked.  The contemporary church has usually offered the invitation that people “make a decision” to believe that Jesus is Savior.  The weight of the New Testament, however, demands that we invite people to “make the decision” to become followers of the Lord Jesus who is Savior and Life. 

[ii] These two aspects of the gospel are often referred to as the gospel about Jesus and the gospel of Jesus.  I am rejecting these terms because they have been used at times by Protestant to indicated that there are two gospels—the one of Jesus considered superior, and the Pauline perversion of the gospel referred to as the gospel about Jesus.  Such a view cannot be supported exegetically. See Maxie D. Dunnam, Congregational Evangelism:  A Pastor’s View.  (Nashville, Tennesee:  Discipleship Resource, 1992), 2.

[iii] Mortimer Arias,  Evangelization and the Subversive Memory of Jesus:  Announcing the Reign of God.  (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:  Fortress Press, 1984), 3.

[iv] Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, 654. 

[v] David Lowes Watson, “A Generic Gospel” (lecture presented at the Wesley Theological Seminary, Washington, D.C., 24, August 1994).

[vi] Though they affirm that the Holy Spirit works primarily in the church, they would never limit the Spirit’s work exclusively to the church.  They believe that God’s Spirit is present anywhere in the world where the kingdom of God was breaking forth with expressions of peace, justice, goodness, and love.

[vii] Makes no mistake about it, the Anabaptists did not confuse the church with the kingdom.  The kingdom would come in its fullness only by a act of God at the parusia—the second coming.

Latino Church

After offering this description of the nature of the church, I then went on to depict the purpose and mandate of the church. The purpose of the church, I declared, is to bring glory to God.  How does the church fulfill its purpose?  By obediently seeking to carry out the mandate entrusted to it by the Lord.  What is that mandate?    The mandate is three-fold.  The first aspect of the church’s mandate is directed toward God—worship.  The second aspect of the church’s mandate is the community directed task of edification.  The final element of the church’s mandate is directed toward the world—outreach. 

The primary focus of these next several blogs will be on this last component of the church’s mandate, namely outreach. At the conclusion of the last chapter I characterized the task of outreach in a two pronged fashion.   The first prong involves serving the world.  I spoke about the importance of the church engaging in acts of service on behalf of the world.  These acts of service might include social ministries such as feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless.  In addition the church’s service to the world might also involve social action—attempts to foster structural changes aimed at producing a more just society.  

The second prong of the church’s outreach mandate is the task of evangelism—the verbalization of the gospel message.  This will be the focus of these final blogs on this topic.  My intention is to develop an understanding of evangelism based upon the ecclesiological foundation of Anabaptism.  Near the end of this series, I will offer several areas where I believe Anabaptism can bring renewal to the church in “the transition zone.”

Topic I will be writing about in upcoming blogs include the following:

                        What is Evangelism?

                        The Essential Elements of the Christian Gospel

                        Jesus the Risen Lord

                        Jesus the Proclaimer of the Kingdom

                        A Basic Account of the Gospel

                        The Goal of the Evangelizing Process

                        The Kingdom of God

                        Discipleship

                        Incorporation Into the Christian Community

                        Aspects of Christian Community

                        Anabaptist Ecclesiology and Evangelism in a Postmodern Period

                        Christian Community in a Age of Individualism

                        Separation from Secular Society

                        Making Jesus The Center Of Discipleship

What is Evangelism?

            The word “evangelism” is derived from the Greek word euaggelion, which means “gospel,” “good tidings,” or “good news.” The verbal forms of euaggelizesthai, mean “to bring” or “to announce good news.”  Normally, in the New Testament, euaggelizesthai is translated with a form of the verb “to preach.” The etymology of the word suggests that evangelism has something to do with proclaiming or announcing the message of the gospel.  This being the case, a more complete definition of evangelism will certainly address the following pertinent issues:  (1) the content of the gospel, and (2) the goal of the evangelizing process.   With the Anabaptist tradition and these pertinent issues in mind, I offer the following definition of evangelism.  Evangelism is the process by which Christian disciples ascertain the essential elements of the Christian gospel for the purpose of communicating that good news to others, inviting them to become Christ’s obedient disciples in the fellowship of His church. 

[ii] James Wm. McClendon, Jr.  Systematic Theology:  Doctrine.  Vol. 2. (Nashville, Tennessee:  Abingdon Press, 1994), 103.

[iii] These two aspects of the gospel are often referred to as the gospel about Jesus and the gospel of Jesus.  I am rejecting these terms because they have been used at times by Protestant to indicated that there are two gospels—the one of Jesus considered superior, and the Pauline perversion of the gospel referred to as the gospel about Jesus.  Such a view cannot be supported exegetically. See Maxie D. Dunnam, Congregational Evangelism:  A Pastor’s View.  (Nashville, Tennesee:  Discipleship Resource, 1992), 2.

Serving

We are  seeking to develop a theology of evangelism for the “the transition zone,” (what I am calling that period of human history in which we currently reside that rest between the cultural paradigm of “modernity” and that which will follow, which many call  “post modernity” or “the emerging culture”). 

My thesis is that the church of the “transition zone” may find direction through this paradigm shift by looking back 500 or so years into the last major cultural upheaval (the “transition zone” between pre-modernity and the birth of modernity).  In that transition, a radical or free-church ecclesiological tradition was born known as Anabaptism.  Early blogs discussed what has been happening in “the transition zone.”  Recent blogs introduced Anabaptism.  This blog continues the introduction by delving a bit further into the its ecclesiology (doctrine of the church).  The aim is to build a foundation for a theological framework for evangelism in “the transition zone.”

Continuing from the last blog, we begin today exploring…

God’s Purpose in Creation and Human History 

 What was God’s purpose in establishing the created order?  The biblical writers seem quite clear on this point.  God’s intention for creation was that it serve as a witness to the glory and majesty of God.  Psalms 19:1 declares:  “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.”  Likewise human beings, as an integral part of creation, were also created to bring glory to God.  According to Jürgen Moltmann, however, human beings have a special two-fold vocation in the created order.  First, they are commissioned to represent God to creation as God’s appointed stewards.  Second, they are to give all creation a voice in the praising and glorification of God.  Moltmann writes:

As God’s image, human beings are God’s proxy in his creation and represent him.  As God’s image, human beings are for God himself a counterpart, in whom he desires to see himself as if in a mirror.  As God’s image, finally, human beings are created…to reflect and praise the glory of God which enters into creation, and takes up its dwelling there.[i]

Unfortunately humankind has not lived up to its created purpose. The presence of sin has prevented humankind from adequately glorifying God.  What is sin?  Sin is a rebellion against and rejection of God’s purpose for our lives and the created order.  “We demonstrate human sinfulness in our unwillingness to acknowledge God’s authority and in our selfish and irresponsible disregard for our ecological environment and our fellow creatures, both animal and human.”[ii]As such, sin not only affects the human condition, it also affects the entire universe.  All creation now suffers as a result of human sinfulness—as affirmed by the Apostle Paul who wrote:

The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.

For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.  (Romans 8:19-22)

The discussion about the human condition, however, does not end with sin.  Since God’s glory is not being expressed in creation, God decides to remedy the problem.  What is God remedy?  God’s remedy is grace.  Grenz writes:

As recipients of God’s grace in Christ, we are the people whom God purchased for the sake of God’s glory.  Paul clarified that this was the goal of God’s action in extending grace to sinful humans:  God predestined us to be adopted into his family “to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves” (Ephesians 1:5-6).  God has included us “in Christ” so that we might live “for the praise of his glory” (1:11-14).[iii]

God’s Purpose for the Church

 We have said that the church is a covenant community called forth by grace.  We have said that by its present life together in the koinonia of the Spirit, the church serves as a as a sign of God’s eschatological kingdom.   These factors considered it stands to reason that God’s purpose for the church is to bring glory to God.  In a guide to Baptist beliefs and practices, Stanley Grenz declares: 

…we are redeemed in order to glorify God and to be a showcase of the grace of the one who saved us in Christ (Ephesians 1:5-6, 11-14; 2:6-7).  If the purpose of creation as a whole and the purpose of God’s saving activity in history are related to God’s glory, then it would follow that the fundamental purpose of the church is the same, namely, to bring glory to God (Ephesians 3:10-11, 21).[iv]

Obviously the purpose of the church to serve as an instrument to show God’s glory will have a comprehensive affect on its corporate life, structures, polity and disciplines.  Central to this conviction will be the assertion that the primary motivation for all plan, goals, and actions will be the desire to glorify God.

The Church’s Direction

 We have said that God’s purpose for the church is that it bring glorify to God.  Now we must explore another question: How does the church accomplish this purpose?   To answer this question we must again remember the church’s identity as a community of individuals who have placed themselves under the sovereignty of God.  This implies that the only way that the community can properly fulfill its purpose is through obedience to God.  To be specific, the church must obediently seek to fulfill the great mandate entrusted it by its Lord.  As it is faithful to this task, the church does indeed glorify God.[v]

What is the mandate of the church?  In the New Testament writings there are in essence three primary aspects of God’s mandate for the church.  These three aspects are each focused in a different direction.  One aspect of the church’s mandate is God-directed.  Another is community directed.  Still another is directed toward the world.  These three aspects of the church’s mandate are worship, edification, and outreach.[vi]

Worship

 The etymological root of the English word worship is “worthship.”[vii]  When the church worships, it is showing God respect. It is attributing worth to God. It is focusing its attention on the one who gathers the church together as a covenant people of grace.  When the church worships it is acknowledging God and the Creator and itself as a creation; it is acknowledging God to be the Giver of all good things and itself to be the recipient of God’s blessings.  In worship the church declares the worth of God to the community of faith.  Ralph Martin defines worship as “the dramatic celebration of God in his supreme worth in such a manner that his ‘worthiness’ becomes the norm and inspiration of human living.”[viii]

Worship, especially in the Anabaptist tradition, is a community act.[ix]  Vernard Eller identifies the church as a caravan walking together toward a common destination.  Its primary concern is the relationship of the people and whether they are heading in the right direction.  Worship then is not the dispensing of blessings, but rather a conversation of all members of the caravan with its leader concerning the “deployment of people and checking the maps.”[x]  Art Gish expresses with this basic premise, writing:

We respond to the light and worship God not as isolated individuals, but as community.  Worship is an expression of the community, the response of the community to what God is doing in the community and in the world.[xi]

What are the various elements of the community’s acts of worship?  Thomas Fingers mentions four:  praise, hymns and confessions, prayers, and offerings.[xii]  In addition to these we would also add the community’s involvement in symbolic acts.[xiii]

Praise  is central to the practice of worship.  The word comes from the Latin word meaning “value” or “price.”  To praise God, then, is to declare God’s value and worth.  This declaration takes many forms including dance (Jeremiah 31:4), the offering of testimonies (Psalm 66:16-17), and silent meditation (Psalm 46:10).  Music, however, is the most commonly recognized form of praise in the church’s worship.

Hymns and Confessions refer to the specific songs and declarations of God value and worth. Hymns and Confessions articulate the community’s corporate response of faith to the saving acts of God. They recite the acts of God on behalf of the covenant community.  Such hymns and confessions are found throughout the New Testament.  They speak about Christ’s crucifixion, resurrection, and exaltation.  They are not merely outbursts of emotion, but thought out and developed declarations of God’s work in Christ.  A prime example of a New Testament confession is the hymn Paul penned to the Philippian church:

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:  Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,  but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.  And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death– even death on a cross!

 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.  (Philippians 2:5-11)

 Prayer is essentially a dialogue between God and people—especially those who are a part of God’s covenant community.  Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish prayer from hymns, confessions, and other acts of praise.[xiv]  In addition to these, however, prayer also takes on other forms including petition and intercession.  As such, it is a community event.  Though taking place within the heart of the one at prayer, it directs the person toward God who has called the community into being and who promises to take care of the community’s needs. 

Offerings are those tangible expressions of gratitude we extend toward God for the many blessings and provisions we have received through the provisions of divine grace.   They are illustrations of the community’s claim to be a sign of the kingdom of God, a symbolic representation of what life will be like when everyone and all things bow at the feet of Jesus in humble submission.  For this reason, the giving of offerings ought never be considered merely to be the means to finance the church’s activities.  On the contrary, the giving of offerings are a witness to the eventual consummation of the kingdom. 

Symbolic acts are those sacraments (in Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican and Wesleyan traditions) or ordinances (in other Protestant and Anabaptist traditions) that represent some theological conviction held by the community.  Among most Anabaptist traditions there are three primary symbolic acts. The Eucharist serves as a symbolic representation of God’s new covenant of grace offered to all humankind through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Baptism serves as a symbolic representation of the individual’s decision to convert to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and become a witness to the kingdom of God.  The washing of feet points to the work of the Spirit bringing together individuals into a community.  As such, these three symbolic acts point to the church’s identity as a eschatological covenant community. 

Edification

 Not only is the church commissioned to attribute worth and glory to God, it is also mandated to edify one another—to care for and build one another up.  Edification consists of church members ministering to one another so that together they all might mature in the faith.[xv] To the church at Rome, Paul wrote: “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification”(c.f. Romans 14:9) To the church at Ephesus he wrote:

It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. (Ephesians 4:11-13)

These words admonishing the church to edify and build one another up in the faith illustrate an important truth that Anabaptists have historically been able to identify with.  The demands of discipleship are extremely difficult and absolutely demand that mutual support, encouragement, and sometimes correction be found within the community that shares the same vision of what God is doing in the world.  According to Eberhold Arnold, this was the pattern left for the disciples by Jesus.  As Arnold described it,

Just as Jesus wanted His close friends, His disciples, to be always close to Him, so His Spirit urged the early Christians to be close to one another so that together they could live the life of Jesus, so that they could do the same as He had done for them.[xvi]

There are two basic means by which the edification mandate is accomplished.  To begin with there is the process of physically meeting the material needs of others.  As stated earlier, this aspect of community life is of utmost importance to the Anabaptist tradition.  In their attempt to model themselves after the pattern set by the first Christians, the Anabaptists advocated the surrender of one’s personal possessions for the good of the community and edification of the saints.  An example of this advocacy in seen in the writing of early Hutterite leader Ulrich Stadler.  After addressing the need for unity in the church under the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, Stadler writes:

Now if, then, each member withholds assistance from the other the whole thing must go to pieces.  The eyes won’t see, the hands won’t take hold.  Where, however, each members extends assistance equally to the whole body, it is built up and grows and there is peace and unity, yea, each member takes care for the other. In brief, equal care, sadness and joy, and peace (are) at hand.[xvii]

In addition to caring for each other’s physical needs, edification also involves giving attention to meeting other’s spiritual and psychological needs.  Grenz writes, “The ministries of burden lifting (Galatians 6:1-2), intercessory prayer (James 5:16), and encouragement and admonition (Hebrews 10:24-25) are to be practiced.”[xviii]   There are a number of means by which the church carries out this aspect of the edification mandate.  These include preaching, teaching, counseling, discipleship groups, visitation, and the exercise of church discipline.[xix]

Outreach

 The third mandate of the church is directed toward the world—toward those not a part of the community.  The assignment of the outreach mandate is twofold.  The first is to serve to the world.  Patterned after the servant example set by Jesus (Luke 4:16-21), the church is mandated to serve humanity.  Obviously such outreach will involve social ministries such as feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, aiding the poor, and caring for the sick and destitute.  In addition, the church’s outreach must also involve social action.  By social action we mean moving beyond the binding of wounds toward the task of being “advocates of the wounded by attempting to foster structural changes in society.”[xx]  As such, addressing issues of unfairness and injustice in society are not beyond the scope of the church.  On the contrary, the church is a sign of the kingdom, it cannot avoid addressing concerns related to social injustice and public immorality.

In addition to service, the outreach mandate of the church also involves the task of evangelism.  Of course evangelism is a hallmark of the Anabaptist tradition.  Milton Rudnick has written:

No Christians of the Reformation era were more committed to and active in evangelism that the Anabaptists.  The Great Commission (see Matthew 28 and its parallels, Mark 16 and Luke 24) became central to their theology, especially their understanding of the church, as well as the agenda for their lives…With great conviction and courage Anabaptist laity as well as leaders proclaimed the Gospel to those around them, and they traveled far and wide with that message.[xxi]

Conclusion

 In the blog posts for this week I have attempted to provide further details about the Anabaptist doctrine of the church. I wrote about the church’s identity, nature, purpose, and mandate—concluding with some very brief comments about evangelism.  Next I will provide a more detailed description of an Anabaptist theology of evangelism. 

[ii] C. Norman Kraus, God our Savior:  Theology in a Christological Mode.  (Scottdale, Pennsylvania:  Herald Press, 1991), 130.

[iii] Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, 634.

[iv] Stanley J. Grenz, The Baptist Congregation:  A Guide to Baptist Belief and Practice, 20.

[v] Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, 638.

[vi] Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, 637-664.  Mennonite Theologian Thomas N. Fingers offers almost the same observation identifying the three aspects of the church’s mandate as worship, fellowship, and mission.  See Christian Theology:  An Eschatological Approach, vol. 2, 248.

[vii] Helmut Harder, Guide to Faith.  (Newton, Kansas:  Faith and Life Press, 1992), 106.

[viii] Ralph Martin, The Worship of God. (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1992), 4.

[ix] Art Gish writes:  “It has been said that while Roman Catholics gather to receive the sacraments and Protestants to be instructed from the Bible, those of the believers’ church tradition meet to visit with each other.  Or to put it another way, while Roman Catholics need to see an altar to worship God and Protestants a pulpit, those of the believers’ church need to look into the face of other Christians.”  No doubt this is a rather generalized stereotype, but it is correct in the implication that a particular understanding of the nature of the church will have an effect on the understanding of worship.  For the Anabaptists worship is a community event.  See Gish, Living in Christian Community, 245.

[x] Vernard Eller, In Place of Sacrament.  (Grand Rapids, Michigan:  Eerdmans, 1972), 31.

[xi] Art Gish, Living in Christian Community, 251.

[xii] Thomas N. Fingers, Christian Theology:  An Eschatological Approach, 321-329.

[xiii] Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, 644.

[xiv] Thomas Fingers, Christian Theology:  An Eschatological Approach, vol. 2, 327.

[xv] Stanley J. Grenz, The Baptist Congregation:  A Guide to Baptist Belief and Practice, 21.

[xvi] Eberhold Arnold, The Early Christians.  (Rifton, N.Y.:  Plough Publishing House, 1970), 18.

[xvii] Walter Klassen, comp., Anabaptism in Outline, 108.

[xviii] Stanley J. Grenz, The Baptist Congregation:  A Guide to Baptist Belief and Practice, 21.

[xix] Of this list, the Anabaptists are most known for their emphasis on church discipline.  Anabaptist communities hold themselves accountable to the vows and commitments they make as followers of Jesus Christ.  When a member falls at some point, they are disciplined by the community.  The purpose, however, is for the edification of the individual and the community—so that all might mature in their commitments.  See Marlin Jeschke, Discipling in the Church:  Recovering a Ministry of the Gospel.  (Scottdale, Pennsylvania:  Herald Press, 1988). 

[xx] Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, 661.

[xxi] Milton L. Rudnick, A History of Evangelism.  (St. Louis:  Concordia Publishing House, 1984), 93.

What is meant by the kingdom of God?  The investigation of this subject could fill volumes of theological treatises—in fact, it has.  The scope of this blog is not broad enough to explore all the biblical and theological nuances of this important subject.  Instead, I will draw upon the writing of Stanley Grenz to offer a biblical framework for understanding the kingdom of God as it is widely understood within the Anabaptist tradition.  To understand this presentation it is important that we be able to differentiate between de jure (in principle) and de facto (in fact) rulership.

Lying behind the Bible narrative is the idea that as creator, God is de jure monarch; the kingship belongs to God by right.  Because God created everything, God possesses the right to rule over all creation.  Consequently, the entire universe is the kingdom of God or the realm of God’s dominion de jure.  In principle the entire universe constitutes the realm over which God exercises kingship.  According to the biblical drama, however, what is true de jure is not yet fully de facto.  God has given human the privilege and responsibility of acknowledging his rule.  In our sin, however, we have rejected the kingship of the Creator.  Thereby we have erected an enclave of rebellion in which another—Satan—appears to reign.  As a creature, this de facto ruler is a usurper, for he does not possess the right to rule that is God’s alone.

The biblical story focuses on Jesus who came as the bearer of the claim of God to rulership and the one who embodies the kingdom of God.  Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection demonstrate God’s claim to rulership.  Through his exaltation, Jesus has been installed as Lord of the universe.  This demonstration of God’s rulership entails the demand that all persons acknowledge God as sovereign.  Some obey that demand—confess Jesus as Lord—and thereby enter the kingdom of God.  Similarly, as the principles of the kingdom permeate human society, the kingdom of God is also present. 

The biblical drama of the kingdom climaxes by moving from the past and present to the future.  Although the kingdom is here, this presence is partial and not yet consummated.  For this reason there remains a future, eschatological aspect of the kingdom.  One day all persons will acknowledge the lordship of Jesus (Philippians 2:10-11).  Likewise one day the principles of God’s kingdom will be universally actualized in the new human society that God will inaugurate.  At that time, what is God’s by right (de jure) will also be true in fact (de facto).  The entire universe will be the realm of God’s rule.

In short, the kingdom of God is both present and future…Hence, the kingdom is a “sphere of existence” in which people are called to live.  It is an incorporation into God’s powerful invasion of our world.  As such it consists in doing the will of God (Matthew 6:10; 7:21-23), and it demands a radical decision (13:44-46).[1]

The Kingdom and the Church

What is the nature of the kingdom in relation to the broader context of the kingdom of God?  To draw upon Grenz’s assertion, the church is a community of persons who have placed themselves by faith into the “sphere of existence” where God is acknowledged and obeyed as sovereign.   As such, by confessing Christ’s Lordship and by obeying his teachings they (as community) become a sign of what life will be like in the future when God’s de facto rule is firmly and forever established over all creation.  This links ecclesiology to eschatology.   The identity of the church is directed toward the ultimate and unavoidable consummation of God’s kingdom. Again we refer to Grenz:

In contrast to all platonic conceptions which look to the eternal past, the dynamic understanding suggests that the church is constituted by its future destiny as related to God’s reign.  Believers enter into covenant with God and each other so that they might be an eschatological community, the fellowship that pioneers in the present the principles that characterize the reign of God.  Hence they point the way toward the kingdom.

Consequently, the identity of the church in the world does not focus merely on bringing into the fold those whom God elected before the creation of the world.  Rather, at its heart is the goal of modeling in the present the glorious human fellowship that will come at the consummation of history.  The church, therefore, is a foretaste of the eschatological reality that God will one day graciously give to his creation.  In short, it is a sign of the kingdom.[2]

The Church as Community 

When New Testament writers referred to the assembly of the church they used the Greek word ekklesia.  When they referred to the characteristics or attributes of that ekklesia, however, they most often used the Greek word koinonia.  We will examine the meaning of this word as we seek to understand the nature of the Christian community.

Koinonia—The Nature of Christian Community

Contemporary Christians have been rather casual in their interpretation of the word koinonia.  For many it simply means fellowship in the sense that a congregation has a pot-luck supper or occasional church picnic.  In its New Testament usage, however, koinonia means something much more profound.  The word means “to share in,” “to be in communion with,” “to be in partnership with.”[3]  What is the foundation of this “sharing,” “communion,” and “partnership?”  It is the community’s covenant with God.  By grace human beings are brought into a relationship with God.  This relationship is then extended toward others—especially those in the household of faith who share in that covenant with God.  Bill Leonard puts it like this:

The relationship which characterizes koinonia  is closely related to that of covenant, involving a dual partnership with God and others persons. Koinonia begins in a relationship with God…The community of the church is based on the common union which Christians share with Christ.  The church, therefore, is a spiritual koinonia gathered around Jesus Christ.[4]

This assertion draws us to the role of the Holy Spirit as the one who consummates the work of the triune God.  Koinonia exists in the ekklesia only as a result of the Spirit’s presence.  To elaborate on this theme, Grenz summarizes the grand sweep of God’s purpose in creation.

The Father sent the Son in order to realize God’s eternal design to draw humankind and creation to participate in his own life.  In conversion, the Son gives us the Spirit, who causes us to be the children of God.  But this filial status is exactly the relationship the Son enjoys with the Father.  Through conversion, therefore,  the Spirit—who is the Spirit of the relationship between the Father and the Son—constitutes us as brothers and sisters of Christ.  Thereby he brings us to share in the love the Son enjoys with the Father.  Through the Spirit, we participate in the love that lies as the heart of the triune God.[5]

Koinonia, then, is not simply one concern or aspect within the church’s wider ministry—it is central to its very nature.  Only when the nature of its community is truly marked by koinonia can a congregation honestly call itself church.  Only when the nature of the community is marked by genuine koinonia does the community serve as a sign of the kingdom.[6]  The church is to be the very embodiment of koinonia—it is the very embodiment of the love and relationship at the heart of the triune God. Koinonia, therefore, is a nonnegotiable characteristic of Christ’ Church.  The grace that is received from Christ must be offered freely to others.[7]

Expressions of Koinonia in the Church

We have defined koinonia as the nature of the ekklesia.  We have also rooted koinonia in the work of the Spirit to bring individuals into community through their conversion to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.  If this definition is correct, then how is koinonia expressed in the life of the church?   For many in the contemporary church, koinonia is nothing more than that feeling of affection one has for fellow church members during the Sunday morning ritual of the “passing of the peace.”  For the Anabaptists, however, there must be concrete expressions of this koinonia. 

Anabaptists have taken for their model the expression of koinonia found in the Book of Acts:

Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.  Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. (Acts 2:21-47 NIV)

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had.  With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all.  There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.  (Acts 4:32-35)

To understand how koinonia expressed itself in the early church, consider the manifestations of fellowship, partnership, communion, and sharing asserted in these passages.  We are told that the believers were “together.”  They had “everything in common.”  They “sold their possessions” and gave to “anyone who had need.”  They met daily (not weekly) for worship “in the temple courts.”  They shared meals together “in their homes.”  None felt jealous, envious, or taken advantage of—instead they had “glad and sincere hearts.”  The Book of Acts makes it clear that the sharing of one’s home, one’s possessions, and one’s very life were visible expressions of the spirit of koinonia in the church. 

When the Holy Spirit came upon the early Christians, they were liberated from selfish greed.  They were more joyful in giving than receiving.  Why?  For at least two reasons.  First, sharing was a natural response to the love they had come to know and experience in Jesus.  Second, they understood that the properties in their possession were not their own, but had been entrusted into their stewardship.  Ultimately their possessions were really God’s possessions—since they had placed themselves of the sphere of God’s sovereignty.  By sharing their possessions, then, they illustrated their claim that Jesus Christ was their Lord and revealed their fellowship to be a sign of God’s kingdom. 

As is well known, this vision of a koinonia church—of a Christian community that functioned from a community of goods—has been gradually lost in wider Christendom.   What developed in its place was an institutional and sacramental church.  Nevertheless, pockets of this expression of koinonia have remained throughout the centuries—to one degree or another.  In monasteries the communitarian model of the early church remained—a continual protest against a secularized church.   For many centuries groups like the Hutterites have modeled this lifestyle in their communities of faith.  In Latin America one of the most important aspects of “basic ecclesial  communities” has been the community of possessions and a rejection of materialism.  In many respects, base communities are contemporary expressions of Anabaptist ecclesiology.[8]  Other expression of this ecclesiological perspective can be seen in religious communities such as Church of the Messiah, Koinonia Partners, Patchwork Central, Sojourners, and Voice of Calvary.[9]

The Purpose of the Church

We have defined the church as an “eschatological covenant community.”[10]  By this we means that the church is an assembly of those who have been called out by God to be God’s covenant people, placing themselves under God’s authority in order to be an eschatological sign of the consummation of God’s kingdom.[11]  Stanley Grenz summarizes this description of the church, saying:

It consists of a people in covenant.  This covenant people pioneer in the present the principles that characterize the future kingdom of God, thereby constituting a sign of the divine reign.  As the covenant people who anticipate the future consummation of God’s intention for humankind, the church is a community.  The fellowship of believers seeks to reflect for all creation the nature of the triune God himself, namely, the love between the Father and the  Son which is the Holy Spirit.  In short, the church is the eschatological covenant community of love.[12]

With the nature of the church thus established, it is now necessary for us to define the church’s purpose.  As a community with a specific identity given it by God, it stands to reason that the church would also have a divinely appointed purpose. 

To understand the purpose of the church we must first explore two preliminary topics.  To begin with we must examine God’s purpose in creation. In addition we must also examine God’s purpose in human history.  These two issues are foundational to understanding God’s purpose for the church.  We’ll look at these topic in the next blog in this series.

[2] Ibid., 623-624.

[3] Bill J. Leonard,  Layman’s Library of Christian Doctrine, vol. 12, The Nature of the Church, 43.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, 629.

[6]Ibid., 624.

[7] Bill J. Leonard,  Layman’s Library of Christian Doctrine, vol. 12, The Nature of the Church, 44.

[8] Thomas N. Fingers, Christian Theology:  An Eschatological Approach, 243.

[9] For a wonderful expose on these five intentional religious communities read Luther E. Smith, Jr., Intimacy and Mission:  Intentional Community as Crucible for Radical Discipleship.  (Scottdale, Pennsylvania:  Herald Press, 1994.

[10] Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, 604.

[11] Stanley J. Grenz, The Baptist Congregation:  A Guide to Baptist Belief and Practice. (Valley Forge, Pennsylvania:  Judson Press, 1985), 19. 

[12] Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, 633.