The Reformers emphasized the importance of “godly leaders” to interpret Scripture; the Anabaptists held that all believers were able to participate in the interpretation of Scripture.

Hidden beliefs

What’s behind the sermons we hear?

Gay Lynn Voth

Previous | Next

There are many amazing preachers in today’s evangelical church. Most Christians have heard of Franklin Graham, John Piper, or Bill Hybels. These preachers are genuinely dedicated to Scripture and passionate about sharing the gospel.

But what’s behind their stirring, motivational sermons? All preachers, even those labelled “nondenominational,” interpret the Bible through a particular theological lens. Behind every biblical message is an underlying theological belief system.

The Bible calls us to practice discernment when we hear the teaching of God’s Word (1 Timothy 1; 2 Peter 2). This includes educating ourselves about the different streams of theological thought that might impact or inform a sermon.

The following is a summary of some key differences between Anabaptist and Reformed theology (two major streams of thought found in many MB churches) to help us listen wisely when we next hear a biblical message.

Such comparisons aren’t meant to disparage one tradition over another, but to promote understanding and ensure fruitful dialogue in our churches.

—LK

Martin or Menno?

For those who know a bit about church history, you’ll remember the Anabaptists represented a “third way” in belief and practice between the Protestant reformers – i.e. Martin Luther and John Calvin – and the Roman Catholic Church. The theological perspectives that informed the Anabaptists were significantly different from those put forward by Luther and Calvin.

1. God and the atonement

Luther and Calvin held different views regarding the purpose of the atonement than the Anabaptists. For example, Luther and Calvin agreed that the justice of God was satisfied because of the atonement – “his anger was appeased,” and therefore the status of humankind changed. Anabaptists saw God changing the human condition through the work of Christ by bringing the “kingdom of God” to earth. The focus of the atonement was on human salvation rather than God’s wrath.

2. Nature of humanity

The Reformers also held different views about the nature of humanity. Anabaptists didn’t stress the “utter depravity of humankind” or the ongoing depraved nature as ruling the Christian life. Anabaptists taught that humankind was “made ill” by sin, and the presence of the Holy Spirit – as “an inner baptism” – changed the Christian by renewing the capability of the human mind to think about goodness again. The Anabaptists believed that a human being could be taught to choose good and could personally decide to follow Christ.

3. Sola scriptura

The Protestant Reformers also held strictly to sola scriptura – “Scripture alone” – while the Anabaptists emphasized the authority of both Scripture and the Holy Spirit (as the Word of God).

4. Biblical interpretation

The Reformers emphasized the importance of “godly leaders” to interpret Scripture and direct the flock. This is why many pastors place such great emphasis on the “sacramental” role of preaching. The Anabaptists held to the egalitarian idea that all believers alike were able to participate in the interpretation of Scripture because of the power of the Holy Spirit made available to each believer. There’s much more emphasis on the role of God’s Spirit in Anabaptist theology, especially as it influences the abilities of individual believers.

5. The kingdom of heaven

Anabaptists saw the kingdom of heaven as a pacifist kingdom of “good works,” while the Reformers held to a governmental and spiritual cooperation of two kingdoms (state and church) that work together to affect the justice of God on earth. Essentially, the Anabaptists emphasized right living on a personal and communal level, while the Reformers emphasized right government at a civic or national level.

The early Anabaptists went to their death for these convictions, sentenced by Catholics and Protestants alike. Today, we seem to be casually throwing away these distinctives and replacing them with ideas that are theologically problematic for Anabaptists to hold simultaneously, even though we’re deeply evangelical.

Mennonite Brethren history

Looking back at Mennonite Brethren history, it’s not surprising there are those in the denomination who are embracing Luther’s views. The Mennonite Brethren split away from the Mennonite communities in Russia during the last half of the 1800s largely because of the revival services held by a Lutheran evangelist, E. Wuest. Initially they were called the “Wuest Brethren” but later took the name “Mennonite Brethren.”

When they separated, however, they did so because of their conviction that the Mennonites had fallen away from a proper understanding of “right living.” It was a central Anabaptist conviction that motivated them at the time of revival.

I value the contributions of Luther, Calvin, and Wuest, even though I continue to disagree with many of their theological points-of-view, or try to balance those views with my Anabaptist convictions. It’s important to remember that varying theological perspectives can lead down quite different paths.

And it’s important to be able to think critically about those perspectives, because our theological views always make a difference in how we choose to live.

Gay Lynn Voth is a professor at Columbia Bible College, Abbotsford, B.C., and a member of Bakerview MB Church.