Posted on 05/02/2013 6:40:01 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
I am often asked, “What is an Anabaptist?” and “Who are the Anabaptists?” If one listened to everyone who claimed an Anabaptist connection, it would be easy to be confused. For many today a progressive politics is Anabaptist; for others it means being either Yoderian (John Howard Yoder) or Hauerwasian (Stanley Hauerwas). Fair enough, but neither of them is the full representation of Anabaptism.
So today I want to sketch the view of the one description of Anabaptism that shaped the 20th century the most. I refer to Harold S. Bender‘s classic essay called “The Anabaptist Vision.” No, it is not true that all Anabaptists agree with Bender, and no, some today (like Thomas Finger, in his big study, A Contemporary Anabaptist Theology, or J. Denny Weaver, Becoming Anabaptist) want to frame things in a different way, but it can be said that Bender’s sketch is the most influential view of Anabaptism of the 20th century.
There are three major dimensions of the Reformation: Luther and the Lutherans in Germany, Calvin and the Reformed in Switzerland, and Zwingli-generated (and then finished later by others) Anabaptism. Anabaptism spread through Switzerland, South Germany, Moravia and then into the Netherlands. The early Anabaptist theologians and statements of faith were uniformly Protestant in theology (justification, salvation by faith) yet were not simply Lutheran or Reformed. Their emphasis on adult baptism, upon profession of faith, as part of commitment to be a disciple, and to form into a fellowship of discipleship distinguished the Anabaptists from both the Lutherans and the Reformed, not to mention the Catholics.
Anabaptism is largely responsible for the nonconformist impulse of the church — to be sure, it has some connections to those before it, like the Waldensians of Italy, but the Anabaptists were radical in their nonconformity to the State and to State-sponsored churches — that is, the Catholic Church, Lutherans and the Reformed. All non-State churches in the U.S., and that’s most, owe some debt to the Anabaptists.
They were a courageous lot — thousands were put to death. They paid their life to be nonconformists, and there’s a positive way to put this: they died in order to be faithful to their commitment to follow the Bible, the New Testament and Jesus Christ.
For Bender, the Anabaptists are the full implementation of the Reformation. Neither Luther nor Calvin went far enough. Bender’s focus is Luther, not Calvin, and he cites evidence that Luther late in his life realized his “mass church,” which was basically everyone born into the community/State would be baptized and be Lutheran, was ineffective in transforming the life of the person. The early Anabaptists, like Conrad Grebel, observed the lack of discipleship among the Lutherans of the Reformation. So the Anabaptists carried through the Lutheran reforms and broke with 1,500 years of the church.
Bender is famous for three features of the Anabaptist vision:
The essence of Christianity, or the Christian life, is discipleship — a committed following of Christ in all areas of life. The word on the street in the 16th century — and this word repeated often enough by bitter enemies of the Anabaptists — was that they were consistent and devout Christians. If Luther’s word was “faith,” the word for the Anabaptists was “follow.” The inner conversion was to lead to external transformation.
A new conception of the church as a brotherhood of fellowship. The ruling image of a church among the Catholics and Reformers was more national and institutional and sacramental, while the ruling image for the Anabaptists was fellowship or family. Joining was voluntary; the requirement was conversion; the commitment was to holy living and fellowship with one another. Thus, the Anabaptist separated from the “world” to form a society of the faithful. This view of the church led to economic availability and liability for one another.
A new ethic of love and peaceful nonresistance. Apart from rare exceptions like Balthasar Hubmaier and the nutcases around Thomas Müntzer, the Anabaptists lived a life shaped by love and nonviolence. They refused to coerce anyone.
Thus, for Bender, the focus was on discipleship not sacraments or the inner enjoyment of justification. The church was not an institution or a place for Word proclamation in emphasis but instead a brotherhood of love. In addition, against Catholics and Calvinists who believed in social reform, like the Lutherans the Anabaptists were less optimistic about social transformation. But, unlike the Lutherans who split life into the secular and sacred, the Anabaptists wanted a radical commitment that meant the creation of an alternative Christian society.
You don't understand the pro-life movement...the activists working against gay marriage?
These movements are made up largely of people acting out of religious beliefs.
I don’t understand why people kill others and have wars because of differences in their religious beliefs.
Granted, that seems extreme today but like events have caused wars throughout history.
Stuart, you don't understand anything about religion, and you refuse to try.
There's no point in talking to you on this topic.
You are right in that I do not understand religion, why do you think I ask so much? It just doesn’t make any sense to me.
I realize this was a difficult question. Sorry
Yet you refuse--seemingly willfully--to understand it.
Your religion is yourself. You cannot seem to comprehend anything outside of yourself as more important.
Of course I can see where violence might erupt, I just don’t understand why. People will still have their beliefs and God will still know what is in their hearts.
Why would church meetings even be an issue to a government?
You don't see why people would fight against a Gov't that started killing people for attending church?
Obviously, it’s because I can’t understand. Do you just give up on things that you want to know but don’t understand?
I don’t know what you mean by refusing to understand? That’s like someone refusing to believe something. Do you think a belief is just something you choose or say? Don’t you think there is a little more to our beliefs than that?
Just a violent quest for power and control wrapped up in faiths or causes.
Religion and ideologies led by power trippers who use the citizens cognitive biases for their advantage. On reason why the US Constitution on paper is a fine document that attempts to limit the power of the government (But again, power whores still take advantage of the citizens cognitive biases, so the word attempt is heavily stressed).
Belief, like real love, is a conscious decision you must make. Christianity is unlike most religions. You must believe before you can understand.
Especially if you live in San Francisco.
Thanks
I don’t understand why a govt would care about people attending a church
No it isn’t. I did not make a conscious decision to love my family or to believe in God. Did you?
Yes, I did. On both counts. Love is an act of will, the emotional aspect is a benefit.
But you still haven't commented on reasons for violence erupting.
Why don't you respond to my example before you move on to the next point.
I gather this is why you haven't responded but instead moved on to your next issue.
I’ll never understand letting schoolchildren be molested and murdered due to “non-violent” teachings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish_school_shooting
We must be different
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.