To best evaluate the conservative Anabaptist church as it is today, it’s important to remember the basic doctrines that formulated the Anabaptist movement in the first place.
The problem is, as Bruce Shelley points out, “the Anabaptist movement lacked cohesiveness (early on). No single body of doctrine and no unifying organization prevailed among them. Even the name ‘Anabaptist’ was pinned on them by their enemies.”[1]
If you have grown up within the Anabaptist tradition, yet have found it difficult to define Anabaptism, you now know why.
Even today, there are vast differences among Anabaptists. Some might even challenge whether or not I am “conservative Anabaptist.”
My wife doesn’t wear a bonnet-style covering. I don’t wear suits of any kind—let alone a plain one. We watch movies, listen to our share of contemporary music, shop at your typical clothing stores, even sometimes fill our vehicles with gas on Sundays. The list could go on with how different we are than what has come to define “conservative Anabaptism.”
But the distinctions I listed above have become definitive of conservative Anabaptists because of extrapolating the basic doctrines of the Anabaptist origins over the past five hundred years.
As Andrew Walls puts it, “theology is occasional and local character.” Meaning, our theological explanations get developed in specific locations based on specific occasions.
The creeds and confessions that shaped church movements were not formed in vacuums. Rather, they were written expressions of faith during a specific time in history at specific locations in the world addressing specific situations the church there was facing at the time.
Therefore, when we look back to a particular creed or confession alone and neglect to take into account the context that shaped it, we can lose sight of what its authors were actually trying to say. Years later—centuries later—those following the creed or confession can be applying it in ways far beyond what was originally intended.
I am suspicious this has happened to the church as a whole—not to mention much of the Anabaptist movement even now.
What were the basic doctrines of the Anabaptist tradition and how should we understand them today in light of their original contexts?
Let’s take a look at a few of the main emphases of the Anabaptist movement which began in the middle of the Reformation (1525 C.E.).
Other articles in this series include:
Christianity as Discipleship
According to Harold Bender and his book, The Anabaptist Vision, “first and fundamental in the Anabaptist vision was the conception of the essence of Christianity as discipleship. It was a concept which meant the transformation of the entire way of life of the individual believer and of society so that it should be fashioned after the teachings and example of Christ.”[2]
Christianity as discipleship stood in contrast to Christianity as an intellectual assent. You see, while the Reformers worked hard to “reform” the theology of the church, there still needed to be a reformation in people’s lifestyles—particularly, in clergymen’s lifestyles.
This concerned the Anabaptists. You see, Christianity had become primarily a right of citizenship or an intellectual assent. Church leaders weren’t known for holiness and exemplary lives. Instead, they were just as immoral (one could make a case that they were more immoral) as the lay people of Europe. While the Reformers sought to bring change to the theology that allowed for such inconsistent living within the church, the Anabaptists sought to bring change in the actual lifestyles.
I think it is important to remember that the Anabaptist emphasis on discipleship was not about making sure people don’t ever watch movies or fill their vehicles with gas on Sundays. It was about changing a religious environment that allowed for clergy to have mistresses into an environment where clergy most clearly exemplified the life of Christ.
Believer’s Baptism
“A second major element in the Anabaptist vision,” Bender points out, was that “a new concept of the church was created by the central principle of newness of life and applied Christianity. Voluntary church membership based upon true conversion and involving a commitment to holy living and discipleship was the absolutely essential heart of this concept.”[3]
Bender goes on to say, “it is from the standpoint of this new conception of the church that the Anabaptist opposition to infant baptism must be interpreted.”[4]
To better understand this concept, it’s important to realize that the church concept of the Reformers was that the church is made up of a mass membership over an entire population from birth to the grave. This membership was compulsory by law and force.
Church membership at the time, and therefore baptism, had nothing to do anymore with faith. It had everything to do with one’s citizenship. This explains why believer’s baptism was so important—many people were being baptized and becoming voting members of the church who had no transformational experience with Jesus Christ.
It also explains why people were willing to kill Anabaptists for not baptizing their infants. Because Anabaptists refused infant baptism, and therefore baptism into the State churches, fewer people were listed as taxable citizens. During this time of history, Europe was under threat of attack by the Turks, and unless the citizens paid their taxes, a reasonable army to defend themselves could not be funded.
If you’ve ever wondered why this issue was so volatile during the Reformation, it’s important to remember believer’s baptism dealt with much more than the question of whether or not a baby can be saved.
*Greg Boyd wrote an excellent article called The Case for Believer’s Baptism, which you can read here.
Nonresistance
According to Bender, “a third great element in the Anabaptist vision was the ethic of love and nonresistance as applied to all human relationships. The Brethren understood this to mean complete abandonment of all warfare, strife, and violence, and of the taking of human life.”[5]
This seems fairly self-explanatory. Jesus was quite clear that those who live by the sword die by the sword (Mt. 26:52). Jesus conquered evil by absorbing violence; not unleashing it.
We should remember, however, that the Anabaptists were not passive in their relationship with society. In fact, these basic doctrines were quite radical for their day—they rode against the grain of everything around them. While Calvinists and Lutherans desired drastic theological change, they both sought to bring about those changes through the political and military structures of the State. The radicals caused tremendous conflict within their regions because they refused to align themselves politically or militarily with the State.
They passionately sought for reformation. They wholeheartedly embraced the way of Jesus Christ. They cared deeply for the wellbeing of the vulnerable. But they lived it out absorbing violence instead of unleashing it.
Excommunication, Communion, and the Holy Spirit
Why was exercising “the Ban” (excommunication) and redefining who could take communion so important to the early Anabaptists? Because, as already mentioned, the church had become something other than a body of believers. It no longer consisted of people whose hearts desired holiness and whose lives were coming into alignment with the way of Christ.
They believed only those who truly believed Jesus and sought to follow him with all their lives should be welcomed at the communion table. Otherwise, as they understood Paul to warn, they drink “damnation” themselves.
In a similar way, they felt there ought to be a place for approaching anyone, clergy or layman, who was actively living in sin. According to Matthew 18, the Anabaptists believed those within the church who refused to repent from sin should be removed from church fellowship until they repented.
Remember, clergy were committing adultery. They were paying off each other for higher position appointments. Unrighteousness ran rampant within the church, and no one was dealing with it as Christ had taught.
But as far as we can tell, these distinctions were not intended to separate true believers of different churches from taking communion together. Neither was excommunication intended to be used as a power play for those who would not get in line with the direction of the leadership. They were addressing, in their specific locations, serious occasions of biblical unfaithfulness within their churches.
This brings us to the work of the Holy Spirit in the individual’s life.
The Anabaptists envisioned a church made up of committed believers led by God’s Holy Spirit. Unlike the Catholic and Protestant churches that structured themselves as hierarchies, where the clergy were seen to have a closer access to God than the layman, Anabaptists believed God’s Spirit dwelt within all true believers, making them priests to each other[6].
Because of this understanding, they believed God would speak to his people through the brotherhood; not just through the Pope or priests. This was not meant to control people—neither was it meant to splinter them into individualism. It was meant to return the church to its apostolic state.
Unfortunately, each of these doctrines have been extrapolated into perversions of scripture.
Certainly, not every Anabaptist church has done this. And no one has intentionally misled anyone.
But too often, the very emphases that create a movement become the movement’s idols. So, we have more people focused on whether or not their clothes look too fashionable then on whether or not the lust in their heart has been rooted out.
We have people shunning each other and refusing to break bread together because they interpret Paul’s teaching on the head covering differently instead of shunning and refusing to break bread with each other because one of them continually sexually abuses young boys.
Within their historical context, I embrace the doctrines of the Anabaptist movement.
And as someone with a deep love for Jesus and a conviction for his Word—willing to go where it goes instead of making it go where I want to go—I consider myself “conservative.”
But a lot of things have changed since 1525 C.E. A lot of things have changed since 1963 C.E.
Many of us feel the tension of the different understandings of Scripture across denominations today. We feel the tension of seeing weaknesses in our denomination of origin and strengths in a denomination we get to know later on in life.
And many of us are making drastic changes.
My question is, however, what is driving our change? Are we, as the early Anabaptists, seeking to be more faithful to the Word of God? Are we, as many of our parents and grandparents are concerned about, capitulating to the pressures of culture?
In the next article of this series, I’m going to wrestle with the questions of why going where scripture goes is so important, and whether we talk about Jesus because we actually love him or because we want to use him.
Until then, I’d like to hear your feedback on the doctrines mentioned above. What your thoughts as you ponder the original contexts, and how could they be accurately applied today? Share in the comments below.
Join Unfeigned Christianity to access all our member-only content.
Become a paying member of Unfeigned Christianity for as little as $5/mo and access a full dashboard of resources for Christians wanting follow Jesus faithfully in our current, cultural moment. Try the first 7 days free!
Already a member? Login
[1] Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008), 248.
[2] Bender, Harold. The Anabaptist Vision (CrossReach Publishing. Kindle Edition., 2014), 20.
[3] Bender. The Anabaptist Vision, 26.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid., 31.
[6] Shelley. Church History in Plain Language, 254.
