Anabaptist Perspectives Episode - What Happened to Anabaptists who stayed in Europe

[JohnH]

For a contrary point of view, I would note that the ACC (Nazarean) churches in Eastern Europe tend to be in better shape than the diaspora church plantings in Brisbane, Akron, and so forth. They do more local evangelism, have far more first-generation converts, are bigger, and seem to have less trouble keeping their young people. And that's despite those congregations having to deal with being in Communist Hungary, Yugoslavia and Romania under less-than-ideal conditions from the 1950s until 1990.

Meanwhile, the last Amish baptism was somewhere in France in the 1910s and the Mennonite churches left in Western Europe seem to have strayed very far from the faith once handed down to the saints. It would appear that geopolitical peace, democracy, prosperity, and very strong guarantees of religious liberty have not strengthened the Anabaptist churches in Western Europe.

Congo and Ethiopia, on the other hand, are not exactly known for being bastions of democracy, prosperity, or peace over the last 70 years, yet Anabaptism as a whole there seems quite strong. So I have to call this into question:

In a country like Angola can you really be sure that some future government is going to respect the property rights, civil rights, and religious rights of your children or grandchildren?

Is respecting property rights, civil rights, and religious rights really what's necessary for a thriving community of Jesus-followers?

[Ken]

For a contrary point of view, I would note that the ACC (Nazarean) churches in Eastern Europe tend to be in better shape than the diaspora church plantings in Brisbane, Akron, and so forth. They do more local evangelism, have far more first-generation converts, are bigger, and seem to have less trouble keeping their young people. And that's despite those congregations having to deal with being in Communist Hungary, Yugoslavia and Romania under less-than-ideal conditions from the 1950s until 1990.

Meanwhile, the last Amish baptism was somewhere in France in the 1910s and the Mennonite churches left in Western Europe seem to have strayed very far from the faith once handed down to the saints. It would appear that geopolitical peace, democracy, prosperity, and very strong guarantees of religious liberty have not strengthened the Anabaptist churches in Western Europe.

Congo and Ethiopia, on the other hand, are not exactly known for being bastions of democracy, prosperity, or peace over the last 70 years, yet Anabaptism as a whole there seems quite strong. So I have to call this into question:

In a country like Angola can you really be sure that some future government is going to respect the property rights, civil rights, and religious rights of your children or grandchildren?

Is respecting property rights, civil rights, and religious rights really what's necessary for a thriving community of Jesus-followers?

Well, ask Ukrainian Mennos in the 1930s if property rights, civil rights, and religious rights would have been useful to their community.

If you want to build insular multi-generational plain communities whose main obsessions are things like the shape of head coverings, fabric patterns on cape dresses or the colors of cars or buggies then yes. You need stability and the ability to be left alone generation after generation to build such traditions.

If you just want to spread evangelical Christianity then obviously not.

I have zero doubt that Christianity will continue to spread in Africa. That is not at question. I do, however, have doubts that an insular community of German-speaking White Menno settlers will last and thrive for generations or centuries in Angola like they have in PA or Ohio.

[JohnH]

I have zero doubt that Christianity will continue to spread in Africa. That is not at question. I do, however, have doubts that an insular community of German-speaking White Menno settlers will last and thrive for generations or centuries in Angola like they have in PA or Ohio.

Yet they've managed to do so in Mexico, Belize, Paraguay, Peru, and many other places.

Perhaps a better question is if you think German-speaking "White" Mennonite people should even be "allowed" to exist and perpetuate their own culture and exist as a distinct ethnic group, or if you think this is somehow a bad thing and it would be better off if social conditions were present that would effectively exterminate them. I certainly pick up some of that sentiment from your tone of voice, but maybe I'm wrong.

Considering about 300,000 people from Angola are present in Europe, including 10,000 in the Netherlands... it doesn't seem particularly unreasonable for a few hundred Mennonite settlers to be present in Angola, now, does it? And I hope none of us would say a statement like this:

I have zero doubt that Catholicism will continue to spread in Europe. That is not at question. I do, however, have doubts that an insular community of Portuguese-speaking Black Angolan settlers will last and thrive for generations or centuries in the Netherlands like they have in Portugal or Angola.

[Ken]

I have zero doubt that Christianity will continue to spread in Africa. That is not at question. I do, however, have doubts that an insular community of German-speaking White Menno settlers will last and thrive for generations or centuries in Angola like they have in PA or Ohio.

Yet they've managed to do so in Mexico, Belize, Paraguay, Peru, and many other places.

Perhaps a better question is if you think German-speaking "White" Mennonite people should even be "allowed" to exist and perpetuate their own culture and exist as a distinct ethnic group, or if you think this is somehow a bad thing and it would be better off if social conditions were present that would effectively exterminate them. I certainly pick up some of that sentiment from your tone of voice, but maybe I'm wrong.

Considering about 300,000 people from Angola are present in Europe, including 10,000 in the Netherlands... it doesn't seem particularly unreasonable for a few hundred Mennonite settlers to be present in Angola, now, does it? And I hope none of us would say a statement like this:

I have zero doubt that Catholicism will continue to spread in Europe. That is not at question. I do, however, have doubts that an insular community of Portuguese-speaking Black Angolan settlers will last and thrive for generations or centuries in the Netherlands like they have in Portugal or Angola.

My ancestors settled in Pennsylvania from the Palatinate in the 1720s and 1730s and still exist today as a distinct religious and cultural group. I was just at a family reunion in PA last week and met many of my relatives who are plain Anabaptist and Amish. That is 300 years. They accomplished that through 300 years of stable government, stable land tenure, and religious and civil rights. Independence in 1789 changed the government at the top but not much at the local level.

I severely doubt White Anabaptists will be able to accomplish the same thing in Angola for a long list of reasons, the primary being governance. They might be welcome now, but in that part of Africa things can turn on a dime and White settlers can find their status exceedingly precarious. Just ask former generations of settlers in places like Rhodesia, Kenya, Senegal, Central African Republic, and elsewhere. In fact Angola itself doesn’t have a great history in that respect. In the early 1970s nearly half a million White Portuguese settlers fled Angola and Mozambique. The Portuguese even have a word for them. “Retornados”.

The situation in Mexico, Belize, Bolivia, and Paraguay is entirely different. Those countries and especially Mexico and Paraguay were founded on immigration and just like the US, a majority of the population can trace at least part of their roots to Europe. And just like in the US, wave after wave of immigrants have settled in Mexico. Mostly Spanish of course, but also Germans, French, Chinese, British, Italians, Lebanese, etc. etc.

My point is that stable secular government matters immensely if you want to build your own society and maintain it across generations. That has only really happened in North America and a few other places in the Anglosphere like Australia and New Zealand. Certainly not Europe or Africa. In fact, Europe has really only seen stability since the end of the Second World War. And even then, only Western Europe.

[seinetsodumm]

A two kingdom theology is fine, but only really works when the worldly kingdom operates under strict constitutional limits and respects the private sphere.

I disagree. Two kingdom theology works well under extreme forms of government. In fact, extreme persecution has fanned the flames of two kingdom theology ever since Christ ascended. As I understand it, Christians who suffer persecution understand the concept with more acuity than those of us who have never lived under persecution. As I look back into history, it is evident that the martyrs understood these concepts and it strengthened their resolve to be faithful even unto death.

As barnhart pointed out,

These people understand the kingdom of Jesus and the kingdoms of this world without favorable government. Two kingdom theology can grow anywhere but it certainly is a better experience under liberal government that respects human dignity and freedom.

Conflating culture and two kingdom theology does not lessen the reality that two kingdom theology has and continues to prosper under evil powers.

I have zero doubt that Christianity will continue to spread in Africa. That is not at question. I do, however, have doubts that an insular community of German-speaking White Menno settlers will last and thrive for generations or centuries in Angola like they have in PA or Ohio.

"Insular, German, white Menno settlers" are cultural distinctions. Don't mistake these terms as the epitome of two kingdom theology.

Two kingdom theology is understanding Jesus statement "My kingdom is not of this world." It is understanding who we are in Christ, and that we are not here to build material wealth but rather to use our material possessions to build heavenly wealth.

[JohnH]

Insular, white, German(ic - the ones in question are specifically Flemish) “settlers” are really only that way because most of their neighbors didn’t want to join them and become Old Colonists. Nonetheless you will find a handful of locals who do join. I expect Angola will be no different.

[Ken]

A two kingdom theology is fine, but only really works when the worldly kingdom operates under strict constitutional limits and respects the private sphere.

I disagree. Two kingdom theology works well under extreme forms of government. In fact, extreme persecution has fanned the flames of two kingdom theology ever since Christ ascended. As I understand it, Christians who suffer persecution understand the concept with more acuity than those of us who have never lived under persecution. As I look back into history, it is evident that the martyrs understood these concepts and it strengthened their resolve to be faithful even unto death.

As barnhart pointed out,

These people understand the kingdom of Jesus and the kingdoms of this world without favorable government. Two kingdom theology can grow anywhere but it certainly is a better experience under liberal government that respects human dignity and freedom.

Conflating culture and two kingdom theology does not lessen the reality that two kingdom theology has and continues to prosper under evil powers.

I have zero doubt that Christianity will continue to spread in Africa. That is not at question. I do, however, have doubts that an insular community of German-speaking White Menno settlers will last and thrive for generations or centuries in Angola like they have in PA or Ohio.

"Insular, German, white Menno settlers" are cultural distinctions. Don't mistake these terms as the epitome of two kingdom theology.

Two kingdom theology is understanding Jesus statement "My kingdom is not of this world." It is understanding who we are in Christ, and that we are not here to build material wealth but rather to use our material possessions to build heavenly wealth.

But none of this answers the question of what happened to Anabaptists who stayed in Europe.

We as Americans tend to look at Europe from a modern post-war lens and see stable social democracies. But before 1945 that was most certainly not the case outside of perhaps the UK. The European continent was ravaged by political unrest and war for much of the preceding centuries. The Napoleonic wars, the revolutions of 1848, the Franco-Prussian war, the Crimean War, two World Wars on European soil, and so forth. That sort of strife is not going to extinguish religion and Christianity. And as you point out, strife and hardship can make belief stronger. But it will extinguish rural communities that rely on stable laws, land tenure, property rights and so forth in order to engage in productive agriculture. Kind of hard to maintain a coherent community when one’s people are cast to the wind as refugees. And during that time period the institutional churches (Catholics, Orthodox, Lutheran, etc.) were heavily engaged in their own politics and often persecution of smaller sects. Secular government and respect for religious liberties were not a thing until into the 20th Century.

By contrast, North America has seen mostly peace and stability outside of the brief interlude of the Civil War. Native peoples saw endless strife and conflict along the the frontier. But European settlers? None at all. No Anabaptists who ever settled anywhere in North America saw their communities disrupted or destroyed by war, shifting political borders, rampaging armies, or anything of the like. They have mostly or entirely been left alone and have had their rights protected by stable governments and laws. Not once, for example, have rampaging armies criss-crossed Holmes County Ohio. Nor have the legal system and local governments that maintain property rights ever been disrupted by revolution.

[seinetsodumm]

But none of this answers the question of what happened to Anabaptists who stayed in Europe.

Did you listen to the episode?

While the physical community may have been altered significantly, the faithful did not disappear. True, they may look different than their American counterparts, but there was a remnant who remained faithful. According to the person interviewed, they positively impacted the underground church in the soviet.

[Ken]

But none of this answers the question of what happened to Anabaptists who stayed in Europe.

Did you listen to the episode?

While the physical community may have been altered significantly, the faithful did not disappear. True, they may look different than their American counterparts, but there was a remnant who remained faithful. According to the person interviewed, they positively impacted the underground church in the soviet.

I was speaking more broadly to all of Europe, not just those Mennos in Ukraine.

My Menno ancestors are in part from Alsace-Lorraine. That region has experienced vastly more war and political strife over the past 200 years than Pennsylvania and Ohio even though it has been peaceful and stable since 1945.

[JohnH]

No Anabaptists who ever settled anywhere in North America saw their communities disrupted or destroyed by war, shifting political borders, rampaging armies, or anything of the like. They have mostly or entirely been left alone and have had their rights protected by stable governments and laws. Not once, for example, have rampaging armies criss-crossed Holmes County Ohio. Nor have the legal system and local governments that maintain property rights ever been disrupted by revolution.

This statement isn't correct, but I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to provide counter-examples.

I will also leave a hint: my ancestors on one side were Quakers, not Anabaptists, but they were unable to stay in North Carolina due to their belief system and lifestyle being unacceptable to the ruling aristocracy there on a particular issue. They had to relocate to Ohio and pretty much impoverished themselves when they did so.