Martyr's Mirror 5: Are the Anabaptists the True Church?

(...Click below for full post)

From The Martyr's Mirror by Thieleman J. van Braght; translation by Joseph F. Sohm:

---

Now the point will be to give the reasons why we have called this whole work, with all the persons contained therein, after the Anabaptists; from which, as the second question, might be asked: whether all the persons mentioned, confessors as well as martyrs, none excepted, confessed the same as what the Anabaptists of this day confess? or whether any believed, practiced, or maintained higher or lower, more or less, in this or that article?

We shall treat these matters separately, and one after the other, giving the reasons as well as the answers.

REASON WHY WE HAVE CALLED THIS WHOLE WORK AFTER THE ANABAPTISTS

The reason which has induced us is twofold:

1. Because, as we have shown clearly, there have been persons in every century, from the beginning of the Gospel all along, who have believed and taught the article of holy baptism, with other articles noted in the margin-on account of which the Anabaptists have received this name-in the very same manner as the Anabaptists, and have, each in his time, instructed, engrafted, and confirmed their contemporaries therein, as may, be seen in the whole history, especially in the first fifteen centuries.

2. Because we have not found mentioned in the writings of authentic authors anything concerning those persons whom we have noted as true witnesses, which conflicts with the above-mentioned doctrines of the Anabaptists. And whenever something has been laid to their charge, which is not in harmony with the uprightness of the faith professed by them, we have shown that the witnesses to such charge were not authentic or acceptable; or that the things brought against them, were committed by them not after but before their conversion; or that, if they at any time have fallen into them, they truly forsook them before their death, and from which all this appears.

But whenever we have found that any, as regards the faith professed, were actually guilty of serious errors, offensive misconceptions, or bad actions, for which the above excuses could not be brought forward; we have dropped such entirely, and not mentioned them; that the pious and most holy witnesses of Jesus Christ might not be defiled with their unclean and unholy leaven.

---

Summary:

At issue seems to be that van Braght intends this history to be properly catholic. That is, he doesn’t mean to be restricting the scope of this history to one denomination or tradition, but wants to present a history of the (True) Universal Church. If he leaves certain people or groups out of the picture, it is because they are not part of the True Church in his judgment, and not because they are part of a different denomination.

So, he wants the history to be about the Church, not a particular subset of the Church, and yet he calls the work after the Anabaptists—one particular group. So why does he title the work after the Anabaptists? His response is, basically, that throughout the whole history of the (True) Church, the true Christians have been Anabaptists. “Anabaptists”, for van Braght, does not designate a Reformation tradition with its origins in the 1500s; rather it is the Tradition of the Church.
His identity claim (Anabaptists = The True Church) is based upon (1) a doctrinal definition of the Anabaptist faith, which includes adult baptism along with other beliefs not clearly specified here (Remember I have argued previously that in van Braght’s own view, the practice of adult baptism does not make one part of this tradition by itself; it is not a solely sufficient condition for being an Anabaptist, because he excludes the violent Munsterites from this tradition), and (2) the (impressive!) claim that there have always been Christians (since Jesus, or since Pentecost, anyway) who fit this doctrinal definition.

Anyone guilty of “serious errors” (heresies?), that is, serious departure from the above definition of the Anabaptist faith in thought, word, or deed, have been omitted from the history, in order to limit the scope of this history to the “True Church” that has kept itself pure.

Response:

First:

I remain taken aback, and indeed offended by this approach, insofar as it fails to recognize the legitimacy of most of the Church, and the relevance of most of Church history. It seems like folly to ignore the influence that certain “paedo-baptists” have had on Christian theology, even surely the theology of the Anabaptists:

There is much with which Anabaptists do (and, should, in my view) find fault with in, say, the theologies of Augustine and Luther (regarding the relationship of Church and State for both thinkers, and regarding the hermeneutics of Luther–i.e. his Law-Gospel dialectic). On the other hand, even if doctrines such as the priesthood of all believers and justification by faith can be discovered through legitimate NT exegesis, these doctrines in the mouths of these thinkers, I contend, have influenced many within the Mennonite Church today, and probably the 16th century Anabaptists as well. If we decide (as I am often tempted to do) to reject Luther’s theory of justification for a more Catholic one, the problem persists.

Again, while there were, I understand, those among the 16th century Anabaptists who held to heretical Christologies, I think most good Mennonite-Anabaptists are good Trinitarians. Surely there were paedo-baptists among the members of the Council of Chalcedon. (I would contend that Trinitarian orthodoxy was around before the Council of Nicea; but whether we are ignorant of the councils or not, at least the first four have surely influenced Mennonite thought–just as Luther has with hopefully biblical views such as the priesthood of all believers.)

Further, the way Anabaptists today read the Bible, whether they make use of the historical-critical method or a more fundamentalist approach, necessarily draws on contributions made (quite recently!) by paedo-baptists (many Lutherans on the one hand and many Presbyterians on the other, among others).

All this is to say that even if we were writing a history of Anabaptist denominations, we would have to talk about the influences of non-Anabaptist thinkers.

Second:

I am not sure how van Braght can escape the charge of arbitrariness in choosing what doctrines are marks of “the True Church”. The only way out I can see is by an appeal to biblical authority and good vs. bad exegesis of the scriptures.

Third:

Why should the true, visible Church be identified by its doctrines, primarily?



------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

Martyr's Mirror 4: Anti-Imperialism and Nonviolence

(...Click below for full post)

From The Martyr's Mirror by Thieleman J. van Braght; translation by Joseph F. Sohm:

---

OF THE NAME: ANABAPTISTS.*
The name "Anabaptist" was really not accepted by them by choice or desire, but of necessity; for their proper name, if we consider well the thing in connection, should be, Christ-minded, Apostle-minded, or Gospel-minded (Gal. 3:26, 27, 29), as they were called of old, yea, many centuries ago, because their religion agreed with the doctrine of Christ, the Apostles, and the holy Gospel; which appears from the confession of faith which they from time to time have published, and which we, as far as we know them, are ready to defend, if necessity requires it; of which also others boast; but how they prove it, they may answer for themselves, and the impartial and intelligent may judge.

The name Anabaptists which is now applied to them, has but lately come into use, deriving its origin from the matter of holy baptism, concerning which their views differ from those of all, so-called, Christendom. In what this difference consists, we will now briefly, and in the sequel more fully state.

We could have wished that they had been called by another name, that is, not only after the holy baptism, but after their whole religion; but since it is not so, we can content ourselves with the thought that it is not the name, but the thing itself, which justifies the man. For this reason we have applied this name to them throughout the work, that they may be known and distinguished from others.**

* The word "Anabaptist" is here used to signify the same as "Taufgesinate" in the German, and "Doopsgesinde" in the Dutch language, for which the English language affords no better term, the literal signification of "Doopsgesinde being "baptism-minded."

** Ancient Israel was called the circumcision because all Israelites were circumcised. (I Cor. 7:19; Gal. 5:6; 6:15).

---

Comments:

1. Is Believer’s Baptism really essential to Anabaptist Christianity?

The Anabaptists’ faith is placed in a full, Christian, apostolic gospel. “Believer’s baptism” is not the single most important item of the Anabaptist’s faith, on which our salvation rests. But it is what distinguishes the Anabaptists from all other Christians (from “Christendom”).

I have a rough intuition that we must keep straight the distinction between what properties are essential to membership in Class A and what properties are true of all and only members of Class A. Let me give this a go:

If Class A = Anabaptists and Class C = Christendom, let X be the constellation of properties that are necessary for membership in Class A, and for Class C, and also sufficient for membership in either Class A or Class C. (Another way to put this is that A and C are subclasses of Class X and possessing X is necessary and sufficient for membership in X.) B may be the single property possessed by members of Class A that is not possessed by members of Class C. This means that B is important, epistemically, in discerning who is a member of A rather than C. But it does not necessarily mean that B is more important than other properties belonging to X in determining (ontologically) who is in Class A.

(Does any of that make sense?)

To try again: believer’s baptism may be a part of what is essential to being an Anabaptist (even, for the sake of argument, a member of “the true Church”), but it does not play a larger role in defining Anabaptist Christianity than, say, theism or the doctrine of the Incarnation. Believer’s baptism only rises to prominence under circumstances accidental to the existence and nature of the Anabaptist faith community: namely that in which the majority of Christians have abandoned that particular doctrine.

Why does this matter? Because I suspect that something other than believer’s baptism is more fundamental to Christian discipleship, and that believer’s baptism has at some times and places served to express that more fundamental thing (such as during the 16th century persecution of the Anabaptists). In other historical contexts (perhaps contemporary American and Global Christianity) that more fundamental thing might find expression in other doctrines and practices, even with the door left open to infant baptism.

I suspect that that more fundamental thing has something to do with the confession of Christ as Lord trumping any political allegiances--including allegiances to church authorities. In 16th century Europe, of course, allegiance to certain church authorities (whether Catholic or Lutheran or whatever) was officially bound up with allegiance to certain secular authorities—and unofficially this may be the case in the minds of many American Christians today. Hence the Anabaptists’ claim to have invented the notion of the separation of church and state.

(In practice, by the way, MCUSA allows for members to join on confession of faith without rebaptism; I’m not sure however that this is the same thing as recognizing the individual’s baptism & confirmation—it may rather be a matter of dispensing with the water rite altogether. Personally, I would rather the former happened. The church as a whole is not likely to take a particular stand on the matter of interpretation, however, in a way that would bind its members—that’s not how Mennonites work.)


From The Martyr's Mirror by Thieleman J. van Braght; translation by Joseph F. Sohm:

---

OF HOLY BAPTISM, AND WHY WE HAVE PREFERRED IT TO ALL OTHER ARTICLES, IN OUR HISTORY
We have chosen holy baptism in preference to any other article of the Christian and evangelical religion

1. Because it is the only sign and proof of incorporation into the visible Christian church, without which no one, whoever he be, or whatever he may profess, or how separated and pious a life he may lead, can be recognized as a true member of the Christian church. This is fully, yet without controversy, shown and confirmed in the following history.*

2. Because it is, beyond contradiction, the only article on account of which others call us Anabaptists. For, since all other so-called Christians have, yet without true foundation, this in common that they baptize infants; while with us the baptism only which is accompanied by faith and a penitent life, according to the word of God, is administered, to adults; it follows, that with us such persons are baptized who have received baptism in their childhood, without faith and repentance; who, when they believe and repent, are again, or at least truly baptized with us; because with us their previous baptism, being without true foundation, and without the word of God, is not considered baptism at all.**

3. Because the imperial decrees (when some so-called Christians began to tyrannize) in the days of Theodosius and Honorius, A. D. 413, were issued and proclaimed everywhere expressly against the Anabaptists and those who were rebaptized; namely against such who maintained the aforementioned article, as the Anabaptists of today do; which was also the case in the last persecution, during the reign of Emperor Charles V., more than eleven centuries afterwards, A. D. 1535; when all who, having been baptized in infancy, had been rebaptized upon their faith and repentance; or who maintained these views, were punished with a severe death, as may be seen in our account of baptism, and of the martyrs, for the years 413 and 1535.

4. Because it would not have been possible to write in detail of all the other articles of the Christian faith and worship of God, as they, through all the centuries from the days of Christ up to the present time, have been believed and practiced according to the manner of the Anabaptists of this day; without going beyond the bounds of the largest book; since no book could possibly be printed or planned on so large a scale, as to contain all this; wherefore we have been obliged to observe moderation in writing, throughout, so as not to become diffuse, or overstep the bounds of a reasonable book.

* Paul asked the Church at Rome, whether they did not know that as many as were baptized (or incorporated through baptism) into Jesus Christ, were baptized into His death? (Rom. 6:3. Compare with Gal. 3:27; I Cor. 12:13).

** Notwithstanding Philips of Marnix; then, F. Beza: then Menso Alting then, Abr. A. Doreslaer; and then, the latest translators of the Bible, have come to another conclusion concerning the rebaptizing of the twelve Ephesian disciples who had been baptized by John, Acts 19:1-3; there has, nevertheless, as far as we have been able to discover, before the time of P. Marnix yea, for more than fifteen hundred years, never been a single Greek or Latin divine who doubted that those Ephesians were baptized again, because the first time they had been baptized without having a knowledge of the holy Ghost.

---

Comments:

2. Some evidence that anti-imperialism is more foundational than believer’s baptism to the Anabaptist tradition.

(1) Note that vanBraght states believer’s baptism is a sign and proof, of one’s incorporation into the visible Church, necessary for one’s being recognized as a member of the true Church. This plays nicely into my suggestion above that the prominence of believer’s baptism is accidental and epistemic.

(2) Here the point is made that infant baptism is “without the word of God”. The argument goes thus: The scriptures say that faith and repentance are necessary for true baptism, and there is no scriptural foundation for the practice of infant baptism. Therefore a church founded in the word of God must be one that practices believer’s baptism. I am not going to deal with this argument here, at least not presently.

(3) Here I think we see the more fundamental, political issue. The historical accident under which believer’s baptism came to stand out as a sign of “the true Church” was that the political authorities of Christendom condemned the practice of believer’s baptism as heresy and persecuted its practitioners. The reason for their concern was that the Anabaptist’s dissent was a political dissent, a refusal to recognize the legitimacy of a so-called Christian state, and a refusal to recognize the authenticity of a church that compromised with the political authorities to the point of proclaiming the divine right of kings. The Anabaptist’s objection to infant baptism is supposed to be that it equates citizenship in the “Christian” empire (i.e., Christendom) with citizenship in the Kingdom of God.

Now in the present era, infant baptism (in the U.S. for example) is not a necessary and sufficient condition for citizenship. The contemporary equivalent of Theodosius’ position on baptism would be if the Episcopal Church in America declared that it was the official state church and that every child born in the U.S. simultaneously gains citizenship in the U.S. and in the Kingdom of God (because they are virtually the same entity!). This is not, I think, anything like what a church community practicing infant baptism in the U.S. intends to say.

If both infant baptism and the baptism of adult converts were practiced prior to Theodosius (and I advance this merely as a historical conjecture without proof), what do you suppose would have happened had the state adopted the baptism of adult converts as the ritual sign of full citizenship rather than infant baptism? (To be clear, now I am engaging in alternate-universe speculations). Suppose the official state churches baptized adults in a ceremony in which they simultaneously swore an oath of allegiance to Christ and to the Empire, perhaps immediately before entering military service? Would the group that stood out and was persecuted be persecuted because they practiced adult baptism and not infant baptism? No, but because they rejected the notion of the Christian Empire (and consequently refused to participate in military service). It might even be possible that a group of Christians who persisted in their practice of infant baptism would be among those who insisted on the separation of church and state (that is, disassociation of the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Caesar), and were persecuted.

(4) This point is not in need of comment.


From The Martyr's Mirror by Thieleman J. van Braght; translation by Joseph F. Sohm:

---

THE REASON WHY WE HAVE POINTED OUT THE ARTICLE OF HOLY BAPTISM, AND THE ADHER ENCE OF ANABAPTISM, FROM THE DAYS OF CHRIST TO THE PRESENT TIME:
For more than a century up to the present day, people have been made to believe that the Anabaptists contemptuously so-called, have but recently sprung from some erring spirit,-some say, from the Munsterites,* etc.; whose fabulous faith, life and conduct, the true Anabaptists have never recognized; for no one will ever be able to show with truth, so far as we have been able to ascertain, that the articles of religion of those Munsterites, whereby they have drawn the attention of the world upon themselves, and which consist in commotion, rebellion and such like, have ever been adopted or acknowledged as good, much less professed and lived, by any formal church of the Anabaptists, or by any well known member of the same. But, on the contrary, they have from that time on and ever since declared that they would have neither lot nor part with them or their transactions; and admonished one another, not to follow such ways, because these could not stand the test before God and His Word, nor before the mind of a true and meek Christian, as being contrary to the Gospel of Christ, and the most holy faith.

Were we disposed to pay them in their own coin, we might say: The Munsterites were fellow members of those who sanction war and claim that one must propagate and defend his religion with the sword. For this is what they did; but we speak against it with heart, soul, and mind. (my emphasis)

Nevertheless, the people were made to believe these things; and therefore, many simple people without experience or knowledge have adopted the above opinion, simply because their pastor, preacher, or teacher told them so; hence, many slanders have sometimes been, and are still, spewed out like bitter gall, against the so-called Anabaptists, who are despised and rejected by everybody.

In order to show that the doctrines of the Anabaptists, especially that article an account of which they are called Anabaptists, did not originate with the Munsterites, or any other erring spirits who have arisen in these last times, but have proceeded from the source of truth-Christ and His apostles, we have placed their origin in the time of Christ, and shown that at that time already, this article, with other articles of the Christian religion, was taught and practiced; and also after the death of the apostles, through every age, even to the present time. ....

---

Comments:

3. Some evidence that non-violence is more foundational than believer’s baptism to the Anabaptist tradition.

I will not reproduce here the lengthy footnote which retells the story of the Munsterites—go to the Martyr’s Mirror webpage to read it.

This provides however an interesting example of a group of Christians in the 16th century who practiced believer’s baptism and opposed the Roman Church and Lutherans, but whom vanBraght insists have no continuity with what he calls the Anabaptist tradition. The primary reason for this is that the Munsterites took up arms in order to advance their religious cause. So it turns out that believer’s baptism is not sufficient to distinguish Anabaptists (vanBraght’s “true Church”) from Christendom.

VanBraght will be dealing more directly with the church perpetuity claim I’m interested in in the next section, I believe.

Until Next Time!

Feedback appreciated!

------

"He Himself is our Peace." (Eph 2)

Read the full post.

Martyr's Mirror 2: How Important is Baptism?

From The Martyr's Mirror by Thieleman J. van Braght; translation by Joseph F. Sohm:
(Note: You must click below to read the full post. As it appears on the main page it is incomplete.)

---

AUTHOR'S INTRODUCTION: SUMMARY OF THE FOLLOWING WORK
This work comprises two books, each of them containing a different and independent topic. The first is a treatise of the holy baptism and of that which pertains to it. The second is a historical account of the holy martyrs who suffered on account of baptism, or, generally, for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

These two topics have been briefly, yet not less clearly, treated, throughout, in every century, from [the?] days of Christ up to our present time; and this order has been followed: through every century first an account is given, through faithful and authentic authors, of the subject of holy baptism, and the proper administration of the same during that time; to which we have each time added our own comments, explanations, refutations of objections, etc., then every century is again taken up, and an account given of the holy martyrs who suffered during that time. So that each century treating of holy baptism is followed by a century treating of the holy martyrs; and thus from beginning to end.

This, then, is a summary and the order of the following work; which we shall directly explain more fully, and give our reason for doing so.

---

Comments:

On the centrality of the doctrine of believer’s baptism to Anabaptist identity & thought

Very shortly after this, vanBraght opines that it is unfortunate that “Anabaptism” has been thus named, for the true gospel which the Anabaptists represent (or hope to) is so much more than the doctrine of “believer’s baptism” (i.e., baptism of adults upon confession of faith). ...

In my own mind, “Anabaptist” functions primarily to refer to a living tradition within Christianity characterized by (a) nonviolence, (b) anti-imperialism/separation of church and state, (c) a community-based hermeneutic (i.e., we properly do biblical theology in community, not as an individual scholar in an academic university setting), etc. And I think of Anabaptism (within the scope of my personal experience) as a subset of “evangelical” or “orthodox” (even “catholic”—always with small “e”, “o”, and “c”) Christianity.

While the issue of believer’s baptism is an important one—it is deeply connected to Anabaptist views of discipleship as an individual’s choice and not something inherited by one’s parentage or national culture—I do not think of it as ultimately defining “Anabaptism”, despite the label’s etymological meaning. (Actually, etymologically speaking, most “Anabaptists” aren’t, because a tradition which does not practice the baptism of infants does not practice re-baptism for adults.)

In these opening paragraphs vanBraght assumes that one’s views and practices with respect to baptism are what defines someone as part of the “true church”, such that they deserve to be counted among martyrs (“witnesses”) who suffer for the sake of Christ and His gospel. vanBraght virtually equates suffering “on account of baptism” with suffering “for the testimony of Jesus Christ”.



Essentials and Nonessentials: A Vital Question Regarding Sacraments

It is oft quoted in ecumenical evangelical circles, “In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity”. The vital question here is: Is baptism an essential or a nonessential? And regardless of the answer to the first, how can we treat one another with Christian charity when we disagree over baptism? ...

I feel uncertain of my answer to the first question. On the one hand, I don’t want to diminish the sacraments by taking the following position: “The so-called sacraments (ordinances) are merely ritual actions which Christians perform in order to teach central spiritual truths, or to conjure up religious feelings. Nothing is actually accomplished, spiritually, when one is baptized or participates in the Lord’s Supper, or participates in any other sacraments.”

I believe that participating in the sacraments has real, meaningful spiritual effects—aside from any religious feelings which may or may not accompany the act. When the gospel is preached, the Spirit moves, illuminating the scriptures, communicating to our minds, convicting our hearts. When we confess our sins to one another and pray for each other in order that the relationships within the community and the relationships between sinners and a holy, loving God that have been torn by our sins might be healed, and pronounce God’s forgiveness and absolution of our sins, we truly undergo repentance, our sins are truly removed from us, and relationships are truly made right. When we worship together in a group of two or three or more, God’s Spirit is truly present among us, that we may worship in spirit and truth. When we take the body and blood of Christ together, God’s Spirit works to reconcile us to one another, and to Him, in the Body of Jesus. When we wash one another’s feet, we humble ourselves and love each other, and become a little more like our Lord who did the same for His disciples—the act thus effects spiritual transformation. When we love and mutually submit to one another in marriage, we come to know the love of Christ for His Church, and again we become a little more like Him.

Baptism too involves the working of the Spirit and spiritual effects, spiritual transformations. It is associated with the baptism of the Spirit, our being incorporated in the Body of Christ, our being empowered with gifts for service, our being reborn from above in newness of life.

On the other hand, God works as God wills. I don’t want to say that because someone has not been baptized outwardly that they have not received the Holy Spirit.

Now consider: baptism is unique among sacraments (correct me if I’m leaving something out) in that it is something that, as an outward ritual, only happens once in the life of the believer. All the other sacraments I can think of we do repetitively, and over time. Perhaps with baptism more than any other sacramental rite, the punctiliar nature of the outer rite may hide the imperfect or continuous nature of the sacrament itself. (I am speaking in grammatical terms.) In many traditions, whether they practice believer’s baptism or confirmation, there is a period of time during which one prepares to undergo baptism—through catechesis for example. And this is all a part of the one sacramental rite. The water rite is just one moment of a longer process. Who am I to suppose that God must enter the life of the believer and “save” them at one particular moment, or that it is the same moment for every believer? Perhaps it is in the midst of catechesis, perhaps before the formal process has begun, perhaps at the moment of water baptism, perhaps—for some Christians who have a profound conversion experience some time after their baptism or confirmation, perhaps this happens after their water baptism.

Can I get away with saying, then, that while baptism is a true sacrament with true spiritual ramifications, the brief water rite is only one moment of that sacramental process? Questions of how (dipping, pouring, sprinkling) & when (at infancy or adulthood, at the moment of an altar conversion or after a process of catechesis) the water rite itself is conducted might then be nonessentials in which orthodoxy may allow much liberty. While the sacramental process—personal decision, education, becoming part of a community—is essential and indispensible. (And perhaps even Anabaptists and “born-again Christians” might allow that “personal decisions” are not always punctiliar, datable events.) Even Christian Quakers who do not practice a water rite at all may be properly thought of as undergoing the sacrament of spiritual baptism.


Hmm. I feel that was a breakthrough for me in articulating what I think about the sacraments. Cool!


Comments, Please?
------

"He Himself is our Peace." (Eph 2)

Read the full post.

Martyr's Mirror 1: Prologue 1

Two Sundays ago, I allowed myself to be caught up in a rather lengthy discussion with a certain fellow: friendly, loud, boisterous, and firm in his convictions. The discussion concerned believer's baptism vs. infant baptism, salvation, and a certain view of Church history which, I learned, is put forth in an Anabaptist classic, The Martyr's Mirror (1660). This view of history a Wikipedia article refers to as "church perpetuity" or apostolic succession. The notion is that the Anabaptists of the 16th century and since are proper heirs of the "true Church" (and that the Church of Rome never was, because it stopped being the Church as soon as it was coopted by the Empire). At least one version of the story (as I had heard it before, interestingly enough, from our evangelical, Greek tour guide four years ago now) attempts to trace the lineage of (name of church body here) to a church or churches established by the Apostle Paul (a group that called themselves "Paulists") in the first century which refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Roman Church as soon as it became the state religion under Theodosius (see also here) who (as I recall being told by the tour guide) in effect mandated that every citizen (infants and adults) be baptized, and threatened them with death if they did not comply--thus making a personal confession of faith meaningless.

The purpose of this narrative has always seemed to me to be to remove the Roman Catholic Church from the pages of Church history (perhaps in order to excuse oneself from a few centuries worth of historical study, or perhaps to avoid identifying oneself with certain historical atrocities such as the Crusades and Inquisition)--surely, I always think, this must be a cheat. I mean every Christian in the West--for better or for worse--is de facto an heir of the history of the Roman Catholic Church from its inception to the Reformation(s), as surely as every thinking person in the West is de facto an heir of Enlightenment Philosophy. Further, I have a tendency to react in a strongly negative way to attempts to identify one body or another as "the true Church" (although I guess I'm enough of an exclusivist to deny that anyone who explicitly denies the divinity and Lordship of Christ is not a member of the Church, true or otherwise). One of the things that attracted me to the Anabaptists (via my wife, via a certain retired professor of mathematics who teaches literature seminars) is their emphasis on epistemic humility (which I would like to think extends to their theological commitments, but it seems not to in a number of cases when the topic of infant baptism comes up), and the fact that their history is rather uniquely free of killing other people because in the name of protecting orthodoxy (well, to be truthful, some Anabaptists seem not to have been pacifists).

However, as much as I continue to be personally attracted to certain elements of tradition, thought, and practice which I think of as Anglo-Catholic, I have to admit that since becoming part of an Anabaptist community and since hearing some people around me talk about "the Constantinian Shift" I have become more open to this kind of story. What attracts me I think is the strong anti-imperialism and counter-culturalism. (Everyone's got an -ism, a certain former correspondent of mine would say!) Since taking Apocalyptic Literature as an undergraduate Biblical Literature major I have become increasingly conscious of the political (or anti-political, perhaps) commitments that seem to come along with confessing Jesus as Lord. (Although, as I remember concluding at the end of that course, Daniel and his friends held positions of political power, and they were counted among the good guys.) It makes sense to me to suggest that when Christians took up arms to protect the state (that is, to protect some sinful human beings against others) and swore oaths of political allegience to political and military authorities, something went seriously wrong. (This is probably one of the two or three reasons that I consider myself a pacifist.)

Still, I have reservations about identifying with the Anabaptist tradition. I am still more comfortable with Reformed/Wesleyan/Anglo-Catholic views on the sacraments, for example. And my Catholic sympathies (probably in part the result of my upbringing, in a home which prided itself I think on being good friends with Catholics in a small midwestern town) are going to die hard, if at all.

As part of my personal quest to reconsider my theological views on things (in general), and to decide what it means to be Anabaptist (so I can decide whether or not to say I am one and mean it), I want to take up my brother's challenge (the friendly, loud, boisterous, and convicted one) to look at the introduction in the Martyr's Mirror with its account of Anabaptism and "church perpituity".

So I think I will be doing this in a series of blog posts. The text, if any is interested, is here.

Until then.

------

"He Himself is our Peace." (Eph 2)

Read the full post.