These days I’m summarizing James Davison Hunter’s To Change The World. The book is made up of three separate essays; we’re up to the fifth chapter of the second essay. This chapter is entitled “The Neo-Anabaptists.” Here’s the abstract from Hunter’s website:
The mythic ideal that animates the neo-Anabaptist position is the ideal of true and authentic New Testament Christianity and the primitive church of the apostolic age. Constantinianism is a multifaceted heresy that surfaced and resurfaced throughout history. The archetype of neo-Constantinianism is the founding of the American republic, which has a strong view of the church and a separatist impulse. While the neo-Anabaptists attempt to reject it, they are also defined and depend upon it.
http://jamesdavisonhunter.com/to-change-the-world/chapter-abstracts/
The Christian Left and the Neo-Anabaptists share several characteristics: they tend to reject undiluted capitalism, they tend to be from the upper classes socio-economically, and they reject the discourse of the Christian Right. There aren’t a lot of Neo-Anabaptists in the United States, but the movement has a growing appeal among the younger generations.
Neo-Anabaptists seek a return to the pure Christianity of the New Testament church. (Could that be why so many within my movement are drawn to this viewpoint?—Tim) Part of the restoration spirit of the original Anabaptists was a rejection of infant baptism, insisting on adult baptism (hence the name of the movement). Anabaptist teaching continues in small groups like the Quakers, the Mennonites, etc. Neo-Anabaptists have adopted many of the teachings, but come from a broad range of Christian groups.
The Edict of Constantine is seen as one of the historical low points, the moment when the church fully sold herself to the State. The church embraced the powers of this world, with their violence and war. An ethic of coercion and power became common within Christianity. Thus the Neo-Anabaptists consider that the greatest harm to the church was done by the church itself. Their ressentiment focuses on this blending of church and State.
According to Hunter, the goal of the Neo-Anabaptists is “to lead theology and the church to a genuinely postsecular self-understanding.” (p. 160, emphasis Hunter’s) They emphasize the sharp contrast between the church and the world. They see worship as the central calling of Christianity.
Hunter points out that the Neo-Anabaptists, despite claiming to reject the systems of this world, have adopted the language of politics, speaking time and again of “the politics of Jesus.” Like the other two groups mentioned, Neo-Anabaptists make no distinction between the public and the political.
Hunter’s principal accusation against the Neo-Anabaptists is that they define themselves in terms of the very system they reject. More than standing for something, they stand against something. By using political terms, they themselves become political.
“no distinction between the public and the political”
wow, that helps,. whenever I discuss my opinions, people assume I and totally passive and uninvolved with the world.
plan to get this book, thanks again
Yeah, I get the comment, “You’re political, you comment on things that affect the public in general.” People don’t understand the difference between public and political.
It would be interesting to see how someone who is historically adept in the Anabaptist & Neo-Anabaptist tradition would challenge the assertion that the movement is defined by what it rejects. I realize all movements are reactionary in some measure and hence, defined by what they’re against rather than what they’re for. But is that the sum total of what defines a movement and particularly the Neo-Anabaptist movement?
Grace and peace,
Rex
Rex,
Hunter quotes quite a broad range of people when referring to “Neo-Anabaptists.” I have a lot of sympathy for this viewpoint, yet find Hunter quoting things that I don’t agree with. I too have a problem with this assertion. What Hunter advocates in the end is much like what I consider to be the Neo-Anabaptist point of view. I guess, like many things, much depends on your definitions.
http://www.wdavidphillips.com/2010/08/27/changing-culture-the-perils-of-idealism/
Having a conversation about the same book.
Thanks Darin!
Tim,
i really don’t see the force of his critique of Neo-Anabaptists here. The early Christians clearly used political language (“gospel” being a prime example). They definitely used language that had a blatant subversive ring to it. i don’t see how that this implies they were defined by what they were rejecting rather than standing on their own principles. And besides that, i don’t see how it’s much of a problem if they did. If Jesus came teaching principles that radically differed from those embodied by the empire and authorities of His time, then of course He’d had quite a lot of “correcting” and “reacting” to do. Does that mean He didn’t stand for something?
–guy