Starting Churches

[ohio jones]

That may be a reasonable summary of the 1/21/1525 Zürich baptisms. But from then on, including the Zollikon baptisms later that week, the baptisms were generally conducted by leaders who had previously been baptized within the movement. The polygenesis theory suggests there might have been others, but I'm not aware of documentation of specific cases.

Schleitheim, for example, says that baptism shall be given "to all those who with this significance request it of us [an assumption of existing leadership] and demand it for themselves" not "perform it themselves."

What made them uniquely qualified to ordain themselves, and what makes others not qualified to do the same? That's kind of what I'm getting at.

Blaurock, Brötli, Haetzer, and Reublin (at least) had been previously ordained; Grebel and Manz may not have been ordained but were well on the way toward that, having been mentored by Zwingli. They were not laymen of questionable education and theological training, as most people who "go off and do their own thing" are today.

[JohnH]

The early Anabaptists consistently did not follow this principle, and indeed that was the Catholic Church's (or the Reformed churches') chiefest complaint.

They had no interest in apostolic succession or needing the "blessing" of an existing church. They just got together, had a meeting, and then had the absolute audacity to baptise one another.

To be sure, that's not an accurate statement of fact, but maybe you don't care about being accurate.

I do think it's accurate. The early Anabaptists quickly moved on from believing in apostolic succession or the need for an episcopal hierarchy to bless the "sacraments". It took some time for these practices to again become embedded.

As an example, if one looks at Menno Simons' chain of ordination, it runs through (most likely) Jan Matthys. I do not understand how anyone could think Jan Matthys had some special dispensation from God to ordain people, more than any other sincere believer.

The record indicates that Grebel, Blaurock and others wanted to stay with the existing church as long as it would look to the Word of God for direction. The January 1525 baptisms were a response to a council decree mandating infant baptism and another forbidding the Bible study meetings. They didn't "just" get together, have a meeting, and baptize one another.

Yes, they eventually broke away from the Roman Catholic Church including no longer recognising their authority to conduct ordinations.

Here's another good question: why isn't the Roman Catholic Church seen as the proper authority for conducting ordinations now? After all, they don't forbid Bible study meetings anymore.

What made them uniquely qualified to ordain themselves, and what makes others not qualified to do the same? That's kind of what I'm getting at.

What made them uniquely qualified to ordain themselves was that there was no other qualified person available.

What defines a "qualified person"?

[JohnH]

Blaurock, Brötli, Haetzer, and Reublin (at least) had been previously ordained; Grebel and Manz may not have been ordained but were well on the way toward that, having been mentored by Zwingli. They were not laymen of questionable education and theological training, as most people who "go off and do their own thing" are today.

... so being ordained by the Roman Catholic Church makes one qualified? That seems like an odd criteria.

[ohio jones]

Blaurock, Brötli, Haetzer, and Reublin (at least) had been previously ordained; Grebel and Manz may not have been ordained but were well on the way toward that, having been mentored by Zwingli. They were not laymen of questionable education and theological training, as most people who "go off and do their own thing" are today.

... so being ordained by the Roman Catholic Church makes one qualified? That seems like an odd criteria.

So the only qualification available at the time makes one unqualified?

[joshuabgood]

Wasn't Menno also ordained by the Catholics?

Still...I think the argument has merit that the Anabaptist movement as a whole is one where a group of folks decided the religious tradition to which they belonged was sufficiently in error to justify them "doing their own thing" and starting a new one. As was Luther's movement. And as was say, the EPMC, and/or the Charity movement, Gospel Haven, Mose Beachy, and many many others.

I think there is a quite legitimate question around what does in fact make a church and who does in fact ordain. Is it top down and those that go and do their own things disqualify themselves because of lack of submission to ordained authority? Or is it bottom up, and anywhere anytime a person might break away because of their "personal convictions" and start a new movement, ordain themselves, and move along?

I can see merit in both approaches. There is something that feels off to me about random dudes going off and starting their own churches and ordaining themselves. And there is something that feels off to me about socalled apostolic succession.

Perhaps the ultimate tell in any church with regard to legitimacy, is the fruit, and the extent to which it mirrors the life and witness of Jesus.

[mike]

3. No, the New Testament model is for evangelism and new congregations to be related to existing congregations and existing leadership, not for people to go off and do their own thing.

The early Anabaptists consistently did not follow this principle, and indeed that was the Catholic Church's (or the Reformed churches') chiefest complaint.

They had no interest in apostolic succession or needing the "blessing" of an existing church. They just got together, had a meeting, and then had the absolute audacity to baptise one another.

To be sure, that's not an accurate statement of fact, but maybe you don't care about being accurate.

The record indicates that Grebel, Blaurock and others wanted to stay with the existing church as long as it would look to the Word of God for direction. The January 1525 baptisms were a response to a council decree mandating infant baptism and another forbidding the Bible study meetings. They didn't "just" get together, have a meeting, and baptize one another.

If you were part of a church that you felt was beginning to depart from Anabaptist and biblical principles, and there were enough of people that felt similarly and were willing to join together to form a new congregation, why would you feel a need to gain the blessing or approval of the church you were leaving, or make sure that one of you were ordained under that church's administration?

[R7ehr]

And of course modern conservative Mennonites who left the big conferences and established break-away groups like ken's church, went off and did their own thing. I don't really know whether those who left made sure to maintain the proper succession/chain of authority.

My home church was founded in 1950 by leaving the Pacific Coast Mennonite Conference. This new church was led by a minister in a P.C.M.C. church. This minister felt that it was important to have the blessing and permission of the P.C.M.C., and consequently eventually got that from them. I've seen the letter from P.C.M.C.

Why did he feel that this was important? Would you agree that it was important?

It's been a while, so I don't remember with great accuracy. But I think one reason was because he did not want to "run off" and start something on his own. And I think that another was connected to that, simply that he wanted to show respect and maintain as good of a relationship with the conference as possible.

Do I agree that those goals are important? Sure, why not, what's not to like about those?

[Neto]

Did Ananias 'ordain' Saul (Paul)?

Also, some of this comes back to the question of for whom did Jesus intend the "great commission"?

I have never been 'ordained'. I was asked to baptize the Banawa believers, but did not because of mission rules. I assisted in the baptisms, but have never baptized anyone. I had also been asked years before, by a couple with whom I had worked in a plating shop in Tulsa. They were hippie drug users that got saved after I met them, and (at their request) had Bible studies with them. For my part, I would have baptized them, but they also wanted to be baptized in our church house, and the pastor would not consent. I don't know if they were ever baptized anywhere. I lost my job there due to refusal to join the union, and moved away not long after that. (Oklahoma did not have a Right to Work law back then.)

[Neto]

Wasn't Menno also ordained by the Catholics?
....

Yes, but apparently that "didn't count", and he was re-ordained by Obbe Phillips about 10 years later. (I guess Menno was an ana-odinareian.... )

[mike]

My home church was founded in 1950 by leaving the Pacific Coast Mennonite Conference. This new church was led by a minister in a P.C.M.C. church. This minister felt that it was important to have the blessing and permission of the P.C.M.C., and consequently eventually got that from them. I've seen the letter from P.C.M.C.

Why did he feel that this was important? Would you agree that it was important?

It's been a while, so I don't remember with great accuracy. But I think one reason was because he did not want to "run off" and start something on his own. And I think that another was connected to that, simply that he wanted to show respect and maintain as good of a relationship with the conference as possible.

Do I agree that those goals are important? Sure, why not, what's not to like about those?

Showing respect and maintaining good relationships are great, of course. But what if they would not have given such a letter. Would it have stopped him from leaving and helping to start a new church?