Anyone who has known me for a while has probably heard me say some version of this sentiment:
“Anabaptists center their faith on Jesus and the Gospels and read the rest of the Bible through Jesus”
But this sentiment has some interesting implications. The biggest of which is; to say that Anabaptists focus on Jesus is to imply that other Christians don’t focus on Jesus. And that feels like a rediculous thing to say because wouldn’t all Christians say that they center their faith on Jesus? Isn’t that what it means to be a Christian after all? Am I really saying that other Christians don’t really have Jesus at the center of their faith?
Well…….actually……….yeah, I am.
Let me see if I can explain what I mean by this with a look at current events.
This last week Michelle Bachmann got herself a couple of headlines for making a joke about how God is trying to get the attention of Americans by sending an earthquake, hurricane to the east coast. While many people were up in arms about this being in rather poor taste (and generally not really being a joke), the thing that stuck out to me was the theology behind the joke.
While Bachmann might claim to have been joking, she’s still drawing on a particular theological understanding of how God works. Namely, the assumption is that God punishes and rewards behavior in this life in very real and concrete ways. The other side of this belief is that when good or bad things happen to people, either individuals or entire groups of people like whole country, that is taken to be evidence that they have done something deserving of either reward or punishment. In short, external events of either natural or cosmic origin are taken as punishment or reward by God.
In Bachmann’s case, this logic took the form of a “joke” implying that God was sending a message to the U.S. in the form of natural disasters. While Bachmann was joking, there have been many people who understand God in this way who are most certainly not joking. This understanding of divine punishment in reward could be seen right after the September 11 attacks when two leading Evangelical Christians (Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell) said that the ones who were really responsible were liberals/ gays/ abortionists/ the ACLU and the like because they made God mad and brought God’s punishment upon us.
Fallwell and Robertson are in good company along with Fred Phelps and the Westboro baptist church who are known for things like maintaining the website godhatesfags.com, maintaining a virtual memorial dedicated to the number of days Matthew Shepherd (a high school student beaten and killed for being gay) has been in hell, and (most visibly) keeping up a rather incredible schedule of picketing various public events especially the funerals of armed service members who have been killed in the line of duty. For Phelps, the logic is that God hates the U.S. and is punishing the U.S. by allowing our soldiers to die in war because of a whole slew of things that Phelps deems as sin.
And lest you think this theology only shows up in horrible post-tragedy statements and crazy picketers, this is the core theological principle behind most televangelists who preach the prosperity Gospel. In the last 10 years this was seen in the rise of the Prayer of Jabez book/ movement/ study/ merchandising line/ anything-else-you-could-sell. It also shows up in many wealthier churches because the logic is, “God rewards good Christians, therefore if I’m wealthy then I must be a good Christian”. My favorite was the luxury SUV with the bumper sticker that said “Thanks God!”
Now the problem here is that this understanding of God is very Biblical. It is most certainly in the scriptural texts. The Prayer of Jabez comes from I Chronicles. In Deuteronomy in the Ten Commandments God says that he will punish and reward to 3rd/4th and 1000th generations (respectively), not that God will punish and reward in an afterlife. In many places in the Bible, the reward and punishment for faithfulness and right behavior comes from God in this life in real and concrete ways.
The problem is that this is a particularly Old Testament way of understanding God. More specifically, it’s an early Old Testament way of understanding of God.
Granted, the book of Job does some damage to this theology. Job’s friends are the ones who firmly believed that the horrible things that were happening to Job were God’s punishment and that Job must have done something truly horrendous to deserve it. (They turn out to be wrong, by the way) However, in the Old Testament, Job is kind of on his own.
Jesus, on the other hand, is a whole other ball game.
When you look at Jesus, and how he understands how God works, the idea that good or bad things happening in this life are absolute proof of God’s reward or punishment just doesn’t hold water. This can really be seen in the story from John 9 about Jesus healing a man who was born blind. The story opens with the disciples asking Jesus the question, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”. To this Jesus responds, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.” The core assumption that the disciples start with is that God rewards and punishes directly and thus either this man or his parents surely had sinned and that his blindness was evidence of this. Jesus soundly rejects this idea offering the possibility that he was born that way to show the glory of God. This is a fundamentally different way of understanding how God works than what we see in the Old Testament.
So, back to the politicians, TV preachers and Anabaptists.
My original claim was that Anabaptists center their faith on Jesus and that other Christians….well…..don’t. What I mean by this is that there are many Christians who fully claim Jesus as the Son of God and publicly profess a faith in Jesus, yet when it comes to things like which parts of the Bible are elevated, the understanding of the basic character of God, the center of ethics, the basis for justice, the understanding the importance of taking care of the most vulnerable in society, basically everything that actually affects how you follow God these Christians look to other places in the Bible long before the look to Jesus. In many cases, when Jesus conflicts with other parts of the Bible, certain Christians will go to rather extensive lengths to disprove either the validity or sincerity of Jesus and his teachings.
So, have a grand ol’ time claiming that God is punishing or rewarding people the next time a hurricane or earthquake hits, just make sure to leave Jesus out of it.
I see what you did there. By saying “other Christians” without qualifying it in terms of a number or rough percentage you get to rant about the ones you strongly disagree with implying the problems are larger than the few mentioned, but because you don’t say how larger than the few you specifically mention you also can’t be attacked for mischaracterization of potentially a lot of Christians you happen to disagree with since you may not actually be referring to them specifically. Thus the Mennonites look good compared to an unspecific number of non-Mennonite Christians that are particularly dangerous and pervasive to some unspecified extent. Sneaky Mennonite.
1) I level the critique (and thus the rant) against a wide range of Christians, including many Mennonites, who espouse this vein of theology. I guess you are right in the sense that, to my knowledge, there hasn’t been a study to find the exact number of people who would espouse this theology, but I think it’s pretty safe to say that it is a commonly held and widely publicized theological perspective. For example, let’s say anyone on TBN, AFR, Focus on the Family, the Crystal Cathedral and pretty much anyone else that asks you to send them money in return for God’s blessing/healing/etc… So, yeah, I’ll take the pious minority high road on this one, mainly because…
2) even though you ranted against me you still didn’t say I was wrong.
My problem is with talking about “true Anabaptists” vs. “other non-Anabaptist Christians” (my reading of your categories). Such distinctions are only abstractions and don’t exist in the pews so easily. What it comes down to is fighting an invisible enemy that can’t be hit and alienating oneself from the majority of Christians that exist in gray areas that don’t lend themselves to overly simplistic stereotypes. I might agree with you on some level, but I ultimately question the value of pointing such a thing out to begin with. I simply don’t see how it moves the Body forward or practically encourages the kind of discipleship or critical hermeneutics you and I do agree should be more prevalent in the Body. Playing the holier-than-though card has never ended well for anyone in any situation.
I see Blake’s point-this isn’t really a debate between ‘true Anabaptists’ and ‘other Christians’, and we should not dismiss whole classes of Christians.
But I think Alan’s point remains-there are Christians who assign divine meaning to catastrophic events like the weather, and many of them are popular speakers and teachers. However, God doesn’t send catastrophic weather to communicate with us as a nation. People who believe so are misreading the Bible.
I agree that God doesn’t send catastrophic weather to communicate with a whole nation. But I also don’t think that the class of Christians that believe such a thing is so easily dismissed with Alan’s argument that they don’t have Jesus at the center of their faith. Since when do Anabaptists rely on their words to show the center of their faith? I thought it was our actions that did that. Likewise, we ought to judge the center of the faith of our professed brothers and sisters by how their actions intersect with their words. I know people who probably do believe that God was sending a message to New Orleans when the hurricane hit. I can disagree with their interpretation of that event without believing that they’ve just outed themselves as “not real Christians.” We all do stupid crap that betray our faith, but our salvation and sanctification are not dependent on our perfection rather they are dependent upon God’s grace. That message is lost in the playing of the holier-than-thou game. Sure some people that interpret too much into natural disasters may not be Christians but they’ll show it in their lives more than they will in ridiculous proclamations. Some Christians may believe it but say little to nothing about and continue living on taking care of the poor and needy and preaching good news to the downtrodden. My issue is that such a post as above does not help us to build bridges with the latter kind.
Blake,
sorry for reviving an old debate, but this is what I mean by other Christians not having Jesus at the center. This is Dr. Robert Jeffress, the pastor of First Baptist Dallas. He’s the guy who got into hot water for calling the Mormon Church a cult, but more importantly, he got the opportunity to introduce Rick Perry for a campaign rally. How is this guy not in the mainstream of Christianity in the U.S.?
Let me tell ya, it’s a sad day when Bill Maher sounds more Christ centered than a pastor.
I’m not sure what you’re asking. Did you intend to address my last post?
1) “Let me tell ya, it’s a sad day when Bill Maher sounds more Christ centered than a pastor.”
It’s been a sad two millenia. There are always non-Christians who are more Christian than our clergy. There have always been and always will be examples of unChristlike Christians. So what? How is this a good excuse to dismiss whole classes of people you’ve never met based on an imperfect sinner (like the rest of us) that they associate with?
2) You can’t be a megachurch pastor or have a large following if you don’t exist in some kind of mainstream. We all are mainstream about something or other. There is no escaping the mainstream.
Oh, now that I look at it, no, it wasn’t necessarily in response to this post but rather to the argument in general. But to respond to your response to my response…….or whatever it is.
My point is that I would agree with you to say that he is a poor example of Christianity in general and a Christian leader in specific, but I would disagree with you in your implication that he isn’t the norm for American Christianity. His theology and response to Bill is not a deviation from American Christianity but rather represents the core of what most Americans believe and have been taught to believe. And no, I don’t think I’m dismissing them whole heatedly, but it is a serious critique of a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bible which has led to a fundamentally non-Christ centered stream of Christianity. Let’s face it Blake. You’re just an odd minority for taking Jesus seriously (and probably for a couple of other reasons too…but that’s another post). In all seriousness though, this whole discussion and problem really is a question of the influence of Christendom on Christianity.
oh and to 2) in some ways I would very much agree with you that you can’t be a megachurch pastor or have a large following if you’re not mainstream in some pretty core ways. I’m just saying that that’s a bad thing and that I’m inherently skeptical of those types of preacher and churches. And yes, I realize that makes me a rather “mainstream Mennonite” because that’s kind of a rather widely held view. And yes that creates some problems for the concept of church growth in general, but again, that’s another post. As far as us all being mainstream in some way, again, I’d agree with you, but that’s not a justification to accept that tendency, it should be a warning to guard against it’s influence in our life.
“I would agree with you to say that he is a poor example of Christianity in general and a Christian leader in specific, but I would disagree with you in your implication that he isn’t the norm for American Christianity.”
I didn’t say he isn’t the norm for American Christianity. Neither am I saying “he is a poor example of Christianity in general or a Christian leader in specific.” I am saying that I am not God and neither is any Christian I’ve ever met. To say that someone or some group of people do not have Jesus at the center of their faith suggests they know that person or group well enough to make such a harsh condemnation. I’m not saying we can’t ever judge anyone’s faith. I believe we can judge people’s faith by their fruit (Mat. 7:16-20). However, we first have to be familiar enough with them to know and see their fruit. What I disagree with you on is that a few examples of a person or group in the media acquaints us enough with the work or non-work of Christ in their lives for us to pass such a harsh judgment. Being a Southern Baptist myself, there are probably a few more faults of Jeffress’s that I’m aware of that you aren’t. Still, I don’t feel like, for a few simplistic caricatures, I can boldly declare that Jesus is not at the center of his faith. I believe that I can express disagreement with some of these positions that become media-worthy and declare that he is not letting Scripture or the Holy Spirit fully inform him on the accounts of his actions that I disagree with, but that is not nearly the same thing as judging his salvation based on instances of bad publicity. Likewise, I can disagree with and express disappointment over particular forms of groupthink and action from the religious right or left, but God forbid I dare to put myself in the place of God as judge of their salvation because of such actions.
Jeffress and these groups are more complicated than that and they can not be dismissed as Christless “Christians” because of select examples of how they act out and embody strains of thought we find unChristlike. Only those who have developed actual relationships with people are in the place to judge the fruit of their lives. Being at the other end of a satellite signal or wireless connection does not give us that liberty. Such judgment is itself unChristlike and those who proclaim it identify themselves immediately as hypocrites. My series of responses have been a brotherly warning to not make yourself a hypocrite by judging others in an unChristlike manner.
“in some ways I would very much agree with you that you can’t be a megachurch pastor or have a large following if you’re not mainstream in some pretty core ways… As far as us all being mainstream in some way, again, I’d agree with you, but that’s not a justification to accept that tendency, it should be a warning to guard against it’s influence in our life.”
With that admission I’ll remind you of the large following Shane Claiborne has. I don’t believe there is one monolithic mainstream that Christians must always be against in every way. I think there are many mainstreams. The good and bad in humans takes many forms and it doesn’t make sense that there would be one mainstream created by humans to represent uniformly the good and bad intentions of a nonChristian world. The mainstreams represent all the good and bad in human nature but are all without Christ. The Church cannot help but exist in these mainstreams to a degree since it is made up of imperfect people or to share commonalities with a mainstream, but we are called ultimately to rise above it and challenge it. We are called to point out it’s inherent sinfulness and the ways in which it can not be any other way without Christ. We are called to point toward a greater vision for the world that no mainstream shares or will ever embrace but with which we will share many elements and often a common language.
Even Anabaptists are bound to be mainstream in particular ways. As with other Christians, we have to challenge ourselves to be more than that because of our calling. It is one thing to challenge each other humbly to look at the ways in which we buy into a mainstream and therefore to admonish each other to rise to our calling, but it is a very different matter to think that “True Anabaptists” are still more superior at this than “non-True Anabaptists”. Even “True Anabaptists” will often be bogged down in another kind of mainstream that is different from the mainstreams of those they wish to critique.
So, thoughts.
“I believe we can judge people’s faith by their fruit (Mat. 7:16-20). However, we first have to be familiar enough with them to know and see their fruit. What I disagree with you on is that a few examples of a person or group in the media acquaints us enough with the work or non-work of Christ in their lives for us to pass such a harsh judgment.” – Yes, we should judge by the fruit, and that fruit is abundantly clear when it comes to American Christianity, and It’s not good. And no, I don’t think I’m only looking at a small abhorrent cases, I think it’s the norm. Christianity’s influence on American society and culture isn’t really marked by love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness and self-control. It’s marked a lot more by “hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions” (Gal 5:20)
“Likewise, I can disagree with and express disappointment over particular forms of groupthink and action from the religious right or left, but God forbid I dare to put myself in the place of God as judge of their salvation because of such actions.” – Right. Who was questioning their salvation? Just because I think they’re fundamentally wrong doesn’t mean I think they’re condemned to hell or that I’m playing God and leveling that condemnation.
“Jeffress and these groups are more complicated than that and they can not be dismissed as Christless “Christians” because of select examples of how they act out and embody strains of thought we find unChristlike.” – I think you’re missing my point. I’m not saying there are select examples. I’m saying they have a fundamentally non-Christocentric hermeneutic. That’s not to say that they are completely “Christless” and should be dismissed, but I am saying there’s a difference in fundamental approach to interpretation of the Bible. As a side note, though, I’m sure there are plenty of things that I would agree with them on and support them on, but the differences in approach to scripture do affect a lot.
“With that admission I’ll remind you of the large following Shane Claiborne has”. – Yep, still a bit skeptical of him too.
“I don’t believe there is one monolithic mainstream that Christians must always be against in every way. I think there are many mainstreams.” – I’m sorry, but this sentence (and the following paragraph on multiple mainstreams) really feels like some postmodern BS. And I say that as a guy who likes postmodernism. The definition of “mainstream” is that it is the majority, isn’t it? Yes there can be dominating forces or movements within any given sub set of Christianity, but it seems to reason that there is really only 1 “mainstream”, whether you’re talking about Christianity, politics or any other topic. And yes, I say that knowing that multiple major forces can exist in any situation. Maybe I’m using some double speak, but I just don’t buy what you’re saying here, and I’m content to simply disagree on this one.
“but it is a very different matter to think that “True Anabaptists” are still more superior at this than “non-True Anabaptists”.” – what do you mean by superior? In this particular discussion, more Christocentric? Yeah I do believe that Anabaptists are. More holy? Not inherently. Guaranteed a better seat in Heaven? doubt it.
One other final thought before I turn in for the night, as I was re-reading some of Menno Simons writings for a sermon I’m working on, I was struck again by how scathing his critiques are of other Christians. And if you’re looking for some double speak, Menno is your man. He goes from praising the magistrates as God-ordained to saying that God will burn out their eyeballs for all eternity (ok, maybe not exactly that) in the same letter. In fact, I think if Menno (and many other Anabaptists) were here today,they’d level some of the same criticisms that I have. I say that also recognizing that Menno and Co. would also level some of the criticisms that you have level against me, and would probably add in a couple others for both of us. I will freely admit that I don’t have the corner on all knowledge, Christian or otherwise, and that there is plenty that I need to repent of, but that also isn’t going to stop me from saying that the distinctly American version of Christianity (and Christendom Christianity more broadly) is fundamentally off track and has alienated and ignored Jesus in their reading of scripture and understanding of discipleship. And no, I don’t feel particularly alone in that assessment. People like the Kreiders and the Anabaptist Network (and many others) are just as explicit and scathing, if not more so, in this same critique. In some ways, I’m kind of surprised at your surprise and push back. I don’t think I’m really saying anything that is particularly outside of the Anabaptist mainstream (to use your logic about mainstreams), and for a guy who intentionally chose and Anabaptist seminary, your reaction seems a bit odd to me.
“that fruit is abundantly clear when it comes to American Christianity, and It’s not good. And no, I don’t think I’m only looking at a small abhorrent cases, I think it’s the norm.”
Of course it’s the norm. When one speaks of stereotypes there is nothing but the norm to speak. You are demonstrating my point. There is no one huge group of mindless people that only do one thing which is hold up a stereotype and walk that line. One gets a stereotype because of the ways people contribute to it not because it defines everyone that seems to be a part of it. If you and I are against the religious right (or left) it’s not that we’re against every individual that identifies in some way with that. We’re against a broad generalization and the way people exhibit the things we disagree with in their actual lives. Precisely, we are against a generalization not against people. We don’t know the people and so can’t be against them unless we want to be presumptuous hypocrites.
American Christianity is made up of individuals and all of them contribute to different degrees to some stereotype of what that is sometimes consciously, sometimes unconsciously, sometimes willingly and sometimes unwillingly. How does a stereotype make fruit? It doesn’t. People produce fruit. Each of them produce different kinds of fruit in different quantities. I don’t like the fruit I see from Jeffress through his media profile, but I don’t dare to think that that represents all of the fruit of his life. The same goes for “Christian fundamentalism”, “Mainstream churches”, or what have you.
“Who was questioning their salvation? Just because I think they’re fundamentally wrong doesn’t mean I think they’re condemned to hell or that I’m playing God and leveling that condemnation.”
You affirmed that “other Christians don’t really have Jesus at the center of their faith” in your original post. In an evangelical’s mind (and I suspect in the minds of many other Christians) this is akin to calling them hell bound. If Jesus isn’t at the center of their faith then what is? If Jesus is not their Lord as they claim because he’s not at the center of their faith then something else most be, therefore they are not Christian if Christ isn’t really at the center.
“I’m saying they have a fundamentally non-Christocentric hermeneutic. That’s not to say that they are completely “Christless” and should be dismissed, but I am saying there’s a difference in fundamental approach to interpretation of the Bible.”
How exactly do media reports allow you to come to such a conclusion? When did a Christocentric hermeneutic become a binary quality (you have it or you don’t)? When did Anabaptism get a monopoly on this Christocentric hermeneutic? Someone thinking that a storm=judgment is not necessarily a non-Christocentric hermeneutic. I think it is more likely evidence of a misapplication of scripture or demonstration of an element of imbalance in a person’s hermeneutic (as if there is such a thing as a perfectly balanced hermeneutic). It does not demonstrate that a person fundamentally does not have and is not trying to have Christ at the center of their interpretation of scripture or at the center of their faith.
“it seems to reason that there is really only 1 “mainstream”, whether you’re talking about Christianity, politics or any other topic.”
If there were only one mainstream no one could define it because it would have to represent so many contradictions and generalities that it would be so abstract and vague so as to be completely useless. It’s easiest to speak in terms of multiple mainstreams. A stream, after all, exhibits a movement or current from somewhere to somewhere. Likewise, if one is to speak of a mainstream in approving or disapproving terms one must refer specifically to something and not a uselessly vague abstraction. When you and I get on our high horses about some mainstream we are against it is a specific mainstream even if it just so happens to have a bunch of qualities we detest. Those qualities make it something rather than something else that we weren’t talking about.
“I will freely admit that I don’t have the corner on all knowledge, Christian or otherwise, and that there is plenty that I need to repent of, but that also isn’t going to stop me from saying that the distinctly American version of Christianity (and Christendom Christianity more broadly) is fundamentally off track and has alienated and ignored Jesus in their reading of scripture and understanding of discipleship.”
This might be the crux of our disagreement. I don’t think American Christianity is inherently or exclusively Christendom oriented. The vast majority of it may be but because you and I are Americans and Christians and there are many others in the US that are anti-Christendom or at least not for it then American Christianity must be by definition not particularly Constantinian. Christendom Christianity is a broad category only because it extends geographically broader than the US, not because it is more varied than the Christian theologies found here. Christendom Christianity is a subset of American Christianity, too.
I have fundamental disagreements with Mormons, Muslims and Jehovah Witnesses on who Christ is. Confessionally, I fundamentally agree with who Christ is among the vast majority of even Christendom Christians, but disagree with the culturally constructed and propagated blindspot that keeps them from practicing what they preach about hermeneutics in their own lives. I think most Christendom Christians have the talk down but they haven’t thought through thoroughly enough the walk that must follow from the talk. I don’t disagree with their discipleship or their concept of discipleship. What I disagree with them is on how costly it should be practically in my and their lives. That isn’t a fundamental disagreement in my book.
“In some ways, I’m kind of surprised at your surprise and push back. I don’t think I’m really saying anything that is particularly outside of the Anabaptist mainstream (to use your logic about mainstreams), and for a guy who intentionally chose and Anabaptist seminary, your reaction seems a bit odd to me.”
I react the way I do because these people are my people despite my disagreements with them. I think that when people critique they need to be specific in their critiques and avoid generalizations. I think as Christians we are called to build bridges in the Body of Christ and not burn them. I’m bothered by an air of elitism I notice all around the seminary and among ethnic Mennonites and certain groups of “neo-Anabaptists” more broadly where they hastily level such general critiques at the risk of burning bridges with people they don’t know just because those people identify even in the most off-hand way with the group being critiqued.
There are a lot of good Christ centered Christians in evangelical and (in my case) Southern Baptist churches around the country even when they do blindly follow the crowd in some of these areas. I’ve gotten to know their hearts and I know they really want Christ to permeate their thinking and lives but they don’t have people helping them or challenging them constructively. They really care about mission and making Christ known. They care about their neighbors and helping the needy, but are often unsure how to go about it in the best ways. They’re unsure of how the rubber hits the road in their immediate context. They’re very normal in all of this. I think we’ve all been here.
What they have and don’t need are a lot of Christians making fun of them and putting them down. These Christians need the Mennonite-Anabaptist voice more than ever to be encouraging and gentle and pastoral to them. They need it to be patient and humble and persevering. They need it to represent the very fruits of the Spirit they hold so highly. They need it to be intentional towards cultivating an organic relationship with them. Instead, what I find is that the critiques so often leveled from the very voices these Christians need to hear does not embody the ideals it claims in the tone it takes with them. When the tone of the voice doesn’t match the message those that had the most to benefit from the message will turn off and find something more agreeable and perpetuate the groupthink.
I challenged you, my brother, because by putting in such harsh terms at the beginning of your post that other Christians do not have Christ at their center could very well have been the thing that keeps some random well-meaning Christian that dropped in to your little corner of the net who may have found it because they go to church near you or whatever an excuse to not listen or to discern the heart of your critique. If you bumped into such a person in town you’d find it significantly more difficult if not near impossible to start any organic relationship with them. I think you have a great opportunity in Harper and your area of Kansas to challenge people to a deeper, more costly discipleship beyond the Mennonite church you serve in, but they need you and your voice to express the love, peace and humility you want to expect of them.
So, there’s a lot to respond to in you last comment, but I’ll first start with some reflections on the conference that I was at this weekend. I was at the Anabaptist Vision and Discipleship Seminar (AVDS) at Hesston College. The general topic was “getting beyond us and them to we”. The larger topic was ‘dealing with differences’ in a variety of group, but the real crux of the conversation seemed to be around what it means to be Mennonite theologically, not culturally, and how to find the core of what we believe so that we can share it with others and find the commonalities.
In one of the discussions about the core of Anabaptism, the distinctive of reading the Bible through Jesus came up. While that was a sentiment that shared across the room, we had some trouble articulating exactly what we meant. Marion Bontrager clarified this idea a bit in a way that articulated exactly what I’ve been trying to say but really haven’t. He said something to the effect of, “It’s not that other Christians don’t read the Bible through Jesus, they all do that. They just do it spiritually but not ethically. They’d say that sure, Jesus is above the rest of the Bible when it comes to things like sacrifices from the old testament and things like that. The difference for Mennonites is that we read Jesus for his ethics as well. And more specifically, other Christians would read Jesus’s ethics as being only personal whereas Mennonites apply his ethics corporately.”
I think his clarification was expresses what I’m really trying to say, but have failed to do. The difference is not actually whether Jesus is “at the center” but rather the difference between reading Jesus spiritually or ethically, and as applying personally or corporately. My suspicion is that you might agree with this distinction, even if it’s still a stereotype.
Another clarification that I feel like I need to make is that while I have been articulating things in terms of “other Christians”, perhaps what I really am talking about is more accurately expressed in principalities and powers languages. When I talk about the differences between the theology of Anabaptists and other Christians, of course, I there really is not single person who will conform to all of those beliefs, but there is a larger faith and belief structure and, one might even say, a spirit of particular churches that are still profound differences. While these difference are bigger than any one person they are beliefs and practices that are maintained and lived out in particular people and communities. It’s a bit like saying that “I’m not really responsible for what my company does because it’s bigger than I am”. A company has it’s own ethos and spirit, but it’s possible when maintained by the people who are a part of it. That’s probably a poor example, but maybe it helps.
The other thing that I’ll respond to (while there still is a lot) is what I mean about the phrase “American Christianity”. It’s worth saying that I’m not referring to all Christians who are in the U.S. and all of the variations that we find. I’m talking more qualitatively about the influence of the American ethos on Christianity and the churches that result from it. Yes, Christendom is much larger than this, but my point is that this kind of American Christianity is a form of Christendom.