The Anabaptist Vision unmasked

[Josh]

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.

It’s nice you have your opinion of that.

Our most prolific posters don’t seem to even claim to be Anabaptist, or even have much interest in it. We have people who have a paleo conservative right wing vision mixed in with right wing clickbait, along with a stereotypical Pacific Northwest liberal, dominating much of the conversation.

The Anabaptist Vision didn’t include forum posts on a very diverse platform that allows non-Anabaptists and anti-Anabaptists to freely post.

[Sudsy]

The Anabaptist Vision didn’t include forum posts on a very diverse platform that allows non-Anabaptists and anti-Anabaptists to freely post.

Can you explain this to a slow, old guy in layman's terms ? Does this mean Anabaptists should keep their conversations with only Anabaptists ?

[silentreader]

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?

A couple of things Sudsy, you have to understand that this is not a "statement of faith and practice" so there are many things it does not address.
I quoted/posted the ending summary because I believed it covered the main points without getting bogged down with quotes from multiple sources.
To find the answers to your questions you will have to read through the entire article. The work of the Holy Spirit, for instance, is dealt with in the main text. Just because it is not mentioned in the summary does not mean it is not mentioned previously.

[Bootstrap]

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

The Anabaptist Vision didn’t include forum posts on a very diverse platform that allows non-Anabaptists and anti-Anabaptists to freely post.

OK, but it's not just the people you describe. What if we restrict my question to only those of us who identify with the Anabaptist vision that Bender describes? How can we be a better witness to others, both those who post here and those who do not? How can a Mennonite forum contribute to that?

[Sudsy]

A couple of things Sudsy, you have to understand that this is not a "statement of faith and practice" so there are many things it does not address.
I quoted/posted the ending summary because I believed it covered the main points without getting bogged down with quotes from multiple sources.
To find the answers to your questions you will have to read through the entire article. The work of the Holy Spirit, for instance, is dealt with in the main text. Just because it is not mentioned in the summary does not mean it is not mentioned previously.

I did read the entire article twice. I understand it is not a SOF but when the summary says there are two main focus points and does not make any statement about the Holy Spirit by Bender himself, to me, it didn't sound like he missed a main area of Anabaptism focus and difference -

Where they were distinct from Protestant groups was in their emphasis upon the work of the Holy Spirit in the ongoing faith of the person, including in the reading of Scripture. Although the Bible was the most important source of authority, Anabaptists generally thought that its interpretation required the work of the Holy Spirit to guide believers in their understanding of the texts. Thus one can speak of a “necessary spirit/letter linkage as constitutive of Anabaptist belief.” This emphasis upon the Spirit applied to the inner life of the believer as well as to his or her outer life of discipleship. In addition, the notion that the Holy Spirit continued working in the daily life of the believer was an important dimension of Anabaptist soteriology. To be sure, Anabaptists insisted upon salvation by faith through grace, but such faith must bear “visible fruit in repentance, conversion, regeneration, obedience, and a new life dedicated to the love of God and the neighbor, by the power of the Holy Spirit.”

That quote taken from here - https://uwaterloo.ca/grebel/publication ... tter-james

This quote would be quite in agreement with Pentecostalism and my views although being baptised in the Holy Spirit as evidence in speaking an unknown tongue would not be agreed upon.

When comparing to other Christians traditions Bender said Anabaptism is mostly about 'the transformation of life through discipleship'. I would put it differently that original Anabaptism believed that the Holy Spirit transforms a believer by the ongoing renewing of their minds to result in living a life of discipleship. I can transform my life by certain disciplines but it requires a co-operative working with the Holy Spirit that begins with a new heart. There are religious people in various Christian faith groups that are lead by something or someone else than the Holy Spirit. Perhaps that as why so many places end up in splits instead of being united accepting areas of diversity.

[Josh]

The Anabaptist Vision didn’t include forum posts on a very diverse platform that allows non-Anabaptists and anti-Anabaptists to freely post.

Can you explain this to a slow, old guy in layman's terms ? Does this mean Anabaptists should keep their conversations with only Anabaptists ?

I was responding to Bootstrap’s complaint that MennoNet doesn’t express the Anabaptist Vision to his liking.

[Josh]

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

The Anabaptist Vision didn’t include forum posts on a very diverse platform that allows non-Anabaptists and anti-Anabaptists to freely post.

OK, but it's not just the people you describe. What if we restrict my question to only those of us who identify with the Anabaptist vision that Bender describes? How can we be a better witness to others, both those who post here and those who do not? How can a Mennonite forum contribute to that?

If you have a problem with a specific person I guess you could speak privately to them.

Otherwise this forum has no restriction on people only participating from a certain faith alignment. It does not purport to be some Anabaptist propaganda tool.

Ultimately I don’t think there is any unity between MC USA Mennonites and conservative Mennonites so we can’t be a witness together. If you think that’s un charitable you should hear the stuff others say...

[silentreader]

A couple of things Sudsy, you have to understand that this is not a "statement of faith and practice" so there are many things it does not address.
I quoted/posted the ending summary because I believed it covered the main points without getting bogged down with quotes from multiple sources.
To find the answers to your questions you will have to read through the entire article. The work of the Holy Spirit, for instance, is dealt with in the main text. Just because it is not mentioned in the summary does not mean it is not mentioned previously.

I did read the entire article twice. I understand it is not a SOF but when the summary says there are two main focus points and does not make any statement about the Holy Spirit by Bender himself, to me, it didn't sound like he missed a main area of Anabaptism focus and difference -

Where they were distinct from Protestant groups was in their emphasis upon the work of the Holy Spirit in the ongoing faith of the person, including in the reading of Scripture. Although the Bible was the most important source of authority, Anabaptists generally thought that its interpretation required the work of the Holy Spirit to guide believers in their understanding of the texts. Thus one can speak of a “necessary spirit/letter linkage as constitutive of Anabaptist belief.” This emphasis upon the Spirit applied to the inner life of the believer as well as to his or her outer life of discipleship. In addition, the notion that the Holy Spirit continued working in the daily life of the believer was an important dimension of Anabaptist soteriology. To be sure, Anabaptists insisted upon salvation by faith through grace, but such faith must bear “visible fruit in repentance, conversion, regeneration, obedience, and a new life dedicated to the love of God and the neighbor, by the power of the Holy Spirit.”

That quote taken from here - https://uwaterloo.ca/grebel/publication ... tter-james

This quote would be quite in agreement with Pentecostalism and my views although being baptised in the Holy Spirit as evidence in speaking an unknown tongue would not be agreed upon.

When comparing to other Christians traditions Bender said Anabaptism is mostly about 'the transformation of life through discipleship'. I would put it differently that original Anabaptism believed that the Holy Spirit transforms a believer by the ongoing renewing of their minds to result in living a life of discipleship. I can transform my life by certain disciplines but it requires a co-operative working with the Holy Spirit that begins with a new heart. There are religious people in various Christian faith groups that are lead by something or someone else than the Holy Spirit. Perhaps that as why so many places end up in splits instead of being united accepting areas of diversity.

So if you did indeed read the whole thing twice, I'm not sure why you would not have quoted this section:

The essential and distinguishing characteristic of this church is its great emphasis upon the actual personal conversion and regeneration of every Christian through the Holy Spirit.... They aimed with special emphasis at carrying out and realizing the Christian doctrine and faith in the heart and life of every Christian in the whole Christian church. Their aim was the bringing together of all the true believers out of the great degenerated national churches into a true Christian church. That which the Reformation was originally intended to accomplish they aimed to bring into full immediate realization.17
And Johann Loserth says:
More radically than any other party for church reformation the Anabaptists strove to follow the footsteps of the church of the first century and to renew unadulterated original Christianity.18
The evidence in support of this interpretation is overwhelming, and can be taken from the statements of the contemporary opponents of the Anabaptists as well as from the Anabaptists themselves. Conrad Grebel, the founder of the Swiss Brethren movement, states clearly this point of view in his letter to Thomas M&uumlntzer of 1524, in words written on behalf of the entire group which constitute in effect the original Anabaptist pronunciamento:
Just as our forebears [the Roman Catholic Papal Church] fell away from the true God and the knowledge of Jesus Christ and of the right faith in him, and from the one true, common divine word, from the divine institutions, from Christian love and life, and lived without God's law and gospel in human, useless, un-Christian customs and ceremonies, and expected to attain salvation therein, yet fell far short of it, as the evangelical preachers [Luther, Zwingli, etc.] have declared, and to some extent are still declaring; so today, too, every man wants to be saved by superficial faith, without fruits of faith, without the baptism of test and probation without love and hope, without right Christian practices, and wants to persist in all the old fashion of personal vices, and in the common ritualistic and anti-Christian customs of baptism and of the Lord' s Supper, in disrespect for the divine word and in respect for the word of the pope and of the antipapal preachers, which yet is not equal to the divine word nor in harmony with it. In respecting persons and in manifold seduction there is grosser and more pernicious error now than ever has been since the beginning of the world. In the same error we, too, lingered as long as we heard and read only the evangelical preachers who are to blame for all this, in punishment for our sins. But after we took the Scriptures in hand, too, and consulted it on many points we have been instructed somewhat and have discovered the great and hurtful error of the shepherds, of ours too, namely that we do not daily beseech God earnestly with constant groanings to be brought out of this destruction of all godly life and out of human abominations, and to attain to true faith and divine instruction.19

[Bootstrap]

Ultimately I don’t think there is any unity between MC USA Mennonites and conservative Mennonites so we can’t be a witness together. If you think that’s un charitable you should hear the stuff others say...

Oh sure, I've never doubted people's ability to be uncharitable. But I do hope there are better things we can do to build the Kingdom of God and call attention to the things Jesus cared about. After all, nobody was better at criticizing other religious people than the Pharisees, but that didn't mean they were the best Christians, even if they were defending what they thought of as the old time religion and conservative values. The real question is this: does our criticism look like Jesus? Do we criticize what he criticized, praise what he praised, build the same Kingdom of God that he proclaimed?

I really applaud Silent Reader for his emphases in this thread.

To me, both plain and non-plain Mennonites often claim to be following a vision like the one outlined by Bender. To look at their online forums, you would think that both kinds of Anabaptism are dead, sold out to modern American political factions. On MN, it sure seems to be hard to find the same energy for building the Kingdom of God as there is for defending political talking points and identities. And I know for a fact that some of the people here are much better than that in real life.

I think I have found much healthier Anabaptism in some churches, both plain and not. And some modern movements like the Bible Project just might be doing a better job of promoting what we claim we believe than we are in our online presence. I have plenty of problems with things happening in MC-USA, but in my own local church and some of the other local churches in the Virginia Conference I still do see the dedication to Jesus, the Sermon on the Mount, and the Kingdom of God that Bender is calling for.

[Sudsy]

A couple of things Sudsy, you have to understand that this is not a "statement of faith and practice" so there are many things it does not address.
I quoted/posted the ending summary because I believed it covered the main points without getting bogged down with quotes from multiple sources.
To find the answers to your questions you will have to read through the entire article. The work of the Holy Spirit, for instance, is dealt with in the main text. Just because it is not mentioned in the summary does not mean it is not mentioned previously.

I did read the entire article twice. I understand it is not a SOF but when the summary says there are two main focus points and does not make any statement about the Holy Spirit by Bender himself, to me, it didn't sound like he missed a main area of Anabaptism focus and difference -

Where they were distinct from Protestant groups was in their emphasis upon the work of the Holy Spirit in the ongoing faith of the person, including in the reading of Scripture. Although the Bible was the most important source of authority, Anabaptists generally thought that its interpretation required the work of the Holy Spirit to guide believers in their understanding of the texts. Thus one can speak of a “necessary spirit/letter linkage as constitutive of Anabaptist belief.” This emphasis upon the Spirit applied to the inner life of the believer as well as to his or her outer life of discipleship. In addition, the notion that the Holy Spirit continued working in the daily life of the believer was an important dimension of Anabaptist soteriology. To be sure, Anabaptists insisted upon salvation by faith through grace, but such faith must bear “visible fruit in repentance, conversion, regeneration, obedience, and a new life dedicated to the love of God and the neighbor, by the power of the Holy Spirit.”

That quote taken from here - https://uwaterloo.ca/grebel/publication ... tter-james

This quote would be quite in agreement with Pentecostalism and my views although being baptised in the Holy Spirit as evidence in speaking an unknown tongue would not be agreed upon.

When comparing to other Christians traditions Bender said Anabaptism is mostly about 'the transformation of life through discipleship'. I would put it differently that original Anabaptism believed that the Holy Spirit transforms a believer by the ongoing renewing of their minds to result in living a life of discipleship. I can transform my life by certain disciplines but it requires a co-operative working with the Holy Spirit that begins with a new heart. There are religious people in various Christian faith groups that are lead by something or someone else than the Holy Spirit. Perhaps that as why so many places end up in splits instead of being united accepting areas of diversity.

So if you did indeed read the whole thing twice, I'm not sure why you would not have quoted this section:

As I said above I went to the summary of the two main focus points of Anabaptism according to Bender and was surprised that in this summary there was no mention of the need for the enabling power of the Holy Spirit to be a true disciple. This is something I look for as the transformation we need must be Holy Spirit sourced or it is just religion.

Here is an article that expresses more along the line of the Anabaptism I believe in - https://www.anabaptistwitness.org/journal_entry/4772/

The essential and distinguishing characteristic of this church is its great emphasis upon the actual personal conversion and regeneration of every Christian through the Holy Spirit.... They aimed with special emphasis at carrying out and realizing the Christian doctrine and faith in the heart and life of every Christian in the whole Christian church. Their aim was the bringing together of all the true believers out of the great degenerated national churches into a true Christian church. That which the Reformation was originally intended to accomplish they aimed to bring into full immediate realization.17
And Johann Loserth says:
More radically than any other party for church reformation the Anabaptists strove to follow the footsteps of the church of the first century and to renew unadulterated original Christianity.18
The evidence in support of this interpretation is overwhelming, and can be taken from the statements of the contemporary opponents of the Anabaptists as well as from the Anabaptists themselves. Conrad Grebel, the founder of the Swiss Brethren movement, states clearly this point of view in his letter to Thomas M&uumlntzer of 1524, in words written on behalf of the entire group which constitute in effect the original Anabaptist pronunciamento:
Just as our forebears [the Roman Catholic Papal Church] fell away from the true God and the knowledge of Jesus Christ and of the right faith in him, and from the one true, common divine word, from the divine institutions, from Christian love and life, and lived without God's law and gospel in human, useless, un-Christian customs and ceremonies, and expected to attain salvation therein, yet fell far short of it, as the evangelical preachers [Luther, Zwingli, etc.] have declared, and to some extent are still declaring; so today, too, every man wants to be saved by superficial faith, without fruits of faith, without the baptism of test and probation without love and hope, without right Christian practices, and wants to persist in all the old fashion of personal vices, and in the common ritualistic and anti-Christian customs of baptism and of the Lord' s Supper, in disrespect for the divine word and in respect for the word of the pope and of the antipapal preachers, which yet is not equal to the divine word nor in harmony with it. In respecting persons and in manifold seduction there is grosser and more pernicious error now than ever has been since the beginning of the world. In the same error we, too, lingered as long as we heard and read only the evangelical preachers who are to blame for all this, in punishment for our sins. But after we took the Scriptures in hand, too, and consulted it on many points we have been instructed somewhat and have discovered the great and hurtful error of the shepherds, of ours too, namely that we do not daily beseech God earnestly with constant groanings to be brought out of this destruction of all godly life and out of human abominations, and to attain to true faith and divine instruction.19