Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 2
Burge calls “Anabaptist” an “awful term,” arguing it’s an opponents’ accusation (“we’re not rebaptizers”); how does accepting—or rejecting—an opponents’ label shape a community’s self-understanding, and what might early Christians have assumed about naming and identity?
Another way to ask: How does using a name that your opponents gave you (like “Anabaptist”) change how your group sees itself? What might early Christians have believed about how names shape identity?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The transcript suggests that accepting an opponent’s label can subtly accept the opponent’s framing of your beliefs, while rejecting it is a way of defending a truer identity. Burge implies names matter because they can mis-describe what a group is actually trying to do.
- Burge: “I think it’s an awful term… It’s inaccurate etymologically. So we’re not rebaptizers. That’s something that our opponents accused us of.”
- He explains “Wiedertäufer” functioned as a hostile label that shaped “popular imagination,” requiring Mennonites to clarify their beliefs.
- The adoption of “Mennonite” itself is presented as strategic naming: Karl Ludwig called Swiss Brethren “Mennonites” to avoid the empire’s ban on Anabaptists.
- Burge calls this “innocence by association,” showing how a name can grant social legitimacy.
- He notes Swiss Brethren “accepted that nomenclature and carried it… to North America,” meaning names influence self-understanding over time.