MennoNet.com

Dr Helmut Isaak wrote a book entitled "The New Jerusalem" about Dutch Anabaptists. He studied in the university of Amsterdam, I believe, and did primary research on the writings of Menno Simons. He believes that Menno thought, like the Munsterites, that Jesus was returning to set up an earthly kingdom, but without subscribing to the false doctrines of Hoffman and Munster. But part way through his writings, Menno made a turn that took him away from this idea, when he realized that the earthly kingdoms weren't going to become servants of God.

I just spent a half hour (approx) digging through my library looking for Dr Isaak's book, but couldn't find it. I have two copies, because the last time I couldn't find it, I asked him for a second one (the first is an autographed copy that he gave me). After his second one came, I found the first one. Now I can't find either of them.

It's well done, and gives a lot of background about Dutch religion and how it opened the door for Anabaptism, etc. Anyone interested in this subject should get a copy of it.

From GAMEO: " In the 1960s and 1970s the "Anabaptist Vision" came under attack, usually indirectly, on grounds of over-idealization. Did Bender denigrate too many bona fide Anabaptists as marginal because they did not fit his discipleship definition?"

There was a paradigm shift in Mennonite historiography concerning Anabaptism. Harold Bender wrote "The Anabaptist Vision" in 1942, constructing a model of early Anabaptism which "cleaned up" history and construed early Anabaptism in a mainstream (at that time, conservative) mold. He drew the boundaries so as to leave out the "messier" early Anabaptist groups and movements.

The next generation of Mennonite historians had a less apologetic agenda, and tried to "tell it like it was." They challenged "The Anabaptist Vision" as over-idealized and were determined to render a more realistic and diverse picture of early Anabaptism.

I think we need to accept the Muensterites as Anabaptist in the same way that we accept that embarrassing crazy uncle that comes to Thanksgiving Dinner. We may not really appreciate him - but he's family.

From what I have read, the Muensterites came directly out of the Anabaptist stream of the day - and in their zeal ran the train off the rails. I guess, in the same way, old Sam Mullet of Ohio (and his Amish family cult) is an Anabaptist as well. If nothing else, we can learn from the crazies in our midst where our own excesses or weaknesses lie.

Don't get me wrong, I think there are good and bad examples of Anabaptism, and I love what Bender did in creating an idealized Anabaptist mystique as an example to strive toward (I've personally bought into Bender's Anabaptist Vision as a worthy ideal), but I don't think it is historically accurate not to acknowledge all of the members our quirky faith family. In idealizing the "true" Anabaptists according to Bender's ex post facto definition in the Anabaptist Vision, he (& we) may be guilty of participating in the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Bill Rushby wrote:From GAMEO: " In the 1960s and 1970s the "Anabaptist Vision" came under attack, usually indirectly, on grounds of over-idealization. Did Bender denigrate too many bona fide Anabaptists as marginal because they did not fit his discipleship definition?"

There was a paradigm shift in Mennonite historiography concerning Anabaptism. Harold Bender wrote "The Anabaptist Vision" in 1942, constructing a model of early Anabaptism which "cleaned up" history and construed early Anabaptism in a mainstream (at that time, conservative) mold. He drew the boundaries so as to leave out the "messier" early Anabaptist groups and movements.

The next generation of Mennonite historians had a less apologetic agenda, and tried to "tell it like it was." They challenged "The Anabaptist Vision" as over-idealized and were determined to render a more realistic and diverse picture of early Anabaptism.

The concept of "messier" early Anabaptism is interesting. Consider the Anabaptists of the Netherlands in the late years of Menno's life. What was messier than that? The "house buyers" and the "not house buyers"; the Flemish and the Frisians; the Old Flemish and the new Flemish; the Concerned Frisians and the Stilstaanders; the Sun and the Lamb and all the variations of the various groups, most of which got "delivered to Satan" and shunned by all.

Dan Z wrote:I think we need to accept the Muensterites as Anabaptist in the same way that we accept that embarrassing crazy uncle that comes to Thanksgiving Dinner. We may not really appreciate him - but he's family.

From what I have read, the Muensterites came directly out of the Anabaptist stream of the day - and in their zeal ran the train off the rails. I guess, in the same way, old Sam Mullet of Ohio (and his Amish family cult) is an Anabaptist as well. If nothing else, we can learn from the crazies in our midst where our own excesses or weaknesses lie.

Don't get me wrong, I think there are good and bad examples of Anabaptism, and I love what Bender did in creating an idealized Anabaptist mystique as an example to strive toward (I've personally bought into Bender's Anabaptist Vision as a worthy ideal), but I don't think it is historically accurate not to acknowledge all of the members our quirky faith family. In idealizing the "true" Anabaptists according to Bender's ex post facto definition in the Anabaptist Vision, he (& we) may be guilty of participating in the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Without trying to derail this excellent thread, I would simply like to mention that Catholic World began a similar examination of its past and honest reckoning of history around the latter part of the 1800s. Ultimately it culminated in the Second Vatican Council which was announced in 1959. We kept our ideals but we did and do acknowledge where the Church stepped wrong.

Dan Z wrote:I think we need to accept the Muensterites as Anabaptist in the same way that we accept that embarrassing crazy uncle that comes to Thanksgiving Dinner. We may not really appreciate him - but he's family.

From what I have read, the Muensterites came directly out of the Anabaptist stream of the day - and in their zeal ran the train off the rails. I guess, in the same way, old Sam Mullet of Ohio (and his Amish family cult) is an Anabaptist as well. If nothing else, we can learn from the crazies in our midst where our own excesses or weaknesses lie.

Don't get me wrong, I think there are good and bad examples of Anabaptism, and I love what Bender did in creating an idealized Anabaptist mystique as an example to strive toward (I've personally bought into Bender's Anabaptist Vision as a worthy ideal), but I don't think it is historically accurate not to acknowledge all of the members our quirky faith family. In idealizing the "true" Anabaptists according to Bender's ex post facto definition in the Anabaptist Vision, he (& we) may be guilty of participating in the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

this resonates .. i think, it especially resonates to contemporary thinking.

in former times, people -really- believed they had the power, and even the responsibility, to cast-out family. disowning, shunning, etc. (it wasn’t just Amish that did these things.) and, some would grow weary of their families/groups, move away, never to be heard from again. often, changing their names, name spelling, etc. that was not uncommon. people believed they had this raw power to determine who was in, who was out, of families.

moving away could easily mean the end of communication. it requires concerted effort to remain current+relevant at a distance. the further back, the less distance required, i.e., without improved roads and/or different forms of communication. this is so hard for us to imagine!

once understanding of DNA came about, physical distance, human proclamations-rules, became less significant. today, moving to the other side of the mountain, isn’t much of a move. in the past, that might have represented a major split.

(i have a hunch) today, the idea that “we’re part of the same family,” means something different than it did in prior times.

i wonder, i’m not certain.

on a similar note, i often think how fortuitous it is that science determined the sex of offspring is determined by their fathers! prior, it was generally attributed to the mothers, and, some bad things resulted that way. thankfully, in my lifetime, that pressure has been lifted.
sometimes, i shudder-to-think how things might have gone, if the reverse had been found true.
that’s another topic.
it is interesting how science changes things, then we so quickly forget how things have-been-changed.
at best, we are awkward+limited.