In my last article, I introduced a series I’ll be writing which I call, “An Open Letter to My Generation of Conservative Anabaptists.” I write this series because many in my generation are opting out of conservative Anabaptism—and I totally get why they are.
Yet, for myself, the more I study scripture and the more life I experience, the more I discover there is a lot taught in conservative Anabaptist thought that lends itself to bearing truly good fruit which tends to get neglected in other expressions of Christian theology.
Let me clarify something, however: I suggest a majority of the churches who consider themselves “conservative Anabaptist” don’t actually resemble much of truly Anabaptist thought anymore. We’ll get into this more as we go throughout this series, but my observation is that most people who struggle with their Anabaptist upbringing aren’t actually struggling with Anabaptism.
They’re struggling with their church’s expression of Anabaptism.
For instance, many (sadly, most) conservative Anabaptist churches have strict guidelines for dress. When you add into these guidelines (i.e. no shorts for guys, long dresses for girls) direct teachings in scripture (i.e. the head covering), members of those churches get a clouded perspective of what is simply a church standard and what is a direct teaching of the Bible.
And when church guidelines are more closely adhered to than robust theological teaching, everything whether a mere church standard or direct teaching from scripture is liable to be discarded when a person decides to leave the church.
Since teachings of scripture are lumped in with church standards, rarely expounded upon from a biblical basis, and since many other Christian churches don’t practice some of the teachings conservative Anabaptists understand to be relevant to believers today, these teachings of scripture seem more like Anabaptist culture than scripture.
In churches like this, they’re rarely taught the distinction between the local body’s choice of application and the actual teachings of scripture. It becomes all one and the same to them: arbitrary boundaries put in place by church authorities.
To them, “conservative Anabaptism” is strict dress standards.
But not all “conservative Anabaptist” churches are like this. It is possible to have theological same-ness and applicational overlap yet total functional different-ness.
Because of the different experiences we might have with “conservative Anabaptist” churches and in order for you to better grasp what I’m talking about when I say “everything I love about the Anabaptist tradition,” I’m going to restate my definition of “conservative Anabaptist”:
Conservative Anabaptist generally refers to anyone who comes from a church tradition that (1) finds their roots in the Radical Reformation, (2) seeks to take the Bible at face value and shape their lifestyle around what it says, (3) believes in a strong distinction between the church and this world, and (4) agrees for most part with the Mennonite Confession of Faith.
A Word about Liberalism and Conservatism
Liberal and Conservative are extremely vague and often used arbitrarily. Personally, I despise using such terms. But I’ve discovered it is almost essential to use them in order to more clearly communicate what I’m talking about. Even then, as mentioned above, we can misunderstand each other.
But it’s important to understand the distinction between liberal Anabaptist and conservative Anabaptist.
To sum it up, liberal and conservative point to phases of history as much as anything else. Liberalism happened globally and affected much more than the church. It is the era of history where man became the center of attention instead of God or a greater being.
When it came to the church, this influenced every denomination; not just the Anabaptists. There are liberal Presbyterians and conservative Presbyterians. There are liberal Methodists and conservative Methodists. Liberal Brethren and conservative Brethren.
You name it—if it’s a church, it has probably been through the liberal and conservative split.
This manifests itself most vividly in the way we approach scripture. Do we go where the text goes, or do we reinterpret what the text says based on what man has discovered in recent history?
Certainly, as we do historical background studies, we will find new insight into ancient cultures because there has been more study done on ancient culture. However, to be conservative is to let the text have the final say. We can be informed by the new insight, but we will not read into the text concepts we discover solely because of outside insight.
Many of us probably have a liberalized way of thinking and we don’t even realize it.
I am not trying to suggest that everything liberal is bad. However, I do appreciate the conservative approach to scripture over the liberal approach.
When man becomes the center, we try shaping God and everything he has revealed to us to our perspective of the world. Which means our understanding of what the Bible says will always be changing because humanity perceives the world differently from generation to generation.
I believe it is better to bring our perception of the world into alignment with what has been the consistent historical understanding of scripture.
Plenty frustrates me about the current state of most conservative Anabaptist churches.
But as I reflect on my experience with the conservative Anabaptist tradition, I see much I am deeply grateful for.
For one, it has been through the conservative Anabaptist tradition that I learned how to sing in four-part harmony. While not entirely, it’s a skill that is almost lost in any other church.
Is it an important one? Maybe not. But it’s one I’m glad I have, and I probably would not have gotten it if not for growing up in the conservative Anabaptist tradition.
But Anabaptists are known for four-part harmony, right? That’s what everyone cites as something they’re grateful for—along with good work ethic and great food!
Is there anything else the conservative Anabaptist tradition has given me that I probably would not have gotten anywhere else?
Here are seven more positives I love about the Anabaptist tradition that are not as clearly a part of other church traditions:
Other articles in this series include:
1. The conservative Anabaptist tradition gives me a heritage I can be grateful for as I trace church history.
This past semester in Bible college, we studied the history of church from the first century church through the reformation. Without the Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic churches, one can’t really find a direct link from church traditions today to the church at the time of the apostles.
Christianity got hijacked by Constantine and Theodosius who married the church to the state, introducing an era of many nominal (or outright heretical) “Christians” and “church leaders.”
Throughout the fifteen hundred years of power the Roman Catholic church enjoyed, there were small groups that broke off, trying to bring the church back to its first-century, apostolic state.
But it wasn’t until the fifteen hundreds that a more thorough break from the Roman Catholic church took place. By this time, everyone was sick and tired of the corruption and warring within the Catholic church. Furthermore, leaders such as Luther and Calvin had printing presses to popularize their teachings.
Yet, even Luther and Calvin sought to keep the church married to the state. They wanted to maintain the political power the church enjoyed while reforming the doctrine within.[1]
The Anabaptists, however, pushed the reformers even further. These young radicals (mid to upper twenties) had been taught by the reformers to read the Bible for themselves. As a result, they saw the teachings of Jesus and how distinctly separate he was from the state.
This is what led to the Anabaptists breaking from the Protestants to become the first free church since the time of the first-century Christians.[2]
Today, it’s kind of a trendy position—even among Protestants—to want the church to get out of politics and be separated from the state. But it originates (at least the actual breaking away from the state) with the Anabaptists. And that’s a side of history I’m grateful to be on.
2. The conservative Anabaptist tradition understands Christianity to be about actually following Jesus, not merely an intellectual agreement with his ideas.
The big push of the reformers in the Protestant Reformation was to get back to truly biblical doctrine within the church. The clergy of Catholicism had become incredibly immoral, and many priests didn’t even understand the prayers and sermons they recited in Latin, much less how to explain them to others.
However, even the Protestants failed to bring about truly moral and lifestyle reform. The reformers introduced an emphasis of grace but neglected the reality of a life transformed that grace ought to accomplish.
At the end of his life, Luther expressed disappointment at the final outcome of the Reformation, stating that “the people had become more and more indifferent toward religion and the moral outlook was more deplorable than ever.”[3]
While there are fringe stories of immorality even among early Anabaptists,[4] the heart of the Anabaptist vision held that Christianity is discipleship.
It baffled the Anabaptists how the church of the Reformation which made regeneration, holiness, and love primarily a matter of intellect, doctrinal belief, or subjective “experience” could even be called “Christian.” To them, Christianity meant a total transformation of life. They believed an inner experience would evidence itself with an outward expression.[5]
Such radical commitment to Christ, and nothing else, is something I love about the Anabaptist tradition.
3. The conservative Anabaptist tradition taught me that the church is made up of people who experience new life and actively apply their faith.
To Anabaptists, baptism confirmed one’s decision to follow Christ. Naturally, then, since infants can’t make a cognitive choice to follow Christ, this stood in direct contrast to infant baptism.
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.[6] This membership was compulsory by law and force.
The Protestant movement desired a close relationship with the state, and because baptism had come to be as much about citizenship as it was about salvation, to not baptize one’s children and therefore not bring them into citizenship of that local region threatened relationship with the state.
Refusing to baptize one’s children was seen as subversion and political defiance. To many, it felt like the Anabaptist were attacking the fabric of their society.[7]
I connect with Anabaptist’s understanding of church and baptism. It seems most consistent with what I see in the Bible about church and baptism. I love the fact that I raised with this understanding.
4. The conservative Anabaptist tradition understands the Great Commission to be about preaching the Gospel as well as demonstrating the Gospel through a life where the Old Man has been completely transformed.
The Protestants emphasized Gospel preaching. The Anabaptists emphasized Gospel living. Protestants emphasized preaching to the neglect of transformed lives. Anabaptists emphasized living to the neglect of robust preaching.
I’ll flesh this out a little more in my article on everything that frustrates me about the Anabaptist tradition, but for our discussion here—I’m glad to have a heritage that emphasized the transformation the Gospel brings to our lives.
To the Anabaptists, then, missions was about showing that transformation as much as it was about preaching the transformation. When people hear a preaching they don’t see lived out in one’s life, they disregard it. When they see it lived out, they’re attracted to it.
As someone who has worked internationally and observed the difference between Protestants in missions and Anabaptists in missions, I’ve seen this play out. Too many times there have been missionaries whose lives are just as full of drunkenness and debauchery as the people they’re working with, and that doesn’t influence anyone for Christ.
I have personally heard from indigenous people grief for how “worldly” American Christians are. When they get introduced to Anabaptist missionaries, they are surprised such Christians exist within America. They take the Bible at face value and they show the gospel through a new way of living.
This isn’t to say Anabaptists don’t have their own weaknesses. It is to say that the world is hungry for a part of the Gospel the Anabaptists have always emphasized.
5. The conservative Anabaptist tradition introduced me to the concept of suffering love.
Many Anabaptists understood this to mean complete abandonment of all warfare, strife, and violence, and the taking of human life.
Again, this stands in direct contradiction to the position of not merely the Catholic church, but the Protestant church as well. Both used the state to advance their causes. Both fought wars over the furtherance of their mission.
The clearer it became to the radicals that Luther and Zwingli intended to maintain the connection between church and state, the more they realized they needed to break even from their teachers.
This break was not rash or haphazard. When the radicals chose to separate themselves from the Protestant Reformers, they expected an unleashing of persecution. And sure enough, they got it.
Dirk Willems serves as the classic example of suffering love as he rescued his persecutor from freezing waters while attempting to escape with his life. This choice ended up costing him his life.
Originating with Christ laying down his life for ours, this kind of love is the epitome of Gospel love. I’m grateful to be a part of a church tradition that brought this kind of love back into the church
6. The conservative Anabaptist tradition gives me an instantaneous network of community.
I never thought about the community I’m immersed in as someone who grew up in a conservative Anabaptist church until moving to Los Angeles and began working with homeless people.
Since then, I have developed friendships with immigrants fleeing for their lives and again I am blown away by the resources and opportunities I have available to me simply because I am a part of a conservative Anabaptist church.
My family and I will probably never be homeless even though we have been as poor as many homeless people, at times. We have too many friends who check in with us and care about our family’s well-being.
I have always had a job—I’ve never had to look for work. And if I did, I’m able to create work because of the skills I’ve been given and the resources available to me through other conservative Anabaptist business people.
Furthermore, I can connect with this community anywhere in the US. The closely-knit ties of Anabaptists allows for an instantaneous connection I could not experience elsewhere.
7. The conservative Anabaptist tradition taught me that your pain is my pain.
Dovetailing on the instant community conservative Anabaptists enjoy, it is through the conservative Anabaptist tradition I learned my brother’s pain is my pain.
My mom was killed in a car wreck four days before my wedding. We lived in Los Angeles but were in Colorado for the wedding. Over four hundred people showed up for the funeral, many of whom traveled at least a thousand miles to attend.
Furthermore, my dad was well taken care of financially for the next year. Thanks to the generous gifts of many, funeral costs and travel expenses were more than paid for.
This kind of community is what conservative Anabaptist churches are known for. From barn-raisings to funerals, Anabaptists know how to help bear the load of tragic events. It’s one of the main things I love about this tradition.
In my next article, I’ll share my main frustrations with the Anabaptist tradition. I think many of us have them. What we might lack, however, is appreciation for the good things we’ve experienced.
What are aspects of the conservative Anabaptist tradition you love? 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] Paul E. Pierson, The Dynamics of Christian Mission (Pasadena: William Carrey International University Press, 2009), 153.
[2] Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008), 250.
[3] Harold S. Bender, The Anabaptist Vision (Scottdale: Herald Press, 1944), 18-19.
[4] Thomas Muntzer and Marcus Thome are ghosts of the Anabaptists few hear about.
[5] Bender, The Anabaptist Vision, 19.
[6] Ibid., 26.
[7] Shelley, Church History in Plain Language, 250-251.
