I don't mean to offend, and this is an honest question (not a bait): In the understanding of "nonresistance" what would an Anabaptist woman do in a situation where she was trying to be raped?
Did you really intend to word the question the way you did? The woman is trying to be raped, i.e., trying to encourage a rapist?
I'll assume that's not what you meant.
Joan Baez (not an Anabaptist) had an excellent series of answers for that type of question. Basically she said if people can make up a situation then she can make up an answer.
So, perhaps she would reason with the rapist, tell him about Jesus, and the rapist would be saved, and so would she. That's my attempt at an adaptation of the Joan Baez style answer.
Oh no...I mean someone was trying to force themselves onto her. I just wanted to present an extreme scenario to see where, if any, lines were drawn in respect to "nonresistance."
In sticky situations where people were trying to apprehend Him before the appointed time, Jesus fled. Jesus often did not walk around alone either though.
I want to be an Anabaptist, but I am unsure about nonresistance. I feel that doctrine should be a personal conviction rather than the official belief of a Christian denomination. (Is denomination the right word for Anabaptists?)
How do Anabaptists explain Jesus driving out moneychangers wirh a whip or the Roman soldier who came to Jesus and Jesus never told him to give up his job?
I want to be an Anabaptist, but I am unsure about nonresistance. I feel that doctrine should be a personal conviction rather than the official belief of a Christian denomination. (Is denomination the right word for Anabaptists?)
How do Anabaptists explain Jesus driving out moneychangers wirh a whip or the Roman soldier who came to Jesus and Jesus never told him to give up his job?
Hmm...... you want to be an Anabaptist?? Why?? What is it that you like about being an Anabaptist?
How about, "Lord I want to be like Jesus, in my heart, in my heart ... "
Our need for social cohesiveness and support motivates us to seek like-minded others. But seeking for those who truly want to be like Jesus among today's professing Christians is a daunting challenge indeed. Virtually all have redefined Jesus to suit themselves. They pick and choose among the verses of the Bible, looking for what suits their world view and rejecting the rest.
Might I be guilty of this also? Sure! But here's where I strive to be different: I openly invite questions and corrections and strive to deal honestly with those questions and corrections, basing all on the word of God. And while many others say the same, I guess, "... the proof of the pudding is in the eating".
Jesus told us that the door to heaven is narrow and not many will enter by it, but the road to hell is wide. He told us that many who believe they will get to heaven are sadly mistaken. He said on the judgment day he will call such people "evil doers" and will tell them to get away from him.
So, what part of "nonresistance" do you not understand - or is it more accurately phrased, do you not want to understand?
Turn the other cheek?
Go the extra mile?
If someone demands your coat give him your shirt also?
Love your neighbor as yourself?
Love and do good to your enemies?
With regard to using a whip of cords to drive the money changers from the temple and upsetting their tables, since Jesus told us clearly that his true followers will strive to be like him, if/when we find money changers in the temple and feel God is calling us to follow Jesus' example then we should. All the while realizing, of course, is that is just one of the acts that led to Jesus' crucifixion, and may lead to similar results for us.
But with regard to your statement about Jesus and the Roman soldier, i.e., " ... and he never told him to give up his job ", are you sure Jesus never said that?
Surely you don't imagine that each and every word that Jesus said is recorded in the Bible, do you?
Jesus very well may have told the soldier to give up his job. From historians we know that it was common for Roman soldiers who converted to Christianity to give up their jobs.
But we are not to follow what others did or do. Instead we're supposed to follow Jesus' commandments. Jesus told us clearly that those who love him follow his commandments and those who don't love him don't follow his commandments.
I don't see that it's possible to both love and do good to one's enemies while slaughtering them.
Do you?
I will jump in for a minuet here, are you wanting opinions or are you wanting a debate or just some dialogue about while defending ones self from a enemy?
In short, most Anabaptists have gone the way of most of the rest of "Christendom".Anabaptism is not a stricter, less worldly version of Protestantism. It is as fundamentally different from Protestantism as Protestantism is from Catholicism. To suggest that one could be “Anabaptist” and not be non-resistant would be like a Roman Catholic converting to a Baptist and still praying the rosary.
Fundamentally Anabaptism is about following after Jesus, obeying all He commanded. That indeed requires that we love our enemies, that we not resist an evil person, and perhaps, as the original Anabaptist understood Jesus’ teachings, that we have “all things common”. The good news Anabaptists believe in is that God’s kingdom is within reach, that it is among us, and that we can be enabled to be a part of it by choosing to do what Jesus taught us to do.
Though the fact is there are many (ethnic) Mennonite groups which have assimilated enough Protestant ideas that a zealous, patriotic, American Fundamentalist Baptist would be comfortable with them. Some Mennonites have so assimilated Reformed Protestant theology that their ancient persecutors would be declare victory. In the end these denominations, having lost the anchor that kept them separated from the world, drift into the kind of worldliness from which you want to flee.
Pacifism is a most difficult road to embrace. I once claimed to be a pacifist in my youthful days and still have pacifist leanings, though I no longer claim to be a pacifist. Nevertheless, I think it is fairly safe to say that the vast majority of the Early Church, especially prior to 180 A.D. and even probably up to 300 A.D., was opposed to armed combat for the State. Having said that, I doubt very much that many Christians back then would have stood by and let the loved ones be raped or murdered.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?