Over the past couple of decades the liberal end of the conservative Mennonites and a few others get together to navel gaze about what it means to be them. This “Anabaptist Identity Conference” (an annual event which some of us have dubbed the identity crisis) is truly a product of this time where nobody is sure of who they are as they once were. There is a strong urge to seek out others, like us, as to bolster our shaking foundations.
In this year’s event there is a line up of many meme worthy topics, like “The Anabaptists: Continuation of the Ancient Faith,” where ol’ David Bercot, a man who truly knows where his meal ticket comes from, will try to make the case that Anabaptism (as they define it) is somehow a direct lineage to the Apostle’s church. This connecting the dots to make it fit narrative, of course, will play right into the confirmation bias of his audience who fawn over an educated outsider. Maybe this year he’ll have pictures of whoopie pies painted in the catacombs?
Anyhow, some may believe that the first Anabaptist Identity Conference was held in 2007, in the Amish vacation Mecca called Sarasota, but there was one before this way back in 1536. It occurred in the aftermath of an event that left Anabaptists then trying to find a path forward. This is the Bocholt meeting that brought together survivors of the Münster rebellion and other factions in the Anabaptist movement:
In August 1536, the leaders of Anabaptist groups influenced by Melchior Hoffman met in Bocholt in an attempt to maintain unity. The meeting included followers of Batenburg, survivors of Münster, David Joris and his sympathisers, and the nonresistant Anabaptists.[4] At this meeting, the major areas of dispute between the sects were polygamous marriage and the use of force against non-believers. Joris proposed compromise by declaring the time had not yet come to fight against the authorities, and that it would be unwise to kill any non-Anabaptists. The gathered Anabaptists agreed to the compromise of no more force,[5] but the meeting did not prevent the fragmentation of Anabaptism.
No discussion of Anabaptism is complete without a little discussion about this crazy polygamous uprising. Sure, the revisionist historians of the denomination may tell you otherwise, but the association is definitely there and the Wikipedia summary is accurate. Menno Simons, in his 1539 Foundation Book, called the Münsterites “dear brethren” rather than claim they weren’t truly Anabaptists. So are we really in a better position today to decide who is truly representative of the Anabaptist identity? No, we’re not.
What is the Anabaptist identity?
In America it is mostly an ethnic group with a similar religious lineage. Some within this category have openly lesbian pastors while others cling to traditional dress and buggies for transportation. Unlike in the first 1536 identity conference, when their big debate was over use of violence, now the surviving Anabaptist groups agree on that and really not a whole lot other than that. Even those who organize and attend the conference in the current year only represent a subset of the conservative Anabaptist groups. The ‘spiritual’ lineage, while all claim it as their own, is too vague to put a finger on.
Men like Bercot and their ilk may want to declare the boundary lines even stricter than the early Anabaptists did, but that is just adding delusion upon a delusion. No, I am not saying they aren’t Christians, that’s not my purveiw, but for one to claim they’re some kind of special remnant of the remnant is just plain grandiose. And what comes to mind, at this juncture, is the “Stop It, Get Some Help” meme.
Newsflash: You’re not even representative of the early Anabaptist —let alone the ancient church.
This conference can’t speak for the plurality of the groups today who trace their roots the so-called “radical reformation” and do not have a voice in this identity rumination project. What is hard to miss, for those outside looking in, is that this is an effort to preserve their distinction and not to seek the the unity in Christ that St Paul commanded (1 Corinthians 3) when some in the early church were busy commending themselves for their special identities.
I don’t have a problem with having an ethnic identity that is cherished. I’m German, still Mennonite in many regards, and absolutely adore Old Order people. I have no problem with having our own culture or celebrating our heritage. It is why I encourage my son to keep his Igorot language and ways rather than have it all be erased in the American monoculture. But there’s a vast difference between that and those basically arguing that they’re saved through heritage.
Saying that Anabaptists are a “continuation of ancient faith” is only a half step away from being as crazy as the Schizophrenic who thinks they’re the second coming of Jesus. The denominational ground you’re standing on is not sacred simply because you currently stand on it. It is spiritually equivalent those Anabaptists in Münster declaring their own project to be the New Jerusalem. We should know better than to live in that kind of self-delusion. We should not condone or encourage it.
Irregular Ideation 
Hi Joel,
Thanks for this article. I’m a Mennonite who didn’t attend Anabaptist Identity Conference this year, but at a previous visit six or seven years ago, I thought the amalgamation of coverage of Anabaptist-themes, non-GMO farming enthusiams, Pennsylvania Dutch, and how-to-resist-Jehovahas-Witness-prostelyzing rater strange.
I’m curious about your objection to the idea that Anabaptists are a continuation of the ancient faith. Anabaptists and some Baptists often frame the notion of continuity badly. The “Trail of Blood” idea, for example, distorts things on several levels.
The Chart on Wikimedia
However, I think that it’s fair to see the Anabaptist movement, though separated from Catholicism, as one of several continutations of the western Catholic stream. It thus has continuity and roots in the ancient faith. It accepts the creeds and, as much as we dislike it, we are influenced by Augustine, Dante, and the other influential thinkers in the western church. It’s hard to immagine Sattler-esque anabaptism without his Benedictine background.
At times I find it uncomfortable to be in a minor schism of the faith. However, rejecting it’s perpetuation of basic orthodoxy (though stripped of the nuance and beauty of its roots) and neglecting to see it as one outcome of early modern Catholicism strikes me as strange.
I’d like to hear you out more.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would have less issue with someone who claims that Old Order Mennonites represent a continuation of ancient faith. I guess the problem with a term like Anabaptists is that you need to ask which ones? Are we talking about those in Münster who Menno referred to as “dear brethren” and were involved in the meeting at Bocholt? Does this include those on the MCUSA side of the spectrum? Or is it just whomever David Bercot decides based on his theology of the day?
Before I go further, I’m not just throwing a bomb here. I’ve taken issue with those in Orthodoxy (converts) who claim that all of those outside of the established Church are under demonic possession. I mean, for an Orthodox Christian to say that is practically heresy. In many regards, yes, the West did go astray and Martin Luther was probably right to protest. It was Catholic priests, like Menno Simons, leading the charge. And I guess that would be a sort of connection to the Apostolic church. My wife is more or less a generic Protestant and I believe her faith is stronger than mine. So understand that I’m not dismissing the faith of those who are of the Hutterite, Mennonite or Amish tradition.
What bothers me more is the spirit behind someone declaring their little subset of a subset to be the one true church. No, they don’t always say this outright. But I’ve seen this too often as someone who had spent three and a half decades in the conservative Mennonite denomination. Everyone thinks that their own particular group has it right compared to even other Mennonites who are more liberal or more conservative than they are. It is knowing what I know in my many years of experience that triggered the response. True faith starts with humility and repentance, not through lineage (I am of Apollos) or declarations of how righteous we are in comparison to others.
Without getting into a lengthy theological and historical discussion of reasons why, that would take more time than I have at the moment, at best the people that Anabaptist Identity Conference caters to are part of a heterodox sect. At worse, they are of the spirit of Diotrephes who cast out even the Apostles. As far as the argument of books like “Trail of Blood” (and other convenient denominational histories) is that many of the purported connecting groups have little in common. Some taught things a good Baptist would see as heretical.
Anyhow, if the faith alone makes it ancient then there would be no reason to use that qualifier. But there’s really nothing that is ancient about Mennonite practice of their faith. The service and even understanding is as contemporary as the Mega church down the road—rather the innovations (like four part singing) are simply a little older than what is common in the US.
LikeLike