Feb. 20, 2012 issue
Anabaptism for the Baptists
Anabaptism didn’t directly give birth to the Baptists, but some today want to claim it as their own. And why not? Mennonites will be glad to share.
A Baptist revival of the Anabaptist vision is happening at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. One of America’s leading evangelical pastors, Rick Warren, is cheering the movement on.
Enthusiasm for Anabaptism at a Southern Baptist seminary affirms the faith tradition’s wide appeal. Direct spiritual descendants of 16th-century Anabaptism may be relatively few, but the movement’s impact on Christianity is broad and growing. Its power to inspire believers to follow Christ more faithfully extends beyond Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites and Brethren.
At a conference on “Anabaptism and Contemporary Baptists” last month, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary President Paige Patterson spoke of his hope that Baptists would “discover their theological roots in the Radical Reformation.”
The extent of Anabaptist influence on the first Baptists is a matter of some debate. When one of the Baptist founders, John Smythe, and his congregation fled persecution in England in 1608, the Mennonites of Amsterdam took them in. Secure in this Dutch haven for religious nonconformists, Smythe baptized himself and rest of his group. In 1611 or 1612 some of the members of the Amsterdam congregation returned to London and established a Baptist church there.
This much is certain: By practicing believers baptism and insisting on church-state separation, these emerging Baptists followed the principles Anabaptists had pioneered 85 years earlier.
Today, Patterson believes, Baptists should continue to uphold Anabaptist convictions. At the conference he cited the authority of Scripture; meaningful church membership and church discipline; courage amid persecution; the Lordship of Christ; religious liberty and rejection of the sword — although he admits that he and other Southern Baptist admirers of Anabaptism aren’t pacifists.
Warren, best known as the author of The Purpose Driven Life, praised the Anabaptists’ commitment to the Great Commission. “The Radical Reformers will increase your zeal for evangelism and world missions,” he said at the conference.
Warren said the Anabaptists expected a lot from their members, and churches today should do the same. North Americans tend to set the bar low. Mennonites have noticed this problem too. Mennonite Church USA’s “Purposeful Plan,” adopted last year, critiques the trend to emphasize church members’ rights rather than responsibilities. The most vibrant churches around the world today expect members to give generously of their time, talent and treasure. We need to be more like them.
In his famous “Anabaptist Vision” speech of 1943, Mennonite leader Harold S. Bender described Anabaptism as “the culmination of the Reformation, the fulfillment of the original vision of Luther and Zwingli.” Now Baptists are saying essentially the same thing. The Anabaptist vision doesn’t belong just to those of us who thought we owned it.
Comments
-
I just wonder what it means to reject the sword but not be a pacifist? The first is a theological term and the second, in it's most meaningful sense, is a legal term.
Since I would suggest that "rejecting the sword" covers a greater scope of action than the specific definition of "pacifist" (i.e. everyone who rejects the sword is a pacifist but not all pacifists reject the sword), I would like to know how the Anabaptized Baptists would parse the difference.
-
Daniel, I reject pacifism because pacifism is the forerunner of appeasement which results in violence. Anabaptism is not pacifism and pacifism is not Anabaptism. Pacifism is not taught in the Bible, but rather it something that Mennonite leaders have attached to Anabaptism. The pacifism altar that many Mennonites worship at regularly gets enlarged by the year. Further, Anabaptism has become a religion of itself within the Mennonite religious tent.
John R. Mumaw wrote a 32 page booklet titled NONRESISTANCE AND PACIFISM. It was first published by Mennonite Publishing House in 1944 and again in 1952. In it he clearly wrote how nonresistance and pacifism are incompatible. I referred to this booklet in a discussion with a prominent Mennonite pacifist theologian. Basically, that ended the discussion. Again, this is evidence of progressive, evolving theology within MC USA by prominent wisdom thinkers. If you think Jesus was a pacifist, read the OT scriptures where he appeared in bodily form and then read Rev 19. You first need to remove your pacifist lenses when you read these scriptures.
-
I think Dale must be wearing Münster classes.
-
Looking at it historically, there cannot be any doubt that personal pacifism was a majority position in Anabaptism. The more debated question is of what legitimacy the sword had in the hands of the government as a God-ordained institution to protect the innocent outside of the perfection of Christ, i.e. the church. Gerald Biesecker-Mast, for one, recognized that this was an uneasy tension among the majority (primarily revealed by the Schleitheim Confession), even if apocalyptics and revolutionaries did take to violence. So, to say that Mennonite leaders late idolatrously added pacifism to Anabaptism has no historical backing. The only way to say this was so would be to make violent strands normative, but I do not think that their use of the sword to rid the world of the wicked is quite the rejection of pacifism Welty had in mind.
Patterson did make an interesting rhetorical move in dealing with the issue. He broadened the teaching of pacifism under the category of "peacemaking." In making that move, he could affirm peacemaking but reject pacifism. It is largely for this reason that the brand of Anabaptism Southwestern Seminary upholds is that taught by Hübmaier, who himself rejected pacifism as currently taught by the Mennonites. Likewise, they take a very positive view of Marpeck, who served in a governmental position.
-
Peter, I’m not certain of your comments as they pertain to me, therefore I provide the following for clarification purposes.
The early Mennonites taught and lived non-resistance but not pacifism as we see it promoted today. See my reference above to John R. Mumaw’s booklet. Today’s New Age Mennonites have erroneously bundled non-resistance teaching and pacifism together. The missionaries to the Auca Indians were non-resistance but not pacifists.
I support peacemaking efforts in word and deed, but not the pseudo kind that is appeasement in nature. I consider peacemakers to include military and national & local law enforcement personnel. The use of the sword by governments for law and order are ordained by God, therefore can not be considered sin even if violence results. Law enforcement people are not pro crime, firemen are not pro fire, therefore, I don’t consider the military to be pro war.
I repeat what I have written many times; pacifism is not taught in the Bible. Further, God the Father and Jesus the Son are one and loving but are not pacifists. Jesus made his appearance several times in the OT including the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and ordered military action to Israel leadership. Had Jesus taught pacifism in his brief ministry on earth, he would have contradicted his actions in his several appearances in the OT. In his brief ministry on earth, he never criticized the Roman government’s use of the sword. He did commend a Roman army official for his unusual faith.
In Rev 19, Jesus also makes his appearance as commander-in-chief of the heavenly army. That confrontation with the armies of the nations will result in great violence and many deaths.
-
Dale: I appreciate your attempt at a more nuanced discussion of nonviolence and pacifism which seeks to get to the root of the nature of the relationship between church and state. I'm currently working with John Howard Yoder's work Discipleship as Political Responsibility. In those lectures, Yoder presents the state as a pagan, yet God ordained, institution that is charged with using evil to confront evil. He always considers the use of violence evil and contrary to the will of God. If you are familiar with Yoder's thinking in this work, I'd like to know your thoughts.
I, too, am concerned that the way many American Mennonites practice pacifism is closer to appeasement than nonviolent direct action in pursuit of shalom justice.
-
Michael, thank you for your comments. I am personally not familiar with any of Yoder’s writings. My exposure to Yoder’s writings are limited to what I read in MWR from writers like you.
In your words, Yoder presents the state as pagan. That statement alone speaks volumes to me about Yoder’s thinking. Do you know where that is taught by Jesus or any other writers in the NT? Jesus had some harsh words for the religious leaders of his day as we read in Mat 23, but I don’t read where he had any harsh words for the civil government even at his late night appearance before Pilate.
From your perspective, what are we as believers expected to do with Yoder’s comment? Why does MCC maintain offices in the UN and in Washington DC,, send letters to state and national legislatures to influence legislation? Is the MC USA witness to a pagan government? Does Yoder think that this paganism pertains to all elective offices including town councils and school boards? Our county sheriff is a true believer. Would Yoder consider him a pagan?
I would love to talk with you about all the questions I have concerning Mennonites position on this issue and fully listen to your perspective on the questions I have presented.
I look forward you your response.
-
A resource that may be of interest: Christian Pacifism: Fruit of the Narrow Way. http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Pacifism-Fruit-Narrow-ebook/dp/B005RIKH62/ref=zg_bs_158327011_13
When I was at Earlham, where I earned my M.Div., we had joint seminars with AMBS where John Howard Yoder was still teaching. His Politics of Jesus was the first book that I read on the subject.
-
It seems the discussion has gotten off base from the original editorial. This is an example of how we can digress from the quote of Jesus about his own call and ministry which he has left with us to continue.
When we stay with the core teaching of Jesus, people will be attracted to us as crowds were many times attracted to Jesus. How many are we attracting by these posts?
Examples: Mark 9:15 ". . .and ran to greet him." Mark 9:25 ". . . a crowd was running to Jesus . . ." NIV Do we have the desire to run to Jesus? Or to enable people to run to Jesus?
-
This is a worthy article and comments. It is clear that the Bible sanctions the just use of the sword of man by the government. Of course, the question for secularist is upon what basis do we determine what is just. While they attack the Bible as the authority on morality, their own objectively baseless ever morphing morality has shown itself to be destructive for America when it conflicts with the precepts and principles of Scripture.
I have argued with strict pacifist about how strict they really, are asking them if they would ever call the police if someone was in danger of being hurt by someone else. And this can be extended to even taking a person to court for some other violation. The point being that if you take the sword away from the government that it ultimately really has little coercive power. While the government certainly can appeal to reason and use words to persuade souls to do what is right and just yet it is the threat of the use of physical constraint against one's will that motivate most people to even show up in court when charged with an offense.
And if any use of physical force a stripping disallowed, how can they discipline their children without ever using such, and would they physically restrain a man who wants to run in front of a train and commit suicide? Certainly I am not disallowing that a believer filled with the Holy Spirit and power could do so without the use of physical force, and to always be in that spiritual condition should always be our goal, and recourse to such should be our first option, but I do not think Scripture always restricts us to doing nothing less than the ideal.
And extending the disallowance of physical force futher could disallow one even working for the government, yet Paul saluted those who were in Caesar's household.
I wonder how strict pacifists deal with these things, including the discipline of children. My own take on that is that as Jesus had authority in the Temple, it being his house, so the parents have authority in their own
However, I am opposed to the current over reliance upon the government, and especially find it deplorable that the state must sometimes actually be involved in church affairs. For it is the church by the use of Scriptures that it should be the entity that sets the moral standards, and which works to bring souls to be controlled from within by God and conscience, so that they need not be controlled from without.
Robert Winthrop (May 12, 1809 – November 16, 1894), and Speaker of the House from 1838 to 1840, and later president of the Massachusetts Bible Society, explained that, “Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the Word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or the bayonet.
And as clear this to me that the government can use the sword of men, it is also clear that the church is not constituted to use that to rule over those with them that are without, and to physically war against and punish their theological enemies (because of theological aberrations) even through the use of the government, as per the Inquisitions. My kingdom is not of this world, Christ said, else would buy subjects fight, and while I believe a Christian can be be a policeman (although due to the increasing punitive measures to punish Christians as ideological adversaries, then that will become increasingly more difficult), is a given that the church is not to begin hunting down Muslims etc.
In relation to religious violence under the Old Testament, I believe it is also important to understand that obedience to the God of Israel, unlike the God of Islam, was (and is) not based upon some person simply having some dreams and a mudane monologue to Mohammed from his god, but the authority of the living and true God was est. upon manifest demonstrations of his power and reality, which preceded such things as the giving of the law and Joshua's conquest.
Likewise, the institution of the new covenant was est. with mighty signs and wonders, in fulfillment with what was previously est. as being divinely inspired Scripture.
Yet the question for me remains, does turning the other cheek disallow not only self-defense but physically interceding to save the lives of others who were in danger?
Thanks for the forum.
Comment on the article Anabaptism for the Baptists
Please keep comments civil. MWR editors reserve the right to remove any comment. When posting a comment, you agree to the MWR Comments Policy. Name and comment will be posted; commenters are strongly encouraged to give their full name. Email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.
Download