Tags
America, Anabaptist, emergent, evangelical, Institute on Religion and Democracy, IRD Blog, Luke Moon, Marginalized, Post-Christian, Relevant Magazine
Hoping to stay cutting-edge, Relevant Magazine has decided to invite blogger Kurt Willems to “write from an anabaptist perspective on issues surrounding church, faith, and theology in a post-Christian culture.” In his opening column Kurt was brilliantly able to include at least seven anabaptist clichés, make numerous references to “empire”, celebrate the marginalization of the church in the US, condescendingly comment about a popular Christian song that celebrates the uniqueness of God’s greatness, and demonize Constantine (which is a requirement for all neo-anabaptists).
Nothing seems to excite neo-anabaptists more than the prospect of the church being pushed to the margins of society. It is from the margin that the church will supposedly finally return to its pure, spotless, and “authentically Christ-centered mode of humility, enemy-love, and justice.” Once the church is freed from the entanglements of the “marriage of empire to faith” and securely marginalized, people will be undoubtedly drawn to join our new-found “alternative culture.” Of course we can’t have too many people join our alternative culture lest we find ourselves not on the margins anymore.
Dreaming of how great the church will be once it’s on the margins is utterly foolish. There are numerous examples from all over the world of Christian communities on the margins of society. Consider the recent report by my colleague, Faith McDonnell, on the plight of the minority Christian community in Pakistan. Faith writes:
Pakistani Christians are disadvantaged and victimized in every way. Dhimmis, treated as second-class citizens, they live with grinding poverty and Muslim contempt, deprived of education and employment opportunities. Vulnerable to threats and lacking the means to defend themselves, they are the inevitable targets of Islamist attacks, even victimized by those who are supposed to protect them, merely because they are Christians.
Having your children kidnapped and sold into sexual slavery or denied education and basic human rights does not fit with Kurt Willem’s fantasy vision of the marginalized church, but it is the reality in many places.
Perhaps Kurt is under the delusion that the “post-Christendom” culture will retain the Christian values while rejecting the source of those values. The Christian values might last a generation or so, but when the salt and light are driven from the culture, the decay and darkness return. In many post-Christendom nations of Europe the church abdicated its responsibility in many core areas of society, such as healthcare, education and family life, and allowed the state to fill the void. The impact has not been fully realized, but if the demographics and economic decline is any indication–the future is not bright.
Even here in the US, as many in the church seeks to defend the sanctity of marriage and the value of human life within a culture that is still at least nominally Christian, it is met with antagonism and hate. Will the “Jesus-followers [who are] creating a beautiful alternative culture” help and defend the Christian wedding photographer who faces choosing to place obedience to the teachings of Christ over State demands that she photograph a same-sex wedding? Are the neo-anabaptists willing to stand with this guy…
…as he defends the life of the pre-born? Sadly, on these issue, many neo-anabaptists hide behind a wall of obfuscation and conformity in the name of non-confrontational Christianity.
While many neo-anabaptists refuse to be confrontational on numerous social issues, they are extremely confrontational when it comes to the issue of violence and war. The historic and important contribution of the pacifist strain within Christianity should not be overlooked or devalued. In many areas they have provided an important balance to the Just War theorists. However, it is important to note that the anabaptists have been able to thrive not in spite of “empire” but because of it. It is the sons and daughters of Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Pentecostal Christians who serve as police officers and soldiers to defend the freedom to be pacifist.
Kurt might be right that we are moving towards a post-Christendom America, but he is not right that this is something to be celebrated. On the contrary, in the post-Christian America there will not be more peace but less, there will not be more love but less, there will not be more hope but less. The church in the age of Nero lived on the margins, but they were set ablaze to lighting the streets of Rome too.
I had heard of the Baptist bride, but reyjacobs’s Anabaptist bride theology is a bit new. He raises a good point that non-pacifist denominations have in the past been guilty of persecution against the Anabaptists; however, the Anabaptists themselves have not been without error. Since we mention Menno, his Christology itself is one point. The pluralism within the Anabaptist tradition is too great—a pluralism that includes sword-bearers.
I also was displeased with Willems’s article, mostly because it seemed a bit vacuous and, as Luke has pointed out, filled with neo-anabaptist clichés (somewhat in Willems defense, he is writing introductorily). With that connection to already familiar ideas unfortunately comes to our minds other topics that are related to what was written but were not made explicit. This is shown to be the case when our minds jumped to the idea of an idealized persecuted church despite the fact that Willems nowhere mentioned it.
Nevertheless, I think you are basically correct that it is a mistake to run toward a minority Christianity. We ought always seek the expansion of the kingdom, whether as a majority or a minority. There are evils associated with both. God-ordained governments are instituted to protect the innocent from the wicked (so Calvin) and this includes the protection of minority rights as has been in operation in the West. However, we know that not all governments rule with justice and persecute the minorities-religious or otherwise. But the kingdom can nonetheless grow as in the days of the early church.
With a Christian majority we run into other problems-problems of which Willems is aware, namely that civil religion (or as I prefer to say a “de facto established church”) can distract from true repentance. Though the gospel of Christ may be lost in the noise of a culture that looks Christian, the kingdom can nonetheless grow as in the days of the prophets who called to repentance a nation that appeared to worship the Lord.
I am not one to say that we ought rush toward a post-christian America or that we ought fight to preserve a Christian nation. I merely recognize that God can work remarkably in any situation in which his people find themselves and the questions that the church will face in the possibility of post-christendom demand serious and not dismissive attention.
P.S. I agree. The “condescension” of the song was a bit of a stretch.
“However, it is important to note that the anabaptists have been able to thrive not in spite of ‘empire’ but because of it. It is the sons and daughters of Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Pentecostal Christians who serve as police officers and soldiers to defend the freedom to be pacifist.”
So before there were any Methodists or Pentecostals, and the Presbyterians and Lutherans along with the Catholics were persecuting anabaptists and drowning them in mockery of adulter baptism by immersion, you know, like back in the days of Minno Simons, how did the anabaptists survive?
Lutheran and Presbyterian police officers were killing them, not protecting them. Who protected them? Oh, I guess it must have God.
When the U.S. starts flying predator drones in U.S. airspace and the next Muslim or atheist president decided by executive order to start using them to kill Christians, while the Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Pentecostals, and Catholics are being bombarded out of existence, God Himself will protect the anabaptists as he always has. Or if something even worse happens, namely Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Pentecostals or Catholics being the ones using the predator drones to kill of their Christian rivals, then God will still protect the anabaptists because they and they alone are his people.
There are many Coptic Christians in Egypt who would gladly trade places Relevant’s US readers.
Hmm. Magazine-empire-daddy-funded cutting edge.
Well stated, Faith. Daddy indeed.
Pingback: Syndrome
You made the case very well, Luke.
Nothing seems to excite neo-anabaptists more than the prospect of the church being pushed to the margins of society.
Nothing seems to excite right-wing, cafeteria Christians more than the prospect of the church being made the handmaiden of the corporate state.
Luke…
my critique is whether that should be celebrated and perhaps even longed for.
I read and (perhaps unsurprisingly) enjoyed Willems’ article. It seemed to me the point he was making is hard to dispute or find disagreeable.
What I heard him saying was that we, the church, have been co-opted and watered down and moved away from Christ’s teachings. He is celebrating the end of a water-down, “state-owned” religion back to the Jesus’ movement.
What is wrong with that, even from a more conservative point of view?
(And let me throw a caveat in here that I use “conservative” loosely and based on current accepted usage. In many very real ways, we anabaptists – and neo-anabaptists – are rightly considered quite conservative. Some might say amongst the most conservative, but that’s a discussion for another day…)
Dan, thanks for your comment. What makes you think that when the church is pushed to the margins it will become the pure and what does that look like anyways. I am not anabaptist and have been part of the so-called “state-owned” religion for most of my life. I spent 12 years in full-time ministry serving the poor and needy, the widow and the orphans. We can do all that Christ calls us to do whether in the center or the margins, but the margins is not the holy place many neo-anabaptists dream it is.
I would agree that many anabaptists are conservative, but I would not say that of the neo-anabaptists. It is actually on the conservative points that I make the distinction between the two. I have many anabaptist friends who are conservative on issues like marriage, sanctity of life, authority of scripture, etc. Then I also have anabaptist friends who have rejected the authority of scripture and are dutiful liberals on most social issues. It is the later group I tend to place in the neo-anabaptist camp. I know those are rather sweeping generalizations, but an important distinction.
Thanks for the thoughts, Luke. You ask…
What makes you think that when the church is pushed to the margins it will become the pure
It may not. I don’t think the author was speaking of – and I know I’m not speaking of – being “pushed” to the margins. I’m speaking of looking at where Jesus lived and walking in those steps which I think most of us can agree were the margins, with the outcast and least of these.
…and what does that look like anyways.
Ideally, it will look reminiscent of Jesus’ life and the early church. Which would be a good thing, right?
I think we all need to decide for ourselves what that looks like in today’s world, but for anabaptists (and what might be called “neo-anabaptists”), it tends to look like a simple lifestyle, peaceful, just and in community with one another and with the least of these.
I think these are the ideals painted in the NT and are good ones to shoot for. I think when we try to enumerate or dictate how it MUST look, we are off on the wrong foot, for we are leaving grace towards legalism.
Is that a direct-enough and reasonable answer?
Luke…
We can do all that Christ calls us to do whether in the center or the margins, but the margins is not the holy place many neo-anabaptists dream it is.
Says who? For many of us, we find it be quite holy, set-apart, spiritual, deep, fulfilling, Godly. Again, we all need to find our own path, and admittedly “from the margins” is vague, I’m just saying it seems an entirely reasonable, moral and biblical ideal to me.
I sort of wonder where specifically you would disagree? What do you find “unholy” about the “margins…”? Perhaps we’re speaking of two different things and perhaps you’re understanding “margins” differently than folk like Willems and me?
As to this…
Then I also have anabaptist friends who have rejected the authority of scripture and are dutiful liberals on most social issues
It’s off topic and we probably don’t want to dwell on it, but we don’t “reject the authority of Scripture” on these issues. We disagree with the popular modern conservative interpretation of Scripture on these issues. But our GOAL (and I say “our” because I would probably fit in with what you’re calling “neo-anabaptist) is to follow Christ’s steps as outlined in the Holy Scriptures.
I guess/hope perhaps that you could agree that disagreeing with another’s interpretation is not the same as rejecting Scripture?
To further elaborate on this part of your first question…
What makes you think that when the church is pushed to the margins it will become the pure
From a scriptural point of view, we look to the many verses that warn against the trappings of wealth, of materialism, of depending upon military might and material things rather than God and strive to find a balanced life in fitting with those scriptures/ideals/teachings…
Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.
But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven…
No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other You cannot serve God and wealth…
Do not acquire gold, or silver, or copper for your money belts, or a bag for your journey…
[Jesus, speaking of John the Baptist...] “But what did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Those who wear soft clothing are in kings’ palaces!…”
“If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me…”
“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great ones make their authority over them felt.
But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant…
let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us…
I’m sorry, that’s probably too many citations, but you get the idea. There are a great deal of warnings in the Bible about the trappings of wealth and teachings about solidarity with the poor and marginalized.
We simply strive to take those teachings seriously, which is why I find it puzzling the dislike for this particular essay.
I read this article yesterday and, sadly, was not shocked. When Willems fantasy takes hold in America, a post-modern hell will be unleashed. As objective truth is rejected by most and God is forgotten, anything and everything under the sun will become acceptable within our society. As the Creator who gave us our unalienable rights is shoved aside, it won’t be “Man” who will fill the vacuum, but flesh and blood men who will make decisions based on any criteria they desire. Willems will get the “church on the margins” that he so badly desires, but he may not like what fills in the moral vacuum.
I like the basic idea here – that the stability of the “empire” or political order of the US allows for the growth and operation of the church.
However, I disagree with the assumption that lack of persecution is necessarily better for the church in all respects. There are some respects in which persecution is helpful for the church, forcing it to more fully trust in God in time of needs. (Analogously, when we fast, we are compelled to draw nearer to God because of the physical discomfort).
Is there room for that in your understanding of the relation of church & state?
Yes, there is room in my understanding for the beneficial role of persecution. But my critique is whether that should be celebrated and perhaps even longed for. The obedient Christian should expect antagonism from those who “love the dark,” but the participation of Christians in the center of society has a benefit we fully realize until it is gone.
There are also some respects in which persecution is extremely devastating to the church — like when it wipes out the Christian community.
I don’t think that the author was suggesting that persecution itself is a fun thing. He doesn’t mention persecution at all. Instead, he said…
In a world where Christians are placed back into the margins, it will force us to move into a more authentically Christ-centered mode of humility, enemy-love and justice.
We anabaptists remember the persecutions, we aren’t celebrating them. We know well at what cost they come – perhaps better than most. The point I think he’s making is simply that we are called to be with Jesus in the margins, with the oppressed, with the widowed, with the least of these. The allure of an empire/church liaison is a temptation we’d do best to avoid.
That’s what I hear him saying, not suggesting a call to be persecuted.