Previous | Next

Fall 2013 · Vol. 42 No. 2 · pp. 166–177 

A Coalition too Small? Anabaptism and the New Calvinist Gospel

Anthony G. Siegrist and Gary Wiebe

In the opening chapter of his book Second Nature, Michael Pollan, best known for writing about food, describes the mixed blessing of growing up near his mother’s grandparents. 1 Pollan’s maternal grandfather, a Russian immigrant, entered the American work force selling vegetables. He then bought his own farmland and eventually became a real estate developer. It wasn’t surprising, then, that he pushed Pollan’s parents to buy their first house, in a blue collar suburb of Farmingdale on New York’s Long Island. Despite being a property owner, Pollan’s father was an outsider in this suburb. A Jew in a primarily Catholic neighborhood, the man also lacked the green thumb of his father-in-law. Part of the fallout was aesthetic, centered on his refusing to take up the quintessential bourgeois task of regular lawn care. In America, Pollan observes, the unfenced suburban front lawn serves as part of a communal vista. Not discounting the possibility that his father was a bit lazy, Pollan describes the tension that ensued from refashioning the common view into a statement of independence. Weedy and raged, the property defied the expectations of garden-loving family and vista-loving neighbors. {167}

The challenge is for Anabaptists to avoid being sucked into the eddies of stronger, more structured, more comprehensive theologies that ignore the true breadth of the Christian community.

Without the proximity of family and neighbor, the elder Pollan’s tense existence may well have relaxed. It is precisely the pressure of family and neighbor that create conflict where otherwise there would be nothing other than two ways of being slipping past one another. Family and kinship exert claims on us, create obligation, and anchor the expectations one group leverages against the other. It may be possible to imagine a scenario where various members of the Christian family develop separately from one another, where, for instance, Anabaptists could pursue faithfulness with little regard for the way their claims cross those of other traditions. That would surely be a catastrophic vision, however—one in which our non-Anabaptist brothers and sisters were denied family status. While it is understandable that the pressures of persecution once extruded such a narrow definition of the faith, this has rightly been rejected by contemporary Anabaptists. But this more charitable way of being is not without its challenges; admitting that others are indeed part of the family requires the sorts of negotiations that pervade sibling relationships.

Negotiating Anabaptist identity is not a once and done thing. Rather, to shift the metaphor, it is to make our way down a river where little if anything stands still. Negotiating the ever-changing flow requires skills of memory and interpretation coupled with the virtues of charity and faithfulness. In 2010, writing in the Mennonite Brethren (MB) Herald, James Toews commented on some of the currents: “Here in Canada, a struggle between the Calvinist and Anabaptist theologies is bubbling away.” He went on to remind readers, or maybe to assure himself, that “theological debate is part of life in the church.” 2 Toews is right of course: theological debate is part of the life of the church, or—to reclaim our metaphor—navigation is part of the life of the church. The water, air, and rocks remain, but it is all still flux and change, swirl and eddy. In this essay we want to consider one point of contemporary agitation. We intend to assess some aspects of the relationship between popular iterations of Anabaptist and Reformed theologies. As the comment from Toews indicates, the issue is not hypothetical.

Anabaptists are rarely quite as blunt about their familial uncertainty as is one Mennonite Brethren (MB) leader who wrote: “[At our church we] are committed to the penal substitutionary claims of Christ. Every Thursday from 6:00 to 7:30 a.m. we gather with a group of 25 people from our church and use a Grudem systematic theology text as a conversation starter to train upcoming small group leaders.” 3 Wayne Grudem is a prolific evangelical, strongly influenced by John Calvin. By way of Grudem, then, the Genevan theocrat’s voice rings in Anabaptist meeting houses. But that’s a bit dramatic. In other Anabaptist communities the overlap extends in other directions: think of the influence of dissident Catholics René Girard {168} and Dorothy Day, or the Lutheran Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Big name biblical scholars are other examples: Walter Brueggemann was ordained in the United Church of Christ; N.T. Wright, as a bishop in the Church of England; Stanley Hauerwas, surely one of the most influential theologians in Anabaptist circles, has ties to Methodism and the Episcopal Church.

The list could go on—and that’s a good thing. Due to its reluctance to crown any one theological voice, Anabaptism is multi-voiced and dialogical. The early Swiss Brethren in Zurich were followers of Ulrich Zwingli, and therefore could be thought of as “Reformed” in a broad sense. In 1526 Hans Denck publicly debated Martin Bucer in Strasbourg. Around the same time, the former Benedictine prior, Michael Sattler, was in dialogue with Bucer and his municipal colleague, Wolfgang Capito. Historians debate the influence of this conversation on the Schleitheim Confession, penned not long afterward. 4 In the seventeenth century, Anabaptists in Holland were connected with Reformed folks of a different sort. There, Dutch Collegiate groups proved hospitable for a variety of theological dissidents, including Mennonites and Calvinist Remonstrants. 5 Jewish philosopher Baruch Spinoza also found these groups congenial. The relationship between Mennonites and unconventional Calvinists was cozy enough during the period that some Dutch Mennonites were trained at a Remonstrant seminary.

In various ways North American Anabaptists bumped into Reformed theology in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The stream of Calvinism that rose to prominence through the American fundamentalist movement was particularly influential. J.C. Wenger, trained in part at Westminster Seminary, made the link explicit. In his Introduction to Theology he concedes that fundamentalism was probably too socially conservative but still writes: “Nevertheless it must be admitted that the Fundamentalist theologians of the twentieth century, in spite of their limitations, stand closer to the great reformers such as Luther and Calvin, than do the modernists and semi-modernists with their undue preoccupation with philosophy and its categories.” 6 It’s something of the sentiment of Wenger’s analysis that seems to be rekindled in the contemporary confluence of Anabaptist and New Reformed theologies, at least at a popular level. One intriguing example of this is what we see in the Gospel Coalition.


The Gospel Coalition (hereafter, the Coalition) is a new rock in the river as of the middle of the last decade. It’s big enough to shift currents. In evangelical circles both north and south of the 49th parallel, the influence of the Coalition is hard to miss. The group is media savvy and several evangelical star pastors serve as semi-official mouthpieces. The Coalition describes itself as a “fellowship of evangelical churches deeply committed {169} to renewing our faith in the gospel of Christ and to reforming our ministry practices to conform fully to the Scriptures.” That is reassuring considering some of the other labels applied to the Coalition, but it’s the theological equivalent of legal boilerplate. What follows in the organization’s self-description is a bit more illuminating: “We have become deeply concerned about some movements within traditional evangelicalism that seem to be diminishing the church’s life and leading us away from our historic beliefs and practices.” 7

The Coalition isn’t as much a fellowship of churches as it is a fellowship of pastors. Most of the men constituting the Coalition’s official council are pastors; there’s no clear role for churches. In February 2012, Ruth Moon wrote a short piece for Christianity Today’s web outlet about the departure of James MacDonald, a prominent pastor, from the Coalition. According to Moon, MacDonald left because the Coalition had attempted to censure theological dialogue hosted by his home church. Clearly then the Coalition is more than a simple “fellowship.” Moon writes, “Though Gospel Coalition leaders say the organization is not intended to be a church, the organization has church-like functions with a confessional statement, a network of regional chapters, and an online church directory.” 8 Closer to home, some MB communities have been surprised to learn that denominationally sponsored church-plants have used the Coalition’s faith statement in place of the more Anabaptist Confession of Faith. Not surprisingly, this prompted some to wonder what part of the Christian family these churches were actually connected to. 9

Various members of the Coalition’s council say something to the effect that their organization’s goal is to put the gospel back at the center of Christian ministry. That’s hard to argue with but potentially misleading. Here we begin to see why a dual Anabaptist-Coalition identity causes friction. The “gospel” is always at the center of ministry. The question is just what version. An important question, then, is, Can the Coalition recognize its own historical situatedness, can it recognize other historic expressions of Christian faithfulness and distinguish aberrance from difference, or heresy from diversity?

Can the Coalition distinguish its articulation of the gospel from the work of Christ? The problem is the epistemological confusion that arises when we mistake our description of a thing for the thing itself. This is the same sort of confusion often propagated by invocations of “objective truth.” On one level, at least, the Coalition recognizes this. In a document they refer to as their “Theological Vision for Ministry,” the group claims: “Our theoretical knowledge of God’s truth is only partial even when accurate, but we nevertheless can have certainty that what the Word tells us is true.” 10 What this statement seems to miss is the distinction between “what {170} the Word tells us” and what we say the Word tells us. Projected into the organization’s mission this means that a popularized Calvinism is pushed as the answer to evangelicalism’s woes.

Here’s an example. The Coalition’s statement of faith addresses the doctrine of providence: “We believe that from all eternity God determined in grace to save a great multitude of guilty sinners . . . and to this end foreknew them and chose them.” 11 The Coalition’s gospel is clearly not inclusive of the broader Christian tradition. Difference clearly exists between the Coalition’s statement and an Anabaptist confession such as the one affirmed by Mennonite Brethren, which in its section on salvation states: “From the beginning, God’s purpose has been to create for himself a people, to dwell among them and to bless them. . . . As people place their trust in Christ, they are saved by grace through faith, not of their own doing, but as a gift of God.” 12 Anabaptists recognize that other Christian traditions affirm that God’s providence can be equated with individual election, but the emphasis on discipleship and piety in Anabaptist thought leaves little room for such a perspective. Indeed, it is difficult to square the practice of believer’s baptism with descriptions of providence that cannot locate human freedom within the rule of God.

The difference extends to the workings of salvation itself. The Coalition’s statement affirms that Jesus functions as a “representative and substitute” and on the cross “propitiated God.” The point is driven home in their statement on “The Justification of Sinners,” which says that Jesus “bore in our stead the punishment due us,” satisfying the “just demands of God on our behalf.” All this so that “the exact justice and the rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.” 13 Here the contrast with Anabaptist theology is more muted. A key section of the MB Confession of Faith reads: “God reconciled the world to himself by the atoning blood of Jesus. As people place their trust in Christ, they are saved by grace through faith, not of their own doing, but as a gift of God. God forgives them, delivers them from sin’s bondage, makes them new creatures in Christ, empowers them by the Holy Spirit and seals them for eternal life.” 14 The Anabaptist tendency is to be more concerned with the outworking of salvation in a life patterned after Jesus than with the mechanism of the atonement.

As central as providence and salvation are, these doctrines can seem a bit theoretical. So we also note that the Coalition skirts the question of baptism, though its sacramental leanings are clear, affirming that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are “divinely ordained means of grace” as well as “public vows of submission” to Christ. 15

If that still seems a bit theoretical, try the hackle-raising issue of gender. The Coalition posits that “men and women are not simply interchangeable.” Instead, they “complement each other in mutually enriching ways.” {171} The husband’s distinctive role is said to be the exercise “headship” and the role of the wife, to submit. This is correlated to the ministry of the church where they say, “The distinctive leadership role within the church given to qualified men is grounded in creation, fall, and redemption and must not be sidelined by appeals to cultural developments.” 16 This sort of thing is not surprising since a certain overlap exists between those involved in the Coalition and the controversial Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Such a view is roundly contested, and we both think it fails to speak to a gospel vision within contemporary culture, but from a strictly observational standpoint it is not necessarily “un-Anabaptist.” That is just to say, many Anabaptists hold this position. What we want to point out is how strange it is that an organization separate from an actual church structure would build itself upon such specifics.

The Coalition’s pronouncements are nothing if not far-reaching. In their “Theological Vision for Ministry” they even delve into epistemology. The Coalition advocates an epistemological theory, what they refer to as “a ‘chastened’ correspondence-theory of truth.” They affirm that even though the truth of Scripture is not “exhausted in a series of propositions,” it nevertheless is “pervasively propositional.” In addition, they claim that “all statements of Scripture are completely true and authoritative,” but that is more a claim about Scripture than about epistemology. 17

Where we think contemporary Anabaptism stands in greatest tension with the New Calvinist vision of the Coalition is in the area of hermeneutics. We note three points of divergence: The first, put rather bluntly, is that the Coalition seems to advocate a hermeneutic without a community. They write about reading along and across the whole Bible, but one gets the feeling that this is the job of the preacher, or at best, the council of elders. The Anabaptist communal hermeneutic, which Stuart Murray has ably described as a feature of early Anabaptism, is absent. 18 The role of the hermeneutic community is implied in the emphasis in the MB Confession of Faith on the Spirit. Second, the Coalition upholds the impossible-to-substantiate claim that the biblical witness is “without error in the original writings.” 19 This has been debated within Anabaptist circles, but is not now widely held. Third, the Coalition tends to downplay the significance of Jesus for the interpretation of the Old Testament. They focus more on what this Testament says about God than on recognizing Jesus as the lens through which we view all Scripture. Each of these three points of divergence would be significant if taken on their own. Taken as a whole the differences are impossible to ignore.

Our point is that the Gospel Coalition’s articulation of the gospel is at odds with Anabaptism in several key ways. This is also true, one would imagine, of other traditions where the Coalition is exerting its influence. {172} The fact that Anabaptism is distinct from the New Calvinist theology of the Coalition is not in itself a problem. Siblings are distinct and need not agree on everything to remain in the family. What is frustrating is that the rhetoric of the Coalition—including the use of the word “gospel” in its name—is so totalizing. If the organization were known as the “Coalition for the Advancement of New Calvinist Pop-Theology and Church Renewal” everything would be clear. As it is, identifying a version of Reformed theology as “the gospel” borders on being disingenuous. Given this lack of candor, why is the Coalition’s influence so extensive? We think there are three main reasons.


We suspect that the first reason for the Coalition’s influence is one hinted at by its self-description where the group admits deep concern related to “some movements within traditional evangelicalism.” These movements, they worry, might harm the church’s vitality and lead it “away from our historic beliefs and practices.” 20 One of the things the Coalition is concerned about is secularism. Perhaps because we’re writing from Canada, a country where Christians have been grappling for a long time with political realities related to disestablishment, we find it odd that Anabaptists would see the incoherencies of secularism threatening enough to warrant joining the Coalition in re-packaging culture-war rhetoric.

An Anabaptist understanding of the relationship of the Christian community to the wider political culture has prepared Anabaptists quite well for post-Christendom life. We fear that looking to the Reformed tradition for guidance here is to long for days long gone. However, we must be careful of easy stereotypes. The Coalition’s “Theological Vision for Ministry” describes the Christian community’s relationship to the surrounding culture as being “a counter-culture for the common good.” The statement continues, “We want to be radically distinct from the culture around us and yet, out of that distinct identity, we should sacrificially serve neighbors and even enemies, working for the flourishing of people.” 21 This is the sort of thing Anabaptists can get behind. Nevertheless, the tone of some of the Coalition’s leaders betrays a different stance. D.A Carson’s recent book The Intolerance of Tolerance is one example. 22 As the title suggests, Carson is interested in securing space for conservative religious claims in public life. Some of John Piper’s public statements are others. Writing for the Huffington Post, Joel Watts began a column this way: “It would seem when John Piper tweets, the world takes notice in much the same way it notices the words Pat Robertson says—with much gnashing of teeth.” 23 The Huffington Post is not congenial to evangelicals on the best of days, but Piper’s tweeting of Job 1:19 shortly after a massive tornado ripped {173} through Moore, Oklahoma, did little to whet an appetite for the gospel. In 2009 Piper concluded that a tornado in Minneapolis was a “gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin.” 24 The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America was slated to discuss sexuality at their convention in that city.

The worries that drive the Coalition’s influence are as much internal to the church as they are related to the surrounding culture. Observe the context of one of the rare moments where a Coalition voice recognizes the existence of the Anabaptist tradition. The writer is Kevin DeYoung, Senior Pastor at University Reformed Church and progenitor of a fistful of titles on Amazon. DeYoung likes Anabaptists—well, that’s probably a bit strong. But in a February 2012 blog post he highlighted a paragraph from an anonymous Radical Reformer who seemed to affirm the historicity of Adam. DeYoung refers to the extract as an “example of the Christian consensus in previous centuries, across the theological spectrum, that Adam was a real historical person from whom every person was physically descended.” 25 Evangelicalism is rotting away at the edges, specifically its younger edges. Some have looked to the Coalition to diagnose the cause of the decomposition. The prescription is the elimination of pathogens within “traditional evangelicalism” that question the historicity of Adam, are flexible on gender roles, or perhaps a bit fuzzy on the centrality of penal substitution theory. The Coalition is influential because it provides a channel for evangelical frustration.

A second factor we believe accounts for the Coalition’s growing influence is the theological comprehensiveness of Reformed doctrine. The 2006 Christianity Today article “Young, Restless, Reformed” captured a sense of the contemporary energy around this. 26 At its best Anabaptist theology makes no pretentions about being a totalizing system. The historian William Estep has observed that formal statements produced by early Anabaptists show a general reluctance to delve deeply into theological specifics. He believes this was because of their “basic agreement with the Reformers.” 27 The Creeds, though not often used in worship or as tests of faith, also contributed to the theological grammar Anabaptists employed. 28 By showing that there is a traceable genealogy of formalized theological statements from the sixteenth to the twenty-first centuries, Karl Koop has demonstrated that Anabaptism does constitute a theological tradition. 29 Nevertheless, the Anabaptist tradition does not possess the theological breadth of Calvin and his heirs; persecution is an old reason, worry about intellectual hubris more recent. Anabaptists have not been great systematizers. We like to think that daily life is the place where our theology finds its integrity and scope. This is both a virtue and a vice. As students of the Christian theological tradition we readily admit that the discipline can, if carried out {174} impiously, allow one to keep the existential challenge of discipleship at arm’s length. But when it allows the populism of a peasant movement to discourage questions about the coherence of the story we tell it is a problem. The avoidance of rigorous theology can, for instance, allow us to set creation and redemption against each other, a pernicious fault line to which Anabaptist theology has proven particularly vulnerable.

The New Calvinist movement, despite its accompanying avalanche of books, is not built on particularly rigorous intellectual work. Compared to the neo-Calvinism stemming from Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920), it is a camp meeting. Kuyper was a Dutch Prime Minister best known on this side of the Atlantic for the simple quote: “No single piece of our mental world is to be hermetically sealed off from the rest, and there is not a square inch in the whole domain of human existence over which Christ, who is sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’ ” 30 New Calvinist theology of culture is a pale version of Kuyper’s neo-Calvinism, which has spawned substantial work in political theory and the philosophy of religion. Nevertheless, if we think generously, it shares the comprehensive impulse of the Reformed intellectual tradition. Anabaptism, on the other hand, is better thought of as a reform movement within the broader church. Its Christocentrism recommends a certain way of negotiating the two testaments, with an emphasis on peace as a logical outcome. Its practice of voluntary baptism implies a specific shape to the Christian community and a hermeneutic emphasizing responsiveness. What Anabaptism does not offer is a totalizing, self-contained vision of the whole of human life. The challenge and the opportunity this carries is that the Anabaptist tradition will always be dependent. As a reform movement within the church catholic, Anabaptism requires a vital relationship with the universal, historic church. Anabaptist communities make a serious mistake when they substitute groups with a slightly more comprehensive vision, like the Coalition, for the church catholic.

Finally, the Coalition’s influence is due in part to the willingness and skill of its key voices to popularize its theological vision. The Coalition serves as a powerful platform for its council members. Scanning the list of “Council Members” a number of familiar names emerge: Albert Mohler, D.A. Carson, and of course, John Piper. In one sense, the Reformed tradition is more easily popularized than the Anabaptist. The emphasis in the Reformed tradition on preaching provides a ready set-up for star orators. The central role of John Calvin furthers this with the impression that one can peruse a quick “Calvin for Armchair Theologians” and get in the game. Anabaptism is more disparate and, despite its lack of sophisticated theology, more historically complex. It matures and shifts across the decades. It has no single leader, no set of documents that defines it across time. {175}


While we have expressed what we think are substantial worries about the influence of the Gospel Coalition in Anabaptist communities, we do not think it is appropriate to think of this organization or Reformed theology more generally as a “threat.” There is much that Anabaptists can learn. For example, we could learn from the Coalition’s use of media. Their publishing ferocity and blog role are examples of the sorts of things of which Anabaptist institutions have made only limited use. The Coalition provides an example of theological writing that, for all the ways we might disagree with the specifics of its content, manages to be both more than devotional and widely accessible. We think the learning can go both ways. The Coalition blogger Trevin Wax affirms as much when he notes that Anabaptism better understands the tension between the church and the state than do the other Protestant movements. 31 Similarly, the Coalition is not tone deaf to concerns close to the heart of Anabaptism. In their theology of ministry the Coalition affirms,

The gospel opens our eyes to the fact that all our wealth is ultimately an unmerited gift from God. Therefore the person who does not generously give away his or her wealth to others is not merely lacking in compassion, but is unjust. . . . We cannot look at the poor and the oppressed and callously call them to pull themselves out of their own difficulty. Jesus did not treat us that way. The gospel replaces superiority toward the poor with mercy and compassion. 32

The river in which Anabaptist communities navigate swirls as new features shape the current. An outright denouncement of all things Gospel Coalition is too easy, too defensive. An all-encompassing embrace would abolish Anabaptism. Our suggestion is that diversity in theology and praxis within Christendom is vitally important for the life of the church, both within and without the Anabaptist community. Under the rubric of the church’s catholicity we should feel free to borrow from and lend to other traditions as needed. Under the rubric of faithfulness we should critique them and listen carefully to their accounts of our shortcomings. Anabaptism’s lack of theological pedigree continues to encourage us to remain open to the Spirit’s leading in hermeneutical matters, cultivate open dialogue, and willingly explore new theological currents. The challenge is for Anabaptists to avoid being sucked into the eddies of stronger, more structured, more comprehensive theologies that ignore the true breadth of the Christian community. As Anabaptists our goal should be to make use of these currents, dipping our paddles in and gaining momentum for the journey downstream. Our goal isn’t to establish a fortress on time’s bank or to control the river’s flow. It is simply to remain afloat, and in the process {176} to learn the grace and the joy of navigating the triune God’s good creation amidst the ravages of sin. If that’s our goal, there is no need to trade the complexities of the Anabaptist tradition for the simpler and more straightforward New Calvinist doctrinal rubric.


  1. Michael Pollan, Second Nature: A Gardener’s Education (New York: Grove, 2003).
  2. James Toews, “On the Other Hand,” Intersections of Faith and Life, MB Herald, 1 October 2010,
  3. Ezra Okoti, My Celebration Blog, (site discontinued).
  4. C. Arnold Snyder, The Life and Thought of Michael Sattler (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1984), 89–97.
  5. Also known as Classical Arminians, Remonstrants insisted that God’s decree of predestination is conditional; that the atonement aims to be universal in scope; that human beings by themselves cannot initiate a saving faith; that the grace of God, though a necessary condition of human effort, is not irresistible; and that a Christian may resist sin but may yet fall from grace.—Ed.
  6. J.C. Wenger, Introduction to Theology: A Brief Introduction to the Doctrinal Content of Scripture Written in the Anabaptist-Mennonite Tradition (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1954), 14.
  7. “Preamble,” The Gospel Coalition (TGC) website, accessed July 2013,
  8. Ruth Moon, “Behind James MacDonald’s Resignation from the Gospel Coalition,” News, Christianity Today, February 6, 2012,
  9. Barrie McMaster, “Findings of National Review Presented in B.C.” MB Herald, accessed July 2013,
  10. “Theological Vision for Ministry,” TGC website, accessed July 2013,
  11. “Confessional Statement,” TGC website, accessed July 2013,
  12. “Confession of Faith,” Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches website, accessed July 2013,
  13. “Confessional Statement,” TGC website.
  14. “Confession of Faith,” Canadian Conference of MB Churches website.
  15. “Confessional Statement,” TGC website.
  16. Ibid.
  17. “Theological Vision for Ministry,” TGC website. {177}
  18. Stuart Murray’s work on the hermeneutics of early Anabaptism in nicely summarized in, “Biblical Interpretation among the Anabaptist Reformers,” in A History of Biblical Interpretation, ed. Alan J. Hauser and Duane F. Watson, vol. 2, The Medieval though the Reformation Periods (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 403–27.
  19. “Confessional Statement,” TGC website.
  20. “Preamble,” TGC website.
  21. “Theological Vision for Ministry,” TGC website.
  22. D.A. Carson, The Intolerance of Tolerance (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012).
  23. Joel L. Watts, “Abusive Theology, Oklahoma and Us,” The Huffington Post, 24 May 2013,
  24. John Piper, “The Tornado, the Lutherans and Homosexuality,” Desiring God (blog), August 19, 2009,
  25. Kevin DeYoung, “Anabaptists for a Historical Adam,” DeYoung, Restless and Reformed (blog), TGC website, February 18, 2012,
  26. Collin Hansen, “Young, Restless, Reformed,” Christianity Today 50, no. 9 (Sept. 2006).
  27. William R. Estep, The Anabaptist Story, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 179.
  28. Ibid., 180–82.
  29. Karl Koop, Anabaptist-Mennonite Confessions of Faith: The Development of a Tradition (Kitchener, ON: Pandora Press, 2004).
  30. Abraham Kuyper, “Sphere Sovereignty: Inaugural Address, Free University of Amsterdam,” in Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, ed. James D. Bratt (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 488.
  31. Trevin Wax, “What I Like about the Anabaptists,” Kingdom People (blog), TGC website, November 1, 2007,
  32. “Theological Vision for Ministry,” TGC website.
Anthony G. Siegrist is Associate Professor of Christian Theology at Prairie Bible College and author of Participating Witness: An Anabaptist Theology of Baptism and the Sacramental Character of the Church (forthcoming from Pickwick/Wipf & Stock). Gary Wiebe is a member of Parliament Community Church (MB) in Regina, Saskatchewan, and a Bachelor of Theology student at Prairie Bible College.

Previous | Next