What do Anabaptists and Anglicans share in common?

[mike]

They both meet on Sundays.
I know the Anglicans have prayerbooks. Do Anabaptists?

The Amish use prayerbooks. I am not aware of other Anabaptists who do. If so, I assume it would be other old orders such as Hutterites.

[Ernie]

Wow. A prayer book named for me and Neto!

[JohnH]

It's important to be Ernest

[HondurasKeiser]

I use these two, published by Mennonite Publishing House, every morning and evening. The have been extraordinarily helpful:

[R7ehr]

I use these two, published by Mennonite Publishing House, every morning and evening. The have been extraordinarily helpful:

I’ve read all through that first one. It’s been a little while, but I didn’t think the second one was as impressive. But I don’t remember why it struck me that way.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

There are some current trends in Anglicanism that align well with the anabaptist tradition. Note: these are trends I have seen from Anglican authors, and may or may not speak to the tradition as a whole!

1) A gospel that centers on the Kingdom of God and Jesus as King. I have seen this from N. T. Wright, Scott McKnight, and Matthew Bates.

2) The "new perspectives on Paul", which, roughly speaking, argues that Paul was arguing against the importance of the Jewish Law and not the concept of "law" in any form. The implication is that we are still under God's law, which is fulfilled and revealed in the incarnate Word of God, Jesus Christ. The secondary implication is obedience to the Sermon on the Mount.
N.T. Wright is a proponent of the NPoP. Bates wrote a great book called "salvation by allegience alone", and McKnight wrote the short, easy to read "The King Jesus Gospel", all of which emphasize the fact that obedience plays a role in our salvation.

3) A call to peace. NT Wright has a bit on this in his book "Simply Christian".

[Praxis+Theodicy]

I should clarify:
I thought Matthew Bates was Anglican due to his professional relationships with the other two, but I can't actually confirm that. Online research shows he teaches at Notre Dame (a Roman Catholic school), but identifies as a Protestant.

Scot McKnight is a converted Anglican. So maybe he wouldn't represent Anglicans as a whole.

[Ernie]

There are some current trends in Anglicanism that align well with the anabaptist tradition. Note: these are trends I have seen from Anglican authors, and may or may not speak to the tradition as a whole!

1) A gospel that centers on the Kingdom of God and Jesus as King. I have seen this from N. T. Wright, Scott McKnight, and Matthew Bates.

2) The "new perspectives on Paul", which, roughly speaking, argues that Paul was arguing against the importance of the Jewish Law and not the concept of "law" in any form. The implication is that we are still under God's law, which is fulfilled and revealed in the incarnate Word of God, Jesus Christ. The secondary implication is obedience to the Sermon on the Mount.
N.T. Wright is a proponent of the NPoP. Bates wrote a great book called "salvation by allegience alone", and McKnight wrote the short, easy to read "The King Jesus Gospel", all of which emphasize the fact that obedience plays a role in our salvation.

3) A call to peace. NT Wright has a bit on this in his book "Simply Christian".

Thank you, this is helpful information.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

I found a good summary of the Anglican view of the Gospel, and how it is reenacted in their liturgy:
https://www.modernreformation.org/resou ... the-gospel

I quote the closing paragraphs to highlight the part that i feel rings true for the anabaptist tradition as well. Others have much more knowledge of that tradition that I, so feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

We start with repentance, the indispensable foundation of all Christian experience. Repentance follows on what the Bible calls “conviction of sin” (John 16:8). Without that, no salvation is possible because the need for it is not recognized. Sin is not to be confused with unhappiness, frustration, or low self-esteem, as it often is in the modern world. Sin is disobedience to the commands of God, which incurs guilt on our part. We repent because we are guilty, and we seek forgiveness from God for the same reason. If we do not come to him with a repentant heart, we are wasting our time. Worse, we are in effect mocking the gospel message by demonstrating that we do not understand what it is.

The second stage involves love and charity toward our neighbors. This sounds easy, but in fact it is very difficult—perhaps the most difficult part of the entire exercise. Yet it is a fundamental part of the famous Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:23–24). It is also a reminder to us that the gospel is not a private affair between an individual and Jesus, but a public commitment that involves reconciliation with other people as well as with God. For a variety of reasons, such reconciliation is not always possible—those with whom we have fallen out may not be readily accessible or may be unwilling to reciprocate. Although to be in love and charity with our neighbors does not always lead to reconciliation, we still need to be open to it and not seek vengeance for wrongs that have been done to us.

The third stage is that we must intend to lead a new life. In the modern world, this has become a stumbling block for many. Today, we are constantly being told that we must accept people as they are, because that is what Jesus supposedly did. Like many things, that is a half-truth. For example, Jesus “accepted” the woman caught in adultery, and although he did not condemn her, he did not bless her behavior either. His message to her was “Go and sin no more” (John 7:53–8:11). Struggling against sin is never easy, and Christians have a harder time of it than others because they have a clearer understanding of what sin is. But the gospel demands that it be struggled against. Failure to preach the gospel of the transforming power of God is to deprive people of access to that heavenly gift and to betray the gospel.

Finally, the gospel message is that in Christ and by the power of his Holy Spirit, we can follow the commands of God and walk in his holy ways. The gospel is not a temporary fix for an essentially insoluble problem. The Reformers rejected the medieval system of confession and penitence because it was an endlessly repeated cycle with no real hope of deliverance. Sinners were not set free from the burden of their sins; they were locked into a system where they had to keep returning to the priest, seeking more grace to pay for the wrongs they had committed; hence the insistence in the BCP’s Words of Institution that the offering of Christ on the cross was “a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world.” Nothing more and nothing else is required.

This is the heart of the gospel and the heart of Anglicanism. You can believe the gospel without being Anglican, but you cannot be Anglican without holding to the gospel that the BCP so clearly and comprehensively sets out before us in the Lord’s Supper.

[barnhart]

There are some current trends in Anglicanism that align well with the anabaptist tradition. Note: these are trends I have seen from Anglican authors, and may or may not speak to the tradition as a whole!

1) A gospel that centers on the Kingdom of God and Jesus as King. I have seen this from N. T. Wright, Scott McKnight, and Matthew Bates.

2) The "new perspectives on Paul", which, roughly speaking, argues that Paul was arguing against the importance of the Jewish Law and not the concept of "law" in any form. The implication is that we are still under God's law, which is fulfilled and revealed in the incarnate Word of God, Jesus Christ. The secondary implication is obedience to the Sermon on the Mount.
N.T. Wright is a proponent of the NPoP. Bates wrote a great book called "salvation by allegience alone", and McKnight wrote the short, easy to read "The King Jesus Gospel", all of which emphasize the fact that obedience plays a role in our salvation.

3) A call to peace. NT Wright has a bit on this in his book "Simply Christian".

Thank you for some context for Wright's New perspective on Paul. I've heard him speak around it but still couldn't grasp the scope of it. Generally I'm skeptical of new perspectives in biblical interpretation but this doesn't seem new to me at all, maybe new to those soaked in the reform tradition. This seems like the same old Paul I learned about from childhood.