Michael Baylor, in his Introduction to a book of Radical Reformation texts, summarizes another key difference. Calvin felt that anarchism lurked behind the anti-government position of the Anabaptists” (278). “Calvin’s strong emphasis on the divine institution of government was definitely conditioned by his controversy with the Anabaptists.According to Calvin, this was the misconception of communistic spiritualism” (271). “Calvin charged that in his day the Anabaptists shouted loudly about all this, because they seemed to think that the church did not exist unless all possessions were thrown together and everyone was free to grab what his heart desired.He rejected their dualism and did not think highly of their perfectionism as a goal for Christian achievement on earth” (265-66, 267). These concepts of the Anabaptists brought basic questions about human society to the surface…For Calvin, the Anabaptist model of society was, of course, wholly unacceptable. They aspired to seeing the kingdom and its righteousness become visible. They were committed to live in accordance with the spirit and the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. They wanted to restore original Christendom, which, they felt, had been derailed by various forms of worldliness and Constantinism. The Anabaptists were optimistic about the extent to which the Christian is able to keep the law. It was characterized by a certain dualism. “The Anabaptist view of society flowed directly out of their longing to form a holy communion in this world.“There was a deep chasm between Calvin and the Anabaptists in their respective concepts of the state” (262).In the second half of the book, Balke highlights a number of disagreements between Calvin and the Anabaptists. Again, some of these traits are shared by various streams of Christianity and some are not particularly emphasized by the Neo-Anabaptists, but for anyone who has studied the Emergent-New Monasticism-Sojourners conversation, the themes of pacifism, communalism, and placing stress on the ethical commands of Jesus will sound familiar. The Mennonites, unlike the violent Munster Anabapstists, “placed strong emphasis on pacifism, strict discipline, and separation from the world” (3). They rejected the authority of the magistrates and refused to pay taxes for the waging of war” (3). The Hutterites “established communities based on common ownership of goods. He also required a far-reaching, mutual sharing of goods among Christians” (2-3). He rejected the use of the oath by Christians, opposed going to war, and denied the rights of Christians to use the civil courts. In his thorough (and gently pro-Calvin) book Calvin and the Anabaptist Radicals, Willem Balke explains that Conrad Grebel, for example, from the Swiss Brethren “supported the practice of believers’ baptism, voluntary membership in the church, and a strong emphasis on the commands of the Sermon on the Mount. But there are a number of striking similarities between past and present iterations. Obviously, these men didn’t see eye to eye on everything and the Neo-Anabaptists don’t embrace everything these men espoused (most of the Neo-Anabaptists have probably read very few Reformation Anabaptists). The Anabaptists of the 16th century, associated with men like Andreas Karlstadt, Conrad Grebel, Hans Denck, Michael Sattler, and Thomas Muntzer, were the “left-wing” of the Protestant Reformation. What I am suggesting is that the low church, counter-cultural, prophetic-stance-against-empire ethos present in the emergent and evangelical-left conversations is a contemporary form of the Anabaptist tradition. They would claim Scripture in support of their beliefs, not some 16th century reformer. I’m not suggesting their ideas originated by reading Anabaptists. But I would argue that they are all Neo-Anabaptists. What do Scot McKnight, Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Jim Wallis, Ron Sider, and Shane Claiborne all have in common? Certainly they don’t agree on everything and no one’s views can automatically be imputed to anyone else.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |