Why do Swiss Anabaptists practice ethnic separatism from other Anabaptists?

[JohnH]

Does the Holdeman churches ever rebaptize their own members? Let’s say a person there is baptized as a 18 year old, and later they say that they were living in unrepentant sin when they were baptized, and had never been born again. And now they are, and would like to be rebaptized as a believer.
Has this ever happened? If so, were they rebaptized?
If this has not happened, how would this be received if it did?

If someone says they were not genuinely converted but instead intended to deceive everyone, yes. This hasn’t happened very often but it has happened.

Usually a person doubting a prior conversion experience is counselled and actually is just suffering from doubts and fears, as opposed to being a genuine reprobate in the past.

[Neto]

In regards to accepting the baptism of a person coming from another congregation, would your congregation accept a person's previous baptism if they admit that it was not upon a personal conversion of faith, but still maintain that it was a 'right confession', that is, one that recognized that Christ is the only way of salvation. (Just that they had not experienced a true conversion.)

I assume that's directed to me, since we know the Holdeman answer. I think we might leave it to the individual's conscience, and whether they "request it of us and demand it for themselves." At least if they later experienced a true conversion before coming to us.

It was your comment that raised the question in my mind, but I didn't include a quotation of your comment, in order to leave it as a general question to everyone participating in the discussion. But that's fine either way.

I know of a specific case. I won't disclose the identity of the person who made that choice, but it may have been a common one during the time period in which it took place. The man was faced with an urgent choice - He faced being drafted unless he joined the (Amish) church, but he was not ready to give up some of the forbidden things he was involved in (like going to ball games). I realize that unless I add this bit of information, some here will assume that saying he did not have a personal relationship with God is my own judgement, rather than his own. But he openly told me that his baptismal confession was not personal, that it was only an admission of doctrinal truth. He passed away some years ago now, but always opposed the idea that people who had been baptized Amish should, in a case like his, ask for a later baptism after coming to a personal faith relationship with God. I should also add that he HAD experienced personal salvation at the time he left the Amish, and joined another very conservative congregation.

In fact, the cause of leaving the Amish was because of the threat of excommunication due to his activities as a true believer, involvement in a Bible study movement that did not have the approval of the older ministers. I am also not making any 'judgement' against the Amish church today - this all happened more than 60 years ago. It is 'current' only in the sense that Amish ministers I personally asked about a situation of this type all told me that they would not re-baptize a hypothetical member who asked for that, even if there was no desire to leave the Amish. (I have not asked this question of any Amish ministers in the last 15 or more years. In that sense, it is not 'current'.)

The crux of the question comes down to whether the declaration of the baptismal candidate must be based on a personal 'conversion', or if the important factor is only that it be a 'right confession', a mental recognition of the doctrinal truth that Jesus is the only way of salvation.

[MattY]

Yes, baptism and church membership are the same thing.

We do not try to judge if someone’s baptism somewhere else is valid or not. So we just re-baptise.

For some reason, this greatly offends some people.

Especially those who don't believe that baptism and church membership are the same thing.

If your belief system is that baptism should be some kind of “service” offered on-demand, similar to a drive-thru oil change place, and that baptism doesn’t necessarily mean church membership, then neither Holdeman nor other plain Anabaptist churches will be a good fit for you.

Just about any generic megachurch will be though.

This does not follow from what Silentreader and others have been saying.

Anabaptists believe that a person who is being baptized is making a lifelong commitment to Christ and His Church and except for unusual circumstances (such as Acts 8:26-39), that involves joining the local church which baptized him/her, and therefore the baptismal applicant should be in agreement with the local church. (Getting baptized upon a sincere and proper confession of faith and then church shopping is not the NT ideal but it does not mean the baptism was invalid. The baptism was good and valid; the aftermath was not the ideal part). It does not follow (from the usual conservative Anabaptist views) that baptism and joining a church are the same thing. When one is baptized, one joins a church. The reverse is not necessarily the case.

Scripture nowhere tells us to rebaptize those who have been baptized upon a genuine and proper confession of faith. In fact there are NT principles (such as "whoever is not against us is for us", Mark 9:38-41) that go against taking such a skeptical stance toward all other churches' baptisms.

[Silentreader]

Yes, baptism and church membership are the same thing.

We do not try to judge if someone’s baptism somewhere else is valid or not. So we just re-baptise.

For some reason, this greatly offends some people.

Especially those who don't believe that baptism and church membership are the same thing.

If your belief system is that baptism should be some kind of “service” offered on-demand, similar to a drive-thru oil change place, and that baptism doesn’t necessarily mean church membership, then neither Holdeman nor other plain Anabaptist churches will be a good fit for you.

Just about any generic megachurch will be though.

Aah... a Joshism

[Ernie]

In fact, the cause of leaving the Amish was because of the threat of excommunication due to his activities as a true believer, involvement in a Bible study movement that did not have the approval of the older ministers. I am also not making any 'judgement' against the Amish church today - this all happened more than 60 years ago. It is 'current' only in the sense that Amish ministers I personally asked about a situation of this type all told me that they would not re-baptize a hypothetical member who asked for that, even if there was no desire to leave the Amish. (I have not asked this question of any Amish ministers in the last 15 or more years. In that sense, it is not 'current'.)

Most Old Orders and some conservatives (Mennonites and Amish) will not rebaptize in situations like this. They believe in "one baptism". It is the less traditional and more evangelical Anabaptists who will rebaptize in situations like this.

[seinetsodumm]

So just so we are all clear,
1. If someone leaves a Holdeman church to go to a "Swiss Anabaptist" church, they will be excommunicated.

Is it still a thing among the Holdemans to excommunicate anyone leaving their church for another plain church?

Yes, like other plain groups, we don’t tolerate people leaving to go to (nearly always) less-conservative group.

If someone thinks our church isn’t worth staying in and that another church is better, I’m not sure why they care so much about what church thinks.

Consider this question: Is it still a thing among the other plain churches to have church splits and for members to leave to go to a church that has less rules?

2. If someone from a "Swiss Anabaptist" church wishes to join a Holdeman church, They will need to be rebaptized.

Would I need to be re-baptized in order to join the Holdemans despite being baptized in the Mennonite church?

This would be interesting to know.

Yes, baptism and church membership are the same thing.

We do not try to judge if someone’s baptism somewhere else is valid or not. So we just re-baptise.

For some reason, this greatly offends some people.

I keep coming back to the question "Who is excluding whom?"
If I'm going to direct a seeker toward a church, I'm not going to direct them toward a church that creates more confusion.
I'm quite convinced this has nothing to do with ethnicity. (FWIW, I only used the term "Swiss Anabaptist" since it was posed in the original post. This is not a term I've been accustomed to using in description of churches.)

[Wesleyb]

In fact, the cause of leaving the Amish was because of the threat of excommunication due to his activities as a true believer, involvement in a Bible study movement that did not have the approval of the older ministers. I am also not making any 'judgement' against the Amish church today - this all happened more than 60 years ago. It is 'current' only in the sense that Amish ministers I personally asked about a situation of this type all told me that they would not re-baptize a hypothetical member who asked for that, even if there was no desire to leave the Amish. (I have not asked this question of any Amish ministers in the last 15 or more years. In that sense, it is not 'current'.)

Most Old Orders and some conservatives (Mennonites and Amish) will not rebaptize in situations like this. They believe in "one baptism". It is the less traditional and more evangelical Anabaptists who will rebaptize in situations like this.

In my former church there were several cases where people coming from Old Order churches were re-baptized. I was a little uncomfortable about that. On one hand I wondered if we were disregarding their previous baptism simply because they hadn't been able to express themselves in the same fundamentalist language we were accustomed to. On the other hand, we do identify as anabaptists which would imply that there are at least some cases where rebaptism is called for.

[ken_sylvania]

In fact, the cause of leaving the Amish was because of the threat of excommunication due to his activities as a true believer, involvement in a Bible study movement that did not have the approval of the older ministers. I am also not making any 'judgement' against the Amish church today - this all happened more than 60 years ago. It is 'current' only in the sense that Amish ministers I personally asked about a situation of this type all told me that they would not re-baptize a hypothetical member who asked for that, even if there was no desire to leave the Amish. (I have not asked this question of any Amish ministers in the last 15 or more years. In that sense, it is not 'current'.)

Most Old Orders and some conservatives (Mennonites and Amish) will not rebaptize in situations like this. They believe in "one baptism". It is the less traditional and more evangelical Anabaptists who will rebaptize in situations like this.

In my former church there were several cases where people coming from Old Order churches were re-baptized. I was a little uncomfortable about that. On one hand I wondered if we were disregarding their previous baptism simply because they hadn't been able to express themselves in the same fundamentalist language we were accustomed to. On the other hand, we do identify as anabaptists which would imply that there are at least some cases where rebaptism is called for.

I think we identify as Anabaptists not because of the literal meaning of the name so much as simply because that is a name that was given to people who held certain beliefs and the name "stuck". I don't believe watering a baby is a true baptism according to the Scriptures. However, I do think that a teenager is old enough to comprehend and remember his promises and his actions associated with baptism. As I read the Gospels I believe that the disciples were baptized before they comprehended what following Jesus was all about, and there's no record of Peter being rebaptized after he was converted.

[joshuabgood]

Most Old Orders and some conservatives (Mennonites and Amish) will not rebaptize in situations like this. They believe in "one baptism". It is the less traditional and more evangelical Anabaptists who will rebaptize in situations like this.

In my former church there were several cases where people coming from Old Order churches were re-baptized. I was a little uncomfortable about that. On one hand I wondered if we were disregarding their previous baptism simply because they hadn't been able to express themselves in the same fundamentalist language we were accustomed to. On the other hand, we do identify as anabaptists which would imply that there are at least some cases where rebaptism is called for.

I think we identify as Anabaptists not because of the literal meaning of the name so much as simply because that is a name that was given to people who held certain beliefs and the name "stuck". I don't believe watering a baby is a true baptism according to the Scriptures. However, I do think that a teenager is old enough to comprehend and remember his promises and his actions associated with baptism. As I read the Gospels I believe that the disciples were baptized before they comprehended what following Jesus was all about, and there's no record of Peter being rebaptized after he was converted.

I would advocate for only adult baptism. From my perspective, only adult baptism is modeled in the scriptures. The disciples and Jesus himself were probably in the 30 range. Jesus of course, even as a 12 year old, wanted to be about his Father's business. However, he wasn't baptized. I would personally advocate, if asked, (I don't if not asked), that a teenager wait until they are an adult, more like 20 at least. That doesn't mean they aren't "saved" or can't be about their Father's business, or that they can't have spiritual formation. Similarly, I would advocate against a teenager getting married or taking a 30 year mortgage.

The thing is though, it isn't only adult baptism, teen baptism, or infant baptism...there are other categories - baptism before the teen years, and baptisms well down into the 5, 6, 7, or 8 category - in CA churches (defined as recognized by say AF).

I would support rebaptism for infants, and those who feel like they were too young to fully understand what discipleship means or were pressured into by the society of the church. I don't think this denies one baptism. Anybody baptized as a full adult, for sure if they were upper 20s like Jesus, will have long been passed the peer pressure and it seems to me to rebaptize them because they weren't baptized in the right church or because they weren't "dunked right" makes a mockery baptism.

[R7ehr]

Who is AF?