Bloody theatre

Walter Unger

"The Mirror of the Martyrs" is a travelling exhibit of woodcut illustrations by Jan Luyken, taken from the 1685 edition of The Martyrs' Mirror. The exhibit's gut-wrenching stories, depicted in word and image, raise some hard questions. Why did people torture and kill their fellow human beings? Why did the Anabaptists and a host of other martyrs resist authority? Why do the powerful fear the weak? What beliefs are worth dying for? Are contemporary anabaptists willing to live by their convictions and suffer for them?

Jan Luyken's etchings capture not only the agony but also the irony of the torture process. In every scene of torture and execution stand the clergy, the vicars of Christ, ready to receive last-minute confessions. Other spectators to the high drama of execution included family and fellow believers, who quietly encouraged the victim; those who spoke out on behalf of the victims were often subjected to the same fate. There were reporters who put the event on public record. Then there was the bloodthirsty crowd, who came to see a good show and jeer at any ineptitude by the executioner. On one occasion, an executioner required seven blows with a dull axe to sever the head of an Anabaptist.

There were more than 4000 Anabaptist martyrs in the sixteenth century, outnumbering any other group of martyrs in that period. These courageous believers were intent on one thing more than anything else, and that was to make a good witness. What they meant was that they desperately wanted to remain steadfast under torture and to give their inquisitors good scriptural reasons for their faith; then, when their moment of death came, they wanted to call the spectators to repentance.

The authorities had all kinds of ways of trying to stop the powerful testimonies of Anabaptists. For example, in 1574, thirty were being prepared to be burned around one fire. In order to prevent them from testifying, the executioners filled their mouths with gags and balls. However, when these men and women came to the place of execution, they freed themselves of the gags and balls and began to speak boldly to the spectators of the Word of God. The monks then put vices over the prisoner's tongues, screwed them down tightly and burned the tips of the tongues with a red hot iron so they would swell up and cause the vices to stay in place. There was no more verbal testimony that day.

Why were the Anabaptists seen as such a threat that they had to have such measures enacted against them? The basic reason is that what they believed ran counter to the state and to the Catholic and Protestant religious establishments.

The Anabaptists refused to bow to the pretensions of the state, a state that dictated to the church and used religion for its own ends. The state commanded Christians to kill in the name of Christ-- to kill the Turks and anyone else who threatened the state. The Anabaptists said no--they must obey God rather than man; they could not wield the sword. Menno Simons wrote, "Since we are to be conformed to the image of Christ, how can we then fight our enemies with the sword?" Then he added: "Spears and swords of iron we leave to those who, alas, consider human blood and swine's blood of well-nigh equal value."

It is no wonder that the Anabaptists were seen as disloyal to the state, traitors who had to be done away with.

The Anabaptist view of the Christian life and of the church stuck in the throats of both the Catholic and Protestant establishments. For Anabaptists, the Christian life was a new birth followed by a new life of discipleship. That new life meant baptism on confession of faith and entry into a believers' church.

From about the late fourth century until 1525, a person got into the church not by personal confession of faith in Christ but by infant baptism. All members of European society were in the church, whether they were believers or unbelievers, whether they were living godly lives or not.

In 1525 a small group of men said no to the entrenched view of the church. They said that a little bit of water on an infant's head does not make a Christian. They said that the church is not everybody's church--it is a believers' church. They pointed out that nowhere in the Bible is baptism mandated for infants; rather, it is clearly commanded for those who believe and are willing to commit their lives not only to Christ, but also to brothers and sisters in a believers' church.

For these basic beliefs the Anabaptists were persecuted--seen as revolutionaries by the state and as heretics by the church.

For what convictions might modern-day anabaptists be willing to take a stand? Are we willing to raise a prophetic voice when the state uses its power to maintain the status quo? When it defends wealth and privilege instead of taking up the cause of justice for the deprived and disenfranchised? When it uses violence to ostensibly bring about peace but in reality is motivated by factors that are political and economic rather than humane?

And what about the conviction that obedience to Christ means commitment to Him in believer's baptism? That commitment to Christ necessarily involves entry into the visible body of believers, where there is mutual watchcare, exhortation and accountability? That a holy life is not optional? That creeds and deeds are useless as a means of salvation unless they flow out of a living relationship with a living Lord? That the Christian community forms a counter-culture and that believers are resident aliens, not at all at home in this world?

Will there ever be a "bloody theatre" among contemporary Western anabaptists?

Return to the M.B. Herald Vol. 35, No. 8 Home Page