Assembly vs. Church

[Robert R. Higby]

It isn't often that I perceive a God-ordained stick of dynamite about to explode in these discussions. If the issues under consideration are simply a re-statement of those that evangelicalism has debated without a lot of gospel enthusiasm for the last 50+ years, my interest is nauseatingly poor. But Disciple raised a VERY significant question which got me going. This has been one of my passions for many years:

i believe this is an entirely different issue altogether. translating the term EKKLHSIA is the issue here and what we have in our English translations for this in many places is Church which is a translation of a different Greek word not even found in the Bible (KURIOKOS). i don't really know the history of how this happened but the issue is how to translate the word EKKLHSIA which it is my opinion that it could be translated variously depending on context but church is not a translation at all. a better rendering would be something like congregation, assembly, gathering, etc. here is a sampling of the early english translations.

Let's talk on this! What an issue! In 1998, a prominent evangelical scholar rebuked me in a public forum situation when I challenged him on this one. He dogmatically stated this proud assertion in confident assurance that God supported his view: "Unfortunately, we're stuck with 'church' like we're stuck with 'Jesus'." What do you think of that?!

Let's talk!

[disciple]

Originally posted by BillTwisse
Let's talk on this! What an issue! In 1998, a prominent evangelical scholar rebuked me in a public forum situation when I challenged him on this one. He dogmatically stated this proud assertion in confident assurance that God supported his view: "Unfortunately, we're stuck with 'church' like we're stuck with 'Jesus'." What do you think of that?!

Let's talk!

what specifically did you want to talk about? do you want to discuss the issue of EKKLHSIA/KURIOKOS/KIRK/CHURCH? what specifically was the challenge?

[GraceAmbassador]

Brethren:

I believe I know Bill Twisse well enough to post another note in favor of what he is saying: He is actually saying that the translation of Ekklhsia (I will use different transliterations in this post), to church is totally inadequate. This is a key issue for me as well since I use the word "congress, or congregation, or assembly," or another biblical one, koinonia .

I asked a few scholars in the other side of the fence why in the English languaged they use church, rather then the derivative "Iglesia" as in most latin languages. After much rumbling from this friend, he confirmed most of what Disciple posts here as correct: it came from the word Kuriokos etc. But why only in the English Language?
Anybody?
My suggestion is that it could be "egregius", which is a much better derivative of the word since it means "that which stands out" (as in "called out", or a "herd" such as in sheep-herd)? Perhaps because in English eggregious whose root is found in "egregius" is related to something oustandingly bad. I don't know. I hope someone answers me.

As to kuriocos, this word seem to be a composite word from Kurios (Lord) and oikos (home) making it to be "The House of the Lord." Well, even if it is, I believe it is still a human invention since even before the full revelation of Grace Stephen tells us that "God does not abide in temple made by man's hands" and "The House of the Lord" refers to a building made by man's hands (I am not against buildings, by the way, I am opposed to calling the building The House of the Lord, Church or other religious slangs).
Paul, as he reveals to us Grace, teaches us that "we are the temples of the Holy Spirit, and of the Living God". Thus we are The House of the Lord, not the temple or the building. Then, so much for Kuriokos in my opinion.

I believe that as one whose primary Bible is of English translation, but the primary language is of Latin/Iberic Origin (Portuguese), I really feel that the concept of "iglesia" in Spanish, "igreja", in Portuguese, and "chiesa" in Italian or "église" in French, give us a better derivative and a closer relative to Eklhsia (Eklesia) than the English "church".

Having said that, let me go back to what my theologian friend in the other side told me and he made sure he voiced this as being his theory and many "rebels" on their field about why this idea of Church, as a building or as a "House": Purely to maintain a male dominated culture, specially after Constantine. They explain: rather than having meetings in private households, a la Priscilla and Aquila (Priscilla appears first in some manuscripts), where the lady of the house had prominence in the fellowship, the male dominated society decided to establish "houses, or buildings" where they could gather independently from a private household where the "lady of the house" would not have much prominence. These houses may have been referred to as Kuriokos, or, as I said Kurio Oikos, The House of the Lord, that later became "Kirk" and that in anglo saxon languages became "Church". I heard a very similar explanation in the A&E series "The Bible" although I do not often use A&E series about the Bible as one of my best sources.

Whatever it is, I question why the word "Church" varied so much from Eklhsia, or Ekklesia, (or any transitelarion you prefer) mostly, if it not only in English?


I would rather continue to use "congress", "assembly" or "koinonia".

As to any challenge from anyone: I am not anyone's attorney here, but I must be blind, since I have seen no challenge yet. This perhaps is an issue worthy pursuing: Why do we use the word Church in Anglo-Saxon Languages? And why even the best transliteration of "Eklesia" is used to mean anything other than the individuals "called out" to exercise such a pressure in hell's gates that they will not be able to withstand it?

Milt

[GraceAmbassador]

Brethren:

After I posted my last commentary, I noticed that Disciple was not asking Bill what was his challenge, but the challenge he, Bill, had from another party.

I must be illiterate, incapable of reading, so I apologize if I misguided anyone.

Milt

[Robert R. Higby]

The challenge that the California 'vigilante' defending traditional church (a very prominent evangelical scholar) gave me was this: we're stuck with 'church' like we're stuck with 'Jesus.' In other words, the common use of the word church (and all of its associated meanings) is just as sancrosanct as the use of the word 'Jesus.' Any one who would challenge this notion was proposed to be the intellectual equivalent of a member of the flat earth society. Interestingly, many politicians (notably Hillary Clinton) have been using this 'flat earth society' analogy to discredit all of their opponents in debate as stupid blithering idiots--who are certainly not worthy of being heard!

My proposal: when we use the word Jesus, if we accept the true Jesus of revelation, we know who we are talking about. Not so with church--not in any sense.

So that is an introductory comment. The common use of the word 'church' has been, is now, and will always be an institution of religion. The most orthodox of theologians will attempt to correct this usage. They will never succeed. The NT ekklesia refers to the people of God, period. Never an external institution with organized hierarchy and financial clout. This meaning of ekklesia will never be the primary focus of the term 'church' ('the Lord's house' of the Constantinian era), never!

Hopefully, we can engage in a fruitful discussion of the infinite difference between ekklesia and church.

[GraceAmbassador]

Brethren:

I also had experiences with people who will give their lives and sell out their ministries for words such as "church" and ascribe to them the same weight we do for words such as Jesus. These are the same people who will not demonstrate de same zeal for words such as "imputed righteousness", "finished work", "we are complete in Christ" and a few other good biblical terms and inferences. They will compromise in all of them, either with a poor substitute or a totally foreign concept in terms of Biblical teaching.

Why? Why is there such a fierce opposition to the revision (a good kind of revisionism) to some terms in the English versions of the Bible? Why in other languages, even when the term denotes a certain closeness to the original meaning, this meaning is distorted into the "church" notion of an "institutionalized religion"?

Terms such as "congress", "assembly" or koinonia simply will threaten the "institution" or the "organization" since they will place emphasis on the "organsim" rather than in the "organization".

The "church" as defined today is a mere defensive organization, or institution. It defends its "rights as guaranteed by the Constitution"; it defends its "friendly" image to the world;
it defends its real estate; it defends its system of financial sustanance basing it in an old covenant; it defends its memebership numbers in detriment of sound doctrine, rather than preaching sound doctrine in detriment of membership numbers; it defends its popularity; and in all, it defends, and defends as being always in the defensive. As a man with a shield who defends himself and for lack of a sword cannot fight back and attack, the "church" as the word is defined today has defended itself to a place of complete irrelevance other than protest against that which is powerless to change.

This is not the Ekklesia, the called out by Jesus in Cezarea of Philipi, a city that would make Rio de Janeiro during carnaval time, the most sinful and demonic celebration in the world, seem like a pic nic in a monastery. It was there, amidst the buzz of a big city, not in the safety net of a "pastor's conference" that Jesus announced and prophesied: "I will build my congress, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it".

In the very words of Jesus calling us out of the world, as Paul later explain: ...translaled us into the kingdom of His dear Son..., we have been placed in a position of attacking. We are called to offend and not merely to defend as if our rights have been given by a government or a group of mortals. Nay, we have been called to exercise such a pressure in the gates of hell that they will not be able to withstand such a force. It is not necessary for me to explain what gates represented in Jesus' days. I do not have to exegete gates using the Old Testament to indicate that they were the last bastion of defense in a fortified city. I do not have to mention that gates do not pick up swords and attack anyone. They were means of defense. If
the gates would crumble, then the city would be overtaken. That is precisely what we have been called out to do! That is the purpose of the congress! To attack! To snatch back from the hands of the thief, who comes for nothing, but to kill, steal and destroy, the elect of God who are scattered all over the world waiting not to be led to Jesus as the "church" assigned themselves to do, but to have Jesus taken to them by the congress. Not, this is not to say that the Father will not "draw them to Jesus" without the participation of the congress. This means, however, that there is a mandate to the congress whose fulfillment and victory has already been announced. Let us not question who will do what part, but rather, let us give heed and respond actively and obediently to our mandate

The congress has a role to play and before we go around excusing ourselves from this role, preaching a passive stance, where all we do is maintanance, Jesus has called us to be offensive. Offensive as His name is today! Offensive as is anyone who dares to follow His mandate!

Paul teaches us that "the weapons of our warfare, although not carnal or visible, they are powerful. These weapons are made available to us to wage our spiritual warfare (a term trivializaed by the charismatics) and instead of "protest" we are called to arrest, casting down imaginations and every high thing that exalts itself above the knowledge of God. We should participate, but not in protesting alone. This is only one part of a whole, therefore not the whole. I cannot obey a mandate 99% since anything less than 100% obedience is not obedience at all.
We protest and then retreat, expecting that the world will heed our protest. Not so! We need to take control! We do not have to beg for a constitutional position, since it will become our comfort zone, and the congress comfort zone is somewhere else and not in government giving us a permission to exist. After all did not Jesus forewarned us that we would suffer persecution for His name sake? Why do we look so suprised at the way we are treated today in secular spheres?"The government giveth, and the government taketh away. Accursed be the name of the gorvernment". This may be irreverent for some of you, but is not worse than the irreverence we are called upon to be militant about.

The elect are outhere. Perhaps even in the pew in front of you, whose neck you know every inch. The elect is in skid row, the elect is in your workplace, in your school, in your factory. He may be your employer, your employee... As long as the elect is unconverted, the congress has the role of taking Jesus to him.
That can be made with a simple religious attitude. This has to be made by an active and planned attack in whatever forces have blinded this little ones from understanding the calling of the Holy Spirit. Let us not use "irresistable Grace" to cop out from obeying our mandate. Grace irriesistable, yes, but so should be our desire to obey our mandate.

The congress does not have to beg for funds to sustain its own mission. It has to have the vision of the mission first. Unfortunately this order has been turned around! Walt Disney did not say to his financeers, such as Coca Cola: "give me the money and I, then, will have a vision". No! He said, here is my vision and my mission! The others were convinced by his conviction and his vision was realized and his mission accomplished. The "church" reverts this order. It wants the funds and the sustanance before it even discloses its mission. Thus, the moneys and the funds end up being used in self aggrandising riches of real estate.

Finally, just a biblical illustration for those who insist in copping out of their mandate using out of balance truths as excuses:

Lazarus was dead. He had been dead for four days! Only Jesus could bring him back to life. When they came to the tomb, the One who could bring back to life an odorific corpse, could, undisputably, pulverize the rock that sealed the tomb. I pray that no one doubts this fact. Jesus, however, tells common man to remove the stone! He could do it, but he gave some the honor of opening the tomb, so the dead would come alive!
At the end of His feat, when Lazarus now alive hops out of the tomb mummyfied in bandages, is there any doubt that Jesus, who had the power to bring a four days dead man back to life unravel the bandages from Lazarus using the same tool He used to bring Lazarus back to life, His word, or command only? Why did not Jesus say: "Stone, roll away and let me in. Open Sezame! And then, Bandages, allow a few minutes for people to cover their eyes since Lazarus may not be dressed under you and roll off Lazarus body". I think the anwser is simple: Jesus wants the congress, the called out, to be the ones who will, through active militancy and participation remove the stones so He can make those that are "dead in their trespasses and sins" alive in Him again. He also wants to be the ones who will unravel the bonds of legalism, bad theology and all the pressures society and religion alike, wrap around these new resurrected ones.

The "church" does not like to hear these things. They prefer to maintain the word and the notion of "church" as institutionalized religion because this involvement requires more than the religious activism that they are willing to give. The congress, however, is called out for and with a purpose: To offend, rather than defend. To attack rather than retract!

Let us understand the difference!

[disciple]

Originally posted by GraceAmbassador
I just thought I should share this with you.

thanks for those encouraging and challenging words Milt. they are much needed and timely words. may my hearing never become dulled to such words. dr. black in his "Using New Testament Greek in Ministry: A Practical Guide for Students and Pastors" says essentially what you're saying here. i should put his quote here. it is quite challenging yet very encouraging.

[disciple]

Originally posted by GraceAmbassador
The congress, however, is called out for and with a purpose: To offend, rather than defend. To attack rather than retract!

Let us understand the difference!

once again milt, very good words. we do need to attack but so critical is it for us to understand the nature of this attack. the assembly must understand that our weapons of warfare are not of this world and that our kingdom is not of this world. we fight, run, box, wrestle, agonize, struggle, battle, etc. but our weapons are of the likes of the word of God, faith, prayer, the gospel of peace, hope, truth, righteousness, salvation, etc. and to remember that He has already overcome and that through Him by faith we may also be overcomers.

John 16:33 "These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world."

1 Co 15:57 but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 John 4:4 You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world.

1 John 5:4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith.

Rev 5:5 and one of the elders said to me, "Stop weeping; behold, the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome so as to open the book and its seven seals."

Rev 13:7 It was also given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him.

Rev 17:14 "These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful."

[disciple]

Originally posted by BillTwisse
So that is an introductory comment. The common use of the word 'church' has been, is now, and will always be an institution of religion. The most orthodox of theologians will attempt to correct this usage. They will never succeed. The NT ekklesia refers to the people of God, period. Never an external institution with organized hierarchy and financial clout. This meaning of ekklesia will never be the primary focus of the term 'church' ('the Lord's house' of the Constantinian era), never!

Hopefully, we can engage in a fruitful discussion of the infinite difference between ekklesia and church.

a great book that unveils and develops this theme of conflict throughout history is "reformers and their stepchildren". you can read the intro and postscript here or here.

[disciple]

this is a must read:

http://www.ritchies.net/p4wk4.htm

[GraceAmbassador]

Origianlly posted by Disciple

...and to remember that He has already overcome and that through Him by faith we may also be overcomers.

Indeed a blessed aspect to be reminded about!

The outcome of this fight has been rigged in heaven and is eternally effective!

(The scriptures you cite, by the way, are mostly the same ones I quote to those who think that the "good fight" we are in is the same as "political activism" where one can actually lose, as the "Cultural War" (Pat Robertson and a few other brethren have lost) No! Our fight is not up for election every four years or so!

The fight assigned by God is a winning battle and one wroth fighting!

Thanks!

[wildboar]

I think the issue has more to do with what the word actually means in common use than what the word is derived from. If church means building in common use then it should be dropped, however haven't you heard the song that says "the church is not a building the church is not a steeple, the church is not a resting place, the church is the people." All I ask is that if the NIV chooses to render it assembly then they should be consistent about it and not fuel the artificial church/Israel distinction.

[disciple]

Originally posted by wildboar
All I ask is that if the NIV chooses to render it assembly then they should be consistent about it and not fuel the artificial church/Israel distinction.

and i don't think that's too much to ask. but the assumption is that this difference of rendering is precisely to preserve an articifial church/Israel distinction rather than because they saw a different referent and were so driven by context not theology. that is a hard thing to prove since we don't know exactly what the translators were thinking. found something interesting in some early english translations:

Bishops (1568)
Mt 16:18 And I say also vnto thee, that thou art Peter, and vpon this rocke I wyll buylde my congregation: And the gates of hell shall not preuayle agaynst it.

Acts 7:38 This is he that was in the Churche in ye wyldernesse with the angel, which spake to hym in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers: This man receaued the worde of lyfe to geue vnto vs.

Geneva (1587)
Mt 16:18 And I say also vnto thee, that thou art Peter, and vpon this rocke I will builde my Church: and ye gates of hel shal not ouercome it.

Acts 7:38 This is he that was in the Congregation, in the wildernes with the Angell, which spake to him in mount Sina, and with our fathers, who receiued the liuely oracles to giue vnto vs.

Mace (1729)
Mt 16:18 and I tell thee likewise, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will hereafter build my church: and death shall not prevail against it.

Acts 7:38 'twas he that was in the assembly with our fathers in the wilderness, and with the angel that spoke to him on mount Sina: and delivered the oracles to him by word of mouth for our use.

why would you surmise that there is a difference in these translations? the bishops bible reverses it and the geneva and mace translations have it as most modern versions do . do you think the geneva or mace translations were motivated by a desire to retain an artificial church/Israel distinction? how is this since both pre-date dispensationalism? is there really a dispensational conspiracy to the NIV? i don't think so. i think a better explanation is something called context and the very obvious difference in referent.

[disciple]

you might find this paper interesting:

http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/documents/Semantics.pdf

[Robert R. Higby]

Read both papers with delight and interest.

I was very glad to see in the story of the church 4.4: that Verduin's historical revisionism in "the Reformers and their Stepchildren" (which I have always intensely disliked) was at least partially exposed at the end! At first glance I almost thought the author was totally agreeing with Verduin.

To me, Verduin's position on the Reformation and one-sided presentation of its history is as bad as Marshall's false perspective on American history in "The Light and the Glory." The authors of both books have re-written history to their liking with a bias that in no way justifies the conclusions.

We do not owe the separation of church and state to the anabaptists. To me that is utterly and totally absurd. The Pacifist theology of the anabaptist radicals, who proposed that this material world is strictly the realm and kingdom of the devil, would have left us forever in the papal totalitarian communism of Thomas Aquinas. The Anabaptist wing of nonconformity did nothing whatsoever to deliver us from this!

People need to go back and study the real Luther and Calvin. The bottom line: their ideas are those which resulted in the gradual but certain liberation of humanity from the papal kingdom. The fact that Luther did not carry out his ideas of separation of church and state and freedom of conscience in practical ministry--this only shows us the greatness of his sin and how far he departed from his own ideals. Change took time. The reconstructionists of today are completely off-base in claiming the heritage of the Reformers, in my estimation their heritage is Thomism, Thomism, and more Thomism. Contrary to their claims, not even the writings of Augustine support what they are saying on the keys of the kingdom and church authority. Only Thomas and his predecessors in natural philosophy support this.

Well, now everyone knows what I think.

The 'linguistics' article was extremely good. The author has a good case about 'called out' being a theological intrustion into ekklesia, which really refers simply to a gathering. But the point is that it is saints in communion, never an institution of religion.

I wish the Baptist teacher would interpret the bapto family of Greek words with the same rules he has laid out for us on the others. Methinks that if he did this consistently, he would have to cease being a Baptist immediately.

My last post on ekklesia timed out (I forgot to save it before submitting), so I will have to re-write it!

In the Lord's grace,

[Brandan Kraft]

WHOAH

[disciple]

Originally posted by grebel
WHOAH

what does this mean? i'm confused

[Robert R. Higby]

The question has been raised as to how ‘church’ as a translation of EKKLESIA came about. I would propose that it is a simple matter of how one language is translated into another. Once the perceived essential nature of the EKKLESIA was changed from the people of Christ into a religious institution professing Christ, when the word afterward needed to be translated into other languages, the resulting translation carried with it the religious bias of what professed Christianity (‘churchianity’) had become. So there you have it.

The song that proclaims ‘the church is the people’ can never change the common person’s use of the word ‘church.’ No more than the word ‘gay’ can now be changed back to its former meaning. Once a word usage is engrained in society and culture, if that usage is detrimental and false, it has to be abandoned.

“I’m going over to the church.”
“Let’s build a new church.”
“Let me tell you about my church.”
“We need to start a church.”
“My church is a very good one.”

All of these common expressions betray the false Constantinian usage of the word as an institution of religion. I’m not suggesting that the word ’church’ should be dropped from our vocabulary. I’m only suggesting that it should NEVER be the translated equivalent of EKKLESIA. Church in our society and common usage includes the Mormon church, Papal church, churches of liberal ’Protestantism,’ church of Satan, and every other imaginable thing. This use of the word will never change, just as our present use of the word ’gay’ will never change! We know it.

You can’t go back home.

The EKKLESIA is an assembly, congregation, congress, fellowship, gathering, senate, etc. It is always people and people only. The Pauline likening of EKKLESIA to a house is obviously a spiritual analogy--referring to the literal notion of a physical gathering of regenerate people. NOTE: I hate all interpretations that are ‘purely spiritual,’ considering how much God loves matter! Paul is not promoting Gnostic heresy in this regard or in any of his other interpretations!

[Brandan Kraft]

Originally posted by disciple
what does this mean? i'm confused

Sorry, it's just that Mr. Twisse's post caught me off guard. He wrote, "that Verduin's historical revisionism in "the Reformers and their Stepchildren" (which I have always intensely disliked) was at least partially exposed at the end!"

Yikes! He totally ripped on the anabaptists, and I have to wonder why... He wrote, "We do not owe the separation of church and state to the anabaptists. "

I agree that the anabaptists are not 100% responsible for ushering in the separation of church and state doctrine (nonconformists actually existed before the rise of the anabaptists) but we ought to credit them where credit is due! Unlike Calvin and Luther, they were willing to DIE for their beliefs rather than tow the ecclesiastical line so to speak.

The Pacifist theology of the anabaptist radicals, who proposed that this material world is strictly the realm and kingdom of the devil, would have left us forever in the papal totalitarian communism of Thomas Aquinas. The Anabaptist wing of nonconformity did nothing whatsoever to deliver us from this!

I agree their pacifist theology was far off base BUT what do you suggest the anabaptists should have done? Remember Balthasar Hubmaier? He was one of the few "anabaptists" that believed in the use of the sword. I'm sorry, but I think your rip on the anabaptists is wrong. They weren't perfect, but neither were our reformation darlings Luther, Calvin and Zwingli.

Also, please tell me how Verduin totally revised reformation history?

[Robert R. Higby]

I agree with the corrective tone of your post, Grebel, since it shows that I over-stated my point in such a way as to communucate it very poorly.

It would be must unfortunate if we failed to denounce both the sins of the state-church Reformers and those of the Anabaptists. We are heirs of the truth found in both movements and also heirs of the sins of both. All of this affects our thinking and practice today.

I will also confess that Verduin is not as far off historically in his book as Marshall is in his, if that is any consolation! But I see a number of instances of historical revisionism in both. I am definitely not saying that Verduin totally revised history, only that he presents an inbalanced perspective on it by only emphasizing the atrocities of the state-church Reformers. It lacks a perspective on:

1. The Reformation gospel, which did not come from the Anabaptists. Some nonconformists may have understood the gospel advances that were also taught in the Reformation, but certainly not the well-published of the Anabaptists--in my view. They were mostly hung up on free-will, NT law, water baptism as the door into Christian communion, and self-denying works as assurance of justification.

It is most distorted to suggest or imply, in my estimation, that societies like Calvin's Geneva had the same level of sacralism as that of the rule of medieval tyrants--or that it had the same lack of liberty as Thomism--simply because it did not advance as far as our bill of rights; therefore ended up killing certain 'heretics' (whether real or perceived). We have to see the progressive nature of reform and thought-change over the ages.

Without the gospel as expounded by Luther in the Bondage of the Will, we would still be under the rule of the papacy (actually, by now we would be under the rule of Islam). The anabaptists did not have the same level of zeal on this one. Also, Luther's published views on the two kingdoms went far beyond Pacifist theology--and certainly paved the way for eventual constitutional republican democracy.

2. The intolerance of the anabaptists themselves toward opponents. Since they did not have the power of the state, they could not murder those who disagreed with them. But that does not mean their hearts were full of love and grace toward those who differed. I, for one, would never be welcome in their assemblies--judging by their published writings. This is the same spirit acting as in those who had the power of the sword--without the actual ability to act. We have the same thing present with us today in most of the denominations.

I have real problems with a number of aspects of Verduin. To put it simply: he over-lauds the Anabaptists (without exposing their heresy and intolerance of their own opponents), while implying what seems to be a theory of 'corporate guilt' toward the well-published and known Reformers. The incidents of Anabaptist persecution that he documents are completely appalling, for sure. But they do not comprise the whole of the Christian history throughout that period.

I could say more but I'm down with a bad virus (maybe it played a role in my wacky comments yesterday!). Hope to discuss again soon.