DISQUS

Paul Munn I found an interesting book on Anabaptist history online, Peter Hoover's The Secret of the Strength. Lots of early writings, as well as the progress of their movement. Sympathetically written. But near the end of the book, he writes:

In the beginning of this book we compared the Anabaptists with Samson. In following chapters we saw the great strength whereby they overcame their trials. But we also saw the mistakes they made and how, in less than a hundred years, the great strength left them and their movement began to fade away.

That is the story again and again with movements ("Christian" or otherwise). Enthusiastic rise, with growing social power—and then disillusionment (or assimilation) and fall. Can we truly say that is the story of the kingdom of God?

As outlined in that book and other historical accounts, one of the major issues in the Anabaptist movement (which includes the Hutterites and the Amish) was the oppressive use of authority, an authority that derives from the social power of a human organization. From what I have heard of the Bruderhof (from people who have lived with them), it has been an ongoing problem with them as well. This, I think, also clearly distinguishes these movements as something different from the kingdom of God. (Though I am sure the kingdom, the church, existed mixed in among them, and still does.)

Paul Munn That's a valid concern. Jesus did not limit his kingdom to "a few chosen ones" and I don't want to do that either. But Jesus did predict that, while he invited everyone, "few" would actually follow his way. From what I have seen, that has indeed been the case. The invitation still remains open to all, however, and we are encouraged to offer that invitation actively and generously (which I hope I do).

Obviously I disagree about movement-building, Jonas. But from your position, this seems to be the right question: "The challenge, as I see it, is to build a movement but avoid using the ways of the world and building babylon-like power structures." I am not aware of this ever being accomplished by those eager to build movements, at least not for long, including in the institutional church throughout its history (and in the history of the intentional communities I know of). This has helped me look back for a different way of being the evangelizing church, which I see in Jesus' teaching and example. Like tiny leaven, like wheat mixed in among tares, growing "we know not how"...

Now I recognize other Christians evangelizing in this way. And I believe there have been many others throughout history, though they usually are not noticed by society or by historians, who tend to think only the movement-builders are significant.

Micael Tack så mycket!

Micael Hallå Jonas! Så du hänger här också?

I think I'll write to you in english so that the others can understand.

My friend desperatly want that book. He read about ut in "Jesus for President" and is so in love with the church fathers. Thank you for telling this, I'll check out that site.

Jonas Lundström I´m sorry, apparently we were speaking bout the same person (Jon Zens), didn´t notice that.

Sara I think I see what you're getting at. It seems like an oxymoron to claim a relation with Anabaptism yet not advocate re-baptism. But we are not in the same historical situation. Catholics and Protestants don't kill each other and Anabaptists for believing differently, nor does the claim for being the "one, true church" sound quite as loudly from any quarter (although the new Pope might be trying to recover that attitude). So we are free to discuss doctrinal issues across denominational lines and weigh them according to biblical merit and reason, quite apart from the political mess they were associated with in the 15th century. As I see it, and please tell me if I'm wrong, the Anabaptists rejected infant baptism for two main reasons. 1. They saw it as an unholy union with a false church, hence the need to be re-baptized into the "true" church. 2. This led to a belief that the decision to follow Jesus and be baptized should be a personal, individual, and voluntary one.
What if, however, we removed the oppressive situation that brought about the first objection and replaced it with an ecclessiology that both affirmed personal responsibility and relationship with Jesus and communal identity? The objection to infant baptism would at least be weakened, and the question would be, on which emphasis does baptism fall, the personal or the communal? (And then we could throw other ideas into the mix as well- concepts of property, leadership, discipline, etc.) This is getting fun. :)

Luke Well kudos to you for your inclusion of the children in the Lord's supper. I couldn't agree more on that point. I didn't mean that you excluded your children from everything, only from baptism, which in my understanding is technically an exclusion from the body. 1 Cor 12:13 says we are baptized into "one body." While involving children in the life of the church is great and necessary, in my thinking they are still excluded in a crucial sense because they have not been made part of the "one body." My point above was that if (as you believe - I don't know, and am uncertain on this) God automatically includes children as members of his body, why would we withhold the sign of that present reality?

I suspect we won't come to agreement on this so unless you want to keep at it, maybe we should let it go. I do love the ana-baptist traditions. In my opinion, they were the only faithful reformation element. But I think they were wrong on baptism. Withholding baptism from my children would seem to me to be preventing them from a fruitful and critical relationship with Jesus in their most formative years.

Sara Hi Jonas, I think that way of doing "church" - a full meal around a table- is really awesome. I wish our tradition (episcopal) would do that more, although our little local congregation did something similar on Maundy Thursday.

I think the reason you would differ with Luke and myself (he's my husband) is because we have differing opinions on what Baptism actually is. It is our conviction and within the anglican tradition, that when parents are converted to the Christian faith, their entire household is baptized- to us it is the rite of passage from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light. But for the children of these converts, who later want to make public a personal choice to follow Jesus, we have the sacrament of confirmation, where they are presented before the bishop that he/she may lay hands on them and they may be commissioned to exercise their spiritual gifts.Yet even before this time they are given freedom to assert their faith at every Communion service by reciting the Nicene or Apostle's Creed with the rest of the congregation. To some, this may seem like vain repetition, but we believe that when we are gathered together, we are in company with all of heaven and earth, and when we say the creed, we are spitting in the devil's eye, so to speak.

But to you, it seems, baptism is what confirmation is to us, or they somewhat overlap, I guess, and I certainly respect where you are coming from too.

Luke If God will include them, why should we exclude them?