Leaning toward Anabaptism, but not sure

[codysblackbox]

I am a Christian who strongly supports Christian pacifism, social justice, and strongly identifies with Anabaptist traditions. I think Anabaptism is far more biblical when it comes to practice than many protestants. However, some of my interaction with Anabaptist thought has led me to believe they may be a bit too soft on theological issues. On the liberal side, they put so much emphasis on practice over belief that their doctrine on the Bible is too weak. Even on the conservative side, their doctrine of the atonement seems weak-- more Christus Victor than substitutionary atonement. Am I just looking in the wrong places? I identify with the liberal tendency to be involved in politics (many Anabaptist conservatives won't vote at all), but I don't care for liberal theology. And even in conservatives circles their soteriology seems weak. Can anyone point me to an Anabaptist tradition that is as intellectually robust and theologically sound as Protestantism, but with the orthopraxy, affirmation of free will, and strong theology of suffering and forgiveness of Anabaptism?

 

[joe100]

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking for in your message. Are you searching for a church with the outlined qualities, or a community of sorts, or are you simply looking for a great source of solid Anabaptist theory? I couldn't necessarily point you to the first, but one of the most respected and influential Anabaptist theologians that discuss nonviolence, social justice and the politics of Christ is Dr. Gregory Boyd. I would suggest looking into his website (which posts some of his Q&As and essays) and . He then possible some of his books. He seems to hold the view of practicing `Kingdom` politics rather than `Empire,` but I think that reading his work with an open mind could, at the least, bring understanding of the Anabaptist view of politics. Also, I should lastly mention, because you asked, that Greg is a big advocate of the affirmation of free will, and will even dive into his Open View of God`s sovereignty. Good luck, and God bless.

 

[joe100]

"Even on the conservative side, their doctrine of the atonement seems weak-- more Christus Victor than substitutionary atonement."

I am now curious, do you mean to say that you find the Christus Victor view of the cross to be largely flawed? I wasn't aware that CV was predominantly an anabapstist view, and I certainly wouldn't consider it to be a "conservative" view of the cross, but I am simply curious which flaws you find in it, or how you reconcile your beliefs of Anabaptist tradition (non-violence, social justice and reconciliation) with a substitution view of atonement (I do indeed hold the CV view, but with an open mind!). Also, the theologian who I reference in the above post holds the Christus Victor view.

 

[codysblackbox]

I have some familiarity with Boyd. I like his views on hell, social justice, and war, but I've gotta say I'm not a big fan of open theism.

I don't think CV is a conservative view, but conservative anabaptists tend to lean more toward it than substitutionary atonement from what I can tell. I think CV is PART of what the atonement accomplishes, but inadequate by itself. I think the substition view reconciles very well with non-violence and forgiveness. After all, Jesus' substitution for us teaches us that self-sacrificial love is central in forgiveness. It grounds self-giving love and suffering in the very being of God. It also teaches us that God is just. No sin will go unpunished, so either God has taken the sin upon Himself, or the sinner will pay for it, but it is not our job to met out justice, lest we deny the sacrifice of Christ. Without Christ being our substitute, it seems to me that we have no ground for non-violence or forgiveness.

 

[joe100]

Fair enough. The main quarrel I have with the penal substitution view (which is the same view as satisfaction doctrine, or am I wrong?) is that it assumes God was out for blood to ease his anger, wanted to take it out on the humanity that He created, but His son volunteered to take the punishment instead. This doctrine, from the angle I see it from, then teaches that God is an angry and violent God by nature, but needs some blood sacrifice to be content. It get's difficult thereafter to equate that God with the God revealed in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, or for me at least.

I would say that the CV view teaches that Jesus was our substitute in a sense, but not for the reason classically held that he was a substitute who's blood would appease a bloodthirsty Father.

 

[codysblackbox]

Fair enough. The main quarrel I have with the penal substitution view (which is the same view as satisfaction doctrine, or am I wrong?) is that it assumes God was out for blood to ease his anger, wanted to take it out on the humanity that He created, but His son volunteered to take the punishment instead. This doctrine, from the angle I see it from, then teaches that God is an angry and violent God by nature, but needs some blood sacrifice to be content. It get's difficult thereafter to equate that God with the God revealed in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, or for me at least.

I would say that the CV view teaches that Jesus was our substitute in a sense, but not for the reason classically held that he was a substitute who's blood would appease a bloodthirsty Father.

Penal substitution and satisfaction are tied together, but not strictly the same. Because God demands satisfaction from sinners, He chose to substitute Himself for them.

I think it's true that God by His nature would be wrathful toward sin. Sin is serious and cannot go undealt with. So God volunteers Himself to take on the sin of humanity and punish it. His resurrection and the fact that death could not hold Him demonstrate that Jesus had the victory over sin and death, and that those who are joined to Him would also have victory over sin and death.

I'm cuious to hear how you think Jesus can be a substitute without offering satisfaction. It seems that if Jesus was doing anything other than being a sacrifice for sin, He could have done it without requiring the cross, which would make His death unnecessary and even silly. And why all that talk of making atonement for sin in Isaiah 53 and all throughout the Torah? It seems like it was leading up to something, doesn't it?

 

[WayneinMaine]

I am a Christian who strongly supports Christian pacifism, social justice, and strongly identifies with Anabaptist traditions. I think Anabaptism is far more biblical when it comes to practice than many protestants. However, some of my interaction with Anabaptist thought has led me to believe they may be a bit too soft on theological issues. On the liberal side, they put so much emphasis on practice over belief that their doctrine on the Bible is too weak. Even on the conservative side, their doctrine of the atonement seems weak-- more Christus Victor than substitutionary atonement. Am I just looking in the wrong places? I identify with the liberal tendency to be involved in politics (many Anabaptist conservatives won't vote at all), but I don't care for liberal theology. And even in conservatives circles their soteriology seems weak. Can anyone point me to an Anabaptist tradition that is as intellectually robust and theologically sound as Protestantism, but with the orthopraxy, affirmation of free will, and strong theology of suffering and forgiveness of Anabaptism?

You have to remember that Anabaptism is not a sub-group of Protestantism. You should not analyze Anabaptism in terms of your Protestant theological framework. In fact I think many of the practices of conservative Mennonites and Amish wither away when the attempt is made to support them in an Evangelical Protestant framework. They become, "works righteousness" at worst, lifestyle options at best. The practices we so admire among the Anabaptists are rooted in an entirely different religious view than Protestantism.

 

[joe100]

I think I am misunderstanding what is meant by Protestantism. Are we basically talking about the whole division that is not Catholic?

The Anabaptist subculture is actually one of the earliest branches off of Lutheran Protestantism, and it formed soon after the Reformation. The Anabaptist faith was born from leaders (for example, Menno Simons, ) who were ex-Catholic Monks (as were many who turned Protestant) who wanted to take the interpretation of scripture a step further yet. Disagreement with infant baptism was the main difference that Protestants had, and they were called Anabaptist thereafter.

So technically speaking, Anabaptist subculture comes from a background that is "intellectually robust" and "theologically sound." But as they formed communities that were "not of this world" they also, through the centuries, formed schools where theology and academia became less and less. I, as someone who identifies with many Anabaptist traditions (as well as coming from a Mennonite culture), find this a bit tragic, but I also don't blame the leaders for trying an alternate way of life. But at the same time, I wonder why you ask (@codysblackbox) if there is a community as intellectual as the Protestants? Does being Protestant make your beliefs more "intellectual." Do all protestants really have a deep theological understanding of biblical concepts? I would argue that the majority of Protestants (just look at mainstream North America) are not "intellectually robust." But perhaps I am not thinking of the right Protestants? Again, I am sort of new at this, you're going to need to help me out.

Anyways, to answer your original question, I think there are many communities forming that hold many Anabaptist views and are still "theologically sound." I would point you to an online blog that I frequent called jesusradicals (I can't link yet-- I'm a newbie, but you'll find it the top option through Google.). I can't say I agree with everything discussed, but hey, that's what makes it an interesting and open community. I hope you'll give it a visit.

Now, to get back to what we were talking about before, as far as Atonement is concerned, I shall share this quote: "God does not need the cross to forgive us. But some of us needed the cross to be able to really accept that forgiveness. God does not need the cross to love us. But many of us needed the cross to really grasp that love." (Derek Flood).

I really wouldn't do a satisfactory job (pardon the pun!) in describing Christus Victor theory. The one essay that convinced me to change my views from Substitution to Victor (and also where I found that quote) is on Derek Flood's blog therebelgod and you will find a link to his essays (sorry I can't link!). It's a really long read, and you already seem to have your views settled (which is fine; you seem to be quite knowledgeable on the subject, neither do I necessarily oppose PS view, nor think it is, by any stretch, "dangerous."), so I wouldn't really expect you to read the whole thing. But again, if nothing else, I think it will be something worth chewing on if you ever have the time.

More then anything, I find the PS view brings up a range of questions that can give a person a funky view of God's love and character. I would suggest reading a bit of "part 2" of the above essay. But again, I don't think this is the view held by most (I tend to think the majority of people aren't aware of such theories) Anabaptists, so identifying with Anabaptist tradition certainly doesn't mean you're getting the Theology package deal of any sorts, much less the one that includes Christus Victor.

Peace! (and sorry for the length).

 

[Basil the Great]

You have to remember that Anabaptism is not a sub-group of Protestantism. You should not analyze Anabaptism in terms of your Protestant theological framework. In fact I think many of the practices of conservative Mennonites and Amish wither away when the attempt is made to support them in an Evangelical Protestant framework. They become, "works righteousness" at worst, lifestyle options at best. The practices we so admire among the Anabaptists are rooted in an entirely different religious view than Protestantism.

Wayne, Anabaptism is not a sub-group of Protestantism? Most analysts, both within and without of Christianity, list three groups of Christians - Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants. Sometimes Mormons are listed now as a fourth group, though I still consider them a branch of Protestantism myself. How would we classify Anabaptists, if we did not put them in as part of Protestantism?

Perhaps you are right to say that one should not analyze Anabaptism in terms of one's Protestant theological framework, but Anabaptists are still Protestants and still cling to most of the basic tenets of the Reformation.

 

[Studeclunker]

I think I am misunderstanding what is meant by Protestantism. Are we basically talking about the whole division that is not Catholic?

The Anabaptist subculture is actually one of the earliest branches off of Lutheran Protestantism, and it formed soon after the Reformation. The Anabaptist faith was born from leaders (for example, Menno Simons, ) who were ex-Catholic Monks (as were many who turned Protestant) who wanted to take the interpretation of scripture a step further yet. Disagreement with infant baptism was the main difference that Protestants had, and they were called Anabaptist thereafter.

Joe, if I might add a wee bit to this? Menno Simons and Jakob Ahmann were followers of Zwinglii (Reformed), close, intimate students even. They fell out with Zwinglii because they felt that both he and (worse) Luther didn't go far enough with the Reformation. Though both men remained on good terms (friends that is), they parted ways as Ahmann insisted on a much tighter adherence to how he determined Scriptural living to be. Hence we now have the Mennonites and Amish.

Yes, I have to agree with you wholeheartedly with your assessment of the 'intellectual robustness' of protestant America. However, you can have the opposite extreme. Sometimes an excess of education can lead to a type of intellectual snobbery and foolishness. One might say, people who think more of thier intellect than Scripture. Not that I'm disagreeing or debating, just a thought.

 

[Basil the Great]

I will correct my former post and say that it is not really proper to consider Mormons as part of Protestantism, due to too many differences.

 

[joe100]

@studeclunker -- agreed. I believe both extremes are indifferent from God's ideal, though I would offer that reading the Scriptures with an intellectual framework is the first step in understanding how to live those same Words out. I tend to think that one can not fully understand the meaning of scripture without having some bit of background knowledge.

 

[codysblackbox]

"I wonder why you ask if there is a community as intellectual as the Protestants? Does being Protestant make your beliefs more "intellectual." Do all protestants really have a deep theological understanding of biblical concepts? I would argue that the majority of Protestants (just look at mainstream North America) are not "intellectually robust." But perhaps I am not thinking of the right Protestants? Again, I am sort of new at this, you're going to need to help me out."

I certainly don't mean to say that Protestants as a whole are intellectual, but that the Reformers held to a faith that sought to explore intricate philosophical questions. I don't agree with all of their conclusions, however. I think in some ways the Anabaptist tradition is more biblical than Protestantism, but I also see Anabaptists focusing so much on orthopraxy that orthodoxy can suffer, especially when it comes to biblical formulations of the Gospel. I think Protestantism shines in pointing to the Gospel in all its glory, and Anabaptism shines in living out the Gospel in all its glory, even though Anabaptism's view of the Gospel is often a bit substandard.

As for whether or not Anabaptism is a subgroup in Protestantism, I understand why some would argue that. It certainly emerged out of the Reformation, but there were disagreements developing so quickly that the Anabaptists and Reformers found that they weren't very unified. Because the Anabaptists found themselves separating from the Reformers so early and over major issues, (so much so that they were referred to as the "radical reformation") they developed along very different lines from Protestant traditions. In the west, it is sometimes remarked that Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are two approaches to Christianity, but that Anabaptism offers a "third way."

And thanks for the links!