Posted on 05/02/2013 6:40:01 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
I am often asked, “What is an Anabaptist?” and “Who are the Anabaptists?” If one listened to everyone who claimed an Anabaptist connection, it would be easy to be confused. For many today a progressive politics is Anabaptist; for others it means being either Yoderian (John Howard Yoder) or Hauerwasian (Stanley Hauerwas). Fair enough, but neither of them is the full representation of Anabaptism.
So today I want to sketch the view of the one description of Anabaptism that shaped the 20th century the most. I refer to Harold S. Bender‘s classic essay called “The Anabaptist Vision.” No, it is not true that all Anabaptists agree with Bender, and no, some today (like Thomas Finger, in his big study, A Contemporary Anabaptist Theology, or J. Denny Weaver, Becoming Anabaptist) want to frame things in a different way, but it can be said that Bender’s sketch is the most influential view of Anabaptism of the 20th century.
There are three major dimensions of the Reformation: Luther and the Lutherans in Germany, Calvin and the Reformed in Switzerland, and Zwingli-generated (and then finished later by others) Anabaptism. Anabaptism spread through Switzerland, South Germany, Moravia and then into the Netherlands. The early Anabaptist theologians and statements of faith were uniformly Protestant in theology (justification, salvation by faith) yet were not simply Lutheran or Reformed. Their emphasis on adult baptism, upon profession of faith, as part of commitment to be a disciple, and to form into a fellowship of discipleship distinguished the Anabaptists from both the Lutherans and the Reformed, not to mention the Catholics.
Anabaptism is largely responsible for the nonconformist impulse of the church — to be sure, it has some connections to those before it, like the Waldensians of Italy, but the Anabaptists were radical in their nonconformity to the State and to State-sponsored churches — that is, the Catholic Church, Lutherans and the Reformed. All non-State churches in the U.S., and that’s most, owe some debt to the Anabaptists.
They were a courageous lot — thousands were put to death. They paid their life to be nonconformists, and there’s a positive way to put this: they died in order to be faithful to their commitment to follow the Bible, the New Testament and Jesus Christ.
For Bender, the Anabaptists are the full implementation of the Reformation. Neither Luther nor Calvin went far enough. Bender’s focus is Luther, not Calvin, and he cites evidence that Luther late in his life realized his “mass church,” which was basically everyone born into the community/State would be baptized and be Lutheran, was ineffective in transforming the life of the person. The early Anabaptists, like Conrad Grebel, observed the lack of discipleship among the Lutherans of the Reformation. So the Anabaptists carried through the Lutheran reforms and broke with 1,500 years of the church.
Bender is famous for three features of the Anabaptist vision:
The essence of Christianity, or the Christian life, is discipleship — a committed following of Christ in all areas of life. The word on the street in the 16th century — and this word repeated often enough by bitter enemies of the Anabaptists — was that they were consistent and devout Christians. If Luther’s word was “faith,” the word for the Anabaptists was “follow.” The inner conversion was to lead to external transformation.
A new conception of the church as a brotherhood of fellowship. The ruling image of a church among the Catholics and Reformers was more national and institutional and sacramental, while the ruling image for the Anabaptists was fellowship or family. Joining was voluntary; the requirement was conversion; the commitment was to holy living and fellowship with one another. Thus, the Anabaptist separated from the “world” to form a society of the faithful. This view of the church led to economic availability and liability for one another.
A new ethic of love and peaceful nonresistance. Apart from rare exceptions like Balthasar Hubmaier and the nutcases around Thomas Müntzer, the Anabaptists lived a life shaped by love and nonviolence. They refused to coerce anyone.
Thus, for Bender, the focus was on discipleship not sacraments or the inner enjoyment of justification. The church was not an institution or a place for Word proclamation in emphasis but instead a brotherhood of love. In addition, against Catholics and Calvinists who believed in social reform, like the Lutherans the Anabaptists were less optimistic about social transformation. But, unlike the Lutherans who split life into the secular and sacred, the Anabaptists wanted a radical commitment that meant the creation of an alternative Christian society.
Because I don’t understand why a govt would kill people for attending a church.
What is amillenial?
Read the context. He was blaming religion for violence. I repeat his phrase but replace the cause. What do you think I meant by that?
What do you mean “really”? So what part of human nature is really all that mysterious?
I mean, you really don’t understand why people kill others over money, drugs, women, etc? like you said
I find it mysterious that some people resort to violence over differences in their religious beliefs, like this thread talked about.
“I find it mysterious that some people resort to violence over differences in their religious beliefs, like this thread talked about.”
The “mystery” has been answered by several different posters, including you. After all, you didn’t say “Oh, me neither” to my reply to you. You said “really,” as if it was surprising that I didn’t know what you know. If you’re consistent in your thinking, it would be the former “me neither” that would be the only logical position you can hold.
You write “like this thread talked about,” which sounds to me like you’re claiming that MY statement is on a different topic than your oft repeated question.
Why is that?
Why is the motivation for why a man kills for money, booze, women, power, political ideology, etc, different from the man who kills for RELIGION?
Because one is killing for something tangible, something that can be used. Killing because I believe something different about God than someone else, doesn’t make sense. What does one get from it?
No, this is what you said and what I responded to:
I don’t understand how or why people rally behind religious causes.
Now you say that's simple that's simple to figure out. Looks like you changed your mind on that one. So are you going to say the reason Gov't would kill people for attending church is easy to figure out too once I or someone else answers you on that one?
“Because one is killing for something tangible, something that can be used.”
IDEOLOGY is something tangible, something that can be used, unlike Religion? Power is something tangible, something that can be used, unlike Religion? Notice what I included in my previous list.
“Killing because I believe something different about God than someone else, doesn’t make sense. What does one get from it?”
Why do people kill for MONEY, or for nationality, or for race, or for anything at all?
But if we’re going to place all the world in you, does that mean that you find it reasonable to kill for money since its tangible, but not for religion? But to the man who does it, it is equally tangible so far as reasons to kill is concerned.
Just because you personally cannot imagine killing someone for religion, or for any of the reasons I have given, doesn’t change the fact that people do so.
At this point, can we blame Christianity for the person killing? Is Christianity really the “reason” why people kill? I think it’s easier to conclude that people kill because that’s what people are good at doing. Man, after all, is utterly depraved. They are all gone astray. They are together become unprofitable.
No. It’s simple to understand why people would fight against a govt that was killing people in a church meeting, because people don’t want to be killed.
What I do not understand, is why a govt would kill people for going to a church meeting. Can you see the difference?
Please go back to 41 and 42. I think it will be cleared up for you on what I said.
I consider a belief in God as just that, a belief, not an ideology. In my opinion, a difference in beliefs, it is not something that is worth killing or can justify killing another over.
Of course what I know or do not know changes nothing. Go to para 5 in the opening, then read #3. That is all there is to it.
No, this does not "clear it up". You also said along the same lines:
But I don’t understand why/how one’s belief in God can be used so effectively to rally people behind them
I just said that I don’t understand how or why people rally behind religious causes
The religious beliefs is what you were commenting on...why someone would fight for their religion. I gave you an example of why and then you said you understood it because it was simple, pretending like you had never not "understood". Instead of acknowledging that you shifted to a new topic.
“I consider a belief in God as just that, a belief, not an ideology.”
You’re playing games now. You said that it is more logical to kill for money and the like because they are “tangible.” An ideology, which was also in my list, is certainly not tangible. It’s a system of ideas, concepts, beliefs, someone’s big idea for what a better world should be.
“In my opinion,”
Who, exactly, is arguing that it is OK to murder for religions reasons, or for any other reason? If no one is doing it, who cares about what your personal opinion is? You asked how is it that anyone can kill for the sake of religion. Nothing more. And that question has been answered.
OK, I do not understand why someone would fight for their religion.
Please repeat exactly what you said, perhaps I missed something. I will answer as best I can.
I never used the word logical.
Did you read the para 5? It said thousands were killed. That is what I do not understand the why of.
Please repeat the answer you gave me, between all the comments and 2 days, I must have mistaken what you said.
“I never used the word logical.”
Pffft, so now you’re backing off from your statement that you can understand why people would kill for money, women, etc, because they are tangible, but that religion is not?
So, if men are killing for untangible reasons besides religion, which has already been shown, what is YOUR explanation now?
“Please repeat the answer you gave me”
I predicted you would say this. It’s a good sign you’re just dodging, but for what reason, I have no idea. Read my posts again, within the past few hours, not days, and stop shifting around from one failed comment to another.
Ex: Obama issues an EO that all religious meetings are to be abandoned under penalty of death and a liberal SC upholds his proclamation. Violence erupts because he begins to carry this out and people rally behind freedom of religion.
I wouldn't call it a virtue. They are thus necessarily parasitic upon a society which will use force on their behalf to protect them.
Meanwhile the Anabaptists feel free to look down upon those who guard them while they sleep, regarding them as sinners because they engage in violence.
Read para 5 and read #74, that is what I do not understand.
I really don’t care what you predicted. I’ll continue messing with you until 1600EST today, then I’ll be back on monday.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.