The Radical Duality of Anabaptist Ecclesiology

One thing that Bavinck did so well was put his finger on the pulse of the radical Anabaptist theology in the post-reformation era.  Here’s one of his many penetrating insights into the Anabaptist dualism.

“Anabaptism proceeded from the premise of an absolute antithesis between creation and re-creation, nature and grace, the world and the kingdom of God, and therefore viewed believers as persons who in being born again had become something totally different and therefore had to live in separation from the world.  Its program was not reformation but separation: Anabaptism wanted a separated church.  For centuries [they said] there had been no church but only Babel, and Babel had to be abandoned and shunned.  In Munster it was said that there had been no true Christian in 1,400 years.  The true church was a church of saints who, after making a personal profession of faith, were baptized, and who distinguished themselves from others by abstaining from oaths, war, government office, and a wide assortment of worldly practices in food and drink, clothing, and social contact” (Reformed Dogmatics, IV.292).

This is pretty significant to understand, especially in light of an earlier post here concerning the conversion experience.  Over and over Bavinck reminds us that grace restores nature; it does not work against or remain outside, above, or beside nature “but rather permeates and wholly renews it.”  In other words, conversion experiences are as diverse as the scores of people who have been converted: there is no one that trumps the others.

This is where the conversion experience and the doctrine of the church go hand in hand: if one sharply distinguishes grace from nature, he sees conversion as a separation from (or destruction of) nature instead of a renewal/reformation of it.  When it comes to the church then, it has to be made up of only those who are separated from nature and show it by their sharp distinction between themselves and everything else.  In pretty blunt terms, it is as if conversion is a lightning-bolt-supernatural-shock which results something totally different, and those who are totally different make up a totally different church (almost an a-natural church).  In Reformed terms (and Bavinck’s terms), this is a dualistic principle that underlies a bunch of sects that emerged within protestantism following the Reformation.

What is the Reformed response?  It is quite detailed, but a the first thing to note with Bavinck is the organic working of grace, the way grace restores and works through, in, and with nature.  We see this principle 1) in the writing of Scripture (God didn’t destroy the personalities of the author, but used them for his purposes), 2) in the unfolding promises of his covenant of grace (his ordinary way of working is through the natural means of parents and their seed), 3) in conversion (which is a renewal [not destruction] of the imago dei), 4) in sanctification (God reforming his people – including their various personalities and emotions), and 5) in the church (he uses natural things like speaking, bread, wine, and discipline – the 3 marks of a true church – to help his people).  These are just five areas – there are more.

There is a pastoral side to this.  Just as with conversion we don’t always need to see the “hell to heaven” experience that one can pinpoint (though those are fine), so too with sanctification and the doctrine of the church.  In a church, we’re going to find a whole bunch of people with different personalities, different ways of struggling with sin, different methods of speaking about Jesus, and so forth.  Since grace renews nature, we should expect to see one parishioner fight sin with tears, another fight it with a more upbeat attitude, and yet another fight it quietly behind the scenes while a fourth sings a favorite Psalm to combat sin.  When I counsel a believer who struggles with some type of addiction, for example, though we follow general Scriptural principles, he may not fight that addiction like I would.  This sometimes frustrates me, since I tend to be Luther-like, fighting sin with fists flying.   When Bavinck reminds me that grace restores nature, I can rest at night knowing that God’s gracious renewal gives us the same weapons to fight, but we all use those weapons in different ways.   Just because the sinner-who-is-a-saint doesn’t throw fists at sin like I do doesn’t mean he isn’t fighting it!  Just because a church is made up of people who are at different stages of struggling and have different methods of struggling doesn’t mean the church is impure!   A church is made up of a bunch of sinners using the same weapons to fight sin, only they wield the weapons differently.  Grace renews nature!

This post is too long already, but this also has implications for preaching!

shane lems

sunnyside wa

10 thoughts on “The Radical Duality of Anabaptist Ecclesiology”

  1. Herman Bavinck on Anabaptist Duality…

    An excellent post concerning the “Radical Duality of Anabaptist Ecclesiology” can be found at the Reformed Reader. Shane Lems cites Herman Bavinck and gives an excellent commentary on the situation and the Reformed Response. Good Stuff!
    ……

    Like

  2. “if one sharply distinguishes grace from nature, he sees conversion as a separation from (or destruction of) nature instead of a renewal/reformation of it.”

    But if you don’t make a clear distinction, you’re saying an unrighteous/sinful man is so because his nature is unrighteous/sinful. Thus you have creation that evil according to it’s nature. That’s the very dualism you just tried to get away from.

    Like

  3. Nick: Thanks for the comment. I’m not trying to be an idiot here, but I’m not quite sure I follow your logic. Perhaps you could re-explain.

    Thanks,
    Shane

    Like

  4. That’s a good point about the differing personalities in a church. I think that’s something we all have to work on appreciating better. It seems like so many denominations are setup along personality lines as much as they are theological lines sometimes!

    Like

  5. If righteousness is a function of a sound nature, then if you are unrighteousness that must mean your nature is no longer good but bad/sin.

    If righteousness is a function of grace added to nature, then stripping that grace makes you unrighteous without making nature itself bad.

    So when you said: “if one sharply distinguishes grace from nature, he sees conversion as a separation from (or destruction of) nature instead of a renewal/reformation of it.”

    You were appearing to go with the first of the cases I mentioned above. But in that case you have nature being bad, and yet you were trying to avoid duality – which is precisely about good vs bad natures.

    Like

  6. Nick; I’m pretty sure we’re using terms differently and we have different categories on top of that.

    There is no dualism when we say “grace restores/renews nature.” If it obliterates nature there is dualism; if grace is “on top” of nature like frosting on a cake, there is also a dualism.

    shane

    Like

  7. “I’m pretty sure we’re using terms differently and we have different categories on top of that.”

    We could be, but I’m not sure how do you figure. What makes a man ‘unrighteous’?

    “There is no dualism when we say “grace restores/renews nature.” If it obliterates nature there is dualism; if grace is “on top” of nature like frosting on a cake, there is also a dualism.”

    How is there “also dualism” if grace is ‘on top’ of nature? What else would the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit be?

    Like

  8. Got it now, I think, Nick. You’re using the late medieval concept of grace, the RCC definition that grace is a substance. I’m using grace as the favor of God showed towards his people, not some sort of substance. We probably won’t agree on this, since it was a fundamental part of the Reformation! Either way, thanks for the comments.

    Shane.

    Like

  9. “Got it now, I think, Nick. You’re using the late medieval concept of grace, the RCC definition that grace is a substance. I’m using grace as the favor of God showed towards his people, not some sort of substance. We probably won’t agree on this, since it was a fundamental part of the Reformation! Either way, thanks for the comments.”

    I agree that there is a major difference in definition of “grace,” but your usage right here doesn’t fit your original comments. How can grace “renew/reform” nature if it is merely an external favor?

    Like

Comments are closed.