Inheriting a Tradition:
“Following in the Footsteps of Christ” in the Spirit of the Early Anabaptists

For Arnold Snyder
MTS 626A
By Mary Lou Klassen
12 December, 2005
Inheriting a Tradition:
“Following in the Footsteps of Christ”[1] in the Spirit of the Early Anabaptists.

Introduction Walter Klaassen in a recent article posed the following question of Mennonites, “Should we call ourselves Anabaptist?”[2] That question has been an underlying current as we have explored the sea of early Anabaptist Spirituality in our course. Klaassen answers the question in the negative. His concern is to point out that the early Anabaptists “stood consciously against and challenged virtually everything their Christian culture took for granted.”[3] Yet, they were intent on reforming that culture, not separating from it. Besides lamenting that Mennonites have compromised with the current culture, he feels that our sectarian tendency is also misrepresenting the tradition. I am not as much interested in his emphasis on Christian unity as I am in the points he raises to develop his negative answer. His main point is that the early Anabaptists took a counter-cultural stance. He outlines that this position showed itself in four respects: a) A “[rejection of] all religious coercion” and a refusal that governments should have any role within the church”[4]; b) A “[rejection of] the emerging capitalist economic system … because it discriminated against the poor and defenceless”[5]; c) A “[refusal] to accept any justification for the use of force and killing in the defence of the gospel”[6]; d) That commitment to following Christ was only to be shown by the baptism of believing adults. Klaassen summarizes the clarity the early Anabaptists had about their spiritual condition. They were “saved” sinners by the death of Jesus Christ and the power of the resurrection resulting in a life of discipleship. Their faith also included “confidence and trust in God’s love and judgment that would see them through the darkness of their time to the light of His eternal kingdom.”[7] Just as Klaassen’s summary description of the early Anabaptists is that they “stood against”[8] their culture, his arguments for seeing western Mennonites as unworthy of that title have to do with our ‘standing within’ the cultural mainstream, particularly in terms of economics. We are therefore not persecuted and do not have the “singleness of heart”[9] required for that experience. Few of us have been “re-baptized.” We have an “uncertainty” about the truth of our faith and in many cases it has been “reduced” to “social activism.” The only possible “Anabaptists” among modern Mennonites are those coming from “Vietnam, Colombia and Ethiopia” where persecution for the faith exists, or those who have literally been “re-baptized.” Counter-cultural motif; Hermeneutical Method. Klaassen uses an interesting method when he takes a “sounding” of Anabaptist principles developed within a particular context in the 16th century and uses them to develop a measuring stick to look at modern, western Mennonites. It is one way of bringing clarity. In this regard I find his “standing against” culture a useful motif. I also find his list of early Anabaptist critiques of society, an interesting checklist with which to set out my own understanding – a kind of “then and now” grid. While I might agree with Klaassen’s conclusion technically – i.e. that we cannot call ourselves Anabaptists – I do not agree with its spirit. I also do not find his method very useful as a modern Mennonite who desires to stand within the Anabaptist tradition. Methodologically, therefore, I would like to propose using a “hermeneutical” approach to this discussion, not unlike what one uses to write a sermon based on a biblical text. Our course in Anabaptist Spirituality has provided the “text and context” of the early Anabaptists. Our time has been spent trying to gain an understanding of the “original” source materials and placing them and the Anabaptist story within the particular historical context from which they came. If one were to preach a sermon on the course as one would a biblical text, one might then spend some time looking at historical developments of certain ideas or beliefs. However, this in essence would be “the second half of the course” – tracing developments in Anabaptist Spirituality from “then until now.” The task of biblical hermeneutics is not only to understand as adequately as possible what a particular passage meant in its historical context. Its goal is to discern what it might mean within today’s context. To do this, one must also have a clear sense of the current reality. One must be clear about how the current situation differs from or remains similar to, the historical situation. An act of re-interpreting goes on because of the reality of a new and very different situation. A parallel I would propose is remembering that modern OT scholarship reflects on the development in Israel’s thinking as they had to grapple with new situations and keep true to the Torah. Most point out the earth-shattering consequences of the exile – where all the traditional thinking about the meaning of God’s covenants with the Israelite nation through Abraham and Moses and David’s family had to be re-done.[10] Any post-exilic faithful Jew would have a hard time swallowing that he was outside the tradition of Abraham and Moses just because there was no ark of the covenant, or no descendant of David in leadership, for example. While I am not in any way trying to suggest that there are parallel tracks between Israelite and Mennonite history, I do think that one can stand firmly within a tradition while at the same time living out the story in a completely different way from one’s spiritual forebears. I propose therefore, to use Klaassen’s motif of the early Anabaptists standing against and challenging their culture – their “counter-cultural” bent as the lens. I also wish to use his checkpoints as outlined above as one might use old family photographs to trace a family resemblance among generations. While I like Klaassen’s list, I would like to look at the issues he outlines in a different order. I see a clear line of spiritual development set out by the early Anabaptists that begins with a “commitment to Christ” as in “d” above that resulted in the other counter-cultural stances in the Klaassen’s outline. a) Commitment to following Christ. A good deal of time in our course has been spent reflecting on the process of spiritual regeneration that involved an inward transformation in the heart by the power of God and an outward expression in a life of discipleship. This was the foundation of early Anabaptist faith. In that regard it is interesting that Klaassen outlines in more detail what one might call the “political” results of that early Anabaptist faith (a, b, and c above) than the profundity and breadth of their understanding regarding their commitment to Christ. It is difficult to summarize all the dimensions of the early Anabaptist commitment to faith. It began with fearing God as Menno Simons paraphrases, “For Thy fear, says Sirach, dispels sin and is the beginning of wisdom.”[11] The wisdom achieved was a profound sense of human sin and a recognition as Hans Langenmantel preached that “God the Heavenly Father desires that the whole sinful world forsake its sin and from now on sin no more.”[12] The remedy for this condition was faith in the grace of God who offered salvation through the death of Jesus Christ. It was not a mere “belief” in atonement but an existential statement that can be made only by those who have been willing to submit to the power of the cross, to be cleansed through a rooting out of their own will and their own sin. Faith is essentially a living manifestation of the truth and efficacy of the work of Christ on the cross, a result of the working of the power of the cross within each yielded sinner.[13]

The early Anabaptist analysis that the human will was the problem and that the remedy was “gelassenheit” or “yieldedness” permeated their faith. This “yieldedness” produced a holy life lived within an evil world. Dirk Philips admonished, “Consider and take to heart how holy, how upright and blessed one must live in this evil world.”[14] It is important to mention here that the expressed dualistic world view was little different from the prevailing ethos save for where the lines around good and evil or light and dark were drawn. “Yieldedness” was also expressed through water baptism that symbolized the inner baptism of the Holy Spirit. It involved sharing the Lord’s Supper together within a community of committed believers. The level of commitment was deep considering that joining the movement could mean arrest, torture and even death – a baptism of blood. Yet many eagerly joined the movement and though in pain, gave up their lives believing in God for final vindication. They sang, “Now I say to you also,/ in Christ my Son,/ if you want to have joy/ and be raised with him,/ you must first die with him/ and become like him in suffering./ You will then inherit with him/ my joy and eternal kingdom.”[15] Klaassen’s lament that we Mennonites “are no longer sure about our faith; its basis keeps shifting uncertainly for us as for other Christians. Applauding the siren voices of people like John Spong and Tom Harpur, for example, as some … do, is a sign that we are confused about what the truth is,”[16] is understandable in light of early Anabaptist clarity. Yet I would suggest that the context and ethos of our modern / post-modern world is so different that we cannot expect that our faith understanding and expression should be the same as our forebears. I would propose that while we may be deficient in some areas, there are many aspects of our current expression that remain faithful to the tradition. We do not inhabit a world that so easily dissolves into darkness and light, good and evil. While there are vestiges of dualism which orders the world neatly for some, most post-moderns inhabit a world of “gray.” We are confounded by the diversity of cultures and religious systems that make conflicting yet absolute truth claims. Our Anabaptist forebears were not put out with vigorous polemics against opponents since, as Klaassen well points out, they were essentially trying to reform or “perfect” a worldview that shared key assumptions with all their religious neighbours. No one disputed the existence of God, or that human’s sin or that Jesus Christ was in some way the source of human salvation, to list a few obvious examples. Our western world has little of that common language. We are also queasy about drawing such firm lines because we daily see the violent and deadly results of such clarity – what we now might call fundamentalism. Conversely, we also worry that we our beliefs are so amorphous as to be meaningless. To stand faithfully today in the line of our Anabaptist forebears requires us to continue to articulate the centre of our faith yet with a different style, language and emphasis. Where our centre is muddy as Klaassen worries, we admit that we have strayed from the heart of our tradition. Yet for us, bearing witness to the centrality of Jesus the Christ of God for personal inner change and faithful living in the world might involve “social activism”. If that activism has lost its spiritual moorings, we can find inspiration from the clarity of our forebears about the inner change possible through Christ and the strength and hope and courage that brings for any, even a severe, eventuality. At the same time, we need to create a different kind of ethos in the way we relate to the many other communities (faith-based and otherwise) of our 21st century world. Polemics and retreat might not be the faithful answers now. Willingness to be clear yet to challenge without judgment could be. Another aspect of our non-dualistic world has to do with the question of morality. Many have a sense that Edward Wallis Hoch’s pithy comment about gossip has far greater reach today than a check on this human past-time: “There is so much good in the worst of us,/ And so much bad in the best of us,/ That it hardly behooves any of us/
To talk about the rest of us.”[17] It is easy to counter that the early Anabaptist experience of holy living arising out of a fundamental encounter with the risen Christ through a yieldedness of will, would be the remedy for Hoch’s smudged moral lines. Yet we know the truth within ourselves and our tradition – our inability to deal with power that resulted in numerous occasions of physical and sexual abuse is only one sordid example. For us it is simplistic to suggest that the erring one’s “yieldedness” was not enough or the appropriation of grace was insufficient. While we acknowledge that the power of God has changed us, we would have some hesitation about claiming human perfectibility as Menno Simons assumed: “they as children born of God are one with the Father…. Their thoughts are heavenly; their words are truth, well seasoned; their works are holy and good acceptable to God and man; for they are holy vessels of honor, useful and ready to every good work.”[18] Living out of a deep sense of human weakness, yet hope in the power of God to change our lives might be the gift we could recover from our Anabaptist ancestors. At the same time, we might expect that this understanding forms a life-long process of learning and surrender and grace. We would leave out the assumptions of perfection that ended up becoming rigid morality without life and hope. Our western culture is also deeply individualistic. While many of us pine for a sense of deeper human connectedness that comes through in the communitarian ethics of the early Anabaptists, we are also skeptical. Ironically individualism has spawned on the one hand, an unwillingness to interfere or be interfered with by even well meaning neighbours, and on the other an unwillingness to take personal responsibility for consequences of our actions. We may resent the dislocation we experience and yearn for connection. Yet we also remember that while strong group ties give strength and identity, they can overpower and overwhelm the individual to the point of their destruction. Living as heirs of the Anabaptists seems to be about finding a balance between the individual and the community. Their clarity that it should be adults who decisively “must leave the world….must hate [their own lives]….Likewise also … must venture all [their] possessions”[19] smacks of a clear and personal conscious choice, un-coerced in any way. One wonders if for that day, this was indeed “terribly” individualistic! At the same time, there was a strong community ready and able to receive the person making this radical choice – not unlike the support a novice received within a monastic community. Our world today, assumes the individual with a good deal less sense of the web of human interconnectedness they had based on clan, or even knight/serf structures. Learning from our forebears will mean the continued commitment to individual and personal decision-making to follow Christ. At the same time we will seek ways of being an authentic supportive yet demanding community – something we have very little experience with especially as urban dwellers. The intervening years of Mennonite experience with rigid and moralistic group life is unhelpful for us. We can give ourselves a measure of grace when we are at an uncertain point with regards to discerning what community means in 2005. The early Anabaptists understood the necessity of a deep personal encounter with the risen Christ that changed their lives. They knew themselves as sinners who with no power of their own and through faith received the grace of Jesus’ sacrifice that empowered them to live in a new way with integrity. They often used the words, “born again” to describe the experience. Today, the words they used have become difficult for us. We fidget when we hear the word, “sin” while acknowledging that there is evil in the world and within ourselves. We are more used to psychological or sociological terms that imply illness, lack of well-being or failure. Some of us do not appreciate the metaphor of re-birth because of the politicization of the concept and the narrow set of moral values that seem to go along with the thought of people who outspokenly insist on this experience. The early Anabaptists had all the language of the church at hand to describe their experience. We are not so blessed. Our task is to maintain a clarity around human failing and weakness and sinful nature (though we will have to explain what this word means to many of our un-churched neighbours) whose only remedy is an encounter with the risen Christ. The possibilities for deep personal change and hope that comes from encountering God in this way are marvelous. Finding new language or other biblical metaphors for this change is key. If we listen, we may already be finding the words. Asserting that an inner change results in outward action also keeps us within our tradition. This is counter-cultural in our religious context today, just as it was for the early Anabaptists for different reasons. Today, faith is a private affair, only to be practiced at home or in a house of worship. When it ventures into the public sphere it is suspect. While personal integrity and honesty is one aspect of discipleship emphasized by the early Anabaptists, it is territory that has been taken up by those who use “born again” language in our day. Many of us realize that following in the footsteps of Christ means far more than being personally pure; though it also must include this. Faithfulness in our world requires a whole range of “activism”. What does Christ-centered counter-cultural behaviour look like today? It is my contention that though we imperfectly, we do TRY to live differently. The problem is that there are so many emphases for this difference. “Sola Scriptura” the rallying cry of Luther was adopted by the early Anabaptists in a most astonishing way. The ability of unschooled peasants and trades-people to repeat scripture as the explanation for their life and action under the duress of the rack, overwhelms us today. They were “people of the book” in ways we must admit we have lost. Despite confessing that our faith is grounded in scripture, most of us Mennonites are biblically illiterate – yet we live in a highly literate context! What is the kernel of wisdom here that we carry with us from our ancestors into our information overloaded society? It is indeed a gift to have at the heart of our tradition the requirement to go back to the Bible to find answers to the pertinent questions of the day. The struggle of women in recent years to re-interpret our role in the church has meant a return to re-reading the text of scripture. It was because of our tradition of biblical grounding that we needed to do this. Many of our sisters from other Christian traditions decided it was not as necessary. We may work with our spiritual source-book in radically different ways from our forebears, but our deep desire to engage the text means to me that we are, after all, grand-daughters of the women who repeated scripture to their interrogators[20]. The early Anabaptists used the “revolutionary” technology of the printing press to disseminate their faith. When we also use the technology of our day to share the message as mutual encouragement and admonition we are not far from their practice. b) A “[rejection of] all religious coercion” We now interact with the first in Klaassen’s list of things that the Anabaptists “stood against.” Our western democratic world is one where the principle of individual choice makes it difficult for us to understand a context of coercion. Yes, we encounter social pressures of all kinds that press us to live outside of what we know to be faithful to Christ, but the immediacy of being persecuted for making counter-cultural choices or choosing a new religion is unknown to us. At least currently. So what does it mean for us to stand in this line of those who rejected religious coercion? With whom do we identify in debates around school prayer or public “Christmas music”? If we stand in the tradition of our fore-parents will we advocate for only Christian forms of religious expression in the public square or will we be advocates for inclusion of all? To be more specific, if we insist that our Muslim friends have as much right to have Eid celebrated in our public schools, as we have to celebrate Christmas, are we true or false children of Menno and Philips? Our religiously diverse context – which includes secularism – means a reinterpretation of this principle of non-coercion in matters of faith. The problem of coercion also brings up the question of suffering. The risk of physical suffering and death in the lives of the early Anabaptists is so different from our context, we cannot imagine it. Our culture eschews suffering in any form as unnatural. We must remember that our Anabaptist forebears knew suffering as “normal.” Life was hard – sickness and death were daily companions. Yes, the death of martyrdom and the preceding torture were abnormal and we cannot downplay fear and risk involved in identifying oneself with the Anabaptist community. Yet how do we stand faithfully within a martyr tradition in our day. We could choose the monastic course – of self-inflicted punishments and communal disciplines. Some are doing so. We may also find a taste of this in our choices to “live more simply” and to enter international service. Suffering we know from the stories had many positive effects in individual lives in terms of character building and providing space to know God’s love, sustenance, grace and a peace that surpassed all understanding. The stories in the Martyr’s Mirror have been “bedtime reading” for many. Yet even suffering is not completely beyond reproach in our world. We have learned from our abused brothers and sisters that a culture that too much glorifies suffering also buries and denies injustice. What indeed, DOES it mean to stand against coercion, to bear injustice and suffering ourselves, yet at the same time make very sure that we are NOT inflicting un-chosen pain on others? c) A “[rejection of] the emerging capitalist economic system.”[21] The early Anabaptists were peasants and trades-people or poor parish priests and monks. They knew the suffering of unjust economic systems and were worried about capitalism as Klaassen points out. It is true that “we are affluent”[22] but I am less certain I agree with his point that we are “conformed to this world in our enthusiastic embrace of consumerism.”[23] Most modern Mennonites are definitely not living as clearly a counter-cultural lifestyle of “community of goods” that some of our Anabaptist forebears chose. We are certainly caught up in our economy and are “hard-wired” into it. Sheer survival means a literal “buying in” that few can avoid. Even our horse and buggy cousins make a living from selling to the rest of us! What is most sad is that our affluence puts us at the top of the economic heap – in the uncomfortable position of often inadvertently exploiting our non-western brothers and sisters. Yet I rankle at Klaassen’s suggestion that we “enthusiastically embrace consumerism.”[24] As weak as these efforts are, the undercurrents in our greater community about “living more with less” or “living with enough” and our culture of Christian service should not be entirely written off. Even the wealthy among us are struggling to find ways of living faithfully with their wealth. How many other churches have a “MEDA”, for example? I have been fascinated by the kinds of engagement between faith and economics that are grappled with in The Marketplace, the Mennonite business journal produced by MEDA. I see this as an example of a continued effort at living out the counter-cultural tradition of discomfort with global systems that exploit and harm. d) A “[refusal] to accept any justification for the use of force and killing in the defence of the gospel.”[25] Klaassen’s final point highlights what we so glibly call our “peace position.” It is indeed true that for some of us, our Anabaptist heritage has boiled down to “peace activism”. Many wonder whether this new variant of the “non-resistant” theme is of the same genetic heritage as the original – especially as Klaassen points out that the original Anabaptist focus was on refusing to “use force and killing in the defence of the gospel.”[26] (emphasis mine) I would argue that discerning our times in the 21st century means continued reflection on how the original tradition applies. The dualistic world of the early Anabaptists made it possible for them to live (or die) within the structures enforced by state violence, while at the same time demanding of themselves a different way. We have come to see ourselves as having more choices and more responsibilities. Our world-view is less dualistic – it is even theologically passé! We have been confronted by the hypocrisy of refusing to fight yet living under the safety of law enforcement wrought by coercion and force. We desire to stand against the violence of the society and within our tradition of non-resistance yet we also recognize that we are “responsible” in the world as well. Modern Mennonites have come up with different answers to these dilemmas. Conscientious Objection is one. The more recent “peace witness” and “peace-making” work of MCC and CPT and the academic study of “Peace and Conflict Studies” are also attempts, in my view, to live out our “peace position” faithfully. One could argue that the early Anabaptists were “negative.” The requirements of our context mean that a faithful response involves positive action. Therefore, I would argue that all of these efforts are imperfect attempts to live out the gospel of peace for our time; as sons and daughters of those who forged the way by eschewing violence and self-defence for themselves. “Vietnam, Colombia and Ethiopia.” One of Klaassen’s final points is that those most deserving of the “Anabaptist” label live outside of North America. I would agree with him in that their contexts are so much more similar to that of the early Anabaptists. Vietnam and Ethiopia experience religious persecution. All of the named countries’ are poor – and most of these Mennonites live in conditions more similar to the 16th century. Despite persecution and imprisonment, the churches are growing. Our western conditions of relative comfort see a decline in membership. Suffering and discomfort are an assumed aspect of life. On top of this, their churches are formed from believers who have a lively experience of inner change by the power of the Spirit of Christ – the example of the Ethiopian church shows this aspect. Yet I would also argue that while some aspects of these churches look more like the early Anabaptist communities, they also live out the faith within their contexts. To me, the little I know of the Colombian experience is telling. Their keen and lively spiritual expression has a decidedly “politically active” and “active non-violence” character that has a much different nuance than the action of the early Anabaptists. The Ethiopian church, while exemplary in spiritual dynamism and energy also has a heavy-handed and controlling leadership. They have also been later to integrate “economics” into their church life, though now they are doing so. One wonders if this was partly due to the heaviness of the state system that not only oppressed them spiritually but also economically. Any concept of “community of goods” might have seemed too “communist” for those surviving Mengistu’s regime. As with many African churches parented by Mennonites, I wonder at how much they have worked through and integrated the distinctive of “non-resistance.” My point is not to denigrate the real faith and genuine struggles of these brothers and sisters. They have much to teach us and most often I am sobered by their passionate love of Christ and commitment to living out their faith in trying circumstances with clarity, energy and hope. Where their walk seems more committed and “regenerated” I am challenged to seek a deeper level of conversion in my own life. My point is that they too are “heirs” of a tradition, though interpreted and integrated into their own experience, world-view and context. If I as a western Mennonite am not an “Anabaptist,” then neither are they. Conclusion: Bearing the treasure in clay jars. I have used Klaassen’s short article and question, “Should we call ourselves Anabaptist?”[27] as a conversation partner to help me reflect on our study of early Anabaptist Spirituality. I have found his motif and points that show the early Anabaptists “counter-cultural” refusals and resistance useful. Yet I have come to a different conclusion. Where Klaassen denies modern Mennonites the label “Anabaptists” because we do not “look” like our spiritual ancestors, I have argued that we cannot look like them because we are in a completely different time and place. I would further argue that we are heirs of the tradition and though quite different, we bear a “strong family resemblance” which is all we can expect. Nevertheless, examining our spiritual roots and asking ourselves if we can honestly bear the name of our ancestors is crucial. To paraphrase Paul, we have indeed been given a “treasure in clay jars, so that it may be made clear that this [spiritual heritage] belongs to God and does not come from us.” (2 Cor. 4:7 NRSV). While we would seek to learn from, and on occasion, measure ourselves against, our Anabaptist forebears, our focus must be elsewhere. We must be intent on “following in the footsteps of [Jesus] Christ”[28], who is the one they sought to follow with all their hearts and so, to be their true children, must we.
Bibliography

Friedman, Richard Elliot. Who Wrote the Bible? 2nd ed. New York: HarperCollins, 1997.

Hoch, Edward Wallis. The Quotations Page. [online] http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/27756.html, (10 December, 2005).

Klaassen, Walter. “Should we call ourselves Anabaptist?” MB Herald. Vol. 44, No. 15. (4 November, 2005) http://www.mbherald.com/44/15/viewpoint.en.html, (10 December, 2005).

Meeks, Wayne A. et al eds. The HarperCollins Study Bible. New Revised Standard Version. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1993.

Riall, Robert trans. The Earliest Hymns of the Ausbund. Some beautiful Christian Songs Composed and Sung in the Prison at Passau, Published in 1564. Ed. Galen A. Peters. Kitchener, ON: Pandora Press, 2003.

Simons, Menno. “The Spiritual Resurrection.” in Readings: Anabaptist Spirituality in Historical Context I. MTS 626A, Fall 2005.

Snyder, C. Arnold. Following in the Footsteps of Christ. The Anabaptist Tradition. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2004.

Snyder, C. Arnold and Galen Peters, eds. Reading the Anabaptist Bible. Reflections for Every Day of the Year. Kitchener, ON: Pandora Press, 2002.

-----------------------
[1] With thanks to Arnold Snyder’s book-title, Following in the Footsteps of Christ.
[2] Walter Klaassen, “Should we call ourselves Anabaptist?,” MB Herald, Vol. 44, No. 15 (4 November, 2005) http://www.mbherald.com/44/15/viewpoint.en.html, (10 December, 2005).
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] This is not a radically new concept, but since this idea comes from my reading for an OT survey course, I must credit the following: Richard Elliot Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? 2nd ed., (New York: HarperCollins, 1997).
[11] C. Arnold Snyder and Galen Peters eds., Reading the Anabaptist Bible. Reflections for Every Day of the Year, (Kitchener, ON: Pandora Press, 2002), 27.
[12] Ibid., 34
[13] C. Arnold Snyder, Following in the Footsteps of Christ. The Anabaptist Tradition), (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2004), 58.
[14] Snyder and Peters, eds., 40.
[15] Robert Riall, trans., The Earliest Hymns of the Ausbund. Some beautiful Christian Songs Composed and Sung in the Prison at Passau, Published in 1564), Galen A. Peters, ed., (Kitchener, ON: Pandora Press, 2003), 228.
[16] Klaassen, op. cit.
[17] Edward Wallis Hoch, The Quotations Page, [online] http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/27756.html, (10 December, 2005).
[18] Menno Simons, “The Spiritual Resurrection,” in Readings: Anabaptist Spirituality in Historical Context I. MTS 626A, Fall 2005, 13.
[19] Riall, 164.
[20] I am not arguing here about our ability to withstand persecution, my emphasis is on our commitment to the text.
[21] Klaassen, op. cit.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ibid.
[28] With thanks (again) to Arnold Snyder’s Footsteps.