Fundamentalism-Chester Weaver-Anabaptist Perspectives

[Ms. Izzie]

Neto and AnthonyMartin, you both have stated some of my own thoughts over the last couple of years.

Two kingdom theology seems to be a large part of the "third way" in Mr. Weaver's interview.

As I have heard this theology explained by different people, earthly governmental power and coercion are not part of the kingdom of God.

The Lord's Supper being given or refused based on compliance to the "standards" or on whether you are in favor with a bishop is coercive, if not done with a relationship and time spent with the individual. Any true believer will want to partake of the Lord's Supper, so using the Lord's Supper in this way is a useful coercive tool. In my opinion, a church operating in this way is giving away that they no longer have two kingdom theology and it shows disrespect for our Lord's suffering.

[Neto]

Sort of an aside here, but about "Two Kingdom" Theology:
I grew up with the recognition that there are two kingdoms, but with the assumption that it was a dual citizenship. I realize what is being expressed with the term "Two Kingdom" in the context here, but it has always sounded wrong to me. When I became alive to non-resistance (which, before my acquaintance with the BAM people, I called 'pacifism', as opposed to 'political pacifism'), I recognized that there is no such thing as dual citizenship in the context of Christian faith. You either belong to the one, or to the other. Just take a look at the political mess now, and you see that it is so. (I'm stating my opinion here - rather strongly, I know, but just to be clear, I realize fully that some have a different opinion, that they CAN participate in both 'kingdoms'. So while I cannot understand that, I allow for it. Maybe it just seems impossible to me because I was at one time so deeply entrenched in that other kingdom.)
It seems to me that the term "Two Kingdom" is looking in from the outside, while the view from inside says that there is only one kingdom to which I may belong, only the one upon which my focus should rest. (Actually, when I first heard the term "Two Kingdom", I thought that the person was expressing the idea of dual citizenship. That discomfort remains with me, even now, after nearly 40 years of immersion in the 'Plain Culture'.)

[Josh]

Neto and AnthonyMartin, you both have stated some of my own thoughts over the last couple of years.

Two kingdom theology seems to be a large part of the "third way" in Mr. Weaver's interview.

As I have heard this theology explained by different people, earthly governmental power and coercion are not part of the kingdom of God.

The Lord's Supper being given or refused based on compliance to the "standards" or on whether you are in favor with a bishop is coercive, if not done with a relationship and time spent with the individual. Any true believer will want to partake of the Lord's Supper, so using the Lord's Supper in this way is a useful coercive tool. In my opinion, a church operating in this way is giving away that they no longer have two kingdom theology and it shows disrespect for our Lord's suffering.

What about untrue believers?

If someone doesn’t like the rules at their Mennonite church, and is unsuccessful at changing them, they are welcome to go to their nearest Disciples of Christ church where communion is served every Sunday to absolutely anybody.

[cmbl]

The Lord's Supper being given or refused based on compliance to the "standards" or on whether you are in favor with a bishop is coercive, if not done with a relationship and time spent with the individual. Any true believer will want to partake of the Lord's Supper, so using the Lord's Supper in this way is a useful coercive tool. In my opinion, a church operating in this way is giving away that they no longer have two kingdom theology and it shows disrespect for our Lord's suffering.

The giving or refusal of the Lord's Supper based on a standard of conduct has been central to Anabaptism from its beginning (see Schleitheim Confession, Articles II through IV). The historic Anabaptist concept of two-kingdom theology is intertwined with that.

Of course, I'm not aware of anyone who would say of their own church, "we give or refuse the Lord's supper based on whether you are in favor with the bishop without relationship and time spent with you." People only say things like that about other people's churches.

[cmbl]

I think his history lesson is accurate.

I hear him talking pretty strongly against rules, but at the same time strongly promoting community and individual brokenness in favor of brotherhood. I’m a bit perplexed because I don’t see how you can realistically separate them. I mean sure, you can avoid writing them down or call them something else, or tinker around the edges. But rules/consensus is a reflection, or a direct outcome of the local church working out real matters for themselves - which I think he promotes.

At the end of the day, you are either going to have a church that honors what each other thinks and believes, or you won’t. If you don’t, you really are no different than the liberalism he is against.

Is he only against conference style, or top down rules? Does he make a distinction between that and a local church coming to agreement within itself? I’m curious.

I agree with RZehr's comment and question. On the one hand, we do basically want the rules to be a reflection of what the church values. On the other, I will definitely need to just submit to my brother and just follow the standard sometimes. This latter thing doesn't always "feel spiritual," but it's good for me.

A few other observations/thoughts:
1. It seems like this conversation happens most in conservative settings that have been heavily influenced by Fundamentalism, and then stayed "conservative," with written standards.
2.

Around the nine minute mark...

Lies of Fundamentalism
1. Christianity is performance, perfectionism based.
2. Pride, shame fear and despair characterize normal Christian experience.
3. Others who do not do it our way are threats to us.
4. Being argumentative critical and judgmental of others is OK.

I definitely think these are bad things. But at what point does this cease to be about Fundamentalism as a historical movement in American Christianity (which had and has significant problems) and start to just be piling on bad things under the label Fundamentalism? Is Fundamentalism the new Pietism?

[Ms. Izzie]

The giving or refusal of the Lord's Supper based on a standard of conduct has been central to Anabaptism from its beginning (see Schleitheim Confession, Articles II through IV). The historic Anabaptist concept of two-kingdom theology is intertwined with that.

These articles read very differently than the typical "standards" of many Mennonite churches in the present. I welcome you to describe the historic Anabaptist concept of two-kingdom theology. I am open to learning.

People only say things like that about other people's churches.

I have to respectfully disagree with this statement.

[cmbl]

The giving or refusal of the Lord's Supper based on a standard of conduct has been central to Anabaptism from its beginning (see Schleitheim Confession, Articles II through IV). The historic Anabaptist concept of two-kingdom theology is intertwined with that.

These articles read very differently than the typical "standards" of many Mennonite churches in the present.

I agree with you.

I welcome you to describe the historic Anabaptist concept of two-kingdom theology. I am open to learning.

Well, the historic concept grows out of Articles II and III. The pure church is separate from the Catholic and Protestant churches which don't have church discipline. The ban is used if (when) members of the pure church, who are still humans and face the temptations of the flesh, give into sin, being inadvertently overtaken. So refusing the Lord's supper in hopes that the fallen brother repents is a way of maintaining the purity of the church.

The Anabaptists did not view the ban as the same thing as the sword, or some kind of blending of the two kingdoms. The sword was ordained outside the perfection of Christ; "In the perfection of Christ, however, only the ban is used for a warning and for the excommunication of the one who has sinned, without putting the flesh to death - simply the warning and the command to sin no more."

People only say things like that about other people's churches.

I have to respectfully disagree with this statement.

There are people who say, "we give or refuse the Lord's supper based on whether you are in favor with the bishop without relationship and time spent with you"?

[barnhart]

Sort of an aside here, but about "Two Kingdom" Theology:
...It seems to me that the term "Two Kingdom" is looking in from the outside, while the view from inside says that there is only one kingdom to which I may belong, only the one upon which my focus should rest. (Actually, when I first heard the term "Two Kingdom", I thought that the person was expressing the idea of dual citizenship...

Exactly. Talking of two kingdoms and searching the New Testament for instructions on how to relate to both, does shift the focus from living in absolute compliance with the one Kingdom that truly matters.

[Wade]

Sort of an aside here, but about "Two Kingdom" Theology:
...It seems to me that the term "Two Kingdom" is looking in from the outside, while the view from inside says that there is only one kingdom to which I may belong, only the one upon which my focus should rest. (Actually, when I first heard the term "Two Kingdom", I thought that the person was expressing the idea of dual citizenship...

Exactly. Talking of two kingdoms and searching the New Testament for instructions on how to relate to both, does shift the focus from living in absolute compliance with the one Kingdom that truly matters.

As soon as you say "the one Kingdom that truly matters" you are automatically implying there is at least another one and so maybe talking of "two kingdoms" - so it can easily sound like you are contradicting yourself...?

[AnthonyMartin]

Sort of an aside here, but about "Two Kingdom" Theology:
...It seems to me that the term "Two Kingdom" is looking in from the outside, while the view from inside says that there is only one kingdom to which I may belong, only the one upon which my focus should rest. (Actually, when I first heard the term "Two Kingdom", I thought that the person was expressing the idea of dual citizenship...

Exactly. Talking of two kingdoms and searching the New Testament for instructions on how to relate to both, does shift the focus from living in absolute compliance with the one Kingdom that truly matters.

As soon as you say "the one Kingdom that truly matters" you are automatically implying there is at least another one and so maybe talking of "two kingdoms" - so it can easily sound like you are contradicting yourself...?

Colossians 1:13 would suggest two such dominions

For he has rescued us from the kingdom of darkness and transferred us into the Kingdom of his dear Son,