THE EVANGELIST PRINCE

Prince Kaboo was born in 1873, son of a chief of the Kru tribe in Liberia, Africa. When only in his teens, he was captured in a skirmish with the Grebo tribe, who used him as a pawn in extracting tribute. He was regularly whipped and tortured, and the Kru had to deliver a present every month to keep him alive. If they defaulted, Kaboo would be buried up to the neck, his face smeared with honey, and the ants would eat him alive.

One night, there was a blinding flash of light, the ropes fell off him and a voice said: "Kaboo, flee!" He ran into the jungle, travelling by night and hiding in hollow trees by day, until he reached the capital, Monrovia. Here he found work and was invited to church. Hearing how Saul of Tarsus was converted through a blinding flash of light [the Bible, Acts 9:3-19], Kaboo was astonished at the similarity to his own story, and gave his life to Christ. At his baptism he was given the name Samuel Morris.

After two years, hungry to receive training and to be empowered to preach the gospel, Kaboo was sent to America. He worked his passage, being badly treated by the ship's crew, but a number turned to the Lord through his witness.

He arrived in America aged 18 and was referred to Taylor University, a Christian foundation in Indiana. When the principal asked him what room he would like, Kaboo replied: "Give me the one that no one else wants."

Kaboo's simple godliness affected everyone he met. They often heard him calling on God in his room (he called it "talking to my Father"). He took every opportunity to witness to others, but his heart still yearned to return to Liberia with the message of salvation.

It never happened. In 1893, aged 20, he contracted an infection and died. The President of the university made this statement: Samuel Morris was a divinely sent messenger of God to Taylor University. He thought he was coming over here to prepare himself for his mission to his own people; but his coming was to prepare Taylor University for her mission to the whole world. Many of his student contemporaries volunteered for missionary service, to keep alive Kaboo's vision and to work towards his dream.

A life's work accomplished in just four years as a Christian! Behind this we can see the meeting of two crucial elements: a clear and powerful divine call and what the university President called Kaboo's sublime yet simple faith in God.

ANTONY OF EGYPT AND THE PULL OF THE DESERT

St Antony of Egypt was a true pioneer and radical, whose influence is still felt today. What makes him so remarkable is that he did what he did long before it made sense to do such things, but by doing it he blazed a trail for posterity.

It has become almost a mantra to evangelical Protestant historians that the migration to the desert by hundreds, even thousands of monks, nuns and hermits was a reaction against the official "Christianisation" of the Roman Empire by Constantine I and subsequent Emperors. But all that was 4th century - Antony had already made his statement a generation earlier, at a time when the Early Church was still supposed to be in its bloom.

Born in Egypt about AD 251, his parents died when he was young, leaving him a small fortune. One day he heard a Christian quote Jesus' words: If you would be perfect, go sell all you have, give to the poor, and come follow Me (Matt.19:21). They cut him like a knife. He sold his estate and became the disciple of a godly pastor.

Yet his heart grew restless. He didn't belong to the world he saw around him. He felt a strong pull to the desert beyond the Nile. Here hot and cold, flood and drought engaged men in a daily, physical battle for life itself. To Antony, this mirrored the human soul in its battle between flesh and spirit, love for God and love of self. Here too was a pioneering adventure, where only the real would make it.

So Antony went to live alone in the desert. Friends sent food every few days; the rest depended on his survival skills. His experiences were later dictated to a follower - and what reading they make! He fought boredom and guilt, sexual temptations and hunger for possessions. He gives graphic accounts of battles with demons, but also of sweet times of intimate communion with Jesus. He also learned the importance of manual work for focussing the mind; he wove reed baskets and sold them in town.

Gradually his reputation spread, and men came to the desert to be near Antony. Reluctantly, in AD 305, he left his solitude and spent six years drawing these disciples into a community of hermits. In time, some 5,000 were with him. They lived alone or in pairs in the week, then came together on Sundays for worship, fellowship and mutual support. He taught them the foundational principles that he had based his own life on: love, patience, celibacy, gentleness and humility. Hate all peace that comes from the flesh, he taught. Gain your brother, and you have gained God. Offend your brother, and you sin against Christ.

Antony was well aware of the prophetic power of his act of renunciation of 'normality'. A time is coming when men will go mad, he is recorded as saying, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, "You are mad, you are not like us."

A monastery built in the vicinity of Antony's original community of hermits still exists and is a popular tourist destination. But Antony himself found celebrity unpalatable and withdrew deeper into the desert, where he lived to be 102. He appeared only twice: to strengthen persecuted brethren in Alexandria, and (at 101) to preach against a dangerous heresy. His burial place was kept secret, since he feared men's idolatry. Today, Antony is acknowledged as the father of the monastic life; the man who broke the mould and let passion for Jesus create a new, living 'wineskin' for the Holy Spirit's life.

MUST A RADICAL BE OBNOXIOUS?

The importance and impact of Menno Simons (see previous post) cannot be stressed too highly. One noted historian divides Anabaptism in the Low Countries into three phases: “before Menno”, “under Menno” and “after Menno”.

His travels in the church’s service took him from the Rhineland across the Baltic lands to Danzig (Gdansk) in Poland, and records show that he won followers wherever he went – some of whom died as martyrs, refusing to renounce the truths he had taught them. In the judgement of the Mennonite Encyclopaedia:

“Menno's significance lies in the fact that he prevented the collapse of the northern wing of the Anabaptist movement in the days of its greatest trial and built it up on the right Biblical foundation. He did this as its leader, speaker, and defender, through his preaching as he journeyed from place to place, and through his simple and searching writings. Particularly the Foundation-Book did much to restore the original Anabaptist concepts and principles, which were in grave danger of being lost. His writings were effective not so much because of their superior and logical qualities as a theological system, but because behind them stood a man formed according to the Scriptures who sincerely and honestly wanted to give all for the Christian church and the glory of God. Through Menno's courageous and devoted life a distinctive witness in the Reformation movement, representing a Christian brotherhood and a Christian way of life, was preserved.”

He knew full well that he could be arrested at any moment. He also knew the crucial importance of unity among the scattered groups of Anabaptists who claimed allegiance to him. He had to mediate and be diplomatic, yet to set a tone that others could follow. He called leaders’ conferences, he encouraged debate, he urged brotherly grace.

This has led to Menno being treated in the history books as a moderate among the Radical Reformers. Given the tight line he had to keep, this would hardly be surprising. Many of his writings restate the root principles and doctrines of Anabaptism and plead for wholesale acceptance of them.

But Menno was no lamb! One of his writings can serve as our example: ‘The Reason Why Menno Simons Does Not Cease Teaching And Writing’, written in the 1540s, is outspokenly hard-line in its exposure of sin, its naming of idols, and its call to repentance and a holy life.

“When I look to find a magistrate who fears God, rightly performs his office and uses his authority properly, I find, as a general rule, nothing but a wine-sodden Lucifer...

“Again, when I look to find true pastors and teachers, such as are sent of God, quickened by the Holy Spirit; who sincerely seek the salvation of their brethren; who are not earthly-minded, but preach the saving word of our beloved Lord Jesus Christ, in purity of heart, and who are blameless in their doctrine and life - I find instead nothing but robbers of the glory of God, and murderers of souls; deceivers, blind watchmen, mute dogs, masters of sects who are carnally, earthly and devilishly minded; enemies of the cross; serving their bellies instead of serving God; false prophets, idolaters, vain talkers, liars, and tricksters. If any person does not believe my words, let him prove their walk by the word of the Lord; let him compare their doctrine, sacraments, spirit, object, walk and life with the doctrine, sacraments, spirit, object, walk and life of Christ, and even common sense will teach you who has really sent them, and what fruits their teachings bear!”

Menno would not be the first apostolic radical to be accused to being kindly when present and tough when writing from afar - St Paul had the same thing levelled at him [2 Corinthians 10:1]. Perhaps the underlying principle here is to show grace and understanding to open hearts, while slicing into falsehood and self-centredness in backslidden or blind hearts, with a view to winning them. We see Jesus Christ Himself doing this, so we may safely conclude that this is the heart of the true radical. And yes, where necessary, it is obnoxious!

REBUILDING THE WALLS

Some of God's radicals operated in days when the Church was strong and advancing. Others lived in times of hardship, confusion and decline. Their (equally heroic) task was to lead the way to restoration; to 'rebuild the walls', like Nehemiah in his day. One such ‘rebuilder’ was Menno Simons [1496-1561].

Born in rural Friesland, son of a dairy farmer, he showed piety and intelligence and at the age of 28 he became a Roman Catholic priest. But he was nagged by inner doubts about some aspects of Catholic practice, so he read widely, including the (officially banned) Martin Luther. The burning of an Anabaptist believer as a heretic, not far from Menno's home, threw him into mental turmoil. The Anabaptists (see my last few posts) were everywhere condemned, but their teachings resonated in his own heart. As he studied scripture, he became convinced that he was called to walk with these persecuted brethren.

At this very point, however, the Radical Reformers’ movement was in turmoil. One group, at Münster in Germany, had fallen into religious mania. Nearer to home, a group of Anabaptists had occupied the cathedral in Bolsward and proclaimed revolution. Both groups had been ruthlessly wiped out by the authorities. Even so, Menno sensed that the Anabaptists were at core 'like sheep without a shepherd' (the Bible, Mark 6:34). In this darkest hour, he felt an inner call from God.

I renounced my worldly reputation and my easy life, he wrote, and I willingly submitted myself to distress and poverty under the heavy cross of Christ. I surrendered my soul and body to the Lord ... and commenced in due time ... to teach and to baptize, to till the vineyard of the Lord,... to build up His holy city and temple and to repair the tumble-down walls.

For the next twenty years he and his family were fugitives. With a price on his head, Menno toured Holland and northern Germany, never staying in one place longer than a few months. Always in danger, Menno preached, baptised and reconciled brethren. He wrote letters and books setting out a balanced Anabaptist theology. One of his key themes was the ‘new creation’: people, the Church and society can be transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit, in the love of Christ. In this lies hope for mankind’s future, in any age.

Menno was never captured. Even so, his hardships left him crippled in later years. Only one of his children reached adulthood. And he bore the constant burden of care for the Church. If Almighty God had not preserved me, he wrote, I would have gone mad. For there is nothing on earth that my heart loves more than the Church, yet I must live to see her in this sad affliction.

So he pressed on. Through his labours, Anabaptism was not only saved from extinction but given new vigour. Mennonites gained a foothold in northern Europe, then in America, and they still exist in significant numbers today. Menno’s was an apostolic ministry, not in the out-front manner of a Paul but the more hidden manner of an Epaphras or a Titus. It was also truly radical in that Menno searched for the roots of New Testament Christianity, returned to those roots, and did all he could to protect, strengthen and publicise these roots. Menno offers today's evangelical Christians an inspiring model of leadership that balances zeal and discipline, passion and theological depth, courage and wisdom.

NON-WORLDLY RADICALS?

Historical evidence suggests that the only group among the Radical Reformation (Anabaptists) who targetted and achieved a united purpose as a movement, were the Swiss Brethren (see previous post). This has a lot to do with them being the first. By the time the word spread to Central and North Germany, persecution had already been let loose. Menno Simons , pioneer and apostolic leader of the Northern wing, was left a fugitive with a bounty on his head, travelling to support and help isolated groups of fearful believers. Regional unity was impossible under such conditions. The same was true for the Hutterites in Central and Eastern Germany.

So let's look at the third thumbnail definition of a radical movement, as used by secular historians (see post of 17 June), and see if the Anabaptists fit it. Did the Radical Reformation have as its aim a change to the current system of power ?

In any welling up of mass protest in history, there will have been hawks and doves: those who wanted revolution at any price and those who sought peaceful means. Even the mainstream Lutheran reformers had their rabble-rousing wing, under such men as Andreas Karlstadt, who led the masses in the burning of statues and Roman Catholic trappings, and who was implicated in stirring up the Peasants' War.

The Anabaptists had them too, like the fiery and unpredictable Hans Hut. These did seek an overthrow of corrupt feudal systems and rampant social and religious injustice. The Peasants' War did happen and some Anabaptists took part. Then there were the events at Münster in Westphalia where, under prolonged siege, the Anabaptist inhabitants set up their own kingdom, appointed a ruler and made new laws - a kind of shellshocked version of Calvin's Christian Republic in Geneva. It ended bloodily and was all the established churches needed to condemn Anabaptism for evermore.

The bulk of the Radical Reformation leaders, however, were against such things. Central to their beliefs were a) the separation of Church and State , and b) Christian non-violence. They accepted that the State was corrupt and might use force against them, but they were not to do so in return. It was against all their priciples to accept worldly offices such as magistrate, so there were never going to be any William Wilberforces among them.

Theirs was indeed a refusal of the world's power systems, but by another means: by "coming out, being separate and touching nothing unclean" (the Bible, 2 Corinthians 6:17). While others might seek to change the political and social systems by legislation or revolution, the Radical Reformation by and large did not see a Spartacus-like Jesus of Nazareth, but one whose kingdom was "not of this world" (the Bible, John 18:36). Their alternative was a new way of living as a collective, based on love, forgiveness and all Christian virtues.

So the Radical Reformation cannot fit the letter of the historians' third criterion, for they neither agitated politically nor (in the vast majority of cases) took part in any revolutionary activity. But in another sense, the definition scarcely fits a movement which had a different concept of 'power' , 'rule' and 'authority'. That they insisted on full observance of their belief and practice by all members, on pain of being cast out of the fellowship, shows a degree of commitment that suggests group radicality. And let's not forget, in the eyes of the State, their actions were indeed revolutionary and subversive enough to warrant every attempt to snuff them out. That, at least, is radical!

ORGANISED RADICALS?

Now let’s turn to the second suggested definition of “radicalism” (see post of 17 June). Were the 16th century Anabaptists (or Radical Reformation) an organised body rather than spontaneous local outbursts?

Immediately there's a problem. Present-day readers or groups tend to filter the data according to their own position, then make history fit that scheme. So to devout Catholics, the Anabaptists were heretics; to staunch Lutherans, they were dangerous fanatics bent on revolution. Progressive Nonconformists try to claim them as theirs - though in fact there are serious points of divergence.

Hans-Jürgen Goertz acknowledges this in his book The Anabaptists. He reappraises the evidence dispassionately and concludes that the Radical Reformation was largely a local phenomenon and cannot be taken as a united movement, whether through leadership, practice or even theology.

So do we conclude that the Radical Reformation wasn't "radical" in the sense of my earlier post, because it wasn't organised? If you're looking for a national movement, then no, you won't find one. But Goertz misses two fundamental points. The first is that the Anabaptists were outlawed from the start; arrested and imprisoned as soon as discovered; many burned to death; whole colonies forced into exile. Under such conditions it is very hard to start a national movement!

Secondly, the Radical Reformation arose in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and in time other countries eastwards, which were at that point in history hardly nations in the sense of western European monarchies like France, Spain and England. The Germanic lands were a hotch-potch of small states and dukedoms, united by language and culture but by little else. The mindset was different. 'Small was beautiful'. People thought regionally, not nationally.

So the southern wing of the Anabaptists, known today as Swiss Brethren, naturally focussed on their immediate area. On that basis, they did pursue unity and organisation. Leaders of local groups met at Schleitheim (or Schlatt am Randen) in Swabia in 1527 and thrashed through what they really believed and wanted. The result was the Schleitheim Confession, which became the seven-point manifesto and statement of faith for that part of the Radical Reformation. The very wording of the text speaks of united, organised purpose.

"The articles which we discussed and on which we were of one mind are these:
Baptism;
The Ban (Excommunication);
Breaking of Bread;
Separation from Abomination;
Pastors in the Church;
The Sword;
The Oath."

Here is evidence that there was unity and organisation in all three of Goertz's stated areas: leadership, practice and theology. The fact that it was not national, but only regional, is simply down to the political map of the time. All of which leads me to an initial verdict that the Radical Reformation (or at least this part of it) was indeed "radical".

THE 'RADICAL REFORMATION' AS A MOVEMENT

Let's start with the first of the three statements in my last post. Was the 16th century Radical Reformation (or Anabaptism) a co-ordinated movement or a largely individual protest?

Take almost any reform movement in history and it probably began with isolated rumblings of discontent, which grew more general and more vocal but awaited a defining moment: an action or the emergence of a leadership that would give the protest a voice and a cause. 'Protestantism' was already simmering under the surface of German life, but it took Marin Luther's act of nailing to the church door his 95 Theses (objections to the Catholicism of his day), to turn discontent into a movement.

A similar act could be seen as the defining moment for the Radical Reformation. Many people, particularly among the poorer classes, felt that Luther and his colleagues had not gone fare enough in their separation from the old Roman church system. They said he had "tried to mend an old kettle but had only made the hole bigger." One key area was infant baptism. At Zurich in Switzerland, one of the nerve centres of Luther's reforms, a group of leading Protestants headed by Ulrich Zwingli debated the issue. Finally, the town council sided with Zwingli and the mainstream party, declaring that infant baptism was acceptable and that nobody should oppose it.

Three leaders, Conrad Grebel, Felix Manz and George Blaurock, could not accept this. On 21 January 1525 they went to Manz's house to talk and pray the matter over. Blaurock then asked Grebel (who had been a minister) to baptise him with water as a believer, then Blaurock baptised the others. It was illegal but they made no secret of it afterwards, but instead went round baptising others.

The decisive moment had happened; a leadership had emerged; the 'Anabaptist' movement (coming from the Greek for 're-baptised'), or Radical Reformation, was born. This fits fairly conclusively the first criterion for "radicality".