Not exact matches
During the Reformation,
Anabaptists insisted on following literally Jesus» command not to swear any oath, while Calvinists and Lutherans adhered to the traditional Roman Catholic use of religious oaths as an important expression of the religious foundations of
political obligations.
The
Anabaptist rejection of oaths was not merely an interpretative quarrel, but was understood more deeply as a part of the
Anabaptist rejection of Christian involvement in
political and military affairs.
Back in the «70s, when evangelicals were debating Reformed - versus -
Anabaptist perspectives on faith and politics, I participated in a forum in which a self - proclaimed «radical Christian» urged all of us to «stand over against everything this American
political system stands for.»
In the 1970s and 1980s I spent considerable time in dialogue with Mennonite scholars about the differences between the Reformed and
Anabaptist traditions on
political and ethical questions.
Here, then, is one form of evangelical
political understanding — one reminiscent of earlier
Anabaptist thought, emphasizing
political critique and alternate communal modeling.
In thinking about the public order, notes Turner, Calvin College has drawn heavily on the legacy of the Dutch politician Abraham Kuyper (1837 - 1920), but he agrees with Mark Noll's observation that recent evangelical
political thinkers have also borrowed «from the
Anabaptist heritage, from the mainline Protestantism of Reinhold Niebuhr, or from the neoconservative Catholicism of Richard John Neuhaus, Michael Novak, and George Weigel.»
Soon after there appeared on the scene another group of Christians who took a stand for violence — not, like the
Anabaptists, as a means of relieving the oppressed and improving society, but as a
political tool.