Anabaptist Theology in Face of Postmodernity - Quote Summary

Much of the theology of Western Christendom has accommodated violence and war, and has done so in such a presumed universal fashion that even peace churches barely recognize it. ("Anabaptist Theology In Face Of Postmodernity" pg. 68)

From my perspective as an Anabaptist who affirms peace as part of the full Gospel message of Jesus, Weavers book and specifically these words at first glance are easy to affirm. Indeed, a quick historical look one would be hard pressed to disagree with Weaver’s assessment that the Christian Church is a place that “accommodates violence and war”. According to Weaver it is because of this misunderstanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that that we who represent the historic peace churches are in desperate need of a fresh theological starting point beyond those articulated by the Constantine influence Reformers. All of whom it is important to note, according to Weaver have misappropriated the Gospel message of peace. As a result, we who value the peace understanding must be “set apart” in search of a purer theology that organically originates from the soil of peace.

However a second glance of Weavers book, I admit I am somewhat troubled by his overall message. The first reason is that he segments the message of Jesus only to be understood in the light of the New Testament and more specifically the Gospels. It is almost as if the rest scripture, specifically the Old Testament is null and void (this has been tried before in history). It is obvious to me as to why he doesn’t speak into the Old Testament. It is in the OT that we find God along with violence and war, all of which for us Anabaptist is a challenge to reconcile. In no way am I implying that our peace understanding cannot be resolved within the OT, it surely can, but his lack of reflection into the OT and to a lesser extent the Epistles is major oversight on his part. Secondly, portions of his book is spent suggesting that the early founders of Anabaptist as well as modern Anabaptist theologians co-opted a ”theology in general” approach which has left us today with a tainted or weaken gospel of peace. I would suggest his that his “purity logic” in rejecting the “theology in general” when applied to Jesus himself is invalid. Jesus Christ said himself said that:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Matthew 5:17 (NIV)

Here we find Jesus just prior in the Beatitude’s speaking words of peace, reconciliation, restoration, etc in the midst of religious leaders who deemed violence as the norm and says in essence that I am not bringing you something “new” rather I am “fulfilling” or perhaps “clarifying” what you misunderstood. Jesus didn’t throw away the “theology” that came before his earthly dwelling; rather he built upon it and redefined it for the entire world to see. Neither did Jesus limit his earthly ministry to peace, his ministry include amongst other things healing, discipleship, prayer and service. Weaver in my estimation dares to “violently” throw away those theologians who have come before him all in the name of peace. I find it rather ironic that the “Prince of Peace” chooses to hold onto the Law and the Prophets (or fulfill), some of whom were outright violent and war mongers, yet Weaver deems this approach as “ecclesiological ambiguity.” Do we do away with the OT as easily as Weaver suggests that we do away the Protestant Reformers?

Thirdly I would suggest that the name in which we now self-identify ourselves is also helpful in this discussion – Anabaptist. Our name given to our forebears was given in criticism of what our accusers recognized or feared the most in the “radicals”. As “re-baptizers” the early Anabaptist understood that the whole Bible was the norm and applicable to everyday living, including baptism. I concur with Weaver that a classic Anabaptist understanding would also include that though the whole Bible is normative, we find in Jesus the perfect application of God’s desires in this life. My point is this. Weaver revisionist assertions as it relates to Anabaptist position on peace fails to recognize that our (though derogatory) namesake speaks volumes into what was the primary emphasis of the early Mennonites; re-baptism not peace. The peace position obviously came out of a people faithful reflecting on the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but we cannot ignore the obvious emphasis on baptism compared to peace at the very beginning of this Radical Movement.


Lastly I would suggest that Weaver’s assertions throughout the book regarding the Atonement under the guise of Postmodernity are borderline heresy. In my estimation Weaver struggles with the wonderful possibility that Anabaptist and non-peace theologians can come to common ground or agree to disagree on areas of theology. For Weaver, the concept that we can agree on one area of theology yet deviate on the issue of peace is beyond his grasp of appreciation. For Weaver peace is the first and final measurement of faithfulness in the people of God. I affirm that peace is a fruit, but it isn’t the only fruit of the spirit given to us by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit.