Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 1
The speaker says he dislikes the label “Anabaptist” because it means “rebaptizer,” was a derogatory nickname, and even tied to a capital crime in Christendom; what does that history suggest about how power (church/state) was defining “orthodoxy,” and how should that shape the way modern Christians use inherited labels for themselves and others?
Another way to ask: What does the ugly history behind the name “Anabaptist” show about how the church and government used power to decide what was “right belief”? How should that affect how Christians use old labels for themselves and others today?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The transcript suggests that “orthodoxy” was often defined and enforced by church-state power, not just by Scripture, since a label like “rebaptizer” could be a state-defined crime. That should make modern Christians cautious about adopting inherited labels uncritically, especially labels originally created by opponents to stigmatize.
- The speaker calls “Anabaptist” a “derogatory nickname…given to them by the detractors.”
- He notes it was “a capital offense to be rebaptized,” rooted in “the Justinian Code…once it became part of Christendom,” showing legal enforcement of religious boundaries.
- Early believers denied the label: when asked “Are you an Anabaptist…?” they answered, “No, we’re not.”
- He says the term has “currency today,” but he has “stopped referring to myself as an Anabaptist,” implying labels can carry distorted history.
- He points to alternative self-descriptions like “Swiss Brethren” and “baptism-minded (doopgesinde),” which are less polemical.