Hermeneutics of Word and Spirit

by Dale R. Stoffer

Dale R. Stoffer (M.Div., ATS; Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary) is Professor of Historical Theology at ATS.

Introduction

When the established churches of the Protestant Reformation identified the distinguishing features of their ecclesiology or doctrine of the church, they invariably underscored the Word and Sacrament. Both the Lutheran and Reformed churches maintained that the twofold marks of the true church were the proper preaching of the Word and the proper administration of the Sacraments. This emphasis on the Word and Sacrament yielded an approach to the doctrine of the church and even to the doctrine of salvation that would be in sharp contrast to both Anabaptist and Pietist ecclesiology and soteriology.

The Reformation brought some sharp differences of opinion over what authorities should guide the church in its discernment of truth. In one of the more colorful exchanges, the spiritualist, Thomas Muntzer, engaged in a spirited debate with Martin Luther over the priority of the Word or Spirit in issues of Christian practice. Following Luther’s ouster of a group of Spiritualists from Wittenberg, Muntzer was reported to have said that he would not trust Luther even if he swallowed a dozen Bibles, to which Luther replied that he would not trust Muntzer either, even if he had swallowed the Holy Spirit, feathers and all. Though neither Luther nor Muntzer would reflect the position held by the Anabaptists, Pietists, or Brethren regarding the role of the Word and Spirit, this exchange does illustrate the debate that occurred within Protestant ranks about the relative weight accorded to the Word and Spirit in the discernment of truth.

In this presentation I would like to consider how both Anabaptism and Pietism viewed the roles of the Word and Spirit in the discernment of truth (hermeneutics) and in guiding the individual and corporate lives of believers. I will then observe how these perspectives influenced the early Brethren. I will not survey the terrain extensively in this investigation but give a general overview of the subject, citing, where appropriate, some of the writings of individuals who would hold representative views on the subject at hand. I also want to weigh in on some of the ongoing discussions that have occurred in Brethren circles for which this investigation may provide more insight.

Word and Spirit in Anabaptist Thought

C. Arnold Snyder has observed that there is a “fundamental ‘inner/outer’ tension in the core Anabaptist principles.”[1] This tension derived from two convictions. First, at the heart of the tension was a recognition of the unique and indispensable roles played by the Spirit and Word (Scripture) in the Christian faith. In later Anabaptism this tension would be explicitly framed in terms of the inner Word, the Spirit, and the outer Word, Scripture. Within the early Anabaptist movement the relative weight to be given to the letter and Spirit was a significant debate, with more spiritualist Anabaptists like Hans Denck and Hans Hut emphasizing the role of the Spirit and more literalist Anabaptists like the Swiss Brethren, Menno Simons, and Dirk Philips emphasizing the role of the Word. Eventually, the literalist, biblicist position would dominate all the surviving Anabaptist movements, but the role of the Spirit was, by no means, overlooked.[2]

A second conviction related to this tension was that there must be an inherent linkage between the inner and outer. All Anabaptist groups maintained that there was a necessary relationship between the inner spiritual lives of Christians and their external lives and witness. In the early stages of the movement there was general consensus that the inner, spiritual, experiential element of the faith must precede and give life to the outward, corporate expressions of the faith. In time, however, the emphasis shifted toward an outward, legalistic approach to the faith as Mennonites, Swiss Brethren, and Hutterites alike became concerned about legislating the marks of the “true church.” In corresponding fashion the rationale for observing the outward ceremonies was that they were Christ’s commandment and therefore they were to be observed as a matter of obedience.[3] It is noteworthy that it is this stage of Anabaptism that would influence the early Brethren.

It cannot be emphasized enough that what distinguished the Anabaptists from other Reformation groups was the central role accorded the Holy Spirit. The reason why spiritualism tempted many Anabaptists was precisely because all Anabaptists gave special prominence to the work of the Spirit. In fact the three doctrinal areas in which the Anabaptists broke most sharply from the established churches—hermeneutics, that is, the interpretation of Scripture, individual salvation, and the nature of the church—were all given their unique slant because of the special working of the Spirit highlighted by Anabaptists in each of these doctrines.

With regard to the interpretation of Scripture, the Anabaptists advocated an entirely new authority base for this task. They held that every true believer had the Holy Spirit within and thereby was capable of understanding Scripture and engaging in its interpretation. Through the anointing of the Spirit they were able to discern the true meaning of Scripture; various Anabaptist writers referred to this work of the Spirit with the imagery of unlocking the truth of Scripture through the Key of David.[4]

Anabaptists freed the interpretation of Scripture from the domain of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, whether the teaching magisterium of Catholicism or, practically speaking, the Protestant clergy. This egalitarian approach encouraged even lay people to become well-versed scholars of Scripture, a characteristic that was often commented on by the authorities at the trials of Anabaptists.

Anabaptism at its best kept Word and Spirit together. In this way they avoided on one pole the danger of private illumination when the inner Spirit was overemphasized and on the other pole a legalistic or literalist approach to Scripture when the Word was given priority.

For Anabaptists the crucial dividing line between the kingdom of this world and the kingdom of Christ for the individual was the radical transformation of regeneration, through the renovating work of the Holy Spirit. The Anabaptists insisted, however, that this inner work of the Spirit must evidence itself outwardly; there is a necessary connection between inward faith and regeneration and the outward walk of discipleship. Because the established churches linked regeneration with infant baptism, there was not the expectation of radical change that was found in the Anabaptist view of the Christian life. For Anabaptists failure to evidence the fruit of regeneration in obedience and faithfulness brought into question the reality of the new birth.

One of the problematic aspects of the Anabaptist view of regeneration was highlighted by a discussion within Anabaptist circles about what gauge to use for evaluating the external witness of regeneration. The Swiss Brethren, as was also true of the Mennonites, argued that obedience was the external measuring stick for regeneration; Pilgram Marpeck argued that both love and obedience should be the gauges for regeneration, though practically he gave priority to love over law.[5] In time this emphasis on obedience would lead all surviving Anabaptist groups to establish strict community boundaries through literal “rules of life,” which were enforced by the ban.

Marpeck’s call for balance between love and law went unheeded. C. Arnold Snyder also observes that the increasing focus on maintaining strict corporate boundaries was accompanied by diminishing attention on “individual reception of the Holy Spirit, repentance, faith, and regeneration.”[6] A pastoral approach to the Christian life needs to balance love and law, the inner and outer evidences of regeneration; in addition, the early Anabaptist conviction that the inner dimensions of regeneration must precede and enliven the outward walk of discipleship needs to be upheld. True discipleship originates in a spiritually transformed heart; it cannot be realized through an external legal code or threat of punishment.[7]

The same inner/outer balance seen in the interpretation of Scripture and individual discipleship is also evident in the Anabaptist understanding of community. The community was formed of those who had been inwardly renewed by the power of the Holy Spirit. Such a view, which is the cornerstone for all Believers Churches, represented a radical departure from the view of the church among the established churches. For Catholicism, the church gains its validity from its apostolic succession while for both the Lutheran and Reformed traditions the true church is marked by its clergy who serve as guarantors of correct doctrine and sacramental practice. In the Anabaptist tradition, it is much more the people, in contrast to the clergy, upon whom the onus rests for being a true church of God.

An exercise that I do with my students to illustrate this point is to compare marks of the true church found in Mennonite writings with those set forth in Lutheran and Reformed circles. For example, Menno Simons offers the following marks of the true church:

1. Pure doctrine
2. Scriptural use of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper
3. A holy life derived from obedience to the Word
4. Unfeigned brotherly love
5. Open confession of Christ
6. Suffering for the sake of Christ and His Word[8]

The second list of marks comes from Dirk Philips, who was a contemporary leader of the Mennonites with Menno:

1. Pure doctrine
2. Scriptural use of the sacraments of baptism and the Supper
3. The feet washing of the saints
4. Evangelical separation
5. Christ’s command of brotherly love
6. The keeping of all Christ’s commands
7. Suffering and persecution[9]

In the Anabaptist tradition the true church will be a visible church in which the full body of believers outwardly testify to their inner regeneration by their lives.

Note further the descriptions of the church in the following two quotations that reinforce the role of the Spirit and Word but that also underscore the visibility of the church; listen for terms like pure, holy, pious. The first quotation is from Menno Simons:

… the community of God, or the church of Christ, is an assembly of the pious, and a community of the saints, as also the Nicene symbol puts it, which from the beginning firmly trusted and believed in the promised Seed of the woman, which is … Christ; the which will accept and believe to the end His Word in sincerity of heart, follow His example, be led by His Spirit, and trust in His promise, as the Scriptures teach.[10]

The second quote is from an outstanding Hutterite leader, Peter Riedemann:

We confess also that God has, through Christ, chosen, accepted and sought a people for himself, not having spot, blemish, wrinkle, or any such thing, but pure and holy, as he, himself, is holy. Therefore is such a people, community, assembly or church gathered and led together by the Holy Spirit, which from henceforth rules, controls and orders everything in her, leading all her members to be of one mind and intention (so that they want only to be like Christ, to partake of his nature and diligently to do his will), cleaving to him as a bride and spouse to her bridegroom, yea, as one body with him, one tree, bearing and giving one kind of fruit …[11]

The community served as the anchor for Anabaptist theology and spirituality, for it sought consensus on matters of doctrine and practice and gave shape to the life of the Spirit through its corporate life, ceremonies, and ordinances. In time, however, community came to play an increasingly significant theological role so much so that it limited and even circumscribed both pneumatology, the doctrine of the Spirit, and soteriology, the doctrine of salvation. The role of the Spirit was increasingly restricted in its expression to the carefully delimited boundaries and prescribed practices of the church while salvation was demarcated by particular outward expressions of obedience; transgression of these boundaries called for discipline, including the ban.

I find it intriguing that over the history of the Mennonite movement in America and also in Russia, Mennonites have been most tempted to leave the Mennonite fold for those movements that have a more open understanding of the Spirit’s work: this includes the Brethren in the early 1700s, the River Brethren in the late 1700s, the Mennonite Brethren in the 1800s in Russia, and the holiness movement in the late 1800s and early 1900s. At the very heart of early Anabaptism was an experiential, spiritually sensitive quality that many later Mennonites apparently still yearned for as the movement increasingly emphasized the outward, communal elements of the faith.

Word and Spirit in Pietism

Like Anabaptism, Pietism can also be called a movement of the Word and Spirit. Those points at which Pietism departed most significantly from Lutheran orthodoxy were characterized by greater openness to the working of the Spirit. Specifically, Pietism sought a better balance between the Word and Spirit regarding the doctrine of Scripture and gave special prominence to the Spirit’s work of new birth and new life through the preaching and reading of the Word.

Pietism shared with Anabaptism the conviction that the illumination of the Holy Spirit is absolutely necessary for a salvific understanding of Scripture and, further, that this illumination was available to all who seek God. Pietists spoke of Scripture possessing both an outer Word, the actual letters on the page, and an inner Word, the spiritual understanding of the written words for which the enlightenment of the Spirit was necessary. In contrast, Lutheran Orthodoxy believed that Scripture received its unique sense at original inspiration; there was no need for a contemporary working of the Spirit from outside of Scripture. Even the unregenerate could understand and defend the divine truths of Scripture. The Pietist view of Scripture freed the Spirit from this overly objective view held by Orthodoxy and opened the pages of Scripture to the believing masses at the same time.[12]

Pietism also shared with Anabaptism the conviction that regeneration is a work of the Holy Spirit that makes possible the transformation of individual believers into Christlikeness. Interestingly, Spener, who sought to remain a faithful son of the Lutheran Church while at the same time advocating the necessity of renewal within Lutheranism, was forced into an unusual view of regeneration. He upheld the traditional Lutheran view of infant baptism that tied regeneration to this sacrament, but he also realized that many Lutherans failed to evidence the fruit of regeneration in a truly transformed life. He therefore developed the position that baptismal new birth could be and often was lost and needed recovery. This recovery occurred through a later rebirth effected through a faith response to the Word. Spener occupied a middle position between the sacramental understanding of baptism of Luther and a view reflecting a more mystical, spiritualist perspective. Though wanting to remain true to Luther, his movement away from an objectively powerful Word and Sacrament toward the subjective work of the Holy Spirit opened the door for later Pietists, especially the Radicals, to focus more fully on the role of the Spirit in salvation and ecclesiology.[13]

Brief consideration of Spener’s doctrine of the church reinforces this point. Spener retained the Augustinian view of the visible/invisible church. The visible church, composed of all church members, is a mixed body of the faithful and the lost. The invisible church is the true church composed of true believers from all times and places. This view of course is radically different from the Anabaptist concept of the church that held that the visible church, as the Body of Christ, must be composed only of those who desire to be Christ’s faithful disciples.

Yet Spener moved away from a purely objective view of the church which held that the church is holy only because of the holiness of her Lord to a more historical or individual perspective that holiness must also be a subjective reality of the church because its members seek to live holy lives themselves. Spener hoped to be able to bring about reform within the Lutheran Church by reforming the lives of individual believers through his conventicles, what we would call today small groups; this perspective represents a kind of church-within-the-church model. Here again Spener paved the way for later Pietists to focus more fully on the individual walk of discipleship rather than the corporate life of the church.[14]

Generally speaking, Pietism focused more on the life of individual believers than did Anabaptism both for the above reason of seeking reform through individual believers but also for another reason that is important for our consideration of the Brethren. Among more radical Pietists, Spener’s criticism of the church of his day became despair that the formal church of any brand could be reformed. They developed as a guiding principle the conviction that any formal, organized church will inevitably begin to evidence the signs of fallen Christendom—ritualism, legalism, pharisaism, externalism. The radicals had no desire whatsoever to create a new, let alone reform the old, church.

The defining difference between the church-related Pietism of Spener and the church-rejecting Pietism of the radicals can be reduced to how they perceived the work of the Spirit. As we have seen, Spener had already begun to move away from the rigidly objective view of Orthodoxy that subsumed the Holy Spirit’s work within the Word, the church, and the Sacraments. Yet, he sought a balance between the Word and Spirit, a middle position between Lutheran Orthodoxy on one hand and the mystical, spiritualist position on the other.

The Radical Pietists, however, broke almost any ties between the Spirit and the Word and church. They held that those who followed Scripture in a prescriptive or legalistic way turned it into a dead letter. Those who stayed within formal churches were part of the great fallen Babel that God would one day bring to an end.

Radical Pietists like Gottfried Arnold and Ernst Christoph Hochmann von Hochenau gave preference to the Spirit over the Word, sacraments, or church (Arnold would in time, however, return to the Lutheran fold). Notably, Hochmann believed that only the Spirit’s call was necessary to establish leaders among God’s people; that the sacraments of baptism and communion were immaterial and should be replaced by inward baptism and inward spiritual communion; that the formal church should be replaced by the informal community of spiritual brothers and sisters. It is from this matrix that the Brethren were born.

Word and Spirit among the Early Brethren

Most of the early Brethren were former Radical Pietists. They had left the German Reformed, Lutheran, or Mennonite folds for a spiritual fellowship without ecclesiastical boundaries, sacraments, and formally recognized clergy. So what changed?

Alexander Mack, Jr., reveals that what caused them to question their Radical Pietist assumptions was not necessarily their unbaptized state, though this was clearly a concern (remember as Radical Pietists they had already rejected the validity of their baptisms as infants). Rather, their reading of Matthew 18:15–18 led them to acknowledge both that there was no practice of discipline within their spiritualized fellowship and, even more importantly, that a formally gathered church was necessary to realize Jesus’ call for a disciplined body.

Interestingly, note that following the initial baptisms that formed the Brethren, Hochmann did not criticize the Brethren for their practice of baptism and communion, which could be performed with the proper inward devotion to the Spirit. What he cautioned against and later severely criticized was the sectarian spirit that they displayed in urging others about the necessity of outward baptism; that is, they were falling under the same spell of Babel that led the fallen sects to emphasize the outward, external forms of Christendom.[15]

Though the conviction to formally organize a new church through the act of believer baptism moved them in the direction of Anabaptism, they had no desire to associate themselves with these earlier Baptists. In typical Radical Pietist fashion, they viewed the Anabaptists of their day as one of the fallen sects of Christendom.[16] As Alexander Mack stated in his work, Basic Questions …, “… we consider our church fellowship superior to these now-deteriorated Baptists [Mennonites], with whom we are acquainted, and whom we know. The reason is that they have deteriorated in doctrine and life, and have strayed far from the doctrine and life of the old Baptists [Anabaptists].”[17] Nonetheless Mack highly respected the original beliefs of the Anabaptists, for he states: “We are completely agreed with them as far as their doctrine is concerned, which does not teach anything in contradiction to the gospel.”[18]

I should note that Alexander Mack and another of the original eight, Andreas Boni, were well acquainted with the Anabaptists, both the Swiss Brethren and the Mennonites.[19] In fact, there were Swiss Brethren congregations in the Palatinate with which Mack was probably familiar both before and during his Radical Pietist years.[20]

What drew him to the Anabaptists? He certainly would have shared the sentiments of such Radical Pietists as Gottfried Arnold and Hochmann who praised them for their brotherly love, freedom from ties to the state, simple obedience, piety, godly lives, steadfastness in persecution, and defenselessness.[21] But the Mennonites and Swiss Brethren also provided him with perspectives that would not have been supported by his Radical Pietist associates: emphasizing obedience to all the commands of Christ, specifically the outward practices of baptism, communion, and discipline; following the New Testament as the law of God written on believers’ hearts; maintaining discipline, including excommunication when necessary, within the community of faith. Obviously these emphases parallel the thought and practice of the Anabaptists and, just as importantly, reflect a noticeable shift toward the outer Word in contrast to the inner Spirit.

In his adoption of positions similar to those of the Anabaptists, Mack was intentional about framing the issue within an inner/outer and Word/Spirit perspective. The very title of his longest tract demonstrates this point: A Brief and Simple Exposition of the Outward but Yet Sacred Rights and Ordinances of the House of God Commanded and Bequeathed in Writing in His Testament … The polemics of this title are aimed directly at the Radical Pietists, who rejected the necessity of outward rights and ordinances. Mack wants to make it abundantly clear that even though baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and discipline, which, interestingly are the first three topics discussed in this work, are external practices, they are nonetheless sacred because they have been commanded by none other than our sovereign House-Father.

Within this work Mack makes use of the inner/outer language at several points—in discussing discipline and Scripture and especially in an extended discussion of the outward and inward Word.[22] Reflecting both Anabaptist and Pietist thought on the subject, Mack held that there is complete harmony between the outward Word, the letter of Scripture, and the inward Word, the law of God written on believers’ hearts by the Holy Spirit.[23] Invariably these discussions are aimed at the Radical Pietists and their failure to be obedient to the command of God concerning the outward practices of the church.

Mack would have agreed with early Anabaptism regarding the inner/outer nature of the three doctrinal areas noted above that were central to 16th century Anabaptism: the right of believers to interpret the Word due to the Spirit’s indwelling, the necessity of regeneration through the work of Word and Spirit, and the foundational role of Word and Spirit in ecclesiology. Nevertheless, Mack would have leaned toward the outer side of the balance in all three doctrines because his writings in Schwarzenau were aimed primarily at the Radical Pietists. He touches on all three doctrines in one extended quotation that is unequivocally directed at the Radical Pietists—those who had left the great outward Babel. He states:

How many souls have been awakened [or regenerated] and have forsaken the great harlot—have gone out of the great outward Babel [the established churches]—and have fallen in illicit love in various ways with the teachings of Jesus? One takes here a verse of the [New] Testament, and another takes there a verse, and with these they make love illicitly.… One inclines to this opinion, the other to that. The one holds to this spirit, the other to that. All this time they remain together in this illicit love. Yes, it is said among them, ‘Love covers all, and condemns none.’ 

It is true that this uninhibited love covers all, for it is not a marriage with Christ and His church to walk according to His rules, in which there is no room for illicit love, but rather a love which hates all that is evil, wicked and sinful, if it is not to be false (Romans 13:9).[24]

Note Mack’s argument that appeal to the Spirit in interpreting Scripture in a way that violates the true teachings of Christ is an illicit use of Scripture. He implies that being awakened or regenerated does not free one to live outside the bounds of accountability to the commands Christ. And he clearly maintains that those truly married to Christ, a favorite image of the Radical Pietists, will not forsake the discipline of the church.

It is ironic that even though Mack was critical of the Anabaptists of his day, he made abundant use throughout his writings of ideas that reflect later Anabaptism: the New Testament as a new law, the language of obedience to Christ’s commands, the view of God as the Householder who has given us commands to follow in his household.

Word and Spirit among the Colonial Brethren

In spite of the fact that the early Brethren shifted the balance between inner and outer to the outward side in their response to Radical Pietism, they did not, however, forsake the conceptual framework of the importance of both inward and outward elements of the faith. In fact, the Brethren in colonial America made even more explicit use of the inner/outer concept, applying it to a host of practices to stress that each had both an inner, spiritual quality and an outward, practical expression. Notably communion, baptism, feetwashing, marriage, and the Sabbath were specifically portrayed by various Brethren writers as having inner and outer qualities; additionally the Word and Spirit are kept in a dialectical balance as are openness to new truth and the expectation for corporate consensus based on Scripture.[25]

It is also true that Brethren interaction with Radical Pietists, Quakers, and the Ephrata community in the New World caused them to continue to highlight the outward elements of the faith. This point was not overlooked by these religious rivals who criticized them for following a “dead letter.” In one of the more interesting observations, the Ephrata Chronicle noted: “Those who know how the affairs stood between the two congregations know also that a close union between them was impossible; for they were born of diverse causes, since the one [the Brethren] had the letter as its foundation, and the other [Ephrata] the spirit; and while they both had the same Father, they had different mothers.”[26]

The two Brethren in colonial America whose thought most explicitly reflected the inner/outer dialectic were Michael Frantz and Alexander Mack, Jr.; I will focus on Frantz. In his Simple Doctrinal Considerations Michael Frantz penned 507 stanzas of poetry of four lines each. The language of inner and outer is laced throughout this poetry. In fact one stanza of poetry is specifically devoted to a Brethren understanding of the relationship between the inner and outer. Frantz states:

The outward proceeds from the inward
Otherwise it is the letter which only kills,
The outward has merely shown,
That mans submits himself afterward.[27]

Concluding Observations

It is not my intention to detail the development of this inner/outer thought through the rest of Brethren history. I would argue, however, based on this brief study, that the construct of the inner and outer played a constitutive role in early Brethren thought just as it did for the early Anabaptists and the Pietists. But I do want to make some observations about this concept as it relates to later Brethren developments and to conversations over the last fifty years about what constitutes the genius of the Brethren.

As we have seen, it is difficult to maintain a creative balance between the inner, spiritual dynamics of the faith and the outer, corporate elements. The tendency is always to move toward more fixed, formal expressions of faith. This has been true of nearly every Christian movement including the early church.

By the 19th century the Brethren, like the Anabaptists before them, made a formal, fixed order of the church the gauge for measuring one’s fidelity to Christ and the church. The balance continued to shift toward the outward; the Spirit’s working was set within the confines of a set order of salvation and a strict order of the church maintained by church discipline.

Though both Progressives (The Brethren Church) and Conservatives (the Church of the Brethren) at different paces distanced themselves from this traditional order, both failed to release the Spirit from the bounds of soteriology and ecclesiology. Both churches, in their desire to keep pace with the times, adopted a professional model of church life and ministry. In this concept of the church, educated ministry all too often have become responsible for the proper interpretation of Scripture; people in the pews are less conversant with the written Word and, thereby, are poorly positioned for hearing the inner witness of the Spirit. More time and energy are devoted to the life of the institution rather than the life of the Spirit: keeping all the committees and boards on task, caring for the budget and building, debating the virtues of traditional versus contemporary forms of worship.

I confess that I struggle with these same issues. But I believe our Anabaptist, Pietist, and Brethren heritage offers some insights about how to maintain a proper balance between the inner and outer, between the Spirit and the Word. A living, vital relationship with Christ has within it a dynamic that keeps the inner and outer aspects of the faith in balance. It is the work and ministry of Christ that can mediate the inner and outer in the areas we have been discussing. Neither the Word nor the Spirit provides the full measure of truth; truth is fully personified only in Jesus Christ. Outside of a living relationship with Christ, obedience to the Word can become a pharisaical, legalistic pursuit that can use Scripture in a loveless, judgmental manner; Christ breathes life and love into the Word. When the Spirit is sought independent of the Word, the result may lead either to direct illumination independent of the One to whom the Spirit testifies or to a purely inward spirituality devoid of a desire to engage the external world; Christ gives substance to the Spirit.

We must avoid either an inward, individualized approach to faith which forsakes the call heard by the early Brethren to an accountable relationship to Christ’s body, or a view of salvation which forsakes the radical transformation of regeneration by substituting treasured aspects of our heritage, good as they may be. I probably should list these aspects of our heritage: specific outward forms or order, a conservative ethical code of do’s and dont’s, simple living, Christian service, our peace witness. Biblical salvation, as the Brethren have always understood it, is found in a growing relationship of love with and trust in Christ that begins with regeneration and ends, ultimately, with Christlikeness. Our heritage is important, but only as it grows from this center. As with the Anabaptists, Brethren maintain that faith must, however, demonstrate itself outwardly in love of neighbor, humble service, a nonresistant lifestyle, holy living, and accountability to the community, all modeled after Christ’s own teachings and example.

The Brethren understanding of the church rejects on one hand a spiritualized community without accountability and outward forms and on the other a community whose boundaries are rigidly enforced to maintain the purity of the body at the expense of compassion and persevering love. This may be the most difficult balance to maintain. Our Brethren groups have gone through periods of extremes: on one extreme a rigid enforcement of a strict order or of a conservative ethic and at the other extreme a porous ecclesial boundary that leads to a church that more and more mirrors the values of American culture, whether of the right or the left. Christ modeled a life that called the sinner to repentance and new life but drew the sinner through love. The early Brethren were right in seeing discipline as an important element in a gathered church, but discipline should always go the extra mile to draw the errant member back to the body through love rather than excise that person to preserve the church’s purity.

I want to conclude with some observations about a conversation that has been ongoing for over fifty years in Brethren circles: what constitutes the genius or essence of the Brethren faith and practice. Often this discussion has focused on the relative weight between Anabaptism and Pietism or Anabaptism and Radical Pietism in the identity of the early Brethren; I have done this as well. Some have given prominence to Anabaptism, others to Radical Pietism. Some have maintained that the Brethren left their Radical Pietist roots for Anabaptism. Others have seen the relationship as one of mutual reinforcement. It is certainly possible to find beliefs and practices adopted by the Brethren that derive primarily from either Anabaptism or Radical Pietism.

But I have come to the position that framing the discussion primarily around Anabaptism and Pietism is inadequate. There is a dialectic or balance inherent in the Brethren faith, but it is not a balance of Anabaptism and Pietism. Rather, it is a balance of the inner and outer, of the Spirit and Word. This dialectic was constitutive for both Anabaptism and Pietism; even Radical Pietists evaluated people and movements utilizing these terms. The Brethren, nurtured in the matrix of these ideas, naturally reflected this same conceptual framework.

It is true that there is a different spin put on the inner/outer balance by Anabaptists and Pietists. Though both Anabaptists and Pietists applied the inner and outer in a similar way regarding Scripture and salvation, Anabaptists gave more attention to the ecclesial application of this dialectic. This ecclesial emphasis, which was true of the Brethren as well, derived from the fact that both the Anabaptists and Brethren formed organized movements, while Pietism sought to be a reform movement within established churches and Radical Pietists rejected outright the idea of forming formal bodies.

The Brethren faith is at its best when it keeps the life-giving work of the Spirit, the inner element of the faith, foundational for the outward expressions of the faith, whether enlightenment of the Word, the works of an obedient faith, or the forms and activities of the gathered church. But Brethren reject any spiritualized view of the faith that fails to evidence the inner life of the Spirit in outward acts of love, service, nonresistance, and holiness. What maintains the proper tension of this dialectic is the life and example of Christ, who, by his Spirit, indwells his people, individually and corporately.

Notes

1. C. Arnold Snyder, Anabaptist History and Theology (Kitchener, Ontario: Pandora Press, 1995): 299.
2. Ibid., 302.
3. Ibid., 302, 384, 386.
4. See, for example, Hans Denck and Pilgram Marpeck in Anabaptism in Outline, Walter Klaassen, ed. (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1981): 74, 79.
5. Snyder, Anabaptist History and Theology, 353.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid., 386.
8. Menno Simons, “Reply to Gellius Faber,” in The Complete Writings of Menno Simons, c. 1494–1561, John C. Wenger, ed. (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1956), 743.
9. Dietrich Philip, “The Church of God,” in Enchiridion or Hand Book of the Christian Doctrine and Religion … (Aylmer, Ontario: Pathway Publishing Corporation, 1966), 383–398.
10. Menno Simons, “Reply to Gellius Faber,” 734.
11. Peter Riedemann, “Account of Our Religion, Doctrine and Faith,” in Denck and Marpeck, Anabaptism in Outline, 111.
12. K. James Stein, Philip Jakob Spener: Pietist Patriarch (Chicago, IL: Covenant Press, 1986), 152–153.
13. Ibid., 218–220.
14. Ibid., 208–209, 226.
15. Donald F. Durnbaugh, comp. and trans., European Origins of the Brethren (Elgin, IL: The Brethren Press, 1958), 124–128, 206–210.
16. Mack specifically uses the German word verfallen to describe the Anabaptists of his day, the very word Gottfried Arnold applied to all the fallen sects of Babel.
17. Alexander Mack, “Basic Questions”, in Durnbaugh, European Origins, 340.
18. Mack, Basic Questions, 340.
19. Hans Schneider, German Radical Pietism, trans. Gerald T. MacDonald (Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2007), 109.
20. For an extended discussion of the possible Swiss Brethren influence on the Brethren, see Dale R. Stoffer, “A Swiss Brethren (Anabaptist) Source for the Beliefs of Alexander Mack and the Early Brethren,” Brethren Life and Thought 48 (Winter and Spring 2003): 29–38.
21. See a discussion of the Radical Pietist perception of the Mennonites in Dale R. Stoffer, Background and Development of Brethren Doctrines 1650–1987 (Philadelphia, PA: Brethren Encyclopedia, 1989), 57.
22. Alexander Mack, “Rights and Ordinances,” in Durnbaugh, European Origins, 371, 385, 386–388.
23. Ibid., 386.
24. Ibid., 380.
25. Stoffer, Background and Development, 92, 94–97.
26. Lamech and Agrippa [pseud.], Chronicon Ephratense: A History of the Community of Seventh Day Baptists of Ephrata, Lancaster County, Penn’a, trans. J. Max Hark (Lancaster, PA: S. H. Zahn and Co., 1899; reprint ed., New York: Burt Franklin, 1972), 50.
27. Stoffer, Background and Development, 97.