Classifying Anabaptists

[Neto]

I see that some are using the term "Neo-anabaptist" for people from outside of historic anabaptism coming to positions which they call 'anabaptist'.

So, what term would you all use for what I previously described as 'neo-anabaptist' - that is (in case you didn't read that), people from the historic anabaptist groups who have re-invented anabaptism through what in anthropology is called a revitalization movement?

[My personal opinion, again, from an anthropological point of view, is that what they claim as 'historic anabaptism' isn't at all, it is something new that they constructed. Sure, some parts are very nearly identical, but the overall relationship between the different doctrines and practices are different. Minor items are made prominent, or the flow of doctrine is opposite to that of the early anabaptist believers, at least judging from what writings have survived. One example I see among self-described 'Plain Anabaptists' is the perspective from which they regard the Kingdom. It is as if they look at it from the outside, so they talk about "two kingdom theology". They appear (to me) to have put non-resistance above identification with a single kingdom - the Kingdom of God. For a long time after my first exposure to these people, I completely misunderstood the term 'Two-kingdom', thinking they were talking about the belief that a Christian can belong to two kingdoms. But I came to my own beliefs largely devoid of input from any other anabaptists, other than what I was reading in Menno Simons. So I talked about identifying with and belonging to a SINGLE kingdom, rejecting the idea of 'dual citizenship'. I do understand this "two kingdom" business now, but I still feel like it is looking in from the outside, like it's an adaptation of the dual citizenship belief, instead of seeing that sort of thing as a direct affront to what Jesus says as recorded in Scripture, that you can 'only serve one master'.]

[Ernie]

So, what term would you all use for what I previously described as 'neo-anabaptist' - that is (in case you didn't read that), people from the historic anabaptist groups who have re-invented anabaptism through what in anthropology is called a revitalization movement?

Can you post what you wrote earlier here in this thread?

[Ernie]

[My personal opinion, again, from an anthropological point of view, is that what they claim as 'historic anabaptism' isn't at all, it is something new that they constructed. Sure, some parts are very nearly identical, but the overall relationship between the different doctrines and practices are different. Minor items are made prominent, or the flow of doctrine is opposite to that of the early anabaptist believers, at least judging from what writings have survived. One example I see among self-described 'Plain Anabaptists' is the perspective from which they regard the Kingdom. It is as if they look at it from the outside, so they talk about "two kingdom theology". They appear (to me) to have put non-resistance above identification with a single kingdom - the Kingdom of God. For a long time after my first exposure to these people, I completely misunderstood the term 'Two-kingdom', thinking they were talking about the belief that a Christian can belong to two kingdoms. But I came to my own beliefs largely devoid of input from any other anabaptists, other than what I was reading in Menno Simons. So I talked about identifying with and belonging to a SINGLE kingdom, rejecting the idea of 'dual citizenship'. I do understand this "two kingdom" business now, but I still feel like it is looking in from the outside, like it's an adaptation of the dual citizenship belief, instead of seeing that sort of thing as a direct affront to what Jesus says as recorded in Scripture, that you can 'only serve one master'.]

We have had a number of unchurched people express similar confusion. And on their own, they also thought we should be stressing One Kingdom. One of them who worships with us presently doesn't even believe that "Satan" is a real being and rather sees the term being an allegorical expression. He doesn't like the idea that there are two kingdoms vying for power in the earth. He believes there is only one God.

While I understand his desire for their to be only one kingdom, and like his emphasis on the kingdom that will stand forever, there are all sorts of hermeneutical gymnastics a person needs to do to deny the existence of Satan or the existence of an evil kingdom.

Can you explain more why it is problematic to talk about two real kingdoms who want us to be part of their kingdom, and how we need to choose between the two, rather than try to have a foot in both?

[Neto]

So, what term would you all use for what I previously described as 'neo-anabaptist' - that is (in case you didn't read that), people from the historic anabaptist groups who have re-invented anabaptism through what in anthropology is called a revitalization movement?

Can you post what you wrote earlier here in this thread?

I'm not sure if it was in this thread, or another.

[Neto]

[My personal opinion, again, from an anthropological point of view, is that what they claim as 'historic anabaptism' isn't at all, it is something new that they constructed. Sure, some parts are very nearly identical, but the overall relationship between the different doctrines and practices are different. Minor items are made prominent, or the flow of doctrine is opposite to that of the early anabaptist believers, at least judging from what writings have survived. One example I see among self-described 'Plain Anabaptists' is the perspective from which they regard the Kingdom. It is as if they look at it from the outside, so they talk about "two kingdom theology". They appear (to me) to have put non-resistance above identification with a single kingdom - the Kingdom of God. For a long time after my first exposure to these people, I completely misunderstood the term 'Two-kingdom', thinking they were talking about the belief that a Christian can belong to two kingdoms. But I came to my own beliefs largely devoid of input from any other anabaptists, other than what I was reading in Menno Simons. So I talked about identifying with and belonging to a SINGLE kingdom, rejecting the idea of 'dual citizenship'. I do understand this "two kingdom" business now, but I still feel like it is looking in from the outside, like it's an adaptation of the dual citizenship belief, instead of seeing that sort of thing as a direct affront to what Jesus says as recorded in Scripture, that you can 'only serve one master'.]

We have had a number of unchurched people express similar confusion. And on their own, they also thought we should be stressing One Kingdom. One of them who worships with us presently doesn't even believe that "Satan" is a real being and rather sees the term being an allegorical expression. He doesn't like the idea that there are two kingdoms vying for power in the earth. He believes there is only one God.

While I understand his desire for their to be only one kingdom, and like his emphasis on the kingdom that will stand forever, there are all sorts of hermeneutical gymnastics a person needs to do to deny the existence of Satan or the existence of an evil kingdom.

Can you explain more why it is problematic to talk about two real kingdoms who want us to be part of their kingdom, and how we need to choose between the two, rather than try to have a foot in both?

I don't think it's a problem to talk about the fact that the Satan is real, and that he still leads the earthly kingdom in opposition to the Kingdom of God. His kingdom is real, and if I can be forgiven for mentioning the Banawa again, my immersion in their animist culture "opened my eyes" to that reality to a new depth.

The disconnect for me was that internally (as the Church, the Body of the Chosen One of God), we focus on our citizenship in HIS Kingdom, but the language of the doctrine uses terminology that at first blush falls in line with what I guess is now called "Christian Nationalism". I'm not saying that it is 'wrong', and it also isn't really a problem per se - it was just at first rather confusing to me, due to my familiarity with (and to some extent previous immersion in) the concept of "dual citizenship". That was the rub. I would suggest changing the perceived emphasis by a primary focus on the identity of the believer as a citizen in the Kingdom of God.

So maybe the 'problem' actually is just in how I think. One might ask Would it not make sense to present the Biblical belief to people coming from the outside from the outside perspective? Perhaps it does make sense to many people. But by the time I started hearing the term 'Two Kingdom Theology" I was already 'inside', but not as an 'insider'. I sort of came in through the back door, and it just sounded too much like where I'd come from.

I'm still thinking about this - how the presentation could be improved, recognizing the different ways in which the reality of opposing 'kingdoms' are perceived within the Protestant and Evangelical settings, and the different ways in which those Christians think it intersects with how we should respond to that reality. (Mainly, participation in, or separation from, the 'other kingdom'.)

[Ken]

[My personal opinion, again, from an anthropological point of view, is that what they claim as 'historic anabaptism' isn't at all, it is something new that they constructed. Sure, some parts are very nearly identical, but the overall relationship between the different doctrines and practices are different. Minor items are made prominent, or the flow of doctrine is opposite to that of the early anabaptist believers, at least judging from what writings have survived. One example I see among self-described 'Plain Anabaptists' is the perspective from which they regard the Kingdom. It is as if they look at it from the outside, so they talk about "two kingdom theology". They appear (to me) to have put non-resistance above identification with a single kingdom - the Kingdom of God. For a long time after my first exposure to these people, I completely misunderstood the term 'Two-kingdom', thinking they were talking about the belief that a Christian can belong to two kingdoms. But I came to my own beliefs largely devoid of input from any other anabaptists, other than what I was reading in Menno Simons. So I talked about identifying with and belonging to a SINGLE kingdom, rejecting the idea of 'dual citizenship'. I do understand this "two kingdom" business now, but I still feel like it is looking in from the outside, like it's an adaptation of the dual citizenship belief, instead of seeing that sort of thing as a direct affront to what Jesus says as recorded in Scripture, that you can 'only serve one master'.]

We have had a number of unchurched people express similar confusion. And on their own, they also thought we should be stressing One Kingdom. One of them who worships with us presently doesn't even believe that "Satan" is a real being and rather sees the term being an allegorical expression. He doesn't like the idea that there are two kingdoms vying for power in the earth. He believes there is only one God.

While I understand his desire for their to be only one kingdom, and like his emphasis on the kingdom that will stand forever, there are all sorts of hermeneutical gymnastics a person needs to do to deny the existence of Satan or the existence of an evil kingdom.

Can you explain more why it is problematic to talk about two real kingdoms who want us to be part of their kingdom, and how we need to choose between the two, rather than try to have a foot in both?

I think it depends on whether you think there is a battle between good and evil that takes place outside of us. In which we are asked to choose sides, but that we are largely still spectators in a battle of forces (or actual real "Kingdoms") that rages outside our control.

Or if you believe we are all created with both good and evil inside all of us, and the free will to follow either path. And that faith is about discerning the correct path and finding the strength of will to follow it when it may seem difficult. From this point of view, the language of "Kingdoms" is perhaps more metaphorical. If I sin, is it because I am some innocent victim succumbing to the influence of some external Satan from another Kingdom who is whispering temptation in my ear? Or is it because I succumb to some baser human instinct that is inside all of us as part of human nature?

[Dan Z]

Should there be a subset for Communal Anabaptists (Hutterites, Elmendorf & Co, Bruderhof, Colony Mennonites, NeoAnabaptist communities, etc.)?

[Mayberry]

Not being an ethnic Anabaptist, I find much that has been posted here to be rather interesting. My general confusion with classifying Anabaptist types has been generated over the years by various local ministry in my local area.

The first hurdle placed before me is generated by the "divorce & remarriage" dilemma. While I have been advised that no exception clause is valid, even for adultery experienced within a publicly established/official marriage, a few folks tell me that some "Anaptist identifying" groups actually do, indeed, make allowances for such --- as apparently expressed by Menno and his peers in the Wismer Articles. If this is true, how do we catorgize these folks? Please avoid throwing the "heretic" stone. That won't help me. I'm told that such folks making the allowances I mention here do exist. Using the catagories listed in Ernie's original post at the beginning, they are categorized or classified as ... what?

My second group identity difficulty involves the head covering frequency and style. Which identity is assigned to those Anabaptists who (1) do not cover. (2) cover only during public worship services, and (3) cover during all hours while awake.

Then I ask about head covering styles. In which category do we place groups using doilies, only; pleated caps, only; or where a personal choice is allowed between caps or veils. With local ministers here denouncing and firmly putting down anyone not agreeing with them, I live in great confusion.

[Ernie]

Not being an ethnic Anabaptist, I find much that has been posted here to be rather interesting. My general confusion with classifying Anabaptist types has been generated over the years by various local ministry in my local area.

The first hurdle placed before me is generated by the "divorce & remarriage" dilemma. While I have been advised that no exception clause is valid, even for adultery experienced within a publicly established/official marriage, a few folks tell me that some "Anaptist identifying" groups actually do, indeed, make allowances for such --- as apparently expressed by Menno and his peers in the Wismer Articles. If this is true, how do we catorgize these folks? Please avoid throwing the "heretic" stone. That won't help me. I'm told that such folks making the allowances I mention here do exist. Using the catagories listed in Ernie's original post at the beginning, they are categorized or classified as ... what?

Church of God in Christ Mennonite (Holdeman Mennonites) allow for divorce and remarriage prior to faith in Christ and/or joining the church. Apostolic Anabaptists take a similar position. Reformed Mennonites (now nearly extinct) take a similar position I believe.

My second group identity difficulty involves the head covering frequency and style. Which identity is assigned to those Anabaptists who (1) do not cover.

These would be Theological Conservatives and Mainstream/Mainline Anabaptists

(2) cover only during public worship services

This is only a very small segment of Anabaptists... Some Apostolic Anabaptists, some Progressive (Fundamental) Conservatives, etc.

, and (3) cover during all hours while awake.

Most Old Orders and Conservative Anabaptists often referred to as Plain People or Traditional Anabaptists

In which category do we place groups using doilies, only;

Some Progressive Conservatives, Some Apostolics

pleated caps, only;

Old Orders, Ultra conservatives, Intermediate Conservates (in the USA)

or where a personal choice is allowed between caps or veils.

Moderate Conservatives


This document may be helpful.
https://towardthebetter.org/wp-content/ ... e-2022.pdf

[Mayberry]

Ernie,
Thanks so much for your very helpful response! Your answers were crystal clear. I will definitely study all this.