Least Common Denominator of being Anabaptist.

[RenewedbyFaith]

That's a point I had thought about making, too, Floodnut. An Anabaptist literally is a person who was re-baptized out of Catholicism by a believer's baptism.

In that sense, anyone who was once Catholic can be an Anabaptist.

What is the essence, the shared value that would make a new believer, a convert out of Islam or Taoism an anabaptist?

I don't think anyone can say there is a common or shared value among all Anabaptists. American Anabaptism is completely different than world Anabaptism.

One of the values that Wayne brought up is simple living, but European Anabaptists do not necessarily feel a commitment to simple living. That's one of the things that drove the Amish to America. They were being persecuted by their non-Amish Anabaptist brethren for maintaining a simple lifestyle for spiritual reasons.

And simple is a relative term, anyway. Is a three bedroom home more or less Anabaptist than a shack. Is a leather wallet more or less spiritual than a plastic bag for a wallet? Is chicken more or less spiritual than beans? These are the things people tend to obsess over when they talk about simple living, but it's really all just a matter of degrees. To a Caribbean Anabaptist, a three bedroom house is a luxury, but to an America Anabaptist, a three bedroom house is simple living. To an American Anabaptist, prime rib is a rich meal, but to an African Anabaptist, chicken is a rich meal. In Haiti, cat stew is served at celebrations or when an honored guest comes to visit. Around here, it's unthinkable to eat a house pet. Who really knows what simple living really is?

The Mennonites of Russia do not universally hold to the peace witness. Many Mennonites served in the Russian army because as religious people, most jobs were closed to them under the communists. They then reasoned that they were being servants of God by serving in the army of the God-annointed government and that it was better to serve in the army than to let the faith die out through starvation.

In China, where there is no choice but to serve in the military if you are called, Anabaptists compartmentalize their lives into "soul life" and " body life." The body serves in the army rather than be executed or die in a political prison, but the soul maintains a commitment to peace.

I personally wonder how many of us American Anabaptists do more than lip service to the fundamentals Wayne picked out anyway.

Do any of us practice all of them, is there any body of Anabaptists anywhere than adheres to their adamant practice, and if not, are we really hypocritical when we say, "You can't be an Anabaptist because you don't subscribe to this list of fundamental denominators?

I guess my point is that there is a wide spectrum of theological and spiritual doctrines among the Anabaptist groups. No list can capture what it means to be Anabaptist anymore than a list can capture what it means to human. It's too big of a picture to itemize in a bulleted list.

 

[RenewedbyFaith]

I really question whether someone can be considered Anabaptist if they refuse to participate in the local Anabaptist church, if one is available.

A person can't thumb their nose at the body of Anabaptist believers and still think they are Anabaptist can they?

 

[WayneinMaine]

I personally wonder how many of us American Anabaptists do more than lip service to the fundamentals Wayne picked out anyway.

Do any of us practice all of them, is there any body of Anabaptists anywhere than adheres to their adamant practice, and if not, are we really hypocritical when we say, "You can't be an Anabaptist because you don't subscribe to this list of fundamental denominators?

I guess my point is that there is a wide spectrum of theological and spiritual doctrines among the Anabaptist groups. No list can capture what it means to be Anabaptist anymore than a list can capture what it means to human. It's too big of a picture to itemize in a bulleted list.

So you seem to be saying now that Anabaptism is simply a designation for any one of a number of churches with a common historic origin, and nothing else. That would suggest that to leave one of those churches one is no longer "Anabaptist" even if they were born Hutterite or Mennonite or...

The list I gave is not my own, by the way, it was compiles from a couple dozen responses to the same question I asked here. The secend set were the "also rans", simple living was only mentioned by a couple people. The primary distinctives were:

1. Non-conformity to (separation from) the world
2. Non-resistance
3. Separation of Church and State (non-participation in government)
4. New Testament primacy / literal understanding of NT teachings
5. Believer's (mature individual) baptism

I guess I will go on now and ask on thos same forum if someone can be considered Anabaptist and not hold to these.

I really question whether someone can be considered Anabaptist if they refuse to participate in the local Anabaptist church, if one is available.

A person can't thumb their nose at the body of Anabaptist believers and still think they are Anabaptist can they?

That all depends. I'm sufficiently committed to the ideas listed above as biblical elements of what God desires of us that I could not be comfortable in an assembly of military families who practice infant baptism, even if they call themselves "Mennonite" or have names like Yoder and Mast and Stoltzfus.

 

[Floodnut]

So you seem to be saying now that Anabaptism is simply a designation for any one of a number of churches with a common historic origin, and nothing else. That would suggest that to leave one of those churches one is no longer "Anabaptist" even if they were born Hutterite or Mennonite or...

The list I gave is not my own, by the way, it was compiles from a couple dozen responses to the same question I asked here. The secend set were the "also rans", simple living was only mentioned by a couple people. The primary distinctives were:

1. Non-conformity to (separation from) the world
2. Non-resistance
3. Separation of Church and State (non-participation in government)
4. New Testament primacy / literal understanding of NT teachings
5. Believer's (mature individual) baptism

I guess I will go on now and ask on thos same forum if someone can be considered Anabaptist and not hold to these.



That all depends. I'm sufficiently committed to the ideas listed above as biblical elements of what God desires of us that I could not be comfortable in an assembly of military families who practice infant baptism, even if they call themselves "Mennonite" or have names like Yoder and Mast and Stoltzfus.

good list.
Non-conformity can be applied in any culture. And in various cultures it may be applied differently. But there is a world and the New Testament teaches that we are not to be conformed to it. A former Taoist or Muslim could obey this principle, but it would look different than non-conformity in America.
There are certainly many modernist Mennonites who do not hold to the supremacy of the NT and they would admit as much. They would also understand that they are anabaptist in roots only, not in present belief and practice.

 

[RenewedbyFaith]

So you seem to be saying now that Anabaptism is simply a designation for any one of a number of churches with a common historic origin, and nothing else. That would suggest that to leave one of those churches one is no longer "Anabaptist" even if they were born Hutterite or Mennonite or...

I'm always amazed by your ability to read something that isn't there.

You have an ability to twist what's been said into what you want to hear.

The list I gave is not my own, by the way, it was compiles from a couple dozen responses to the same question I asked here.

Please provide the source(s). Who was included in your research and where was this research done. Do you think a couple dozen responses are enough to come up with an absolute list?

The secend set were the "also rans", simple living was only mentioned by a couple people. The primary distinctives were:

1. Non-conformity to (separation from) the world
2. Non-resistance
3. Separation of Church and State (non-participation in government)
4. New Testament primacy / literal understanding of NT teachings
5. Believer's (mature individual) baptism

I guess I will go on now and ask on thos same forum if someone can be considered Anabaptist and not hold to these.

We really need to know what forum that is. I wonder how fair it is for people in another forum to be deciding things that may become definitions and policies in this forum. It may well be that you asked one dozen traditionalists, ignoring the Anabaptists who have left tradition but are nonetheless Anabaptist. I'm not sure that outsiders should have any say in what happens here.

Also, non-participation in government is hardly a practice among all Anabaptists. The very separatist ones, yes, but not the more mainstream ones. Even the Amish vote and participate in local government when they feel they need to. In the 2004 general election in Ohio, over 1000 Amish registered to vote and voted on the marriage amendment. And around here, the Amish participate in zoning meetings whenever a proposed change abuts their land or affects their business. They even participate in town meetings when the agenda has something they are interested in.

And I was wondering if you could give us an example of non-conformity (separation) from the world and how you practice that in real life.

That all depends. I'm sufficiently committed to the ideas listed above as biblical elements of what God desires of us that I could not be comfortable in an assembly of military families who practice infant baptism, even if they call themselves "Mennonite" or have names like Yoder and Mast and Stoltzfus.

I'm not sure, but I didn't realize this thread was about what YOU are comfortable with. I thought it was about OUR (the posters in this forum) find to be the irreducible foundations of Anabaptist doctrine. I hope you are not using us to settle some kind of argument in that other forum or baiting us to get involved in someone else's fight.

It's very interesting that your list doesn't even mention saving faith in Jesus Christ. Is that at all necessary to Anabaptism, or has He been replaced by adherence to doctrines?

 

[WayneinMaine]

good list.
Non-conformity can be applied in any culture. And in various cultures it may be applied differently. But there is a world and the New Testament teaches that we are not to be conformed to it. A former Taoist or Muslim could obey this principle, but it would look different than non-conformity in America.
There are certainly many modernist Mennonites who do not hold to the supremacy of the NT and they would admit as much. They would also understand that they are anabaptist in roots only, not in present belief and practice.

Though the list was not generated by asking what 16'th and 17'th century Anabaptists believed, I think it reflects the early Anabapatist confessions of faith. These are the ideas that separated the Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites and Brethren in Europe, Russia, and North America from Protestantism in particular up until the late 19th century. Many Mennonites and Brethren, even groups that are self-identified as conservative Anabapatists, seem to have shifted tracks in the early 20'th century, adopting Evangelical Protestantism and following its divisions and trends into the modern era.

 

[Floodnut]

renewedbyfaith really cannot speak for the AMISH. She can only speak for the groups she has been with -under particular bishops, and she can speak for herself, but she cannot speak for the Amish. She herself has made it clear that every local congregation is independent and secretive (in spite of their avowed opposition to secret societies). Since each congregation is unique, then some could be raving patriotic militarists and we wouldn't know for sure. But we all know that such a group could be "anabaptist," if we accept danjudge as representing some brand of anabaptist (Muensterites). But we are not pursuing the question in this thread, WHAT IS AN AMISH, rather the question is what is the fundamental distinctive or set of distinctives that constitutes the essence of anabaptist belief and practice?

 

[tulc]

RenewedbyFaith is a sister, not a brother
tulc(just a thought)

 

[WayneinMaine]

renewedbyfaith really cannot speak for the AMISH. He can only speak for the groups he has been with -under particular bishops, and he can speak for himself, but he cannot speak for the Amish. He himself has made it clear that every local congregation is independent and secretive (in spite of their avowed opposition to secret societies). Since each congregation is unique, then some could be raving patriotic militarists and he wouldn't know for sure. But we all know that such a group could be "anabaptist," if we accept danjudge as representing some brand of anabaptist (Muensterites). But we are not pursuing the question in this thread, WHAT IS AN AMISH, rather the question is what is the fundamental distinctive or set of distinctives that constitutes the essence of anabaptist belief and practice?

I'm not touching, DAN JUDGE's posts!

I don't know where he gets his material from but it's pretty imaginative and it's a far cry from anything called "Anabaptist" I've ever run into.

 

[RenewedbyFaith]

RenewedbyFaith is a sister, not a brother
tulc(just a thought)

Thanks tulc.

 

[RenewedbyFaith]

Though the list was not generated by asking what 16'th and 17'th century Anabaptists believed, I think it reflects the early Anabapatist confessions of faith. These are the ideas that separated the Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites and Brethren in Europe, Russia, and North America from Protestantism in particular up until the late 19th century. Many Mennonites and Brethren, even groups that are self-identified as conservative Anabapatists, seem to have shifted tracks in the early 20'th century, adopting Evangelical Protestantism and following its divisions and trends into the modern era.

True.

Some established Anabaptist groups have adopted evangelical modernism. But that in itself is an attribute of Anabaptism.

Conservative Anabaptism is no more the "true" or "original" Anabaptism than mainstream Anabaptism is. Anabaptism isn't one line unbroken in thought, teaching, doctrine or theology. From the very beginning, there were many forms and practices of Anabaptism. Even the earliest Anabaptists didn't agree on everything.

So it's impossible for anyone to hold up any group and say, "These are the true Anabaptists in its purest form." Amish, Hutterite, Moravian, they have all been produced out of factionalism, not out of unity. Anabaptism is splintered and has been from the foundations of the faith.

Because of that, it's never going to happen that every Anabaptist can agree on everything unless you systematically exclude those who disagree you with, which is exactly how the Amish, Hutterites, etc, came into being.

 

[RenewedbyFaith]

I have to wonder if when we stand before God when it is out time, if we won't be ashamed of how much time we spent arguing about who does and who doesn't belong in this forum and how little time we spent actually being the hands and feet of Christ to the world.

 

[CelticRose]

That is an excellent point RenewedbyFaith. Not being Anabaptist myself I already feel excluded yet this forum is meant for those of my denomination as well. I thought being Christian was more important than the denomination we adhere to, or were born into . Perhaps the question should have been the Least common denominator of being a Christian? Just a thought.

 

[RenewedbyFaith]

Excellent thought Celtic!

When the early Anabaptists were writing their confessions of faith, they weren't defining what it meant to be Anabaptist, they were defining what it meant to be Christian.

All this endless arguing about who is and who isn't, who should be and who shouldn't, the truist form of this and that, it all doesn't amount to a heap of beans. It's just creating more divisions and accentuating the divisions and making this little forum more exclusionary.

Did you ever hear the joke about the man who died and went to heaven and Jesus showed him all around the place, introducing him to all the people they met. The man and Jesus walked over a hill and in the distance, they saw a village. The man asked Jesus who lived in that village and Jesus said, "Those are the Mennonites. They think they are the only people here."

Do we really think that only the "true" Anabaptists as defined by some outside group's definition should be used as the litmus test of who should be allowed to post here...

Or do you think that we as a group should decide to throw open the doors to this forum and invite in every Anabaptist, every Quaker, and everyone else who promises to behave themselves?

 

[CelticRose]

Christ was not exclusive. He included many in his inner cirlce others excluded. shrugs. I would not exclude any who wished to come, but I'm Quaker & we sorta have a history that way.

 

[CelticRose]

Oh, & I've heard the joke, only it was the Catholics who thought they had heaven to themselves. We need to be able to laugh a little at ourselves. Sometimes we are very silly.

 

[WayneinMaine]

There are 21 distinct subgroups in CF’s Congregations section. These groups are divided up by broad denominational or theological categories. I know that Anabaptist was part of the Baptist group at one time, if it does not suit for folks to post in a distinctly Anabaptist subgroup they can post in the original Baptist group or find a groups more suitable or explicitly open. There area groups suitable for the sort of open-door ecumenism you advocate:
Whosoever Will, May Come - Liberal, The forum for liberal christians of all denominations.
Deeper Fellowship,A Christians-only fellowship area for deeper general Christian sharing.
Non-denominational, The forum for non-denominational Christians

I am not the moderator of this forum. I have simply asked some questions and tried to engage in some discussion about what Anabaptist means. Such a discussion might be useful in refining what the discussion group is all about –something other than Catholicism, Presbyterianism, Baptists or Fundamentalists. Renewed and Celtic are the second and third discussion participants who do not want any definition of Anabaptism that excludes anyone. There are really just two reasonable courses to follow: people who don’t want to participate in a narrowly defined group should participate in a broader group or another group should be formed that has the ecumenical openness that can’t be found in any other group. There really is not good reason to avoid discussion of historic Anabaptism as a distinct theology or branch of Christianity just because it is “exclusive” All forums in CF are defined to exclude someone so as to channel discussion along common interests and lines of understanding.

 

[WayneinMaine]

Some established Anabaptist groups have adopted evangelical modernism. But that in itself is an attribute of Anabaptism.

Could you explain?

Conservative Anabaptism is no more the "true" or "original" Anabaptism than mainstream Anabaptism is. Anabaptism isn't one line unbroken in thought, teaching, doctrine or theology. From the very beginning, there were many forms and practices of Anabaptism. Even the earliest Anabaptists didn't agree on everything.

I would agree that many groups that call themselves "conservative Anabaptists" would not even welcome Menno Simons in their pulpit for his "liberalism" and unorthodoxy. But conservative in the sense of resisting change has validity when you are talking about a group's historic origins. Your Amish grandparents can make a legitimate charge against those calling themselves Anabaptist who have abandoned certain fundamentals that their ancestors in the 16th and 17th century held to and died for. Some Old Order groups have preserved that spiritual heritage, not accepting changes that others have. The wide diversity of beliefs ranging from Protestant Fundamentalism to Liturgical neo-catholicism is much more modern in origin, it does not stem from the diversity of beliefs and practices of the early Anabaptists who were much narrower in their range of practices and who had more common fundamental spiritual outlook than their modern descendents.

So it's impossible for anyone to hold up any group and say, "These are the true Anabaptists in its purest form." Amish, Hutterite, Moravian, they have all been produced out of factionalism, not out of unity. Anabaptism is splintered and has been from the foundations of the faith.

The question is not "Who are the true Anabaptists in its purest form?" it is, "What are the common, core ideas that make a group Anabaptist? What threads of belief and practice start at Zurich in 1525 and continue to distinguish Anabaptist to the present?".

Because of that, it's never going to happen that every Anabaptist can agree on everything unless you systematically exclude those who disagree you with, which is exactly how the Amish, Hutterites, etc, came into being.

Of course every Anabaptist won't agree on everything. But most who claim to be Anabaptist agree on some things. What are those somethings?

 

[WayneinMaine]

Please provide the source(s). Who was included in your research and where was this research done. Do you think a couple dozen responses are enough to come up with an absolute list?

We really need to know what forum that is.

Here are links to a couple other open discussion groups where this was discussed:

http://mennodiscuss.com/viewtopic.php?p=133439#133439
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Anabaptist_Seekers/message/5940

I found it interesting that Mennohof listed four of the five distinctives in the list I compiled as defining Anabaptism (they left out separation from the world):
http://www.mennohof.org/php/who.we.are/

It's very interesting that your list doesn't even mention saving faith in Jesus Christ. Is that at all necessary to Anabaptism, or has He been replaced by adherence to doctrines?

Nobody I queried mentioned it. I think the Anabaptist concept of faith and salvation is different enough from Protestant and Catholic ideas that it's just not something that pops up prominently in a discussion oif Anabaptism. My thought on it is that the practices and beliefs common to Anabaptism presuppose faith and define saving faith differently than American Evangelicals are accustomed to thinking of it. An Anabaptist view of "saving faith" might read: "If you have faith you will believe and strive to obey the commands of Christ and He will save you."

 

[Floodnut]

I have to wonder if when we stand before God when it is out time, if we won't be ashamed of how much time we spent arguing about who does and who doesn't belong in this forum and how little time we spent actually being the hands and feet of Christ to the world.

I for one am not involved in a discussion about who should "belong" to this forum. I am discussing the topic of the original post, the essential elements of what constitutes anabaptist.