Luther vs Anabaptists!

[Bluegoat]

So this week for my class in church history we are taking a brief look at the "radical Reformation," mostly the Anabaptist movements.

There were two things which surprised me somewhat because they don't seem to be typical of Anabaptists today, from what I can see. So I would be interested in any comments from real, live Anabaptists.

The first is that the leaders of the movement rejected Luther's idea that faith was purely a gift of God, and Calvin's idea of the elect. Rather, they felt that faith was an act of free will which was then sealed by baptism. That is apparently why babies were not baptized - they could not make that act of will. For Luther and Calvin, since faith was a gift from God, and the elect were chosen by God, there was no reason not to baptize babies. But I have noticed many people seem to hold all of these ideas at once. Does this reflect a later development?

Also, the Anabaptists were not allowed to be involved in government at all and also seemed to feel that they had responsibilities to society outside of the Christian (Anabaptist) community. Now I know some groups do still stay quite separate and have greater or lesser restrictions on their involvement with government. But most seem to be involved in "good works" that may include others. Am I wrong in my assessment here?

[TzippityDoulah]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

Also, the Anabaptists were not allowed to be involved in government at all and also seemed to feel that they had responsibilities to society outside of the Christian (Anabaptist) community. Now I know some groups do still stay quite separate and have greater or lesser restrictions on their involvement with government. But most seem to be involved in "good works" that may include others. Am I wrong in my assessment here?

I'm not sure I completely understand your question here... what do you mean by "good works that may include others"?

Maybe then I could answer you better...

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by HennyPenny

I'm not sure I completely understand your question here... what do you mean by "good works that may include others"?

Maybe then I could answer you better...

For example, donating to a food bank that serves people outside the specific religious community.

[cappuccinosmom]

I think with the government thing--the idea is not to be involved in politics, take political office, participate in the military, or accept government aid (welfare, SS, etc).

Donating to a food bank, or working alongside government and other orgs in disaster relief, or even being a volunteer firefighter are none of those things, so IMO that's perfectly consistent with even their early beliefs.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom

I think with the government thing--the idea is not to be involved in politics, take political office, participate in the military, or accept government aid (welfare, SS, etc).

Donating to a food bank, or working alongside government and other orgs in disaster relief, or even being a volunteer firefighter are none of those things, so IMO that's perfectly consistent with even their early beliefs.

It seems like it should be so, but it doesn't seem like it was actually the case with many of the early groups. They seemed to think the world was evil. They were very disorganized at first though, so it is hard to pick out different streams of thought among the groups. But in any case, they didn't think they were to have anything to do with the outside community. So I am wondering why that changed.

[TzippityDoulah]

well you have to realize, they were not just ostracized for their beliefs in the beginning. but also jailed and killed for them. so yeah, I'm sure they weren't all woohoo about joining in government aid! heh

but yeah - do you know much about the term "conscientious objector"? that might give a better idea of how it goes. Anabaptist (in general, as of course I can't speak for every last one) will not be "owned and run" by government, but they will choose to obey and serve that which doesn't go against their beliefs. in other words they government holds no bearing on how they live their lives... but hey make effort ot obey anything that doesn't go against biblical principles.

(did I explain it well? I'm still dealing with this incessant prodromal labour and my mind is a little fuzzy... but I'm trying not to think about it so I'm busing myself with MDC stuff heh)

(I'm Anabaptist btw... but not through heritage - my husband and I came to it as adults)

[cappuccinosmom]

Yeah, at the beginning they were literally being hunted down and slaughtered, so I imagine it would be difficult to do a whole lot of open outside work. It would also be difficult to be very organized in that circumstance. Meetings and baptisms had to take place in secret, and they had to be careful about people who approached them because it could be someone looking for evidence on which to arrest them and get them killed.

Although, there is a very famous Mennonite who literally had the authorities on his heels, crossed a frozen lake, and the man who was chasing him started to cross too. The Mennonite turned around, went back onto the lake, and pulled the man out. I believe he was then arrested and subsequently burned at stake--so clearly they weren't all opposed to helping those "outside", even those who wanted them dead. :

[Bluegoat]

So what about Calvinist Anabaptists? It seems like the two should be opposed, but there seem to be a lot of combination of the two, that support predestination and adult baptism, for example?

[TzippityDoulah]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

So what about Calvinist Anabaptists? It seems like the two should be opposed, but there seem to be a lot of combination of the two, that support predestination and adult baptism, for example?

now that one, I couldn't tell you much about... hmmm... I don't know any, and I'm not one.

[cappuccinosmom]

So what about Calvinist Anabaptists? It seems like the two should be opposed, but there seem to be a lot of combination of the two, that support predestination and adult baptism, for example?

I have never in my life heard of such a thing. Where are you getting your information from? One of the reasons I learned that Anabaptists were persectuted was because they *rejected* the Calvinist viewpoint.

[TzippityDoulah]

Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom

I have never in my life heard of such a thing. Where are you getting your information from? One of the reasons I learned that Anabaptists were persectuted was because they *rejected* the Calvinist viewpoint.

yeah... me too. but hey, I don't know all sorts of things so this could just be news to me.

anyhow, would that make one a... Calvabaptist?

really though, in my head being calvinist and being anabaptist just don't combine. I mean they may have something in common (both christian thoughts for example) but I just can't imagine how they would combine to be one. I respect thoughts from both sides on certain subjects but fundamentally they are so different.

[UptownZoo]

Early Anabaptism was extremely diverse. There wasn't really a unifying force in the movement until Menno Simons. Early Anabaptists were sometimes pacifists and sometimes not, sometimes objected to the swearing of oaths and sometimes not, but refusal to baptize before the baptized made a freewill choice was universal. Some scholars say that the Anabaptist movement was a radical wing of the wider reformation while some say it was a reformation all its own with independent origins. Some early Anabaptist leaders came to the movement directly from the Catholic church and some spent time in the Protestant reformation before joining the radicals.

Refusal to baptize infants was as much (or more) a political act as a spiritual/religious one. At that time, baptism was the rite that made a person a citizen, so the un-baptized did not have the rights of citizens and were subject to a great deal of persecution. (BTW, that is the origin of the notion of separation of church and state.)

I can't imagine how Anabaptist and Calvinist beliefs could blend, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. People seem to manage to hold the tension of a great many seemingly contradictory beliefs. I'm certainly no scholar, but my "brand" of Anabaptism is about as far from Calvinism as you can get.

[DharmaDisciple]

More info please

Can you tell me more about Anabaptists? Do they head cover? What makes a person an Anabaptist? Is this different to Baptists? The Congregational church I go to has Baptist origins, they do believers baptisms not children ones.

[TzippityDoulah]

Originally Posted by DharmaDisciple

Can you tell me more about Anabaptists? Do they head cover? What makes a person an Anabaptist? Is this different to Baptists? The Congregational church I go to has Baptist origins, they do believers baptisms not children ones.

ok that's a very broad question kinda like asking "what's a protestant?" heh.

not all Anabaptists cover. I do. but not all do. not all anabaptist are amish either. I'm certainly not! heh...

there is actually a large difference between baptist and anabaptists in many ways... (though both are christian). hmmm let me see if I can find some old article I had on it to better describe it.

[TzippityDoulah]

I cannot seem to find my old articles!!! so I googled this:


http://www.learnthebible.org/q_a_anabaptist.htm
(very vague discription)

http://www.anabaptistnetwork.com/whatisanabaptism
(seems ot have some good info though I didn't read the whole thing)

http://anabaptist.org/
(a little bit of everything anabaptist!)

[DharmaDisciple]

Thank you so much for the links, I am enjoying reading and learning. There is a UK Anabaptist network!

[DharmaDisciple]

Do you know of any books I could read? From reading it seems Anabaptist beliefs resonate strongly with me.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by DharmaDisciple

Can you tell me more about Anabaptists? Do they head cover? What makes a person an Anabaptist? Is this different to Baptists? The Congregational church I go to has Baptist origins, they do believers baptisms not children ones.

The only thing I would add to what HP said is that sometimes you have to be careful of the names, they can be quite misleading. For example, I've known Baptist that were not Anabaptists, and some that were. The groups had the same name but they were not really related at all.

Perhaps denominations should have some kind of registry of names.

[TzippityDoulah]

a lot of people think the word "anabaptist" means "ANTI-Baptist"

I always get a chuckle out of that one!

[UptownZoo]

Originally Posted by DharmaDisciple

Do you know of any books I could read? From reading it seems Anabaptist beliefs resonate strongly with me.

You might start with this site. It's specific to Mennonites (published by MCUSA) but has loads of historical information and other things. Start with "Who Are the Mennonites?"

Originally Posted by DharmaDisciple

Can you tell me more about Anabaptists? Do they head cover? What makes a person an Anabaptist? Is this different to Baptists? The Congregational church I go to has Baptist origins, they do believers baptisms not children ones.

The fundamental beliefs that differentiate Anabaptists from Protestants are 1) pacifism, 2) no swearing oaths, and 3) believers' baptism. Other ways in which Anabaptists MAY be different but are not universal among Anabaptists are a belief in frugality and simplicity (more obvious among conservative Amish and old-order Mennonite and Brethren, but common among many (most?) others), commitments to peace and justice, and a belief in the centrality of the faith community in the life of one's faith and family.

Some Baptist beliefs have Anabaptist origins (a bottom-up structure, for example), but Baptists are most commonly acknowledged as having their roots in the Protestant Reformation, not early Anabaptism.

Many Anabaptists cover. Most Amish cover, as do old-order Mennonites and Brethren. However, the majority of Mennonites do not cover anymore. There are no members of my faith community who cover, though many of them did as children, and some of their mothers still cover. There are big differences between Mennonite churches in rural/farm communities and urban congregations. It's pretty common in urban congregations for none of the women to cover, and in rural communities it's pretty common that women will cover only when they go to church. The only difference between my church and the Congregational church down the street that you would notice is that we are VERY casual (a hint of that frugality). That is, until we started talking. Then you'd probably notice some big differences!

More questions, please! This is one of my fave topics.