Anabaptist. Political. Theology.

These three words are not easily defined. Each of them has many connotations attached to them and can mean many different things to many different people.

When put together, “Anabaptist Political Theology” is a term that could lead to practically an infinite possible points and types of discussion ranging from an academic journal article on whether the Schleitheim Articles are a continuation or departure from the Peasants’ War in the Swiss/Upper Rhine region of Europe in the sixteenth century to a conversation between two six-year-olds in a church nursery about why they have to eat grapes instead of the bread and wine their parents and older baptized siblings get to eat when their church has a communion service.

As with any topic of discussion, it is only possible for people to contribute to a discussion on Anabaptist Political Theology based on what they’ve experienced and read themselves and what the term “Anabaptist Political Theology” means to them.

The purpose of this paper is not to define “Anabaptist Political Theology” universally or even to discuss how I would subjectively define the term myself. I am writing this paper to explore and entertain my idea that the theology and political thinking of the Anabaptist-Mennonite tradition over history that I was raised in and that my family has deep roots in on both sides of my family has influenced the way I have thought about sexuality, marriage, and intimate relationships.

Being 23 years old and single, the way I think about these things are particularly important to me at this point in my life (although whether the fact that I think and write extensively about these topics is actually helpful for me is debatable). The purpose of this paper in addition to thinking things through and articulating my thoughts at a deeper level for my own sake is to make a thesis-based argument using academic research to meet the requirements needed to be evaluated for an third-year undergraduate-level Biblical and Theological Studies/Political Science university course.

The inspiration for the research and thesis of this paper comes from an article written by an American Mennonite pastor Douglas Kaufman entitled What Menno got wrong and the difference it makes, published in the magazine The Mennonite (now known as Anabaptist World) in 2014. In it he makes the claim that not only does Menno Simons’ Christology affects the way we as Mennonites today view humanity and sexuality, but his “celestial flesh” doctrine has been harmful to Mennonites in terms of the way we relate to people and express our sexuality.1

He concludes by stating that we need to have more discussion about sexuality as a church rather than simply staying silent and restrictive out of fear or simply allowing people to do whatever they want sexually without talking about it or being held accountable which I wholeheartedly agree with.

The focus of the research of this paper is on the leaders and influencers of the “Anabaptist dominion of Münster” in the 1530s in the city of Münster, Germany, and on the notorious Mennonite theologian John Howard Yoder who was based at the institution now called Anabaptist Mennonite Biblical Seminary for the majority of his career from the late 1950s to the early 1980s. Aside from the fact that I have already done significant reading on these two situations, I am focusing on them because I believe both Münster and Yoder significantly influenced Anabaptist theology, political thinking and life, as Menno Simons did, through their theologies and also their actions. Both members of the Münsterite kingdom and Yoder engaged in relationships and sexual practices that go against widely accepted Christian values and principles and are considered abusive by most people today, myself included, which they were unrepentant of.

The thesis of this paper is that the Münsterites and Yoder had commonalities in their theologies, that may be linked to their deviance in their sexual ethics and their violent or abusive behaviour.

This paper will proceed by first providing an overview of the political theology and actions of Münsterite figures as well as John Howard Yoder based on primary and secondary sources.

Following this, a comparison will be made of the Münsterites and Yoder to flesh out and explain the commonalities between them. I will conclude by sharing what I believe this means for me personally and for the Anabaptist-Mennonite community.

Part 4 of Christianity and Revolution: Radical Christian Testimonies 1520-1650 edited by Lowell Zuck, contains writings of North German and Dutch Anabaptists who helped to shape or were directly involved in the “Kingdom of Münster.”

Through a careful reading of these primary sources along with Zuck’s commentary, one can come to a satisfactory understanding of the political and theological thinking of these people and the key historical events that took place.

The first entry is Melchior Hoffman’s 1530 tract The Ordinance of God. Its purpose was to spread the Anabaptist belief that Jesus commanded that to enter the church one must be baptized voluntarily. Hoffman’s theology was very apocalyptic, using the imagery of the church’s marriage with Christ as the end of this world and the start of the new creation. These views ultimately provided the framework for the Münster Kingdom whose inhabitants came to believe that they had been chosen to establish the kingdom of God and prepare for Christ’s return.

Three of Bernhard Rothmann’s writings are included in Christianity and Revolution: Radical Christian Testimonies 1520-1650 with the first being titled A Confession of Faith and Life at Muenster of 1534. It was written a year after writing a confession of faith in 1533 after his Lutheran faith was modified after being exposed to Anabaptist views.

At the time of this 1534 confession, the people of Münster had largely put their trust in the leadership and theology of John Matthys and John of Leiden who had come from the Netherlands claiming to be prophets and started rebaptizing people. The purpose of the confession was to outline the core beliefs of Matthys, Leiden and the other leaders of the movement to guide the people of Münster which ultimately ended up strengthening these leaders’ power and influence.

The next source in the book contains two documents called Thirteen Statements of the Order of [Private] Life and A Code for Public Behaviour both authoured by the “Twelve Elders of Muenster” later in 1534. The content of these documents is exactly what the titles describe: lists of statements and principles that the Twelve Elders of Münster agreed on to practically be law for the “nation." They claimed that Scripture gives justification for those that do not follow these statements to be “punished by the sword.”9

John Matthys had died before these documents were written and John of Leiden had been established as “king.” Not only was he king of Münster but being dubbed the “second King David of Zion” the people of Münster believed John of Leiden was called on by God to lead the world into the kingdom of God.10

In October 1534, Rothmann wrote an apologetic, his second writing included in the book, titled A Restitution...of Christian Teaching, Faith, and Life...through the Church of Christ at Muenster. Zuck’s analysis claims that Rothmann believed that the second coming of Christ was imminent and his kingdom had already been established at Münster so this restitution was about convincing the world to share their beliefs and way of living. This convincing included using violence which Zuck notes there is evidence of under king John of Leiden’s command.12 A socialist-like “community of goods” economic system and a marital system that promoted polygamy was part what they believed kingdom of God on earth was supposed to be like.13

The final writing included in this part of Christianity and Revolution: Radical Christian Testimonies 1520-1650 is also by Rothmann, an apologetic entitled Concerning Revenge written in December 1534. This writing showed that Rothmann now believed that there was no point in waiting or holding back in any way in trying to advance what he and the Münsterites believed was right and true: they were living the right way, they were called to bring the kingdom of God to the rest of the world and it didn’t matter if people had to be murdered to get everyone in the world to believe this was true and to live accordingly. Zuck points out that this writing greatly inspired and energized the people of Münster but ultimately their attempts to execute this failed as their violent attacks led by Matthys on Catholic bishops led to many of their own being slain which put an end to the Kingdom of Münster.15

John Howard Yoder authored numerous books and papers during his academic career and there has been extensive scholarship on his writings and life. This being said, for this overview of Yoder’s political theology and actions, I will refer solely to Maxwell Kennel’s 2019 Journal of Mennonite Studies article “The Gospel of All Creatures: An Anabaptist Natural Theology for Mennonite Political Theology” and Gerald J. Mast’s 2014 Mennonite Life article “Teaching John Howard Yoder: Author, Disciple, and Sinner” mainly because these are the pieces of writing that discusses Yoder that I’ve read in the most detail but also because I think together they provide a good summary of the theology, life, and criticism of Yoder for the purposes of this paper.

Through a review of Yoder’s work, Kennel points out that from early on in Yoder’s career, “ontology” was something Yoder talked about a lot and his ideas about what is ontologically true stayed firm throughout his career.16 Kennel summarizes Yoder’s main political-theological idea as being that there is a hard distinction between the church and the world and that this is ontological truth; it is how it is and this is how things are supposed to be.17

Not only did Yoder believe there was a hard distinction between the church and the world, he also believed the world has “no intrinsic ontological dignity”, as he said in his own words in his 1959 essay The Otherness of the Church.

Yoder elaborates later in this essay claiming “the ‘world’ is neither all nature nor all humanity nor all ‘culture’; it is structured unbelief, rebellion taking with it a fragment of what should have been the Order of the Kingdom.”19 To summarize this all in more plain language, Yoder believed that the “church” is good and is for God, and the “world”, whatever it is, is evil and is against God.

I recognize that Yoder had many further writings, including much more influential writings such as The Politics of Jesus and Body Politics and his political theology has much more substance and complexity than this but for the purposes of this paper, I trust that Kennel has outlined the core essence of what Yoder’s political theology was about.

To give a more detailed summary of Yoder’s actions I turn to Mast’s article. Making use of Mast’s framework we can look at Yoder’s actions in the following categories: actions related to authorship, actions related to discipleship, and sinful actions.

The writings Yoder authoured are largely based on the theme of applying Jesus’ teachings to politics and ethics to some degree at a societal level or a personal level, but mostly an interpersonal level in terms of how members of the church are to relate to one another.20 As a professor of communication at Bluffton University, Mast originally used Yoder’s writing to introduce students to a “Jesus-centered, pacifist-oriented ethical alternative to the standard Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment ethical systems.”21

He has used others when teaching graduate courses on the Anabaptist tradition as Yoder’s writings posed critiques to Mennonite institutions based on the Anabaptist Vision and challenged the Mennonite church to embrace the political and public meaning of Jesus’ teachings.22 So evidently Yoder’s authourship was significant because it has influenced the way of thinking of many people and institutions, especially in the Mennonite church.

In terms of his actions related to discipleship, the wholesome aspects of his personal life, Mast points out Yoder was many things to many people: “a colleague, teacher, father, husband, friend, and disciple of Jesus Christ.”23 Through Mast’s reading of biographical materials about Yoder, Mast suggests Yoder was “a complex and difficult person” but he cared about the church, he “devoted his life and intellectual gifts to the renewal of the church.”24

Mast notes he had some quirky traits and some behaviour that seemed awkward or anti-social but many people attributed this to his “unique and extraordinary intellectual gifts.”25 He also served with Mennonite Central Committee in France, advocated for the peace church perspective with the World Council of Churches and the National Association of Evangelicals, and had a leadership role in the “Concern” movement which advocated for realigning the Mennonite church with early Anabaptist teachings.26

Finally, there are the darker aspects of Yoder’s personal life, his sinful actions. Many of them were not fully exposed or the effects of them were not fully realized publicly until well after they occurred. Mast claims the behaviour people saw as socially awkward was a manifestation of the attitudes and sinful thoughts he carried that also manifested in him making abusive and harmful sexual advances toward numerous women throughout his professional career.27

This abusive behaviour towards women included but was not necessarily limited to what Yoder wrote about as “experiments” for the sake of testing his theological vision of “a radically nonconformist church” in which he would engage in “friendly relations” with women that included bodily intimacy but not sexual intercourse claiming that the church needed to “provide contexts for satisfying human needs for physical relationships that exceeded the boundaries of traditional marriage relationships.”28

On the surface, the Münsterites and John Howard Yoder seem worlds apart, and this is in fact true geographically, culturally, and timewise.

What do they have in common other than the fact that they are both part of the Anabaptist tradition and are notorious for violent or abusive behaviour? Based on their political theologies and actions I outlined, I see two commonalities.

The first commonality I see is that baptism had not only great spiritual significance to them but great worldly, practical significance: they believed that being baptized is what it means to be part of the church, it’s the only true way.

The second commonality, building off the first one, is that they believed the church is a community that is ontologically moral or on the side of God and the rest of the people of the world, the non-Anabaptists, those who haven’t been baptized voluntarily as adults whether they consider themselves Christian or not, are ontologically immoral or working against God. They also believed God gave them the authority to judge and communally carry out discipline on people who did not follow their belief-system or idea of the proper way of living. Whether they would word it this way or not, all of this meant they believed they were sin-free or their own sins didn’t matter.

To elaborate on the first commonality, we can compare Melchior Hoffman’s writing in The Ordinance of God with John Howard Yoder’s essay Sacrament as Social Process. Referring to Jesus’ baptism Hoffman asserts that “all children of God and brothers of the Lord Jesus Christ should imitate him and also covenant and betroth themselves to the Lord Jesus Christ, under the covenant of God, and give themselves over to him in truth as a freewill offering, just as he has given himself over to him, his Heavenly Father.”29

He goes on to claim that for all who do so “the true Kingdom of God is given here and now as their inheritance; that the same enter into the Holy [of Holies] and come to the Sabbath and the true rest...the righteous [re-]birth takes place and where one is instructed by God and the Word.” These claims promise a fully realized kingdom of God, heaven on earth for those who get baptized, something that is simply untrue based on my experience and everyone I know who has been baptized (unless COVID-19 and every other form of suffering is part of the kingdom of God). So I believe these claims are extremely irresponsible and misleading. The way Münster turned out is proof of this.

Yoder’s claim is not much better. He states: “...baptism is the constitution of a new people whose newness and togetherness explicitly relativize prior stratifications and classification.”30 It sounds like a nice idea but again it puts unrealistic expectations on what happens when one is baptized. And how good can this make the world if the less than one percent of the world’s population who are baptized into an Anabaptist church and the even smaller percentage of these people who can comprehend and put into practice these ideas, are revitalized and together and equal while the rest of the world isn’t?

He uses Galatians 3:28 as justification for this but how exactly does being dunked in water or getting water poured over one’s head for a brief second of their life make a person “in Christ Jesus” and free from gender, socioeconomic, or racial status? 31 If only it were that easy there would be no Black Lives Matter or feminist movements or people working minimum wage jobs in crappy conditions and living on the street.

Examples from the overviews above can be used to elaborate on the second commonality. The Münsterites had this delusional idea that they were specially chosen by God to bring about the new creation, the Kingdom of God on earth. How could they be so self-absorbed to think this? Nowadays if you called yourself the second coming of a biblical figure as John Matthys and John of Leiden did, you would be diagnosed with a mental illness which is likely what many of the Münsterites had given the tumultuous and traumatic times they lived in. As much as they advocated for “Christian” practices such as baptism, they seemed to have an Old Testament mindset, they thought they were God’s chosen people like the Israelites did and they believed they received direct orders from God to kill their enemies, as Joshua or David or Solomon or any of the other judges and kings did. But Jesus said “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”32

How can the following words by Rothmann in Concerning Revenge be justified by this?:

"Now God has risen in his wrath against his enemies. Whoever wishes to be God’s servant, must arm himself in the same way and manner....Some of you are still waiting, saying that God himself will come from heaven with his angels to bring revenge against the godless. No, dear brothers. He will come, that is true, but the revenge must be executed first by the servants of God." 33

As for Yoder, again his rhetoric in this regard is less extreme and more politically correct but his view of himself, the church he is part of, and his mission is very similar in my view to how the Münsterites saw themselves and their kingdom. Calling the world “a demonic blend of order and revolt”34 means he believes the church he is part of is an angelic blend of free-spiritedness and obedience which is clearly untrue based on his abusive actions alone. Yoder advocated strongly for pacifism, for open dialogue, for continuity between one’s work and one’s personal life but he seemed to think he was an exception to all of this.

In his article, Kennel summarizes critiques of Yoder by Hans-Jürgen Goertz and Rachel Walter-Goossen. Goertz stated Yoder had been an influential figure for him because of the fact that he emphasized dialogue but realized Yoder “was absolutely not open to real dialogue. He could snub or bypass other people’s questions or objections. He seldom gave his interlocutors the feeling that he had changed his views as a result of a dialogue in which they had jointly developed a piece of the truth.”35 I also agree with Walter-Goosen’s sentiment as Kennel summarized as the following:

"Yoder’s inability to embody the practice of listening to the other or to consider the abusive ways in which he exercised power over others, severely diminishes the value of his theology. He did not conduct his personal life or advance his theological arguments in such a way that took seriously the idea that Christian pacifism (indeed Christian discipleship) requires ongoing and intentional consideration of the other (friend, neighbour, stranger, enemy, etc) not only as a voice to be accounted for, but a voice that is my vital connection to truth. On the discursive level the necessity of understanding the other as the bearer of truth does not have integrity if it decides who counts as a potential bearer of that truth before dialogue has begun."36

The connection between the theology and attitudes of the Münsterites and Yoder and the way they went about treating women and expressing their sexuality is obvious. With the male Münsterite leaders and elders growing up in a patriarchal society and thinking they are God’s chosen people and they are righteous in God’s eyes, it’s not hard to see how they thought that God would permit them to have as many wives as they want and they could do whatever they wanted to them.

With Yoder drowning in praise and admiration for his work, being excused of rude and anti-social behaviour, knowing that everyone believed he has the perception that everyone is equal, and believing the church he is part of is the “new humanity” where everyone are simply brothers and sisters, it’s not hard to see how he could think it’s ok or at least he could get away with pursuing some extra-marital physical pleasure from some of his “sisters.”

No matter how much apparent good they did, no matter how much they seemed to be working for righteousness and God’s kingdom, the people of the kingdom of Munster and John Howard Yoder were selfish, self-righteous, self-indulgent, bigoted, and abusive people. They are also children of God created in God’s image and loved by God though so I can’t say I don’t have any sympathy for them. I have sinned a lot in my life too. I have never abused women and I have never violently hurt anyone, but I have not always been a kind, pleasant person or a good listener, and I haven’t been morally perfect in the way I have gone about my romantic pursuits: I am not justified to “throw the first stone.”37 But since they were unrepentant I am unwilling to have more grace in my outlook or description of them.

Based on all this knowledge and criticism of the Münsterites and Yoder, what do their lives and theologies mean for Anabaptism, for Christianity, for humanity today? Are they anomalies in Anabaptism or extreme manifestations of the fundamental flaws that exist in Anabaptist-Mennonite theology? Can connections be made to the theologies and actions of other Anabaptists throughout history and in the present?

I’m aware these questions have been central to many Mennonite scholars for quite some time, and some answers have been provided, but I think more questions need to continue to be asked and the connection between the theologies of the Münsterites and Yoder and Menno Simons and others and how this relates to their sexual ethics need to be explored more.

To be honest about where I’m at right now after thinking all this through, I’m ready to throw my Mennonite beliefs and connections to the Mennonite church away. I’m also ready to stop calling myself Christian altogether. I love Jesus and I believe in his teachings because his actions were consistent with his teachings, his theology, but I don’t see the point in calling him “Christ” or “the Messiah” or “the Son of God” as this thinking has led so much corruption, and hypocrisy, and violence and abuse, or to put it more simply using the highly academic term “bullshit”, throughout the history of the world.

In terms of sexuality and relationships, I believe that we were created to find a match with one other human being of the opposite sex to be united with for the remainder of our lives and to have sexual intimacy with this one person exclusively (this doesn’t mean we will not and should not have sexual thoughts and feelings about others though or we can’t have other kinds of physical intimacy with others).

This could be easy for all of us to live out if there wasn’t so much shame attached to sexuality that has come from the many people who have abused others sexually or engaged in sexual practices un-consentually or used their social privilege and power to control others sexually throughout the history of humanity, and then all the ways this shame has been indoctrinated and all the ways this doctrine has been used to justify sexual and relational sin throughout the history of Christianity.

Maybe polygamy and non-heterosexual sexual relationships will be part of the kingdom of heaven, but I don’t believe humanity can handle these things at this point in time because humanity hasn’t been able to live with heterosexual monogamy responsibly (I’m not close-minded about this though, I’m willing to listen and have my views changed by convincing contrary evidence or reasoning and I would never force these views on anyone).

Many people, especially men, have not learned how to see themselves or treat others as beautiful, good children of God, created in God’s image.

I believe it would be beneficial for the Mennonite church if Mennonite historians, sociologists, and theologians more qualified and knowledgeable than myself (and maybe people married already and therefore who have less to lose by writing vulnerably about this topic) did further research and analysis on how the theology of Menno Simons, the Münsterites, and John Howard Yoder has influenced the individual lives of Mennonites today when it comes to their views and behaviour in terms of relationships and sexuality.

I warn though, to be able to do this scholarship effectively would require a great deal of honest self-reflection, and self-disclosure about the intimate thoughts and experiences including the sins in one’s life. This would be a courageous thing to do, especially in this era of #MeToo when sexuality is such a fragile topic, but as Kaufman stated, faith in what Jesus is truly about means we have nothing to fear: “In [Jesus], God has joined us and sanctified our humanity. [Jesus] saves us in our humanity and invites us to follow with the enabling grace and strength of the Spirit. We need not fear our bodies or our sexuality.”38

Goertz, Hans-Jürgen. “John Howard Yoder: Radikaler Pazifismus im Gespräch.” 2013. In “The Gospel of All Creatures: An Anabaptist Natural Theology for Mennonite Political Theology,” Journal of Mennonite Studies 37 (July 1, 2019): 353-368.

Hoffman, Melchior. “The Ordinance of God.” 1530. In Christianity and Revolution: Radical Christian Testimonies 1520-1650, edited by Lowell Zuck, 84-87. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1975.

Kaufman, Douglas. “What Menno got wrong and the difference it makes.” Anabaptist World, August 1, 2014. https://anabaptistworld.org/menno-got-wrong-difference-makes/.

Kennel, Maxwell. “The Gospel of All Creatures: An Anabaptist Natural Theology for Mennonite Political Theology.” Journal of Mennonite Studies 37 (July 1, 2019): 353-368.

Mast, Gerald J. “Teaching John Howard Yoder: Author, Disciple, and Sinner.” Mennonite Life 68 (2014). https://mla.bethelks.edu/ml-archive/2014/teaching-john-howard-yoder-author-disciple-and-sin.php.

Rothmann, Bernhard. “A Confession of Faith and Life of the Church of Christ of Muenster.” 1534. In Christianity and Revolution: Radical Christian Testimonies 1520-1650, edited by Lowell Zuck, 88-93. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1975.

Rothmann, Bernhard. “A Restitution...of Christian Teaching, Faith, and Life through the Church of Christ at Muenster.” October 1534. In Christianity and Revolution: Radical Christian Testimonies 1520-1650, edited by Lowell Zuck, 99-101. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1975.

Rothmann, Bernhard. “Concerning Revenge.” December 1534. In Christianity and Revolution: Radical Christian Testimonies 1520-1650, edited by Lowell Zuck, 102-103. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1975.

The Twelve Elders of Muenster. “Thirteen Statements of the Order of [Private] Life” and “A Code for Public Behavior.” Mid-1534. In Christianity and Revolution: Radical Christian Testimonies 1520-1650, edited by Lowell Zuck, 95-97. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1975.

Yoder, John Howard. “The Otherness of the Church.” 1959. In “The Gospel of All Creatures: An Anabaptist Natural Theology for Mennonite Political Theology,” Journal of Mennonite Studies 37 (July 1, 2019): 353-368.

Yoder, John Howard. “Sacrament as Social Process: Christ the Transformer of Culture.” Theology Today 48, no. 1 (April 1991): 33–44. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.cmu.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0000837123&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Zuck, Lowell, editor. Christianity and Revolution: Radical Christian Testimonies 1520-1650. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1975.