An article about Anabaptist two-kingdom dualism

[MattY]

Here is an interesting paper comparing Christian pacifism to the traditional Anabaptist position, which the author, Caleb Zimmerman, calls "Anabaptist two-kingdom dualism."

The pdf is freely available online, this link should allow you to view and/or download it:
https://philarchive.org/archive/ZIMATD

The link to the original site is here:
https://philarchive.org/rec/ZIMATD

The abstract is as follows:
"A non-violent position drawn from the Anabaptist tradition (‘two-kingdom dualism’) is contrasted with the Christian pacifism with which that position is commonly conflated. It is argued that two-kingdom dualism more effectively leverages the philosophical and practical features of its particularly Christian character than does Christian pacifism – and that these features may have implications beyond the philosophy of religion."

I recommend reading it all. He argues that Anabaptist non-violence is primarily based on metaphysical, not moral considerations, and adding moralist arguments, as pacifists do, is unnecessary and perhaps even detrimental.

I generally agree with him about moralistic arguments, as well as the "practical implications" he describes towards the end. I'm not a fan of the word or concept of "dualism" and wouldn't use it for my position. Perhaps the position he's staking out isn't "true" dualism, but I'd rather avoid a dualistic emphasis. And I'm not quite sure what to make of his use of "reasonable", "natural", and "reality" to describe the Anabaptist view of non-violence and love in the world. My reasoning for it would be both Scriptural and metaphysical, but a little different, I think.

[barnhart]

Thanks for the article. I hope to read it this evening.

[barnhart]

It's a little dense, but I think I agree entirely assuming I understand it properly. The Anabaptist position on nonviolence is different at the root from other forms of pacifism because it is built entirely on the reality of a risen, ruling Christ, without this foundation it is logical or philosophical foolishness.

I'm not sold on the "two kingdom dualism" moniker because both those terms have established meanings that differ dramatically from the his specific usage. Two kingdom language will likely be confused with the Lutheran two kingdom theology which is entirely different and dualism has long established meanings that can only confuse the meaning he is grasping for.