The Anabaptist Vision unmasked

[silentreader]

When you speak of 'the original Anabaptist vision' are you referring to this - https://www.goshen.edu/mhl/Refocusing/d-av.htm

Or something else ? If something else, is this spelled out somewhere for me to consider ?

I would probably focus mostly on the last several paragraphs:

One thing that jumped out at me in my first read of this and probably because I was raised in certain Pentecostal beliefs that in this wording of the 'two foci in this vision', there is no mention of the Holy Spirit. Without the transforming work of Holy Spirit at work in our lives we are not able and empowered to live a changed life according to the Spirit and the Word. To me, this is essential to NT discipleship and this section read to me like creating a new life was something we can do ourselves as the Holy Spirit was not referred to.

As we review the vision of the Anabaptists, it becomes clear that there are two foci in this vision. The first focus relates to the essential nature of Christianity. Is Christianity primarily a matter of the reception of divine grace through a sacramental-sacerdotal institution (Roman Catholicism), is it chiefly enjoyment of the inner experience of the grace of God through faith in Christ (Lutheranism), or is it most of all the transformation of life through discipleship (Anabaptism )? The Anabaptists were neither institutionalists, mystics, nor pietists, for they laid the weight of their emphasis upon following Christ in life. To them it was unthinkable for one truly to be a Christian without creating a new life on divine principles both for himself and for all men who commit themselves to the Christian way.

In this last sentence I agree if he means true conversion will result in a changed life that pursues a life directed and enabled by the Holy Spirit. I believe some join a group and do what is required to be part of that group. There are some good living people in this world living by what others view as a good person yet they have not been born of the Spirit and live according to the Spirit.

The second focus relates to the church. For the Anabaptist, the church was neither an institution (Catholicism), nor the instrument of God for the proclamation of the divine Word (Lutheranism), nor a resource group for individual piety (Pietism). It was a brotherhood of love in which the fullness of the Christian life ideal is to be expressed.

Wow, if only that last sentence was reflected more here in this forum. I wonder if non-Anabaptists that read our posts view us as a 'brotherhood of love'. Is this the work of the Holy Spirit being expressed ? I realize some here would not classify themselves as Anabaptists but is there some responsibility of those who do, to encourage posters this is not a place for slander and strife but gentleness and acceptance that we see some things differently ? I do believe they will know we are Christians by our love for one another and when the Holy Spirit is operating in us, it will be evident. Right ? Or do you see this differently ?

The Anabaptist vision may be further clarified by comparison of the social ethics of the four main Christian groups of the Reformation period, Catholic, Calvinist, Lutheran, and Anabaptist. Catholic and Calvinist alike were optimistic about the world, agreeing that the world can be redeemed; they held that the entire social order can be brought under the sovereignty of God and Christianized, although they used different means to attain this goal. Lutheran and Anabaptist were pessimistic about the world, denying the possibility of Christianizing the entire social order; but the consequent attitudes of these two groups toward the social order were diametrically opposed. Lutheranism said that since the Christian must live in a world order that remains sinful, he must make a compromise with it. As a citizen he cannot avoid participation in the evil of the world, for instance in making war, and for this his only recourse is to seek forgiveness by the grace of God; only within his personal private experience can the Christian truly Christianize his life. The Anabaptist rejected this view completely. Since for him no compromise dare be made with evil, the Christian may in no circumstance participate in any conduct in the existing social order which is contrary to the spirit and teaching of Christ and the apostolic practice. He must consequently withdraw from the worldly system and create a Christian social order within the fellowship of the church brotherhood. Extension of this Christian order by the conversion of individuals and their transfer out of the world into the church is the only way by which progress can be made in Christianizing the social order.

Have we withdrawn from the 'worldly system' when we argue politics and how sinners should run the country ? And if the last sentence is 'the only way' how will this be done without withdrawing from worldly people altogether ? We are sent out into a world where many don't want to hear the Gospel but some will. We are not to hide in our little communities of believers and be the 'quiet in the land'. That is not the way of the Master. Right ? Again, correct me anytime.

However, the Anabaptist was realistic. Down the long perspective of the future he saw little chance that the mass of humankind would enter such a brotherhood with its high ideals. Hence he anticipated a long and grievous conflict between the church and the world. Neither did he anticipate the time when the church would rule the world; the church would always be a suffering church. He agreed with the words of Jesus when He said that those who would be His disciples must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow Him, and that there would be few who would enter the strait gate and travel the narrow way of life. If this prospect should seem too discouraging, the Anabaptist would reply that the life within the Christian brotherhood is satisfyingly full of love and joy.

Again, last sentence - is this reflected well here. And is this 'little flock' an excuse for not taking the Gospel to where sinners habit ?

The Anabaptist vision was not a detailed blueprint for the reconstruction of human society, but the Brethren did believe that Jesus intended that the kingdom of God should be set up in the midst of earth, here and now, and this they proposed to do forthwith. We shall not believe, they said, that the Sermon on the Mount or any other vision that He had is only a heavenly vision meant but to keep His followers in tension until the last great day, but we shall practice what He taught, believing that where He walked we can by His grace follow in His steps.

I think this forum could be a place that truly demonstrates that the Anabaptist way of real brotherhood love and fully exploring all of Jesus sayings can draw others to Him. I hope those who want to fight and argue mainly over things of this world will think about what this looks like to those seeking God in a life changing way.

CAN A MODERATOR PLEASE SPLIT THE RELEVANT POSTS OFF AND MOVE THEM TO ANABAPTIST THEOLOGY, PLEASE?

You probably didn't notice but in the MB statement that you linked, as far as I can tell the Holy Spirit is only mentioned once, and it appears to be a quote from an unnamed source relating to how we come to understanding of the Word.
Is that the only way the Holy Spirit is expected to be active?

[silentreader]

A couple of things Sudsy, you have to understand that this is not a "statement of faith and practice" so there are many things it does not address.
I quoted/posted the ending summary because I believed it covered the main points without getting bogged down with quotes from multiple sources.
To find the answers to your questions you will have to read through the entire article. The work of the Holy Spirit, for instance, is dealt with in the main text. Just because it is not mentioned in the summary does not mean it is not mentioned previously.

I did read the entire article twice. I understand it is not a SOF but when the summary says there are two main focus points and does not make any statement about the Holy Spirit by Bender himself, to me, it didn't sound like he missed a main area of Anabaptism focus and difference -

Where they were distinct from Protestant groups was in their emphasis upon the work of the Holy Spirit in the ongoing faith of the person, including in the reading of Scripture. Although the Bible was the most important source of authority, Anabaptists generally thought that its interpretation required the work of the Holy Spirit to guide believers in their understanding of the texts. Thus one can speak of a “necessary spirit/letter linkage as constitutive of Anabaptist belief.” This emphasis upon the Spirit applied to the inner life of the believer as well as to his or her outer life of discipleship. In addition, the notion that the Holy Spirit continued working in the daily life of the believer was an important dimension of Anabaptist soteriology. To be sure, Anabaptists insisted upon salvation by faith through grace, but such faith must bear “visible fruit in repentance, conversion, regeneration, obedience, and a new life dedicated to the love of God and the neighbor, by the power of the Holy Spirit.”

That quote taken from here - https://uwaterloo.ca/grebel/publication ... tter-james

This quote would be quite in agreement with Pentecostalism and my views although being baptised in the Holy Spirit as evidence in speaking an unknown tongue would not be agreed upon.

When comparing to other Christians traditions Bender said Anabaptism is mostly about 'the transformation of life through discipleship'. I would put it differently that original Anabaptism believed that the Holy Spirit transforms a believer by the ongoing renewing of their minds to result in living a life of discipleship. I can transform my life by certain disciplines but it requires a co-operative working with the Holy Spirit that begins with a new heart. There are religious people in various Christian faith groups that are lead by something or someone else than the Holy Spirit. Perhaps that as why so many places end up in splits instead of being united accepting areas of diversity.

This link is actually a discussion on the Anabaptist response to the Epistle of James in comparison to the response of other groups notably the response of Martin Luther.

[silentreader]

I did read the entire article twice. I understand it is not a SOF but when the summary says there are two main focus points and does not make any statement about the Holy Spirit by Bender himself, to me, it didn't sound like he missed a main area of Anabaptism focus and difference -



That quote taken from here - https://uwaterloo.ca/grebel/publication ... tter-james

This quote would be quite in agreement with Pentecostalism and my views although being baptised in the Holy Spirit as evidence in speaking an unknown tongue would not be agreed upon.

When comparing to other Christians traditions Bender said Anabaptism is mostly about 'the transformation of life through discipleship'. I would put it differently that original Anabaptism believed that the Holy Spirit transforms a believer by the ongoing renewing of their minds to result in living a life of discipleship. I can transform my life by certain disciplines but it requires a co-operative working with the Holy Spirit that begins with a new heart. There are religious people in various Christian faith groups that are lead by something or someone else than the Holy Spirit. Perhaps that as why so many places end up in splits instead of being united accepting areas of diversity.

So if you did indeed read the whole thing twice, I'm not sure why you would not have quoted this section:

As I said above I went to the summary of the two main focus points of Anabaptism according to Bender and was surprised that in this summary there was no mention of the need for the enabling power of the Holy Spirit to be a true disciple. This is something I look for as the transformation we need must be Holy Spirit sourced or it is just religion.

Here is an article that expresses more along the line of the Anabaptism I believe in - https://www.anabaptistwitness.org/journal_entry/4772/

The essential and distinguishing characteristic of this church is its great emphasis upon the actual personal conversion and regeneration of every Christian through the Holy Spirit.... They aimed with special emphasis at carrying out and realizing the Christian doctrine and faith in the heart and life of every Christian in the whole Christian church. Their aim was the bringing together of all the true believers out of the great degenerated national churches into a true Christian church. That which the Reformation was originally intended to accomplish they aimed to bring into full immediate realization.17
And Johann Loserth says:
More radically than any other party for church reformation the Anabaptists strove to follow the footsteps of the church of the first century and to renew unadulterated original Christianity.18
The evidence in support of this interpretation is overwhelming, and can be taken from the statements of the contemporary opponents of the Anabaptists as well as from the Anabaptists themselves. Conrad Grebel, the founder of the Swiss Brethren movement, states clearly this point of view in his letter to Thomas M&uumlntzer of 1524, in words written on behalf of the entire group which constitute in effect the original Anabaptist pronunciamento:
Just as our forebears [the Roman Catholic Papal Church] fell away from the true God and the knowledge of Jesus Christ and of the right faith in him, and from the one true, common divine word, from the divine institutions, from Christian love and life, and lived without God's law and gospel in human, useless, un-Christian customs and ceremonies, and expected to attain salvation therein, yet fell far short of it, as the evangelical preachers [Luther, Zwingli, etc.] have declared, and to some extent are still declaring; so today, too, every man wants to be saved by superficial faith, without fruits of faith, without the baptism of test and probation without love and hope, without right Christian practices, and wants to persist in all the old fashion of personal vices, and in the common ritualistic and anti-Christian customs of baptism and of the Lord' s Supper, in disrespect for the divine word and in respect for the word of the pope and of the antipapal preachers, which yet is not equal to the divine word nor in harmony with it. In respecting persons and in manifold seduction there is grosser and more pernicious error now than ever has been since the beginning of the world. In the same error we, too, lingered as long as we heard and read only the evangelical preachers who are to blame for all this, in punishment for our sins. But after we took the Scriptures in hand, too, and consulted it on many points we have been instructed somewhat and have discovered the great and hurtful error of the shepherds, of ours too, namely that we do not daily beseech God earnestly with constant groanings to be brought out of this destruction of all godly life and out of human abominations, and to attain to true faith and divine instruction.19

So if you went by the summary and didn't give any weight to what it was actually summarizing, then it is pointless for us to continue. I had thought we could maybe have a discussion but I guess it has turned circular the way our discussions usually do.
I am disappointed but not surprised.
Incidentally I did appreciate the statement you linked from the Mennonite Brethren Church.

[Sudsy]

If you are interested in Anabaptist views of the work of the Holy Spirit, I suggest this link I provided before which is not just a phrase here and there about the Holy Spirit.

My concern, coming from Pentecostal roots and the current local MB pastor also coming from Pentecostalism, is that due to the extremes in Pentecostalism that are not scriptural, I believe some Anabaptists take a more intellectual approach to discipleship and are not like many of the early Anabaptists that relied on Holy Spirit guidance in their walk with God. They did not believe education was needed to be a good Christ follower. In my early years in Pentecostalism it was more of that same mindset that one didn't need a high degree of intellect and/or special education to follow Jesus. The Holy Spirit was the source of our knowing truth and how to apply it. I still believe that.

I would be interested in yours and others take on this Anabaptist study on the Holy Spirit that I previously referred to -

https://www.anabaptistwitness.org/journal_entry/4772/

[Wayne in Maine]

... If this is what Anabaptism is about, it is hard to believe anyone would want to be an Anabaptist...

I'm a little struck at your hostility towards Anabaptism, to be honest with you. "Unmasked"? That sounds like something the Lutherans or Roman Catholics would have titled their vitriol against the Anabaptists whom they hated and persecuted.

Now I agree wholeheartedly that the slander against Dr. Faucci is not Christlike, in the manner that the authentic (16th-17th century) Anabaptists would have emulated. I likewise have to add that the gleefulness over the hunt for Donald Trump's alleged crimes and in general the political partisanship exhibited especially in the politics forums (which has spread like cancer to these other forums) has no bearing on Anabaptism. Rather is a deviation from "the Anabaptist Vision" of the Anabaptists. Likewise the promotion of pseudo-science and medical quackery and conspiracies do not belong to the Kingdom of God promoted by Anabaptism. They belong to the superstitious and ignorant world.

Like many other things these have been introduced from outside of the worldview and theological perspective of Anabaptism, often by the descendants of Anabaptists who have accommodated themselves to "the world", or by converts who perceive Anabaptism in terms of their own theology or social/political worldview. This "worldly Anabaptism" reflects, perhaps, the social ethic Harold Bender referred to as belonging to Catholics and Calvinists alike: "...agreeing that the world can be redeemed; they held that the entire social order can be brought under the sovereignty of God and Christianized". Bender said it well, and he agrees with other historians when he wrote of the early Anabaptists:

... the Christian may in no circumstance participate in any conduct in the existing social order which is contrary to the spirit and teaching of Christ and the apostolic practice. He must consequently withdraw from the worldly system and create a Christian social order within the fellowship of the church brotherhood. Extension of this Christian order by the conversion of individuals and their transfer out of the world into the church is the only way by which progress can be made in Christianizing the social order."

Perhaps this thread should be renamed "pseudo-Anabaptism unmasked"?

[Sudsy]

... If this is what Anabaptism is about, it is hard to believe anyone would want to be an Anabaptist...

I'm a little struck at your hostility towards Anabaptism, to be honest with you. "Unmasked"? That sounds like something the Lutherans or Roman Catholics would have titled their vitriol against the Anabaptists whom they hated and persecuted.

Now I agree wholeheartedly that the slander against Dr. Faucci is not Christlike, in the manner that the authentic (16th-17th century) Anabaptists would have emulated. I likewise have to add that the gleefulness over the hunt for Donald Trump's alleged crimes and in general the political partisanship exhibited especially in the politics forums (which has spread like cancer to these other forums) has no bearing on Anabaptism. Rather is a deviation from "the Anabaptist Vision" of the Anabaptists. Likewise the promotion of pseudo-science and medical quackery and conspiracies do not belong to the Kingdom of God promoted by Anabaptism. They belong to the superstitious and ignorant world.

Like many other things these have been introduced from outside of the worldview and theological perspective of Anabaptism, often by the descendants of Anabaptists who have accommodated themselves to "the world", or by converts who perceive Anabaptism in terms of their own theology or social/political worldview. This "worldly Anabaptism" reflects, perhaps, the social ethic Harold Bender referred to as belonging to Catholics and Calvinists alike: "...agreeing that the world can be redeemed; they held that the entire social order can be brought under the sovereignty of God and Christianized". Bender said it well, and he agrees with other historians when he wrote of the early Anabaptists:

... the Christian may in no circumstance participate in any conduct in the existing social order which is contrary to the spirit and teaching of Christ and the apostolic practice. He must consequently withdraw from the worldly system and create a Christian social order within the fellowship of the church brotherhood. Extension of this Christian order by the conversion of individuals and their transfer out of the world into the church is the only way by which progress can be made in Christianizing the social order."

Perhaps this thread should be renamed "pseudo-Anabaptism unmasked"?

When this thread was split off from another thread I had nothing to do with the thread title it was given.

What you quoted that I did say was not meant as 'hostility toward Anabaptism' but rather that we take seriously how often the dialog and topics are not represented by early Anabaptism's belief in how we are to regard and participate in worldly concerns. I really doubt early Anabaptism would have many of these concerns and discussions.

There is opportunity here to not allow current events and politics of the world affect us with quarrels and strife and verbal violence, which, in my understanding, is not an Anabaptist way. If Anabaptism is truly going to be reflected as a 'third way' of a changed life, then I think this is a good forum to work at that and I appreciate those who do. Some are more Anabaptist in their sharing and not from an Anabaptist church.

This world can be quite tempting in many ways to join with their concerns and we can make various excuses on why that is good. My understanding and drawing to many Anabaptist ways is believing that a new creation means a whole new way of Kingdom life. That is quite similar to the Pentecostalism I was raised in.

Call this thread whatever you like, it was not my title.

[Josh]

MennoNet isn’t an Anabaptist church and thus isn’t a very good place to see a consistent Anabaptist philosophy realised.

Likewise, whilst I don’t harbour hatred towards MC USA members, my own church conference gave up trying to have any unity with them in 1859. I personally gave up a number of years ago. It is impossible for me to share a united Anabaptist witness with them, so I don’t even try.

My church doesn’t conduct or host an Internet forum. Members have the freedom to participate in secular forums if they wish to.

MennoNet is open to strong participation from non-Anabaptist or anti-Anabaptist people. Boot, do you really want to see some strict code of conduct and statement of faith & practice adopted here?

[Bootstrap]

Boot, do you really want to see some strict code of conduct and statement of faith & practice adopted here?

No, but I do think that people who believe in the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, the centrality of the Sermon on the Mount, and seeing all of Scripture through the words and example of Jesus Christ could have discussions that look like that.

Likewise, whilst I don’t harbour hatred towards MC USA members, my own church conference gave up trying to have any unity with them in 1859. I personally gave up a number of years ago. It is impossible for me to share a united Anabaptist witness with them, so I don’t even try.

So how are you pursuing this on your own, in your posts on MennoNet? How are you using your posts as an Anabaptist witness that looks like what is in Bender's article?

[JimFoxvog]

Ultimately I don’t think there is any unity between MC USA Mennonites and conservative Mennonites so we can’t be a witness together.

I'm sad to hear this is your opinion. Some MC-USA Mennonites are fairly conservative. I consider you a brother in Christ which gives me a big sense of unity. Don't you agree with most of the Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective?

[Josh]

Ultimately I don’t think there is any unity between MC USA Mennonites and conservative Mennonites so we can’t be a witness together.

I'm sad to hear this is your opinion. Some MC-USA Mennonites are fairly conservative. I consider you a brother in Christ which gives me a big sense of unity. Don't you agree with most of the Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective?

Most congregations have gone in a different direction. The ones nearest me have gone in the direction of abandoning nonresistance and embracing politics. Some left wing, some right wing.

There just isn’t much left in common.

Individual people are a different story, but I also have friends who Baptists, Pentecostals and so forth. But that doesn’t mean I’m a good fit on a Baptist or Reformed discussion board.