Comments on: Transformationist Anabaptist?

By: Brian Hamilton

Brian Hamilton — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:25:18 +0000

Ah, I wasn’t reading closely enough. I found the reference to the Sawatsky article on the other blog; I’ll have to get my hands on it sometime soon.

By: Brian Hamilton

Brian Hamilton — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:16:37 +0000

folknotions: I take quite a bit of guidance from Schleitheim, and I don’t too much mind being called ’separationist.’ Surely one can’t drive too thick a wedge between the different streams, since in my mind personal holiness (~Menno) is part of what constitute the church’s nonconformity, and the church is separate precisely as a witness to Christ and a service to the world (~Marpeck). Yet I find it especially important to emphasize separation because I find repentance to be an especially important dimension of the church’s existence. Repentance, theologically speaking, is our renunciation of the powers of this world and our oath of loyalty to Christ. In re-orienting us towards the heavenly kingdom by the way and truth of Christ, the constant posture of repentance constitutes the church’s fundamental uniqueness with respect to the world.

All that said, I have some questions about the entire schema. Tim, care to elaborate how it was formed? On first glance, it seems to me more ‘Christ and Culture’ stamped onto Anabaptism than anything organic to the movement. And I don’t really understand the transformationist model, or at least what it has to do with Hut, Hoffman, etc.

By: SRudy

SRudy — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:53:44 +0000

Thanks Tim for that. I think I find myself an Establishment/Transformationist/Reformist blend, and I think that a lot of Anabaptists find some of the things they believe in between the lines of those four.

Going to what you said about peak oil and climate change, today in our Sunday school class a member of our congregation shared about the climate, and resource change that is going on. He is a geologist with USGS and he shared how so much of our resources are being depleted and just how we as Christians are called to be good stewards of Gods earth. So that presentation really opened my eyes to that subject and I guess because I care about those issues that would fall into the Transformationist category.

By: folknotions

folknotions — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:24:17 +0000

TimN,

Thanks for finally posting this; It was great to sit with you in this session at the San Jose Conference that discussed these streams. I agree with you as well, that it makes it easier to identify where others are coming from.

I would, however, like you to respond to why you would place yourself in the “transformationist” category. Also, if anyone identifies with the “separationist” category, if they could explain why as well.

I point these two out specfically, because I feel most comfortable in the establishment/reformist streams and have an idea of why I would place myself there (I also echo SteveK on this one, especially on the Michael Sattler affinity). But I’m not sure if I understand how the transformationist or separationist streams are more than political postures and if it is fair to separate these streams from “establishment” or “reformist” streams.

Any comments would be appreciated.

By: Amy

Amy — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:14:46 +0000

It’s interesting that you posted this. I’ve been reflecting a lot on the very early Anabaptist movement (like, around the time of Zwingli), but haven’t gotten far enough into the history yet to realize the varying ways Anabaptism diverged.

In fact, I just wrote some reflections on this on my blog: http://www.storiesfromtheredtent.blogspot.com.

I also find that I’ve been referring to myself more as Anabaptist than Mennonite lately. Because I’m finding that “Mennonite” doesn’t say it fully.

By: j alan meyer

j alan meyer — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 02:20:04 +0000

Thanks, Tim. I’d lean toward the Reformist stream, but that’s heavily influenced by a general love of Marpeck’s writings and an aversion to Schleitheim and Menno. But I affirm what others have said — that, as in most things, a balance is necessary among the various streams.

By: SteveK

SteveK — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 01:36:41 +0000

Great post.

I find myself somewhere in the Establishist and/or Reformist streams, although I find that Michael Sattler’s use of the Bible to be excellent.

Steve K

By: Sean F

Sean F — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 00:13:58 +0000

I think this is a useful model. I’ve seen a similar classification system suggested by Craig Carter, in his book “Rethinking Christ and Culture,” which is a critique of Niebuhr’s types in “Christ and Culture.” Carter’s three streams of pacifism/nonviolence were Christ separating from culture, Christ humanizing culture and Christ transforming culture, which seem to match up with Sawatsky pretty well. As recent examples of each stream, he offers the Amish, MCC, and MLK, Jr. respectively. I guess the one he left out is the Establishment stream, but I’m kind of fuzzy on what exactly that means, or how it would be different from Separationist. Clarification?

I agree that there are positive and negative elements in each way of thinking/living. I find myself embracing nonconformity in the cultural and political realms, but I still want to be engaged in practical service to individuals and transformation of the Church if not society, and I feel like the basis for all of this is grounded in personal holiness and obedience to Christ. It doesn’t seem like things divide very neatly at all. I really do think these models are useful, but if Christianity is more than a political statement or a community or a personal commitment or a social program, then it seems healthy to always affirm the necessity of each and learn from each other, even as we affirm our differences.

Good post, I say.