Anabapt-ish Theology Book Club discussion

After reading the book, did your views on the topic change at all? What is your final impression of the book? What are your key takeaways?

I found I was highlighting quite a bit in the second half of the book. Rather than an overall comment, I will quote the passages that jumped out to me and add comments individually.

From part 2 of the book:
“The point … is that [the mustard seed] tends to take over where it is not wanted, that it tends to get out of control, and that it tends to attract birds within cultivated areas where they are not particularly desired. And that, said Jesus, was what the Kingdom was like: … Something you would want in only small and carefully controlled doses—if you could control it.” This, I think was the original vision of Anabaptism and why, when it has remained in the vision, anabaptism has remained in conflict with both Christendom and Babylon.
“Furthermore, just as Jesus felt free to disregard both Scripture and tradition, so Paul is able to disregard a specific command of Jesus (1 Cor 9:14-15; cf. Matt 10:10; Luke 10:7).” And much of modern evangelicalism continues to follow the example of Paul and disregard specific commands of Jesus. In fact, I think we all do this to different degrees.
“Remarkably, however, in this state of restoration Job’s three daughters are named, whereas the sons are not and they share an inheritance with their brothers. It is as though, at the conclusion of Job, not only conventional wisdom concerning the way God rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked is overturned but patriarchal assumptions themselves are profoundly questioned.” This one caught me off guard. Why have I not heard this before in all the discussions of roles and positions of women within the church and society?
“The example of Proverbs thus serves to highlight that wisdom is not only to be found in Israel—it is a universal phenomenon and Israel can thus learn from, and incorporate in its sacred Scriptures, received wisdom from other cultures.” We’ve always been told to beware of syncretism (blending of religions). Obviously discernment is still needed, but maybe we need to use the brains we’ve been given, and imbed our lives with the Holy Spirit and neither automatically accept, nor automatically reject what appears to be truth from other cultures.

From Part 3
“many people [claim] to be spiritual but not religious. These claimants, of course, would never regard the Bible as a resource for contemporary spirituality and this has to be recovered in the current context.” While a statement like this may have a degree of bias (we Christians, post-Christendom do seem to have developed somewhat of a martyrs complex) there does seem to be a trend to look at everything except the Christian scripture as a source of spiritual enlightenment. This leads nicely into the next quote; “Spirituality thus involves a rhythm of passionate engagement and purposeful withdrawal, as suggested above. This purposeful, prayerful withdrawal is to equip us for the task of mission—to engage society with the radical claims of the gospel”, and the next; “However, engagement in mission is a far cry from what I have observed happens in much street evangelism. Evangelism has traditionally been geared to getting non-Christians to accept “Jesus as their personal Saviour.” Although personal commitment to Jesus is, of course, at the heart of being Christian, that commitment necessarily leads to love of neighbour and a passion for social justice. The dichotomy between evangelism and social action was always misconceived. True commitment to Jesus will be countercultural and thus subversive.” This whole section is incredible. “In Post-Christendom, mission occurs in a multi-faith context in which Christians continue to make universalizing truth claims for Christ. But now these claims should be accompanied by a Christ-like respect and affirmation of the other.”
“The reality of post-Christendom is that the church is already moving to the margins of society. This should be embraced rather than resisted”. There is a sense here of a return to something that doesn’t fit in anywhere and comes back to the first quote I mentioned above.
“Reading together enables differing perspectives gained from different experiences and contexts to emerge. In this context, gifts of biblical scholarship can be valued but remain in the service of the group as a whole.
Our brothers and sisters in very different situations from ours are themselves coming up with very different readings. We need those insightful gifts to challenge further our own inevitably contextualized readings.” This seems to be summed up in community Bible study and debate, along with seeking scholarship from multiple ethnicities and back grounds.
I enjoyed this book quite a bit and I’m not sure I would have encountered it outside this community.

I finally finished the book. I found myself unmotivated as I read through Part 2. It seemed to me that he could have done a better job of weaving his Anabaptist distinctives into his readings of the various biblical genres. I only noted a few times that he modeled an Anabaptist reading.

I enjoyed Part 3 much more as he discussed reading for the purposes of spirituality and mission. I really appreciated the Wink quote on p. 203. He uses the words exploring, unmasking, and discovering to describe the posture of a biblical reader. Such a humble and reflective posture is necessary for transformation.