Talk:Anabaptism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Illustration

The thumbnail image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Baptism_by_immersion.jpg could be improved/replaced. It shows baptism by immersion in a river, but don't most Anabaptists practice baptist by pouring, not immersion? It looks Baptist, not Anabaptist. Mdmcginn (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography

This is not how you write a bibliography. Sort it out.

Unfair Representation/POV representation

From a glance at the article and the discussions below this article seems to being written mainly by Anabaptists for Anabaptists. It seems full of positive POV. Secular and critical studies on Anabaptists seem to be missing. Could historians or other scholars with no attachment to Anabaptists balance this article with other POV's about Anabaptists so we see a representative article here? Anacapa 05:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The POV appears to be written by anabaptists because it is written (by anabaptist, probably progressive anabaptist) and the discussion pages are guarded by anabaptists up north. It is highly unlikely that you will find anabaptist articles at wikipedia that have been written by those without some form of bias/POV. Academic anabaptists in the North seem to have a problem with other people's POV, as can be seen by the way they delete any editing by others, this shows their arrogance and consequently how they are not a good role model to others who also work for peace and reconciliation.This is probably why their power struggles within their denominations continue to destroy their crediblity. The editors of this article, (and other anabaptist articles), display a self righteous attitude which is not consistant with the teachings of Christ. In fact these editors seem to have the same self righteous attitude as the Pharasees of New Testament times.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.196.146 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I glanced at Britannica to see how they studied Anabaptists. Their article is much more readable and much more secular in tone with a much clearer flow of the history and of the distinctions between various Anabaptist groups. They also emphasis the vehemence, intransigence, and end of time beliefs of Anabaptists. They state that:

"The Anabaptists did not aim to reform the midieval church. They were determined instead to restore the institutions and spirit of the primitive church and were quite confident that they were living at the end of all ages (emphasis mine). They readily recognised in their leaders divinely summoned prophets and apostles, and all converts stood ready to give a full account of their faith before the magistrates. They often identified their suffering with that of the early Christian martyrs."

They also state that "Thomas Muntzer was among those (sometimes called 'spirituals') who emphasized that Anabaptists were living at the end of all ages". Clearly Anapbapists were radical revolutionaries rather than mere radical reformers, a distinction that needs to be made here.

It seems from reading the Wiki article that much real representation of Anapbaptism is missing here. It also seems relevant to study the doomsday or end of time aspects of Anabaptists since these beliefs are often found in Mind control groups and since some doomsday group researchers use early Anabaptists as examples. Finally, it would be useful to see Anabaptists studied from a secular perspectives as we do other groups so NPOV balance is possible here. Anacapa 03:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add more stuff about Anabaptists. However I would ask you to remember that Wikipedia is dedicated to the neutral point of view not the secular point of view. Also because a group felt it was 'living in the end times' does not mean they employed mind control techniques. Nor does being a revolutionary necessarily mean you are controlling people's minds.

Incidentally it's also a good idea to add new comments at the end of a talk page. DJ Clayworth 04:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

DJ, I added this stuff here because it seems to fit the section title best. I will use end of page discussions for the ongoing/new stuff I do elsewhere. I wanted some of those 1.1 billion (see religion) irreligious people out there to see this before wading down through all the other religious content in these pages. Anacapa 07:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

DJ, No offense but I feel just as free to add stuff here as all the other (Anabaptists?) here do. I do not expect to give or take permission from you to edit as you see fit, either, but I hope we do discuss rather than war. As for neutral NPOV versus secular POV you are right. However when I see articles packed with religious POV (in a general readership encyclopedia) I have a right to balance that POV with secular sources to arrive at some NPOV balance. (I will also note this is not a religious encyclopedia for religious references yet these Anabaptist articles sometimes read that way). I suggest you glance at religion to see what others did with highly controversial and opposing POV's. In terms of mind control, please read what I said again. I made no blanket judgements about Anabaptists and mind control nor did I imply that 'revolutionary' has a connection to mind control. I do connect 'revolution' with 'extreme' however because revolutionaries intend to turn over the existing order rather just reform it. Early Anapbaptists seem to have been (from the Britannica quotes) similar to modern day Muslim primitive revolutionaries (eg Talibans) minus all the violence. I will do what I can so you don't get blindsided here but please don't make molehills into mountains with what I offer by assuming the worst without distinctions. Anacapa 07:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The current article does not give a fair view of the Anabaptists -- way too much is dwelt on the Zwickau Prophets, who are more of an anomaly in the Anabaptist movement, and hardly anything on the more "mainstream" Anabaptists. I will be doing some editing when I have the time to correct this, if it isn't done by then. --Colemanyee 06:40, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agreed! There is a definite need to rewrite this article in order to achieve a proper perspective of the Anabaptists. It reflects ideas commonly held in 1911, and fails to reflect a more balanced approach that almost 100 more years of study of the groups should yield. I had some ideas, but found it to be a headache to try and fix the article without almost totally rewriting it, so I haven't done anything. Any work you do will be needed and appreciated. - Rlvaughn 04:26, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. It is true that a rewrite may be inevitable, reluctant though we are. Perhaps we could start with a general outline and move on from there? --Colemanyee 05:54, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I developed a rough outline with the intent of first rearranging the existing material within it, and then add new material. I don't mind adding, but really hate to do too much of a rewrite of an existing article. But the existing material is so different from the way I would approach the subject, I became discouraged and decided to put the idea of hold for awhile. Here is the working outline I developed:

• Introductory paragraph
• The Name "Anabaptist" (perhaps could be combined above, according to length)
• Views of the origins of Anabaptists
• Types of Anabaptists
• Theology of the Anabaptists
• Christology (since this is an area in which several leading Anabaptists differed)
• Persecutions
• Migrations
• Anabaptists Today
• The Anabaptist Heritage (or legacy; doctrines now held by many "non-Anabaptist" Christians)

This is just my idea; if you can use it in any way, feel free. I also think Wesley's ideas, below, would fit well into this kind of format. - Rlvaughn 00:26, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'll help! I'm Jewish, but I have a Masters of Divinity. I honestly have no vested interest in the article whatsoever. I'm just interested in history. Narnibird 01:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is one more writer concurring with the criticism about the precursors, and the unbalanced view here. The Brethren of the Common Life fed into all of of humanistic reformational movements, not the Anabaptists in any special way. The Waldensians, for some of their tacit similarities, came to have closer affiliation with the Reformed reformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.219.131 (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ideas for expanding this article:

It would be good to list the families of denominations that descend from the Anabaptists. I think these are the Mennonites, the Amish, and possibly the Hutterites? Possibly compare with Baptists, who were influenced by but not directly descended from the Anabaptists.

It would also be good to mention the Martyr's Mirror, as that has been a very influential publication. It says their persecution continued up until sometime in the late 1570's, I forget the date. Persecution caused migration to Russia and other parts of Europe, and of course they came to the United States as well. They're generally known as one (or two if you count Amish separately) of the "peace churches", along with the Quakers, and have generally been conscientious objectors in the United States. --Wesley

• The Hutterites are definitely descendents of the Anabaptist movement. Athanasius 22:14, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ideas for sectionalizing this article

Now that the Anabaptist article has been expanded, I have received this warning:

WARNING: This page is 32 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections.

Ideas on which sections to break out into separate articles will be appreciated (I still have a few sections I am planning to add: Types of Anabaptists and Anabaptists Today) - Rlvaughn 19:09, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I broke Theology of Anabaptism out into a separate article (see Wetman comments below) to reduce the length (based on the 32kb warning), but have now added information on Types of Anabaptists and Anabaptists Today, which has brought it back to about 31kb. So I'm still looking for suggestions on which parts will best "stand alone" as separate articles (I felt Theology could certainly do that). - Rlvaughn 02:44, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think it would be good to include at least a summary of the theology, with details in its own article. The first items I would put into separate articles would be the Zwickau prophets and the Peasants' War and the Münster Rebellion -- a summary would suffice. If that's not enough, I would move the Origins next. I feel that the Forerunners section may be too detailed for the current article. Hope this helps. --Colemanyee 08:18, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I moved most of the Zwickau prophets material to Peasants' War (which article already existed), and created an article on the Münster Rebellion with material moved from the article. Also added back a small general paragraph on theology. This should give enough space for a while. - Rlvaughn 16:53, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Removing the "theology" section from the entry Anabaptist is rather like removing the "article of clothing" section from Hat. What happened to the material? The link doesn't work? Wetman 01:42, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The link works now. If you have a better suggestion, I'm certainly willing to listen to it. - Rlvaughn 03:33, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have removed my name from this section. I consider its use in this regard to be libelous, as the statements made were patently untrue.

I'd like to see a kind of a "nutshell" paragraph for people who aren't familiar with the details and implications of the Reformation. Manys 04:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Congregational Authority

I wonder whether it deserves a mention that the Anabaptist movement has been historically fragmented in part due to the lack of a central church authority. By rejecting the authority of the Pope and embracing the priesthood of believers, the floodgates opened for each congregation to interpret the Bible differently, and for a congregation to split in two whenever its members had a theological dispute. At least, that is my general impression of how Anabaptists have behaved. Is this accurate and/or important? Peace, --Fritzlein 07:09, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think this definitely deserves mention in the article. Among Mennonites and Amish there are possible hundreds of different small conferences that have broken away over issues as small as whether to use hooks and eyes or buttons for clothing. The low level of hierarchy that Mennonites do have - bishops, has probably exacerbated this divide. Bishops traditionally oversee a number of churches and when they disagree with each other, they may very well split off from each other and take the congregations in their charge with them. Indeed, this is essentially how the Amish church started, breaking away from the Mennonites (see Amish#history). The Nebraska Amish, Swartzendruber Amish, Old Order Amish and Beachy Amish are examples of this tradition continuing within the Amish church. Among Mennonite the number of differenc groups is probably even higher. The largest two being Mennonite Church USA[1] and Mennonite Church Canada[2], the result of a recent reunification between the General Conference Mennonite Church and the Mennonite Church.

I don't think something along those lines is entirely out of line, but I would urge caution because it could run into adding a lot of "point of view" as opposed to simple fact. - Rlvaughn 23:11, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Men" vs "People"

Under the heading "Anabaptists Today", I returned the wording in this sentence - "The Anabaptist doctrine - that men must personally, volitionally, and consciously relate to God - is the doctrine of Evangelical Protestantism..." - from "people" to "men". I did it for the following reasons: (1) "Men" in the English language (regardless of what some people may wish) still, in the right context, has the meaning of "the human race"; (2) "Men" is in line with the wording of historic Anabaptist statements of faith; and (3) "People" is somewhat ambiguous, usually having the connotation more of human beings in general rather than the entire human race. If "men" just cannot be tolerated by some, perhaps we should insert "human race" or something like that. - Rlvaughn 23:11, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

I'm confused by this sentence:

They seem to have preserved among them the primitive manual called the Teaching of the Apostles, for Bishop Longland in England condemned an Anabaptist for repeating one of its maxims "that alms should not be given before they did sweat in a man's hand." This was between 1518 and 1521.

Did they preserve the manuals betwen 1518 to 1521, or were they condemned between this date? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:38, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That was part of the original article. I left it intact, but don't really know about it. I would suppose that is when they were condemned. I think Longland was bishop around that time. - Rlvaughn 22:33, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is not a clear article

While I realise that a lot of time and effort has gone into this article, many parts are unclear. It seems that people are tossing around references to people's opinions, and expect others to know why the opinions of the writers are significant. Please: less citing and more explaining! Anyway, this is just my $0.02. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:34, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. 201.53.54.65 (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing Anabaptists and Their Stepchildren

The material associated with Anabaptists and Their Stepchildren (http://reformed.org/sacramentology/lee/index.html), by Francis Nigel Lee has been removed twice now. I think that articles pro and con need to be in the references, and that removing it smacks of fearing letting anyone read anything negative about Anabaptism. I don't agree with Lee, but think his writing is very representative of the kind of polemic against Anabaptists going all the way back to the Reformation, and therefore interesting and valuable. Any thoughts? - Rlvaughn 12:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dukabours

Are the Dukabours regarded as Anabaptists? I'd be interested in some info on that group - either under Anabaptists, or separately.

Radical Reformation

There is a new page for this topic which could use expansion by someone with expertise in that area. KHM03 11:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article falsely claims that Anabaptists were part of the radical reformation, however the reformists themselves even claim that Anabaptists had no part in it. "All Anabaptists and rebaptized persons, male or female, of mature age, shall be judged and brought from natural life to death, by fire, sword or otherwise, as may befit the persons, without preceeding trial by spiritual judges." See how they explicitly specify that the Anabaptists were totally independent of the reformation. For the source click here [3]. Pasajero 10:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You are making a lot of false assumptions. The Radical Reformation was not a controlled movement with a defined leader, as was the case with the Lutheran or Reformed movements, nor was the reformation as a whole controlled and defined. The Anabaptists were also not a cohesive movement, ranging from Munsterites and Batenburgers to what eventually became Mennonites, Hutterites, and Amish. Secondly, pointing out that other branches of the reformation did not consider the Anabaptists part of theirs does not mean that the Anabaptists were not a reformation movement. You are confusing the categories we use now to help explain things with the way things were then.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Sxeptomaniac 06:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The Anabaptists were clearly part of the Radical Reformation: the very term was invented by Williams his The Radical Reformation, his book which covered the histories of Anabaptism, Unitarianism, and Spiritualism. Etennisdude (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC).

Münster and Anabaptism

Insufficient attention is given to the Münster event which had profound repercussions on the contemporary views of the sect. A link to another article and a few brief words are an entirely inadequate way to deal with the subject matter.

I agree completely. Why don't you go ahead and add a few paragraphs on Münster and it's influence? mennonot 18:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Reword?

The term was coined by critics, who objected to the practice of performing baptism for adults whose previous baptism, as infants, the Anabaptists claimed was not valid. So, I had to read this sentence 5 times before I understood that Anabaptists were not the critics. For those of us unfamiliar with the term, it's really important to clarify well that they were the ones baptising adults, not the critics of it. Perhaps "their critics" or "the Anabaptist practice of" would be two options. Thanks! Schwael 16:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Muzer?

I'm pretty sure he wasn't an anabaptist at all. Rather he was a radical reformer and millenialist who existed around the same time.

Moved external link to German Wikipedia

I removed the following from this Wikipedia entry as it links to a page in German. I am going to add it to the German Wikipedia as that audience would be more likely to find the link useful.

• Mennoforum.net - Anabaptist- mennonite Board (German)

Epolk 18:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing parts questioned inline

There are a two selections that have produced inline comments questioning their validity in the article. I will remove them and place them here for comment. Perhaps someone can confirm their validity for this article if they are important enough.

The first is from the Miscellany section. The complainant is correct: the first sentence of the quote is from Paul (I Cor. 13b), but the rest is from elsewhere. This is the quote in question plus context I have removed:

It was easier to burn Anabaptists than to refute their arguments, and contemporary writers were struck with the intrepidity and number of their martyrs. Thus Stanislaus Hosius (1504-1579), a Polish cardinal and bishop of Warmie, wrote (Opera, Venice, 1573, p. 202): "They are far readier than followers of Luther and Zwingli to meet death, and bear the harshest tortures for their faith. For they run to suffer punishments, no matter how horrible, as if to a banquet; so that if you take that as a test either of the truth of doctrine or of their certitude of grace, you would easily conclude that in no other sect is to be found a faith so true or grace so certain. But as Paul wrote:"Even if I give my body to be burned and have not charity, it avails me naught." [This next quote must be from a previous editor; it's not from the NT.] But he has not charity who divides the unity… He cannot be a martyr who is not in the Church".

The second is from the External links section:

"Anabaptists and Their Stepchildren". Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics. Retrieved December 15, 2005. by Francis Nigel Lee Lee's work is a response to Verduin's The Reformers and their Stepchildren, and is representative of a Reformed view against Anabaptism. But its polemical nature leaves some question as to its objectivity. Quotes are often shortened for effect rather than concision (e.g., writing of the London Confession: "it was subtitled: Confession of Faith of those churches which are commonly...called 'Anabaptist'." instead of, "Confession of Faith of those churches which are commonly, though falsely, called 'Anabaptist'."), he renders highly suspect interpretations as connecting single immersion with unitarianism ("Such Anabaptists as were trinitarian, generally did so by pouring. Unitarian Anabaptists, however, did so largely by a novel single submersion."), and resorts to the old method of using the excesses of a minority to denigrate the entire movement (e.g., polygamy).

In my opinion, the article is not hurt by dropping both of these passages. JonHarder 02:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"He cannot be a martyr who is not in the Church;" appears to come from Cyprian, one of th early church fathers: see Treatise I. On the Unity of the Church, Paragraph 14, Sentence 2. He also goes directly on to quote Paul (I Cor. 13b), so perhaps Stanislaus Hosius was plagiarising Cyprian and crediting Paul. But of course, it'd be best to find where the original source for the quote from Hosius. The closest I could get was this mention, but it doesn't have any source either. mennonot 11:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Mind Control

I added a 'See also' link to the Mind control article because Anabaptist faith confessions are full of what some see as Mind control statements. Researcher Caldiani in his social science text Influence mentions early Anabaptists as a spectactularly effective doomsday group/cult using false reasoning with what he calls 'social proof' to gain converts against all evidence. The "One true" church links on the Mind Control article also use Anabaptists examples from orthodox Old Order Mennonites. As this ostensibly Mind Control theology forms the very basis of Anabaptist faith confessions and as early Anabapists have been used as examples of mind control groups, I insist on its inclusion here. It is clear that one need not burn anyone to refute these arguments. Please discuss this with NPOV balance or I will call a POV check on the entire article. Anacapa 02:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Anacapa, what you wrote above is extreme to say the least. Firstly mind control is a process, not a statement. I don't see how a statement of principle can be an example of mind control, any more than a soldier taking an oath of allegience to his country is. I may be wrong; if so you shoudl explan how. You wrote that 'some see' the faith confessions as mind control statements; maybe you should explain what statements these are and who sees them.

You are wrong - read the article on mind control before demonstrating your ignorance.

Those who face Mennonite/Amish/Hutterite shunning know how extreme this is in reality. Mind control is a process, with content, and with a context. Hitler used false statements along with a process and a context to control the minds of a whole nation. I suggest you compare the Shliethiem confession text with Chapter Six of Rape of the Mind (link in Mind Control) to gain an understanding of how Anabaptist ONE (pure, true or whatever) statements match those used by totalitarian states. I also suggest you review Lifton's criteria for mind control I know from personal experience that orthodox Mennonites meet most of those criteria. Another good source is Children Held Hostage by Rivlin to see how orthodox Mennonite/Amish mind control is used in shunning to alienate children against parents and other relatives. Most secular historians I read who reference Anabaptists call them radical reformers and often mention extremes in ideology or conduct. Hope that helps. Anacapa 05:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Secondly by creating these links you look as if you are trying to nake some sort of statements about all Anabaptists. Even if you could show that some early Anabaptists practiced 'mind control', making such a link is obviously prejudicial unless you can show that it applies to Anabaptists in general. I'm pretty certain it doesn't. Anabaptists include a huge range of beliefs, and I would be exceptionally surprised if more than a tiny minority could be accused of any form of mind control. The onus is, I belive, on you to show that this link is a valid and neutral one.

Please check the content I added in a non-general section MISC. For now, I can live with Mind Control Links in specific sourced content to meet your concerns. I imagine others will fill in whole picture as time goes on but I do not plan to do intense research on early Anabaptists now. My focus is on those Anabaptists in the present who continue to cause extreme pain and suffering in the name of a god, in the name of love and in the name of peace (See Mennonite Miriam Toews comments on Shunning link: A Complicated Kind of Author). Anacapa 05:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest holding this discussion here. I'm going to add a similar comment to Mennonite, making a few additional points, but we should choose one talk page or the other to hold the main discussion. DJ Clayworth 15:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your suggestion. However, I would prefer to discuss this on the Mennonite article because that is where I see most of the content we will be likely to discuss. I missed this tonight and went there before responding to you here. I will continue discuss any changes I make on this article here. Are you ok with this? Anacapa 05:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Robert Cialdini

This gentleman is given an extensive quote regarding the history of Anabaptists, and described as a 'social scientist'. Yet when we follow the link (to Mind control for some reason) we find that he is a psychologist. The history of the Anabaptists is a huge field of research and we can certainly find a genuine historian to quote. DJ Clayworth 16:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Word root of anabaptist

An anonymous editor apparently knows just enough of Greek word roots to get confused on the root form of anabaptist. They see "an" and assume it's "without" or "not" like "anaerobic" (an + aero). Unfortunately, this is wrong. The root is "ana" meaning "again" I added a link to that section, so hopefully that will clear things up. I don't know that much Greek, but I know enough to check on things and make sure. Sxeptomaniac 05:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Antibaptist vs. Anabaptist

Do these terms refer to the same group? I have a friend that constantly uses them interchangeably, but I only use the term anabaptist because that's always (and only) how I've heard them refered to as. I guess they could be antibaptist in the sense that they were/are against infant baptism. Eleazar 11:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

These two words cannot be used interchageably. The prefix "anti" means to be against something, whereas the prefix "ana" means to do something again. Literally, "antibaptist" means either to be against Baptists or against baptism, depending upon the context, while "anabaptist" means re-baptizer. The title "Anabaptist" was originally meant to be a criticsm of those churches who were re-baptizing people, mainly because they were baptizing former Catholics and/or Anglicans who had been sprinkled as infants.

--Beleg Strongbow (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The term "anti-baptists" is a translation of "katabaptists," an appellation given these groups by the Roman Church. Hence, one could say they refer to the same group, but from different POVs. Dr. Davidson (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of Religion vs. Separation of Church and State

I take exception to the following quote:

All those who hold the idea of a free church and freedom of religion (sometimes called separation of church and state)....

I don't wish in full to invoke debate on the difference, but suffice it to say these two terms are not synonymous. Please see the article on Freedom of Religion in which this is specifically stated. I'm not 100% sure of whether the Anabaptists support both concepts, but please don't use them as though they are the same concept.

Oscar Wilde

Oscar Wilde referred to the anabaptists in the third act of his play, The Importance of Being Earnest:

Chasuble. "I am grieved to hear such sentiments from you, Mr. Worthing. They savour of the heretical views of the Anabaptists, views that I have completely refuted in four of my unpublished sermons. However, as your present mood seems to be one peculiarly secular, I will return to the church at once. Indeed, I have just been informed by the pew-opener that for the last hour and a half Miss Prism has been waiting for me in the vestry." [4]

DFH 15:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Fringe Anabaptists

There seems too little description of the "enthusiastic" Zwickau prophets and why they were called prophets. There are other fringe Anabaptists ignored in this article. perhaps their inclusion would help.--Loudguy 06:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Too much detail about fringe groups can become an undue weight issue. If their beliefs aren't representative of the more numerous Anabaptists, but they are still notable, it might be better to develop a separate article on them and just reference and link them in this one. There is already a separate article on the Zwickau prophets, the Münster Rebellion and the notable persons involved with that, for example. Sxeptomaniac 18:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, was ignorant of the existing article on the Zwickau prophets (which needs to be expanded though). Your poing is well made about undue weight, although it still might be useful to make passing mention of them in this article.--Loudguy 20:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No apology necessary. I see you haven't been contributing long, assuming this is your first username, and there are a lot of concepts that you learn as you go. I haven't really been at it that much longer, but that you are working through ideas on the talk pages puts you off to a good start. As far as the other article goes, I didn't know it existed, either, until you mentioned it and I decided to check. I found that it wasn't linked in this article like it should have been, so I made some minor adjustments [5] [6]. Sxeptomaniac 21:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

One must accept all personal moral and spiritual liability ...

It seems that ethical consumerism has its roots in Anabaptism, at least according to this section, which claims that it is based on the Anabaptist principle "that one must accept all personal moral and spiritual liability of all harms done at any distance in space or time to anyone by one's own choices". Unfortunately, it is a bit vague as to the nature of this principle and doesn't provide a reference. Could someone in the know please clarify this there? Common Man 21:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Quakers & Anabaptists

Perhaps someone should clarify that while Quakers are an Historic Peace Church, they do not descend from the same line of historical Christianity as the Anabaptists, and should not be considered Anabaptists. Theologically and historically, Quakers descend from English Puritanism, not from Anabaptism. The Historic Peace Churches are not necessarily Anabptist in origin.

Baptists & Anabaptists

It seems rather "iffy" to include Baptists in the list of modern Anabaptist denominations. Baptists, as known to-day in the US, are spiritual descendants of the English Baptsists of the 17th Century. While some English Baptists spent time in the Netherlands, coming under the influence of some Anabaptist/Mennonite ideas, they (like the Quakers) didn't descend from the same line of historical Christianity as the Anabaptists. Moreover, most Baptists in the US have a very strong Calvinist influence (for a variety of reasons at different times in their history). Like the Quakers, Baptists descend from English Puritanism. See the Wiki article about the Baptists.

I agree with you. -- freeradster 02:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Genealogists

<<Genealogists are also indebted to the Anabaptists, because Anabaptism was part of the cause for Protestant churches adopting the confirmation service, and baptismal registers came into being.>> I dispute this. In fact the opposite is true. In England baptismal registers were made compulsory by Henry VIII when he founded the Church of England. It made general a practice already started by many Catholic monasteries. Early anabaptists did not generally record their baptisms and therefore genealogists find that anabaptists are particulary difficult areas of research. Therefore to say that "Genealogists are also indebted to the Anabaptists" is very misleading indeed. I have therefore removed this sentence.

Anabaptist heritage is unclear

Some things (presumably essential to an Anabaptist heritage) are listed. Here are 4 of them.

• Freedom of religion
• Priesthood of all believers
• Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice
• Pacifism

The fifth was:

• Ordinances (instead of Sacraments)

I removed the fifth, as it was a result of modernistic reductionist thinking, and had little or nothing to do with historical Anabaptism. My question is, are the other four even valid? They may be true for the Anabaptist's descendants (i.e. Mennonites, Amish), but the historical Anabaptists did not neccessarily agree on those four points. Here's a suggested list:

• Restoring primitive Christianity
• A society reformation by God's Kingdom
• A rejection of infant baptism and justification by faith alone
• Dependence and faith in the Word of God, whether the cannonical Bible or private inspiration

-- freeradster 21:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• freeradster Makes a good point. I second his proposition of removing the fifth supposed 'essential unifying tenets' of the Anabaptists. After all, the Anabaptists did have differences. Also, I would agree with freeradster's new suggested list, with the exception of keeping the 'Priesthood of all believers' item, or at least clarifying the point to his liking. Also, with such a proposal, some references, citations, etc, will be desirable. -- Loaves 23:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• The reason I would not suggest the priesthood of all believers is that it was not unique to the Anabaptists...Luther also strongly argued for it. -- freeradster 00:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste similarity between "Early Charismatic History" section of Charismatic movement and "Miscellany" section of Anabaptist

I noticed in a passing "read" that someone has duplicated major portions of these two sections, apparently with the purpose of showing that anabaptists were predecesors of the charismatic movement. The material seems somewhat forced and out of context in both locations. Perhaps someone with an interest in maintaining these articles can edit these sections to make them more focused on the major points of the topics. Steve Baskauf 04:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I see. I had initially removed that insertion in Miscellany as a duplication of information found elsewhere in the article (and somewhat non-NPOV), but it was promptly re-inserted. Not wanting to edit-war, I let it sit to see what other editors might decide, and it has remained until now. It really doesn't belong, and appears to be way too POV anyway, so I'm now removing it again.

I'm less knowledgeable regarding Charismatics, but it appears to be a POV insertion as part of an attempt to prove the Apostolic succession of the Charismatic movement. A lot of it should be cut, I think. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Kill it. -- SECisek 17:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Anabaptism

I tagged the new section on Neo-Anabaptism as original research because the main sources used are the self-published ideas of a blogger, which does not constitute a reliable source. Similar edits have been made to emerging church by the blogger, so this may also be a conflict of interest insertion. Unless reliable secondary sources can be found and the section fixed by a neutral editor, I suggest its removal. With respect to the manual of style, article text should not be linked to external sites, except in the references, notes and external links sections at the end of the article. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 13:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This section (and in fact the whole page) leaves me feeling queasy: The introductory paragraph states:

The word anabaptism is used in this article to describe any of the 16th century "radical" dissenters. Today the descendants of the 16th century European movement (particularly the Amish, Hutterites, Mennonites, Church of the Brethren, and Brethren in Christ) are the most common bodies referred to as Anabaptist.

In the end, I get the sense of being taken on a joy ride with stops at little tidbits of information that are actually minor details, but skipping over the framework. Maybe it is just me?? I am of the opinion that this article could use a serious rework. For example, there is some historical overview for the 15th century, then it jumps to "Today" and "Neo-anabaptistism". What about the several centuries in between, and the main "bodies that are commonly referred to as Anabaptist" (As states the intro)? Any consensus for revision to this article? Mikeatnip (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. While we need to write accurately on the subject, we cannot write a thesis on the subject. That's what links are for. But I know what you're trying to say, it probably does need to be seriously revised. Loaves (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

After several months, no one has stepped forward and provided reliable sources for the Neo-Anabaptism section. It remains original research, a synthesis of the views presented on blogs and a variety of self-published websites. The whole section falls short of the reliable sources and verifiability expected of a Wikipedia article. I am removing the sections.[7] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 12:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I am going to remove similar material again. The reason is the same as the preceding paragraph (except no sources at all this time). If someone feels strongly about this material, find good secondary sources (don't continue to synthesize from primary material) and create a separate Neo-Anabaptism article. It is a worthy of its own article, is really a separate topic, and needs to be done with more care. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 20:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't look up what blog was being cited as a source for Neo-Anabaptism, but believe me, it's an actual movement - and up until now, some of its best writings happen to be on blogs. See http://www.anabaptistnetwork.com/. Here is a list of books: http://www.anabaptistnetwork.com/otherresources. One of the most recent and most influential is The Naked Anabaptist by Stuart Murray. Mdmcginn (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

German Baptists

I'm wondering if we should forge some sort of a link with the German Baptist disambiguation page, or create a new section, or something similar. Just a thought. Loaves (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Female martyrs

I have a problem with the final paragraph in the section entitled "Persecutions and migrations". It seems as though someone is simply trying to push the agenda of allowing women into the position of Pastor/Bishop/Elder. I have replaced that paragraph with the following text:

Anabaptist women have also faced martyrdom. An estimated 525 Anabaptist women were martyred, among whom was Maey ken Wens: with her tongue screwed to the inside of her mouth, she was burned at the stake for proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I believe this paragraph captures the spirit of the section, which is identifying how Anabaptists have endured persecution, including martyrdom, while keeping to a NPOV. I have also removed the link/reference to a website which aparently promotes female pastors within the Baptist faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beleg Strongbow (talk • contribs) 19:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware that, historically, certain women of the Anabaptist faith were given the title "Deaconess" or "Elderess." However, I believe these titles simply meant that they were married to a deacon or an elder, respectively; not that they themselves were in such a position. This article as whole needs to be revised. My two cents. —Loaves (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Having a second reference is valuable, the Maey Wens should not be linked, see MOS:CAPS and MOS:TITLE for how to properly capitalize and title sections, and excessive detail on her martyrdom is unnecessary. WLU (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The "second reference" (I'm assuming you're referring to "www.bwim.info...") links to what appears to be nothing more than a soapbox (I know you dislike soapboxes.) website. How is it "valuable"? It does not appear to be a reliable source to me. The other link sufficiently addresses the issue of Anabaptists experiencing persecution, substantiating martyrdom of women, specifically Maey ken Wens. (Is "Madelyn" an alternative spelling for "Maey ken"?) The only additional information offered by the second link is propaganda promoting female pastors.

I disagree that mentioning that her tongue was screwed to the inside of her mouth is excessive. On the contrary, it gives a broader and clearer picture of the level of oppression martyrs experienced, which is the topic of this section of the article.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV states that wikipedia must adhere to a neutral point of view. WP:SOAP states that wikipedia must not promote a position. Sources are often inherently POV and promote a position. The important thing is to balance sources. Though the whole section on women seems like a synth - I'm thinking she was burned for being an anabaptist, not for being a female priest. WLU (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but I don't feel that my questions were answered or that the heart of the issues I brought forward were addressed. You have not shown how that site adds value or explained why it should be considered reasonably reliable, as I highly doubt that "balancing sources" implies that we should intentionally reference unreliable websites along with those that are acceptably reliable.

Given your use of the word "priest" I am lead to think that you may not be highly knowledgeable on the topic of the article: Anabaptists do not use the term "priests" for their spiritual leaders or ordained ministers. They taught the doctrine of "The Priesthood of All Believers". Their ordained ministers were called "pastors", "bishops" or "elders". Maey was most likely martyred for teaching/proclaiming/"preaching" the Bible, not from behind a pulpit within the four walls of a church building but in public or within people's homes. In doing so she was refusing to submit to the state religion/anti-religion.

The purpose of this article is to explain who Anabaptists were and now are. It is not meant to debate whether or not woman should be allowed to become ordained ministers. By referencing a website whose agenda is to place women into those roles, we might undermine the article's true purpose by turning it into a debate.

The "Baptist Women in Ministry" website is attempting to hijack Maey's story, purposely twisting it to fit to their personal agenda of promoting the ordaining of women. In my opinion, it should not be referenced.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Really confusing page! Needs major work

I saw that the "Jack Graham (pastor)" page was a project of the Anabaptist work group, checked them out, and then looked at this page trying to understand just what the Anabaptist believed and why Jack Graham, the pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church would be in their work group. So after spending 15 minutes reading this page I still don't know what Anabaptist believe and can't understand why Jack Graham's page would be in your realm. (Jack's not a pacificst by any means)

Please, someone who has some knowledge and interest in this page - Please rewrite it! Romans9:11 (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I pulled out my textbooks on the subject the other day, but real life has been a little hard to work around lately, and some incidents elsewhere on Wikipedia have cropped up. I do want to fix that lead really soon, as it doesn't make much sense at the moment, I know. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Beachy Amish

Why the exclusion of amish mennonites such as the Beachy Amish, why no mention of other anabaptist perspectives/traditions? They are representative of classic anabaptism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.196.146 (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

They aren't excluded. Beachy Amish are, unsurprisingly, a subgroup of the Amish, which are listed. That's it. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 15:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not how they see themselves, and I have fellowshipped with them. They do not consider themselves Amish or Mennonite but as Amish Mennonite. Get your facts right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.196.146 (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Find a reliable source and make your case. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I quote, 'Most Beachy Amish churches have become more and more like conservative Mennonites and have identified less and less with Amish', 'An Introduction to Old Order and Conservative Mennonite Groups'. by Stephen Scott page 196 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.196.146 (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Not all anabaptist/Mennonite groups regard infant baptism as invalid. In the Mennonite magazine, 'The Mennonite' and its article "Mennonite but not anabaptist', it is stated in black and white for all to read that infant baptism is accepted by some Mennonite congregations. If you will put aside your pride and read the article you will see that for some anabaptists infant baptism is no longer an issue. I do not accept infant baptism as valid but that is just my viewpoint but the fact is some anabaptist/Mennonite groups accept infant baptism as being valid and I will keep editing the article to reflect these facts for as long as you wish to engage in this sort of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.196.146 (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Denominations are classified by heritage. There is a range of practices among the various Amish groups, same as with Mennonites, but it doesn't change the fact that Beachy Amish or "Amish Mennonites" are still Amish. As a result, they do not need to be specifically named in this article.

As far as your article on baptism, it's not clear enough to establish what weight to give the claim, as it's an opinion essay, not a scholarly work. As I've told you in other contexts, find a better source. Clinging to one essay as if it were gospel is tendentious, and will not help you at all.

You have yet to convince even one editor to support your edits. The burden of proof is on you to make a good case for your additions. Perhaps you should reconsider your commitment to a course of action that will get you absolutely nowhere. Your behavior is increasingly tendentious and disruptive. I would recommend you take some time to read more on Wikipedia's policies, starting with the five pillars Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 16:46, 10 July 2008

To quite honest I believe that the anabaptist articles at wikipedia are poorly written and ignorant and reflect the 'gang of four' atitudes of the so called mainline Mennonites and are no longer worth my time, effort and education. I can fully understand now why the anabaptist membership is so low, fractured, and fragmented. And that is the way it will always be because there are people like you who have no insight into their behaviour and self delusion.

And by the way you are wrong about heritage, is about how people see themselves not as you have sterotyped them. I am not wasting anymore time with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.196.146 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Contested statements removed to talk

• Some writers prefer to distinguish institutionally lineal descendants (Amish, Hutterites, Mennonites) from the spiritual descendants (Brethren, Church of the Brethren, the Bruderhof Communities, Seventh-day Adventists, Baptists and the many parts of the Emerging Church in the UK, Australia and parts of the US).{{Fact|date=April 2008}}
• They may have preserved among themselves the primitive manual of conduct called the Didache,{{Fact|date=January 2007}}
• The writings of John T. Christian, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary professor give a scholarly presentation of this successionist view.{{Fact|date=April 2008}}

Please do not restore this information to the article without a citation.--BirgitteSB 02:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Anabaptist navigation box?

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Anabaptist work group#Anabaptist navigation box and respond there with any input in what should be included in a box to help easily connect the most important articles related to this subject. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Anabaptist Spirituality POV

This section needs some cleanup. For example, "It was not unusual for them to dance, fall under the power of the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues." While the Swiss Brethren and Dutch Mennonites did not totally deny supernatural gifts or miracles, they were by no means 16th-century equivalents of modern Charismatics. While miraculous events did occur, the spirit of the movement as a whole was not that of emphasizing or seeking gifts or miracles. The relationship between the French Prophets and the Anabaptist movement is a strained connection, from the historical evidence I have seen. Anyways, this whole section needs deleted or at least seriously rewritten to reflect a NPOV. As time permits, I may work on it myself, unless further proof is given that the POV given in this section was indeed the POV that the Anabaptist movement had as a whole. One or two sentences out of a whole volume of writings, viz. Menno Simons, does not make Menno a 16th-century counterpart of modern American Pentecostals or Charismatics. Mikeatnip (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Now the references are cleaned up, so the formating is a little better. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is anabaptism heresy?

I didn't see this addressed in the article. There is mention that opponents consider re-baptism to be heresy, but not why, and I don't know where to go to learn that. -- SpareSimian (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What is a "heresy" then? It's better to have a controversies section dealing with doctrine differences with other major Christian groups. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why they would say that (that is to say, I can't give my thoughts on why they say that without offending someone), but I can tell you why they are wrong. Acts 19:1-5 says, "1And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Joshua Ingram (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahhm. This is not a forum, discussing our own opinions. If you have a reliable important source claiming that your statement is used by large denominations, it might be usable for the article. Otherwise not. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Anabaptist template

I am in the process of trying to create navigation templates for each of the core articles of the Christianity WikiProject. One such template has recently been created for this topic at Template:Anabaptist. If anyone has any suggestions for how to change the template, they are more than welcome. I personally think they would most easily be seen if added below the link to the template at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Templates, and would request that the comments be made on that page below the template. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Depends on how it is intended to be used. I think the template is too quadratic. If it's intended to be used like Template:Calvinism and Template:Lutheranism floating right, a pattern like those templates are to be preferred because they're not too wide. On the other hand if it is going to be a bottom template, it should be shorter. The image to the very right occupies one column that is otherwise empty. In the float-right case it should come first. In the bottom case it should preferably be floating inside the template. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Revise spirituality section

I revised this section, as per my desire from some time ago. (See above- Anabaptist spirituality POV) I made the following amendments: 1.Removed the uncited information, viz. Menno Simons supporting speaking in tongues, etc. The quote pulled from Menno had nothing to do with whether he or his congregation spoke in tongues. 2. Removed some repetitious material that belonged in another section. 3. Removed reference to Bucer- He was not an Anabaptist, at least according to the Wikepedia article. His point of view is worthless in an article on Anabaptism. 4. Divided the Spirituality section into two points and tried to put the right material in the right place. 5. Last but not least, I tried to word the material in a way that more correctly represents the early anabaptist movement, viz. the manifestations were not uniformly experienced across the movement in the same proportions. I hope this is a suitable start to getting this article in better shape. Mikeatnip (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC) I should add that I really dont like the title "Spirituality" for this section. I guess if miracles are seen as "spirituality" then it fits and so the Inspirationist wing would have probably preferred that. I would say the wing that developed into the Mennonite and Hutterite churches would probably call "spirituality", "taking up the cross and obeying the Jesus." Mikeatnip (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Origins

Is it possible to verify the claim of origins in the Brethren of the Common Life, please, as there is an apparent anachronism here. If they were direct descendants of the Hussites, then they were born in the first quarter of the fifteenth Century at the earliest, Jan Huss' death having been a collateral effect of the Council of Constance. However, the Brethren of the Common Life were founded approximately simultaneously, and it therefore becomes hard to see how the Anabaptists descended from them, as stated: the heyday of the Brethren was in the tail end of the century. On the other hand, their doctrines were also not dissimilar to the more radical doctrines of the Brethren of the Free Spirit, a considerably older Beghard sect of much more radical ideation more immediately identifiable in theological and geographical terms. Is it possible the existing editor made a nomenclative mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.136.14.146 (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Section: Forerunners

The section Forerunners is rotten, stinking and attracts pov-flies. I think it should be almost trashed, replacing the contents with:

suddenly they could read the Bible in their own Klingon language, and then all Hell broke lose.

Or not. Better just trashing it.

I would rather like a section "Definitions", since it is obvious some wish to put extreme reformers such as Munsterites and Melchiorites outside and others inside, depending on POV. I believe there was different "historical layers" of radical reformers, one first violent and now extinct layer, afterwards a moderated layer instead trying non-violence, ensuring their survival. The relations between those layers seems to be a matter of speculation and/or research. Wikipedia should not claim anything, as usual, but could well present various well-sourced theories, as it already does in the sections Views, Monogenesis, Polygenesis, and the weird church perpetuity section misleadingly called Apostolic succession. In the last section, that should rather be named Church perpetuity, the unlikely theories from the killable section Forerunners, could be reviewed as proponed explanations.

The section Later influences seems to be more refined crap than the section Forerunners. Some of it belongs to a hypothetical missing section Theology, the rest to the null device (aka trash-can).

The rest of the article have some justification, but doesn't distinguish the subtypes good enough, and sometimes confuses (anachronisms with roman emperors and stuff) and blabbs irrelevant nonsense such as

There is no known account in history of persecution of other Christians by Anabaptists as a group.

That is: if the early violent Munsterites killed people, it was not an expression of a systematic persecution of any specific group, it was just against any opposition. So, we already know there were never a centralized organization of anabaptists that could perform such a feat, but that's not relevant. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 18:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite

I am trying to rewrite some of these sections and provide some more references etc. So I am not done. I need, for example, to reference the last sentence of what I rewrote. Comments and suggestions welcome. My time is limited so I will probably do pieces at a time. Mikeatnip (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed Menno's heavenly flesh theology from the "Forerunners" section as there was not reference to that being a link to earlier dissenters. If a reference can be supplied, it may be added back in. Mikeatnip (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

REarranged some data in the monogenesis and polygenesis sections. The polygenesis section is still sort of messy ... I wonder just how much the average WP reader will get out of it?? Mikeatnip (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Rewrote the origins section, trying to make it flow better and be less POV. The citation needed tag I left. I feel the information is correct, but at the moment dont know where to look to find a specific citation. Mikeatnip (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Moved the history section up in preparation for a major rewrite of this part. My plan is to have subsections that give a basic overview of the development of Anabaptism in various regions, starting with Zurich, but including Tyrol, South German, Silesia, Moravia, and of course Holland up to say, 1550. Then probably another section dealing with the history of the movement from 1550 to 1850, which will deal primarily with the 3 main groups and their subsequent migrations and spread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeatnip (talk • contribs) 16:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I will probably be away a few days. This will give time for other editors to review the changes I made. So far no reverts. Must be on the right track. :-) Mikeatnip (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Anabaptism/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

As far as I can tell, the article is well-written, well-referenced, NPOV, accurate, and has images for illustration. All it needs is a GA nomination. Other thoughts? Blast 15.03.07 2235 (UTC) I disagree with the claimed accuracy. This article as written insists Anabaptists came from the Roman church and out of the reformation. It is terribly wrong to claim they were the "radical" and "lunatic fringe". This is conjecture at best and slander at worst. It is in fact biased but perhaps ignorantly so. I certainly and free admit my bias in the other direction. But this article is not truly comprehensive and does a great injustice to real church history. In fact the Anabaptists were any group the insisted on believer's baptism. They were of many beliefs, wide and varied. They existed well before the Roman church. Later when the Roman church came into existence it began to persecute any and all groups that required re-baptism or believer's baptism. These groups did not necessarily have any name and they were all totally independent and autonomous. The Roman church named them derogatorily as "Anabaptists" (rebaptizers). When Constantine made his call for the council in A.D. 313, there were many of the Christians (later called Ana-Baptists) and of the churches, which refused to respond or participate. They wanted no marriage with the state, and no centralized religious government, and no higher ecclesiastical government of any kind, than the individual church. These Christians (Ana-Baptists) nor the churches ever at that time or later, entered the hierarchy of the Catholic denomination. The course followed by these churches that remained loyal to the faith soon incurred the displeasure of the state religionists. The name "Christian," however, was from now on denied those churches who refused to accept these new errors of Rome. They were robbed of that, and called by many other names, sometimes by one and sometimes by another, "Montanist," Tertullianists," "Novationists," "Paterines," etc., and some at least because of their practice of rebaptizing those who were baptized in infancy, were referred to an "Ana-Baptists." Much later during the time of the reformation it was in fact Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent that said: "Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.) The "twelve hundred years" were the years preceding the Reformation in which Rome persecuted Baptists with the most cruel persecution thinkable. Seems to me the establishment of Ana-Baptists predates the Reformation by more than just a little bit. --Lunarllc (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 02:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 14:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

RFC on Spirituality section

First of all, I dont know how to do an official RFC, and I am not sure the issue is large enough to make some official request. I have been moving down the article slowing the last months, trying to improve both content and grammar. I am now approaching the Spirituality section. I see this section as an undue weight issue. The charismatic manifestations are not what Anabaptism is usually noted for, in fact, in my dozens of books on Anabaptism I cannot think of one of them that even addresses these manifestations. The Holy Spirit Leadership would have a little more weight to it, but again it was not one of the core issues on which Anabaptism was founded upon. I therefore propose removing these two points and replacing them with other points (Gelassenheit would definitely be one, as well as nachfolge), or at least make only a passing mention at best. Before doing this, I would like comments from other editors. Thanks! Mikeatnip (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Move to Anabaptism

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Anabaptist → Anabaptism –This page is about a religious tradition, rather than Anabaptists themselves (although that is included). For this reason and for consistency with other pages (Lutheranism, Catholicism), it should be moved to Anabaptism. I realize Baptists is an exception, but that is only because there is no common name for that tradition. --JFHutson (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose -- This article is primarily about a past religious movement, not about the practice of adult baptism, which paedobaptists will refer to as anabaptism. The analogy drawn is a bad one, because those are about ideas. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Lutheranism is an idea? I'm not sure what that means. Movements are often referred to with an "-ism". The article uses "anabaptism" this way many times. I've never heard the practice called anabaptism by contemporary paedo-baptists. --JFH (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose I believe the article lead clearly describes the usage of the term. Tiggerjay (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Liechtenstein? Leichenstein?

A small detail, in the Moravia section. Article currently refers to Leichenstein, and has a link. Is Leichenstein the same as Liechtenstein? The link is to Liechtenstein. One possibility: the link is to the wrong article. Another possibility: the link is simply misspelled. If someone knows, please fix. Oaklandguy (talk) 05:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"Leichenstein" is a spelling mistake (a typical one among Americans, btw). I corrected it! Because Leichenstein would mean "dead body stone" Scary! 20:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)grenzwertig — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.133.110 (talk)