Anabaptists and Evangelicals: The Differences

By Nolan Martin

What are the distinctive beliefs of Anabaptists? The first difference, and perhaps the only difference many Anabaptists would mention, is their belief in nonresistance, which Evangelicals do not hold. 

Although this visible divergence is a significant difference, it springs from deeper doctrinal differences. The most basic of these differences lies in the interpretation of Scripture. Although both groups believe in the authority of Scripture and would even use similar methods to interpret Scripture, Anabaptists approach the Bible with some different presuppositions that lead to vastly different outcomes.

First, an Anabaptist interpretation of Scripture is centered on the teachings of Christ and his call to discipleship. The rest of Scripture is then viewed through this lens and interpreted so as not to contradict the teachings of Christ, the head of the church. This produces different conclusions than when interpretation is centered on the writings of Paul as often seen in Evangelical teaching. A Christ-centered interpretation maintains that Christ's teachings can be followed with God's enabling grace and must be followed if an entrance into the kingdom of God is to be gained. A Paul-centered interpretation tends to overemphasize man's sinful nature and makes man utterly helpless in the pursuit of good. Consequently, many of Christ's teachings are considered unattainable in the present. In fact, some who interpret the Bible this way postpone the validity of Jesus' teachings to some future time. God's mercy and forgiveness is emphasized in this system rather than careful obedience.

Second, Anabaptists believe the New Testament takes precedence over the Old Testament. They believe the Old Testament points forward to Christ, whereas the New Testament is the final and ultimate revelation of Christ. On the other hand, many Evangelicals have a "flat Bible," putting the Old and New Testaments on the same level. Except for Jewish ceremonial and dietary laws, Evangelical morality closely resembles Jewish morality. Oaths, accumulation of wealth, participation in war, and divorce and remarriage are acceptable for Evangelicals because they were acceptable in the Old Testament. For the Anabaptists, the New Testament teaching on these issues trumps the Old Testament teaching.

Third, Anabaptists believe the Bible is best interpreted when the believer is committed to obeying it. Early Anabaptists were concerned about how the learned of their day “twisted” the Scriptures to get around the force of a command. Anabaptists today reject the common distinctions made between New Testament commands on the one hand that are binding both in form and spirit upon Christians for all time and those on the other hand that are to be observed only in spirit. Many hold that to the former class belong such items as baptism and communion, whereas to the latter class belong such commands as to greet one another with a holy kiss, to wash one another's feet, and to anoint the sick with oil. Anabaptists hold that these New Testament commands as well as communion and baptism are to be observed by all Christians everywhere until the end of the age. Mennonite theologian J. C. Wenger said, "There is no exegetical consideration against the observance of feet washing, for example, which would not also bear against the observance of baptism."

Read more at:

http://www.anabaptistchurch.org/DifferencesEvangeliicalsAnabaptists.htm

Who Are We?

Often when I write about how Christians should do what Jesus said and love our enemies, or turn the other cheek, someone will challenge me on that and ask, “Then what should we do about ISIS?” or “What should we have done about Hitler?”

The question itself betrays their confusion.

See, when I say “We should love our enemies” and “We should bless those who curse us and do good to those who hate us” I am talking about the Church. That’s the only “We” I know of.

But when other Christians respond by asking “What do we do about ISIS?” they reveal that, to them, “We” equals the State, not the Church.

So, to them, they can’t understand how following the commands of Jesus might work when it comes to addressing national threats.

The reason why it won’t work is that Jesus never meant for his commands to be obeyed by national governments. He was speaking to His followers – the Church.

This came into clear focus for me recently when I was reading the book, “The Reformers and Their Stepchildren” by Verduin. In this book, the author explains how the Anabaptists and the Reformers clashed over exactly the same issue – “Who are ‘WE’?”

The Reformers said that “We” equaled everyone in a given nation. They believed in a sacral society where everyone was expected to follow the same religion under the control of their civil government.

The Anabaptists – in contrast – believed that “We” only pertained to the Church – the Body of Christ and that the State authority ended at the doorstep of the Ekklesia.

Today’s Christians are still very much in the Reformed mindset. Especially those who appear to be pushing – and pushing hard – for a theocratic form of government where the laws of our land are crafted to coerce everyone (Christian or otherwise) to act like a Christian.

They also tend to see America as a Christian Nation and attempt to “bring America back to God” – as if it were ever a nation that exalted God, obeyed Jesus or acted like Christ.

This difference in perspective is significant. It’s ancient.

It’s also deadly. Because the Christians who align themselves with the State have the power of the Sword and – historically – have used that power to imprison, torture, and even put to death any who disagree.

As you might guess, I take a more Anabaptist approach. I see a clear, Biblical distinction between the State and the Church.  [See Romans 13, for example]

The early church also stood firm against the idea that one could be a Christian and participate in the affairs of the Empire, or politics.

"I do not wish to be a king; I am not anxious to be rich; I decline military command... Die to the world, repudiating the madness that is in it."

(Tatian’s Address to the Greeks)

"A military commander or civic magistrate must resign or be rejected. If a believer seeks to become a soldier, he must be rejected, for he has despised God."

(Hippolytus of Rome)

Who are we, then?

This question of identity is an important distinction.

Do we primarily think of ourselves as patriots and citizens of the nation in which we were born? Or do we see ourselves as strangers and aliens in this place and citizens of a Kingdom that is above?

If we see ourselves mainly as nationalistic people, then we will act accordingly. Politics will sway us. Wars will inspire us. Economics will influence us.

But if we see ourselves mainly as people of the Kingdom – people who are not of this world – then we will live accordingly. We will be moved by what moves the heart of Jesus. We will be concerned with the things that Jesus was primarily concerned with – love, compassion, service, mercy, justice, and forgiveness. We will be compelled to follow Him and to put His words into practice, no matter what the cost.

So, who are “we” then?

-kg

NOTE: This article is Part 2 in a series of "Jesus Untangled" articles.

READ THE ENTIRE "JESUS UNTANGLED" SERIES:

Part 1: "Jesus Untangled"
Part 2: "Who Are We?"
Part 3: "Why Do People Think I'm A Liberal?"
Part 4: "Still Embracing Constantine?"

Part 5: How American Evangelicalism Has Been Exploited, by Ross Rohde

Part 6: The Entanglement Agenda

Part 7: "What Would Jesus Say About The American Revolution?" by Chuck McKnight

Part 8: "Ambassadors of Contrast"

Part 9: “AWOL Christian Soldiers”
Part 10: "The Elephant In The Church"

Part 11: "Christian American Horror Story"

Part 12: "Our True Source of Liberty" by Ross Rohde

Part 13: "Welcome To Post Christian America"

Part 14: "What Would Wilberforce Do?"
Part 15: "Crucify Your Politics"

[Subversive Radio Podcast] The Anabaptists: Pt3. "Jesus Freaks"

Should the Church be composed only of those who actually follow Christ? Or should it include any who desire to attend meetings?
Also: Why is it that some Christian movements are defined by the men who launched them? Why is it we don't know the names of those who first suggested that the Reformation didn't go far enough?

[Subversive Radio Podcast] The Anabaptists: Part 2: "Sacral Society"

What is a "Sacral Society" and what lessons can we learn today from the Anabaptists?

The Anabaptists: Is Nothing Sacral?

Sometimes you read something that makes you stand up and cheer. That happened for me while I was reading “The Reformers and Their Stepchildren” by Verduin recently.

The book is an overview of the Anabaptists and the Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.) who violently opposed them.

In an attempt to explain why these Christians and their ideas were so aggressively resisted, the author points out something I am sure most people overlook; something that made me stand up and say, “Yes”!

Starting with Jesus, the author emphasizes the differences between “Sacral” societies and the revolutionary teachings of Christ. Namely, the idea that Jesus advocated for a radical ideology whereby men and women who differ – theologically, politically, etc. – can still live together in total harmony.

As he notes in the book, “This is one of the New Testament’s boldest innovations, the sweep of which will not escape the thoughtful.”

Now, what I find so exciting is that the author has put his finger on something that so many, many Christians today have totally missed out on.

He continues:

“It must not escape the reader that this was a novel insight, so novel as to be revolutionary. The world had never seen the like of it before. For all pre-Christian society is sacral. By the word “sacral”…we mean “bound together by a common religious loyalty.”…we mean society held together by a religion to which all the members of that society are committed.”

He goes on to point out that all other ancient societies were pre-Christian ,and therefore “sacral”.

As he illustrates so eloquently:

“The society of ancient Babylon…was a sacral society; all Babylonians were expected to bow to the one and the same “Object” (See Daniel 3); their society was pre-Christian.

The society of Ephesus was sacral; all Ephesians were expected to join in the chant: “Great is Diana of the Ephesians!”; (See Acts 19:28) Ephesian society of was pre-Christian.

In our own day, the society of the Navajo…is sacral; all members of that society are expected to take part in the ritual; theirs, too, is a pre-Christian society.”

And then, then, he drops the proverbial bomb:

“According to the construction of things, the Old Testament too was pre-Christian – as indeed it was in the chronological sense. Every member of the OT society was considered to be in the same religious category as was every other member of it. This makes the Old Testament society sacral and pre-Christian.”

Why is this insight so powerful? Because if those Reformed Christians had understood this simple truth, then the murder of the Anabaptists by their Christian brothers would never have taken place.

“…there would in all probability never have been a [persecution of Anabaptists] if the Reformers had been aware of the pre-Christian quality of the Old Testament in this matter. It was the Reformer’s refusal to admit that there is this perspective in the relationship that obtains between the two Testaments, it was their refusal to grant that the one had outmoded the other at this point, that caused the exodus of the Stepchildren (Anabaptists).”

Did you see that? Do you understand what he’s saying here? Because one group of Christians did not understand that the Old and New Testaments were fundamentally different – and that one of them (the New) had “outmoded the other” (the Old)…the bloody execution of Christians by their own brothers and sisters was set in motion.

Today we have much the same arrangement among followers of Christ. One group – the vast majority in this nation – hold the idea that both the Old and the New are concurrent and equally in force. Another group – in the small, but growing minority – understand that Jesus trumps Moses and that the NT declares the OT to be “obsolete” and “fading away”.

All that is missing is the power of one group to put to death the other group for daring to disagree on this point.

Based on the amount of hate mail and venomous comments left on my blog and FB page, if it were legal for those in the majority opinion to have those of us in the minority group arrested, tried and sentenced to prison or death, I would say that this blog would have been written from a jail cell on death row.

But, I digress. Getting back to the book, let’s wrap up the differences between the sacral perspective and the Kingdom perspective:

“It was because the Jews of Jesus’ day were pre-Christian, and therefore sacralists in their conception of things, that the problem “whether it is lawful to pay tribute to Caesar” seemed to them an insoluble problem. How could a man, they asked, be loyal to the political community by paying his taxes, without thereby being disloyal to the religious community, the Church? They, sacralists that they were, knew no answer to this question. It vexed them every time they tangled with it. And for that reason they confronted the Master with it, so that He too might be embarrassed by it and be hopelessly pinned in a corner. How great must have been their surprise at the ease with which Jesus, acting on the new insight He had come to convey, sailed through the dilemma with “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”. In His way of thinking there wasn’t even any problem.

“As the thoughtful reader will have perceived, much is implied in this New Testament innovation. In it is implied that the State is a secular institution…It is implied in the NT vision that Christianity is not a culture-creating thing, but rather a culture-influencing one.”

Yes! This is where I could no longer contain myself and I jumped up to shout, “Yes!” in my living room.

The Church is not meant to be yoked to the State. We are not compelled to legislate culture through the courts or the law. Instead, we are commanded to communicate the radical Gospel of Jesus to everyone around us and to influence the human heart to submit to the rule and reign of Christ – regardless of what the Laws of the Land may be.

In that way, Christianity seeks to transform the culture from within rather than to legislate culture from above.

As the author notes:

“….there can never be such a thing as a Christian culture; there can only be cultures in which the influence of Christianity is more or less apparent. The NT vision does not pit a “Christian culture” against a non-Christian culture; rather does it introduce a leaven into any existing culture into which it insinuates itself, a leaven whereby that already existing culture is then affected.”

Amen!

-kg

[Subversive Radio Podcast] The Anabaptists: An Introduction

Who were the Anabaptists? Why did Luther and the Reformers oppose them so violently?