Showing posts with label scripture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label scripture. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Creation and Covenant: The Story of Scripture

The Following is a story I wrote for a class I took called, Reading the Scripture in the Church. I hope you enjoy it.


Creation and Covenant: The Story of Scripture
Timothy Wenger
BTS 5310
2015-04-10


Prologue: Creation and Sin

In the beginning was God the Creator.

And the Creator spoke into the nothingness and created light. The Creator loves light.

The Creator spoke again and created sky. The Creator loves sky.

The Creator spoke again and created land and sea. The Creator loves land and sea.

The Creator spoke again and created plants. The Creator loves the plants.

The Creator spoke again and created the sun and the stars. The Creator loves the sun and the stars.

The Creator spoke again and created fish and birds. The Creator loves fish and birds.

The Creator spoke and created animals for the land. God loves animals.

The Creator spoke and said “Let us make humans, who can care for what we’ve created. They will be our face on creation.” So the Creator created humans, and they were given the earth to care for. The Creator loves humans.

So the Creator had created, and created a way to care for the creation. When this was all done, the Creator rested.

But the humans didn’t care for creation. They wanted to be more than just the creator’s face, they wanted to be creators.

They created separation from the Creator by not obeying the Creator
They created enmity with each other through violence
They created destruction of nature by building cities

The Creator still loved the Creation, and so the Creator creates one more time: The Creator creates a Covenant.

Act 1: The Covenanting God
Act 1: Scene 1 Covenant with the World
The Creator mourned the hurt caused to creation, and looked at the humans and saw that there was one left who had not participated in this destruction. This human was Noah.
God spoke to Noah and told him that God was going to create a fresh start for creation. The Creator told Noah to build a large boat to hold all of the different birds and animals. Noah obeyed, and when he finished building the boat, The Creator brought all of the different animals to the boat, once the animals were on board, Noah and his family entered the boat as well. Then the Creator sent rain and flooded the earth.
            Noah and his family waited on the boat until the water receded. They found themselves on top of a mountain. Noah thanked God for saving them and all of the animals.
            Because they were created in God’s image, God told the humans that they cannot kill each other and that though they were now allowed to eat animals, they must drain the lifeblood out of them as a sign of life’s importance. In return Creator made a covenant with Noah and all of creation, that God will never again destroy the earth. As a sign, God placed a rainbow in the sky, so that all would remember the covenant God made with creation.

Act 1: Scene 2: Covenant with a Family
            So Noah’s descendants populated the world. But rather than spreading out and allowing the land to sustain them, they created a city, with a massive tower as a challenge to God’s authority. So God forced them to spread out by making them speak different languages, but the humans still did not understand their proper relationship with God, the land and each other.
            There is a man named Abram, who was married to Sarai, God called them to leave their home and come to a land that God would show them. God made them a promise that Abram’s family will become a great nation, that will be prosperous, and that will bless all peoples. So Abram and Sarai and their household left their home. God showed them the land of Canaan, and told them that though there are people living there now, one day Abram’s family will possess the land. God makes a covenant with Abram that Abram will father many nations, changing Abram’s name to Abraham and Sarai’s to Sarah, God promised to give the land of Canaan Abraham’s descendants’ and to be their God. God tells Abraham to circumcise all of the men in his household as a sign of God’s Covenant with Abraham. This covenant is God’s plan to help all people come back into a proper relationship with God, the Land and each other.

Act 1: Scene 3: Covenant with a Nation
            Sarah gave birth to Isaac, who in return had a son named Jacob, and God made this same covenant with them, that they would become a great nation, be given land, and be a blessing to all nations. During a famine, Jacob and his family moved to Egypt thanks to his son Joseph.
            But after Joseph’s death, there was a new Pharaoh of Egypt who did not know about Joseph. Jacob’s family had grown exponentially into a people group called the Hebrews. The new Pharaoh was worried that they might take over Egypt. So the pharaoh enslaved them, making them build many projects. But the Hebrews remembered the covenant that God made with their foreparents, and cried out to God to save them.
            God heard them and remembered the covenant that God had made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. A Hebrew named Moses was hiding in Midian after killing an Egyptian. His father in law, Jethro, was the high priest there, and Moses tended Jethro’s flocks. One day a sheep wandered away from the herd and Moses had to go after it. The Sheep climbed up a mountain, and went into a cave. Moses followed after it and found a bush that was on fire but was not being consumed.
            And The Creator God spoke again. God told Moses that the God of Abraham has heard the cries of God’s people. God chose Moses to free the Hebrew slaves from Egypt and lead them to the Land God promised to their foreparents.
            Moses was unsure that he could do this. God gave him another name for God to tell the elders of the Hebrews: “I AM WHO I AM.” This is a promise that God’s identity will be revealed to them through God’s actions.
            Moses returns to Egypt, and tells the Pharaoh that God wanted the Hebrews to be free. Pharaoh refused, and makes the Hebrews work even harder. In response God sent 10 Disasters on Egypt, demonstrating that the great I AM controls all of Creation. But it took the final disaster, the death of all the first born sons of Egypt for the king of Egypt to allow the Hebrews to go free. After the Hebrews had left, Pharaoh decided that he had made a mistake and wanted the Hebrews back, so Pharaoh’s army was sent to recapture the Hebrews. Moses and the Hebrews were caught between the Pharaoh’s army on one side and the Red Sea on the other. God told Moses to put his staff into the water and the sea parted for them to walk across. Once they got across, the sea crashed down onto the Egyptian army and the Hebrews were safe.
            Moses led the Hebrews through the wilderness. When they were thirsty, God gave them water, when they were hungry, God gave them bread called manna and quail. Moses was very busy with leading the Hebrews when his father in law came to visit him. When Jethro saw how busy Moses was, he told Moses that Moses was supposed to be the Hebrews’ representative to God, and that he needed to delegate his judging duties so he could focus on teaching the Hebrews what God wanted them to do.
            Shortly afterwards, they arrived at Mount Sinai. Moses climbed the mountain and God made an offer. Since God had saved the Hebrews from Egypt, if they kept God’s covenant, then God would make them into a Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation. They would demonstrate to the world how to be in right relationship with God. Moses brought this offer to the Elders of this new nation, Israel, and they accepted. Moses returned to the top of the Mountain, and God gave him the 10 Commandments that made up basics of the covenant. On top of that, God gave more instructions about how to be in right relation to God, others, and the creation. Include instructions for a tent that God could meet with them.


Act 2: Israel living under the Covenant
Act 2: Scene 1: The Land of the Covenant
            Moses led them to Canaan, but when Moses sent in spies to examine the land, while they saw that the land was fertile, most of them were afraid of the inhabitants of the land, only Joshua and Caleb believed that God would hand them the land. Because of this, God made Israel wander in the wilderness until the generation that did not trust God passed away. Before Moses died, he taught the new Generation about the Covenant that God made with their parents. The people recommitted to the Covenant with God, and God allowed them to enter the Promised Land.
            God then chose Joshua to lead the people of Israel. As they approached the City of Jericho, Joshua sent spies to examine the city. They were almost caught, but a prostitute named Rahab let them hide on her roof, after the city officials escape, they promised Rahab and her family safety.
            When Israel came to Jericho, instead of attacking, God told them to walk around the city. After seven days of walking around the city, the priests blew their trumpets and the walls came tumbling down. The Israelites killed everyone except for Rahab and her family. Israel swept through Canaan, God conquering town after town for them. Once Israel had taken over, Joshua gathered the People of Israel at Shechem and they renewed the covenant they made with God.

Act 2: Scene 2: The Cycle of Covenant
            But once Israel got into the land, they fulfilled their part of the covenant for a while, but eventually they would stop living in right relationship with each other and with God. When this would happen, God would allow the remaining inhabitants of the land to oppress Israel until they called for help. God would raise up a Judge who would lead the Israelites to freedom, they would renew their covenant and live faithfully for a while, but eventually sin again and repeat the cycle.
            One such Judge was Deborah, who rallied Israel and defeats the Jabin King of Canaan, another was Gideon who led Israel against the Midianites. When Gideon rallied thirty thousand soldiers, God told him to send home 29700 of them so Israel could not think that they did it by themselves, rather they needed to rely on God.

Act 2 Scene 2: A Love Story
            During the time of the judges, an Israelite named Elimelek went to Moab to escape a famine with his wife and two sons, while there his two sons married Moabite women. But by the time the famine ended, both Elimelek and his two sons had died. His wife Naomi, was left in a foreign land with two daughters in law, Orpah and Ruth. Naomi decided to return to Israel. She told her daughters in law to go back to their families, but Ruth refused saying that she would stay with Naomi. They returned to Israel. Because they did not have any way to make money, Ruth would go to a nearby farm and pick up the shafts of wheat the laborers left behind. One day as she was picking up wheat. The owner of the farm, Boaz saw her and fell madly in love with her. Boaz told her that instead of walking behind the labourers, she could pick alongside the women who worked for him. When Ruth returned home with the extra food, she told Naomi what had happened. When the harvest was finished, there was a big party, and Ruth slept with Boaz. Boaz tells her that he loves her and they get married, and Naomi was invited to live with them.



Act 2: Scene 3: David’s Covenant
            Several years later, there was a Judge named Samuel. Even though the people knew that God was supposed to be their leader, they wanted a king like the nations around them. Samuel and God tried to dissuade them, but the people were adamant. God relented and allowed them to have a king, as long as God got to choose it. God’s first choice, Saul, did well initially, but eventually became too power hungry, so God chose another, David, the youngest child of a shepherd, the grandson of Ruth.
            David turned out to be a better King. He brought peace to the kingdom and even though he committed significant sins, he truly desired to obey God. When David tried to build a temple for God. God refuses to allow David, a warrior king to build God’s Temple, rather God makes another covenant. God will make David’s name great, and David will always have an heir to the thrown in Jerusalem.

Act 2: Scene 4: Kings and Prophets
            God allowed David’s son Solomon to build God a temple. Solomon spared no expense as he built a home for God. God lived among the people. But after Solomon’s death, his son forced the people of Israel to build too many projects. As a result the Nation of Israel split into two, the northern ten tribes became Israel, while Southern two tribes became Judah, David’s heirs remained king in Jersusalem, but their kingdom was diminished. God continuously called both kingdoms to remember the Covenant they had made with God. But while they would follow covenant for a while, eventually they would fall into idol worship, and injustice. When this happened, God would send a prophet, who would bring them back to the Covenant. The prophets warned Israel and Judah that eventually God would eventually lose patience with their ignoring the covenant and would eventually remove them from the land of the covenant. During Hoshea’s reign in Israel, Shalmaneser, King of Assyria conquered the northern Kingdom and sent the people of Israel into exile.
            Judah continued in this cycle for a while. When Josiah was King, they were cleaning out the temple and found a copy of the Covenant. Josiah had it read to the people, and they made a new covenant with God that they would obey God’s teachings. However, later kings brought the people back into idolatry, and God eventually allowed Babylon to conquer them, destroy the temple and send the people of Judah into exile as well.

Act 2: Scene 5: Exile and Return
            God did not forget God’s people though. Even though they were sent into Exile, God continued to send prophets, who told them to settle in to where they were and care for the wellbeing of their new homes. Eventually Babylon was defeated by Persia, and Cyrus allowed people in exile to return to their homes. A few of the People of Judah (or Jews) returned home, but because they had been in exile for so long, many decided to stay where they were. The Jews that returned home rebuilt the temple. There was a sense in which the exile had not ended because so many Jews were still outside of the land of the Covenant.  


Intermission: Scene Change
            Many years later, Rome has taken over a large part of the world. They had control of the Jewish homeland, and taxed the people heavily. The Jews wished to be free from this oppression. Many believed that God would send a leader like the prophets and judges of old who will save them. Some people, who called themselves the Pharisees thought that they needed to follow every commandment in the covenant to the letter and began building traditions around the Torah to keep them from breaking actual Torah, they hoped that when they did it good enough, God would send the leader. Others, called the Essenes believed that the world is too sinful and hid in the wilderness, waiting for the leader to come and lead them to battle to liberate the Jews. Others, called the zealots, believed that if they started the revolution, God would send the leader to them. The last group was the Sadducees, who did not necessarily like Rome, but Rome kept them in power so they wanted to keep the status quo. The common people also hated Rome, because they were taxed so heavily and hoped that the leader would come, but did not necessarily have a vested interest in how it would happen.

Act 3: Jesus and the New Covenant
            God did not forget the covenant, Israel was supposed to be the way in which the Creator reformed the world into the way it should be. With God, Humans and the rest of Creation all in right relationship with each other. It was time for the Jews to become the People of the Covenant. To do this, God needs to challenge their understanding of what it means to be a people of the Covenant. God sent part of Godself, the Son, Jesus to Earth, not as a warrior, but as a baby. Jesus is born a Jew, of the line of David, but he is also the descendent of Ruth and Rahab, non-Jews who were welcomed into Israel.
            When Jesus had grown up. God sent a man named John to prepare the Jews for the coming of the long expected leader. John told them to repent, John told them to take care of each other, sharing their possessions with those who had done, and to be baptized as a sign that they were becoming truly a part of the Covenant.
            Jesus one day came to where John is preaching, and told John to baptize him. When Jesus rose out of the water, a dove appeared in the sky, and God spoke saying “This is my Son, who makes me pleased.” From there, Jesus went into the wilderness where he was tempted to lead through social programs or acts of power, but Jesus passed the test. Jesus then began to call people to follow him.
            Jesus climbed the side of a mountain and taught those that followed him how to follow the covenant. It sounded different than how they remembered Moses teaching them about the Covenant. They had to love enemies. They had to set aside their own justice to bring others back into community, into right relationship.           
Jesus traveled around performing miracles, telling everyone that God was in charge again. He healed people who were not allowed in the community. He welcomed non-jews to live the way God wants humans to live. He challenged the status quo, telling the rich to not oppress the poor, and the religious leaders to not be hypocrites.
People listened to him, some of his followers were Zealots ready to fight, the crowd wanted to crown him King. When Jesus entered Jerusalem during the Passover, people said “blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord”.  It looked like he was going to free Israel from the Romans.
During the last night of the Passover, Jesus met with his followers. He washed their feet, and served the traditional Passover meal. But when he picked up the bread. Jesus said “This is my Body, broken for you”. Then when he picked up the cup of wine, he said “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”
Then Jesus got arrested. His rocking of the status quo and challenging the religion of the day pissed off both the Sadducees and the Pharisees. They brought him before the Roman authorities and said that he tried to cause an insurrection. Jesus was crucified, the penalty for rebellion.
Jesus’s followers were shocked and confused. What about restoring Israel so it could be the blessing for all nations? What about bringing God, humans and creation back into right relation?
            Jesus didn’t stay dead. God raised Jesus up, and Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary mother of James met him outside his tomb. Jesus was Resurrected. Jesus met with his disciples and told them to spread the good news that God is Charge to all nations. Jesus has completed his mission and ascended into heaven, promising to come back.

Act 4: The New Covenant
Act 4: Scene 1: The New Covenant Spreads
Jesus’ followers obey his commandments. God’s Spirit descends on them, and they preached that there was a new Covenant open to all. God is in charge, and that everyone should be in right relationship with God, fellow humans, and creation. Their message started in Jerusalem, spread to the rest of Judea, to Samaria and to the ends of the earth. As the message spread, groups of people, called churches, started to form who tried to live out the Covenant as best they could.
Church leaders started writing letters to distant congregations to help them understand what it means to live in the new Covenant. One of these leaders was Paul, who traveled a lot starting many new churches. As non-Jews joined this new covenant. The church realized that they need not be bound by the physical symbols that the old covenants used, as long as they only follow God, and love their neighbours.
Act 4: Scene 2: The Church Today
            The story doesn’t end there, today the Creator God calls us to enter into this new Covenant. The world has not had all of its relationships healed yet, so we need to continue to do that. We need to Follow Jesus’ teachings loving God and loving neighbour. We can look at the story that has happened before us, and learn from it.
            When we see oppression, we should remember that God saved the Israelites from oppression in Egypt and with the Judges, and that we are called to act for justice.
            When we see the poor, we should remember Ruth and Naomi who were welcomed back into the community through Boaz. When we see sexism, we should remember Rahab and Deborah, women whose action saved Israel. When we see racism and xenophobia, we should remember that Jethro, a Midianite, taught Moses how to lead his people, and that Rahab and Ruth were outsiders welcomed into the people of God.

Act 5: Return to Right Relationship with the Creator

            One Day, God will finish the work of the Covenant. Jesus will come back, and we will be in right relationship with God, and the rest of Creation. It will be like the beginning when God the Creator made everything. There will be no separation. Gender, language, and ethnicity will not be barriers. There will be justice for all. God will be in Charge.

Thursday, January 30, 2014

The Schleitheim Confession: From the Eyes of Zwingli and Calvin

The following is an essay I wrote for Theologies of the Reformations, a fourth year course at CMU that I took last term.


The Schleitheim Confession:
From the Eyes of Zwingli and Calvin

The “Brotherly Union of a Number of Children of God Concerning Seven Articles” or more commonly called the Schleitheim Confession was a document composed by Michael Sattler and ratified on February 24, 1527 by an assembly of Swiss Anabaptists gathered in Schleitheim to help discern who they were. It is comprised of seven articles, each focusing on a specific part of the faith that the Anabaptists felt was important. It was immediately very popular with the Anabaptists, and some of its positions have since become the norm for descendants of the Anabaptist movement like the Mennonites.[1]
Because of its prominence, both Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin responded to it. The Second part of Zwingli’s “In Catabapistarum Strophus Elenchus” or “Refutation of the Tricks of the Baptists” is a response to the seven articles in the Schleitheim Confession. It was written in July 1527 for four reasons, as a justification for his persecution of the Anabaptists, to answer internal struggles within himself, to respond to the growing presence of second generation Anabaptists (the original sex having died previous to its writing), and finally as the basis of a joint policy among the Reformed cantons, which would mark the beginning of even more persecution of the Anabaptists movement.[2] John Calvin also explored the seven articles in his “Brief Instruction for Arming All the Good Faithful Against The Errors of the Common Sect of the Anabaptists.” He wrote it following a request of William Farel in 1544 for help in refuting the Anabaptists’ claims.[3] While much of Calvin’s and especially Zwingli’s writings are quite vile towards the Anabaptists, this Essay extracts the major arguments of all three documents so as to inform our understanding of the theological debate in the Sixteenth Century about the Anabaptists.


Sattler on Baptism
            Baptism, the first article of the Schleitheim Confessions, was a key definer of the Anabaptist movement, hence the movement's name. Baptism is reserved for believers, who have been "been taught repentance and the amendment of life" and who believe that Jesus has saved them from their sins. Baptism represented dying and rising in Christ. Infant baptism was not considered valid, and in fact a papal abomination, because you had to be able to make the decision and ask for it yourself. Their sources for it were "the writings and the practice of the apostles" citing passages Mt. 28:19; Mk. 16:[1]6;[4] Acts 2:38; 8:36; 16:31-33; 19:4.[5]

Zwingli's Response
Zwingli agrees that baptism "should be administered to all in Christ, both penitents and those confessing that remission of sins is found" but he argues that the confession is thinly veiled justification by works, because while remission of sins is through Christ, it requires the person's elevated free will to walk in the resurrection of Christ in order for us to be saved. Zwingli sees this as being contrary to Jesus' words that no one comes to him unless the father sends them.[6]
Zwingli also notes an apparent contradiction between this first article and the seventh concerning oaths. Anabaptists refuse to swear oaths. However, they only baptize those who  "walk according to the resurrection of Christ" since this requires a promise that the person will try to do this, and yet will fail, making them liars why do you make them promise to something they cannot keep, while  refuse them from doing something that they can, like swear an oath? [7]
In terms of infant baptism, Zwingli has similar thoughts to Calvin (see below), connecting the practice to circumcision, arguing that the demand for a confession of faith before baptism was non biblical since those who were circumcised were generally unable to make said confession. Zwingli acknowledges that Anabaptists probably would not accept this since they ignore the old testament, even though Christ didn't, citing 1 Corinthian 10 and Colossians 3.[8]

Calvin's Response
            Calvin's response to the first article begins first with refuting the claim that infant baptism is a papal heresy. Instead, he says that there is not a single Doctor of the church who does not claim that the practice traces itself to the days of the apostles. While this wasn't a major claim for him, Calvin mentions it because one of his goals in the process was "informing the simple."[9] Even though the Catholic Church has been the ones preserving the practice, Calvin notes that its authority is not derived from tradition, and that it does not depend on humans to continue to continue its saving work.[10]
            Calvin notes that the Schleitheim Confession’s understanding comes from a combination of Matthew 28:19 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" and Mark 16:16 "whoever believes and is baptized will be saved," however, they are taking the portions about baptism out of context since baptism only comes secondary to the preaching and receiving of the Gospel.[11]
            Furthermore the salvation given to the one who believes in the good news is given to their children. As long they do not believe, then they are strangers to the church, but when salvation leads them into repentance and faith, their whole family becomes part of the church.[12] Instead of each person needing to understand the gospel in order to be baptized, as according to Schleitheim, the children are baptised based on the parent’s confession of faith. [13]
            Therefore the passages in Matthew and Mark only apply to people who are both able to be taught and outside the Christian church.[14] This is similar to how Abraham, who was an adult and was brought into God's "Church" thereby accepting God's covenant of circumcision which he passed down to future generations who received it while they were still infants.[15] St Paul shows this in action when he writes "For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy".[16] Calvin defends this use of the Old Testament covenant, by citing Paul again in Ephesians 2 where it says that Jesus came to earth to eliminate any difference between Jew and gentile so that both may be children of God.[17]
            Calvin also refutes the argument that since there is no evidence of the apostles baptizing infants then we should not do it, by arguing that there is no evidence that they gave the Lord's Supper to any women either, and yet we do not exclude them from God's grace, so why should we exclude infants from participating in baptism if God considers them God's servants?.[18]

Sattler on the Ban
The second article of the Schleitheim confession was about the Ban, or excommunication. An issue, which according to Kenneth R. Davis may actually rival baptism as one of the key concerns of the Anabaptists, for while Baptism determined membership into God's kingdom, it was church discipline that kept the kingdom pure. In fact, in their institution of the community, awareness of the need to restore the ban may have had priority.[19] The ban followed the rule of Christ in Matthew 18, if a brother or sister was sinning, then they should be warned twice privately, before being brought before the church for admonishment. Only after this third attempt was someone removed from the community. But this has to happen before communion because it is important that the holy body of Christ be united as they eat the one bread and drink from one cup.[20]

Zwingli's Response
            Zwingli makes an interesting mistake. Based on his reading of his own Latin translation of the Schleitheim confession, he accuses the Anabaptists of twisting the words around and saying that the third offense should result in the church's "correction" while the bible says "admonition" which would be an issue if this were the case, correction just means moving from a wrong position to a right position, while admonition includes a threat.[21] However, the original German used the term for admonition, a fact that Yoder preserves in his translation,[22] even though Yoder often preferred Zwingli's Latin for translating over German manuscripts.[23] It is surprising Zwingli would make such a mistake and in the process ruin his argument.[24],[25]
            However, he does raise a valid concern about the use of the Lord’s Supper as part of discipline. For Anabaptists, at the beginning of the observance, they had to “declare that they were willing to take the ban upon themselves when and if it would be pronounced” which could happen immediately thereafter.[26] Instead reminding them about concepts like the “wheat and tares”, which Calvin also uses (see below), saying that some Churches are too lax, while others are too hard.[27] He also accuses the Anabaptists of not being consistent with their use of the Ban. Pointing to the practice of the apostles where people who committed major crimes like homicide or adultery were excommunicated, and yet within the Anabaptists there was a member who had killed another Anabaptist, but was not excommunicated.[28]

Calvin's Response
            Calvin had to be careful in this section because Church Discipline was important to his work in Geneva. He began by affirming that the ban "is a sound and holy order, not only useful but also necessary".[29] However he thinks that the Anabaptists have stolen this idea from him (which is preposterous since he was still a roman catholic and only 16 years old when the Anabaptists wrote the Schleitheim confession in 1527)[30], however that they did so imperfectly, while the Calvinists teach the pure doctrine concerning the ban.[31]
            Calvin argues that while Anabaptists will not celebrate the Lord's supper in a congregation that does not practice the ban since that congregation is not a true church, and that those present who should be excommunicated pollute it; the Calvinists, believe that while it is unfortunate and imperfect when a church doesn't have the ban that does not stop it from being a true church. Calvinists also believe that it is wrong to separate from said church. Calvin notes that even though Paul is disappointed and admonishes the church at Corinth for not using the ban, he still called them a Christian church.[32]
            Calvin, then goes on to note that the church itself is corrupted for two reasons: first, that every member of the church is going to sin at some point and fall from perfection, so we always need God's amazing grace. And second, that even in a church with the ban, diligently working to enforce it, there are always going to be "evil hypocrites who infect the fellowship with their filthiness." Therefore, Calvin admonishes the reader to listen to the Lord who said that "it is necessary to tolerate many bad weeds for fear that if we should pull them all up we might lose the good grain in the process" (based on Matt 13:25-29).[33] Therefore it is important to not condemn a church for not practicing the ban, or else you would injure good Christians along with the bad.[34]
When considering whether or not one should remove themselves from a church for fear of being polluted by sinners, Calvin points to the Old Testament prophets who even though were surrounded by a sinful people never stopped assembling the people to worship God through sacrifice and observing the law. Neither did they move away and build a new altar. Even Jesus went to the temple in Jerusalem who worshipped along with the "depraved" Pharisees and scribes.[35]
Throughout this section Calvin highlights the fact that God gives grace to those who are "overcome by their conumpisences[sic]" and understand their depravity. He says that if we do not allow God to be God and save sinners, then we condemn them.[36]

Sattler on the Lord’s Supper
For Sattler, only those who were joined with the body of Christ through baptism could participate in communion. Citing Paul, he writes that those who follow “the devil and the world” cannot participate in communion.[37]

Zwingli’s Response
First, he focuses on the fact that the baptism they speak of is their own baptism, while the Anabaptists thought infant baptisms (which everyone else practiced) did not count as a true baptism, and so their believer’s baptism was not a rebaptism but rather a first baptism,[38] Zwingli called it  a pseudo- or catabaptism. Zwingli, quick to defend his own baptism argues that by being baptised again, an act of dying and being risen in Christ, they are crucifying Christ for a second time.
            He also notes that while the Anabaptists require that they who willingly sin should be excluded from the table, but charges that their excommunication immediately before (mentioned above), is itself a sin, and therefore they are hypocrites.[39]
Finally, he attacks the Anabaptists for their condemnation of feasts and rituals. He says that this is unbiblical because Jesus and his disciples went to weddings and to Jerusalem, and that Israel celebrated festivals three times a year. Therefore they are condemning things that Christ himself did not hate and yet they “think of themselves so finely.”[40]

Calvin’s Response
Calvin barely mentions the third article because he agrees with it; nobody should come to the communion table unless they are truly a part of the body of Christ.[41]

Sattler on Separation from Evil
As has been stated previously, it was important for the Anabaptists to stay pure; as such the fourth article of the Schleitheim Confession was about separation from evil. Since all who have not entered into the body of Christ are “a great abomination before God” nothing good can come from them. Therefore everything is either good or evil and we need to pick good. Therefore, all “popish and repopish works and idolatry” (read: catholic and protestant practices and theology), winehouses, promises of unbelief, and anything else that that the world thinks is important is all vanity before God. Therefore, the Anabaptists also need to put away weapons of violence both for protected themselves and friends or vanquishing enemies because Christ told them “You shall not resist evil.”[42]

Zwingli’s Response
Again Zwingli seems confused; he has combined the titles of the fourth and fifth articles (avoiding abomination and pastors) so that it comes to read avoiding abominable pastors. Zwingli seems rather paranoid, for him is seems obvious that the thing the Anabaptists are trying to avoid is him.[43] This is why he writes “you would hardly divine if they had not said in the title that they dealt with the avoidance of abominable pastors in the church”[44]
In his response, he is careful to avoid condemning separation from the church, because his own movement would face the same criticism, so the question becomes what constitutes valid separation.[45] Separation for Zwingli is about separation from those who malign, not those who are weak. Christ teaching that the wicked should be shunned when they no longer respect the church.[46]
At this point he challenges the Anabaptists’ conversion techniques. Saying that new converts are not allowed to attend other churches for at least a month so that they can be properly brainwashed, and instead have to attend church in the dark or at the house of a member because this works better than if they actually tried to debate their position within the church.[47]
Finally Zwingli critiques the Anabaptists’ rejection of the sword, saying that if they hate murder, then they need to avoid anything that could kill, like choking on a grape seed, or getting stung by a bee (Zwingli 192).[48] Zwingli contends that the magistrates are immune to the commands of Christ to not resist evil or to not rule because those commands were only given to the apostles and bishops, while the authority for magistrates come from God. The Anabaptist fears authority because they seek to create confusion.[49]
Zwingli ends by stating that he too encourages the laying down of arms, but that the sword should be used for legitimate defence of those suffering.[50]


Calvin’s Response
Calvin applauds the Anabaptists for condemning Catholic superstitions and prohibiting Christians from practicing them, but then he takes exception to the Anabaptists’ conclusion that the use of the sword is not allowed. He notes that the Christian’s primary weapons are prayer and gentleness and that they “conquer evil by doing good” so the threatened Christian suffers evil. But the magistrate is called by God to use the sword for “restraining and preventing the violence of the wicked” (Calvin71-72).[51]
For Calvin, the prophets’ proclamation of the turning swords and spears into farm implements (Isaiah 2:4 and Mic 4:3) as being something that will occur only within the church, that Christians should not fight wars against other Christians, but that outside the church evil reigns, so it is necessary to use the sword. Princes are therefore ordained by god to protect their countries, but they need to do everything possible to avoid the use of violence.[52] Justification for including the magistrates as instruments of God is given to the fact that John the Baptist baptized soldiers and Peter baptized Cornelius and neither baptizer is reported of  saying anything about their jobs.[53]

Sattler on Pastors
In a growing movement like the Anabaptists were, leadership is very important. For those gathered at Schleitheim, it was important that pastors should be above reproach, “read and exhort and teach, warn admonish, or ban in the congregation,” as well as lead in prayer, communion and anything else the congregation needed. These pastors should be supported, by the congregation so they have time to properly prepare for church. They also provide a way to reprimand the pastor, with two or three witnesses, and in public so even as they face discipline, they are also teaching fear to others. If something happens to the pastor, a new pastor is to be ordained immediately so that the flock has leadership.[54]

Zwingli’s Response
Zwingli sees the providing of support for a pastor as being hypocritical since they “deny to the bishop of the Christian church” the same. Zwingli argues that the pastor should support themselves some other way than burdening the congregation since they have so many other taxes that they have to pay.[55]

Calvin’s Response
            Calvin begins by noting that over time the Anabaptists have changed from having pastors running around to various congregations to now being called to a certain place. Calvin’s explanation for why this occurred initially was so that “they could spread their poison everywhere”. However, he agrees that churches need ministers to keep them intact. However, he takes exception to the way that the Anabaptists will not listen to a sermon from a Calvinist preacher, and how they view other churches as ravishing wolves, this view causing discord within the church, and setts one group against another.[56]

Sattler on the Sword
For Sattler, the sword is “an ordering of God outside the perfection of Christ,” It protects that which is good, and punishes the wicked. The Secular rulers are given authority to use it. But within the perfection of Christ, the only form of punishment is the ban. Christ teaches that within the church, we are to admonish people not to sin. Christians are not supposed to be judges because Jesus refused to judge inheritance, and that Christians should not be magistrates because government is something reserved for the flesh, while Christians live by the spirit.[57]

Zwingli’s Response
For Zwingli, he notes how when the Anabaptists say that members of Christ who do not meet the perfection of Christ might need the sword, and yet they are refusing it, therefore the Anabaptists are claiming to be within the perfection of Christ.[58]
Zwingli also cites a well-known story about someone who had been an Anabaptist but returned from it, who said “if we had been as superior to you as you were to us, you would have seen whether we had swords and oaths or not”.[59] The weak twist morality in order that their position is the just one, even though if they had the power they would not be so quick to take that position.
According to Zwingli, Jesus never forbade a Christian from political office. Where Jesus says “who would follow me must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” does not mean that Christians could not follow Jesus and rule, since many “kings have despised themselves and followed him, though retaining royal authority until the end.” (Zwingli 202). Zwingli also notes that Peter baptized Cornelius, and Philip baptized the eunuch both without forbidding them to rule, as well as how Paul allowed Christians to be masters as long as they are faithful.[60]
            Zwingli also notes that Christians would make the best judges since they would be the most just because they would be “rightly affected to all, and unwavering, giving no decision in partiality or hatred or fear or violence. (Zwingli 204). And yet, supposedly Christians can’t be magistrates because that is a worldly job. But if that is the case, then nobody could be a Christian since everyone is in the world. But if being in the spirit refers to prayer and contemplation, and then a magistrate could pray and contemplate and then do their job while being in the spirit.[61]

Calvin’s Response
Calvin disagrees with the Anabaptists; there are many judges, kings and prophets in the Old Testament who made use of the sword for God’s work. While the Anabaptists might claim that God requires more perfection from the church than the Jewish people, this is not the case. In Matthew 5 when it looks like Jesus is giving a new law, really Jesus is just restoring the original intention of the law.[62]
            Calvin notes the inconsistency that Anabaptists maintain that the magistrates’ use of the sword is ordained by God, but somehow if you do that you are sinning. (Calvin 81). He also notes that if it were wrong for a person to rule, than it would be wrong for a people to rule, and yet, Paul says it is okay for Christians to own slaves, though they treat them differently than the secular masters would.[63]
            He also argues that just because Jesus did not govern does not mean that his followers cannot. Luke 9:58 says that Jesus had no place to rest his head, if we applied the same logic, then Christians could not own property.[64] Instead, Christians are allowed to govern, and they must do so in a way that makes God’s name exalted above all others. They need to understand that they are servants of God. Anabaptists are therefore enemies of God because they try to fight against something that God has put in place[65]

Sattler on the Oath
The final section of the Schleitheim Confession is on the Oath. They define it as “a confirmation among those quarreling or making promises. In the law it should only be done in the name of God.” But then Jesus tells his disciples to not swear. And while some might argue that since God swore to Abraham that we should be able to as well, God has the power to do what he commands mere mortals to. The Schleitheim confession also delineates between swearing and testifying about what is present. Concluding that our words should just be a simple yes or no.[66]

Zwingli’s Response
Zwingli’s response is that if the Anabaptists did away with oaths and magistrates, then there would be total chaos.[67] Oaths are for Zwingli also a good thing. Oaths are “an appeal to God in deciding or vouching for something.” They have their roots in exodus, and are calling on God’s wrath if the person making the oath disobeys it.[68]  Oaths are therefore an “anchor” to the truth.[69]
Zwingli then turns to Matthew 5:33 and argues that Christ would not forbid the use of swearing, just the use of swearing lightly. Christians are supposed to not swear falsehoods.[70]

Calvin’s Response
Calvin again notes that he agrees largely with the Anabaptist’s sentiment. There was too much swearing happening at the time, and that God’s name was much cheapened. [71]And yet he wants to maintain the oath. 
            The oath, for Calvin, is a good thing, it is ordained by God for “confirming and ratifying truth”, and that God is honoured by it when his people use it. (Calvin 93). He says that the Anabaptists need to discern whether there is a difference between bad oaths and good ones.[72] In the law, it is the taking of God’s law in vain that is prohibited, not the act of using it itself.[73]
Calvin then tries to discern what exactly Jesus was trying to prohibit in Matthew five. Calvin claims that the scribes and Pharisees had taught the people that it was okay to break the law as long as they didn’t use the Tetragrammatons’.[74] Instead, Calvin says that God is the only thing that is okay to be sworn by.[75]
Calvin’s doctrine of human depravity shines again when he argues that oaths would be superfluous if humans were actually loyal and firm. However, since there are so many lies in the world, the only way to trust each other is through the use of oaths.
Calvin then says that the Anabaptists themselves admit to the Apostles’ use of testimony and say that oaths are okay if they are a verification of the truth, and are only wrong when it is a promise. But then, that would make Israel's use of oaths of loyalty to God a misuse of the law even though God commanded it (Calvin 104-5).[76]

Conclusion
While both Zwingli and Calvin’s writings are adversarial to the Anabaptists, and appear to have mistaken, it is important however to note that there are flaws in the Schleitheim confession as well and many of Zwingli and Calvin’s arguments make a lot of sense. This serves as an awakener that our ancestors might not have been the heroes that we thought they were. That being said, it is a testimony to the Schleitheim Confession’s witness that even though it initially was passed on handwritten copies, and was restricted, that it still survives to today. While the Schleitheim confession is not the confession of faith used specifically by Mennonite Church Canada, it is still an important part of our history, and is still a key touchstone in our theology.



References
Calvin, John. “Brief Instruction for Arming All the Good Faithful Against the Errors of the
Common Sect of the Anabaptists.” In Treatises Against the Anabaptists and Against
the Libertines, edited and translated by Benjamin Wirt Farley, 11-158. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982.
Davis, Kenneth R., “No Discipline, No Church: An Anabaptist Contribution  to the Reformed
Tradition,” The Sixteenth Century Journal, 13, no. 4 (1982):43-58.
 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2540009.
Farley, Benjamin Wirt. “Editor’s Introduction” In Treatises Against the Anabaptists and Against
the Libertines, 13-35. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982.
Harder, Leland. “Zwingli’s Reaction to the Schleitheim Confession of Faith of the Anabaptists,”
The Sixteenth Century Journal, 11, no. 4 (1980): 51-66. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539975.
Sattler, Michael. The Schleitheim Confession,. Translated by John H. Yoder. Kitchener: Harold
Press, 1977.
Wenger, John C. and C. Arnold Snyder. “Schleitheim Confession.” Global Anabaptist
Mennonite Encyclopedia Online. http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Schleitheim_Confession.
Zwingli, Ulrich. “Refutation of the Tricks of the Catabaptists, 1527” in Selected Works, translated
and edited by Samuel Macaulet Jackson, 123-258. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972.





[1] John C. Wenger and C. Arnold Snyder. “Schleitheim Confession.” Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online, http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Schleitheim_Confession.
[2] Leland Harder, “Zwingli’s Reaction to the Schleitheim Confession of Faith of the Anabaptists,” The Sixteen Century Journal, 11, no. 2 (1980), 52,53,66.
[3] Benjamin Wirt Farley, “Editor’s Introduction” in Treatises Against the Anabaptists and the Libertines, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982),19.
[4] The text says Mark 16:6, but that doesn’t have anything to do with baptism, while Mark 6:16 does.
[5] Michael Sattler, The Schleitheim Confession, trans, John H. Yoder (Kitchener: Herald Press, 1977), 10.
[6] Ulrich Zwingli “Refutation of the Tricks of the Catabaptists, 1527,” in Selected Works, ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972), 179.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] John Calvin, “Brief Instruction for Arming All the Good Faithful Against the Errors of the Common Sect of the Anabaptists” in Treatises Against the Anabaptists and Against the Libertines, ed.& trans. Benjamin Wirt Farley, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982), 45.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid., 46-7.
[13] Ibid., 47.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] 1 Corinthians 7:14, New International Version.
[17] Calvin, “Brief Instruction,” 51.
[18] Ibid., 55.
[19] Kenneth R. Davis “No Discipline, No Church: An Anabaptist Contribution to the Reformed Tradition,” The Sixteenth Century Journal, 13, no. 4 (1982), 45.
[20] Sattler, The Schleitheim Confession, 10-11.
[21] Zwingli, Refutation, 181.
[22] Sattler, 10.
[23] Harder, “Zwingli’s Reaction,” 55.
[24] Ibid., 57
[25] I noticed the inconsistency, but Harder explained the significance to me.
[26] Harder, “Zwingli’s Reaction,” 57.
[27] Ibid.. 58.
[28] Zwingli, Refutation, 182.
[29] Calvin, “Brief Instruction,” 56.
[30] Davis, “No Discipline,” 57.
[31] Calvin, “Brief Instruction,” 56.
[32] Ibid., 57.
[33] Ibid., 59.
[34] Ibid., 60.
[35] Ibid., 62.
[36] Ibid., 70.
[37] Sattler, The Schleitheim Confession, 11.
[38] Davis, “No Discipline,” 43.
[39] Zwingli, Refutation, 186-7.
[40] Ibid., 187.
[41] Calvin, “Brief Instruction,” 71.
[42] Sattler, The Schleitheim Confession, 11-13.
[43] Harder, “Zwingli’s Reaction,” 59.
[44] Zwingli, Refutation, 187.
[45] Harder, “Zwingli’s Reaction,” 58.
[46] Zwingli, Refutation, 190.
[47] Ibid., 191.
[48] Ibid,. 192.
[49] Ibid., 193.
[50] Ibid.
[51] Calvin, “Brief Instruction,” 71-2.
[52] Ibid., 73.
[53] Ibid.
[54] Sattler, The Schleitheim Confession, 13-14.
[55] Zwingli, Refutation, 194-5.
[56] Calvin, “Brief Instruction,” 74-5.
[57] Sattler, The Schleitheim Confession, 14-16.
[58] Zwingli, Refutation, 197.
[59] Ibid., 198.
[60] Ibid,. 202-4.
[61] Ibid., 205.
[62] Calvin, “Brief Instruction,” 77-8.
[63] Ibid, 89.
[64] Ibid.
[65] Ibid., 91.
[66] Sattler, The Schleitheim Confession, 16-18.
[67] Zwingli, Refutation, 208.
[68] Ibid,. 209.
[69] Ibid, 210.
[70] Ibid., 211.
[71] Calvin, “Brief Instruction,” 92.
[72] Ibid,. 95.
[73] Ibid., 97.
[74] Ibid.
[75] Ibid., 98.
[76] Ibid., 104-105.