Established Christian Alternatives

When taking on the topic of discussing 'Established Christian Alternatives', I first must understand what is considered Christian and what then makes another Christian group 'alternative'.  If I were to ask any of the groups I plan to discuss below whether they considered themselves alternative Christians.  I am 85 percent positive that they will say they are the one true way, that they are not alternative Christians, but simply Christians.  Therefore, I do not want any of those who follow one of the Christian faiths I plan to mention below, or don't mention, to take offense to being called alternative.  The use of alternative is to distinguish the Christian groups that can be considered mainstream from different interpretation of Christianity.

Anabaptist

The Anabaptist movement are a mixture of different groups with similar principles revolving around modestly and hard work.  They were considered excellent farmers and were mostly against war.  What I find most interesting amongst the Anabaptist is the degree that they interact with the world around them; be it agriculture, trade, or war.

The Swiss Brethren main goal was 'to be obedient and converted disciples of Jesus Christ, forsaking all other connection'.  Yet, they took control of Munster and forced Munsterite resident of Catholic or Lutheran persuasion to leave the city.  This is the most extreme of the Anabaptist with consideration to warfare.  The violence of the Brethren might be accounted for the time period and the repressive measured used against them. The seven points accepted by the Swiss Brethren can be seen in the practice of all other Anabaptist that come after them.  Three points in general are worth repeating here:

(1) Christians should separate themselves from the world; (2) the sword (coercion) was ordained by God but is outside the perfection of Christ; and (3) Christ's followers must not swear oaths.

These three points in general seem to explain the effect the Anabaptist have on the world around them.  Their isolation from mainstream culture, and their non violence status (majority) can be observed in many of the Anabaptist groups.  The differing between the religions would be how they go about integrating modern culture and technology within their societies while still following their own doctrine.

The Mennonites appear to be a second generation of the Swiss Brethren.  They share similar rules and regulations; isolation and no fighting rules.  There are not many differences from the original Swiss Brethren.

The more well known Anabaptist, Old Order Amish, are the most conservative Anabaptist.  They reject many modern technologies such as motor vehicles, television, commercial electricity.  It is not uncommon to find agriculturally based trade products in Indiana, particularly during the state fair.  Despite strictly avoiding intercourse with the world, the Amish do adapt modern innovation by carefully considering the modern innovation.  My question here is if they had unrestrained modern advancements such as the television or radio would they loss more of their young and not grow as quickly as they do today?

The Hutterite Brethren was one of the two principal groups create from the Swiss Brethren movement.  I find it interesting that one of the groups lead by Balthasar Hubmaier believed that Christians could be magistrates and government leaders to the point that they were permitted to conduct defensive warfare, which would be a contradiction to the one of the seven general points established by the Swiss Brethren.  The other group was more tradition in its policy of not permitting its members to conduct defensive warfare.  These Brethren restored and united by Jakob Hutter were known for economic efficiency and prosperity, skill in crafts, universal adult literacy, and successful schools.  However, their non-warfare approach lead to some conflicts with their nations.  


Another interesting point with regards to the Hutterite was their modern agricultural practices, but retention of German language and traditional lifestyle similar to the Amish.  The Hutterite use of anything that would facilitate economic pursuits including computers and motor vehicles demonstrates the Hutterite sacrificing complete isolation to advance their own endeavors.  With the absence of birth control, the Hutterite Brethren continue to expand.  My question here is if both the Hutterite and the Amish are expanding, then would an introduction of media, computers and televisions, decrease the Amish population?  This question ties into my previous question about the Amish.  Many would agree that if one religion can accomplish this integration with modern innovation, then it would be possible for the Amish to adapt more modern technologies without losing their identity.  However, if their identity is the lack of modern innovation, then my question still stands.

Methodist

The Methodist came from the Holiness and Pentecostal movements.  They had several leaders, Walter and Phoebe Palmer, John S. Inskip, and William McDonald to name a few, which probably led to the different styles of Methodist.  What I find most peculiar is how the speaking of tongues is an important characteristic of Pentecostals.  In many other Christian faiths, tongues-speaking would be considered a sign of the devil.  So, I find myself considering what other Christian groups would think of the Methodist.  Would they consider them a follower of Satan?  Misguided?  Or would other Christian groups believe that any other forms of worship is in itself an act of the devil?  I would hazard to guess that other Christian groups that also believe that the speaking of tongues is a holy event would sympathize with them.  However, would they also believe the Methodist misguided because of their worship styles?  I cannot even begin to formulate an answer for any of these without a better understanding of the Methodist group and the other Christian groups, so I will leaves this questions for my readers dissection.


Another interesting question regarding the Methodist is the effect of media on the relationship between church and the church members?  Does the media effect the growth and fall of the Methodist?  Would a structure more similar to the Amish or Hutterite have seen the Methodist Christians expanding?  In some ways, isolation can keep members from leaving a church.  If all you know is one way, then why would you leave for the unknown?  However, the growth of both Amish and Hutterite is most likely a result of the practice of no birth control, and thus, high birth rates with in the population.

Adventist and Witness

The Seventh-Day Adventists (SDAs) and the Jehovah's Witness came from the same prophecy of apocalyptic, or date-setting for Christ's second coming.  Yet, they are both very different religions.  Moreover, I find it fascinating that even after many false predictions the two religions still exist, which must mean that the religions are offering something else to their congregation.  It can be said that the leaders who lead SDAs and Witness are among the great since it becomes harder and harder to explain away the failure of a prediction.  I will leave it to my reader to speculate on the survival of the two religions.  For now, I would like to focus on the differences of the two religion in spite of the similar origins.


I first would like to look at how they effect/interact with society because of their view points.  Witness are ruled by the belief that they are 'living in the time of the end'.  I believe this belief is the main reason the two impact society differently.  The Witness strongly discourage members from pursuing higher education.  This is understandable since if we are 'living in the time of the end', then higher education would be unnecessary.  In fact, a lot of desires and activities would be a waste of time.  Of course, even with this understanding it brings the question of how many generations will be 'living in the time of the end'?  How long can one continue believing that you are 'living in the time of the end'?  Or is every generation that lives and dies before the end just proof that we are closer to the end of time?  If that was the thought process, then I can see this religion continuing for a long time, despite 'living in the time of the end'.


In contrast, the SDAs have had more of a positive impact on society.  This may also be due to their belief in 'reject innate immortality of the soul', and have an emphasis on the Old Testament giving healthful living, titling, responsibility for education and welfare programs top priorities.  The SDAs have contributed greatly to knowledge on health studies.  This brings a question to my mind.  Does the contribution to society effect how each religion is treated by the nation they live in?  Do not mistake me here.  Although I have not listed any of the persecution each of the groups have received, this does not mean that either group is completely accepted into society.  I only wish to point out that SDAs have been persecuted less than the Witness.  Is this because of economics, where one group contributes more to a country then another, and so is tolerated more than the other?  Or is there another reason that would better explain this phenomena in an empirical way?  I would like to leave this question to my readers as well.

Christian Science

The metaphysical movement, Christian of Science, was contributed to Mary Baker Eddy, although Phineas Parkhurst Quimby is considered the first individual to practice the Divine Mind, or mind healing.  Today we know this way of thinking as 'mind over matter' or other sayings that give a message of people being about to control their bodies with their mind.  This religion is one of the few American religions and in some ways can be explained with the cultural development of America.  This religion came about during the 'time of science' when 'Higher Biblical Criticism' reviewed the Bible as a historical document.  Add into the equation the aftermath of the civil war, and we have a time of distress as to the nature and meaning of what was once known.  With increase in immigration and capitalism unrestrained, people with Protestant morals, achievement through hard work, put one at a disadvantage.  The ideals of Mrs. Eddy "change your thinking, change your reality" were novel and empowering.  Unfortunately with the death of Mrs. Eddy, the Christian Science is forever in the time of the nineteenth century.  With the increase in American culture, Christian Science is no longer novel and has been decreasing.  I pose this question for my readers; since Christian Science was built on American culture and is now in effect nineteenth century, will Christian Science die out with increase in American culture?

Charismatic Leaders and Their Relationship to Religion

So far there seems to be one unifying theme to the start of these and other 'alternative' Christian religion; charismatic leaders.  The Anabaptist had Ulrich Zwingli, Mennonites had Frisians Menno Simons and Dirk Philips, Amish had Jakob Ammann, Hutterites with Jakob Hutter, the Methodist with all their starting leader, Adventist had William Miller, and the Witness with Charles Taze Russell,  even the Mormons had Joesph Smith, and the Christian Science Mary Baker Eddy, the Quakers with George Fox.  In fact, it would seem that all religious groups started with a charismatic leader; Judaism with Moses, Christianity and Jesus, and Islam with Mohammad.  Yet, if I were to ask any devote follower of one of these religions mentioned, they would say that their leaders where not just charismatic but had a special relationship with God.  They might even respond by saying that the leader was speaking 'for' God.  As an outside observed, it would appear that religion has a relationship with charismatic leader in that without that leader the religion would not have started.


With that said, another thought comes to mind.  If cult can be defined as 'a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols', then is religion just another type of cult?  This thought then brings the idea of nationalism as a type of cult.  Or sports teams for that matter.  One could use the logic of religion to cult to nationalism to religion, but I find this to be a fallacy in logic.  One would need to define religion to tie it into nationalism, and I would like to leave that for another discussion entirely.