1525-2025: 500 years of the Anabaptist movement

[Josh]

I am curious about whether significant communities exist anywhere else that follow these tents. Maybe a family here and there - but an entire church congregation that’s been around for more than a few years? I certainly haven’t run into any in North America or Australia.

[Ernie]

re:
5. separation of church and state (two-kingdoms)

At least for the Dutch 'baptism-minded", I don't think that this is exactly correct. I suspect that this wording came much later, actually as a modification of the anabaptist belief, by 'Evangelical fore-runners", probably here in North America. (Maybe the feeling that the original idea was co-opted by the founders of the American Revolution for political ends is what causes me to recoil from using it myself.)

I would agree with a wording like "separation of the believer from state", or perhaps "Fidelity to a single kingdom, the Kingdom of God". (Modern wording, but I think that it accurately captures the early belief.)

I understand what is meant by the term "two kingdoms", but I don't think that is the perspective of at least the early Mennists. If the Swiss Brethren used that terminology, I would like to see a reference. Obviously, however, I also realize that none of these men spoke or wrote in English, so there is the matter of translation to consider as well.

Perhaps a question would be a better form of "push-back", in a request to define the terms, especially 'state'. Maybe better yet (but much more so 'modern-speak') would be "separation of the Christian from the world system, as manifested in the governance model."

Thank you for the efforts you have made to clearly express these beliefs in such a brief form.

Thanks Neto. What about something like this?

The kingdoms of this world do not follow the principles of Christ's kingdom. Therefore, Christians must not become entangled with earthly kingdoms, but rather give their allegiance only to the Kingdom of God. (Christian Ambassadorship)

[barnhart]

I appreciate Netos critique, secular people also believe in the separation of church and state, so that terminology seems inaccurate. Luther promoted a theology of two kingdoms, I believe he called them God's right hand kingdom (church) and God's left hand kingdom (state), not a construction Anabaptists were inclined to accept. I think the ambassador language gets closer to the ideas the Anabaptists were living out.

[Sudsy]

When looking at the background of any faith group, including Anabaptists, there are groups within that did not follow these tenets. For example, 'one band of Anabaptists filled with apocalyptic zeal and led by John of Leiden, gained control of the town of Münster in Westphalia in 1534. Contrary to the pacifist tenets of their fellows, they seized the sword and, in accord with Old Testament practice, they restored polygamy.'

In other words we all have 'ghosts in our closet' whether we are Catholic, Protestant or Anabaptist. Some of the ways Charimatics practise their faith today was another area that had similar manifestations by some early Anabaptists. However, today, I think it fair to say that most Anabaptists have big reservations and even resistance to these practises.

I remember in Pentecostalism and still hear it today of people missing those 'good ol days'. Well, some things were good but others are quite suspect or could even be considered bad. There is much to learn from the early days but we are living in challenges today that are quite different than 500 years ago.

[Ernie]

When looking at the background of any faith group, including Anabaptists, there are groups within that did not follow these tenets. For example, 'one band of Anabaptists filled with apocalyptic zeal and led by John of Leiden, gained control of the town of Münster in Westphalia in 1534. Contrary to the pacifist tenets of their fellows, they seized the sword and, in accord with Old Testament practice, they restored polygamy.'

That is why I used the date 1550, and why I often refer to what is "commonly believed".

e.g. In Christendom, it is commonly believed that Jesus is Divine, but there are anomalies who don't believe this.

I try to avoid taking the actions and beliefs of an unorthodox group and use their beliefs/actions to dilute or denigrate others who have some similar characteristics.

[Neto]

re:
5. separation of church and state (two-kingdoms)

At least for the Dutch 'baptism-minded", I don't think that this is exactly correct. I suspect that this wording came much later, actually as a modification of the anabaptist belief, by 'Evangelical fore-runners", probably here in North America. (Maybe the feeling that the original idea was co-opted by the founders of the American Revolution for political ends is what causes me to recoil from using it myself.)

I would agree with a wording like "separation of the believer from state", or perhaps "Fidelity to a single kingdom, the Kingdom of God". (Modern wording, but I think that it accurately captures the early belief.)

I understand what is meant by the term "two kingdoms", but I don't think that is the perspective of at least the early Mennists. If the Swiss Brethren used that terminology, I would like to see a reference. Obviously, however, I also realize that none of these men spoke or wrote in English, so there is the matter of translation to consider as well.

Perhaps a question would be a better form of "push-back", in a request to define the terms, especially 'state'. Maybe better yet (but much more so 'modern-speak') would be "separation of the Christian from the world system, as manifested in the governance model."

Thank you for the efforts you have made to clearly express these beliefs in such a brief form.

Thanks Neto. What about something like this?

The kingdoms of this world do not follow the principles of Christ's kingdom. Therefore, Christians must not become entangled with earthly kingdoms, but rather give their allegiance only to the Kingdom of God. (Christian Ambassadorship)

I think that it goes beyond this, and well beyond what I suggested above, as my last thought this morning.

Here's my reason: I think I've mentioned this before, but as a "Russian Mennonite" I grew up with the idea that we (my people) lost the "Mennonite Christian Paradise" when we lost the colony life. In the recent years I've seen more clearly, because part of that colony life included the problem that "the church became what we were trying to escape", the Mennonite church in Russia BECAME a mini-state that reported to the secular government. But it also became corrupt, even to the extent that it was reprimanded by the Czarist government. How could this be? The land-owners, the rich, they ruled. They took advantage of their Christian brothers, keeping them down through the power of this world, wielded in the "Christian Colony".

Many attempts have been made to "escape the world" through outward means - rules, regulations, physical separation from "the outside world". But the problem is that "the world" is inside every one of us. When we move away from "the world" we take it with us. We cannot get away from it, because we ARE the world. Only the power of Christ can take it out of us. It may be a slow work, but the Holy Spirit can do it. We cannot. But He cannot either, unless we cooperate. (Not because His power is insufficient, but because God want willing children, sons and daughters who freely choose to love and obey Him.) I believe I know you well enough to know that you also do not depend on outward guidelines to do this work of God. And Yes, those are ways in which we can cooperate with God - I am not opposed to guidelines formed to express our resolve to love and obey Him.

Your response this morning has helped me see something I wasn't even looking at. Even if the "kingdom of this world" followed God's principles, I don't think we should wield that power. In our case, the "Kingdom of this World" is a democracy. Maybe that is even more insidious than a kingdom with a king, because if we take part in it, we collectively become the king of this world, exercising worldly power. If the "Evangelicals", the "Moral Majority", would "win the culture war", would we join them in ruling the righteous government they envision? I fear such a hope is a grand deception.

I know that the prophecy of the book of The Revelation says that we will rule with Him. So I'm still dealing with that thought. All I have so far is that this requires the promised transformation that will come when we meet Him in the air, and, seeing Him as He is, become like Him. This is the hope we have in Christ.

(Maybe my response is too extreme to the minds of others, possibly because I once loved this world's kingdom, and its flag, so much. But I am also conscious of the world that I too often still find within myself. I am not yet finished leaving off from the 'kingdom of the world'. So I look forward to that Day of the LORD, when He catches us up, to Himself.)

[Judas Maccabeus]

In my experience, this 'outcast' thing was not evident. I have been part of local churches that have an influx of believers that are non-resistant in their belief and that has not been a big issue socially. Perhaps because there is more tolerance in some churches for varied beliefs from what is deemed to be essential beliefs. Currently our city has a influx of Mennonites into a local Baptist church where they are being welcomed and given roles in the church. They are socially accepted but they also are not wearing conservative type Mennonite clothes or trying to get converts to their non-resistant belief, so this might be different if they were.

When I first joined an Evangelistic Baptist church, there where some Mennonites that joined about the same time and they, too, were socially welcomed and given roles. There was no effort to get them to change their non-resistance belief but there was a certain effort by some to pursuade them of the TULIP Calvinist view. I don't recall any conversions to that view. It was not a big deal as the church was focused on reaching the lost.

We have a friend who was a faithful Presbyterian church member and her church recently closed. Some joined the Baptist church and she decided to go UMC. My wife recently asked her how this was working out and she had a very positive reply and especially mentioned how she felt so welcome.

I recall home bible studies where aside from what was deemed to be a salvation issue there was open discussion and varying views that did not break fellowship. I think it depends on how dogmatic one believes on certain beliefs and whether they are essential beliefs or not.

You have got to be Canadian. If you walked into an SBC church in the US, and even hinted at nonresistance you would likely be given the cold shoulder. It would be similar in most churches of this sort. The evangelical church is one of the most fertile recruiting ground for the military. Veterans are publicly honored for “their service “ numerous times during the year.

If people with such divergent views exsist in a congregation, what does it teach without stepping on someone’s toes?

My take on it is “not much.”

I go to what is considered a mega evangelical Church. Mega because it grew from originally a Bible study of business men that got together. In the earliest days of the church (the book of Acts) reported as many as 3000 souls being added to the Church in one day upon hearing Truth. God has no problem with large growth as long as Truth is taught there. Today of course there is an allowance for the various interpretations predominantly spun off out of Reformation era.

I don't think "we" can know how the thousands upon thousands of Evangelical churches conduct themselves. I can say I've gone and been active in Evangelical congregations small _ large, in California & Ohio. Many churches in 50 years since I first made decision to follow Christ. I can honestly say not ONE of these churches hinted AT all of being a recruiting ground for military. Never encouraged. They did not interpret Scripture exactly same as Anabaptist which I don't think make the claim of being infallible. The ONLY time in any of these churches military attendees were thanked for being willing to lay down there lives for our free country was the Sunday before Memorial Day.

My present church does not fly American flags

We cannot, any of us, profess to know about thousands of churches because your statement is dead wrong in ALL my experience. Am I so rare I just happened to stumble on the handful of churches that do not fit your description? That would be so odd.

If I understand correctly, your church is not SBC. It is the largest evangelical denomination, and this stuff occurs in every one of these that I visited in my years of missionary deputation. Many IFCA and independent baptists are worse. And it is not open recruitment from the pulpit, it is the encouragement, or lack of discouragement they get in the youth group. I once counseled a young man in my former church NOT to join the military after 9/11, with Biblical evidence to support my position. I was called a communist, and some of the former SBC people we had tried to get me disfellowshipped for doing soup an "unchristian" thing. Believe me, it is there.

[Ernie]

Thanks Neto. What about something like this?

The kingdoms of this world do not follow the principles of Christ's kingdom. Therefore, Christians must not become entangled with earthly kingdoms, but rather give their allegiance only to the Kingdom of God. (Christian Ambassadorship)

I think that it goes beyond this, and well beyond what I suggested above, as my last thought this morning.

Your response this morning has helped me see something I wasn't even looking at. Even if the "kingdom of this world" followed God's principles, I don't think we should wield that power. In our case, the "Kingdom of this World" is a democracy. Maybe that is even more insidious than a kingdom with a king, because if we take part in it, we collectively become the king of this world, exercising worldly power. If the "Evangelicals", the "Moral Majority", would "win the culture war", would we join them in ruling the righteous government they envision? I fear such a hope is a grand deception.

I think that one of the principles of Christ's kingdom here on earth is that we abstain from exercising and wielding worldly power. So when people in the Russian church became wealthy, did not share their goods with the poor, and were oppressing the poor, the Mennonite church had already begun acting like the kingdoms of this world. They were no longer following God's principles.

Recently we made a visit to Johnstown, PA. Lots of very interesting history there apart from the flood. A quaker man, Daniel Morrell who was "king" there for a number of decades, had some really good principles. He tried to improve the commoners' standard of living and promote morals. However, he lived in the biggest mansion in town and had all sorts of luxuries the commoner could only dream about. His principles did not favor equality. And when the employees tried unionizing to have better equality, he kept it from happening. He was also a nationalist and supported war. Were the rich Russian Mennonites also nationalists and supportive of war?

[Neto]

....
Were the rich Russian Mennonites also nationalists and supportive of war?

Some leaned that way in the end, but my impression is that for the most part, no. Many, however, were (to my mind) too "appreciative" of the Czar, as their "beloved king". People have sometimes asked me why I "don't appreciate what America has done for me". I think it comes down to who one credits as responsible. I have turned my mind to appreciate things as coming from God, rather than thinking that it all came about directly from some human, or a human institution. It's a sort of misplaced gratitude when we credit anyone other than God.

Real acculturation into Russian society had only barely began by the very late 1800's, when the government decreed education in Russian. But even the efforts of the most "progressive" Mennonites were not appreciated by the government, and the Mennonites were always officially viewed as foreigners. (Bear in mind that this was after more than 100 years living there.)