Regeneration Must Precede Sanctification

One of the most confusing areas of distinction in theology and church practice is the distinction between regeneration and sanctification. We often in conservative circles get the order backward, we demand evidence of sanctification via external compliance to certain rules rather than emphasizing regeneration. The reality of human nature is that external adherence to rules will get you so far but no farther. You can control behavior for a while by creating strict controls and instilling them young, and there is something to be said for this, but external conformity is no substitute for regeneration.

We have seen this first hand in conservative Anabaptist groups where a desire to "be not conformed to this world" (Romans 12:2) has morphed into a very rigid set of rules to prove one is not conformed to the world, while at the same time tending to create distinctions not just between the church and the world but just as often distinctions between the church and other parts of the church.

Simon Fry takes aim at this in his new series on Non-conformity. The second post in the series, Nonconformity- (part 2) When Does Transformation Happen?, which looks at non-conformity from a conservative Anabaptist perspective, does a deep dive on how Romans 12:2 and non-conformity are understood in that community. Simon's main point can be summarized in this one sentence:

Though we might not hear it emphasized, transformation must happen first; or nonconformity is worthless.

In other words, or as I might put it, regeneration must precede genuine sanctification. Genuine sanctification includes external signs of a non-conformity to the world but it starts with and is primarily a renewal of the mind, heart and affections away from the things of the world and toward the things of God. I can put a young woman in a homemade yoke-style dress with sleeves to the wrist and hem to the ankles but if she is harboring gossip and slander in her unregenerate heart, she is still conformed to the world no matter what she looks like.

That is not to suggest that there is no place for non-conformity. The Bible teaches modesty so a woman who tells me she is a Christian while intentionally dressing provocatively might get a raised eyebrow. An every-week-church-attending deacon at a conservative church who regularly cheats his customers in business likewise raises questions. I think brothers should be respectable in their communities and honest in their business dealings, sisters should dress modestly and submit to their husbands but only as a response to regeneration, not as a substitute for it.

Check out Simon's post, it is typical for him in being well reasoned, Scripturally based and thoughtful. Also check out the comments, there is some good back and forth going on there as well. Ultimately our Gospel priority is to see the whole man changed and not just the wardrobe.

Imprisoned For Sixteen Years For The Faith

Check out this video from James White, filmed while visiting the hole that Fritz Erbe, a 16th century Anabaptist who was, like so many others, imprisoned and tortured for the "crime" of refusing to baptize his children, was held by ostensibly "Protestant" men. What a cruel place to be imprisoned and what great faith he must have had to hold fast to the Scriptures in the face of such cruel torture because of his holding firm on a subject we consider today to be of secondary importance. There are men who say in error that water baptism saves us and those who, also in error, think that a days old infant incapable of professing faith should be baptized. On the one hand it is a sign of some maturity in the church that we don't put one another to death over these issues anymore but on the other it makes me wonder just how firmly we hold to any position in the church. Think about being lowered into that hole with no hope of escape and ask yourself just how strong your convictions truly are.

On This Day In Church History: The First Anabaptist Baptism

On January 21st, 1525 Conrad Grebel baptized George Blaurock. Blaurock then baptized the other men present including Felix Manz and Grebel. This followed the disputation in Zurich where Zwingli disputed with Grebel and Manz over the subject of baptism. Although Zwingli was unsurprisingly declared the victor in support of "infant baptism", the brethren still chose to be baptized a few days later. This would start them on a path that would lead many Anabaptists to being murdered by the hands of the state at the urging of the religious authorities.

You might wonder why you should care if you are not part of an Anabaptist heritage group like the Amish, Mennonites or Hutterites. If you are someone who cares about religious liberty, this is a critical moment in the church when a handful of men risked their lives to take the rite of baptism out of state hands. The religious liberty we cherish and that is enshrined in our Constitution can be traced in part back to this courageous act of defiance almost 500 years ago. May God raise up more men in this day with the courage to stand fast on the Word of God against those who would seek to pervert it or use it to gain worldly power.

Mennonite Mania

I just got back from an unscheduled trip into Ontario, Canada with some Amish friends who had a sudden death in the family (a 12 year old nephew who died in a freak farm accident). It is beautiful country, very rolling and green with farms everywhere, and almost all of the farms are immaculately well-kept. Given the screwy and borderline draconian laws governing farming (and everything else) in Canada, I can see why they take such good care of their farms. I seriously would love to live in an area like the Waterloo region but there is no way I would be able to deal with the endless meddling and regulations. Besides a decent sized Amish settlement and crazy regulations, the area we were in had something else. Mennonites. Lots and lots and Mennonites.

Conservative Mennonites. Amish Mennonites. Old Order Mennonite. Horse and Buggy Old Order Mennonites. Old Colony Mennonites.

This church was with half a mile of the funeral and one of 4-5
Mennonites churches we passed on the way to the cemetery. 

There were Mennonites everywhere. Now we have a lot of Mennonites in our area but nothing like this. For example, the super conservative (although not Old Order/horse and buggy conservative) Pilgrim Conference, which includes Mennonites and Beachy Amish, has three local congregations in relative proximity to where I live. Up in the Milverton (where the funeral was) area? Just look:

That is a lot of Mennonites and that is just one flavor of Mennonites (who have more flavors than Baskin Robbins). 

I am curious to read up and find out why so many Mennonites ended up here, I am sure there are interesting stories that explain it. Also, why do they stay when it is such a pain to deal with the government? Perhaps I am just hyper-sensitive because I am American, and let's be honest, not a fan of government thugs and bullies. Perhaps their non-resistant position makes them more OK with that issue. Or perhaps it is just tradition, this is where they are from and there are lots of people like them, so it is just easier to stay around that area.

There isn't really a point to this post, just sharing something interesting. If you find yourself in Ontario and you are interested in Anabaptism and/or farming, the area to the north and west of the 401 are really scenic and fascinating. I would much prefer to wander around looking at farms and horse and buggy Mennonites than dealing with millions of people crammed into Toronto!

The First Anabaptist Baptism

While the Protestant world is consumed, and with justification, by the 500th anniversary of the accepted start of the Protestant Reformation on October 31st, 1517, this day, January 21st, marks another anniversary. 490 years ago on this date in 1527, the first Anabaptist baptisms took place. Conrad Grebel first baptized George Blaurock and the Blaurock baptized Grebel, Felix Manz and others. This action in defiance of the religious authorities of the day would set them on a path that would lead to Blaurock and Manz being martyred along with countless other Anabaptists for daring to following the Scriptures on the question of baptism and defying the perverse state-church unequal yoking that dominated the day.

Their legacy of courage in the face of persecution and death lives with us today in the historic Anabaptist groups and to an extent among the hundreds of millions of others who practice believers baptism and believe in religious liberty, even though they are not directly descended from the Anabaptists. May God continue to raise up men, especially in these days, who insist on obeying God rather than man (Acts 5:29).

Non Resistance And MLK

I liked this article from Matt Landis and Mennonite Minute, Some Things You May Not Have Known about Martin Luther King. Matt makes several observations but the one that was pointed out on Facebook (HT: Dwight Gingrich) has to do with the difference between the historic Anabaptist position on non-resistance and the idea of "nonviolence" practiced by King and many "progressive" Christians today:

In “Stride Toward Freedom” [p335] MLK notes “Nonresistance leaves you in a state of stagnant passivity and deadly complacency.” A question for those of us who use the term nonresistance might be: Is our nonresistance actually more passivity than loving the enemy? Is what I call nonresistance  actually a complacent attitude?

As I have thought about the difference between King’s “nonviolence” and conservative Anabaptist “nonresistance” I think the difference is not “action” versus “passivity”. This seems well demonstrated by the stories we tell. The “action” of Dirk Willems actively rescuing his pursuer. Or the “action” of the Mennonite pastor who heard his roof being destroyed in the night by hoodlums and who welcomed the troublemakers in for a good breakfast, thereby “loving them” into appropriate behavior.

Neither is the difference a willingness or unwillingness to be involved in nonviolent civil disobedience. Anabaptists have continually shown themselves willing to “obey God rather than men”. From the subversive act of baptizing only believers in the 1500’s to a willingness to reject portions of the Pennsylvania Child Care Act in the 21st century because it is deemed to inappropriately place the State between brothers & sisters speaking truth to each other and is seen as compromising the structural integrity of an autonomous church, conservative Anabaptist’s are no stranger to “obeying God rather than men”.

The crucial difference between King’s nonviolence and conservative Anabaptist’s nonresistance seems to be who is being demanded to change. The conservative Anabaptist’s “protest for justice” includes demands only of themselves and to others only a offer and call to voluntarily join the Kingdom.

That is really crucial. King and many "social justice" religious types today have no issue with using the coercive power of Caesar to advance their agenda, an agenda which is sometimes well meaning but in my opinion usually way off the mark Biblically and economically. One can be active personally in the pursuit of justice without being unequally yoked with Caesar and unbelievers and when we try to use the coercive force of the state, it inevitably poisons and corrupts our witness. 

Too often non-resistance is reduced to a leftist pacifism coupled with social justice warrior rhetoric. What is taught in the Bible is not a recycled flower child, Vietnam era pacifism but a far deeper and more comprehensive life that seeks to live peaceably with all as far as it is up to us (Romans 12:18) and to esteem others more highly than ourselves (Philippians 2:3). When we adopt the limited understanding of the world when it comes to non-violence/pacifism rather than the broad and robust Biblical surrender of non-resistance, we lose the true meaning of what Christ and the Apostles taught and demonstrated. 

A Reformation Day Hymn For Your Listening Pleasure

I love the sight and sound of Anabaptists singing a hymn penned by Martin Luther.

Community In Action

Last Wednesday, a tornado moved across the southern edge of the Amish community near where we live. The worst damage occurred on a road we travel often, next door to a family we know well. One place was completely obliterated. The family was getting ready to eat and literally made it to the basement with seconds to spare. Their home, their barn and a very expensive and pretty new chicken barn housing over 25,000 birds were all leveled. It was hard to tell where the house ended and the barns began. Those chicken barns are all automated and run upwards of three quarters of a million dollars.

26,000 chickens with nowhere to go post tornado

This is the scene today from a picture I took this afternoon, less than a week after the tornado struck...

The house is going up, the roof is on it, their regular barn is well on the way to being replaced and the new walls for the chicken barn have already been poured.

If the Amish are known for anything, they are known for rallying around each other when a neighbor is in need. Their community suffers from a lot of the same stuff any other community does, gossip, envy, resentment, etc. The Amish have plenty of issues including an almost cultish behavior toward members who stray and outsiders. Nevertheless when it comes to helping one another they put most of the mainstream of Christianity to shame.

There is something to be said for relying on each other instead of insurance companies when it hits the fan.

I think that we are so comfortably integrated into our society that leaning on the church or being prepared to be truly sacrificial when someone is in need is almost unthinkable. Not because we are unwilling necessarily but because we assume that the social safety nets will bail people out. Insurance if your car is wrecked or your house burns down or you get sick. Government programs for the poor. A public school system to provide "education" and/or state sponsored day-care. On and on.

Maybe we would be healthier if we had more uncertainty, if we thought first of the church when things go wrong because that is the only source of relief. Maybe we would be less likely to find ways to divide ourselves and keep other Christians who are not just like us at arm's length.

Just a thought.

Holding Firm To Your Convictions While Being Welcoming To Others

Many churches and denominations have certain positions that they hold with a great deal of conviction. You don't find a lot of people holding fast to something that they are ambivalent about, which partly explains the mass exodus from more liberal/progressive denominations. While we live in an era of cookie cutter "non-denominational" churches with virtually identical websites and a predictable propaganda offering, there are still a lot of groups that have specific convictions on specific issues. Some of them are a little goofy like exclusive psalmody churches, some are downright ridiculous and counter-productive like the King James Only folks. Others though are simply people who have found in Scripture attitudes, doctrines and practices that they feel are important enough to hold to them firmly. What I have found is that many of these distinctive beliefs and practices are correct and worthwhile. I have also found that too often they serve as a barrier to fellowship with others who are not quite on board.

About the same time that I posted The Anabaptist Option > The Benedict Option, Simon Fry wrote a great piece, When Culture Takes Precedence Over Evangelism. In this essay he examines something that I have observed first hand, namely that it sometimes seems like preserving and protecting conservative Anabaptist culture is more important than fulfilling the Great Commission. In general here I am not talking about the Amish who absolutely have no interest in evangelism outside of their own community. I am speaking here more of Mennonites, Beachy Amish, other conservative groups that are more integrated (at least in their vocational life) with the rest of the church and the community at large and seem eager to try to reach the lost, but often without much success. Simon writes: 

Anabaptists tend to have smaller groups that know each other well and have a close “brotherhood”. This closeness is often noted by outsiders and looked on with envious admiration. But often it is our close brotherhood, much like an exclusive social club, that keeps out the very ones that we should be bringing in. Is it possible to evangelize without losing that closeness and even our culture (the customs of a particular nation, people, or group) that we guard so zealously? And if it is not possible, which is of greater importance –culture and close brotherhood, or reaching the lost?

That is a pretty tough question and there is not an easy answer. Many religious folk in America would say the answer is obvious, of course reaching the lost is more important! The problem with that assumption is that what many religious people are "reaching the lost" with is so watered down that it doesn't even qualify as Christianity.

To compound the difficulty of the question, as someone who irregularly attends a very conservative Mennonite church, is that I think there is much that is praiseworthy in what they practice. In principle I think that they are more right on their ecclesiastical and fellowship practices than not. The problem is that for people new to Christianity as well as to people who have been Christians for a while in a different setting is that for all of the positives of conservative Anabaptism there is also a sense of being "all or nothing". You are either on board with every practice and position or you are relegated to being a perpetual visitor or guest. A classic and rather personally raw issue is the Lord's Supper. The blessing and privilege of the Lord's Table is one that is extended to all Christians and commanded of them. Yet it is often held hostage to manmade rules and culture that lumps believers with different practices in some areas with unbelievers and those caught up in unrepentant sin. I have experienced this first hand and based on Simon's post and his previous posts so have a lot of other people. Near the end of his post he writes a good summary:

Churches that allow differences in personality, temperament, social status, and dress style will have a church with a greater potential of growing. Think about it, if a doctor, a farmer, a trucker, and a redneck all attend church together, (no this is not leading into a redneck joke) that is four different types of people that could be reached by evangelism by these individuals. If we all look alike and only allow certain types of people to be accepted, we are very limited in our evangelism.

When a visitor sees a variety of dress styles, they will be more likely to feel they will fit in somewhere than if there is only one accepted dress style. When only those who feel comfortable in one particular style are accepted, new additions are very limited.

If a the church has both women who wear head coverings and women who don’t, new converts feel welcomed. Don’t chase away the women who God has not yet convicted to wear head coverings. Perhaps He has other things that He deems to be of greater importance that He wishes to work on in their lives first. We cannot put limits on God. Preach the Word faithfully and allow Him to work at His own pace. His timing is always better than ours! Perhaps He waits because there are some others He wishes to bring into the church that would never come if they were the only one who did not wear a head covering. If we truly believe that God can convict someone, than why don’t we act like it? Forcing people to do something by rules enforced by using communion as a hammer never changes anyone’s heart. Only God can change someone’s deepest heart beliefs.

I would never tell conservative Anabaptists that they should jettison their distinctive teaching in order to placate the world. I simply am asking if they have given as much thought as perhaps they should to how they can be more fully accepting into complete fellowship people who might not share every doctrine and practice that conservative Anabaptists hold dear. If congregations would make room for people who are not where everyone else is without holding the Lord's Supper hostage, something intentional rather than merely by default, I think you would see a lot of these conservative Anabaptist churches reaching more of the lost, seeing growth in their ranks from something other than baptizing their kids or poaching from other conservative Anabaptists and perhaps even learning some challenging ideas to shake them up. It can be very easy to get into a routine that never asks the hard questions and it is just as easy for that routine to go from years to decades to whole generations of people who have never been seriously challenged to grow or to reassess their culture and traditions. People are searching for churches that have solid convictions but they aren't looking for a 20 page document telling them what they have to start doing to be actually welcomed in. For example, the Pilgrim Mennonite Conference, a very conservative Anabaptist group that has a lot going for it, has a document that details their beliefs on the web. There are 7 pages of doctrinal statements on the typical subjects one finds in a confession of faith. There are also around 40 pages dealing with how one should live, what to wear, how to call ministers, using tobacco, listening to the radio, driving cars, etc. So you would not be wrong to wonder why core Christian doctrines on matters of grace and salvation and the nature of God get less than 20% of the pages devoted to rules and regulations.

The comment section of Simon's post is over 40 comments and growing. I have a lot of respect for Simon for being as interactive as he is with those who comment. Many of the comments are very good and add a lot to the discussion. If you are interested in these sorts of questions, questions that appear in Reformed churches or any other high commitment denomination or faction, give Simon's post a look.

The Anabaptist Option > The Benedict Option

By any measure the church, both the actual church of regenerate believers and the pseudo-church that hides behind a moralistic, religious facade, is headed for hard times. We can discuss whether the church losing her protected perch is a good thing or a bad thing but the end result is going to be a seismic shift in the way the church relates to the world in the context of America. The events of the last few years regarding homosexual "marriage", religious liberty, freedom of association and freedom of conscience, all of the major church-world flash-points we have observed are just the tip of the iceberg. Facing as we are a future four year term of either an arrogant, unstable wannabe authoritarian or a corrupt, criminal worshiper of the cult of infanticide, it is hard to imagine that things will change for the better.

This unshakable reality has led many a thinker, Christians and conservative religious types alike, to ask "what now?", how are we to live and function in a brave new world, taking a Gospel to a people who no longer fear the cultural stigma of being irreligious? This is especially problematic as so many of the people and groups asking that question don't even agree on what the Gospel is, either agreeing to not worry about it or seeking a lowest common denominator acceptable definition of the Gospel.

One of the more popular and coherent options being put forth for the church comes from Rod Dreher who writes extensively at The American Conservative. Rod has been banging the drum for an option that labels The Benedict Option and it seems to be gathering some serious support. The Benedict Option is sort of a withdrawal from the world, not in the sense of being disengaged but rather by being distinct from the world to preserve civilization and religion for that time when the suicidal culture we live in finally collapses. His synopsis is below:

The “Benedict Option” refers to Christians in the contemporary West who cease to identify the continuation of civility and moral community with the maintenance of American empire, and who therefore are keen to construct local forms of community as loci of Christian resistance against what the empire represents. Put less grandly, the Benedict Option — or “Ben Op” — is an umbrella term for Christians who accept MacIntyre’s critique of modernity, and who also recognize that forming Christians who live out Christianity according to Great Tradition requires embedding within communities and institutions dedicated to that formation.

This has some merit. For too long the church has had a vested interest in being unequally yoked to the state, with the state providing religious protection, a favored position in the culture and favorable tax treatment and the church in turn being a public agent of the state, giving religious significance and authorization to the workings of the American empire and tragically been at the front of the line to send our young men out to kill at Caesar's demand. I would agree that being intentional in our community with one another will be even more critical in the decades to come if the church is to survive. What Rod sort of misses is that these sorts of "set apart" communities exist today. He gives passing reference to the Bruderhof but fails to mention the Hutterites, the Amish, the Old German Baptist Brethren and some of the more conservative manifestations of Mennonites who already are practicing a culture of separation from the world, although a case can be made that they do so to a fault.

Of course Dreher's vantage point as an Orthodox (Capital "O" Orthodox) convert from Catholicism is a major factor here. His Catholic/Orthodox blinders are apparent whenever he speaks of anything evangelical or Protestant, at least non high-church Protestantism. The people most likely to embrace some form of the Benedict Option outside of the Roman/Orthodox sphere are those Protestant/evangelical types that are most conservative and speaking as someone who falls into that continuum I can say with confidence that we don't find much common cause with ornate ritualistic religions headed up by popes and patriarchs and including a lot of very troubling religious beliefs and practices. You can find some of that in this part of his Introduction To The Benedict Option:

Well, what is evangelizing? Is it merely dispersing information? Or is there something more to it. The Benedict Option is about discipleship, which is itself an indirect form of evangelism. Pagans converted to the early Church not simply because of the words the first Christians spoke, but because of the witness of the kinds of lives they lived. It has to be that way with us too.

Pope Benedict XVI said something important in this respect. He said that the best apologetic arguments for the truth of the Christian faith are the art that the Church has produced as a form of witness, and the lives of its saints:

Yet, the beauty of Christian life is even more effective than art and imagery in the communication of the Gospel message. In the end, love alone is worthy of faith, and proves credible. The lives of the saints and martyrs demonstrate a singular beauty which fascinates and attracts, because a Christian life lived in fullness speaks without words. We need men and women whose lives are eloquent, and who know how to proclaim the Gospel with clarity and courage, with transparency of action, and with the joyful passion of charity.

Note here that what Rod is really talking about is preserving not Kingdom communities of regenerate believers but more of a general sense of preserving Western culture. I very much doubt that a significant number of people were born-again based on some piece of art or music. The big issue with the Benedict Option is that it is not aimed at Kingdom formation. It is aimed at preserving civilization and along with that religious practice. What he seems to be proposing is a form of "evangelism" that negates the necessity of the spoken call to repentance and the pointing of the way to Jesus Christ. The end goal of the Benedict Option from the perspective of the Roman/Orthodox church is a reuniting of the church with the state and the culture at some point in the future. As Dreher puts it: "It’s all about culture now.". I would retort that it has never been about culture.

So if the Benedict Option is not correct, what does the way forward look like? I think the original, European, persecuted Anabaptists give us a more practical model to face. I take occasion to point out that I am speaking about the Anabaptists before the mass migration to America. The "Anabaptists" of today are split into two groups, one a largely orthodox, Gospel focused conservative Anabaptism that suffers in some ways from a focus on an external rule-making and rule-keeping model that also tends to be very suspicious of pretty much every other Christian tradition and on the other hand a rapidly imploding wannabe "progressive" form of "Anabaptism" that bears almost no resemblance to Anabaptism apart from the word Anabaptist.

The Anabaptists faced a multifaceted threat to their very existence. The state and the sponsoring religion of that state sought to suppress what they saw as the Anabaptist threat to the church-state amalgamation that dominated the Reformation period. This was true for Roman Catholics and Protestants alike. The Anabaptist movement itself faced schism from within as some took the opportunity afforded them by the loosening of the religious monopolies of the day to go off in divergent radical forms that bore no resemblance to Anabaptism proper (Münster being the most obvious example). Often forgotten was a third threat to the Anabaptists, the Turks. The Turkish incursions were a clear and present danger not just to the Anabaptists but to all of Western civilization. In fact the refusal to take up the sword against the Turks and advocating the same of others got the Anabaptists in all sorts of trouble with the authorities.

A hostile state and culture. Divergent groups splitting off and creating their own doctrine. A threat from Islamic invaders. Sound familiar?

What also set the Anabaptist founders apart in their time of persecution in Europe was that they were aggressively evangelistic. Stories abound of massive numbers converting and becoming Anabaptist wherever they went, and that caused all sorts of problems. If someone chooses to reject the state religion, whether secular or sectarian, and keep quiet about it, it can be ignored. When someone is being outspoken about their beliefs, calling others to convert and being openly and vocally critical of the prevailing culture, that brings the church and the state/culture into conflict and in the case of the Anabaptists it was seemingly one-sided. The state had the sword of Caesar, the Anabaptists had the Sword of the Word of God. If we don't have a message other than "gay marriage is bad but check out our sweet paintings", then what use are we?

I am fully aware, painfully in some respects, that what I am calling for is going to have to take shape in a difficult adjustment. For those who are already living in tight-knit Anabaptist communities there needs to be at some point a recognition that not everyone who is walking the Christian path is going to wear headcoverings, plain suit coats and ankle length dresses (at least not at first). The tension between being welcoming to those who don't look like them and still retaining their distinctives is a real one. For others who are in the more common religious model the days are coming when the church will be few enough that our spending habits will have to change dramatically. A Sunday morning focused model with most resources being directed at making Sunday morning as entertaining and low commitment as possible was never healthy to begin with and is going to be impossible in the very near future. The Anabaptist witness ought to be a place to turn for those who find their religious model burned to the ground around them.

If the Church, i.e. the community of regenerate believers living in visible communion with one another, looks to our past to find a model of the way forward, it only needs to go back to the 16th century. It is a hard path, filled with persecution and sorrow, but it is the path that I think gives us the best example of how we will need to live in the years to come. God grant us the wisdom and humility to see this and the strength and perseverance to face the days to come, staunch and unflinching.

Horse Progress Days 2016

I spent most of yesterday at the 2016 Horse Progress Days in Howe, Indiana. As the name suggests, the event is driven around (pun intended) progress made in animal powered farming. Their mission statement:

To encourage and promote the combination of animal power and the latest equipment innovations in an effort to support sustainable small scale farming and land stewardship.To show draft animal power is possible, practical and profitable.

As you can imagine, an event about animal (i.e. horse for the most part) powered farming draws lots of Amish but this is not an exhibition of rusty old obsolete stuff you would see rotting behind a barn. The show featured some incredible technology on display and I can tell you from first hand knowledge that many Amish are far more profitable in their enterprises than the most modern "English" farms with their fancy and expensive tractors and combines. I took some pictures, some include Amish which they don't like but as I was taking a picture of something else they ended up in I guess it is OK.

Below are some of the new hay equipment on display, mowers, rakes, balers, etc. Hay making is critical for the Amish as they require a steady supply to feed their horses and other livestock throughout the year whenever pasture is not available. Raising hay for Amish would be like an "English" farmer pumping his own oil and refining it right at his farm to run his machinery with.

As you might expect there were a handful of buggies on the lot although a lot of people came from all over the country and even some from overseas. Lots and lots and lots of 15 passenger vans, mine included, filled the parking area. One thing that sets "Northern Indiana" Amish apart from our local Amish, other than the manner of dressing, is that they ride bikes everywhere so there were probably as many bikes parked as buggies. Coming and going down the main road leading to the exhibition there were far more bikes on the road than buggies.

My favorite team of draft animals were this duo of  Mammoth donkeys. Note the sign on the harness, "Not A Mule", which cracked me up for some reason. This mower is ground driven, so rather than a horse drawn implement that runs on hydraulics and gears driven by a gas powered engine, the action of pulling the implement causes the mower bar to run. It is very quiet compared to the gas powered mowers and does a pretty good job. It is probably more "traditional" than the gas powered mowers so it is kinda ironic that an "English" guy is driving it with mules instead of an Amish guy with horses.  

Another couple of teams I liked were a team of Norwegian Fjord horses (the cream colored team) and a team of spotted draft horses (the spotted team of course). While there were a ton of Belgian and Percheron teams which are of course beautiful and powerful, I see those up close all the time but these breeds are rather rare and I think more aesthetically appealing than the plain brown or black drafts. Draft horses are utilitarian so power trumps beauty but for those who don't make a living with them I like some of the more unusual breeds:

Of course there was the random team of oxen....

So all and all a pretty good time. This event is in Pennsylvania next year, it moves around the country although usually near the Amish, so I doubt we will make it but it was a fascinating look at a way of farming that is both very, very old and traditional while at the same time very modern and efficient.

Making Ice With The Amish

Lots of people seem interested in the Amish and since we spend so much time with them I thought I would share something that few people have experienced. Last week I was around to help an Amish family "make ice". Granted they are not "making ice", the cold weather does that, they are just cutting and collecting ice but it is just a term they use like "making hay". While many Amish have some electricity in their homes via solar panels or generators, keeping food frozen is always an issue for them. Therefore many Amish have "ice houses", typically a small building with heavy insulation that they pack with ice blocks which keeps food frozen or at least cold throughout the summer. Of course this means you need a source of lots and lots of blocks of ice, a source that is found in the many ponds the Amish have on their property. Some Amish without ponds are able to get ice from a neighbor's pond, after all it is basically just water so the real investment is in the time to gather it. Below are some pics of the process, I had to wait until they took a break to avoid having any Amish in the picture which is too bad because a video would really be great. Anyway, enjoy a look at how people kept food cold before the advent of the ubiquitous freezer.

An elevator, often used to take hay into the barn, is used to
move the blocks from the pond to the waiting wagon. In the background
you can see the saw used to cut the ice.

A team of Belgian workhorses. Unlike most buggy horses these behemoths
will stand still without being tied for hours on end.

An example of an ice house, this one is a stand alone, many have walls and a
roof and look like a small shed.

Each completed load on a hay wagon is hauled back to the ice house. The wagons can hold
up to 200+ blocks of ice but the weight can make the wagon bow in the middle. 

Approaching The Piper - Guns Kerfuffle From A Different Perspective

While the initial firestorm of often strident and sometimes angry rebuttals of John Piper's post on Christians arming themselves for self-defense (see my post here) has died down, there is still conversation happening on the issue and that is a good thing. In the broader conservative evangelical world Piper and Preston Sprinkle seem to be the lone stalwarts holding what is an unpopular position re: Christian non-resistance.  Sure I am defending Piper was well but no one cares what I think.

In evangelical circles talk of practical peacemaking and non-resistance is a relatively new topic but among the Anabaptists it has been the position since the earliest days of the Radical Reformation. Unfortunately there has been little conversation on this topic between Anabaptists and evangelicals on this topic or any other for that matter (thus the impetus for writing a book on what Anabaptists and the Reformed can learn by conversation with one another, a book that seems to be no closer to getting done now than when I first announced it ). I was glad to see Dwight Gingrich interacting with Tim Challies on this topic and Dwight has since written a lengthy post on the topic of conservative Anabaptists and non-resistance titled Peacemaking: The Quiet In The Land Speak Up. As someone grounded in the Reformed tradition and with a growing affinity for Anabaptism I jotted down some not terribly brief thoughts reproduced below. You should check out Dwight's post, he raises a lot of interesting questions.

-------------------------------

Excellent summary of the issue. As someone more deeply anchored in the Reformed tradition I can say unequivocally that Piper is really the lone voice in the contemporary Reformed world that is even the least bit open to non-resistance. The virtual firestorm response he has gotten is pretty typical for those in the Reformed tradition and in American evangelicalism alike. Among the Reformed more broadly there are three reasons why non-resistance has gotten little traction:

1) A general hermeneutic of covenant theology which tends to blur the distinction between the Old and the New, making the Old Testament written and lived out under the Old Covenant, to be as authoritative and more spherically as applicable to the church as the New Testament. This is the source of so many of Piper's detractors turning to Old Covenant civil laws for their Scriptural sources to reject what Piper is saying.

2) A broad acceptance of Just War theory with more than a little theonomy thrown in for good measure. Given Augustine's position as the father of Christian just war theory and the very high regard most Reformed give to Augustine, his teaching on just war is given broad, and in my opinion, uncritical acceptance by most prominent Reformed teachers.

3) There is a startling absence of any voices in the Reformed tradition that hold to any sort of non-resistance or if there are they are not well known. The Reformed lean heavily on scholastic writings of the forefathers in the tradition (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Edwards,  etc.) and upon their historic confessions. When there are no contemporary or historic voices affirming a position, it is going to get little thought or attention.

Of course one overarching factor needs to be stated. In America non-resistance = pacifism and pacifism=liberalism. No good red blooded American Reformed Christian is going to stand for being called a liberal. This has led to a unilateral surrender of this issue to the religious left. That complete abdication of this topic to, for want of a better term, the liberal wings of the church. That is why I was likewise so pleased to find Preston Spinkle's book. I was familiar with Preston for his work with Francis Chan on a defense of the traditional understanding of Hell in the book Erasing Hell, so seeing him taking on this topic was encouraging. The only other book I have run across that deals as deeply with this issue is Guy Hershberger's "War, Peace and Nonresistance" but given that he is a Mennonite his writings have a very narrow audience (as proof the only review on Amazon for this book is mine).

Ironically, on almost any other topic, the same Reformed who are flogging Piper would agree with him over Jerry Falwell, Jr. and yet these same brothers have exploded with negative responses to Piper including some pretty over the top, frothing at the mouth replies from less thoughtful brethren.

You also touch on some broader themes and one of them has to do with the relative lack rigorous scholasticism in Anabaptism. Simon Fry touched on this in his recent post. I have seen some examples of "this is what we believe because this is what we believe" with no attempt or interest in engaging him contrary voices. As someone  who is an interested outside observer I can see that there is trouble coming down the road for the young adult generation in conservative Anabaptism as they tap into non-Anabaptist sources and see arguments that they have never heard before.  Lots of interesting things to ponder on this topic.

(as a side note for those unfamiliar with Tim Challies, he is a Canadian and that in part explains why he hasn't given this topic much thought because even owning a gun in Canada is a difficult task) 

Just War Is A Theory. Jesus Is God. Which Then Should We Follow?

In March of 2014 a debate was had over the issue of "Just War", a doctrine which purports to lay out the conditions under which a nation may justifiably go to war and from a Christian perspective which wars can be considered just and righteous so that Christians can support and participate in said war. The debate itself is over 2 hours long and I haven't had the time yet to watch the entire thing. However one of the participants arguing against "Just War", Dean Taylor, carved out his closing statement and I thought it was worthwhile to link to it. One of these days I am going to actually watch the entire thing even though a) I already have a very firm conviction on this issue and b) I have some concerns about Dean's partner David Bercot. Anyway give it a watch and consider watching the entire video if you can make the time, I am thinking you probably want to watch it all in one sitting.

Can Anabaptism Thrive In A Climate Of Affluence And Religious Liberty?

Hundreds of years ago, Anabaptists from Europe began a mass migration to America, a migration that ended up with Anabaptism being little more than a historical footnote in European history while at the same time seeing an incredible flourishing here in America. The various Anabaptist groups have never been a numerically significant population but they have become in many ways a quintessentially American phenomenon. Certainly there are Anabaptists in places like South America but the vast majority have lived in America for centuries. While the persecution slowly was reduced and eventually ceased altogether during their stay in America, I wonder if this has really been healthy for the descendants of European Anabaptism.

Somewhere around the mid-20th century the Anabaptists stopped being outsiders and started becoming just another denomination with mission boards, bureaucracy, colleges, all of the trappings of American religious culture. Around the time of the death of Hutterite draftees who were tortured and martyred in American military prisons as conscientious objectors during World War I, things seemed to change. Many Anabaptists served in civilian roles during the second World War and some even served in combat roles. Anabaptists also seemed to lose their missionary zeal, a zeal that in Europe caused persecution but in the relatively secure land of America seemed less important. Groups like the Amish and the Hutterites split off from society at large and other Anabaptists. The Mennonites began a seemingly constant splintering and re-splintering in response to the pressures of modernization and encroaching liberalism. When you look at many contemporary Anabaptist groups, they are not only not persecuted but they seem to have greatly prospered in America and are often affluent and comfortable. Today I look as an outsider at Anabaptism at large and I wonder if there is any real manifestation left in America today.

I believe we have already seen what happens when the Anabaptist portion of the church becomes too suburban, too comfy with the world. Much of what passes for Anabaptism today has slid into the broader evangelical world, becoming just another vanilla church. There is a large evangelical church near us in the middle of a major building project that once was a Mennonite church but now is just a generic evangelical church. Others claim the mantle of Anabaptism while looking an awful lot like a somewhat liberal megachurch, raising the question of how a people who treasured discipleship can flourish in the anonymity of the megachurch setting. Other portions of Anabaptism have moved into a quasi-Fundamentalist model with the traditional distinctive of their manner of dress to separate them from other Fundamentalist groups. Their focus is on keeping themselves free from overt sin and nipping in the bud any sign of "liberalism". Still other Anabaptist groups have merged into the progressive religious sphere and are largely indistinguishable from other progressive/liberal groups, having abandoned the prayer veil, ordaining women as pastors, taking tentative steps toward the normalization of homosexuality, replacing non-resistance with an activist political stance and denial of crucial and foundational truths like the reality of judgment and hell. These groups are committing the same "suicide by accomadation" that has killed liberal Protestant groups to the point that many who call themselves "Anabaptists" these days look, act and sound no different from any of the "mainline" Protestant groups and are dying off just as quickly.

My great fear is that Anabaptists in America have forgotten what it means to be Anabaptist. They no longer know how to be strangers and sojourners in the land who are hated and reviled not for how much Biblical truth they have abandoned but for their unwavering and child-like confidence in the Scriptures, a confidence that leads to a zealous evangelism and the resulting persecution. America is a land blessed with religious freedom but has it really been a blessing? I am not sure it has been when we look at contemporary Anabaptist groups. In fact I am not sure that Anabaptism has survived intact after a century of ease and acceptance.

The necessity and inevitability of suffering as part of the life of a disciple of Christ is deeply entwined with the Anabaptist history and theology. When people became Anabaptist in Europe, they did so knowing that it would mean sacrifice up to and including laying down their life. What happens when that suffering stops and is indeed replaced by affluence and comfort and ease? This is not merely an academic question. With the looming threat of a major shift in the American cultural landscape, the Anabaptists ought to be leading the way and an example for others. Instead I am concerned that Anabaptists are nearly as unprepared as the rest of the church for a post-Christendom existence because they have forgotten their heritage.

I hope I am wrong about this but the evidence doesn't seem to indicate that I am. Now is the time for Anabaptists to recover their heritage and start to think seriously about how to live as their forefathers did in Europe. The tales of persecution are not just interesting historical tidbits or tales you tell children to make them more appreciative of what they have. They are signal flares that show the way forward. I have found that an awful lot of Anabaptists barely even know their own history and this should make the leaders of Anabaptism deeply concerned. More so than almost any other groups, Anabaptists are a historic people. Their existence is inseparable from their history. When you lose that history and you lose the mindset that comes along with it, you lose the essence of what it means to be Anabaptist, especially in a world where people see fit to reinterpret Anabaptism to meet their own preferences.

The loss of their history as Anabaptists ought to be a far greater concern to Anabaptist leaders than the length of sister's hair or the style of dress they wear. The Christians of the very near future in America desperately needs Anabaptism and that means that the Anabaptists themselves need to remember what that word means.

Peter Hoover Coming To Indiana

Lord willing, Peter Hoover from Rocky Cape Christian Community in Tasmania will be in Indiana this Sunday, September 13th, at the Berne Christian Fellowship in Linn Grove, Indiana. The meeting begins at 9:30 AM and there ought to be a time for fellowship afterward. Peter is well known in Anabaptist circles for his book, The Secret of the Strength and I am going to try to read through it again before Sunday. I am not sure what the topic will be but I am sure it will be interesting so if you are in the general area and would like to attend, directions to the fellowship building are available via the link to Berne Christian Fellowship above.

You Might Be An Amish Driver...

With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy....

If you have picked up just enough German to tell Amish kids "sit down", "sit still", "sit back", "be quiet", "too loud", "go to sleep" and "almost home", you might be an Amish driver.

If you are able to recognize Amish from out of town just by what they are wearing on their head, you might be an Amish driver.

If the first thing you do at a large gathering is check out the other 15 passenger vans to see if anyone has a nicer van than you and to silently judge those with ugly, older vans, you might be an Amish driver.

If you have ever hurt your neck by turning your head too quickly to see who is in the buggy you just passed, you might be an Amish driver.

If you are stare suspiciously when you see English you don't recognize in predominantly Amish areas, you might be an Amish driver.

If you call other non-Amish "English", you might be an Amish driver.

If know by heart which Amish families are consistently either late getting ready to leave or that are going to call you ten minutes before you are scheduled to pick them up to change the time, you might be an Amish driver.

If you refer to a 12 passenger van as a "little van", you might be an Amish driver.

If someone suggesting that you depart at 2:30 AM and drive for 8 hours while they sleep doesn't seem insane to you, you might be an Amish driver.

If you say "lane" instead of "driveway", "fast" instead of "secure", "dinner bucket" instead of "lunch box", "let a message" instead of "leave a message" you might be an Amish driver.

If you unintentionally use German words in conversation with your spouse even when no Amish are present, you might be an Amish driver.

If 95% of the contacts in your cell phone are Amish and your phone gets used more by Amish than by you, you might be an Amish driver.

If you identify people by who they are married to (i.e. "Joanie Of Chachi") because there are so many other Amish with the same name, you might be an Amish driver.

If you can go from wide awake and driving to seat back and sleeping in 30 seconds, you might be an Amish driver.

If you wave to strangers in a buggy with a single lifted finger (index, not middle) and wave to Amish you know with a slow, full wave, you might be an Amish driver.

If you have a bunch of pictures on your Kindle of Amish kids using the camera on the Kindle instead of playing "Angry Birds", you might be an Amish driver.

If you know that "Angry Birds" is like crack mixed with Ritalin to Amish kids, you might be an Amish driver.

If you have learned through painful experience to "fix your own plate" at a potluck instead of letting the Amish ladies do it while you are waiting, you might be an Amish driver.

If you have also learned that a woman wearing a plain dress and white cap doesn't automatically mean she can cook or bake, you might be an Amish driver.

If you can figure out what someone is saying as long as 50% of the words they use are English, you might be an Amish driver.

If you love what you do for a living, you might be an Amish driver.

A fully operational Amish Assault Vehicle

The Death Of The Blue Coat

Today marks the 486th anniversary of the death of Georg Blaurock or Georg Cajacob, also known as the blue coat, one of the earliest Anabaptist leaders. He was the first of the three men in Zurich to be baptized as an adult at the hands of Conrad Grebel and in turn he baptized Gebel and Felix Manz. After several close escapes and being preceded in death by Manz and Grebel, Blaurock was executed by being cruelly burned alive by the Roman Catholic authorities on September 6, 1529.

So what, that was like 500 years ago! Can't we let the past be the past and focus on the future. Well, no we can't. I realized recently that in just over 2 years, on October 31st, 2017, we will recognize the 500th anniversay of the more or less "official" start of the Protestant Reformation. This event turned the world upside down and set the conditions for the world we live in today, from the nations of Europe to the World Wars to the very existence as it does of America. A lot of people will be talking about Luther and the Reformers, some in praise and others in condemnation but the struggle between the Reformers and Rome was not the only thing going on at this time.

For me, we can never pretend that what happened didn't happen. To do justice to our history we cannot try to cover or remove the warts because they are what made us who we are. We must remember why Blaurock and others were killed, who killed them and what they were teaching that was so dangerous to the religious powers. If we forget that in the vain hope of some notion of ecumenism, we do a disservice to their life and their death and make them both in vain. I am not looking for recriminations or demanding an apology from modern Roman Catholic and Protestant leaders for their treatment of the Anabaptists but I am asking that we don't forget what made them such a peaceful yet existential threat in the first place.

So today as you go about your day, take a minute to remember the Blue Coat!

Book Review: The Anabaptists and Contemporary Baptists

Featuring an eclectic mix of contributors from Rick Warren and Emir Caner to Malcolm Yarnell and Albert Mohler, The Anabaptists and Contemporary Baptists: Restoring New Testament Christianity, is a collection of essays giving us a solid look at important lessons for contemporary Baptists and others from the Anabaptists.

This is not a "Trail of blood" style book that attempts to create a Baptist version of papal apostolic succession. It is more of a historic look back at a group with a lot of similarities to Baptists. The book argues, successfully in most ways, that Baptists today can learn from the Anabaptists and explains how they can speak to our contemporary setting, something I have advocated for over the course of the last few years amid seismic shifts in our religious culture and the church itself. These essays are, as noted by the title, written in honor of Paige Patterson and come from megachurch pastors as well as seminary teachers and students. I was surprised to find that I really enjoyed Rick Warren's chapter, I am not a big fan of his but taken on the merits of the chapter it was excellent although some of it was hokey as can be ("I want to build the bridge of love between my heart and theirs so that Jesus can walk across." (Kindle Locations 2113-2114) Save it for Hallmark!)

The chapters range from highly accessible to very academic. One of the greatest strength of this book is also often its greatest weakness. Some of the later chapters contain great information but are pretty deep, scholarly articles that I felt like I was wading through and they may not be as accessible to the average reader as some of the earlier, more popular level chapters. I admit to skimming a bit in these chapters, the academic minutiae was a bit much for me and I would imagine that is true for a lot of even above-average Baptists who are familiar with church history. 

This is book is especially well suited for those with minimal background in Anabaptism. Especially useful are the chapters dealing with Balthasar Hubmaier, a powerful theologian who gives us a glimpse into the thinking of the Anabaptists and, if I can be permitted an editorial comment, shows that the contemporary neo-Anabaptist movement has very little in common with the Anabaptists. We also see some of the more questionable theological notions of Anabaptists, something I give them a lot of latitude for since they were a little too busy being hunted, tortured and murdered to sit down and work out the niceties of theological positions. For the historic Anabaptists, their most powerful theological statements are read in the blood, not in their books.

Below are a couple of choice quotes:

The modern generation is largely rootless. They are fatherless and rootless, and so they get blown around like tumbleweeds. When I talk about Radical Reformers, I am talking about people who say, “We have to go back to the root.” The Magisterial Reformation did not go far enough. You must go back to the New Testament, to the apostolic church. The Anabaptists and other Radical Reformers were “radical” in the truest sense, not as being extreme but in the sense of returning to their roots. (Rick Warren)

The Anabaptists and Contemporary Baptists: Restoring New Testament Christianity (Kindle Locations 1993-1996). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. Emphasis Mine

From 1520 to 1560 approximately three thousand legally sanctioned executions for heresy occurred. The Anabaptist movement accounted for almost two-thirds of those executed. (Thomas White)

The Anabaptists and Contemporary Baptists: Restoring New Testament Christianity (Kindle Locations 1788-1789)

That was staggering to read. Almost 2/3 of the executions were of Anabaptists. I knew the percentage would be significant but not that high.

In his discussion of the “church,” Hubmaier noted the importance of “love” in the practice of church discipline or fraternal admonition. He had Leonhart ask, “What authority do those in the church have over one another?” Hans replied, “The power of fraternal admonition.” Leonhart then inquired, “What is fraternal admonition?” Hans answered, “One who sees his brother sin goes to him in love [zu ˚ im geet auß liebe] and admonishes him fraternally and quietly [strafft in bru ˚ derlich in der still] to abandon such sin. If he desists, he has won his soul.” Hubmaier emphasized “fraternal admonition [bru ˚ > derlich straff]” or “brotherly love,” which instilled mutual accountability within the congregation. His Anabaptist ecclesiology was set apart from the priestly admonition in the Catholic Church, which lacked mutual accountability between clergy and laity.

The Anabaptists and Contemporary Baptists: Restoring New Testament Christianity (Kindle Locations 2770-2777), Emphasis Mine.

Living at a time of many changes and much duress in the ecclesiological sphere for someone of his convictions, Hubmaier saw moral laxity as the “besetting weakness of Protestantism.”(Simon Goncharenko)

The Anabaptists and Contemporary Baptists: Restoring New Testament Christianity (Kindle Locations 3557-3558)

Luther becomes a reformer because he cannot attain assurance of salvation in the system of the Roman Catholic Church; Oecolampad becomes a reformer because he cannot find the new creature in Christ sufficiently realized in the Roman Catholic Church. Luther deals with justification; Oecolampad, following 1 Thessalonians 4: 3, says voluntas Dei est sanctificatio nostra. For Luther, the focus is on faith; for Oecolampad, on that which flows from faith— Piety, holiness, love— as well with the individual as with the overall entity of the corpus Christi mysticum. Luther emphasizes a Christianity more affected by Paul; Oecolampad one more affected by John.

The Anabaptists and Contemporary Baptists: Restoring New Testament Christianity (Kindle Locations 4818-4822)  

That is pretty representative of what you should expect. For anyone who is a Baptist, Anabaptist or just a student of church history, The Anabaptists and Contemporary Baptists is a great resource to build those bridges we need to learn from the past and hopefully avoid repeating some failures.

Kentucky, Gay "Marriage" and the Schleitheim Confession

Around the web yesterday was a news story out one of the states we formerly lived in, the great although muggy state of hot Kentucky. A County Clerk, Kim Davis, is refusing to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals in spite of a Supreme Court decision making up a "right" for homosexuals to marry out of thin air with a heaping helping of judicial acrobatics and a subsequent appeal by Ms. Davis. According to Ms. Davis her decision is based on her religious convictions.

In one sense she is correct. There is no way to reconcile the Bible and homosexual "marriage". No matter how committed the relationship, you cannot draw an equivalence between two men sodomizing one another regardless of how long it has been going on or how much they love one another and a marriage between a man and woman. That characterization may seem jarring to our tender ears by putting the defiling act of homosexuality in the place of priority but what defines homosexuality is the act, an act that has been considered disordered and unnatural for thousands of years, and not without reason.

On the other hand, the church long ago abdicated our responsibility and permitted us to be unequally yoked with Caesar in the matter of marriage. Greedily seeking after tax and pension benefits we took from Caesar and now he is taking back, leaving us in this ridiculous state. Ms. Davis is an employee of Caesar no matter her faith. When you work for Caesar and swear an oath of office (another Biblical violation), you have to do Caesar's bidding.

So what does that have to do with the Schleitheim Confession? As a reminder, the 6th article of the Anabaptist confession deals with the sword and as part of that deals with the office of the magistrate:

Thirdly, it will be asked concerning the sword, Shall one be a magistrate if one should be chosen as such? The answer is as follows: They wished to make Christ king, but He fled and did not view it as the arrangement of His Father. Thus shall we do as He did, and follow Him, and so shall we not walk in darkness. For He Himself says, He who wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me. Also, He Himself forbids the (employment of) the force of the sword saying, The worldly princes lord it over them, etc., but not so shall it be with you. Further, Paul says, Whom God did foreknow He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, etc. Also Peter says, Christ has suffered (not ruled) and left us an example, that ye should follow His steps.

Finally it will be observed that it is not appropriate for a Christian to serve as a magistrate because of these points: The government magistracy is according to the flesh, but the Christian's is according to the Spirit; their houses and dwelling remain in this world, but the Christian's are in heaven; their citizenship is in this world, but the Christian's citizenship is in heaven; the weapons of their conflict and war are carnal and against the flesh only, but the Christian's weapons are spiritual, against the fortification of the devil. The worldlings are armed with steel and iron, but the Christians are armed with the armor of God, with truth, righteousness, peace, faith, salvation and the Word of God. In brief, as in the mind of God toward us, so shall the mind of the members of the body of Christ be through Him in all things, that there may be no schism in the body through which it would be destroyed. For every kingdom divided against itself will be destroyed. Now since Christ is as it is written of Him, His members must also be the same, that His body may remain complete and united to its own advancement and upbuilding.

Being a magistrate carries with it a responsibility and tacit understanding of being willing to do Caesar's bidding and carrying out Caesar's laws. If a Christian serves as an agent of Caesar while trying to follow Christ at the same time, inevitably something will have to give and more often than not it is following Christ. I affirm that you cannot be following Christ while killing your enemy as soldier of Caesar to give just one example, although it is the most obvious one. Another one would be an officer of the court that is charged with evicting a family from their home for non-payment. The law is clear, you don't pay what you owe and out you go. That is the law and whether it is just or not it is the law. How then can a Christian act as Caesar's agent in throwing the family out of their home?

That is why Anabaptists have traditionally stayed clear of being magistrates or even voting in elections. When you do either you become an agent of the state or a supporter of an agent of the state and they are bound to run into stuff that is contrary to the teachings of the faith. Ms. Davis is right to not issue a license for something that God has decreed to people who live counter to what God has declared. She also ought to resign if there is no other option. Christians should not willingly put ourselves in a place where we have to choose loyalties between the God of Creation and the god of this world, between Christ and Caesar.

Each day the simple wisdom of the historic Anabaptists looks smarter and more critical to study and understand.