Philosophical and Theological differences between Anabaptism and Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism

[Josh]

However, what I see now as I'm working more closely with the Beachy community around here is an even greater emphasis on openness, vulnerability, and accountability to each other. People invite input on how their doing. This is unheard of where I've attended for 24 years.

I think this has always been the case at the Kansas Beachy churches but has been enlivened in the recent decade by all the people who have gone to Faith Builders to study.

That is interesting. I have wondered how long these values have been Beachy or have been Amish-Mennonite values. They certainly have been for the duration of my lifetime, but some folks tell me this wasn't always the case and that things were "cold" in the early 20th century.

[MaxPC]

Outstanding topic, Lester!

[Bootstrap]

Fundamentalism according to Wikipedia first established 5 fundamentals that Christianity is based on -
1) Biblical inspiration and the infallibility of scripture
2) Virgin birth of Jesus
3) Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
4) Bodily resurrection of Jesus
5) Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

I believe most Anabaptists, Evangelicals, Protestants and Roman Catholics would agree these are foundational Christian beliefs. Yes ?

Only those Anabaptists that have been influenced by Protestant and Catholic theology.

How would Anabaptists differ on these things, as you see it?

[lesterb]

Fundamentalism according to Wikipedia first established 5 fundamentals that Christianity is based on -
1) Biblical inspiration and the infallibility of scripture
2) Virgin birth of Jesus
3) Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
4) Bodily resurrection of Jesus
5) Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

I believe most Anabaptists, Evangelicals, Protestants and Roman Catholics would agree these are foundational Christian beliefs. Yes ?

Only those Anabaptists that have been influenced by Protestant and Catholic theology.

How would Anabaptists differ on these things, as you see it?

Number one is a major one, no so much that we don't believe it but that we change the emphasis. All pre-1921 Mennonite confessions of faith that I am aware of start with something like this: Article One - We believe in God...

Most Post-1920 (starting with Garden city) start with with something like this: Article One - We believe in the Word of God...

Fundamentalists take the focus off God and put it on the Bible. In other words, they replace a relationship with a formula. The implications of this are much greater than most of today's Anabaptists realize.

[Neto]

Fundamentalism according to Wikipedia first established 5 fundamentals that Christianity is based on -
1) Biblical inspiration and the infallibility of scripture
2) Virgin birth of Jesus
3) Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
4) Bodily resurrection of Jesus
5) Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

I believe most Anabaptists, Evangelicals, Protestants and Roman Catholics would agree these are foundational Christian beliefs. Yes ?

Only those Anabaptists that have been influenced by Protestant and Catholic theology.

How would Anabaptists differ on these things, as you see it?

I'm not into trying to describe all the differences, but I keep seeing comments that reveal differences between the Swiss & Dutch anabaptists. I'll just mention one: It seems to me that while the early anabaptists were definitely Christo-centric (not my wording), the Swiss Brethren, or at least the modern ones, have turned that into Red-Letter-Centric. I don't think that was the case for the early anabaptists (or maybe just the Dutch? I don't know). I didn't count NT vs OT & Apocryphal references when I did a read through of the Martyr's Mirror, but my sense is that they did not noticeably favor NT Scripture in any overwhelming way. From my own Scripture reading, I have also noticed that the OT is in some ways clearer on the divinity of Jesus than is the NT. So the OT is also "Christo-centric".

[ohio jones]

Number one is a major one, no so much that we don't believe it but that we change the emphasis.

I would say the same is true of the rest. Mentioning the birth, death, resurrection, and miracles of Jesus without also including his life, ministry, and teaching is incomplete.

It's understandable that the fundamentalists would list the things they did, since they were reacting against the modernists who were rejecting or reinterpreting those specific things. But using them as a foundational statement of faith leaves a lot to be desired.

[Sudsy]

Number one is a major one, no so much that we don't believe it but that we change the emphasis.

I would say the same is true of the rest. Mentioning the birth, death, resurrection, and miracles of Jesus without also including his life, ministry, and teaching is incomplete.

It's understandable that the fundamentalists would list the things they did, since they were reacting against the modernists who were rejecting or reinterpreting those specific things. But using them as a foundational statement of faith leaves a lot to be desired.

I agree. These 5 fundamentals were a response to the modernists at that time so these areas they thought should be accepted as fundamental to Christian belief. I still believe they are fundamental by all born again believers although there are secondary differences on one or two. They were not meant to be a full statement of faith. I think they were saying, if you mess with these, you stepped out of the borders of what is Christian.

[Wayne in Maine]

I'm not into trying to describe all the differences, but I keep seeing comments that reveal differences between the Swiss & Dutch anabaptists.

I suspect this has more to do with the streams of influences on both rather than the origins of either. Revivalism had a big impact on the Russian Mennonite (Dutch origins) perhaps earlier than it did on Mennonites in the US. And the "Swiss" line has a strong "Old Order" element that might anchor them a bit more in primitive Anabaptism.

And then there are the Hutterites...

I'll just mention one: It seems to me that while the early anabaptists were definitely Christo-centric (not my wording), the Swiss Brethren, or at least the modern ones, have turned that into Red-Letter-Centric.

That is probably a modern reaction to what many progressives find as odious in the Apostle Paul's writings.

[Neto]

I'm not into trying to describe all the differences, but I keep seeing comments that reveal differences between the Swiss & Dutch anabaptists.

I suspect this has more to do with the streams of influences on both rather than the origins of either. Revivalism had a big impact on the Russian Mennonite (Dutch origins) perhaps earlier than it did on Mennonites in the US. And the "Swiss" line has a strong "Old Order" element that might anchor them a bit more in primitive Anabaptism.

And then there are the Hutterites...

I agree up to a point, because the MBs (Mennonite Brethren - my own heritage) were basically thrown out because of religious revival, and, to some degree (and apparently only for a short time) an openness to very "expressive" worship styles (jumping & shouting). That was during the 1860's. (I don't know when revivalism got its first footing in the American Mennonites.) But on the other hand, distinctive dress is not found at all in early anabaptism, and never in Russia Dutch Mennonitism, except the badly out of the loop styles still common in Russia during that same period. (But it was never seen as religiously motivated dress style.)

I'll just mention one: It seems to me that while the early anabaptists were definitely Christo-centric (not my wording), the Swiss Brethren, or at least the modern ones, have turned that into Red-Letter-Centric.

That is probably a modern reaction to what many progressives find as odious in the Apostle Paul's writings.

But I think I see it among the less "progressive" more than the progressives. I'm still not sure what to think of it, but I do think that it is wrong. (What I meant by "modern" was not the same as what I think you mean by "progressive" - I just meant "current".)

[EdselB]

Only those Anabaptists that have been influenced by Protestant and Catholic theology.

How would Anabaptists differ on these things, as you see it?

Number one is a major one, no so much that we don't believe it but that we change the emphasis. All pre-1921 Mennonite confessions of faith that I am aware of start with something like this: Article One - We believe in God...

Most Post-1920 (starting with Garden city) start with with something like this: Article One - We believe in the Word of God...

Fundamentalists take the focus off God and put it on the Bible. In other words, they replace a relationship with a formula. The implications of this are much greater than most of today's Anabaptists realize.

At the risk of being pedantic, it would probably be more acurate to say that most Anabaptist confessions begin with God. However, the first article in the Swiss Brethren Confession of Faith of Hesse, (1578), says:

We believe, ackowledge and confess that the holy scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, were ordered by God to be written, and that they were written by holy men driven by the Spirit of God. The believeing new-born Christians and children of god should therefore use the Scriptures for teaching, admonistion, for discipline and improvement, and to demnstrate that the foundation of their faith is in harmony with the Scriptures. -- Karl Kopp, ed. Confessions of Faith in the Anabaptist Tradition, 1527- 1660 (2006), 50.