Why I Don’t Freak Out About the Anabaptists

I have surprised some folks in the last few days by arguing that I believe some Continental Anabaptists likely had some theological influence on the first English Baptists. This doesn’t really surprise me. As previously noted, most contemporary historians reject (or at least downplay) any connection between Anabaptists and Baptists. It probably also surprises some readers that I am a Calvinist who thinks we probably learned (or at least resonated with) a thing or two from the very non-Calvinistic Anabaptists.

I thought I would follow-up my case for a convergent view of Baptist origins (see here and here) with an explanation of why I don’t fret over the strong possibility of some Anabaptist influence upon the first Baptists. To that end, I offer the following qualifications:

Qualification 1: When I speak of Anabaptists, I do not mean every group that would be considered part of the so-called radical reformation. In his magisterial The Radical Reformation, George Huntston Williams divides the radical reformation into three broad categories: Anabaptists, Spiritualists, and Evangelical Rationalists. The groups that comprised the latter two categories were mystical, heretical, or both.

William Estep furthered the discussion in his excellent The Anabaptist Story by differentiating between “normative” Anabaptism and radical aberrations. The normative Anabaptists included movements and individuals like the Swiss Brethren, Balthasar Hubmaier, Menno Simons, and Pilgram Marpeck. In my courses, I refer to these as mainstream Anabaptists. The Dutch Mennonites who interacted with the English Baptists were heirs to the normative/mainstream Anabaptist tradition(s).

So when I refer to Anabaptists, I do not mean antipedobaptist revolutionaries like Thomas Müntzer or the Zwickau Prophets or tragedies like the Münster Rebellion. The antipedobaptist revolutionaries did not actually embrace believer’s baptism; they simply rejected infant baptism. In other words, they were not actually Anabaptists. In the case of the Münster Rebellion, that was actually an apocalyptic movement that was an aberration among Anabaptists, who of course tended more toward pacifism and separatism.

Here’s a good historical axiom we should all heed: one should never define movements by their lunatic fringe or worst moments. Though the analogy is not perfect, it seems to me that those who dismiss all Anabaptists because of the Peasant’s Revolt or the Münster Rebellion are like those who dismiss Calvinism because Servetus was burned at the stake in Geneva. It just doesn’t hold water.

Qualification 2: When I speak of Anabaptist influence, I am speaking primarily about matters related to ecclesiology. Mainstream Anabaptists embraced some theological oddities and even heterodoxies. The community of goods, the ban, and pacifism are oddities, at least in my mind. Menno Simons’ belief in the so-called “celestial flesh of Christ” (which he picked up from the apocalyptic Melchior Hoffman) was heterodox.

As a general rule the earliest Baptists rejected community of goods, the ban, and pacifism. They also rejected the Anabaptist idea that Christians could not serve as magistrates. Some of the early (and later) General Baptists regrettably followed Menno’s bizarre Christology, which to me is clear evidence of influence by, or at least affinity for, Anabaptism.

Though the early Baptists disagreed with the Anabaptists on any number of points, they did embrace Anabaptist-like ecclesiology. Of course they agreed with the Anabaptists on believer’s baptism. But Baptists also agreed with Anabaptists on regenerate church membership, congregational church polity, religious liberty, and freedom of conscience. Now admittedly these latter Baptist/Anabaptist distinctives were also found among the English Separatists. But that doesn’t really matter because I am not arguing that Baptists “got” any of their convictions–even baptism–from the Anabaptists. I merely contend that the Anabaptists influenced the Baptists, even if they were also influenced by the Separatist movement. In fact, I think the Anabaptist influence was less significant and substantive than the Separatist influence. But there is a difference between “less” and “none.”

Qualification 3: When I speak of the relationship between Anabaptist ecclesiology and Baptist ecclesiology, I am not suggesting that the latter uncritically appropriated the practices of the former. This was obviously not the case. For example, the earliest General Baptists practiced believer’s baptism by pouring, just like the particular Anabaptist sect that influenced them. But as early as 1614 you had General Baptists like Leonard Busher arguing for immersion, a view that at the very least he did not get from the Anabaptists that had influenced his congregation (they poured). Besides this example, I have already mentioned other ecclesiological variations like Baptists not forbidding believers to serve as magistrates and rejecting the ban as an appropriate church disciplinary practice.

Qualification 4: When I speak of the relationship between Anabaptists and Baptists, I am not suggesting that all Baptists were influenced to the same degree by their Anabaptist forebears. To be clear, I think the General Baptists were influenced more than the Particular Baptists.

But–and this is a big “but”–that is not to say that the Anabaptists had zero influence on the Particular Baptists. Richard Blunt traveled to Holland to confer with a group of immersing Mennonites (and possibly was immersed by them) before he led in the immersing of some members of the J-L-J Church in the early 1640s. Furthermore, there were Particular Baptists who had enough affinity for Anabaptism (and even the Quakers!) that there was movement back and forth between the two groups until after the English Civil War.

It is common today to argue that the 17th century Particular Baptists were more or less Puritans (or better, Independents) who dunked, and that is partly true. But this was not the case for all first generation Calvinistic Baptists. It was not until the Restoration of Charles II in 1660 that various Calvinistic evangelicals realized they had more in common than different. This is why the Second London Confession of 1677 was based upon the (Congregationalist) Savoy Declaration of 1660, which in turn was based upon the (Presbyterian) Westminster Confession of 1647. We must be careful not to read the theological precision of 1677 back into the 1640s and 1650s; simply put, early Particular Baptists were a diverse lot, as were their General Baptist cousins.

To summarize, I do not believe there is any historical reason to ignore Anabaptist influence upon the Baptists, though I also do not wish to see an overemphasis on this point. As I mentioned in my previous article, I suspect there are several reasons for contemporary hesitancy in this matter. Some Baptists shudder at Anabaptist sectarianism. So do I. Some Calvinistic Baptists are uncomfortable with the Anabaptist emphasis on libertarian free will, sometimes de-emphasis of justification by faith, and fuzziness on substitutionary atonement. Ditto. Lots of Baptists are skittish about the lunatic fringe of Anabaptism. You betcha. And some seem to suspect there are present attempts to “Anabaptize” the SBC. And there may be. But none of this changes what I think is good historical evidence that the earliest Baptists were influenced, to varying degrees, by some Anabaptists.

I don’t freak out about the Anabaptists. And neither should you.

Toward a Convergent View of Baptist Origins, Part 2

2009 marks the 400th anniversary of the founding of the modern Baptist movement in 1609. This year will witness a plethora of conferences, symposia, books, articles, pamphlets, and even sermons devoted to the history and theology of the Baptists. I hope to weigh in from time to time with short articles, book reviews, and random musings about the past four centuries. This material was first published a little over two years ago at my former blog, The Fullness of Time, under the title “The Question of Baptist Origins.” Though my views have not changed, I have made several revisions and have divided the material into two separate articles. This is the second article.

As noted in my previous article, I argue for a fifth understanding of Baptist origins that, I believe, includes the various strengths of the other four views while avoiding their respective weaknesses. I call it a convergent view of Baptist origins. Though there are few scholars that currently hold this view, I sense there is a growing trend in this direction. I also suspect there are many who basically hold this view, but think they fall into one of the other four categories.

Let me begin with a caveat that affects my entire reading of this issue: we will never be able to establish a hard-and-fast historical connection between Baptists and earlier movements, including Anabaptists. I think historians such as Steven Wright have shown that the “paper trail” is sketchy and debatable and the historical milieu was complicated and fluid. I prefer the approach of historical theologians such as James Leo Garrett who prefer to focus on theological affinity (which I think presumes at least indirect influence) rather than firmly established organic continuity.

Think of the Baptist tradition as a great river, like the Amazon. A number of tributaries flow into that river. The tributaries are separate from each other and the river itself, but they flow into the river. As they do so, the tributaries create something that is related to them in some respects, yet at the same time is entirely different; the river is the sum of all its tributaries.

This illustration depicts what I argue occurred with the 17th century English Baptists. The Baptists were a historically new movement (river) that was influenced to varying degrees by a number of other movements (tributaries). This influence was primarily in the realm of ideas, particularly theological ideas. And even within the category of theological ideas, most of the influence was ecclesiological in nature.

The earliest Baptists were first and foremost English Separatists who came to baptistic convictions. As good Protestants, they came to these convictions through their reading of Scripture. We should rightly emphasize the English Separatist roots of the Baptist movement and not downplay the role that the Bible played in shaping Baptist convictions.

But the earliest Baptists were aware that they were not the first baptistic Christians since the New Testament era. In fact, just like us they were aware that there had at least occasionally been free church movements in church history. Some of these groups likely immersed, though there is evidence that there were soteriological deficiencies and other shortcomings among the independent medieval sects. But Baptists knew that they were not taking a historically novel step in arguing for religious liberty, believer’s churches, and credobaptism.

Even more importantly, Baptists recognized that the Continental Anabaptists had recently rejected infant baptism, mixed membership, and state churches. Furthermore, both General and Particular Baptists actually interacted with these Anabaptists, though the Arminians appeared to have been more inclined to such interaction than the Calvinists. It seems very unlikely that the Anabaptists had no influence on the earliest Baptists.

Add to the mix the milieu in which the earliest Baptists found themselves: a century in which England was filled with various forms of political radicalism, ecclesiastical reform movements, theological innovation, and a multiplicity of sects. These movements interacted with each other and at times even cross-pollinated each other, resulting in what historian Christopher Hill calls “a world turned upside down.” This was certainly true of the Baptists, where even the line between Calvinists and Arminians were not neatly drawn until after the English Civil War, though that is another discussion for another day.

For these reasons, I am in favor of breaking out of the too-simplistic either/or approaches to Baptist origins (Anabaptists versus English Separatists, apostolic origins versus post-Reformation origins). The portrait is too complicated for tidy answers.

The English Baptists represent the culmination of the reformation era, agreeing with the basic evangelical soteriology of the magisterial reformers and some Anabaptists and the radical ecclesiology of the orthodox Anabaptists and some English Separatists. They also recognized and appreciated that some medieval sects were correct in at least some aspects of their ecclesiology. But Baptists did not agree with these positions because they were affirmed by Waldenses, Lutherans, Reformed, or Anabaptists, but because Baptists believed an evangelical gospel and a free believers’ church represented the heart of New Testament Christianity.

The question of Baptist origins is best answered with a both/and rather than an either/or. The 400th anniversary of the Baptist movement seems like a great time to rethink our origins and appreciate the polygenetic theological roots of the Christian people called Baptists.

Toward a Convergent View of Baptist Origins, Part 1

2009 marks the 400th anniversary of the founding of the modern Baptist movement in 1609. This year will witness a plethora of conferences, symposia, books, articles, pamphlets, and even sermons devoted to the history and theology of the Baptists. I hope to weigh in from time to time with short articles, book reviews, and random musings about the past four centuries. This material was first published a little over two years ago at my former blog, The Fullness of Time, under the title “The Question of Baptist Origins.” Though my views have not changed, I have made several revisions and have divided the material into two separate articles.

There are at least four different views about Baptist origins. One view, which we might call the spontaneous origins view, claims that at least two groups of English dissenters in 17th century England and Amsterdam were reading their Bibles and came to the conviction that the Bible teaches the baptism of professing believers either by pouring or immersion (eventually just by immersion). We now call those dissenters Baptists.

This view is appealing in that it takes the idea of biblical authority seriously–wherever Baptists came from, you can bet they were reading their Bibles as they made their decisions. But I think this view is too simplistic as it virtually divorces theology and practice from its historical context.

The second view argues for Baptists’ apostolic origins. This view has often been called “Landmarkism” since the mid-19th century, though belief in the apostolic origin of Baptists predates the formal Landmark movement. Proponents of this view argue that there have always been Baptist (or baptistic) churches. Furthermore, most Landmarkers contend that these baptistic congregations are the true churches over against medieval Catholicism and later Protestants because baptistic churches alone presumably retained believer’s baptism by immersion and rejected the Constantinian union of church and state.

There are two variations of the apostolic origins view. Some claim there is a historical succession of baptistic churches from the New Testament era to the present day. This version is popularly called the “Trail of Blood” (based on a 1931 booklet of that title) and is basically the Baptist version of apostolic succession, though churchly authority is passed through ecclesiological continuity rather than episcopal continuity. Others argue for a perpetuity of Baptist principles or distinctives. Proponents of this variation admit that this perpetuity cannot necessarily be historically verified via a succession of churches, but nevertheless they argue for this view based on their understanding of Matthew 16:18-19.

The strength of the apostolic origins view is that it rightly recognizes that immersion was not “lost” sometime between 100 and 400, only to be “rediscovered” sometime between 1525 and 1641. From time to time there have been movements that embraced believer’s baptism and rejected Constantinianism. The weaknesses of this view include its historical unverifiability, its tendency to “de-church” other traditions, and its penchant for taking almost any sectarian movement during the middle ages and attempting to make them card-carrying Baptists based upon their rejection of the majority tradition.

A third option, which is currently enjoying something of a revival in many circles, is often called the Anabaptist kinship view. This view argues for historical continuity between certain Continental Anabaptists and the English Baptists. Naturally advocates of the apostolic origins view argue for Anabaptist kinship, but so do many scholars who reject the presuppositions of Landmarkism. Non-Landmark proponents of this view argue that English Baptists are more in continuity with the orthodox wing of the so-called radical reformation than the mainstream Protestant reformations, all of which continued to affirm pedobaptism and articulated some version of church-state union.

The strength of the Anabaptist kinship view is that it recognizes that there was definitely substantive interaction between the earliest Baptists (both General and Particular) and some Continental Anabaptists. There were also some Anabaptists in England, a fact which surely did not escape the first Baptists. One weakness of this view is that some proponents ignore, or at least downplay, the earliest Baptists’ historical roots in the English Separatist movement. Whatever their relationship with Anabaptists, the first Baptists were definitely Separatists who started pouring/immersing believers instead of sprinkling infants. A second weakness is that advocates sometimes over-emphasize the relationship between the Anabaptists and the Baptists, resulting in the latter being depicted as more or less the English-speaking version of the Anabaptist movement.

The fourth option, which is presently the dominant understanding among historians, argues for English Separatist origins. This view claims that Baptists are not radical reformers like Anabaptists, but are actually one type of dissenter among many in 17th century England; specifically, the non-sprinkling kind. Baptists are seen as third generation Protestants that happen to share some ecclesiological convictions with some Anabaptists.

The strength of the English Separatist origins view is that it recognizes that the organic roots of Baptists are found in Separatism rather than Anabaptism or earlier baptistic groups. A second strength of this view is that it correctly notes that some of the earliest Baptists, especially the Particular Baptists, went to great lengths to distance themselves from Anabaptism. But this view also has its weaknesses. First, this position often ignores, or at least downplays, any influence from Anabaptists or similar pre-1525 movements. Second, at times proponents of this view seem to be ideologically driven. Some moderates interested in the ecumenical movement seem to want to downplay any connection Baptists have with Anabaptist sectarianism, while many of Calvinist convictions apparently want to reject any influence from a decidedly non-Calvinistic movement like the Anabaptists.

In my next post, I will make the case for an understanding of Baptist origins that I have dubbed the convergent view. I will argue that a convergent view is the best way to account for the beginnings of the Baptist movement.