Philosophical and Theological differences between Anabaptism and Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism

[Neto]

Bootstrap said,

So I find it difficult to have a meaningful conversation unless we narrow it down to well-defined groups whose views are well known. And when it comes down to it, it's hard to have a meaningful and accurate conversation about anyone who is not here to represent their own views.

Yes, that is true.
But I would add that historically the biggest differences have come out of the revivalism of the 19th century. It is hard for conservative or progressive Mennonites to relate to anabaptism prior to the influence of revivalism.

I think the thing that create the biggest dissidence for Mennonites now with the influence revivalism, fundamentalism, and modern evangelicalism, is at the point of evangelism its self.
It has borrowed the philosophical and theological premise of this line, and has tried to make it Anabaptist, then it wonders why folks on the fields are confused by and perhaps discouraged with the results.

I would appreciate any further clarification you could offer along this line, because this is an area of discussion I would like to pursue further, especially because my own background (MB) was born out of revivalism in the colonies in the Russian Empire in the middle 1800's. Perhaps this question forms more of the difference in my own viewpoints as compared to others here than I have realized. I would also like to explore early anabaptist attitudes toward the ideas behind revivalism. But who would deny that there was a need for spiritual revival in the colonies?

[Josh]

John D. Martin's talk on renewal movements in Russia in the colonies is highly relevant to Neto's topic. Particularly, he looked at how each group emerged, MB along with the kleine Gemeinde and the mainstream church (the Großgemeinde is what he called it).

[Mrs.Nisly]

To shed a little light on this topic I'm going to quote from Steven Nolt's book A History of the Amish

During the mid- eighteenth century the Amish church lost members to competing Christian groups who charged the Amish with dead formalism and tried to infuse their communities with a more experiential religion.
An atmosphere of religious toleration and relative equality among churches in Pennsylvania created a kind of spiritual open market in which pastors and evangelists spread their wares and sold their products as freely and easily as any merchants. Not only were the Amish reticent about broadcasting their faith, but their particular understandings of salvation and church made them prime targets for proselytizers.
The Amish believed that Christians experienced salvation in everyday living. This was not salvation earned by individuals; it was a gracious gift from God- a gift realized as one's life was transformed day-by-day into the image of Christ.Nachfolge Christi- following Jesus daily- was one way in which Amish forebears, the Anabaptists, had described the Christian Life. To the Amish mind, being faithful to Christ's commands was a visible indication of faith. The Amish did not downplay Christian conversion, as such - in fact, Amish writings stressed the need for regeneration, or the new birth, which would result in a new way of life. They believed they could see quite clearly a marked difference between the Christian and non-Christian life. That difference-- when lived out -- was sharp enough to authenticate itself without needing to be confirmed by an extraordinary conversion experience.
The revivalism of many evangelical churches stood in some contrast with Amish understandings. For many revivalists, salvation was presented as an instantaneous experience that followed a deep and inner personal struggle, culminating in an emotional release interpreted as forgiveness. It was not that revivalist-oriented church put no emphasis on ethics or the Christian's daily life. But for many evangelicals, these things were secondary, or at least could be presented as such. They believed the the singular, emotional experience of conversion was the only sure sign of one's being right with God.

So this difference in understanding salvation also affects how one understands and views the church. So I'll continue quoting Nolt's understanding of this here.

The Amish view of the church was also different from that of many evangelicals. The Amish thought of the church in community terms. Church members mutually accountable to each other, even in mundane matters of lifestyle. Baptism symbolized commitment both to God and to fellow believers, while the Lord's Supper was a sign of the local church's unity in matters large and small.

Typically, the revivalists' emphasis on individual salvation weakened the importance and authority of the church. Communion and baptism become rites between the individual and God; that a larger congregation was somehow involved could be seen as almost incidental. Revivalists viewed accountability differently from the Amish. If a singular conversion experience had validated one's faith, what business did a church have in critiquing pride, wealth, or a worldly lifestyle that might surface later in one's life?

[Valerie]

This is such an interesting topic for someone like me who walked among the Evangelicals for decades, became interested in Anabaptists & trying to learn all the real differences-
One difference I learned years ago, which was brought up in the previous post is the practice of accountability and speaking into each other's lives so much in Anabaptism-
Although Evangelicals 'may' do this, generally speaking we (I guess I'm still probably in that category, to a certain extent) believed it was the Holy Spirit which should be working in the fellow brother/sister's lives to guide them, convict, bring them into more truth-
I think that we can all have blindspots though and do need one another but I don't know if it's so much INDIVIDUALISM that discourages the same kind of accountability as Anabaptism, but more of a recognition of the need for the Holy Spirit to be the One doing this more than the brothers/sisters- UNLESS it is recognized as blatant sin.
At least this is the thinking I am used to in the Evangelical/Pentecostal fellowships- just thought I'd throw that out there since there are not many who may be from my background that can contribute our experiences & understandings. Not sure if there are others from Evangelical/Pentecost who might agree or disagree with my statement here?

[Neto]

To shed a little light on this topic I'm going to quote from Steven Nolt's book A History of the Amish

.... For many revivalists, salvation was presented as an instantaneous experience that followed a deep and inner personal struggle, culminating in an emotional release interpreted as forgiveness. It was not that revivalist-oriented church put no emphasis on ethics or the Christian's daily life. But for many evangelicals, these things were secondary, or at least could be presented as such. They believed the the singular, emotional experience of conversion was the only sure sign of one's being right with God.

So this difference in understanding salvation also affects how one understands and views the church. So I'll continue quoting Nolt's understanding of this here.

The Amish view of the church was also different from that of many evangelicals. The Amish thought of the church in community terms. Church members mutually accountable to each other, even in mundane matters of lifestyle. Baptism symbolized commitment both to God and to fellow believers, while the Lord's Supper was a sign of the local church's unity in matters large and small.

Typically, the revivalists' emphasis on individual salvation weakened the importance and authority of the church. Communion and baptism become rites between the individual and God; that a larger congregation was somehow involved could be seen as almost incidental. Revivalists viewed accountability differently from the Amish. If a singular conversion experience had validated one's faith, what business did a church have in critiquing pride, wealth, or a worldly lifestyle that might surface later in one's life?

Thank you, I find this helpful. I will confess that in the congregational environment I grew up in, assurance of salvation was often spoken of in terms of remembering that singular event - the conversion experience. (Although a visiting Baptist evangelist once told my younger brother that he would never have assurance of salvation until he cut his hair, which was, in the evangelist's mind, too long. That sort of ties back into some sort of works salvation.)

I have come to believe, however (I cannot recall exactly when), that an active belief is more important than a remembered past belief, no matter how deep the experience. But the part of his comments with which I can really identify is the part I italicized & underlined above. The Lord's Supper becomes a time when you keep your eyes closed, and wouldn't dare make eye contact with another member - that would disturb his or her communion with God, and would demonstrate that you are not yourself communing with God. The local church is seen more as an organization that provides a place of worship than as a community of believers, a representation of the 'universal church', the Body of Christ. So then baptism becomes another rite or observance between you & God (and as a witness to unbelievers rather than a simple act of obedience to God), and the idea of being baptized and not joining the local church is an easy next step.

The last few sentences, however, I feel are overstated. I think that this may have happened in some instances, but not nearly all, I wouldn't think. That sort of rejection of any type of accountability I have only 'seen' in popular songs like "Me & Jesus (got our own thing going)", and in some acquaintances who seldom attend services at all, really nominal 'believers'. (But I grew up in the 'Bible Belt', so maybe that is the reason why I haven't seen that so much.)

[Mrs.Nisly]

Neto, I think a number of us can relate to your church experience even in quite conservative Mennonite settings. But because it is a hybrid of sorts it leaves some of us who somehow need a logical trail to follow, confused.

The other thing that Nolt didn't point out, and I think is fairly significant here too is; what does salvation mean to the historical Amish?
I think here too is a big difference between the evangelical and Anabaptist understanding. Salvation to the revivalist/evangelical is saving from eternal damnation. That is part of it for the historical Anabaptist, but more concretely and tangibly salvation is being saved from the evil world. This dualism is quite strong in Anabaptism. There is only two ways, the kingdom of darkness, or the kingdom of light, the broad way or the narrow way.
So salvation means that everything has been corrupted by humanity and depending how you live means you will be saved from it and will receive the crown of life eternal if you have been faithful. This salvation has been granted through the blood of Jesus on the cross and is a gift of God's grace. The Holy Sprirt guides the individual with the church into all truth through the word of God.

The more "liberal" you become, the less you view all the world as evil. We tend to view the government system as corrupted and evil and we long for Christ rule to come to earth, but we tend to view, (at least I do) the attitude of worldliness as something coming out from within. The "things of the world" homes, food, clothing, music, pastimes, as neutral things that can be made evil or good by the heart attitude of worldliness.
I'm not saying this is correct or best, but it is a paradigm in contrast to a radical Anabaptist view of salvation.

[Sudsy]

This is such an interesting topic for someone like me who walked among the Evangelicals for decades, became interested in Anabaptists & trying to learn all the real differences-
One difference I learned years ago, which was brought up in the previous post is the practice of accountability and speaking into each other's lives so much in Anabaptism-
Although Evangelicals 'may' do this, generally speaking we (I guess I'm still probably in that category, to a certain extent) believed it was the Holy Spirit which should be working in the fellow brother/sister's lives to guide them, convict, bring them into more truth-
I think that we can all have blindspots though and do need one another but I don't know if it's so much INDIVIDUALISM that discourages the same kind of accountability as Anabaptism, but more of a recognition of the need for the Holy Spirit to be the One doing this more than the brothers/sisters- UNLESS it is recognized as blatant sin.
At least this is the thinking I am used to in the Evangelical/Pentecostal fellowships- just thought I'd throw that out there since there are not many who may be from my background that can contribute our experiences & understandings. Not sure if there are others from Evangelical/Pentecost who might agree or disagree with my statement here?

Yes, my experience also, especially what I underlined. Actually we were quite communal and attending church was daily and/or nightly for some except Mondays. I was raised with up to 3 services on a Sunday (often minimum of 2 hours each), Tuesday night young people's, Wednesday day and again night prayer meetings, Thursday night bible study, Friday night evangelistic street meetings and Saturday night another prayer meeting. So, we were quite communal but primarily in long church services and after service prayer meetings.

To some extent there were standard expectations of holiness that was expected in the community (i.e. I recall when owning a TV was looked down upon) but as you say, the emphasis was more on the Holy Spirit working in each person's life to develop their spiritual maturity. Sometimes that was through another believer(s). There was often confessions of sin amongst believers and hands on praying for one another.

[Sudsy]

Neto, I think a number of us can relate to your church experience even in quite conservative Mennonite settings. But because it is a hybrid of sorts it leaves some of us who somehow need a logical trail to follow, confused.

The other thing that Nolt didn't point out, and I think is fairly significant here too is; what does salvation mean to the historical Amish?
I think here too is a big difference between the evangelical and Anabaptist understanding. Salvation to the revivalist/evangelical is saving from eternal damnation. That is part of it for the historical Anabaptist, but more concretely and tangibly salvation is being saved from the evil world. This dualism is quite strong in Anabaptism. There is only two ways, the kingdom of darkness, or the kingdom of light, the broad way or the narrow way.
So salvation means that everything has been corrupted by humanity and depending how you live means you will be saved from it and will receive the crown of life eternal if you have been faithful. This salvation has been granted through the blood of Jesus on the cross and is a gift of God's grace. The Holy Sprirt guides the individual with the church into all truth through the word of God.

The more "liberal" you become, the less you view all the world as evil. We tend to view the government system as corrupted and evil and we long for Christ rule to come to earth, but we tend to view, (at least I do) the attitude of worldliness as something coming out from within. The "things of the world" homes, food, clothing, music, pastimes, as neutral things that can be made evil or good by the heart attitude of worldliness.
I'm not saying this is correct or best, but it is a paradigm in contrast to a radical Anabaptist view of salvation.

In my Evangelical experience, this was not the case. Salvation was viewed as very much a 'being saved from sinning' belief. I think this again is using the term revivalist/evangelical too broadly. We have been saved from past sins; we are being saved through the enabling power of the Spirit over current sins; we will be saved from eternal damnation when we die. This is what I was taught in both Evangelical Pentecostal and Evangelical Baptist churches.

[cmbl]

As someone who was raised evangelical, the first time I heard "We have been saved...we are being saved...we will be saved" was listening to John D. Martin.

[Bootstrap]

As someone who was raised evangelical, the first time I heard "We have been saved...we are being saved...we will be saved" was listening to John D. Martin.

Fascinating.

As someone who has been Mennonite most of my adult life, I heard it from evangelicals.