Sheldon Good, writing at HuffPo, responds to Mark Tooley, who think Anabaptists and Neo-Anabaptists are taking over, to say, well, here’s his opening:
Are Mennonites taking over the world?
Not likely.
But Mark Tooley wonders in The American Spectatormagazine whether Mennonites are taking over a big enough part of Christianity to be dangerous.
Tooley used a recent apology from Lutherans — for violent persecution of 16th-century Anabaptists — to emphasize a “neo-Anabaptist movement” that demands all Christians and society “bend to pacifism.”
He says the views of neo-Anabaptist religious leaders such as Stanley Hauerwas, Greg Boyd, Shane Claiborne and Jim Wallis are “especially pervasive” and “permit a naughty sense of rebellion” — evidence of how the Anabaptist message has mainstream appeal, especially its pacifism.
Tooley shows a somewhat accurate understanding of Anabaptism, while at other times he’s erroneous. As an Anabaptist, I want to speak of my heritage from my perspective.
I now summarize Good’s points. First, what Tooley gets right:
Anabaptists are no longer a small, persecuted minority; they are traditionally pacifist and separatist; Anabaptism is becoming mainstream; Anabaptists do reject supporting the empire.
But, they do not aggressively demand pacifism; they are not part of the Left (or the Right); and Anabaptists do not demand an expanding and coercive State in their social justice policies.
Great last paragraph, Scot. I don’t think pacifism through force is a very consistent ethic, rather pacifism through hope, practice, and teaching.
I like that Anabaptists have traditionally formed communities that choose to live differently rather than force their hand through politics. Of course, the withdrawn nature of these communities have made them fairly irrelevant so voices like Claiborne are a welcome encouragement to better engagement with our neighbors.
Fascinating how this is out there, while over at another blog they raise concerns about the rise of the neo-reformed/neo-calvinism.
Just goes to show, people really don’t know what’s happening right now…
Nathan, wouldn’t it be great that these conversations about “rise” were just indicators of a growth in people following Jesus? My guess is that this has little do with increase in numbers over all of Christianity and more about theological shifts within the Church. I wouldn’t be surprised if in the next ten years we see an a rising tide of Catholicism in our country, and not simply because more hispanics are moving to our nation.
Scot,
Don’t you self-identify as an anabaptist sometimes?
Then we can ask you the question: are you taking over?
If not, you better tell those people that they have to worry about other things and conspiracies. Maybe tell them that we have socialist in our government in belgium… Would that impress them?
Dear God, this is terrifying. This is merely one small step away from a community of grace and forgiveness! Why, peace could break out at any second! Will no one save us?
All I know is that I want to see one of those MTV animated wrestling cartoons between the neo-Anabaptists and the neo-Reformed.
The first rule of the Anabaptist takeover conspiracy: There is no Anabaptist takeover conspiracy.
I’m on to you, Scot.
Tooley states that Moravians are Anabaptists. That’s news to me. The Moravian understanding of baptism is a Lutheran-Reformed hybrid. The 18th century Moravians did have a strong pacifistic bent. But it was not as much a part of the ecclesiastical DNA as in groups such as the Mennonites and Amish.
Also, by definition Anabaptists do not “take over” anything (at least when they are healthy). Their understanding of power and influence is contrary to direct aggression and making demands.
If Anabaptist influence is growing it has to do with their servant approach, which appeals to the emerging generation. It is not a political influence.
Ha, dopderbeck: The Neo-reformed person would have a sword but the neo-anabaptist would win even if he/she died.
Like Bonhoeffer said, “…when evil meets no opposition and encounters no obstacle but only patient endurance, its sting is drawn, and at last it meets an opponent which is more than its match.”
Not equating a neo-reformed person with “evil” just the use of a sword for something other than farming.
Aggressive anabaptism is really a return to its roots in the 16th century. The Münster Rebellion (1532–1535) was an attempt by radical Anabaptists to establish a communal theocracy in the German city of Münster. They also engaged in polygamy, so things in evangelicaldom should get really interesting as they take over.
John I.
Scot, do you still consider yourself Anabaptist? You attend a Baptist church, right? Or is it non-denominational?
Having been heavily influenced by Hauerwas and taught by Fitch, can only say what a breath of fresh air though I suspect Yoder would also be cautioning over the danger of captivity particularly in light of some of the more aggressive neo-Anabaptist groups.
@ John 10 – I’m not sure you can conflate the Munster Rebellion with the roots of Anabaptism. Matthys was a little too excessive and was rather violent. As a result, people like Simons came to authority.
BradK, odd … I haven’t attended a Baptist church since the mid 70s. I’m an anabaptist, yes.
In the last year I’ve heard how the Calvinists are taking over, the Catholics (a “return to the Great Tradition” was how that one was worded) and now the anabaptists…
Is it that the Anabaptist are taking over or that we’re actually giving some of their theology serious thought? I know a bunch of people that are heavily influenced by neo-Anabaptist ideas that are in no way ready to run off and join an Anabaptist denomination.
Heck, I love a lot of what would be considered Anabaptist theology and put Anabaptist denominations near the bottom of my list of denominations I want to be in.
@ John 10 – Equating an entire faith tradition with one isolated event seems wholly unfair. The Munster Rebellion was inconsistent with the actual origins of Anabaptism and very much about a grab for power through misuse/misunderstanding of the Bible. Something which all branches of Christianity can unfortunately find in their pasts.
@15 Jeremy – I’m a pastor in a Mennonite church and would love to hear more about your last statement. If you’re willing to talk more, email me at jdbjazz@gmail.com
Woops..that came out terribly wrong. It sounded like I thought they were horrible. That’s not what I meant at all.
What I was trying to say was that of the denominations I’ve held some interest in, Anabaptist ones aren’t particularly high in the list. Admittedly, there are some Anabaptist denominations I want nothing to do with, but a blanket negative statement like I made was me not thinking through what I was writing…
Interesting take on the gist of the article, that Mennonites and Anabaptist’s might be “dangerous”.
To whom? Or what?
There definitely needs to be a definition of terms. With this article, what do we mean by Anabaptist? The peaceful, non-violent Swiss Brethren or the radical, violent Munsterites. Michael Sattler and Balthasar Hubmaier are two extremely important Anabaptist voices of the 16th century but both came to very different understandings of the church and the sword.
My difficulty with modern day Anabaptists is that they read back onto the 16th century Anabaptists a particular style of nonviolence, read pacifism. The difficulty is that the Swiss Brethren, for example, were not pacifists as many of us think today. They never called for a reduction of arms within the empire nor did they seek to take the sword away from the government. Instead, with a particular understanding of Romans 13, they believed the government had the sword for a reason, violence could be executed by the government (no pun intended), and the church was to remain nonviolent and separate from the world. [I'm not making a case for whether the church should be about these things today...just doing a little historical theology.]
It’s important to note exactly why the Anabaptists were so against the sword in this conversation. In a land where church and empire were wed together, the church used the sword to exercise church discipline of heretics, etc. The interesting thing is that the opposite of the sword for the Swiss Brethren was not necessarily peace (though that was the outcome of their opposite reaction). The opposite of the sword was the ban. Where church and empire killed people who were out of line, the Swiss Brethren practiced the ban as a more loving, hopefully more redeeming way of bringing about discipline.
I wonder what it would look like for the church to resurrect the ban. Instead of beating one another up (in a sense executing character and integrity) we sought to handle discipline and different ideas more peacefully and civilly than we often do. And, in a land of talking heads what would it look like to capture the context of the ban as discipline, namely, a thriving, robust hermeneutical community that saw community as lying on the other side of conflict, not conflict as something to be avoided in the name of community, or conflict as necessary to always be right.
From an Anabaptist heritage, I am both excited and dismayed by all of the attention given to Anabaptism. Excited because its theology is rich in far more areas than nonviolence, read its ecclesiology. I’m saddened because its rich theological heritage often gets reduced down to simply nonviolence. I do not accuse theologians like Hauerwas of doing this but others have been guilty of reducing down the Anabaptist witness to a few convenient points that are applicable in the current landscape of Christianity in America.
Sorry for the length of my response. I’ve appreciated the other points made throughout this string of conversation.
Prepare to be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
@JPL (#5): HEAR! HEAR!!!!
If I’m to be “dominated” by a “rising” community, then give me the Anabaptists ANY DAY AND TWICE ON SUNDAY, even with their possible misunderstanding of pacifism today…given the choices out there I’d be thankful to be “controlled” or have Anabaptists defining the narrative.
Just so long as they let me keep BCP.
I really had to restrain my sinful and even appropriately snarky comments in my response (theologically telling , in its own way). Many moons ago I visited IRD and seriously considered interning there. But as these many years have passed, I’ve grown (?) to see what they’re advocating as a modified Constaninianism (the Americanized version). So it makes perfect sense that he would see Anabaptists and their ideas as a threat.
This raises a good theological question because of that. Is Tooley’s version of Constantinianism, or his more basic Augustinian understandings (which I share), appropriate? In my own readings of Anabaptist/Augustinian readings we often see a strongly divergent anthropology. If we’re basically broken in the way Augustine says, both individually and corporately, does that require forces of arms as a means to balance the terror? Augustine would say yes, as would Cicero and many moderns.
I say this as someone who would love to believe otherwise. Yet, as Chesterton said, the doctrine of human depravity is the only empirical doctrine.
I guess I’m asking: Can I be an Augustinian Anabaptist?
And yes, I know, eclessiology plays a huge part in this conversation. What does it even mean to be a Christian?
re 13 and 17 commenting on my 10
I’m sorry you didn’t get my humour by way of silly reference to history that is completely opposite to what Mennonites stand for (pacifism and monogamy), and playing off the humour of 5, 6, and 7. I write this in case anyone else is confused. BTW, half my heritage is Mennonite immigrants from the Ukraine (then part of Russia), and I had to go to German school on Saturdays when I was young. However, I do not currently go to a Mennonite church.
John I =:-)
Gosh, I wish the Mennonites *would* take over Christianity sometimes.
Then we could start honouring the Prince of Peace instead of causing wars and making everyone hate Christians.
To be honest, Paul, if Jesus was right, they’re going to hate us whatever we do. I would, of course, rather they hate us for our peculiarity and “foolishness” than for war mongering and bigotry. heh
“…they are not part of the Left (or the Right); and Anabaptists do not demand an expanding and coercive State in their social justice policies.”
Well, that eliminates Jim Wallis from the ranks then because leftism and an expanding, coercive State are his bread and butter.
The true power of the mennonites is in the power of the potlucks and the communities of conversation, not naming the names of influence, particularly only a few white men. The mennonite church changes the world by living in all of our different places the ways of peace and everyday resistance. and love.
Here is a song about a recent peace in the public square campaign by Mennonite church Canada – Yet more evidence of the dangers of Anabaptist
Peace – in Public!
(words and music by Bryan Moyer Suderman, © 2010 SmallTall Music)
1. I don’t know if you’ve heard – if not, it falls to me
To warn you of the latest threat to our security
There’s a group of people, once “the quiet in the land,”
Now they’re speaking out in public, and getting out of hand…
Refrain:
It’s peace – in public! – and it’s breaking out all over
You’d better watch your back, keep looking over your shoulder
You never can be sure, these folks are only getting bolder
It’s peace – in public! – and it’s breaking out all over.
2. Riding on the C-train, you’d think I’d be OK
Minding my own business, in nobody’s way
I validate my ticket, and headed for the back
And then I saw a little sign that stopped me in my tracks…
It said “Imagine life without war”… (Refrain)
3. Driving down the #1 I know what I will see
Towns and fields and farmers keep me company
But one day in November I thought I’d call the police
A great big sign beside the road said:
“To remember is to work for peace”… (Refrain)