The American Spectator

cats1cowboy| 10.4.10 @ 6:48AM

There is a lot of "apologizing" to dead people going on in recent years. Where does it end? Will someone take up the "plight" of the sabre-tooted tiger and the woolly mammoth and apologize to them for their extinction? They are all dead, too, you know.

Ryan| 10.4.10 @ 8:31AM

It's actually a situation that probably DID need to happen; unfortunately, most of the groups at hand have swerved hard to the left...

Remember, repentance and confession ARE something that God's grace allows and pushes Christians to do...

Eric Cartman| 10.4.10 @ 8:46AM

I was thinking the same thing reading the above, cats. So I will begin.

*Throat clear*

Dear bugs and bug mothers-to-be who I so thoughtlessly squished with my windshield as a drove back from the game Saturday and then so nonchalantly squooshed away with a simple twist of the wiper/washer control knob. I have been sensitized to the pain I have caused you through our non-stop, 24/7, unapologetic apologizing president and other people, groups, tribes, city councils, corporate CEOs and golf stars. It was heartless and shameful of me to deplete our national resources, spew carbon into the environment, consume various types of animal flesh cooked over carbon laden hardwoods hewn from endangered mesquite and apple wood trees that was transported long distances in huge, carbon spewing trucks that, horribly enough, probably squished even more of your kind. I hope you can forgive our past thoughtless murder we have visited upon your noble kind. We Americans offer our sincerest apology and understand that it is only us who can be held accountable. Other nations (such as Mexico, who need and deserve special dispensation for everything because of the way the Spaniards treated their ancestors - more on that later) are not to be blamed. Only us greedy Americans. We are truly sorry.

There. I feel so much better.

Eric Cartman| 10.4.10 @ 8:55AM

Oh.

PS: To everyone else:

I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

Malcolm| 10.5.10 @ 9:39AM

I am sorry I enjoyed your comment.

Charles| 11.25.10 @ 9:30AM

Glad you got that out of your system.

Dai Alanye| 10.4.10 @ 7:30AM

To those who renounce military defense of the nation I suggest they also renounce the vote.

The Ghost of Washington| 10.4.10 @ 7:49PM

That is the best suggestion I have ever heard, and it ought to be the Law. How about a Constitutional amendment?

dd| 10.4.10 @ 10:12PM

Mennonites don't vote.

Dano| 10.4.10 @ 11:49PM

At least they're consistent then. As to all others though, the Ghost's suggestion is an excellent idea.

Richard Clark| 10.5.10 @ 8:40AM

They do indeed vote, in many cases. Only the most conservative groups (such as Amish) still maintain the separation from the "world." The types of Mennonites this article features are political activists.

ERN| 10.6.10 @ 4:46PM

It is my experience as well that most Mennonites are about as politically active as most generic Evangelicals. In fact, most Mennonites are indistinguishable from Evangelicals in almost every way. Some pay lip service to pacifism, but the traditional connection has been eroded as much as Methodism's connection to Wesley, Presbyterianism's to Calvin, etc.

John David| 10.16.10 @ 10:53PM

None of the "activists" mentioned in the article are Mennonites. I am Mennonite and I do not vote.

Rev. Dave| 11.23.10 @ 4:58PM

Actually, none of the activists listed here are Mennonite.

Lula| 11.12.10 @ 8:03PM

@dd-Amish don't vote. Mennonites do.

Ben| 11.15.10 @ 9:26AM

Everyone gets to vote. That's the whole idea.

Carol Friesen| 4.3.11 @ 7:34PM

Mennonites do vote. There are many different "brands" of Mennonites. Most Mennonites vote; however, "Old Mennonite" sects would not probably vote. Some Mennonites are even Republican, but just a few (and keep it quiet).

clarityrising| 10.4.10 @ 8:05AM

and the horde of useful idiots grows. Its funny how they fail to see the end result of their pacifism. Socialists and Communists do not give a rat's ass about their pacifism, only in as much as they will be non-resistant to the takeover, after which they will be absorbed into the state an forced to live by its will like everyone else.

Lane| 12.7.10 @ 7:17PM

This comment does seem to suggest that Capitalism is inherently good, perhaps even Christian. By comparison, Socialism would be inherently bad. That is an extremely difficult assertion to substantiate, especially given the general Christian consensus regarding the fallenness of human nature and humanity's propensity to sin no matter the given societal or economic structure.

Ryan| 10.4.10 @ 8:35AM

It's an interesting historical perspective at how far divided down the line the anabaptist traditions have become - remember, they were among the first to really promote adult baptism rather than infant baptism (it wasn't a theological issue until that point).

That being said I suspect Boyd's book may ask the right questions and come to all the wrong conclusions. I DO believe that there is a bit too much "Americanism" combined with modern evangelical Christianity at times, where we too often act as victims and fight for our "rights" rather than seek the spread of the Gospel and allow the Gospel to repair people's hearts.

Petronius| 10.4.10 @ 8:49AM

SOSPHAD
The gods of the Copybook Headings will not be thwarted by the champions of cowardice. Should they become martyrs, that alone will be the cause.

Bob K.| 10.4.10 @ 8:49AM

Mr. Tooley,
I can understand you writing about religion and it is an informative article of the history of Anabaptists. But it is a bit thin if you are trying to be scary.

There are a billion or so Muslims in the world. Perhaps 10% of them hate the west. And 10% of them are willing to die in wars against the west.

And this is all you can find to write about? The threat to the West from some obscure academics who are buried in the Anabaptist movement!

Nobody pays attention to these people. Least of all Liberals! Liberals are more worried about the traditonal "war mongering" Southern Baptists who support the "evil" USA/Israel axis. You know: The kind of people who join the military!

Neo-Anabaptists! What happened to the great threat of Neo-Conservatives?

But I guess you have to write about something to keep busy.

Voting Rights| 10.4.10 @ 11:14AM

Bob K. You say Tooley should have written about the known enemy of freedom, well this is the unknown enemy of freedom hidden in our midst, trying to undermine America. Yes, undermine America, certainly not to lead lost sheep to truth, salvation and life. These are the bigger enemy of America because there are more of these operatives here than physical terrorists. Their weapon is their assured vote for someone who will seek to destroy freedom. The more enemies exposed the better.

Bob K| 10.4.10 @ 3:48PM

Voting Rights,

You must stay focused.

That is what is wrong with articles like this in a Conservative publication. It takes the readers attention off the serious matters before them. Do you want the Liberal Media to now attack Conservatism on the basis that it is selective even in it's approval of Western religions? It already makes that argument about Conservatives
approach to Islam.

Our enemy within is Liberalism. It is political.

Liberals run Universities like Notre Dame and Duke. That's why they tolerate Anabaptists and their religious beliefs. They are currently useful to them. There will come a time when they won't be. Liberals use religion, like they use Socialism, a Theory of Economics, to advance their own agenda of acquiring power. They use people, religions, and economical theories, etc, to advance their own agenda. They will discard these Anabaptists as soon as they are no longer useful idiots.

Liberals are chameleons. If war will help their cause they will align themselves with people they now think of as warmongers and will send the Nation's youth off to be killed to advance their own power, as long as it doesn't include any of their own children. No liberal is happy unless he or she can control all aspects of society.

At the moment, it is not useful to them to defend the nation against the threat of terrorism from the near east.

This article is a red herring!

Bill Beahan| 10.4.10 @ 7:10PM

Bob, you are wrong about the Liberals having to worry about the Southern Baptists. I am someone who moved to a suburb of Atlanta and immediately set about finding a Southern Baptist Church to join. I found one, Crosspointe, pastored by a former Conservative President of the SBC, Dr. James Merrit. After sitting through several months of great sermons and modernistic tuneless music, I joined. Then one day they had a fill in, Leroy Barber, who just did not sound right. I googled him and found that he was a fan of the admitted Communist, Van Jones, and was associated with known leftist, Jim Wallis. Huh??? Then I found the pastor's son's, (Jonathan Merritt), blog. WOW! He is the author of something called " Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative" which could have been written by Al Gore or Van Jones or any other liberal who chooses to worship The Creation rater than The Creator. The pastor was a signee! I attended no more and have resumed my search but it looks, sadly, like the SBC is going down the same rotten path that the so-called mainline churches have.

Bob K.| 10.4.10 @ 10:17PM

Mr. Beahan,
This is an article that properly belongs in a journal of religion and political opinion like "First Things." The American Spectator is a journal of conservative politics and there is a watershed election on the horizon in 4 weeks. Articles like this, at a time like this, in the American Spectator are ill timed and of no use in focusing the electorate on the serious issues at hand.

I blame this on the leadership of this website. Someone in charge dropped the ball here. At another time, after the election is over, this article might have been useful as an illustration of how the Liberals have taken over the Academy. Witness here, for instance, the extent that Notre Dame and Duke have used Anabaptists as foils in their pursuit of the liberal agenda.

Bill Beahan| 10.5.10 @ 5:48AM

Thi is a webite for Conservative intellectual thought. This article fits perfectly. I do enjoy how you go from one losing argument to another.

Bob K.| 10.5.10 @ 8:15AM

Well, show some intellectual thought then. Instead of telling us about your personal experiences.

Walkthetalk| 10.5.10 @ 12:29PM

Well, Bob, this should make your day. Let’s get to the root of Liberalism and all its variants. What drives all this foolish political chicanery we see today (and always)? It’s selfishness, self-centeredness, self-serving behavior, and in some cases narcissism. Now let’s look at the root of this self-focus (as manifest in most politicians and in many religions). The Bible says it’s sin. How’s that for intellectual titillation? The root cause of all the problems is America sin. What is sin? It is rebellion against God, a turning away from him and his light. It results in walking in spiritual darkness. This darkness is filled with everything that is wrong with America. Lying, hatred, self-serving, fear, cheating, death-focus (abortion), greed, etc. Do you get the picture? All of these things are manifest in our culture by those whose root is in spiritual darkness. The problem is that spiritual darkness in churches is covered by the patina of the label – Christian. I say, bring on the personal stories. Bring home to the conservative consciousness the depth of the deceit being perpetrated on the unsuspecting pew warmers. Note that there millions (google church numbers) exposing themselves to sin clothed in robes. These so-called Christian churches give legitimacy to the left. These useful idiots try to undermine the Christians of the right by shouting loudly that the Christians on the right do not have a lock on the gospel (good news). So they interject their opinions into the political circus and the MSM (brothers-in-sin) pushes their opinion. So you see Bob, everything today comes from either sin or righteousness. America wouldn’t be falling into the toilet without sin, and America will not be rescued without turning away from sin (repenting). Bob, I suggest that your focus is too narrow. Open your eyes. There is a very wide ranging battle for control of America and it is taking place on many fronts at the same time. Pick you battle, but don’t denigrate those who are fighting the good fight on a different front. Now, for your greater edification, I suggest you visit www.christforamericans. That site may shock you, but it provides more truth than you will find in most churches. Once you are enlightened then rejoin the battle. There’s plenty of action for all.

konastephen| 11.14.10 @ 4:15PM

@Bob - not sure of your definition of intellectual thought. There's certainly a place for anecdotal evidence in my "intellectual thought" paradigm. Perhaps you are an activist materialist who would exclude the question of God from the realm of "science". This intellectual position is described in the Bible in Psalm 14:1 and Proverbs 27:3.

Less constricted minds, such as Russell Kirk's, author of The Conservative Mind, have pointed out that true conservatism must first and foremost consider the soci0-political implications of the existence of God, or at least of religious sentiment in the vast majority of humanity throughout the ages. I'm quite sure that provides a broad enough basis for allocating any articles along these lines--certainly any of this caliber--room on the pages of this rag.

bade| 3.22.11 @ 3:27AM

intellectual? really? that article? I see no evidence of rigorous research or well developed thought.

john| 11.27.10 @ 12:39AM

The neocons got run out of the White House and thusly lost control of the military. For all those who really do think that the muslims present a grave danger I suggest buying a 1 way ticket to Afghanistan and kill as many as you can. Or Not

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.4.10 @ 8:58AM

Ryan
Your points are well taken.
Perhaps the reason "Americanism" has gotten so intertwined with Christianity, is that historically, our forefathers demanded that our government respect Christianity in its many expressions.

Our economic success with free markets allowed our military power to exceed the whole world's.
We woke up one morning sorta leading the world. Quite a responsibility. If we can prevent Christians or future converts to keep from "being eaten by lions" in the arena, didn't we do good?

Ryan| 10.4.10 @ 9:30AM

True enough.

However, there IS a danger in what appears to be the desire to control culture through legal means rather than influence it and direct it through spiritual.

Comenius| 10.4.10 @ 7:52PM

We, the Religious Right, aren't trying to contol anybody. WE ARE TRYING TO STOP THEM FROM CONTROLLING US. It's really that simple. Think of it in these terms: STEWARSHIP. Other Christians, the Founding Fathers, bequeathed us this great nation where we are free to practice our faith according to our conscience instead of Barock Obama's. Voting for others of like faith is the best way to safeguard that God given gift and pass it on to the next generation, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum. Got it?

Dano| 10.5.10 @ 12:02AM

I see that no one responded to your truthful and good post. You are absolutely right on. It is the Left who desires to control us, not the Right. We are for freedom for all, including but not limited to even the rich, as we do not believe in stealing from them to redistribute as we see fit to the poor and always of course they say now that it is in the Name of the Lord, their newest line, or mantra. We on the Right give freely of our own accord and because we want to not because we have to. Free market enterprise, freedom of Religion, freedom of speech, and the freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness.

Oh and by the way, our rights are given to us by God, not man. God doesn't give us things and then take them away, but man frequently does. Man frequently giveth and taketh away.

Neva| 11.25.10 @ 1:14PM

Interesting - have you by any chance taken note of the destruction of the Christian community in Iraq since we invaded? Their 2000 year old church, started by some of the earliest Christian missionaries where Aramaic was spoken as part of their services, is now under siege. Many of these Christians have been killed or have fled Iraq for Syria. They had survived and were free to practice their religion under, of all people, the rule of Saddam Hussein. When he was forced from power, the Christians were suddenly vulnerable. They are fearful of any help with our troops as it only identifies them more closely with the US military presence, making them more of a target. We also need to consider the unintended consequences of our actions and their impacts on others. We haven't saved too many Christians lately.

KyMouse| 10.4.10 @ 9:07AM

I've always admired the way Mennonites rush to assist people whose homes have been destroyed by tornadoes and other natural disasters. They arrive en masse and construct new buildings virtually overnight.

However, the Mennonite Central Committee has a long, ugly history of supporting Arabs/Muslims who want to destroy Israel. The MCC's radical pro-Palestinian agenda has included anti-Israel boycotts and divestment.

Alan| 11.12.10 @ 7:43PM

Putting that nasty "Love your neighbor" to practice when it comes to Arabs and Muslims is rather unacceptable, isn't it?

Where did Jesus say we should ignore those in need if they happen to be Arab or Muslim?

john| 11.27.10 @ 12:42AM

Israel has a higher rate of abortion than the USA. Rabbinical law says that the fetus is not human. Maybe the Mennonites feel closer to Islam on abortion than they do to Israel. After all ABORTION is/was the most important core value to conservatives

JP| 10.4.10 @ 9:09AM

The Mennonites for years have given aid and comfort to the Palestinians in various refugee camps. And in some case they've gone native. Thier condemnation of Isreal and its "policies" are well documented. Thier pacifism is of a selective nature. I seriously doubt thier "outreach" has done much good. The 7 year old child they feed today, will most probably be used to kill Jews in 10 years time. I don't think this is what Jesus Would Do.

Jen| 10.6.10 @ 1:46PM

Hold up a moment. If I'm correct, you are claiming that we shouldn't be helping children in need in Palestine because they might grow up to kill Jews. And then you claim that that is what Jesus would do?

Isn't Jesus the one who commanded us to care for the widows and the orphans? Who told us to love our enemies? No, I don't support what the Palestinians are doing, but that doesn't mean that I support children around the world suffering because of a potential outcome that may or may not occur.

Before you start claiming what Jesus would do, maybe you should look in the Bible about what he actually said, what he commanded us to do. You never know, maybe because of being fed, this child may have the potential outcome of coming to Christ and making an impact on the world in a good way.

charles| 11.25.10 @ 9:36AM

Do you think Jesus would NOT feed the seven year old child? Maybe he would just kill him instead?

Richard| 10.4.10 @ 9:17AM

There are enough straw men here to risk a fire in a barn. Jim Wallis is a political commentator wearing the mask of a theologian. Stanley Hauerwas is a theologian. The distinction is important. I can accept Mr. Tooley's contention that some of the particularly sharp points in Mr. Shauerwas' arguments are offered in reaction to the conflation of God and Country that prevails among a certain group of those who call themselves Christians (often with the best of intentions). But that is because what is conventionally called the 'religious right' offers such fat targets. Needling those who attempt to wrestle with the hard challenges of the Gospel as members of 'hipster circles' suggests that Mr. Tooley is more worried about protecting his and his readers' political preferences with sandbags than he is about debates that pursue the truth. I've read and respected enough of Mr. Tooley's work to know this isn't true. The ability to distiguish between loyalties owed to God and Caesar has challenged believers for two millennia. The phenomenon of the 'religious right' obscured that challenge for many. As a small-c conservative, and a Christian, I am thankful Mr. Hauerwas is around to afflict the comfort of my beliefs and to turn me back to the difficult Gospel of Jesus Christ.

KyMouse| 10.4.10 @ 10:02AM

Richard, it sounds as if you are Mennonite (or in another Anabaptist congregation). If so, what is your perspective about what JP and I said (above) about the Mennonites' pro-Palestinian agenda, which advocates anti-Israel boycotts and divestment?

Mark Minderbiinder| 10.4.10 @ 10:46AM

As I recall Yosserian of "Catch 22" was an Anababtist

TR| 10.4.10 @ 11:21AM

Actually it was Chaplain Tappman that was Anabaptist. Every time the commander talked to him, he sneered something like, "thanks, Father" to which the Chaplain would reply "oh, you don't call me Father, I'm Anabaptist."

Richard| 10.4.10 @ 11:26AM

To KyMouse's comment: No, I'm neither a Mennonite nor a member of a congregation or denomination derived from the Anabaptist stream of Christian thought. FWIW, I'm a Christian of Roman Catholic background now worshiping as an Anglican. The fact of individual Mennonites or Mennonite groups working among Palestinians should not be held as indicative of broad opinion among Anabaptists or Mennonites, any more than the existence of liberation theologians among nominally Catholic clergy in, say, Brazil, should be taken as refutation of statements made by Pope Benedict. As it happens, the Anglican communion to which I now belong has a long heritage in Palestine, a heritage that - along with the ancestral country club anti-Semitism among affluent Episcopalians from which many present-day liberal-leaning Episcopal clergy are descended - HAS influenced the political leanings and statements of many liberal Episcopalians. I have known people who have worked in the Palestinian community, and have friends whose children have worked or studied in Israel. I am only sure of one thing in connection with the endless tragic cycle of hatred that overshadows Israel and Palestine, and that is that I don't have an answer.

KyMouse| 10.4.10 @ 11:39AM

Thanks, Richard, for your thoughtful answer. I do wonder how many non-committee Mennonites support that pro-Palestinian position. It would be interesting to see some sort of survey.

KenK| 11.14.10 @ 2:15PM

Actually, most anabaptists propose to take care of the needy wherever they happen to be, whether in Israel or Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, or right here in the US. National boundaries are simply irrelevant.

ton| 10.4.10 @ 11:54AM

"I'm a Christian of Roman Catholic background now worshiping as an Anglican"

And that just about says it all. What part of Christ's Truth did you reject when you fled His Church for the apostasy on the Thames?

Ana-baptists? Liberal protestants? WHO CARES.
They are vanishing faster than a Lutheran at a pro-life rally.

JNWICKEY| 10.4.10 @ 11:49AM

My family was Amish when I was a child and I became Mennonite when adolescent. In my old age, I have gravitated to Orthodoxy. Most low church protestantism is very thin nowadays and dominated by orators who have some charasma. I think the only reason the topic of this article gains public attention is because it fits in with the social and political agenda of the mainstream media.

Scott| 10.4.10 @ 12:29PM

I think the "neoanabaptist" label, while convenient to the author's argument, overstates the involvement of Anabaptists and other religious non-resistants in terms of liberal, secular pacifism (allied with SOME religious pacifists.

Religiously inspired non-resistance has it's own logic, as the author acknowledges in his passing mention of Anabaptist acceptance of the need for rule of law and authority in our fallen world. Beyond that, my experience of conservative Quakerism and conservative Mennonites is that non-resistance differs from pacifism particularly in terms of understanding and confronting evil. Pacifists tend to believe that someone like Saddam Hussein could have been won over with a good round of singing 'Kumbaya' - an attitude that makes these people useful idiots for every despot who comes along. It aloso creates cognative dissonance (to say the least) which is often resolved by projecting the sensed evil of the despot back onto the defending power - the USA in most instances. Non-resistant religious people (in general) at least recognize that there is evil ion the world, and can discern who bears the blame for implementing it. Non-resistance is fierce in its stance: "OK, I see that you're the evildoer, and I will neither bend to your will nor fight you with earthly power - you're going to have to kill my body to get your way, but in the Lamb's war you will lose in the end - and we both know it."

I'm sure this falls far short of satisfying those who believe in "just war" or even simple self defense, but it is nevertheless not the same as the woolly-headed view of most pacifists

It is also worth noting that at least within Mennonite circles, there has been an ongoing dialog as to whether the Iraq and Afghan conflicts qualify as wars to be disapproved of or simply "police actions" where the US is attempting to restore order in countries gripped by state-supported and/or free-lance terrorism. This debate has had a lot of energy and is has been explicitly discussed in a number of Mennonite publications.

winterkorn| 10.4.10 @ 12:45PM

Christians of any stripe get it wrong when they try to use the police and military power of the government to achieve their goals. Jesus would never have abided such behavior ("Render unto Caesar.....etc"). This was true for the Crusades, The Inquisition, as well as current efforts to legislate "Christian values".

Doug| 10.4.10 @ 1:31PM

Your reference to legislating "Christian values" belies your liberalism; it's a slightly more version of the vast overstatement, "you can't legislate morality." You know quite well that all legislation in some way has a moral purpose; the question is never WHETHER we will legislate morality, but HOW. So, whose values will be reflected in the legislation we pass? For a while now, it has been a socialist morality; that kind of morality led to Nazi Germany, Stalin, the genocides known as Mao's "Cultural Revolution" and the Killing Fields of Cambodia, and so on. As for me, I prefer to see Christ's values reflected in legislation.

Ryan| 10.4.10 @ 3:28PM

I think both of you may be dealing with a false dichotomy of sorts.

On one hand, there is point that can be made that the Church, in attempting to control certain parts of moral behavior, may go too far in pushing for legislation - and instead should look to promote the Gospel to truly change hearts and minds.

The other side is where is the line that a Christian society can draw to prevent its corruption in the civil circle..

Rev Dave | 11.23.10 @ 5:18PM

So this is different than things like Wounded Knee, starving the Plains Indains, segregation, slavery, the tens of thousands who died in the slave trade, lynching of African-Americans and other oppressions brought about by White Protestants. BTW many conservative Replubicans first approved of what Hilter was doing and later worked hard at freeing many Nazi war criminals. And look at the regimes we supported and aided in the Cold War, how can Conservative tthink that they are superior?

james wilson| 10.4.10 @ 1:11PM

It follows that an ideology that rejects borders and nationality would eventually find common cause with the left.

Doug| 10.4.10 @ 1:54PM

Yes; anarchists in general have found common causes with the left. Leftists use anarchy to as a tool to destabilize society so that the state can fill the void.

mimi| 10.4.10 @ 2:04PM

thanks to all commentators...here and on other sites...for insights into the hearts and minds of 'the people', for the 'education',,,but not for the 'heartburn'!

Esse Quam Videris| 10.4.10 @ 2:46PM

As to an Anabaptist refusal to consider themselves a citizen, that would be their free choice. To say that is a condition for rightiousness is heresy. Remember, Paul of Tarsus was and considered himself a natural born citizen of Rome. Also, in regards to military service, that too is not incompatible for a Christian. When the Gentile (!) Centurion approached Jesus asking for intervention for his daughter's illness Jesus did not rebuke his profession, but commended him for his faith. I think the Neo-Anabaptists need to get back to the scripture as opposed to immanetizing the eschaton (hat tip to WFB).

Richard| 10.4.10 @ 2:48PM

Ton - In the time honored tradition of blog comments, I could respond with a snarky reference to Medici popes or the Archdiocese of Boston, but I won't. It would do disservice to a denomination (yours, evidently) that remains a powerful engine for the Lord's work in the world, with its flaws. So, too, has been the reformed and Anglican tradition of Cranmer, Wilberforce, Wesley, C.S. Lewis and John Stott, along with the orthodox believing remnant in North America, and the powerful, faithful churches of Africa and Asia. Each Christian makes his or her own pilgrimage of faith. I have the examples of fine saints on both sides of the Tiber to follow in my challenge to walk with the Lord.

ton| 10.4.10 @ 3:56PM

Thanks for sparing me those tiresome and half-understood recriminations about Popes and Bishops (sinners aboundeth, but grace overcometh). As a former Methodist, I am grateful to many saintly Christians who (for reasons of birth, ignorance, historical confusion, misconceptions, etc) never received the grace to enter full communion with God's visible Church but who nonetheless lived as witnesses to Christ's love. May God bless them and reward them with His mercy and receive them at last into His Church Triumphant.

I will only point out what you as a former Catholic should already know; that I don't have a "denomination." Rather I humbly accept and try to follow the authoritative teachings (all of them) of Christ's one, holy, universal Church as preserved and proclaimed through the apostolic succession since the beginning (33 AD for those who believe God withheld His revelation until the disaffected monks and political opportunists of the 16th century shattered Christendom).

To paraphrase a former Anglican soon to be a Catholic saint, there are many denominations (30,000 and counting); there is only one enduring bastion of Truth and orthodoxy, as there is only one God and one saviour and Lord.

The time for equivocation is past; the enemy is at hand; many formerly Christian denominations (yours among them) have embraced heterodoxy and abandoned the most fundamental principles of God's revelation (eg. the sanctity of life, the sacramental nature of marriage, the apostolic authority of the Magisterium, the sacred Tradition, even the divinity of Christ and the historical reality of the Incarnation).

There are many pilgrims but only one destination - Jesus Christ. There are many ecclesial communions; but only one Church. May God grant you the humility to receive His Truth in all its fullness. You abandon His Church at your peril.

To paraphrase Newman again, may God preserve you from those "pale, protestant shadows" and bring you back home to your Holy Mother Church.

Ryan| 10.4.10 @ 4:46PM

So what is the Gospel?

Stormzeye| 10.4.10 @ 5:29PM

Your arrogance mirrors that of the Bishop of Rome. Mine is the Bishop of Antioch, a co-equal along with the Bishops of Constantinope, Alexandria and Jerusalem. It was he who you call Pope that aided the Moslems in their destruction of the Holy Mother Church east of Rome under the guise of re-gaining Jersualem. The Catholic Church is far more than the Roman Church.

JP| 10.5.10 @ 2:11PM

You really need to brush up on your history. Byzantium, for all of its glory, rich culture, and profound intellectual prowess couldn't defend itself. The Bishop of Rome was the "weaker sister" when compared to Byzantium. Palestine, and Egypt were Eastern Rite confessions, and it took little effort for the Muslims to conquer each.

Tim*| 10.4.10 @ 8:23PM

Patriarch of Antioch is a traditional title held by the Bishop of Antioch.
Today five churches use the title of Patriarch of Antioch: the Syriac Orthodox Church and Syriac Catholic Church, and the Chalcedonian Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch, Melkite Greek Catholic Church, and Maronite Church; and, historically, there has also been a Latin Patriarch of Antioch.

Dacron Mather | 10.4.10 @ 10:01PM

Is Gov. Jindall the thin end of the Krishna Menonite wedge?

Linda Joy Adams| 10.4.10 @ 11:49PM

I must disagree with some of the assertions in this article. as one raised in the Church of The Brethren we were taught that one should help each other as individuals first. There was a traditional reluctance to have some of the govt programs, but times have changed. The rights of the individual are foremost. There are differences in each of the traditions listed. Anabaptist in itself was a belief that one accepted when Christ and was baptized when one was old enough to make a choice. I made mine at age 9. The age varies in different groups However many accept infant baptisms when one transfers membership from another Christian denomination. Most have no creed except Christ or a very limited set of beliefs based on common Bible principles. Usually, its a very democratic structure with the power vested in the vote of each member and I gained that right at age 9. Because there is a range of diverse views inside even one congregation, a few who are actively in the spotlight sometimes becomes the popular view of the entire group. Anabaptists come from the principle of individual beliefs, but some groups do have a more strict set of rules to live by. Most do not. For this reason, many times those in my denomination were asked to take leadership roles when there were conflicting groups that had to get along for peaceful purposes, as the overall principles of loving one another was focal and servant leadership is taught. Jim Wallis does not represent the entire group, just as no individual represents any group where diversity is permitted. Sadly, in recent years, some have acquiesced to the way the 'world thinks and behaves;' but that is found in almost every Christian sect today.
Democracy and the rights of each individual to have their own uniqueness and beliefs is the prime historical reason that the break with past practices since Constantine put all Christianity under one set of rules and doctrines, occurred and horrible things happened. Out of this came our First amendment rights of Free Speech and Freedom of religion. Although the belief is that all war is sin, and who thinks war is good?, often members do serve in the military and worship alongside those that believe to the contrary. That's up to the local congregation of worshipers. Just as most pay into Social security and medicare and accept the benefits although personal charity is valued as a better solution if the constraints of our world would make it available which is more difficult in an urban society. A few sects have decided to live apart. Its a diverse group that can't be labled as it represents the very principles that are found in our Bill of Rights which many historians credit the anabaptist traditions as being a major foundation for them. Linda Joy Adams

JP| 10.5.10 @ 2:07PM

"Democracy and the rights of each individual to have their own uniqueness and beliefs is the prime historical reason that the break with past practices since Constantine put all Christianity under one set of rules and doctrines, occurred and horrible things happened. Out of this came our First amendment rights of Free Speech and Freedom of religion."

What exactly happened after Constantine that was so horrible? And no, the rights you speak about were a product of Enlightenment, which in turn came out of the various neo-classical schools that formed in the aftermath of Saint Thomas Aquainis. Aquanis in turn formalized and added philsophical and theological structure to Catholic thought using his studies of Artistotle. Ideas such as The Dignity of Man, Natural Rights (which were key to the Founding), and an entire host of philosophical categories came out of this Medieval Catholic school of thought. The Protestant Revolt took things in a new direction and with Enlightenment undermined the authority of the monarchs. But, none of this happened within a historical vacuum. Without Constantine the Church would have never survived. And without the Church, all of Europe more than likely would have fallen to the Muslims.

Robert Martin| 10.6.10 @ 4:59PM

Thank you, Linda. As a Mennonite (brother from another mother... what? ;-) ), you summed it up well.

Dylan| 10.5.10 @ 1:55PM

I think this is a good follow-up article for your consideration
"Christians in the hand of an angry God" it touches on a lot of opinions expressed in the comments

http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/118585.html

Bobolink| 10.6.10 @ 9:48AM

to Walk the Talk
I couldn't find the site you referenced--christforamericans-- could you repeat the full refernce?

hewhocutsdown| 10.6.10 @ 1:26PM

I find the article and the majority of the comments painfully lacking in basic fact-checking. Neo-Anabaptists as slaves to the Democratic party? Every one I've heard or read denounces the same behaviour on either side of the political aisle. Most don't vote, or wrestle significantly with what voting means as part and parcel of the tenuous relationship with the state.

It seems that arguments from absurdity are preferred here - in that case, perhaps wrestling with the thoughts over at Jesus Radicals (www.jesusradicals.com) [not representative of the movement as a whole, but a thoughtful, more radical fringe] would be worthwhile.

Robert Martin| 10.6.10 @ 4:57PM

As a Mennonite and neo-Anabaptist myself, thank you, hewhocutsdown, for setting the record straight.

David| 10.6.10 @ 9:33PM

I'm a Mennonite (born, bred, baptized...), but most emphatically NOT Anabaptist.

The Neo-Anabaptists may denounce Democrats, but they still vote Democrat. At least in Menno circles (can't speak for Church of the Brethren), those who don't vote are so-called "unaffiliated" conservatives outside the "mainstream" body (=MCUSA, Mennonite Church USA). Sorry, but I don't see any wrestling whatsoever with voting.

To be sure, a spokesman for the Neo-Anabaptist side recently suggested that Mennos stop voting or discussing politics for a while. But my sense is that he said that because he was losing the arguments with culturally conservative Mennos. The liberals wanted Mennos to participate in the political sphere, thinking that all who did so would buy into their own equation of religion and liberal (or, if you prefer, progressive) politics. When it didn't turn out that way, liberals decided that politically active Mennos wasn't such a great idea after all.

LOL.

hewhocutsdown| 10.7.10 @ 4:44PM

It may just be selection bias on my part, but I've never met one. :P

Mark Van Steenwyk| 10.8.10 @ 10:15PM

Just to clarify...you can't be born a Mennonite. Good ol' Menno and Sattler and all the others from the Radical Reformation wince every time folks say they were born Mennonites. ;)

As a neo-Anabaptist who became a Mennonite pastor who doesn't vote, it probably won't be a surprise when I say that so much of this article (and the comments that follow) really don't undersand historic Anabaptism. If you're going to critique a Christian movement, compare it to Jesus Christ. Lambasting a radical Christian movement from a neo-conservative framework is just, well, stupid.

David| 10.8.10 @ 10:28PM

To paraphrase Mark Twain (interestingly enough, the original quote concerns infant baptism):

Believe in being "born Mennonite"? I've seen it DONE!

Andrew Zook| 11.14.10 @ 6:26PM

"If you're going to critique a Christian movement, compare it to Jesus Christ. Lambasting a radical Christian movement from a neo-conservative framework is just, well, stupid."
Amen to this too.

Rickard| 11.25.10 @ 10:20PM

Excellent point. Is there any Christian out there who places the words of Glenn Beck or Michael Moore ahead of the red letters in the Gospels? I can go to bed in peace now.

Robert Martin| 10.6.10 @ 4:45PM

I would suggest that there are those of us who identify ourselves as neo-Anabaptists who don't align with ANY political party agenda... I support, really, neither the Republican nor the Democratic agenda because I do not believe that the US government is where our focus for embodying Christian values should be... it should be within the community of believers, living transformative and redeemingly gracious lives in our communities... When push comes to shove, it really doesn't matter WHAT government we're operating under so long as we in the church are doing our duty to the Kingdom to which we owe our first allegience... As i understand it, that's one of the core values of the FIRST Anabaptists...

Andrew Zook| 11.14.10 @ 6:18PM

Amen, Robert. Most Menno/Anabaptists I know share this same sentiment (but not all...we like everyone else are highly nuanced...a point Mr Tooley seems to miss.)

The Rev. Steven P. Tibbetts| 10.6.10 @ 5:27PM

Since when are Moravians "Anabaptists"? I'm also curious about the clearly pacifist Stanley Hauerwas, a United Methodist, being described as "today's most prominent Anabaptist thinker." Mr. Toolley's article seems to be conflating several variant Christian traditions into one.

Dennis| 10.7.10 @ 4:16PM

Indeed! Rev. Tibbetts you make a good point. Mr. Tooley has apparently written about the United Methodist Church which has many different voices as do Anabaptists (or any other denomination for that matter). One ought not paint with strokes that are too broad.

Rev. Dave| 11.23.10 @ 5:26PM

Hauerwas called himself Anabaptist.

Neil Cowling| 11.24.10 @ 1:45PM

Hauerwas is undoubtedly influenced by the anabaptist tradition through Yoder, but he is not Anabaptist. No one is really. James McClendon who wrote a systematic theology preferred the term "baptist," a bit confusing I suppose, but the term "anabaptist" originally referred to "rebaptism," a pejorative used by Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed.
Neither is Hauerwas a Methodist. True, he was raised Methodist, but let me cite this from his memoir, Hannah's Child: "God's little joke on me is that now I am an Episcopalian or, more accurately, a communicant at the Church of the Holy Family." He comments about the name of the church in this way: "I had given talks at Holy Family before Paula and I became members. I had told them that I wondered about the church because Holy Family is usually the name of a Catholic church. But as soon as they called the basement in which I was to speak the 'undercroft.' I knew they were Episcopalians. After all, Episcopalians are people who refuse to let any pretension go unused."
As the advertisement says about Mastercard: "Priceless!"

Charles| 11.25.10 @ 9:50AM

I think Hauerwas called himself an Anglican-Anabaptist (or maybe an Anabaptist-Anglican. Stuart Murray in "The Naked Anabaptist" talks about traditional Anabaptists (Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites), neo-Anabaptists, and hyphenated Anabaptists. Hauerwas would fit under the hyphenated category.

sal ippolito| 10.6.10 @ 7:20PM

I'm simply amazed at how all these theological trends move in cycles. I think my head's spinning right about now.

Peter Wiens| 10.7.10 @ 1:11AM

"At some future reconciliation service, will repentant neo-Anabaptists apologize to other Christians for their hyperbolic denunciations and sweeping political demands?"

I hope so! Baptists, Anabaptists, neo-Anabaptists, why stop right there!?

NaughtyRebel| 10.7.10 @ 2:36PM

I find it revealing that the "naughtiness" of which Tooley writes is "naughtiness" in the context of a society founded on the more "Constantinian" versions of Christianity. Why for instance isn't there a robust healthy anabaptist naughtiness at work in China, North Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia or Afghanistan?

Jerry C. Stanaway| 10.9.10 @ 12:53AM

I'm a Mennonite and I don't vote but I have a special dislike for the Democratic Party which supports the violence of abortion.

Chris| 10.20.10 @ 9:17AM

Wow, you're actually trying to say that the huge majority of traditional denominations are somehow victims of a tiny minority of anabaptist Christians...

"will repentant neo-Anabaptists apologize to other Christians for their hyperbolic denunciations and sweeping political demands?"

Because 'hyperbolic denunciations and sweeping political demands' are exactly the same thing as being tortured and killed for your beliefs.

Your false equivalency is astounding.

We're simply trying to follow The Way of Jesus. If that makes people uncomfortable, then we must be doing something right.

Travis| 10.22.10 @ 9:29AM

This is painting with some pretty broad strokes. None of these supposed neo-Anabaptists are Mennonite. Most Mennonites are probably a good bit more conservative than Wallis & Hauwerwas, and they're hardly aggressive.

mountainguy| 11.12.10 @ 10:14PM

A few clarifications:
1. Tell me where are Boyd, Hauerwas, and Caliborne are supporting the democratic party.
2. Wallis is not anabaptist (as a somewhat socialist I agree sometimes with him, but in the end I'm tired of all the "constantinian leftist" of Wallis, Campolo, etc)
3. Many columnists at Lewrockwell.com have a good view of Boyd and Hauerwas. Just check on Laurence Vance articles (and he is pro-free market).
4. I'd like to see the pacifist ideals of anabaptists influencing more and more other christian denominations, but I'm freaking pessimistic about that.
5. I am a colombian living in Argentina, and thanks G-d I'm inmune to all your patriotic jingoistic garbage.

mountainguy| 11.12.10 @ 10:17PM

I forgot: we are not expecting the world to behave like us... perhaps other christians, while not forgeting that the very concept of state is a violent one

RAB| 11.13.10 @ 12:05AM

This article is utterly ridiculous. The author shows no understanding for Anabaptist history let alone Christian history. Hate to break it to Christians but anyone who reads the Bible in it's sociopolitical context and then still wants to call Jesus Lord, they're going to need to have a radical reshaping of their worldview.

Tara| 11.21.10 @ 11:01PM

So true! If anyone wishes to call themselves Christians, they should study the Gospel and take the true example of the historical Jesus to heart. Stewardship, non-resistance, simplicity, social justice...it's right there in red letter.

At the heart of Anabaptist theology are the most essential commands of the Savior: love your enemies, give to the needy, pray for those who persecute you, love God.

Historically, and in modern practice, Mennonites are not perfect. No one is. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. But they are hardly a threat to American society. Instead, when the grace of God works in their lives, they abide by the only requirements of the Lord: "to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with God" Micah 6:8.

Mennonites are not blindly optimistic pacifists. There can be no peace without justice. Mennonites highly value service to their community and through their many organizations have made incredible contributions to people in the United States and all over the world.

I see by the erroneous and fearful comments that the ideas of love for your enemies, or for following the kingdom of God rather than that of human government, are still as radical as when Jesus first spoke them. The message of Jesus is radical: Blessed are the peacemakers!

Tyler| 11.15.10 @ 12:03AM

A quick glance through some of the author's other work seem to put him on the far right; he constantly denounces people like Jim Wallis, and seems to support evangelicals in the Tea Party movement. He seems to know quite a bit about hyperb...ole...
To call Shane Claiborne's "angry and defamatory" seems pretty absurd to me, and the very definition of a sweeping statement: Claiborne is as separatist as they come.

Which is it, Tooley? Do these "neo-Anabaptists" align themselves with the Democratic Party, or do they "not comply?" The two positions are completely contradictory. This is reactionary hypocrisy at its finest, in my opinion. People disagreeing with you does not equal persecution.

Julie| 11.22.10 @ 9:46PM

As an ELCA Lutheran (currently a seminary student) who graduated from a college with strong Anabaptist roots, I was incredibly pleased that the LWF made this formal reconciliation. Only one minor correction: Mark Hanson, who is still the presiding bishop of the ELCA, is no longer the president of the Lutheran Word Federation -- Munib Younan was elected the new president at this same assembly. Interestingly enough (given the discussion taking place in the comments here), he is Palestinian.

Neva | 11.25.10 @ 1:34PM

Tooley wonders "will repentant neo-Anabaptists apologize to other Christians for their hyperbolic denunciations and sweeping political demands?"In the not terribly intellectual parlance of our day, let me say just say "Wow" . How does that possibly compare to churches willing to apologize for actual historic persecutions and killings of those of another faith? Heaven forbid that a group of people would have an opinion. Especially since no other group is trying to influence politics or society by casting the dialogue in the context of their religious beliefs. Yes, shame on those Anabaptists. We should all be so very afraid....not.
And for the record - all my ancestors back to the 1600's were Quakers. One of my interests is how the story of the Quakers and others are generally forgotten in the founding of the country and development of democracy, but that is another topic for another time.

Rickard| 11.25.10 @ 10:07PM

"Although the neo-Anabaptists sort of subscribe to a tradition that rejects or, at most, passively abides state power, they now demand a greatly expanded and more coercive state."

Can anyone else read this statement and not either shudder with embarressment for Mr. Tooley or feel enraged that someone pays him to write this stuff? That someone with so little knowledge about the Anabaptist stance on the state can even expect to be taken seriously defies logic.

To analyze this autopsy further: if neo-Anabaptists reject or passively abide state power, how in God's name can they demand a more coercive state? It would be akin to a fellow who abides with his virginity by demanding more sex.

And who is coercive in Mr. Tooley's eyes? Certainly Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King. How about the protesters at Tianamen Square? Aung San Suu Kyi? These people weren't coercive. They shamed those who were coercive by staring them down from the opposite ends of loaded weapons and attack dogs and showed how might is not always right and how peace can overcome violence.

I remember this when I read columns like this. I then pray for forgiveness for thinking that my indignation is somehow righteous and then I remind myself that I too am prone too talk about things that I know nothing about.