"The Naked Anabaptist" Core Conviction #3

As we continue on our journey through The Naked Anabaptist, we come to the third core conviction that Murray discusses. The discussion of this core conviction will likely take a bit longer than the ones that have preceded it, as it is a bit more complex. The first two core convictions both revolved, in some way, around the centrality of Jesus for Anabaptist thinking. The third core conviction looks at the issues surrounding the idea of Christendom, marking a shift towards a different part of the Anabaptist understanding of Christianity.

Murray states the third core conviction in this manner: “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, marginalized 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.”[1]

There is clearly a lot going on in this statement, so I’d like to break it down a bit to explain it a little more. Christendom is a period of Christianity that generally is said to have begun with the conversion of the Roman emperor Constantine in 312 CE. Up to this point in the history of Christianity, the movement existed almost entirely on the margins of the Roman Empire. However, this made a dramatic shift during the reign of Constantine, when Christianity became the official state religion of the empire. At that point, the entirety of the population was assumed to be Christian, unless there was a specific reason otherwise (for example, Jews were not automatically considered Christians). Rather than a persecuted minority, the church came to play a central role in the nation-state. A blend of church and state began, and, in time, it often became difficult to distinguish between the two.

From the earliest part of the Radical Reformation, Anabaptists found this mixture of church and state to be troubling. The insistence on believer’s baptism was, at least in part, a rejection of the ideas of Christendom. Within Christendom, all citizens were understood to be Christians, whilst Anabaptists insisted that only those who choose to be Christians, and are baptized as believers, are truly Christian.

As a group that descends from the early Anabaptists, the Church of the Brethren has had its own critiques of Christendom. There are numerous stories of Brethren who have opposed the idea that church and state are one and the same, as Christendom often teaches. The earliest Brethren knew that their decision to be baptized in the Schwarzenau River would be an act that rejected not only the role of the institutional church, but also that of the government.

I have written on the subject of the role of the government in relation to the church here, which I would urge everyone to read.

I’ll stop here this week, as this is already getting to be quite long. I may continue this discussion next week, as there is certainly more that could be said on this subject.

---

[1] Stuart Murray, The Naked Anabaptist: The Bare Essentials of a Radical Faith, Scottdale, PA: Herald Press 2010, 178.