"Naked Anabaptist purports to describe an "Anabaptism" "stripped down to its bare essentials" for people who may have heard about it and want to know more about it, perhaps a Christian seeker who is disenchanted with their own religious background and is drawn to something they have heard about Anabaptism. The "naked" in the title apparently means (according to a blurb on back) an Anabaptism stripped of Mennonite, Amish, and Hutterite traditions.
But Murray immediately reveals that this is not really what he is trying to do: "these convictions are an attempt by Anabaptists in Britain and Ireland today to learn from the Anabaptist tradition.... (p. 44)" In that case, two things follow. Firstly, this is not "naked Anabaptism". It is Anabaptism read by particular people in a particular social and cultural location. After stripping away Mennonite, etc., traditions, but they have simply put another tradition it its place: the tradition of a certain variety of evangelical radicalism, consciously trying to move beyond what it interprets as a failed and dying Christendom.
The second problem is that Murray then presents these "core convictions" as if they are the content of coherent theological perspective, like say Five Points Calvinism or Thomism. Although he was initially honest about "where he was coming from," for the rest of the book he completely ignores the origins of his agenda. He pretends he is giving us an interpretation of Anabaptism.
But his real agenda is stated in the subtitle: "The Bare Essentials of a Radical Faith." So the the book is the inverse of what Murray claims to provide. He does not strip Anabaptism down to its core and find "a radical faith." Rather he takes his radical faith, and DRESSES IT UP as Anabaptism.
This is most clearly seen in his interpretation of Peace & Justice: he criticizes the "nonresistance" of traditional Mennonite practice (p. 130), instead preferring contemporary "peace" initiatives, like the Christian Peacemaker Teams. He later criticizes Mennonite separatism (p. 164), although he knows it is "endorsed by foundational documents like the 'Schleitheim Confession'." But that confession does far more than endorse separatism. *It makes separatism the basis of the rejection of violence.*:
Let's quote from the Confession: "everything which is not united with our God and Christ cannot be other than an abomination which we should shun and flee from. By this is meant all Catholic and Protestant works and church services, meetings and church attendance, drinking houses, civic affairs, the oaths sworn in unbelief and other things of that kind, which are highly regarded by the world and yet are carried on in flat contradiction to the command of God, in accordance with all the unrighteousness which is in the world. From all these things we shall be separated and have no part with them for they are nothing but an abomination, and they are the cause of our being hated before our Christ Jesus, Who has set us free from the slavery of the flesh and fitted us for the service of God through the Spirit Whom He has given us.
Therefore there will also unquestionably fall from us the unchristian, devilish weapons of force - such as sword, armor and the like, and all their use (either) for friends or against one's enemies"
Notice: rejection of violence FLOWS FROM separation from the world. In other words, for historic Anabaptists and Anabaptism, if one wants to be nonviolent, one must be separated from the world. But Murray doesn't want that sort of nonviolence: he wants worldly peace and justice, not the peace that is created in a separated community guided by the gospel of Jesus Christ.
As noted by another reviewer, another example is Murray's rejection of patriarchy. But patriarchy is essential to traditional Mennonite practice. So why does Murray prefer egalitarianism? Because it fits his contemporary "radical" sensibilities better. He provides no argument that egalitarianism is either more biblical or more "Anabaptist".
I kept looking for a theological *argument*: what is Anabaptism? How does it compare to other confessional traditions? How does Murray know that *this* version of Anabaptism is its core (as distinct from other possible interpretations)? Why is it theologically or ethically more desirable than other confessional traditions? Murray, unfortunately, only gave his personal opinions, which for me, made this a tedious book to read. However, if you agree with the radical agenda, then you will probably like the book.
But if you are looking for an explanation of historical Anabaptism, or a careful discussion of how and to what degree the values of Anabaptism can be appropriated by modern Christians, I would encourage you to go elsewhere. For the history and theology of the original Anabaptists, try
The Anabaptist Story: An Introduction to Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism. Then perhaps go to the classic of H. S. Bender,
Anabaptist Vision in which Bender attempts to interpret Anabaptism within the framework of the evangelicalism of the '20s and '30s. I also suggest that you search for "conservative Anabaptism" and check out some of the links. (last two paragraphs modestly edited)