Picking up the discussion from the first post, if Brexit itself has meant all sorts of things to all sorts of people then what does Anabaptist mean?
For brevity, I’m going to refer to how some contemporary Anabaptists define themselves. The principles below are from the Anabaptist Network, a loose coalition of Anabaptist-minded Christians.
Anabaptist Mennonite Network Core Convictions
“Among the core convictions and commitments important to many of us are:
1. Jesus is our example, teacher, friend, redeemer and Lord. He is the source of our life, the central reference point for our faith and lifestyle, for our understanding of church and our engagement with society. We are committed to following Jesus as well as worshipping him.
2. Jesus is the focal point of God’s revelation. We are committed to a Jesus-centred approach to the Bible, and to the community of faith as the primary context in which we read the Bible and discern and apply its implications for discipleship.
3. Western culture is slowly emerging from the Christendom era when church and state jointly presided over a society in which almost all were assumed to be Christian. Whatever its positive contributions on values and institutions, Christendom seriously distorted the gospel, marginalised Jesus and has left the churches ill-equipped for mission in a post-Christendom culture. As we reflect on this, we are committed to learning from the experience and perspectives of movements such as Anabaptism that rejected standard Christendom assumptions and pursued alternative ways of thinking and behaving.
4. The frequent association of the church with status, wealth and force is inappropriate for followers of Jesus and damages our witness. We are committed to exploring ways of being good news to the poor, powerless and persecuted.
5. Churches are called to be committed communities for discipleship and mission, places of friendship, mutual accountability and multi-voiced worship that sustain hope as we seek God’s kingdom together. We are committed to nurturing and developing such churches, in which young and old are valued, leadership is consultative, roles are related to gifts rather than gender, and baptism is for believers.
6. Spirituality and economics are inter-connected. In an individualist and consumerist culture and in a world where economic injustice is rife, we are committed to finding ways of living simply, sharing generously, caring for creation and working for justice.
7. Peace is at the heart of the gospel. As followers of Jesus in a divided and violent world we are committed to finding non-violent alternatives and to learning how to make peace between individuals, within and among churches, in society and between nations.”
If you have
read this blog over the years, you will see why I say I’m an Anabaptist at
heart. It seems to me that these convictions are deeply, biblically right: Jesus-directed discipleship,
kingdom-centred life, church as an alternative body politic to the state, a
kingdom community that is wary of power, money and hierarchy, roles related to
giftedness not gender, and a commitment to non-violence.
But how do such values work out in
terms of engaging faith and politics? With Brexit as our case study.
Let’s drill down into kingdom /
church and state a bit more in terms of answering our main question.
A way in to
this is to using a recent book by John Nugent, Endangered Gospel: how fixing the world is killing the church.
Nugent is an OT scholar (Politics of
Yahweh) and also editor of the Yoder
for Everyone series (although now personally discredited, Yoder was a giant
of 20th century Anabaptism).
Nugent’s argument takes up central Anabaptist themes arguing for a kingdom-centred framework as opposed to what he calls heaven-centred, human-centred, or world-centred approaches to Christian life within the world.
three need brief definition because what framework we use will profoundly shape
our approach to faith and politics.
asking yourself which one most closely fits where you are at – whether you have
worked that theological framework out consciously or whether it is more a case
of instinctive feelings and gut assumptions.
The main ethos here is rescuing people from the world. The church is a recruiting organisation, mission is about deliverance from the world and the Christian life is mainly about preparation for the future better-place of heaven. There is, consequently, little theological motive to get too involved in the world, and certainly not the fallen world of politics.
comment here – this is what Anabaptism is often accused of, namely a pietistic
spiritual withdrawal from the corrupt world into a community of holy pilgrims
on the way to a better heavenly place. But such a charge is little more than
caricature. I would argue that Anabaptism at its best is precisely the opposite
– it is deeply engaged with the world, often at great cost (but we’ll come back
to this in a moment).]
political and religious views fit in here.
atheists are often deeply concerned for world-betterment – after all this world
is all there is so we’d better do our best to look after it. Since God is an
illusion, we are the only hope of the world.
change activism is obviously passionate about world-betterment – time is
running out and humanity is its own (and the entire global ecosystem’s) worst
enemy. Radical action is urgently required to save the world. Obviously there
are many Christians involved in climate justice – as well as about protecting
the natural world, it is an issue of justice for the poor. But the point I’m
making is that within this view, the key to making the world a better place is
human political action.
Christians within this framework tend towards the view that the church’s job is to advance God’s kingdom on earth. Jesus has shown what radical social and economic justice looks like in practice, and the task of disciples today is to is to enact and apply Jesus’ kingdom-vision to contemporary social and political structures.
A critical theological move here is
how Jesus’ focus on discipleship within the kingdom-community is widened out to
become a blueprint for life within the world in general. This can lead, I suggest, to the
elevation of the political – everything is political and the political is
There is a lot going for the world-centred view.
rightly affirms God’s care for the world and his plan to redeem and renew it
(not destroy it);
sees how the trajectory of the Bible story is about the union of heaven and
earth, not humanity’s escape from the world;
is realistic to acknowledge that humans cannot bring about God’s kingdom come –
only God can; it is shaped by a ‘now and not yet’ inaugurated kingdom theology
where, since the incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus,
God is now actively at work in the world making this world a better place in
emphasises that our role in the world is to work for justice – to be active in seeking
to make this world a little bit more in line with the kingdom of God. God’s
people are called to participate with him in kingdom work, as a foretaste of
the future consummated kingdom to come.
All of this
is persuasive and makes the world-centred view increasingly popular as a more
compelling framework that the human or heaven-centred views.
But, Nugent argues, and I agree with him, that the world centred approach has a fatal weakness. And this is critically important in shaping a theology of faith and politics.
So in the next post, we will consider his criticisms of the world-centred approach and what his articulation of what a kingdom-centred theology of faith and political action looks like.
In a further post or two, we will discuss what a kingdom-centred Anabaptist theological framework looks like when it comes to Brexit.