This assertion is relevant to historians outside and inside the Anabaptist tradition precisely because it reopens the question of boundaries. Anabaptists must continue the struggle to articulate their history rightly for the same reason the broader church must do the same thing: because it is that historical character that gives shape to our present character; neither our actions nor words are intelligible without that back-story. (I’m not entirely sure why this would be a question of enormous interest to those outside the Anabaptist tradition, but I also struggle to understand why historians live to study a story in which they have no stake.) What does self-sacrificial obedience mean if we cannot point to Jesus and to the martyrs to explain? For Anabaptists, what does economic sharing mean if we cannot point to the practice of mutual aid that sprung up by social necessity in the 16th century Netherlands? Methodists care that we speak of John Wesley as reformer rather than schismatic, Catholics care that we not appeal to early heretics for definition, and Anglicans prefer that we not speak of certain aspects of their origins (as do Anabaptists) for very good reason: these stories change not only the way we are perceived in the world, but they way we truly are in the world.

I do not at all mean to discount the necessity of listening to the way our neighbors describe us in trying to forge and tweak our own identities—indeed, one cannot separate identity from communities of interest (if not always of care). That it has been a tradition in some Anabaptist circles to answer the question “Are you a Christian?” with “Ask my neighbor” is part of our story that made your questions and criticisms particularly poignant to me. But neither Jesus nor his disciples allowed their enemies to have the last say in defining Jesus’ identity—most of the early sermons in Acts engage in exactly the sort of right re-telling of Jesus’ story that I’m saying we must do about the church. The stories we tell about Jesus in a real sense identify Jesus, for they display the character of Jesus. Likewise, the stories we tell about the church (and its various streams) in a real sense identifies the church, and such a task is not one we should undertake lightly.

Lest I seem to have again too quickly rejected your point, I should say directly that you’re right: some of what I said does not take seriously enough the sort of ecumenical spirit also an integral part of the Anabaptist story. I should also acknowledge my own ideological motives for such a shift, since part of my motivation indeed grows from my wish to separate myself from certain less “desirable” practitioners of adult baptism in the 16th century. Hopefully others, Anabaptist and otherwise, will hold all of us who delve into the annals of history accountable to the reality of history and the generosity of Christ.

I am surprised by your tone here, because it implies that you feel a strong need to defend the Anabaptist tradition, to place some sort of barrier between Anabaptism and those outside of the Anabaptist community. Later you also ask, “So why use a derogatory name to define the nature and scope of Mennonite historical lineage?”

I think that I am surprised at how much your language reflects the feelings of one who has been “victimized.” This question of how Anabaptist historical identity is defined and labeled is important to notice and intriguing to discuss, but I question its relevance in the wider mission of the church.

Does it really matter? Why do you feel like Anabaptists are “relinquishing” some right or power that they had to others outside of the movement? Why is it important that they define their own historical character themselves?

Often you say that it seems that others know you better than you know yourself. So why become so fearful and defensive when others still use the “heretical” term that has been used against Anabaptists in the past?

I guess I am just thinking of the goal of the wider church in general. It seems unimportant at this point to be concerned about how to retrieve the rights Anabaptists apparently possessed before they were called Anabaptists in order to rename themselves or redefine their past reputation.

In the Christian community today, is it wrong for the church to allow those outside of the community to notice a particular practice or ethical conviction of the church, however insignificant it seems as part of the church’s practices overall, and proceed to use that one particularly noticeable characteristic to define the entire movement? What is the purpose of the church today? To be a distinct community as it demonstrates the love of Christ it contrast to the surrounding culture?

Should the church just stop at considering it a compliment that those outside the community noticed a distinction? At this point in history, I would like to assume that when those outside of Anabaptism use the term “Anabaptist” more comes to their minds than the issue of baptism exclusively, perhaps even Christ.

I may just be trying to say that I do not think that it is always negative for those outside of the church community to do the labeling, even if the terms used happen to be “derogatory” or offensive initially. This may be too bold, but Jesus was not often called the Messiah, but the names given to him by those opposed to His movement were meaningful in that they demonstrated a distinction in His behavior and rhetoric had been acknowledged and had made a significant impression upon the wider community.