Baptists and American Religious Liberty

On this Fourth of July, I ask you to think of your freedom and of those who suffered that it might be provided and protected. First, no freedom is possible without Jesus Christ. There shall be no debate concerning the fact; but only the declaration of it. If you, dear reader, do not know Jesus Christ, then you are in bondage this very moment. You know no real freedom until you know Jesus Christ. So, first, I thank Jesus Christ who gave most that I might have life and have it more abundantly. Second, I wish to thank every individual who is currently serving in our nation’s military to defend my freedoms. To every wife whose husband is overseas – thank you. To every mother who wonders if she will see her child again; to every child whose mother or father is away defending our freedoms – thank you. Third, I am thankful to every veteran who fought on foreign soil to secure my freedoms.

In this post, I want to discuss the impact that Christians, more specifically, Baptists, have had in securing the freedom of religion that our nation now enjoys. There is no need to be upset if you are not a Baptist. The goal of this post is to merely tell the history as it happened. I ask the reader to please try to stay with me as I give facts of history. I believe it will be at least somewhat interesting. I will try to present each point as briefly as possible, but even then, this post will be somewhat lengthier than usual.

The Fact

It is a fact that the forefathers of our country believed in a Creator. So it is written in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Our forefathers believed that all men have rights, and the duty of a moral government is to protect those rights.

It is a fact, not only that the many freedoms we enjoy in America are the envy of the world, but also that Baptists have played a key role in securing those freedoms. In 1920, on the steps of the Capitol, George W. Truett stood and delivered a speech concerning the Baptists’ role in securing our religious freedoms:

“Indeed, the supreme contribution of the new world to the old is the contribution of religious liberty. This is the chiefest contribution that America has thus far made to civilization. And historic justice compels us to say that it was pre-eminently a Baptist contribution. The impartial historian, whether in the past, present, or future, will ever agree with our American historian, Mr. Bancroft, when he says, ‘Freedom of conscience, unlimited freedom of mind, was from the first the trophy of the Baptists.’ And such historian will concur with the noble John Locke who said, ‘The Baptists were the first propounders of absolute liberty, just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty.’ Ringing testimonies like these might be multiplied indefinitely.” (Truett, pp. 86-87)

In showing how the Baptists contributed specifically to religious freedom in America, we will look, first, at the history of the Anabaptists, and second, at the establishment of religious freedom in colonial America.

Who Were the Anabaptists?

In 1517, a new era dawned. Most of my readers will be aware of the man who nailed his ninety-five grievances upon the door of the Catholic Church. That man was Martin Luther, and his indictment against Roman Catholicism began a period of time where papal authority would be rejected and Biblical authority would be embraced. This period of time would be known as the Reformation. It would change the face of Christendom forever.

At the start of the Reformation, there were two main religious groups: the Catholic Church, and the reformers. The “reformers” included men like Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, and others. To a degree, I admire the stand that the reformers took. They stood against the papacy and Roman Catholic dogma and practices. However, they did not go far enough. They retained the false idea of pedo-baptism (infant baptism). They held to the false teaching of transubstantiation (the belief that the bread and wine used in the mass was changed into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ). I am glad that Luther’s rebellion against the Catholic Church opened the door for others to come out in opposition to falsehood. However, if these were the only two groups in the Reformation, I would be very disappointed. It would disappoint me that no one protested the reformers.

In 1525, a group rose up that did just that – they protested vehemently against Catholic dogma and practices. They, however, like me, felt that the reformers did not go far enough. So, they withstood the reformers as well as the Catholics. This group, as a whole, rejected the idea of transubstantiation. Balthasar Hübmaier, one of their leaders, when he served as pastor, did away with the mass, did away with the crosses in the church, and rejected pedo-baptism. This group, rather than pedo-baptism, stressed baptism for believers. Followers of this group were being baptized as adults, even though they had been baptized as infants. Because this group looked at faith as a prerequisite for baptism, and demanded that believers be baptized after they exercise faith, they became known as Anabaptists, a name meaning “to baptize again.”

The Anabaptist movement, the third group of the Reformation, has been misrepresented throughout the last few centuries. They had bitter enemies during the Reformation. They suffered great persecution on two fronts: the Roman authorities would drown those who had been re-baptized. The Anabaptists, when on the move to flee Roman persecution, could find no safe haven with the reformers. John Calvin killed dissenters of Calvinism, including the Anabaptists.

ANABAPTISTS’ BELIEFS ACCORDING TO THEIR ENEMIES

In finding out what the Anabaptists believe, let us first hear their enemies. Anabaptists had enemies during the Reformation, but they also have bitter enemies now. Often, Calvinistic writers misrepresent the beliefs of Anabaptists, attempting to paint them as a non-orthodox group.

Consider something with me. In the Reformation, there were three basic religious groups – the Catholics, the reformers, and the Anabaptists. The Anabaptists were unique in that they protested against both the Catholics and the reformers. Therefore, every congregation that was not either Catholic or Reformed was labeled Anabaptist, whether or not they believed like the Anabaptists as a whole. I have no doubt that there were some congregations who were labeled Anabaptists who denied the Trinity, and who questioned the deity of Christ. But these beliefs do not reflect the Anabaptist views as a whole. I believe that this can be proven sufficiently if one will study the matter without bias.

I do not believe that an adequate history of the Anabaptists can be presented fairly by their enemies. Henry Burrage rightfully states:

“No one among us would be satisfied with a history of the Reformation in Germany prepared by Dr. Eck, or any other of Luther’s opponents; but works concerning the Anabaptists, written by their bitterest enemies, are received by writers of almost every name as trustworthy history.” (Burrage, p. ix)

In my library, I have a book on the Dutch Anabaptists by Henry Dosker. Dosker is a Presbyterian, and tries his best to paint the Anabaptists as being unorthodox. He fails miserably. Even just a casual student of church history can see Dosker’s twisting of Anabaptist statements to try to prove them to be unorthodox. While a few statements of isolated Anabaptists may have been unorthodox, there are no grounds for labeling the whole group unorthodox. Just as Westboro Baptist Church is not an accurate representation of Baptists as a whole, a few Anabaptists who strayed from orthodox beliefs must not represent the movement as a whole.

Some of the enemies of Anabaptism attempt to use the Münster rebellion as proof that the whole group was unorthodox. In the incident of the Münster rebellion, radical Anabaptists raided churches, destroying the property and stealing items. Shortly after this incident, a man rose up who was converted to Anabaptism. This man was Menno Simons, who later became the leader of the Mennonite movement. In his early ministry, Simons made a case that those who took part in the Münster rebellion are not a representation of Anabaptism.

If you wish to speak concerning unorthodox behavior, let me say that no figure in the Reformation was as unorthodox as John Calvin. Calvin, as the leading citizen of Geneva, executed fifty-eight individuals and exiled seventy-six by 1546. Not for murder, or any hideous crimes against society – but for heresy. Calvin may have been orthodox theologically, but practically, he was unorthodox. The orthodox manner of handling one’s enemies is “Love your enemies.” Having people killed for simply disagreeing with your viewpoint is against the very foundation of Christianity. If you are going to say that the Münster rebellion accurately identifies the Anabaptists as a whole, then at least be consistent and say that John Calvin’s killing of his enemies correctly identifies Calvinism.

In identifying Anabaptist beliefs, let me say that though many of their leaders were educated, they did not write lengthy, systematic, doctrinal treatises. For starters, many of their leaders died, many of them executed by both the Roman Catholics and the reformers, within five years of the start of the Anabaptist movement (1525). Tim Hall brings out this point very well:

“The early educated leaders of the movement were executed, banished, or died of disease.” He goes on to say, “Conrad Grebel died of the plague in 1526; Hans Denck in 1526 of the plague; Felix Manz was drowned in 1527 and in the same year, Michael Sattler was burned at the stake; Balthasar Hübmaier was burned at the stake in 1528; Hans Hut died in prison in 1527 and Blaurock at the stake in 1529.” (Hall, p. 4)

ANABAPTISTS’ BELIEFS ACCORDING TO HISTORIANS

The most trusted names in church history do not identify the Anabaptists as unorthodox as a whole. The unbiased historian will point out the faults of individual Anabaptists, but do not pin those faults on the movement as a whole.

Earle E. Cairns, a noted church historian, gives a summary of overall Anabaptist teaching:

“Because there were so many different Anabaptist groups with slightly different variations in belief, which grew out of the insistence upon the believer’s right to interpret the Bible as a literal and final authority, it is difficult to give an organized statement of Anabaptist beliefs. However, there were some doctrines that all Anabaptists and Mennonites held in common. They insisted on the authority of the Bible as a final and infallible rule for faith and practice. Many of them gave it a literal interpretation. They believed that the pure Church was to be an association of the regenerated rather than a state church with some unsaved in it. They also practiced the baptism of believers, at first by affusion or pouring, and later by immersion. Their opposition to infant baptism as unscriptural and their insistence on rebaptism gave them the name Anabaptists. Most of them insisted upon the complete separation of the Church and state and would have nothing to do with state churches.” (Cairns, pp. 333-334)

As you can see, among the few beliefs that identified the Anabaptists as a whole, none of them were unorthodox.

Philip Schaff, another authoritative church historian, plainly labels the Anabaptists as “orthodox,” naming two exceptions, “Haetzer and Denck, who doubted the doctrine of the Trinity and divinity of Christ.” (Schaff, Volume 8, Chapter 3)

ANABAPTISTS’ BELIEFS ACCORDING TO ANABAPTISTS

Although Cairns insists that it is “difficult to give an organized statement of Anabaptist beliefs,” it is not impossible to provide such a statement. Doctrinal confessions of the Anabaptists have been found. Although a few statements have been found (and they are all useful), I will refer to just one. The Anabaptist confession of faith to which I refer is the earliest Anabaptist creed, drawn up on February 24, 1527. I use this confession of faith, not merely because it is the oldest, but also because it was the most widely distributed during the time of the Reformation. Zwingli said that almost every Anabaptist had a copy in German (McGlothlin, pp. 3-9). These articles stated:

1. Belief in believer’s baptism, rather than in infant baptism.
2. Belief in strict church discipline, excommunicating those in the church who do not heed two secret exhortations.
3. Belief in “closed communion,” meaning that only those who have been baptized into the local fellowship should partake in communion.
4. Belief in separation from the world.
5. Belief in strict standards for pastors, as pastors who do not maintain a good testimony should be excommunicated.
6. Belief in non-violence.
7. Belief in abstinence of the Christian in both civil leadership and the taking of oaths.

ANABAPTISTS’ CONTRIBUTION TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

Of the three groups in the Reformation; namely, the Roman Catholics, the reformers, and the Anabaptists, the Anabaptists stood for principles that would result in religious freedom. If the Roman Catholics of the Reformation were in charge of the United States, then you and I who have been baptized AFTER confession of salvation would be drowned. The Roman Catholics of the Reformation were highly intolerant of opposition – to the point of killing their enemies.

If John Calvin were leader of the United States, you would either be Calvinist or burned at the stake. John Calvin’s leadership in Geneva proves this. It’s not a matter of “how Calvin WOULD rule;” but rather “how Calvin DID rule.” And when John Calvin was the leading citizen in Geneva, he killed many for heresy.

Anabaptists, on the other hand, were the persecuted, not the persecutors. They rejected the idea of an established church. No one should be forced to attend a state church against his or her own will. They also believed in the autonomy of the local church; that is, that the local church should be governed by its own leaders without having to answer to a pope in Rome or a reformer in Geneva. Did Anabaptists use excommunication too much? Probably so. Do I agree with their form of church government? Not entirely. However, I do agree with their premise that the local church should be independent from outside government control, and free from denominational hierarchy. One of the products of the Reformation was the formation of the established church. But the Anabaptists fought that concept from the beginning.

Baptists and Colonial America

When we think of an “established church,” we often think of the Church of England, or some nation that is known as a “Catholic” nation. However, we Americans tend to forget that some of the early colonies in America had established churches. The Plymouth Colony and the Massachusetts Bay Colony are such examples. The Dutch colony of New Netherland established the Dutch Reformed Church. Freedom of religion, in America’s earliest days, was a foreign concept.

In 1631, however, an Englishman arrived in the New World whose name was Roger Williams. Williams, upon almost immediate arrival, was called to fill the pulpit of Boston’s only church. Shockingly to some, Williams declined because of concerns. He was increasingly uneasy about the relationship between the local churches in New England and the national Church of Old England. Some insisted that the church in Boston was part of the Church of England; others insisted that it was not. Williams answered that there was no such middle ground. He called for complete separation of church and state, and this principle could not be compromised. He demanded that a church under his leadership be completely separate from government establishment and control. More than one hundred years prior, the Anabaptists were demanding separation of church and state, protesting any and every state church, pledging that none of them would ever join an established church. Then, in colonial America, Roger Williams demanded the same principle of separation of church and state, refusing leadership in a church that was not severed from the state.

Roger Williams rejected leadership in Boston, but in 1639 he went on to serve as pastor of the first Baptist church on American soil, in Providence, Rhode Island.

Friends, Americans can worship freely in any house of worship we choose. We can choose to omit worship altogether. We can change which house of worship we attend. We have such freedom of religion, and we owe thanks to the earliest Baptists for standing for such freedom, many of them paying for it with their own blood. This fourth of July, let us remember all who died for our freedoms!

Works Cited

Burrage, Henry S. A History of the Anabapists in Switzerland. American Baptist Publication Society. Philadelphia, PA. 1882.

Cairns, Earle E. Christianity Through the Centuries. Zondervan Publishing House. Grand Rapids, MI. ©1954, 1967.

Dosker, Henry Elias. The Dutch Anabaptists. The Judson Press. Philadelphia, PA. ©1921.

Eerdman’s Handbook to Christianity in America. William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company. Grand Rapids, MI. ©1983.

Hall, Tim. The Origins of Anabaptism, an Introduction. 2008 Theological Symposium.

McGlothlin, William J. Baptist Confessions of Faith. American Baptist Publication Society. Philadephia, PA. ©1911.

Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church.

Truett, George W. The Inspiration of Ideals. Eerdman’s Publishing House. ©1950.

Celebrating Christmas - Part 1

To anyone who begins reading this post, my only request is that you read both parts in their entirety. Please do not contact me regarding its contents until you have read both parts in full.

“Do you celebrate Christmas?” That is the question that people often ask me at this time of year. Before I can give a clear answer, we must have a clear question; and the fact is, we do not. Making the question clear centers around defining clearly what is meant by the phrase, “celebrating Christmas.”

By “celebrating Christmas,” if you mean, “participating in the ancient, annual pagan festivals that occurred around the 25th of December,” then, no, I do not celebrate Christmas. If “celebrating Christmas” means “celebrating Santa Claus,” then, no, I do not celebrate Christmas. If “celebrating Christmas” means “exalting the virgin Mary to a place of deity,” as our Catholic friends do, then, no, I do not celebrate Christmas.

But, if by the term, “celebrating Christmas,” you mean “rejoicing in the fact that God Almighty humbled Himself, taking upon Himself human form; taking time to worship Jesus Christ, remembering that He willingly left the splendor of heaven to live in this cold, dark world, ultimately sacrificing His own life that we might live,” then, YES, I most certainly do celebrate Christmas!

Some Hate the Message of the Birth of Christ

Just down the road from my church, there is a cultish organization, known as the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses. These so-called witnesses of Jehovah, among other ludicrous beliefs, absolutely hate the idea of anyone taking time to acknowledge the birth of Jesus Christ. I will mention this group again later, but for now, just know that they hate the idea of “celebrating Christmas.”

While driving down the road about two weeks ago, I was listening to a minister preach a sermon on the radio. I do not know the name of the minister, nor the station to which I was listening. But the man’s entire sermon was centered on the evils of acknowledging the birth of Christ. I do not know how many lost sinners were converted through this message, but I can give a good guess.

The Apostles Never Preached the Birth of Christ…REALLY?

As for the radio minister I just mentioned, one of his reasons for hating the mention of Christ’s birth was that the apostles never preached the birth of Christ. And, Christ never commissioned us to preach the birth of Christ. The apostles were always preaching the resurrection of Christ.

Okay, let us examine this for a moment. First of all, it doesn’t take much to see the hypocrisy of this statement. This radio minister just told us that the apostles never preached the birth of Christ, and that is his reason for not preaching the birth of Christ. My question to him – Did the apostles ever preach the forbiddance of preaching Christ’s birth? The answer is no. So, if this minister is going to neglect to exalt Christ’s birth because the apostles never did, then he should neglect to condemn the exaltation of Christ’s birth, because the apostles never condemned it!

Second of all, this minister’s assumption that the apostles never emphasized the birth of Christ is simply dead wrong. All four of the gospel accounts recorded the fact of Christ’s coming into this world. Matthew and Luke give detailed accounts the story of Christ’s birth. John opens His gospel account with Jesus Christ being the Word.

John 1:1 – “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

John furthermore explains that the Word was made flesh.

John 1:14 – “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

When was the Word made flesh? The answer is simple – at His conception and birth. John noted that God had been born in the flesh.

Mark makes mention of the fact that Jesus CAME in Mark 10:45. When did Jesus COME? He came when we was conceived by the Holy Ghost, and born of the virgin Mary.

Paul, the apostle who wrote the greater part of the New Testament, spoke of Christ’s coming in the flesh.

Romans 1:3 – “Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.”

Galatians 4:4 – “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.”

Philippians 2:5-8 – “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”

I Timothy 3:16 – “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”

Peter, in I Peter 4:1, speaks specifically of Christ’s suffering IN THE FLESH.

The Hebrew writer makes several references to the birth of Christ.

Hebrews 1:6 – “And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.”

Hebrews 2:9 – “But we see Jesus, WHO WAS MADE A LITTLE LOWER THAN THE ANGELS for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.”

Hebrews 2:16 – “For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.”

Hebrews 10:5 – “Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me.”

John the apostle, not only in his gospel account, but also in his first epistle, makes reference to Christ being manifested. When was Christ MANIFESTED? You got it – at this conception and birth.

I John 1:1-2 – “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)”

I John 3:5 – “And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.”

I John 3:8 – “He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.”

In addition to his gospel account and epistles, John the apostle gives a detailed perspective on the birth of the man child, Jesus Christ, in Revelation 12.

The fact of the matter is that nearly every New Testament writer, at one point or another, emphasized the great truth that God had become man. So, the claim that the apostles never recognized the birth of Christ is absurd, to put it in a nice way.

TO BE CONTINUED…

Go to Part 2