Anabapt-ish Theology Book Club discussion

As you read, what is sticking out to you? What questions are arising? What are you finding compelling or shocking?

Here are some thoughts on the first chapter:

Full disclosure: I attend an Anabaptist (Brethren in Christ) church and am theologically Anabaptist (though I am nourished by other traditions as well). One of my pet peeves is a sort of arrogance or condescending attitude some Anabaptists have towards other Christians when discussing the history of Christianity. It often comes up when talking about Constantine’s conversion and what followed after.

Anyway, I see hints of such an attitude in this first chapter. The author comments that Anabaptists took a unique view of the Great Commission. Which I won’t disagree with. But (as the author does note) I am sure Catholics at the time saw Christendom as meaning most everyone was already saved anyway. I wish more care had been taken to honor the good of medieval Catholicism (Julian of Norwich, Benedict of Nursia, Aquinas, etc.) as well as (in the spirit of taking the plank out of your own eye) the shortcomings of our own traditions.

The author goes on:

“Additionally, they believed that untrained itinerant lay-preachers roaming around would cause numerous complications, since these individuals would lack the ability to handle God’s Word properly, so they could circumvent the goal of the Reformation by teaching erroneous doctrine.”

I commented “were they wrong?” I mean, Protestantism splintered Christianity into dozens of denominations.

Plenty of theologians and historians make the argument that the move to a post-Christian culture was set in motion by the Reformation (Brad Gregory’s The Unintended Reformation, Charles Taylor’s A Secular Age, just to name two). During Christendom the Catholic Church provided two “tracks” to sanctification:

*Fast-track - monks, nuns - those who strive to live fully like Jesus
*Slow-track - everyone else - those who are allowed to sin a little (over-simplification, sorry).

The Reformers sought to elevate EVERYONE to the fast-track! But by trying to elevate the whole of culture to this, it flipped and actually lowered the morality and Christian connection of culture. Taylor says its one facet of the move towards post-Christian.

So I am super-sympathetic to this chapter’s argument and the ideal to call everyone to live like Jesus. I also wrestle with how we can do this without disrespecting 1,000 years of Christian church history?

Okay, the author of chapter three tackles some of what I was saying was lacking in chapter 1:

”Consequently, it is important that we don’t look down on those at a different level, whether now or in the past. Like climbing a ladder, the lower rungs are necessary and “[e]ach offers something essential to the larger human quest,”50 but you do not want to stop there either (this, of course, also includes what we would currently consider the highest rung). If we were to view them as inferior, somehow lesser human beings or lesser Christians, we are committing that exact same sin of judgment which we are critiquing. Anabaptists have something important to offer here: the peacemaking tradition. Unfortunately, there is also some truth to the stereotypes I’ve heard from other Christians that Anabaptists are arrogant, not simply disagreeing but rather declaring others to be inferior and declining to engage. When we declare our way to be the only right way, we act with violence whether or not we physically harm others. We must learn to put our peace tradition into practice in our daily speech and actions within the rest of the Body of Christ as well as toward those outside of it, seeking a much more holistic understanding of peace than simply avoiding conflict.”

How many mistakes can an author make? Do they matter if they’re not really relevant to this point?

In “Becoming the Oppressed Church...Again” the author makes historical errors and questionable claims. Generally, they are not central to his argument. Yet, they make me less likely to take seriously his points as many of these are easily fixable.

At the risk of splitting hairs:

*He lists the early church having concerns with Valentinus, Marcion and Montanus and labels them all “Gnostics”. When I learned early church history, I never heard Montanism grouped with Gnostics, it was a separate movement (http://www.earlychristianhistory.info...).

*He says Julian the Apostate was “grandson” of Constantine but he was actually the son of Constantine’s half-brother and thus cousin of Constantine’s kids.

*His paragraph on Nestorius is muddled. Yes, Chalcedon upheld that Jesus had two natures, and yes some followers of Cyril of Alexandria saw this as giving too much to the Nestorians (and they founded the Monophysite church). Yet, Chalcedon still upheld that Mary was the theotokos (mother of God) and that Jesus’ divine and human nature were united in one person (as a side note, if you believe Jesus is God it makes sense to call Mary the mother of God unless you think Jesus became God at some later point). I’d be interested in where he gets the idea that Nestorians had to leave their homes and wander east? From my reading, Nestorians were already prevalent in the east because Christianity had already expanded beyond the borders of Rome. Part of the appeal of the Persian government was that the Nestorian Christians were no longer beholden to the bishops within the Roman Empire.

*Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople in 1204, not 1207.

*He writes: “In the 16th century there wasn’t much room for disagreement about religion, as the bloody Thirty Years’ War between Lutherans and Catholics gave competition to Alice’s Queen of Hearts. Eventually the Anabaptists, in light of their persecutions and radical interpretive stance, became overwhelmingly pacifists and service-oriented. They were outlawed and killed by Catholics, Lutherans, and the new Reformed movement that began in Geneva.”

The 30 Years War was 1618-1684, so in the 17th century. The Reformed movement that began in Geneva is, I assume, referring to Calvin’s time in Geneva in the 1540s and 1550s. Again, splitting hairs but the timelines don’t match.

*He makes this statement about Ben Franklin and the Quakers: After a hundred years of peaceful Quaker rule, Benjamin Franklin and those of his ilk forced the Quakers out of political office due to the latter’s lack of desire to war against the natives.

First, the colony of Pennsylvania was chartered in 1681 and whatever happened with Franklin and the Quakers was int he 1750s. So not “hundreds” of years. Second, as with the Nestorians, there is more to this story. I don’t know the full story, but at this point I am not willing to trust the author of this chapter that he does either. Franklin’s actions here coincide with the Seven Years War when Britain and France were battling and thus I suspect its a bit more complex than the Quakers simply not wanting to war against the natives.

Maybe I’m splitting hairs. But I REALLY like history and have read lots and lots of it. When i come across simple historic errors or unwarranted generalizations, they make me leery of what the author is trying to say.

I'm a little behind my usual reading pace this month (too much work to do!), and so I'm just now on chapter two.

I admit that, for me, chapter one was a bit of a snooze fest. Yes, yes, yes, evangelism should be personal. Yes. Use of a catechism can be helpful for a potential convert to help them know what they're getting into. True. The church's primary goal was not evangelism in the middle ages and reformation. I'm not even convinced that evangelism should be our primary goal. I'm kind of convinced by Bonhoeffer's argument that living like Jesus commands will set us apart so radically that we will be a set apart people that will draw people to Jesus. At any rate, it just wasn't a chapter that truly appealed to me.

Chapter two is much more interesting to me. The author immediately started with a hook that was a draw into my personal life. We don't have cable at our house (we just have streaming service), but the grandparents have cable, and the bane of my life when they were younger was when they were watching ads and suddenly wanted everything. Or when the Target Christmas magazine comes in the mail and they would circle everything in the catalogue.

Then, of course, I started thinking about how many books I have bought just because I have seen them a lot on Instagram or heard them mentioned on a podcast. I remembered the materialism can often flow strongly through my life.

I found this quote really resonated with me: "Without abandoning our own motives or desires, it is impossible for the presence of God to flow through us, unbound, into the world around us."

That is so powerful. And so often I center on myself and forget to die to myself and take up my cross as I follow.

I'm off to read more!

In general, I really enjoy books that are formatted like this, where they consolidate essays from a variety of perspectives. Though it's much more likely that there are going to be a handful of chapters that don't resonate as much, you're exposed to a much wider spectrum of voices around a common theme. I also appreciate hearing the thoughts of others about what we're reading. Amazed and encouraged by how different our takeaways can be!

I've read the first five essays, and unlike David and Rebecca (I say this respectfully), A.O. Green's essay on the evangelization methods of the 16th century Anabaptists was by far the most convicting and enlightening essay for me thus far. Perhaps because I've not spent much time around Anabaptists, I didn't sense any tones of superiority or cynicism (unlike the essay by Steve Kimes!) in Green's writing. Though personal evangelism may be a familiar topic to some of us, I couldn't help but ask "how many churches practice anything remotely similar to this in the Western world today?"

Though I'm incredibly thankful that some brothers in Christ sat down with me, studied the scriptures, and challenged many aspects of my life and ways of thinking (there was no shortage of areas to critique and repent in!) for months prior to baptizing me, that couldn't have been more of a contrast from the experience I had in all of the churches I visited when I first started seeking God. By no means am I saying that my pre-conversion experience matched that of the Anabaptists precisely or that some form of this doesn't exist in many other churches, but far too often this process of radical "resocialization" that Green discusses never occurs in churches, let alone beginning prior to our decision to make Jesus Lord. Because of this, I think we often bring incredibly worldly perspectives into the church that go unchallenged and force the gospel to fit into our pre-existing worldview, rather than the other way around.

I've had many personal views, perspectives and opinions radically shift post-baptism. In some cases, I've even had idols exposed in my heart that I didn't even fully realize were there for years. However, I don't know that any of this post-conversion repentance would've occurred in my life had the expectation not been made clear that following Jesus requires a radical and continual resocialization. My hope is that a more intentional effort to follow the 16th century Anabaptist model of personal evangelism, the practice of catechism and a more sincere call to discipleship prior to baptism that Green outlined will open the door for more communities where a radical resocialization amongst followers of Christ occurs.

Mark,

I loved what you said here, "Because of this, I think we often bring incredibly worldly perspectives into the church that go unchallenged and force the gospel to fit into our pre-existing worldview, rather than the other way around."

I couldn't agree with you more. I think that's something that Robinson's really addressing too in his essay. He's really discussing in many places how we read the Bible through the lens of our theology and never stop to question the worldview of our theology. Reminds me of something N.T. Wright says a lot in interviews (and I think also wrote about in Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision). Wright says that the point of the Reformation is not that we interpret the Bible like Luther but that we continue to attempt to faithfully interpret the Bible. (Sorry if I'm overexplaining. I'm just a Wright fangirl.)

I also was wondering if anyone has Christianity's Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution: A History from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First. Robinson's pulled some interesting ideas from it into his essay, but I convince I've never made it all the way through a McGrath book

I've read the first five essays, and unlike David and Rebecca (I say this respectfully), A.O. Green's essay on the evangelization methods of the 16th century Anabaptists was by far the most convicting and enlightening essay for me thus far.

Fair enough :)

I guess to clarify, I think my issue with that essay is it never really defines what evangelism is.

In the 1500s, everyone the Anabaptists were evangelizing were already Christians. It seems there are two choices:

1. The Anabaptists thought only they were true Christians thus Lutherans and Catholics were outside the faith.
2. The Anabaptists saw these other Christians as needing a better understanding of faith.

If #1 is the case, is this what Anabaptists still think? I know none/few in my circles do. We do not see other Christian denominations/traditions as wholly on the outside of Christian faith.

For me, #2 is the path to go on. The question then is, what is the difference between “evangelism” and “discipleship”? I personally don’t see a thick line between the two. I try not to group the world into “outsiders” (people to evangelize) and “insiders” (people to disciple). Admittedly, this does seem to be the game that evangelicalism has tried to play in America but in my eyes, its just blinded white evangelicals to their own syncretism and compromise. So they can look at Muslims, Buddhists, liberals, atheists and see people who they need to evangelize. But they haven’t noticed the planks of racism, nationalism, consumerism and capitalism in their own eyes.

I’d say everybody is in the same group - we all need Jesus. Or, as Green said and you pointed out, we all need a process of radical resocialization. This is true of us whether we are Anabaptist (or Anabaptist-adjacent) or Lutheran, Orthodox, Muslim, Buddhist or whatever. I’ve put it to myself this way: I ask nothing of others that I do not ask of myself, which is, what would your life look like if you took Jesus more seriously?

Maybe such a question is evangelism. Maybe its discipleship.

All that to say, I really appreciated your comment and I did like the essay for the most part, I just think there were some clarifications and definitions needed.

I'm reading the Saint Francis essay, and I just have to say that I love every word of it.

I loved Tully's essay for different reasons--mostly because I'm a canon formation nerd :-)

Hopefully, I'll write some more formed thoughts later, but just stopping in to say that I'm still plugging away.

I’ve finished three essays and have started the fourth. I’m sure much of what I think about what I’ve read is coloured by confirmation bias. This is undoubtedly why I enjoyed the third the most. I’m sure the same can be said for each of us. I grew up attending a Mennonite church where what was preached was, that what we did was more important than what we said. For the past 28 years I’ve been a member of a Mennonite Brethren church where there is a stronger focus on evangelism as expressed in the first essay. I’ve seen, and been guilty of, hypocrisy in both environments. My leaning is still toward the first (service and love of neighbour). It is our way of living that is either a pleasing aroma or a rancid stench to our neighbours.
There is a joke about a man who dies and goes to heaven. When St Peter is giving him the tour they come upon a wall and when he asked what is on the other side, Peter says, “shh. It’s the Mennonites. They think they are the only ones here.” While we are certainly guilty of the sense of exclusivity/superiority that is expressed in the joke and some of the earlier comments, it seems to be common among people. Within the third essay it’s interesting to note the number of persons quoted who are viewed as (at least borderline) heretical by mainstream evangelicals now - Claiborne, McLaren, Boyd, Bessey, Held-Evans.
As I said, I’ve just started the fourth essay. It’s amazing how quickly we claim persecution. Ultimately that comes down to our desire for power and our reluctance to give up power once we have it. When we’ve been used to being in power, any challenge to it is seen as persecution.
I liked the explanation provided regarding those who try to be martyred. We shouldn’t seek to be but we should expect to be.

Within the third essay it’s interesting to note the number of persons quoted who are viewed as (at least borderline) heretical by mainstream evangelicals now - Claiborne, McLaren, Boyd, Bessey, Held-Evans.

I also noticed that and I wonder how much of it is an inherent tension within Anabaptist churches. I live in Berks County, PA right in the middle of lots of Anabaptists (I’m reading Wilcock’s essay Leaving Christendom to Follow Christ and the geography he speaks of is quite familiar). It seems some Mennonites are pulled more into the evangelical subculture. These folks do not speak of nonviolence too much and talk just like any conservative evangelical. Other Mennonites focus more on the nonviolence which places them outside the Nationalist mainstream of evangelism.

I think its a divide that resonates throughout evangelicalism. Back when I first came cross people like McLaren they seemed to be discovering Anabaptist ideas for the first time. In other words, some Anabaptists have become more evangelical while some former evangelicals, have become more Anabaptist.

Anyway...

I liked the Reforming a Post-Christendom Reading of the Bible chapter on the ordering of the Old Testament. There is certainly something intriguing about the different orders - with Christians ending at Malachi, you end with a promise for Elijah to return which leads right to Matthew 1.

I think my favorite essay so far is Seeking the Peace of the Farm Town There was so much there about bivocational ministry and practices in the local community that deeply resonates.

I behind my usual reading pace in May (on this book and others). But I did finish the Gorton and Tully essays today.

Gorton gave some patronizing vibes that some others had complained about with some other chapters... and it was lacking in practical application. Basically “stop being so nationalistic, you people who have been raised, taught, and indoctrinated with nationalism!” That being said, I so strongly resonate with the problems that he raised (and the first part of the chapter was creative... I’ll probably use that method in my teaching). I also hadn’t read the U.S. Oath of Allegiance before. I’ve been uncomfortable simply saying the pledge of allegiance for a long time... but this morning when I read that I had implicitly taken the Oath of Allegiance when I registered to vote I actually felt sick. But Gorton just gave us that problem and then ended the chapter! Even if he didn’t have much in the way of practical application he at least could have offered some hope for his weary readers.

Tully’s chapter is *right up my alley. I love historical criticism and I think that the Deuteronomistic History makes better theological sense of Old Testament narrative than any other alternative reading that relies on literalism. Tully did a great job of summarizing quite a lot of literature in a readable chapter.

I just finished reading Nickels essay on the table and spiritual formation. It was really enjoyable. I liked hearing his thoughts about sharing the Lord's supper more often and about how the transition from rectangular tables to circular tables affect the atmosphere of a congregation.

I really loved the idea that the table is one place where we give other people focused attention, and I find that this is often true.

I also loved his comparison between spiritual formation and potlucks. I like the idea that some things are predictable (like great desserts), but specifics are kind of unknown going into things.

Drew Hart’s essay was 🔥.

I think it hit on one of my primary critiques/questions of Anabaptism - must Anabaptists be separate from society? I was going through the class to join my church (Brethren in Christ) and the pastor was talking about Anabaptism in relation to politics and how its not the goal to change society. I asked, “so what do you do with Dr. King? Does that mean we shouldn’t have gotten involved in the Civil Rights movement?”

I don’t feel I ever got a good answer.

Anabaptism runs the risk, I think, of becoming a purely private religion in such a way that leaves politics as a realm where God is not sovereign. Anabaptists may say Christians shouldn’t get involved in politics - some do not vote, others vote but would never be politicians. But why is this sphere of politics unique? A Christian business person or teacher or engineer is going to have to navigate how their faith relates to vocation. Due to faith, these persons may have to act differently. But we (unless we are Amish) do not seek to build a totally separate society.

Back prior to the election an author who probably qualifies as “neo-Anabaptist” proudly noted on Twitter that he hasn’t voted for 20 years. I commented that there is a level of privilege inherent in choosing not to vote because it makes no difference to you. What does that say to our black brothers and sisters who were second class citizens and not allowed to vote until the 1960s?

I don’t feel I got a good answer.

I think Hart’s essay hit on a lot of these points. His talk on privilege points to one reason I hesitate to say I’m a “nonviolent pacifist” - its easy to be nonviolent when you have a comfortable life. I feel moved to take the risk of putting my ethics to the test by getting involved publicly.

If I vote, I vote based on my Jesus-centered nonviolent principles. Yes, I believe we Christians must bring our faith to the public square.

If I advocate, write my representatives, join a march or get involved in ways beyond politics, I do so on the same principles.

Were I to, God help us all, run for office, my faith would be the primary informant in the decisions I would make.

From mass incarceration to the continuation of the death penalty to the spending of billions on weapons of death to so many other things, our country (here in the USA, can’t speak for others) is definitively anti-Christian. Do I think Christian can change these things and create some utopia? Of course not. Do I think this means we should stay apart and not try to improve the world on all levels, including governance? That also seems wrong.

Forgive me for the speech.

I’ve fallen somewhat behind but wanted to share a few thoughts of the last couple chapters I’ve read. I found the essay on Post Christian Reading to be informative, but of little practical use in connection with anabaptism. Perhaps that was because I was looking for applicability. I saw much more of that - living out your beliefs - in the St Francis essay. I value the focus on the “we” and was immediately reminded of how we tend to focus on the spec in our neighbour’s eye while ignoring the logs/planks in our own. The theme carried on in the next essay. Moving from ethnic to confirmed is something I can relate to. I know many people who haven’t made that move. This has been touched on by others in this group, but there is a pride in humility, and to an even greater extent, martyrdom. After all, as strongly as I believe in the third way, it blatantly says that I am right and you are both wrong. That’s why nobody likes me and I can take pride in that. It’s so difficult to let love overcome that so that the perception doesn’t become reality.

I got way behind in May also, but did finish reading finally. My favorite essay was the one on St. Francis mentioned above. I also liked the emphasis on "we". But by far, my favorite thing in this essay was when he talked about how much St. Francis revered the incarnate Christ so that he saw Christ in everyone. When a "'deeply compromised" priest administered the sacrament to him, he took it unhesitatingly because " the goodness of Jesus could not be overwhelmed by the sully of sin". I would like to aspire to see things this way.

And to extend that more broadly to the church at large...I have been really grieving over the church the last year or so and just despairing almost of seeing anything good, especially in the evangelical strains here in the South. It was good to be reminded that Christ IS more powerful than the sin and idolatry in the American church today and also a good reminder of how I, myself, have contributed to that.