Review of "A Response to Grace: The Sacramental Theology of Balthasar Hubmaier," by Brian Brewer

Brewer, Brian Christian. “A Response to Grace: The Sacramental Theology of Balthasar Hubmaier.” Ph.D., diss., Madison, New Jersey, Drew University, 2003.

Brian Brewer, now Assistant Professor of Christian Theology at Truett Theological Seminary, will soon have published A Pledge of Love: Balthasar Hubmaier and Anabaptist Sacramentalism, which if not a direct publication of his doctoral dissertation seems to at least work on the same subject. Since that publication has been delayed, I have chosen to read the dissertation instead.[1] The central investigation is into Hübmaier’s sacramental thought as revealed through the two ordinances, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and in other ecclesiological practices. One of the primary ideas is that Hübmaier retained much of the sacramental thinking of his Catholic background in his understanding of church practices.

Beginning with the perfunctory biographical section, Brewer focused the narrative on Hübmaier’s sacramental practice throughout his various places of ministry. The bulk of the work is on the Lord’s Supper and baptism–two subjects that have already been given much attention in Anabaptist scholarship. Particular attention was paid to the influences of Hübmaier from Luther, Zwingli and humanism.

Perhaps the most important contention in the dissertation is that of the fifth chapter. Brewer saw Sacramentalism as a guiding force in many other aspects of his ecclesiology, namely penance, the ban and preaching. These areas were not as thoroughly developed as the ordinances since Hübmaier’s writings were compelled to give the weight of his writing to the controversies of his day. As an Anabaptist he was necessarily embroiled in baptismal debate with Zwingli, and as a reformer he was not unaware of the prominent debate on the Supper. Brewer viewed Hübmaier as tending to import sacramental importance onto other activities in the church. Had Hübmaier been given the freedom to develop his thinking in these areas, he may have developed them in a sacramental direction. However, Brewer recognized that speculation into the trajectory of Hübmaier’s thought is not entirely productive and that the sacramentology associated with those other church practices stem largely from the unity of those practices with the sacramental ordinances.

Brewer continued by discussing Hübmaier’s influence on later traditions. The main line of influence that Brewer identified was on the Hutterians, whose beginnings in Moravia absorbed some of Hübmaier’s thinking that had remained a part of the Moravian Anabaptist consciousness after his Nikolsburg ministry. That influence may have spread further into Schleitheim Anabaptist thinking as transmitted through Peter Riedemann.[2] Brewer downplayed what influence Hübmaier would have had in early Baptists but recognized that Baptists could legitimately adopt Hübmaier as a like-minded prototype of Baptistic belief. Interestingly, Brewer turned to Karl Barth, whose thinking, though not dependent on Hübmaier, paralleled the reformer in his uneasiness with infant baptism. Barth did not replace the practice with believer’s baptism but nonetheless observed that it distorted the practice as instituted in Scripture.

That turn to Barth was demonstrative of Brewer’s final conclusion that Hübmaier’s theology provides a starting point for ecumenical discussion. Hübmaier’s relationship to the early Anabaptists, kinship to later Baptists, magisterial type of reformation alongside mainstream reformers and retention of important Catholic modes of thought place him in position to recognize how bridges can be built among those various groups in contemporary church life.

---

[1]Dr. Brewer told me that the publisher has had to take extra time with some new printing equipment. The original release date was to have been in February.

[2]Brewer cited Heimann, Franz. “The Hutterite Doctrines of Church and Common Life: A Study of Peter Riedemann’s Confession of Faith of 1540.” MQR 26, No. 1 (Jan. 1952): 22-47; 26, no. 2 (Apr. 1952): 142-144. Having not yet read this article, the line of influence seems thin but still merits consideration. This could be an important avenue of future research.

Review of The Importance of Church Discipline within Balthasar Hubmaier’s Theology, and of Wounds that Heal: The Importance of Church Discipline within Balthasar Hubmaier’s Theology, by Simon Victor Goncharenko

Goncharenko, Simon Victor. “The Importance of Church Discipline within Balthasar Hubmaier’s Theology.” Ph.D. diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2011.

_________. Wounds that Heal: The Importance of Church Discipline within Balthasar Hubmaier’s Theology. Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick, 2012.

This review comes from my reading of Goncharenko’s dissertation, which has recently been published as a monograph. The assumption that I will be making throughout this review is that the latter closely follows the former at least close enough that this review would be helpful for those reading the book also.

Goncharenko’s dissertation on the importance of the doctrine of church discipline within the framework of Hübmaier’s theology seeks to fill a gap in Hübmaier studies. Other works have looked at Hübmaier’s doctrine of church discipline alone, but none yet has sought to investigate the doctrine’s impact on other facets of Hübmaier’s theology (6). Gonharenko sought to fill this gap by arguing that church discipline played a major role in the development of the rest of Hübmaier’s theology, especially his anthropology, soteriology and, of course, his ecclesiology (v). After providing an introductory chapter, perfunctorily summarizing Hübmaier’s biography, Goncharenko spent a chapter each on these three theological categories in Hübmaier’s thought.

That first chapter begins unfortunately with little value to the dissertation. It gives a biography that is frightfully without citation and a listing of influences on Hübmaier. That listing does not provide any content to what those influences were beyond names except in the cases of Luther, Erasmus and Zwingli on the matter of baptism. The content of the influences on more relevant matters comes in later chapters. While Goncharenko is correct that the context must be understood since theology is not developed in a “vacuum” (v), it is not certain how an overview of Hübmaier’s general biography clears up his understanding of church discipline.

There is also some other troubling material at the outset. Goncharenko provided the categories of 1) Anabaptists, baptizers who denied Sacramentalism, 2) Radical, baptizers more badly, and 3) Magisterial reformers, those of the state church imposing reformation from the “top-down” (8). These categories are at best confused. The difference between “Anabaptist” and “Radical” only seems to be at the point of denying Sacramentalism, at which point one must ask if there were any baptizers that did not deny Sacramentalism. Goncharenko seem to have misunderstood George Huntston Williams’ categorization, which used the term “Radical” much more broadly to include Anabaptists (which fits the category of the same name that Goncharenko had borrowed from Kirk Robert MacGregor), Spiritualists and Evangelical Rationalists. It is not clear what Goncharenko had in mind since he did not cite his sources. Also the use of “Magisterial” could be problematic in the case of Hübmaier, who has been described as a “magisterial Anabaptist.”[1]

Also, in a footnote summarizing the debate on monogenesis versus polygenesis, another discussion with which the reader should already be familiar, Goncharenko demonstrated a poor understanding of the particulars of the debate. He attributed the introduction of monogenesis to Harold Stauffer Bender without awareness that monogenesis was the assumption before Bender’s work.[2] Curiously, he also did not recognize the work that created the debate.[3] All of this raises serious doubts about Goncharenko’s grounding in Radical Reformation scholarship.

An especially helpful summary of Hübmaier’s church discipline closed out the introduction. Goncharenko gave four purposes for Hübmaier’s doctrine: Church discipline was to 1) keep the church pure in the eyes of the world, 2) prevent believes from falling into sin, 3) provoke offenders to repentance and 4) provide a “unifying factor” for his theology that would ground his theology into practice (29). It is this fourth purpose that Goncharenko has set out to demonstrate in accordance with his thesis that church discipline was important to Hübmaier’s theology and linked that theology with practice (v).

In the chapter on anthropology, Goncharenko spent the bulk of space reviewing the nature of Hübmaier’s anthropology. Church discipline occupied two-and-a-half pages at the end of the chapter. Goncharenko’s anthropological review gave content to the listed influences from the previous chapter, affirming the findings of previous scholars that Hübmaier reflected the nominalism of medieval thought. That background served Hübmaier’s biblical interpretation as opposed to the more Augustinian background that served the Reformers (47). Goncharenko held an uneasy tension between attributing to Hübmaier a biblicism that “ . . . did not blindly embrace . . .” the medieval background (46) while at the same describing Hübmaier as having “. . .reache[d] back to a number of late medieval scholastic concepts with which to support his doctrine of man . . .” (48) and having had a “. . . reliance on certain medieval concepts for his anthropology” (51).

The short section on church discipline is somewhat at odds with the thesis, which was to show that church discipline was important to the rest of Hübmaier’s theology. Goncharenko effectively said that it was rather that it was Hübmaier’s theology that was important Hübmaier’s doctrine of church discipline, writing, “. . . [T]he trichotomous division of the nature of man is what propels Hubmaier to esteem the doctrine of church discipline so highly” (64). This happens by Hübmaier’s ascription to free will determining his understanding of the voluntary nature of the church, by church discipline answer the problem of how man can overcome sin, and by Hübmaier’s trichotomy allows a balance between the handing over of the flesh to Satan as a result of disciplinary action and the preservation of the spirit against destruction (64-66).[4] It remains unclear whether Goncharenko was attempting to show discipline’s importance to the rest of Hübmaier’s theology or if he only wanted to show how discipline fit in as an outworking of Hübmaier’s theology.

The next chapter, on soteriology, adheres more closely to the thesis, claiming “[C]hurch discipline will emerge as an essential part of Hubmaier’s Soteriology” (77). This was demonstrated by showing that church discipline guarded against charges of perfectionism by it inherent admission of faults within believers needing discipline (75), the maintenance of faith through continued brotherly love as aided by church discipline (80), and the placement of baptism outside of salvific operation but rather as an initial step submitting the baptizand under the disciplining authority of the church (94). Hübmaier’s recognition that salvific faith was not the confession of doctrine but more so the faith made evident by a disciplined life, thus manifesting one’s adherence to true doctrine (98).[5]

The last theological category with which Goncharenko dealt was ecclesiology. He gave a competent overview of church discipline in its relationship to Hübmaier’s ecclesiology, especially in its relationship to the ordinances. This connection was made through Hübmaier’s understanding of the keys, which were given to the church and moderated by discipline and the ordinances (108-109). Baptism, as a submission to the disciplining authority of the church (125), acted as a key letting believers into the church. The Lord’s Supper, as that from which those disciplined are kept out, then would act as a key keeping the unrepentant out of the church (113).

Though this dissertation began weakly, the last two chapters on soteriology and ecclesiology are solid explanations of Hübmaier’s though in these areas.  The main thesis that church discipline is important to Hübmaier’s theology is here only halfheartedly accepted. Goncharenko’s estimation that the doctrine was important needs no contesting, even to the point of demonstrating that discipline is an integral component of Hübmaier’s ecclesiology. The extension of this importance to say that discipline made Hübmaier’s soteriology “come together” (77) or that it was the “central” doctrine among the whole of Hübmaier’s theology (vi) is a contention that not convincingly argued.

It may seem that I’ve been a bit harsh on the product of Southwestern Seminary, and I admit I keep a keen eye on the work coming out of there. Since it is my alma mater, which hopes to become a center of free church studies beginning in the sixteenth-century Anabaptist movement, I want to see a standard of excellence among the scholarship that comes from there. What I don’t want to see is anything less than excellence pass by and thus remove the solid foundation of scholarship that will be needed if we truly want the movement inform our own tradition rather than impose our own thinking back onto history.

---

[1]Hans-Jürgen Görtz, The Anabaptists (London: Routledge, 1996), 100, among others.

[2]Goncharenko placed the origin of the monogenesis theory at “The Anabaptist Vision,” MQR 18, no. 2 (Apr. 1944): 67-88. The later debate against monogenesis was actually centered on two competing visions of monogenesis typified by Ernst Troeltsch, Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1912), and Karl Holl “Luther und die Schwärmer,” in Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte I: Luther (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1932), 420-467.

[3]James Mentzer Stayer, Werner O. Packull and Klaus Deppermann. “From Monogenesis to Polygenesis: The Historical Discussion of Anabaptist Origins,” MQR 49, no. 2 (Apr. 1975): 83-121.

[4]Oddly, Goncharenko’s description of how this occurs involves only the flesh and the spirit. No account of the soul’s involvement in this process is given. This process is thus described as being facilitated by a dichotomy; so, it is not explained why Hübmaier’s trichotomy aids the tension between preservation and destruction of the offender.

[5]There is one fault in this chapter in that it uses Calvin as representative of the Swiss protestant faith rather than Zwingli since Calvin has a wide accessibility. At this level of work, one should be expected to provide the necessary background, regardless of accessibility, especially in this case where anachronism is a danger.

Global Social Justice, Anabaptists and the Peasants’ War, Hermeneutics, and the Sovereignty of God in History

The rise of concern for global social justice is an undeniable trend within Evangelicalism, the prominence of which needs not be detailed here. Along with this new emphasis comes the usual fear of a revival of a social gospel a la Rauschenbusch, in which sanctification is replaced by mere social activism. At the same time, the movement is celebrated for reclaiming a proper understanding of social concern for the poor that had been lost by a greed-motivated western society. Though both motivations are likely in play in this new emphasis, it is most important to view the role of the awareness of global poverty that has had on Christian interpretation (or rather application) of Scripture on relevant passages and the relationship that this seems to have with radical movements in the Reformation era.

Anabaptists had an association with the Peasants’ War, an association of which the nature has long been in dispute. The Peasants’ War was an uprising late in the first decade of the Reformation that sought to overturn the existing structures of Central European economic life in favor of a more equal society. I may be painting with broad strokes in saying this, but the general sentiment toward the Radical Reformation taken by secular scholars has been that the socio-economic concerns of the peasants were the engine of the development of communitarian readings of Scripture.[1] Meanwhile, historical theologians would deny that Anabaptist social concern was merely a carryover from the Peasants’ War but were instead a fresh interpretation of Scripture.

Although these poles may be an overgeneralization, I ask the question, could it be that, rather than the politics of the peasants determining Anabaptist scriptural interpretation or rather than Anabaptist interpretation outside of any socio-economic influence, the God, being sovereign over history, used the social concerns of the peasants to direct the Anabaptists toward an interpretation of Scripture that recaptured the social impact of nachfolge life, i.e. could it be that the Peasants’ War removed the veil from the eyes of mainstream interpretation that had ignored the social impact of the gospel in favor of retaining the status quo of the feudal system?

If the study of the Anabaptists is to inform our approach to contemporary issues in the church (which is the overarching assumption of my interest, if not of all of church history), then it might be worth asking that same question of contemporary emphases on the social impact of following Christ. Could it be that this emphasis is not the result of progressivism overriding Christian hermeneutics but rather the social situation drawing our attention to what Scripture has been trying to tell us all along. Awareness of famine, poverty and warfare can no longer be considered “wholly other,” but in our age of communication the distress of the world is set before our eyes. The call of secular ethicists, starting from different assumptions, seem to have challenged some false assumptions through which the church has long interpreted Scripture.

For instance, Peter Singer wrote on global justice to say that globalization prohibits unconcern our distant neighbor in need. He wrote, “The fact that a person is physically near to us, so that we have personal contact with him, may make it more likely that we shall assist him, but this does not show that me ought to help him rather than another who happens to be further [sic] away.”[2] If it is possible for God to use a pagan King like Nebuchadnezzar to chastise his people, Israel, then it would not seem beyond God’s ways to use a secular ethicist to convict the church that it has been shallow in its interpretation of Scripture concerning global social justice. My conclusion is that God’s sovereignty over history is displayed in the influence of socio-economic and political concerns toward correcting Christian interpretations of Scripture. These concerns may be precisely what God uses to jar us out of our holding pattern hermeneutic that subjects the Bible to the maintenance of current social structures.

How did this look in the Radical Reformation? In some cases the economic dissenters were social reformers with religious overtones but in other cases they were part of a religious reform that had social implications. An example of the first might be Hans Hergot, who in On the New Transformation of the Christian Life outlined a new societal structure that was to encompass all of Europe.[3] Although this manifesto is lightly peppered with scriptural citations, it is apparent that his rigid, bottom-up hierarchical structure of a worldwide commonwealth is not an attempt to follow any scriptural formula but rather a pragmatic construction to facilitate a populist-empowered government. Even by Hergot’s own admission, the development of this reform program arose from his own personal realizations sparked by the imagery of John 10.[4]

References to Scripture often give the appearance of appeal to common religious awareness rather than exegetical conviction. This must be understood in the context of a society that was far more ensconced in Scripture than that of the present day. Scriptural allusions held far greater currency.[5] Nonetheless, Hergot did not make the claim that his system was founded on Scripture but was “that which the holy spirit shows me.”[6]

When he complained of the mainstream interpretation of Scripture, which maintained the old order against which the peasants struggled, he decried, “They always interpret Scripture and twist it to produce quarrelling and litigation.”[7] His complaint does not appear to be that they were misinterpreting Scripture but rather that they were doing any interpretation of Scripture in the first place. For Hergot, Scripture in the end provided an unreliable guide because it was a futile attempt to discover the true interpretation. This is why he followed that complain by writing, “But [you should] trust completely in God,”[8] thus echoing Thomas Müntzer’s complaint against the same protestant interpretations of the Bible. Müntze had condemned them for relying on “The mere words of Scripture,”[9] “The dead words of Scripture,”[10] and “The inexperienced papal text of the Bible.”[11] Müntzer preferred to “not pray to a dumb God [i.e. one speaking only through Scripture] but rather to one who speaks [in direct revelation],”[12] for “all true parsons must have revelations.”[13] So, although Hergot utilized Scriptural language, this was only in accordance to the speech patterns of his day and his brand of revolution bears more the mark of a social rather than exegetical genesis.

This origin of peasant protest, however, was not necessarily characteristic of the entire movement. The Eleven Mühlhausen Articles include scriptural citations in a manner reminiscent of confessional statements.[14] The phrases, “As it is written,” and, “According to the word of God,” are used in the articles, describing the approach that is taken in developing their content. The peasants at other times showed a reliance on Scripture, saying, “. . .[T]he basis of all peasants’ articles (as will be clearly seen) is directed toward hearing the gospel and living according to it . . ..”[15] They also declared an intention to submit to Scripture, saying, “. . . [Y]ou will also gladly release us from serfdom or show us from the gospel that we should be serfs.”[16]

This is not to naïvely assume that the hermeneutics of the peasants was exactly as they had claimed, but it does show that they were attempting to mold their program after the pattern of Scripture. Whether this attempt was successful at correctly interpreting the relevant scriptural texts is a valid question, but regardless of success or failure the attempt itself is sufficient to reframe our approach to Reformation hermeneutics in regard to social justice. The debate was not between the scriptural position and the socio-economic position, in which each party can be cast in either role. The debate was rather between competing interpretations of Scripture, each of which necessarily impacted the social order of the day either toward retention or revolution.

Nor should one simplistically assume that the radicals of the Reformation, peasants and Anabaptists alike, were all of one mind on how Scripture was to be interpreted. Conrad Grebel expressed his discontent with Müntzer for setting up tablets, presumably a copy of the ten commandments.[17] Andreas Karlstadt, representing Orlamünde, wrote that that community could not covenant with Allstedt because the former denied the appropriateness of armed resistance advocated by the latter.[18]

Though debate existed within the movement, many of the general tenets of the radicals have since found greater favor within Christianity in our day. Few contemporary Christians would challenge what had been contented during the Reformation. Peasant and Anabaptist demands such as, “Those who are in need should be looked after,”[19] or, “Should this pastor be in need, he should be provided for by the community that chose him,”[20] or that families should not have to pay their lords for the death of their relatives as payment for the loss of property,[21] a practice known as heriot. If Roland H. Bainton is correct, then religious liberty, a matter broadly accepted by evangelicals, owes its genesis to the Anabaptists.[22]

If it was the social situation that pointed the radicals toward interpretations of Scripture that were controversial in their time but have largely since become assumed exegetical conclusions, then the validity of socio-economic and political stimuli in the process of doctrinal development need not be so quickly disparaged. Perhaps it is that God, who is sovereign in history, could use historical events to shake Christian interpretations of Scripture loose of maintenance of standing social structures.

So, to those who might view the contemporary rise in concern for global social justice as having been prompted by extra-biblical stimuli as described above, one must be careful to be sure that interpretations favoring established social orders likewise are not bending hermeneutics to socio-economic pressures. The sword has two edges. This is the value of historical theology as this forum seeks to apply it–to see beyond our own situation by looking through the lens of doctrinal development from those of situations outside of our own. It may just be that God is once again proving his sovereignty over history by using the ethical concern generated by secular sources to prod the church toward a corrected reading of Scripture on matters of social justice.

For now, I only present an initial point of discussion. Much research still needs to be done on both the historical and contemporary issues, but I would hope that the ideas presented here might stimulate further consideration of the appropriation of the Radical Reformation heritage on this matter. I especially note that some might take issue with presenting the peasant rebels alongside more mainstream Anabaptists.

---

[1]A caricature view would be Friedrich Engels, Der Deutsche Bauernkrieg, Moscow, 1956.; but modern, more tempered views can be found in Claus-Peter Clasen, Anabaptism: A Social History: Switzerland, Austria, Moravia, and South and Central Germany (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1972).; and James Mentzer Stayer, The German Peasants’ War and Anabaptist Community of Goods, McGill-Queen’s Studies in the History of Religion, no. 6 (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1991). An excellent summary of the latter can be found in A. James Reimer, “From Denominational Apologetics to Social History and Systematic Theology: Recent Developments in Early Anabaptist Studies,” Religious Studies Review 29, no. 3 (Jul. 2003): 237. Stayer concluded that communitarianism was not a fringe view within Anabaptism but rather normative in compliance to the community of goods portrayed in Acts.

[2]“Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Philosophy and Public Affairs (1973), reprinted in Ethical Theory: Classical and Contemporary Readings, 5^th ed., ed. by Louis P. Pojman (Belmont, California: Thomson Wadsworth, 2007), 244. Emphasis in original. Let it be noted that this is one of the few points with which I would ever agree with Singer.

[3]In The Radical Reformation, ed. Michael G. Baylor, Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 210-225. It has been my reading of this source book that has been the springboard of my thought in this area.

[4]Ibid., 211.

[5]In our day, a phrase like “wiser than Solomon” may draw more than a few blank stares and references to going the “extra mile” are usually made in ignorance of Matthew 5:41.

[6]On the New Transformation, 219.

[7] Ibid., 224. The quintessential example of a Protestant interpretation in defense against the peasants is Martin Luther’s 1524 “Letter to the Princes of Saxony Concerning the Rebellious Spirit,” Weimar Ausgabe XV [The critical edition of Luther’s complete works in their original languages], 210-221. Hergot’s manifesto is from 1527.

[8]On the New Transformation, 224. The bracketed material is of Baylor.

[9]The Prague Protest, in The Radical Reformation, 8.

[10]Ibid., 6.

[11]Ibid.

[12]Ibid., 10. Bracketed material mine.

[13]Ibid., 4.

[14]In The Radical Reformation, 227-230. Müntzer, although just show to have not taken an entirely benevolent stance on the text of Scripture, did have a hand in drafting these articles, but Baylor pointed out that others such as Heinrich Pfeffer were also instrumental in the articles’ composition, which reflected local concerns that predated Müntzer’s arrival in Mühlhausen.

[15]The Twelve Articles of the Upper Swabian Peasants, in The Radical Reformation, 232.

[16]Ibid., 234.

[17]Letter to Thomas Müntzer, in The Radical Reformation, 39.

[18]Letter from the Community of Orlamünde to the People of Allstedt, in The Radical Reformation, 33-35.

[19]The Mühlhausen Articles, 228.

[20]Michael Sattler, The Schleitheim Articles, in The Radical Reformation, 176.

[21]The Twelve Articles, 237.

[22]“The Parable of the Tares as the Proof Text for Religious Liberty to the End of the Sixteenth Century,” Church History 1, no. 2 (1932): 67.; A key text would Balthasar Hübmaier, On Heretics and Those who Burn Them, in Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism, edited by H. Wayne Pipkin  and John Howard Yoder, Classics of the Radical Reformation, no. 5. (Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald, 1989), 58-66. However, there are those who would attribute religious liberty to the Reformed tradition, such as Jon Witte, Jr., “Law, Authority, and Liberty in Early Calvinism,” in Calvin and Culture: Exploring a Worldview, edited by David W. Hall and Marvin Padgett, Calvin 500 Series (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P & R, 2010), 17-39.

Zwingli’s Early Anabaptist Convictions: History or Mythology?

“Zwingli’s Early Anabaptist Convictions: History or Mythology?” - Brian Brewer, Truett Theological Seminary

Dr. Brewer’s paper addressed a concern that, though well known in Anabaptist research circles, remains to be ignored generally in broader historical circles. The traditional historiography has been that Zwingli’s position remained constant and he was a cooler head offering the Reformed position against the radicals who would eventually break from the civic reform. Brewer’s thesis was that historians have failed to research further into Zwingli’s nascent baptismal theology. In the same vein, they ignore Anabaptist accounts of Zwingli’s perspective.

            The Hutterite Chronicle gives an account from the Anabaptist perspective that reveals that the radicals of the Grebel circle felt as though they had been mislead by their former teacher. Their perception was that Zwingli agreed with them early on in their position against paedobaptism. However, Zwingli did not pursue the course of reforming the church in regards to that sacrament but yielded to the social concern of not fomenting civil unrest.

            The question must be raised of whether the Hutterite Chronicle accurately portrays Zwingli’s early baptismal theology. Other sources must be called into consideration. There were two Tuesday meetings held with the Grebel circle concerning the question of Baptism the December before the January 1525 rebaptisms in the house of Felix Mantz. Clearly by this time Zwingli and the radicals had parted ways.

            Earlier, Mantz had demanded that written arguments be made so that there would be no confusion over the positions held by each party. The usual perception of this fact was that Mantz was calling up for a debate but other testimony from Mantz suggests a different motivation. Mantz said that he “knew full well” that Zwingli believed that baptism should be an ordinance reserved only for those who could confess faith. At another place, he says, “I am sure” that Zwingli shared their understanding but he could not figure out why Zwingli would not openly express that shared understanding. That being the case, it would then seem that Mantz called upon Zwingli to commit his ideas to paper not so that they may serve as a source of debate but rather so that they could have a record in writing that Zwingli had actually rejected paedobaptism, even if he was reticent to admit it.

            In the case of Hübmaier, as is well known, there is the account of a conversation during which he and Zwingli discussed baptism. Hübmaier pointed toward specific, such as  the exact place, date and who else was there as testimony that he was not incorrectly remembering that Zwingli had doubted paedobaptism. Though these testimonies certainly indicate that Zwingli had doubted infant baptism, it must be assented that these come from the pens of those whose own position would benefit from the claim. Can we find evidence of that same doubt in Zwingli’s nascent baptismal theology?

            In an early sermon, Zwingli indicated that parents in Zürich had already begun to withhold their children from baptism. To them he gave in that sermon the assurance that without baptism they need not fear that their children be damned. Also, Zwingli’s January 1523 67 Theses ended with a final thesis indicating other issues that were intended to become part of the later development of his reform program. Included in this were the tithe and the issue of baptism, on which he called anyone curious to come speak to him privately. This indicates that a reform of baptism was an issue he intended to address as the reformation progressed and also that he was not yet ready to make his still tenuous stance publicly known. The change on the issue of baptism did not come until later and he would then state, “I myself was deceived,” but he claimed to have not been as dogmatic as those who would later institute credobaptism.

            What then was the cause for Zwingli to abandon the inklings of anti-paedobaptism in favor of a staunch paedobaptism position? Brewer suggested that soon after the Spring of 1523, during which the last sign of anti-paedobaptism is evident by the conversation with Hübmaier, came an outbreak of iconoclasm. The iconoclastic controversy had a significant effect, which was that Zwingli was forced to reconsider the pace of the reforms he was instituting. The same effect motivated the town council, who would in response call for slower reforms. The radical’s break with Zwingli, in contrast with the traditional historiography, was not because he wouldn’t change his baptismal position but precisely because he did.

Brewer’s provided an excellent narrative for understanding the events and the evidence for Zwingli’s positions at various points of time. He is successful in defending the thesis that the break between Zwingli and the Grebel group was not because the latter could not convince to Zwingli to come to their position but rather because Zwingli had given in to the exigencies of the situation and to the council’s demands by having gone back on the trajectory on which his earlier theology ran.

Some questions remain, however. The first is that Brewer assigned the iconoclastic controversy the role of catalyst in shifting Zwingli’s baptismal theology back in line with the received tradition. Is that event the event that sparked Zwingli’s change? That event was only the first significant event between the Spring of 1523 and the Autumn of 1524 that could have been such a catalyst. Two possibilities remain. In that period of almost a year and a half, there could have been other events that could have redirected Zwingli’s theology. Also, the span of time is long enough to credit the change to further theological reflection not guided by any identifiable event.

Second, if the outbreak of iconoclasm and the resulting desire for slower reforms a sufficient explanation for the change in Zwingli’s position. According to Brewer’s narrative, that controversy led to the call for slower reforms but the break with the Grebel circle was not over the speed by which reforms would be instituted but rather the content of those reforms. The Grebel circle was not merely impatient in waiting for Zwingli to change baptismal practice but they recognized that Zwingli opposed any change of baptismal practice at any pace. So, while Brewer’s presentation answers the question of why Zwingli would have reconsidered the timing of baptismal reform, it did not answer why he changed his position altogether.

Recent Trends in Anabaptist Scholarship

This post is a descriptive update to Troy Osborne’s 2007 article and John Roth’s 2002 article on recent trends in Anabaptist studies.1 There have been several threads in Anabaptist scholarship that have recently received heightened attention. Most notable is the volume of work being dedicated to two Anabaptist figures: Balthasar Hübmaier and Pilgram Marpeck.

The swell in Hübmaier scholarship is perhaps largely due to a continued byproduct of the 1989 publication of a new translation of the Hübmaier corpus.2 Also, recent interest has come from Baptists, finding a predecessor to their own confessional stance in Hübmaier more than in other Reformation theologians. Since 1999, 10 doctoral dissertations have been written on Hübmaier. 3 Furthermore, in the editorial preface to the January 2010 edition of the Mennonite Quarterly Review, Roth noted that Hübmaier’s full impact on the Anabaptist movement merited further investigation after years of Hübmaier studies having been marginalized by Mennonite scholarship. The bulk of that edition contained articles on Hübmaier. 4

The recent attention paid to Marpeck has, I believe, two points of origin. One has been the significant biography by Klaassen and Klassen. 5 The other has been the publication of new sources on Marpeck and his “circle.”6 This has resulted in a conference on “Anabaptist Convictions after Marpeck” at Bluffton University, June 25-28, 2009 and an issue of the Mennonite Quarterly Review being dedicated to Marpeck studies in January 2011.

Another trend is the study of the use of patristic literature among the Anabaptists. Much of the came to the fore in a 2005 issue of Mennonite Life, 7 but some groundwork had been laid before. 8 Other works have continued this investigation, 9 especially that of Andrew P. Klager,10 and further work will likely come out of this.

This leaves open certain questions that remain to be made, including more specifically which authors used patristic sources and in what situations. Were Anabaptists more likely to include patristic citations in debate with opponents for who the fathers held authority? Did they appeal to the fathers when writing pastorally to their congregations?

1Troy Osborne. “New Directions in Anabaptist Studies,” MQR 81, no. 1 (Jan. 2007): 43-47.; John D. Roth, “Recent Currents in the Historiography of the Radical Reformation,” Church History 71 (Sep. 2002): 527-529. Osborne includes the proscriptive call for a new generation of confessional Anabaptist scholars to approach the subject in keeping with the concept of an Anabaptist vision, however recognizing the complexities introduced by the polygenetic model.

2H. Wayne Pipkin and John Howard Yoder, eds., Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism, Classics of the Radical Reformation, no. 5 (Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald, 1989).

3In chronological order: Emir Caner, “Truth is Unkillable: The Life and Writings of Balthasar Hubmaier, Theologian to the Anabaptists,” Ph.D. diss., University of Texas at Arlington, 1999.; Michael Wayne McDill, “The Centrality of the Doctrine of Human Free Will in the Theology of Balthasar Hubmaier,” Ph.D. diss., Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2001.; Samuel Byung-doo Nam, “A Comparative Study of the Baptismal Understanding of Augustine, Luther, Zwingli, and Hubmaier,” Ph.D. diss. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2002.; Brian C. Brewer, “A Response to Grace: The Sacramental Theology of Balthasar Hubmaier,” Ph.D. diss, Drew University, 2003.; Ernst Theodor Endres, “The View of Balthasar Hubmaier of the Church: A Church-Historical Perspective,” D.D. diss., University of Pretoria, 2003.; Kirk R. MacGregor, “The Sacramental Theology of Balthasar Hubmaier and Its Implications for Theology,” Ph.D. diss., University of Iowa, 2005.; Darren T. Williamson, “Erasmus of Rotterdam’s Influence upon Anabaptism: The Case of Balthasar Hubmaier,” Ph.D. diss., Simon Fraser University, 2005.; Brian David Raymond Cooper, “Human Reason or Reasonable Humanity?: Baltasar Hubmaier, Pilgram Marpeck, and Menno Simons and the Catholic Natural Law Tradition,” Ph.D. diss., University of St. Michael’s College, 2006.; Antonia Lucic Gonzalez, “Balthasar Hubmaier and Early Christian Tradition.” Ph.D. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 2008.; Andrew P. Klager, “‘Truth Is Immortal’: Balthasar Hubmaier (c. 1480-1528) and the Church Fathers,” Ph.D. diss, University of Glasgow, 2010.

4The articles were Andrew P. Klager, “Balthasar Hubmaier's Use of the Church Fathers: Availability, Access and Interaction,” 5-65.; Matthew Eaton, “Toward an Anabaptist Covenantal Soteriology: A Dialogue with Balthasar Hubmaier and Contemporary Pauline Scholarship,” 67-93.; Brian C. Brewer, “Radicalizing Luther: How Balthasar Hubmaier (Mis)Read the ‘Father of the Reformation,’” 95-115.; Jonathan R. Seilig, “Johann Fabri's Justification Concerning the Execution of Balthasar Hubmaier,” 117-139.; Kirk R. MacGregor, “Hubmaier's Letter Johannes Sapidus,” 141-146.

Other recent works in this swell: Emir Caner, “Balthasar Hübmaier and His Theological Participation in the Reformation: Ecclesiology and Soteriology,” Faith and Mission 21, no. 1 (Fall 2003): 32-66.; David Funk, “The Relation of Church and State in the Thought of Balthasar Hubmaier,” Didaskalia 17, no. 2 (Wtr. 2006): 37-50.; Andrew P. Klager, “Balthasar Hubmaier and the Authority of the Church Fathers,” Historical Papers 2008: Canadian Society of Church History: Annual Conference, University of British Columbia, 1-3 Jun 2008, 18 (2008).; Kirk R. MacGregor, “Hubmaier’s Concord of Predestination with Free Will,” Direction 35, no. 2 (Fall 2006): 279-299.; Wayne H. Pipkin, Scholar, Pastor, Martyr: The Life and Ministry of Balthasar Hubmaier (Prague: International Baptist Theological Seminary of the European Baptist Federation, 2008).; Martin Rothkegel, “Von der Schönen Madonna zum Scheiterhaufen: Gedenkrede auf Balthasar Hubmaer, Verbrannt am 10 März 1528 in Wien,” Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für die Geschichte des Protestantismus in Österreich 120 (2004): 49-73.; Kurt J. Thompson, “The Proper Candidate: An Examination of the 1525 Debate between Ulrich Zwingli and Balthasar Hubmaier concerning Baptism,” M.A. Thesis, Liberty University, 2009.; Jean Marcel Vincent,  “Présentation et traduction du premier écrit anabaptiste: Un Résumé de ce qu’est toute une vie chrétienne (1525) de Balthasar Hubmaier,” Études Théologiques et Religieuses 79, no. 1 (2004): 1-18.

5Walter Klaassen and William Klassen. Marpeck: A Life of Dissent and Conformity (Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald, 2008).

6Walter, Klaassen, Werner O. Packull and John Rempel, transls. Later Writings by Pilgram Marpeck and His Circle, Vol. 1. Anabaptist Texts in Translation, Vol. 1 (Kitchener, Ontario: Pandora, 1999).; Heinhold Fast, Gottfried Seebaß and Martin Rothkegel eds. Briefe und Schriften oberdeutscher Täufer, 152701555: Das “Kunstbuch” des Jörg Probst Rotenfelder gen. Maler. (Gütersloh, Germany: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2007), and its English translation: John Rempel ed. Jörg Maler’s Kunstbuch: Writings of the Pilgram Marpeck Circle, Classics of the Radical Reformation, Vol. 12 (Kitchener, Ontario: Pandora, 2010).

7Mennonite Life 60 (Sep. 2005). Articles included B. Royale Dewey, “Making Peace with History: Anabaptism and the Nicene Creed.”; Gerald J. Mast, “Creedal Orthodoxy Is Not Enough: A Response to Ollenburger.”; Ben Ollenburger, “True Evangelical Faith: The Anabaptists and Christian Confession.”; J. Denny Weaver, “Identifying Anabaptist Theology.”

8Irvin Buckwalter Horst, “Menno Simons and the Augustinian Tradition,” MQR 62, no. 4 (Oct. 1988): 419-430. Karl Koop, Anabaptist-Mennonite Confessions of Faith: The Development of a Tradition (Kitchener, Ontario: Pandora, 2003).; Dennis D. Martin, “Menno and Augustine on the Body of Christ,” Fides et Historia 20 (Oct. 1988):41-64. A. James Reimer, “Trinitarian Orthodoxy, Constantinianism and Theology from a Radical Protestant Perspective,” In Faith to Creed, ed. S. Mark Heim (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1991).

9Andy Alexis-Baker, “Anabaptist Use of Patristic Literature and Creeds,” MQR 85, no.3 (July 2011): 477-504.; Geoffrey Dipple, “Just as in the Time of the Apostles”: Uses of History in the Radical Reformation, Kithcener, Ontario: Pandora, 2005.; Antonia Lučić Gonzalez, “Balthasar Hubmaier and Early Christian Tradition,” Ph.D. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 2008.

10“Balthasar Hubmaier and the Authority of the Church Fathers,” Historical Papers 2008: Canadian Society of Church History: Annual Conference, University of British Columbia, 1-3 Jun 2008, 18 (2008).; St. Gregory of Nyssa, Anabaptism and the Creeds,” Conrad Grebel Review 26 (Fall 2008): 42-71.; “‘Truth Is Immortal’: Balthasar Hubmaier (c. 1480-1528) and the Church Fathers.” Ph.D. diss, University of Glasgow, 2010.; “Balthasar Hubmaier's Use of the Church Fathers: Availability, Access and Interaction,” MQR 84, no. 1 (Jan. 2010): 5-65.

Review of The Concept of Grace in the Radical Reformation, by Alvin J. Beachy

A republication of his 1960 Harvard dissertation, Beachy's work investigates the many facets of theology that grace effects within the thinking of a representative sample of seven South German and Dutch Anabaptists. The central thesis is that the Anabaptist concept of grace was in conflict with the concept of grace among the magisterial reformers. For the latter, grace was viewed in terms of forensic justification whereby the believer, in accordance to the motto simul iustus et peccator, remained a sinner but was given the legal standing of righteousness. The Anabaptists, however, took an ontological view whereby the viator was not just declared righteous but was made actually righteous. This difference allowed the Anabaptists to make the move to righteous living as more than a believer's response to the act of grace but as the outworking of a changed nature.

Beachy also sought to show that the radical reformers taught a soteriology stressing divinization as was consistent with the theology of John's Gospel. He saw this as explicit in the teaching of all but two of the radical at whom he looked, including Hübmaier, Marpeck, Denck, Simons, Hofmann, Dirk Philips and Schwenkfeld. Aside from the relationship of Hübmaier to it, the Swiss movement is not represented.

Beachy made wide allowances in order to include some teachings into his scheme of interpreting radical reformation theology of grace as divinization.  Although his thesis was clearer among some of those with more spiritualistic tendencies, this was not convincingly applicable to all. The normativity of the divinization scheme decreases especially if one were to include the more biblicist Swiss brethren. Further, the assumption that divinization is indeed the Johannine teaching of grace is not put to any critical analysis and might otherwise be contested. So, the suggestion that divinization is an integral part to the radical reformation's concept of grace must be taken with hesitation.

Beachy's central thesis that the radicals preferred an ontological interpretation of justification is enlightening to our understanding of radical reformation theology. It is unfortunate that this information has not been incorporated more into subsequent literature. This is likely due to this book being less accesible to a wider audience of students of Anabaptism. Further, this work is part of the early literature in support of the polygenesis paradigm, especially in the appendices added to the original dissertation material that forms the bulk of the book.

One last note about my copy of the book, which is a review copy that had been sent to Jan Kiwiet and might not be representative of all the copies, is that the typography got worse as the book went on. After about page 90, typos became frequent. Also, the front matter lists pages 1-381 as having been the dissertation. The book is only 238 pages and this note should have included only up into the appendices after the first bibliography.

Anabaptist Polemics against the Lack of Protestant Moral Reform: I. Balthasar Hübmaier

               Some research from a few months back. When I wrote this, I was not then aware of William Klaasen's article, "The Nature of the Anabaptist Protest."[*] There may therefore be some overlap between the material covered there and here. There is also overlap between this and my Hallowe'en post, the material of which inspired this larger work. For ease, this work will be split up into three segments based on each writer examined.

Many polemical issues are deserving of research. For example, rather than only giving a description of the Anabaptist views of baptism, it would be a worthy area of research to specifically outline Anabaptist critiques of the pedobaptist position. Other areas might include arguments against the state-church model and differing hermeneutics between Protestants and Anabaptists. The area of research that will be begun in this work will be the Anabaptist critique of the Protestants insofar as the Protestant reforms largely did not yield the fruit of the new life.

                 Discipleship and regenerate living has long been considered at or at least near the center of Anabaptist identity. Bender, in his perennially reproduced statement of the Anabaptist vision listed discipleship, ecclesiology and the love ethic, specifically in regard to non-resistance, as three key identifying factors of Anabaptism.[1] What often goes unrecognized is that Bender later refined his view to say that the love ethic was not unique to Anabaptism, although the non-resistance attribute was foreign to other appropriations of the love ethic, and that Anabaptist ecclesiology was actually a derivative concept from the Anabaptist position on discipleship.[2] This placed discipleship as the “most characteristic, most central, most essential and regulative concept in Anabaptist thought, which largely determines all else.”[3]

                 Though such a reduction of discipleship as the sine qua non of Anabaptist identity has not gone fully unchallenged,[4] the continued popularity of Bender’s model evinces that discipleship and the call for a regenerate lifestyle are at least near the center of prominence in Anabaptist identity. For this reason, the current research will look into several expressions among Anabaptist authors in their polemics against the Protestants on the issue of discipleship. The obverse of such a theology of discipleship and moral reform as an important mark of early Anabaptist identity would be the critique of those that did not show such moral reform or a discipleship ethic in their theology. Following is a look into polemics of Balthasar Hübmaier, Hans Denck and Menno Simons against the Protestants and the lack of moral reform that those Anabaptists saw among the state-church reformers.

Balthasar Hübmaier

The earlier writings of Hübmaier generally dealt with the issue of baptism, but as he gained slightly more freedom in his later years in Nikolsburg he was able to broaden the scope of his critique of the Protestants to include the issue of moral reform. The general tenor of Hübmaier’s complaint was that the Protestants may have taken a few good steps in recovering the gospel, they did not complete them with good works. Regardless of what one may have proclaimed, Hübmaier did not give much heed to that proclamation without the evidence of works.

Hübmaier called the Christians who would not amend their doctrine with the new life, “Mouth-Christians,” who gladly boast of Christ’s work on the cross.[5] He earlier said that things would not go well in the church “Even if we should all shout, write, and hear the gospel until we are hoarse and tired.”[6] He further goes on to say that the result of such thinking is that “We[7] still claim to be Christians, truly evangelical, and boast of our great faith, and have never touched the works of the gospel and of faith with our little finger.[8] Further, he wrote, “Whoever lets his faith stand naked and does not clothe it in good works adulterates Christian liberty into carnal license.”[9] The force of Hübmaier’s words is clear, that to take the Protestant doctrine of sola fide, which Hübmaier would call “mere faith,”[10] without the amendment of life would be an empty gospel and was apparently in Hübmaier’s mind the cause of great sin in his world.

Hübmaier drew that point clearly in On Fraternal Admonition. He wrote, “We all want to be Christians and good Protestants by taking wives and eating meat, no longer sacrificing, no more fasting, no more praying, yet apart from this one sees nothing but tippling, gluttony, blasphemy, usury, lying, deceit, etc...”[11] The Protestants, according to Hübmaier’s critique, did not seem to differentiate the commands coming from Rome insofar as some were extra-biblical additions and others were biblical moral commands. In throwing out the errata of the church in its rites and rituals, the Protestants apparently also tended to throw out the Christian lifestyle for it was only viewed as yet another work added onto faith by the Roman church in order to merit salvation.[12]

Summarily, Hübmaier had made the criticism of the lack of a reformed life among the Protestants as set against their doctrine. He wrote:

"People had learned no more than two points, without any amelioration of life. The one point, that they could say: “We believe. Faith saves us.” Second: “We can do nothing good of ourselves.” Now both of these are true. But under the mantle of these half truths all kinds of iniquity, unfaithfulness, and injustice have completely taken over."[13]

Hübmaier was undoubtedly approving of those Protestant doctrines–sola fide and total depravity[14]–but they were not a complete picture of the Christian life. Only by a reformed life would on truly learn the gospel.

Hübmaier’s broader polemic on free will also included elements critical of Protestant morality. He wrote that the strong predestination doctrines of the Protestants led toward apathy of lifestyle and that any moral failings would be attributed as inevitable, for they were putatively the work of God. He wrote that such a doctrine was to “blame him [God] for unrighteousness.”[15] He further goes on to say that to continue is sin so that God’s providence of salvation, as opposed to man providing for his own salvation by works, is a blasphemy, and that to say God wills sin either does not know God or does not know sin.[16]

---

[*]op. cit. MQR 45, no. 4 (Oct. 1971): 291-311. Some of the material from that article is also covered in Klaassen's Anabaptism: Neither Catholic nor Protestant (Waterloo, Ontario: Conrad, 1973). My reading of that work partially, although not entirely, inspired my search into this topic.

[1]“The Anabaptist Vision,” MQR 18, no. 2 (Apr. 1944): 67-88., which is itself is a reprint of a printing of a lecture and has since been reproduced in other literature including a standalone binding from Herald Press.

[2]“The Anabaptist Theology of Discipleship,” MQR 24, no. 1 (Jan. 1950): 26-27.

[3]Ibid., 27.

[4]Leonard Gross, “Recasting the Anabaptist Vision: The Longer View,” MQR 60, no. 3 (Jul. 1986): 352-363.; Werner O. Packull, “Some Reflections on the State of Anabaptist History: The Demise of a Normative Vision,” Studies in Religion 8 (1979): 313-323.

[5]Apologia, in Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism [BH], ed. and trans. Wayne H. Pipkin and John Howard Yoder, Classics of the Radical Reformation, no. 5 (Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald, 1989), 526.

[6]On Fraternal Admonition, BH, 375. This context is specifically in regards to the vanity of such boasting of the gospel without the use of fraternal admonition and the ban, the means of discipline and thus moral reform in the church.

[7]“We” mostly likely refers to Hübmaier’s own Germanic peoples, the group seemingly at the forefront of his social conscious as evidenced by the introduction to his A Christian Catechism, BH, 343-344.

[8]Apologia, BH, 527.

[9] Ibid., 528.

[10]Ibid., 527.

[11]BH, 375-376.

[12]Walter Klaassen echoed this critique while commenting on a slightly broader representation of Anabaptist writers, saying “But many were not so subtle; they assumed from Luther’s words that works also included moral behaviour.” Anabaptism: Neither Catholic nor Protestant, 31.

[13]On Fraternal Admonition, BH, 375. cf. Free Will I, BH, 447-448.

[14]That Hübmaier would agree with total depravity, see Free Will I, BH, 438.

[15]Apologia, BH, 534.

[16]Free Will II, BH, 468, 469.