Rick Warren the Anabaptist, on Twitter

Some time ago, Rick Warren tweeted the following:

I replied with the following tweets, following which it seems Rick Warren decided to block me from following him.

The Schleitheim Confession was the confession of faith of Anabaptists connected with Michael Slatter. As with many Anabaptists and their related documents, it is thoroughly moralistic in tone.

While Anabaptism is varied and diverse such that one should speak of AnabaptismS, yet a common motif is one of moralistic change. As opposed to the Magisterial Reformation, Anabaptists focus greatly on visible reform of practice and morals. Doctrine generally takes second place to that of moral reform, with the idea of "separation" from the world running amok in the Hutterites establishing communes distinct from the "evil secular" world around them. That is why I do not like the nomenclature of the Anabaptists as being part of the "Radical Reformation." It is radical alright, radical Medieval spiritualist revival that is.

The Schleitheim Confession is one such moralistic document. Looking at it one understands why Rick Warren loves it, because both of them are basically Semi-Pelagian legalists in orientation. Rick Warren, unless the Spirit works repentance in his heart, does not treasure sound doctrine. Rather, everything is all about having an immediate (i.e. without mediation) encounter with Jesus through "spiritual disciplines" and "40 Days of _____ (Purpose, Community, Vision etc)."

Those who wonder why Warren loves the Medieval mystics should not be surprised. In fact, I would be surprised if he does not identify with his spiritual forebears. Warren as a practical Semi-Pelagian share the same soteriology as the Medieval mystics. As the Reformation rejected the Medieval mystics (together with the trappings of Roman piety) and the Anabaptists, so also those of us who truly follow Christ according to the dictates of His Word should likewise reject Rick Warren.

Anabaptism, Scripture and the Word of God

But the Bible is to the natural man simply lifeless ink and paper until the Holy Spirit enters into his heart and quickens his understanding. Then and then only can he understand, according to Scharnschlager, the true meaning of the Scriptures.

— William R. Estep, The Anapbaptist Story: An Introduction to Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism, 3rd Ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975, 1996), p. 194-5

I have been reading this work on the Anabaptists. However sympathetic it was written, I could discern the many errors of the Anabaptists, even the so-called "biblical Anabaptists, " with all of them so far being biblicists — embracing Solo Scriptura or Scipture only. In this quote, it seems that some Anabaptists have embraced the spiritualist error of dichotomizing between the Scriptures as written and the Word of God, a move which pre-dates Barth by a few centuries, showing us that there is nothing really new under the sun.

The main error of those who concoct this false dichotomy is the failure to reckon with God as Creator. God as Creator is the creator of language, and therefore the usage of words is suitable to express God's truth which He intends to give to us. The denial of the written word as the Word of God is the implicit denial of the doctrine of Creation; a denial that nature can be adequate to express the things of God.

It is true of course that the Holy Spirit is necessary to understand God's truth. But the Holy Spirit does not take what is lifeless and alters it to what is living. Rather the Holy Spirit takes what is objectively alive and applies it to make it to us subjectively alive. The Anabaptist (and Neo-Orthodox) version of the work of the Holy Spirit with respects to Scripture follows the Roman Catholic view of grace overcoming nature, whereas the biblical Reformed view is that of grace transforming nature. In this Anabaptist view, the Scripture (nature) is lifeless ink and paper. Grace in the Holy Spirit is necessary to come along to overcome nature and make it living. In the biblical view, the Scripture (nature) is ink and paper which is however the objective expression of God's truth also. Grace in the Holy Spirit transforms nature by taking the objective Word of God and making it come alive subjectively in us.

In this, the Anabaptists can be shown to move against the Reformation current, and is rather a return to a form of Medieval spirituality found in the ideas of the Spiritual Franciscans. Whatever Anabaptism is, while it interacts with the Reformation for sure, it is as far away from the Reformation as the pre-Tridentine Roman Catholicism of that era was.

Wes White on the Institutional Church

Wes White has written an excellent short piece on why there is nothing wrong with the Church as an Institution per se. The Anarchist "House Church movement" by [Frank] Viola et al is just another "Restorationist" anti-institutional institution in its own right. Christ however instituted order in the Church, and this excludes the anarchist attitude of the so-called "House church movement". As it has been said, we are not opposed to having church in homes; what we are objecting is the sheer naivete that "Institution" is necessarily bad and that a house church is not an institution- that a house church is an "organism" not an "organization". As Pastor White says:

To bring this to a close, the institutional church is highly necessary if our goal is for Christians to come together. If people are going to come together, they must have an organization of some sort. An institution is really just an organization plus time. Institutions are inevitable in human society. If Christians are called to love one another, then they will inevitably form institutions. If they take the Bible seriously, they will set up boundaries of fellowship.

So, why not simply form your own organization based on what you think the Scripture says? At times, like during the Reformation, this may be necessary. However, even in the Reformation, the Reformers sought to look to the best of the past in order to learn how to put together their institutions. Theoretically, you may be able to build a better institution, but knowing you (whoever you are), probably not. The likelihood is that if you start from scratch, you will still build an institution. It will just be a very bad one.

A review and dialogue on Frank Viola's book Reimagining Christianity

I have finished Frank Viola's book Reimagining Christianity. To put it nicely and succinctly, the book is radical Anabaptist and restorationist piety reboiled and rebranded as a "new move" and "new way" of doing church.

Over at Ben Witherington III's blog quite a while back, Witherington has reviewed Viola's book rather extensively, Viola responded to the review, Witherington wrote his epilogue and Viola has the last word, as follows:

Frank Viola's Reimagining Church — Part One

Frank Viola's Reimagining Church — Part Two

Frank Viola's Reimagining Church — Part Three

Reimagining Church — Part Four

Reimagining Church — A Frank Response Part One [Frank Viola responds]

Reimagining Church — A Frank Response Part Two [Frank Viola responds]

EPILOGUE TO A FRANK DISCUSSION

A FRANK CODA [Frank Viola responds]

Witherington's review is extensive, though that is achieved by not being able to focus on particular issues in depth. But Witherington focuses on the main issues in contention, and drew blood where it counts, although Viola does not seem to get it.

I especially the part where Witherington deals with Viola's screed against denominationalism in his book.

pp. 235-36 [in Viola's book] can only be called a rant against denominationalism, which is even called a heretical notion antithetical to orthodoxy and dividing the body of Christ. I find it truly ironic that Frank thinks the notion of individual autonomous house churches is somehow less divisive of the body of Christ, than having denominations. Wrong Frank, you’ve just divided it up into even smaller tiny autonomous pieces in this approach!

A non-denominational denomination is STILL by definition a denomination, as it calls itself a body of Christ yet is not part of the other denominations. It is indeed supremely ironical, and hypocritical on Viola's part, to attack denominationalism by introducing yet another denomination.