After the reformation, many decided that Luther and Swingli weren't quite radical enough. These 'many' became known as the Anabaptists. I've read some Church history literature which doesn't have much good to say about the Anabaptist movement, but I think they simply took the principles of the reformation to their logical conclusions. In my opinion the Anabaptists have much more in common with contemporary evangelicals than Luther and Swingli do.
One of the leading descendants of the Anabaptist movement is the Mennonite Church. The primary emphasis of the Mennonite church is that our allegiance should be to God's kingdom, not earthly governments or political parties.
11 comments:
this is not in response to mennonites (in their current form), but to the radical reformation. they were, imo, unduly influenced by the renaissance. their extreme emphasis on individual conversion (hence re-baptism) still haunts the evangelical church...but i think you are right to point out the similarities.
hey aaron. they may have been influenced by the renaissance, but I can't say i disagree with their ideas on re-baptism. It seems to me they were simply saying Christianity isn't something you are born into, but something you are re-born into.
Other practices of anabaptists groups reveal, it seems, that they weren't overly individualistic (some of them shared all things in common, for example). They were, perhaps, isolated as a group (not individually), but that was more a result of persecution from the catholics, protestants, and governments.
Whatever the case in history, I agree with you that current evangelicalism is overly individualistic.
Later :)
hey matt,
i don't mean individualism as in some forms of ascetism--going off by yourself. i mean individualism as a philosophy.
i don't particularly have anything against re-baptism as a practice, either, just the thinking that undergirded it. (people may wish to be re-baptized if their parents (and church and minister, possibly) didn't take seriously what baptism meant when they received it as a child. no problem here.)
the mennonite mistrust of authority (some warranted, as shown by the actual Reformation itself) and individualistic thinking (reacting against the Catholic thinking that salvation is only offered by the church, slightly modified since then) are my issues. so, it's not individualism as in mennonites only do things as individuals, but individualism as the basis for community--which i think is emphasized in the renaissance and some social contract theories.
I think many people in our generation overly mistrust authority. And this may have been a flaw in the anabaptist mindset, but I can't say for sure because I don't know how unworthy authority was in their day. I have all indications that they were very right to mistrust them.
The Catholic church had seemingly kept many truths from people for centuries. Swingli taught them principles and then turned his back on them as heretics. The state was also trying to kill them.
Basically, the only authority that wasn't trying to kill them was God. So it's hard for me to pin them as being overly mistrusting.
BUT, eventually states, protestants and catholics stopped trying to kill them. Many later Anabaptists may have held onto this VALID mistrust with an INVALID mistrust. And in such cases, I agree.
As for baptism. I completely support believers baptism.
just wanted to point out that there are mennonite communities that are seeking to not be so autonomous, and to be more "open" to other church's activities and influence without undue condemnation. also, the mennonites do a really good job of living peacably with one another in community, which is more than most of our denominations can say. and, i'm not sure that our goal should be to "heal" our mistrust of authority as a church community. A little bit of mistrust is healthy---it helps one to be critical and to hold those above you accountable.
I like the mennonites--yes, they're a little to the extreme---but think that we shouldn't only focus on their "weak" points, because our own denomination's weaknesses are just as grave, if not worse.
I'm glad they made your list matthew.
you act as though the Catholic Church was corrupt through and through. Luther himself wasn't spurred to action until he visited Rome. this is not a defense of the Catholic Church in the 15th and 16th centuries, but trying to give some context.
i may be wrong here, but it seems as though you have treat authority and secular politics almost as synonyms. authority is older (although barely, Scripturally) than political authority, and must be considered. the Radical Reformation placed too much emphasis on the individual, spurred by this mistrust of authority in general, and continued (giving basis for!) the fragmentation of the Christian church. (evidence are the Dispensationalists you don't agree with! :)). you can't live criticism. you have to construct at some point. the RR's critical start has shown itself in some isolationism, sectarianism, and emphasis on individual conversion. they have simply shifted authority from community to the individual--with poor results, i think. we are living in part of it.
that they didn't arise out of a vacuum, you have well pointed out. that some errors of living criticism and mistrust have shown through is true as well. neither does this not appreciate the good they have done.
this is not an attack against the RR. well, it is an attack against part of it, but i wouldn't want to be known as anti-Mennonite...which i'm not.
Obviously the RCC wasn't completely corrupt. Otherwise there wouldn't have been reformation minded people within it. And personally, I think a case can be made that Erasmus won his debate with Luther.
But it also can't be denied that many/most of the reformers came to see the RCC as babylon. Not high praise.
Whatever the case, when I read the history, I find myself on the side of the radicals over the reformers. If they were flawed, their flaw is probably mine as well.
To be honest, I guess the reason I'm not so much against their 'fragmentation' is because I think the entire church should have been part of their fragment. If they had joined them, perhaps their wouldn't be so many pieces.
If there's one thing I disagreed with them about, it may have been patience. I'm not a real radical guy. Radical means 'to the root'. The RR ripped itself from the RCC and the Reformation. And to that end I'll agree, you can tear flesh w/o wounding both pieces.
I agree that 'you can't live criticism. you have to construct at some point' but I'm not so sure they didn't construct something valuable.
But I'll keep thinking about it. It's odd b/c I agree with everything you're saying in principle. I'm just not sure I place the root of the problem on the anabaptists.
now we are getting somewhere! i don't think the root of the problem is the anabaptists...they are just evidence that there is a problem (and, of course, what a gracious God can salvage). this is not limited to anabaptists, or Radical Reformation. in another setting, i'd be criticizing other movements. they are not root of the problem and have much to teach. the root of the problem is sin.
AP, this is sorta off topic. Would you consider yourself a Wesleyan with an Anglican twist? I consider myself a Wesleyan with an Anabaptist twist.
i don't know what i am. all the things that i agree with the wesleyan church are things that can be found elsewhere! i am comfortable here and keep my mouth quiet on things that they may not like. i appreciate the anglicans very much, though.
if you wanna criticize the anglicans, i would be most upset with (some anglicans') erastian political theology. most of the people who have influenced me theologically in the political realm (and given me the criticisms i have of erastianism) have been anglicans! :)
never heard of a guy by the name swingli, (too much dancing on your mind, maybe) if you already want to make such profound statement should you not be able to write the guys name correctly Zwingli?
Post a Comment