A couple of days ago, I posted a two day series on what the New Testament actually says about the future Church. And, I pointed out that the picture of the Church that is given by Our Lord Jesus Christ, Saint Paul, and Saint John is not what we expect. Rather, Jesus gave the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares to warn us not only that there would be evil people sown into the Church by our enemy to lower the harvest of souls, but even worse that the people that would be in the Church would not be easily discernible from the evil people. Saint Paul said that after his leaving for Jerusalem that the Ephesian Church would be attacked by wolves from even among the leadership. And Saint John predicted that there would be many anti-Christs, and that they would split the Church, leading people out and showing that they were not of the Church because they left the Church.
I also commented that the old Anabaptist theology of the Church did not allow them to see that reality and instead has led to worse woes for the Church. What did I mean?
During the time of the Reformation, the Anabaptists legitimately and laudably were disgusted with the reality of the lack of perfection, not only among the people but also among the clergy. The prophecies of the first paragraph had come true. There was no doubt that the Church was a mixed group of people and that it was difficult to tell the saints from the sinners. It was clear that there were wolves among the leadership. The Church had been split into two major pieces for 500 years at the time of the Reformation, with several minor pieces also present. Everything that Our Lord Jesus, Saint Paul, and Saint John had predicted was already true. Laudably the Anabaptists were concerned with the purity of the Church. I say laudably because as early as the third century, the Desert Fathers had expressed the same exact concern.
In fact, had the Anabaptists behaved like the Desert Fathers and like the monastics, and withdrawn in order to present a more perfect society, dedicated to growing in holiness, to prayer, to service, to wisdom, etc., they would have perhaps been a strong and powerful witness calling the Church back to the command, “Be ye perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect.” After all, the early Anabaptists did withdraw into communities that were dedicated to living out a solid Christian life. But, there was a flaw in their thinking with respect to the Church. Actually, there were several serious flaws, but I am only dealing with the issue of the wicked Church at this time. That flaw was that they changed the theology of the Church from the mixed body, the militant army at war, that is present in both Scripture and the Early Church Fathers, to that of a called out society conformed only by those who truly believed. Anyone who did not fit that definition was not truly part of the Church and therefore should not be physically present in the building of the Church.
This was quite a change from the view of the Early Church Fathers, who did uphold some rather strict standards, but who insisted that penitents and sinners belonged within the Church, even if their place was in the rear, listening in, or in the entrance hall with other penitents. The Church knew that there were saints that were not clearly identifiable as saints, in fact they might really be part of the enemy’s camp. But, the attitude was to try to deal with the Church as physicians who would bring healing to damaged souls. Again, there was no doubt that the Church would apply discipline. But, what they did not do was to try to form a called-out separated group of believers. They knew that if they did that, some of the wheat would be pulled out, in contradiction to the orders given in the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares.
Moreover, separatist theology led to an inevitable problem. You see, the enemy is quite good at planting weeds among the wheat. And young wheat is hard to tell from weeds. Eventually, and regularly, people who buy into the Anabaptist theology will notice, within a couple of generations of the founding of a denomination, that they have become “cold,” that they have deserted the truth and power given to them by the founder of a couple of generations before. And so, following Anabaptist theology, this means that they must separate out in order to return to being a “hot” group filled with the power of the Holy Spirit. Several thousand denominations later, people who believe in Anabaptist theology have yet to find such a long-term “hot” church.
Instead in order to try to answer the reality of a church that regularly ends up with weeds in the field, they have developed a mystical idea of the Church that allows for it to be this nebulous shifting thing that can never quite be pinned down. You have to live in the moment, and receive what the Holy Spirit is giving. That is, the Anabaptist theology of the Church quickly degenerated into a touchy-feely thing that quite easily led towards the Pentecostal and then the Charismatic movements. The Church is where the Holy Spirit is at that moment in time, and when it gets cold, you leave to follow the beckoning heat of the Holy Spirit.
In effect, Anabaptist theology has made the Church an indefinable and undefinable thing which we will only be sure we are part of after we are dead.
Interesting. Thanks, Father.
I follow your line of thought, but could we also attribute some of this shifting and schism to the American traditions of individualism, democracy, and frontier spirit? The separatist energy does seem to follow along anabaptist roots, but then again the Brethren, Amish and Mennonites are rooted in anabaptism, and although initially they separated they have remained largely intact for a few hundred years. Would you compare them with the monastic movement that you mentioned?: “In fact, had the Anabaptists behaved like the Desert Fathers and like the monastics, and withdrawn in order to present a more perfect society, dedicated to growing in holiness, to prayer, to service, to wisdom, etc., they would have perhaps been a strong and powerful witness…”
I belong to a church in the American Baptist Convention, and so far I haven’t noticed much in the way of schism. Occasionally, a new pastor or someone fresh off the mission field will stir people up into leaving the denomination and going independent, but we are a big enough tent at present to accommodate liberal and conservative churches. I think the Episcopal Church USA used to be so, but lately (who am I talkin’ to?) has gone down the road of schism for reasons other than what you have cited (some have avoided schism by going back to the Orthodox Church!). The United Church of Christ (Congregationalists) also seem to be a big tent, although quite liberal; and some pastors haul their congregations out and into something like the CCCC or become independent. And sometimes all of this is a good thing.
I do get your concern about schism, though, and a good friend of mine, a retired Episcopal bishop, shares this view. Unfortunately, he has had his finger in the dyke for too long and now accepts the Anglican movement in the US as inevitable. When the weeds start dominating the wheat perhaps it is time to step aside. But I think the Anglicans would say that they are not the ones who left.
Some very legitimate objections. And, I see a new blog post coming up. Please give me a couple of days.
There is something here, I think, to your contrasting the parable of the weeds and wheat to the desire for the “pure” and “alive” church in the anabaptist reformation, and the subsequent revivalist and pietist reformations that came along afterwards. Do you think the energy for similar Orthodox splinters is from the same idea – an attempt to separate from the weeds – or is there something different at work in those movements?
I’ll disagree with Ted a little bit here, regarding the condition of the modern Mennonites/Amish. From my perspected (having grown up in that stream) it is not true that they “have remained largely intact for a few hundred years.” I saw a wall chart one time mapping all the splits and mergers that have emerged from the original anabaptists. It looked like a tree turned on its side. The Mennonites (and Amish, though I have less experience there) have had a difficult time during those hundreds of years getting along together. They have been in a constant churn of drawing the lines of where the “holy people” are.
My inlaws were for a time at a church in the Goshen, Indiana area where the current building for the “modern” group is near a T-road crossroad. Across the road is the church for the 1950’s split-off, where are all cars are black, and the dress is conservative. Around the corner of the T is the church for the 1800’s split-off, where all the buggies are black, and there are no cars. All three groups still share the same cemetary though, so there is still some union, I guess, in the factions.
I will say, though, that the Mennos and Amish (and some Brethren groups) still do manage to work together on disaster relief and service organizations, regardless of how many times their corporate worship life has subdivided.
A lot of the Orthodox splinter groups have difficulty differentiating between doctrinal and disciplinary canons. As a result, when there is a canonical change, they immediately accuse the Church of violating some holy and unchangeable tradition. Any evidence you might give as to how that tradition developed (and some cases where the new tradition clearly contradicts the previous tradition) is irrelevant. They claim that the Holy Spirit guided the tradition up to the point that they feel must be kept-as-it-is. But then, the tradition froze and became unchangeable.
The problem is that if one is going to treat Holy Tradition in that manner, then on the one hand, one ends up with some serious historical problems. Even Balaman, the famous canonical interpreter comments several times in his collection that this or that canon is no longer really enforced, or that this or that canon was changed or modified by a lower ranking synod than the one that approved it.
To give you one example that makes me sigh. I am in favor of the change to the Gregorian calendar. But the Old Calendarist claim that because the Julian calendar was in use at the time of the Councils that this means that now it is a holy calendar that cannot be changed. I find no theological or historical merit to that argument, particularly since the Julian Calendar is slowly moving Pascha away from its Jewish roots and the way in which the Old Testament said to calculate it.
Interestingly, it seems that the Old Calendarists’ primary concerns these days are more about “ecumenism” and less about the calendar (although they often view the adoption of the latter as a symptom of the former).
Yes, they use much of the same rhetorical techniques as fundamentalist Protestants. The accusations are often extreme, and everything gets blamed on one or two ideas, such as ecumenism.
being Anabaptist (menno.) this article caught my eye. I understand as a Ortho. you would have some problems with the Anabaptist view of church, but I found you article a little off base. Anabaptist have until very recently had very little connection with the charismatic movement. Anabaptist have historicly been very community oriented (sometimes to a fault) – not very “hot” & “cold”. I believe the Methodists & Baptists may have been more “hot” & “Cold”.
But I think you miss the BIG picture of ‘Church & State’ being the BIG issue in church theology. We as Anabaptist do practice ‘Church disipline’ (yes, sometimes poorly) but all churches have some form of church disipline (Boy, do anabaptist know churches have disipline – burning anybody?) . Anabaptist were mostly protesting the idea of the ‘State’ being the leader of Salvation & God’s Kingdom. To this Anabaptist, this is still the problem of RC, OC, & to some extent Anglican. we are all redeemed sinners & “dubious” saints in the Church. But the State having any say in who’s in the church is a serious problem that dates back to (wait for it…….) Constantine! I believe the ‘State Church’ is what Anabaptist were separating from the most – not so much sinners. Also, I believe the desert Fathers were before Constantine & they were fighting a much different battle than the Anabaptists. Still dig your site. Peace in Christ.
You make some very good points about the State and about the Anabaptist concern being more that of State-Church relations rather than about separating from the mixed Church. I would, however, argue that the Münster Rebellion of 1534-1535, under Melchoir Hoffman and the earlier Peasant’s War of 1524-1525 showed the willingness of some of the Anabaptists to establish their own State. They were bloodily repressed, and many peaceful Anabaptists did pay the unjust price of being killed or imprisoned. The destruction of those two movements left only the non-State Anabaptists around.
However, I did not mean to hook the Anabaptists formally with the Charismatics. That was bad wording on my part. Anabaptists, however, have had a problem with continuing divisions. I grew up in a section of Ohio that had Amish, Old Order Amish, Grace Brethren, Old Order Brethren, Church of the Brethren, Mennonites, Reformed Mennonites, Old Order Mennonites. There were arguments over simple dress, and over how much modernity was allowed. While the original Anabaptists may indeed have been quite State-Church oriented, I would argue that they rather quickly fell into a “near perfect and separate society” attitude. But, I agree with you that I could be wrong on that part.
Thank you for responding. I was waiting for the Münster Rebellion to be brought up. I wish there was a way to distingish between Anabaptists as in (mennonites, Brethren, hutteries, & Amish) & some of the wilder & stranger anabaptists we see through out the Reformation era. It is important to remember that any group no matter how strange (end times, atheist, anti-trinitarian) if they rejected infant baptism they were lumped together as “anabaptists” by the state church. At least the Münster Rebellion brought the Catholics & luthrens together for alittle while 😉 .
it is correct that we Anabaptists, like all churches, separate. It is sad, & a result of our brokenness. I see that all churches have this same separations, but because Anabaptists do not believe in the ‘State Church’ we do not have a pretty “hat” or heirarchy to hide under. We are expossed. We are held together by the Spirit, & Love of Jesus which can be invisible, but can also be visible through our worship, service, & Love. I see Church as Community – they both give you romantic ideas but the reality can be very messy – but also rewarding. If we Mennonites believe we are the perfect church, we are really screwed! I think we can learn alot from the Orthodox church. Especailly in the ways of Worship & mystery of God. Peace.
Heh heh, let’s see, we Orthodox have the main group (Eastern Orthodox), and then there are the Oriental Orthodox, the Coptic Orthodox (who are not really Oriental), the Armenians, the Ethiopian Orthodox (who really are their own thing with more books of the Old Testament than any other Christian group), etc., etc. But, I must admit that our “bling” is among the best in Christendom. 🙂 [For those of you who are fellow Orthodox, no, I am not trying to be blasphemous.]
But, I would agree with you that the Church is truly held together by by the Holy Spirit. He is the true Spirit of unity. In the monastic movement of the Orthodox Church, there is preserved a strong desire and emphasis for community. The monastic movement is where Orthodoxy overlaps with the Anabaptists.