The Anabaptist Vision unmasked

[silentreader]

Depends on what your definition of an Anabaptist is. My beliefs are in agreement to the Mennonite Brethren statement of faith.

Which version is that and how well does it illustrate the original Anabaptist vision?

I think this has wandered from the thread topic so if we are going to compare Anabaptist statements of faith against 'the original Anabaptist vision' (wherever that is spelled out), one can start a new thread and point me to that vision.

Personally, I appreciate Boot's insistence on trying to get to facts that have proof as we should be quite careful with slandering others. I just don't agree that some of these topics should be on a believer's radar.

So not really a path you want to follow....depends on what your definition of Anabaptist is.

[silentreader]

I think this has wandered from the thread topic so if we are going to compare Anabaptist statements of faith against 'the original Anabaptist vision' (wherever that is spelled out), one can start a new thread and point me to that vision.

Personally, I appreciate Boot's insistence on trying to get to facts that have proof as we should be quite careful with slandering others. I just don't agree that some of these topics should be on a believer's radar.

I saw facts being presented on Dr. Fauci, which isn't slander. I can appreciate someone's opinion of what topic qualifies to be on a believer's radar. But that is YOUR opinion, and you have a right to share it. But chiding and denigrating people who do not share your opinion is against the Anabaptist vision as well.

Grace, consider your first post and consider how it can be taken as slander - quote -

IMO Fauci is a sociaopath with no regards for human life. I wouldn’t put it past him to have welcomed the virus as a means of population control.

You can excuse it in some way perhaps but to me, this was not a very merciful opinion to share about anyone. And yes, this is my opinion according to how I understand we are to think about the sins of anyone.

This is not referring to Fauci or anyone else in the current U.S. administration, but if we had a government leader that started requiring their citizen to be chipped as proof of being vaccinated, would you tell Anabaptists to not follow the news on the issue and tell them it shouldn't be on their radar? If that same leader would foist a chip on people as a requirement to buy or sell, would you consider any discussion on that as slander and vitriol?

To your first question - I would encourage Anabaptists to keep their focus on our mission to represent the Kingdom way of life. IMO, Satan loves to see Kingdom citizens off into topics that do nothing to further the Kingdom of God. And he likely is getting quite a chuckle over how our concerns are more about people's temporal existence than their eternal one. Especially when he sees us fighting amongst ourselves over who has the facts about an issue. If I was asked to be 'chipped' as proof of being vaccinated, I would have no problem with that as my conviction is that I should obey the government unless what they require of me is to deny my belief in the Gospel. If others feel convicted to take a stand regarding not forsaking their assembly, then they should be ready to pay the penalty with disobeying the law.

To your second question - If what the government decided would stop me from buying or selling and this had to do with following my faith in Jesus, then it would be a good discussion to encourage one another to put our faith first as we tried to live under those restrictions, if it was even possible. We can have discussions on anything, although I believe the original intent of this forum was geared to how we deal with things on a spiritual level as the instructions on some of these forums are worded. But how we discuss these things is important as this forum is open to unbelievers. Do they see us discussing in a way that reflects the fruit of the Spirit or not much different than the unregenerate world ? And I'm certainly no perfect example to follow but I will continue to remind us all that we are to be different and ambassadors of another country. We must rely on the Holy Spirit to give us control over our fleshly responses to things in this world.

I don't expect everyone to live by my understandings and convictions but I think we should challenge each other regarding our focus, our way of
discussing sinners, how we treat one another as believers and other things that scriptures talk about.

It is probably good for us to remember that both Paul, who wrote the "submission" passages in Romans 13 and elsewhere, and Peter, who wrote the "submission" passage in 1Peter 2, were, not many years later, killed by the authorities, either directly or indirectly because they could not/did not submit to the authorities.
Remember also the testimony of those thousands who were martyred or who fled for their lives to the Catacombs and elsewhere because they were unable to "submit" to the authorities and still remain faithful to God.
Consider Peter's wording in 1 Peter 2:13-17 (CSB)

Submit to every human authority because of the Lord, whether to the emperor as the supreme authority 14 or to governors as those sent out by him to punish those who do what is evil and to praise those who do what is good. 15 For it is God’s will that you silence the ignorance of foolish people by doing good. 16 Submit as free people, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but as God’s slaves. 17 Honor everyone. Love the brothers and sisters. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

Note v17:
"Honor everyone. Love the brothers and sisters.Fear God. Honor the emperor."

Seems to me we are getting that backwards. We are being conditioned to Fear authority, and they don't care if we honor God or not.

[Sudsy]

Are you Anabaptist ?

Depends on what your definition of an Anabaptist is. My beliefs are in agreement to the Mennonite Brethren statement of faith.

Which version is that and how well does it illustrate the original Anabaptist vision?

When you speak of 'the original Anabaptist vision' are you referring to this - https://www.goshen.edu/mhl/Refocusing/d-av.htm

Or something else ? If something else, is this spelled out somewhere for me to consider ?

[silentreader]

Depends on what your definition of an Anabaptist is. My beliefs are in agreement to the Mennonite Brethren statement of faith.

Which version is that and how well does it illustrate the original Anabaptist vision?

When you speak of 'the original Anabaptist vision' are you referring to this - https://www.goshen.edu/mhl/Refocusing/d-av.htm

Or something else ? If something else, is this spelled out somewhere for me to consider ?

I would probably focus mostly on the last several paragraphs:

As we review the vision of the Anabaptists, it becomes clear that there are two foci in this vision. The first focus relates to the essential nature of Christianity. Is Christianity primarily a matter of the reception of divine grace through a sacramental-sacerdotal institution (Roman Catholicism), is it chiefly enjoyment of the inner experience of the grace of God through faith in Christ (Lutheranism), or is it most of all the transformation of life through discipleship (Anabaptism )? The Anabaptists were neither institutionalists, mystics, nor pietists, for they laid the weight of their emphasis upon following Christ in life. To them it was unthinkable for one truly to be a Christian without creating a new life on divine principles both for himself and for all men who commit themselves to the Christian way.

The second focus relates to the church. For the Anabaptist, the church was neither an institution (Catholicism), nor the instrument of God for the proclamation of the divine Word (Lutheranism), nor a resource group for individual piety (Pietism). It was a brotherhood of love in which the fullness of the Christian life ideal is to be expressed.

The Anabaptist vision may be further clarified by comparison of the social ethics of the four main Christian groups of the Reformation period, Catholic, Calvinist, Lutheran, and Anabaptist. Catholic and Calvinist alike were optimistic about the world, agreeing that the world can be redeemed; they held that the entire social order can be brought under the sovereignty of God and Christianized, although they used different means to attain this goal. Lutheran and Anabaptist were pessimistic about the world, denying the possibility of Christianizing the entire social order; but the consequent attitudes of these two groups toward the social order were diametrically opposed. Lutheranism said that since the Christian must live in a world order that remains sinful, he must make a compromise with it. As a citizen he cannot avoid participation in the evil of the world, for instance in making war, and for this his only recourse is to seek forgiveness by the grace of God; only within his personal private experience can the Christian truly Christianize his life. The Anabaptist rejected this view completely. Since for him no compromise dare be made with evil, the Christian may in no circumstance participate in any conduct in the existing social order which is contrary to the spirit and teaching of Christ and the apostolic practice. He must consequently withdraw from the worldly system and create a Christian social order within the fellowship of the church brotherhood. Extension of this Christian order by the conversion of individuals and their transfer out of the world into the church is the only way by which progress can be made in Christianizing the social order.

However, the Anabaptist was realistic. Down the long perspective of the future he saw little chance that the mass of humankind would enter such a brotherhood with its high ideals. Hence he anticipated a long and grievous conflict between the church and the world. Neither did he anticipate the time when the church would rule the world; the church would always be a suffering church. He agreed with the words of Jesus when He said that those who would be His disciples must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow Him, and that there would be few who would enter the strait gate and travel the narrow way of life. If this prospect should seem too discouraging, the Anabaptist would reply that the life within the Christian brotherhood is satisfyingly full of love and joy.

The Anabaptist vision was not a detailed blueprint for the reconstruction of human society, but the Brethren did believe that Jesus intended that the kingdom of God should be set up in the midst of earth, here and now, and this they proposed to do forthwith. We shall not believe, they said, that the Sermon on the Mount or any other vision that He had is only a heavenly vision meant but to keep His followers in tension until the last great day, but we shall practice what He taught, believing that where He walked we can by His grace follow in His steps.

CAN A MODERATOR PLEASE SPLIT THE RELEVANT POSTS OFF AND MOVE THEM TO ANABAPTIST THEOLOGY, PLEASE?

[Josh]

I don't want to criticise the Mennonite Brethren denomination (and I'm really only familiar with the U.S. side of it, not the Canadian side), but I would argue they are much more aligned with the evangelical vision than the Anabaptist vision. The same is true of other denominations that have emerged that did not go in the mainline-Protestant direction, such as Evana, FEC, FEBC, CMC (both of them), and so forth.

Depending on the ethnic makeup of such congregations, there may be cultural or linguistic legacies in these congregations. The overall experience of being at a large MB church or one of the CMC megachurches is very similar to one of the independent megachurches in town, or the Free Methodist-background one, or the Word of Faith-based one, or the Christian churches and churches of Christ-based one.

The larger question, then, is how much of the "Anabaptist vision" exists in these places (it may be a lot more than you think), and it's also worth asking how much of the "Anabaptist vision" exists in much more conservative groups that nonetheless just preserve mainstream Anabaptism of the 1950s, or 1960s, or 1930s.

[Sudsy]

I don't want to criticise the Mennonite Brethren denomination (and I'm really only familiar with the U.S. side of it, not the Canadian side), but I would argue they are much more aligned with the evangelical vision than the Anabaptist vision. The same is true of other denominations that have emerged that did not go in the mainline-Protestant direction, such as Evana, FEC, FEBC, CMC (both of them), and so forth.

Depending on the ethnic makeup of such congregations, there may be cultural or linguistic legacies in these congregations. The overall experience of being at a large MB church or one of the CMC megachurches is very similar to one of the independent megachurches in town, or the Free Methodist-background one, or the Word of Faith-based one, or the Christian churches and churches of Christ-based one.

The larger question, then, is how much of the "Anabaptist vision" exists in these places (it may be a lot more than you think), and it's also worth asking how much of the "Anabaptist vision" exists in much more conservative groups that nonetheless just preserve mainstream Anabaptism of the 1950s, or 1960s, or 1930s.

Here is an overview of the Canadian Mennonite Brethren statements on what is believed to be the basic beliefs of Anabaptism.

https://www.mennonitebrethren.ca/nflt-r ... -the-Bible

Of all the many Anabaptist, mainly Mennonite groups in our area, what I have observed there are only 2 or 3 that have a more evangelical vision as stated here in the link above -

Anabaptists believe that Christ has commissioned the church to go into all the world and all of society and to make disciples of all people, baptizing them and teaching them to observe his commandments. The evangelistic imperative is given to all believers.

I agree that, IMO, the MB approach is more of blending in with society to evangelize. Some Anabaptists might view this as being worldly and not separated enough however, if following Jesus example, it can be pointed out how He did not withdraw from the world but went and mingled with them sharing the truth. His main purpose was to save sinners from their sins. He commissioned us to be part of that goal.

With that said, when one is missionary minded and reaches out to the lost, where they habit, there is the challenge to keep from worldly temptations as the flesh is still craving these things. One must live according to the Spirit to overcome the deeds of the flesh. And this is where I think the problem lies with much of today's evangelism here in North America. Paul says he became all things to all men so that some may be saved yet in doing this he did not compromise his beliefs. So, in attempts to be 'seeker friendly' sometimes the conversion to being a Holy Spirit guided new creation is not evident. On the other hand, the Anabaptists that just withdraw from involvement with the world have lost their saltiness. They seldom see new converts to Christ and often end up fighting amongst themselves and forming more splits in Anabaptist groups. Concern for lost souls is obviously missing.

Do Canadian MBs all have that evangelism fervor ? Sadly, imo, they too have a weak vision for the lost. Some do and some have gone elsewhere trying to find an Evangelical church that is having true conversions and Christ following. Our MB church had a pretty steady flow of water baptisms and their testimonies most often included coming from some church, often Anabaptist, background. Few were lead to Christ from unchurched backgrounds. I, too, have lost that fervor but know what it is like to be part of a growing church that reaches the lost. Today, in our area, I can't find one.

Anyway, back to the Anabaptist vision, I have some thoughts on the previous post where silentreader pointed to a part of the link I questioned. But first I am going for my second Covid 19 shot.

[Josh]

The modern MB vision is indistinguishable from what one might find in a modern, theologically conservative Baptist, nondenominational, Reformed, Methodist, etc style of church, other than a few differences which are strictly doctrine. But the manner and expectations of Christian life are basically the same.

This is in very sharp contrast to traditional Anabaptist groups.

[Sudsy]

Which version is that and how well does it illustrate the original Anabaptist vision?

When you speak of 'the original Anabaptist vision' are you referring to this - https://www.goshen.edu/mhl/Refocusing/d-av.htm

Or something else ? If something else, is this spelled out somewhere for me to consider ?

I would probably focus mostly on the last several paragraphs:

One thing that jumped out at me in my first read of this and probably because I was raised in certain Pentecostal beliefs that in this wording of the 'two foci in this vision', there is no mention of the Holy Spirit. Without the transforming work of Holy Spirit at work in our lives we are not able and empowered to live a changed life according to the Spirit and the Word. To me, this is essential to NT discipleship and this section read to me like creating a new life was something we can do ourselves as the Holy Spirit was not referred to.

As we review the vision of the Anabaptists, it becomes clear that there are two foci in this vision. The first focus relates to the essential nature of Christianity. Is Christianity primarily a matter of the reception of divine grace through a sacramental-sacerdotal institution (Roman Catholicism), is it chiefly enjoyment of the inner experience of the grace of God through faith in Christ (Lutheranism), or is it most of all the transformation of life through discipleship (Anabaptism )? The Anabaptists were neither institutionalists, mystics, nor pietists, for they laid the weight of their emphasis upon following Christ in life. To them it was unthinkable for one truly to be a Christian without creating a new life on divine principles both for himself and for all men who commit themselves to the Christian way.

In this last sentence I agree if he means true conversion will result in a changed life that pursues a life directed and enabled by the Holy Spirit. I believe some join a group and do what is required to be part of that group. There are some good living people in this world living by what others view as a good person yet they have not been born of the Spirit and live according to the Spirit.

The second focus relates to the church. For the Anabaptist, the church was neither an institution (Catholicism), nor the instrument of God for the proclamation of the divine Word (Lutheranism), nor a resource group for individual piety (Pietism). It was a brotherhood of love in which the fullness of the Christian life ideal is to be expressed.

Wow, if only that last sentence was reflected more here in this forum. I wonder if non-Anabaptists that read our posts view us as a 'brotherhood of love'. Is this the work of the Holy Spirit being expressed ? I realize some here would not classify themselves as Anabaptists but is there some responsibility of those who do, to encourage posters this is not a place for slander and strife but gentleness and acceptance that we see some things differently ? I do believe they will know we are Christians by our love for one another and when the Holy Spirit is operating in us, it will be evident. Right ? Or do you see this differently ?

The Anabaptist vision may be further clarified by comparison of the social ethics of the four main Christian groups of the Reformation period, Catholic, Calvinist, Lutheran, and Anabaptist. Catholic and Calvinist alike were optimistic about the world, agreeing that the world can be redeemed; they held that the entire social order can be brought under the sovereignty of God and Christianized, although they used different means to attain this goal. Lutheran and Anabaptist were pessimistic about the world, denying the possibility of Christianizing the entire social order; but the consequent attitudes of these two groups toward the social order were diametrically opposed. Lutheranism said that since the Christian must live in a world order that remains sinful, he must make a compromise with it. As a citizen he cannot avoid participation in the evil of the world, for instance in making war, and for this his only recourse is to seek forgiveness by the grace of God; only within his personal private experience can the Christian truly Christianize his life. The Anabaptist rejected this view completely. Since for him no compromise dare be made with evil, the Christian may in no circumstance participate in any conduct in the existing social order which is contrary to the spirit and teaching of Christ and the apostolic practice. He must consequently withdraw from the worldly system and create a Christian social order within the fellowship of the church brotherhood. Extension of this Christian order by the conversion of individuals and their transfer out of the world into the church is the only way by which progress can be made in Christianizing the social order.

Have we withdrawn from the 'worldly system' when we argue politics and how sinners should run the country ? And if the last sentence is 'the only way' how will this be done without withdrawing from worldly people altogether ? We are sent out into a world where many don't want to hear the Gospel but some will. We are not to hide in our little communities of believers and be the 'quiet in the land'. That is not the way of the Master. Right ? Again, correct me anytime.

However, the Anabaptist was realistic. Down the long perspective of the future he saw little chance that the mass of humankind would enter such a brotherhood with its high ideals. Hence he anticipated a long and grievous conflict between the church and the world. Neither did he anticipate the time when the church would rule the world; the church would always be a suffering church. He agreed with the words of Jesus when He said that those who would be His disciples must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow Him, and that there would be few who would enter the strait gate and travel the narrow way of life. If this prospect should seem too discouraging, the Anabaptist would reply that the life within the Christian brotherhood is satisfyingly full of love and joy.

Again, last sentence - is this reflected well here. And is this 'little flock' an excuse for not taking the Gospel to where sinners habit ?

The Anabaptist vision was not a detailed blueprint for the reconstruction of human society, but the Brethren did believe that Jesus intended that the kingdom of God should be set up in the midst of earth, here and now, and this they proposed to do forthwith. We shall not believe, they said, that the Sermon on the Mount or any other vision that He had is only a heavenly vision meant but to keep His followers in tension until the last great day, but we shall practice what He taught, believing that where He walked we can by His grace follow in His steps.

I think this forum could be a place that truly demonstrates that the Anabaptist way of real brotherhood love and fully exploring all of Jesus sayings can draw others to Him. I hope those who want to fight and argue mainly over things of this world will think about what this looks like to those seeking God in a life changing way.

CAN A MODERATOR PLEASE SPLIT THE RELEVANT POSTS OFF AND MOVE THEM TO ANABAPTIST THEOLOGY, PLEASE?

[Bootstrap]

I would probably focus mostly on the last several paragraphs:

As we review the vision of the Anabaptists, it becomes clear that there are two foci in this vision. The first focus relates to the essential nature of Christianity. Is Christianity primarily a matter of the reception of divine grace through a sacramental-sacerdotal institution (Roman Catholicism), is it chiefly enjoyment of the inner experience of the grace of God through faith in Christ (Lutheranism), or is it most of all the transformation of life through discipleship (Anabaptism )? The Anabaptists were neither institutionalists, mystics, nor pietists, for they laid the weight of their emphasis upon following Christ in life. To them it was unthinkable for one truly to be a Christian without creating a new life on divine principles both for himself and for all men who commit themselves to the Christian way.

The second focus relates to the church. For the Anabaptist, the church was neither an institution (Catholicism), nor the instrument of God for the proclamation of the divine Word (Lutheranism), nor a resource group for individual piety (Pietism). It was a brotherhood of love in which the fullness of the Christian life ideal is to be expressed.

The Anabaptist vision may be further clarified by comparison of the social ethics of the four main Christian groups of the Reformation period, Catholic, Calvinist, Lutheran, and Anabaptist. Catholic and Calvinist alike were optimistic about the world, agreeing that the world can be redeemed; they held that the entire social order can be brought under the sovereignty of God and Christianized, although they used different means to attain this goal. Lutheran and Anabaptist were pessimistic about the world, denying the possibility of Christianizing the entire social order; but the consequent attitudes of these two groups toward the social order were diametrically opposed. Lutheranism said that since the Christian must live in a world order that remains sinful, he must make a compromise with it. As a citizen he cannot avoid participation in the evil of the world, for instance in making war, and for this his only recourse is to seek forgiveness by the grace of God; only within his personal private experience can the Christian truly Christianize his life. The Anabaptist rejected this view completely. Since for him no compromise dare be made with evil, the Christian may in no circumstance participate in any conduct in the existing social order which is contrary to the spirit and teaching of Christ and the apostolic practice. He must consequently withdraw from the worldly system and create a Christian social order within the fellowship of the church brotherhood. Extension of this Christian order by the conversion of individuals and their transfer out of the world into the church is the only way by which progress can be made in Christianizing the social order.

However, the Anabaptist was realistic. Down the long perspective of the future he saw little chance that the mass of humankind would enter such a brotherhood with its high ideals. Hence he anticipated a long and grievous conflict between the church and the world. Neither did he anticipate the time when the church would rule the world; the church would always be a suffering church. He agreed with the words of Jesus when He said that those who would be His disciples must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow Him, and that there would be few who would enter the strait gate and travel the narrow way of life. If this prospect should seem too discouraging, the Anabaptist would reply that the life within the Christian brotherhood is satisfyingly full of love and joy.

The Anabaptist vision was not a detailed blueprint for the reconstruction of human society, but the Brethren did believe that Jesus intended that the kingdom of God should be set up in the midst of earth, here and now, and this they proposed to do forthwith. We shall not believe, they said, that the Sermon on the Mount or any other vision that He had is only a heavenly vision meant but to keep His followers in tension until the last great day, but we shall practice what He taught, believing that where He walked we can by His grace follow in His steps.

So are most posts on MennoNet in keeping with this vision?

I think this is the kind of thing most of us say we believe in. I don't think the forum witnesses to this.

[Bootstrap]

This was quoted in another thread:

Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

I think that reads differently in context.

Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not become partners with them; for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says,

“Awake, O sleeper,
and arise from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you.”

Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.