Yikes! I'm a Radical!
Reading through the eight volumes of Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church has been both informative and interesting. But in the final volume I was surprised to find out that I am a Radical. How could such a horrible thing happen? Certainly, it was not intentional. Nevertheless, it appears to be the case by the author's definition. But let's go back to the beginning—the beginning of Schaff's monumental work. In the Preface to the First Edition of Volume I, the author writes:
Having no sectarian ends to serve, I have confined myself to the duty of a witness—to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; always remembering, however, that history has a soul as well as a body, and that the ruling ideas and the general principles must be represented no less than the outward facts and dates (viii).
Mr. Schaff actually does a fair job of reporting—whether dealing with Catholicism or Protestantism. He describes what each group believes and practices and usually gives their rationale—whether he agrees with it or not. He definitely leans toward Protestantism, but he thought that all \\dquote;Christians" should be united. So, while he did not favor one particular Christian sect over another, he did have a bias toward unity which affected his thinking.
Most of Volume VII was spent on Martin Luther, although others are mentioned in connection with him. The first part of Volume VIII centers on Zwingli, whom Luther treated shabbily, and then moves on to Calvin. One major problem arose in the Protestant Reformation. It did not concern the priesthood; most of the men who were formerly priests (including Luther and Zwingli) married. The major obstacle was over the body and blood of Jesus—whether they were in fact the literal body and blood of Jesus, as the Catholics proclaimed—or elements that the Lord chose to represent His body and blood. Luther could not totally divorce himself from Catholic teaching on this issue. He insisted that the presence of Christ was in those elements, and he resented Zwingli's position that they were only emblematic of the body and blood. The two leaders agreed on just about everything else, and Zwingli was willing to fellowship Luther, but Luther was not so gracious when it came to Zwingli. This controversy was addressed in Volume VII.
Luther, of course, possessed a great influence on Germany and beyond; Zwingli was centered in Zurich, Switzerland. Now, one would think that these two men would be the epitome of tolerance—especially Luther—since they had been forced to battle the Roman Catholic Church (idealistically speaking). In fact, the early 1500s was not that far removed from the Spanish Inquisition. But it turns out that those once threatened and persecuted were not all that tolerant of those who disagreed with them once they became the majority. Schaff writes:
The Reformers refused to others the right of protest which they claimed and exercised for themselves, and the civil magistracy visited the poor Anabaptists with capital punishment (8:67).
After conveying information about Zwingli and his relationship to Luther, as well as to Roman Catholicism, Schaff now mentions how he dealt with Radicalism, a term which seems to be identical with the Anabaptists. One can only imagine what their Radicalism consisted of. Did they deny the inspiration of the Scriptures? No. Did they repudiate the resurrection? No. Did they advocate some kind of immorality? No. Part of the controversy involved baptism, but Schaff insists that the major controversy had to do with "an entire reconstruction of the church and the social order" (70). Zwingli totally disassociated himself from these Radicals, likening them to antichrists (1 John 2:19).
The Radical Position
Schaff explains what the problem was with the Anabaptists:
The Reformers aimed to redeem the old Church by the Bible; the Radicals attempted to build a new church from the Bible. The former maintained the historic continuity; the latter went directly to the apostolic age, and ignored the intervening centuries as an apostasy. The Reformers founded a popular state-church, including all citizens with their families; the Anabaptists organized on the voluntary principle select congregations of baptized believers, separated from the world and from the State. Nothing is more characteristic of radicalism and sectarianism than an utter want of historical sense and respect for the past (71).
Yikes! I'm a Radical! If we consider only these words, what was the fault of the Anabaptists? Apparently, it was the idea that it would be better to try to restore the church rather than reform it. The fact is that the church did become apostate. If it had not, the Reformers would have had nothing to reform. No one can reform something if it is still on track. The Reformers were great men to try and expunge things that the New Testament did not authorize. They came to believe, for example, that no Scripture forbade priests from marrying, but apparently they did not notice that the New Testament does not authorize a separate priesthood in the first place! All Christians are priests (1 Peter 2:5, 9).
They came to realize that the New Testament does not authorize a pope to be head over the church. Were they ignoring history when they came to that conclusion? No; one must know history to determine when that doctrine came into being. No one knew better than Schaff that the doctrine of papal infallibility came into existence in 1870, just two decades before his death. He was hopeful that the Catholic Church would renounce that doctrine, but of course it never has. But why would anyone want to reform something that had become thoroughly corrupt? Did not the efforts of the Reformers result in the existence of new churches? How much better if they had all gone back to the New Testament and begun there!
Where does one read in the New Testament of a state-church? The church that Jesus built has no association with the state. It does not depend on the state for recognition or support. If the state wishes to be friendly to the church, that is fine; Christians are subject to the state, but the state cannot tell the Lord's church what to preach, etc. We must obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). One Englishman in the movie, Chariots of Fire, said, "In my day, it was king first, God after." Jesus did not die for earthly governments (which were already in existence); He died for His spiritual body, the church (Acts 20:28). Does it make someone a Radical to want to follow the Bible?
It is indeed important to study the past—so that we will not repeat the same mistakes of our forefathers. The only way we can be the church that we read about in the New Testament is to teach what the apostles taught (Acts 2:42) and only do what the Word of God authorizes (Col. 3:17). The Bible does not authorize a pope (let alone papal infallibility), a separate priesthood, the selling of indulgences, the worship of Mary, the lighting of candles, and many other things. The Word of God does not teach the doctrine of purgatory, the idea of limbo, the misuse of the word saints, or the idea that the bread and the fruit of the vine actually become the body and blood of Jesus. These and many more doctrines were invented by men over a period of time and cannot be found in the New Testament.
Problems
Although not in the mainstream, a few Anabaptists believed in "inward inspiration, which placed their own experience above what the Bible teaches" (71). This is a false doctrine; unfortunately, many Pentecostals and charismatics hold it today. They were also overly zealous in accusing the ministers of the state-church of being mercenaries; however, they were probably correct in accusing the state-churches of being worldly and corrupt (71).
A couple of men within this group expressed views that should have been denounced immediately. Two men "doubted the doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ" (75). These doctrines were not typical of the Anabaptists, and they are seriously flawed. The concept of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit is easily seen in at least three passages—not the least of which is the great commission in Matthew 28:19-20. All three personalities are also found in 2 Corinthians 13:14 and Jude 20-21. That Jesus is God is the most well-established fact in the Bible. How anyone could even think of denying it is unfathomable. Men with such doubts could not remain for long with any group trying to please God.
Some also believed in soul-sleeping, the false doctrine that people are not conscious after death, which the account of the rich man and Lazarus plainly refutes (Luke 16:19-31). Some also believed in a millennial reign of Christ and a final restoration following that (79); this came at a time when such an idea was not popular or held by many. Why did these various ideas become associated with this religious group? The answer is likely that people had not been able to think freely for centuries. The floodgates were now open, which allowed errors in as well as truth.
Other Qualities
Schaff does list the good points of the Anabaptists even though he would prefer the state-church arrangement. He says that they preached repentance and faith (74-75), which are Scriptural concepts. Many today have just about omitted repentance, although Jesus said it was essential to salvation (Luke 13:3).
The Anabaptists practiced rigid discipline (75). They wanted the church to be pure; so they probably did not tolerate immorality. Schaff quotes Baur (who altogether sided with Zwingli) as saying that "the majority of the Swiss Anabaptists were quiet and honorable people of earnest character and unblemished reputation as citizens" (80).
Schaff further notes: "They called themselves simply 'brethren' or 'Christians.'" I must admit that I'm radical that way, also. Do people never consider that the religious names by which they refer to themselves are not in the Scriptures? Consider the following list that is not found in the Bible: Catholics, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Wesleyans, Pentecostals, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, 7th-Day Adventists, Christian Scientists, and dozens more.
What did the followers of Jesus call themselves in the New Testament? They are referred to as disciples in Matthew through Acts. They were first called Christians in Antioch (Acts 11:26). They are called brethren and saints, also. These are Scriptural designations—and the only ones we need. For what purpose would anyone desire a name that is not found in the New Testament? When some began to call themselves after Paul and Peter and Apollos, Paul asked them: "Is Christ divided?" (1 Cor. 1:12-13). If all who desire to be Christians would be content to follow the New Testament, senseless division would diminish.
Schaff acknowledges that the Anabaptists "accepted the New Testament as their only rule of faith and practice…" (75). How radical is that? They rejected the many documents of the Catholic Church; they simply wanted to do what the Scriptures taught. They rejected Catholic traditions, but they also disagreed with Luther over the "real presence" of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Sometimes it doesn't pay to disagree with everybody, but when truth is being sought, it may be required.
These Radicals were earnest and zealous, and they "emphasized the necessity of good works," which are also Biblical attitudes. However, they took it too far and said that it was possible to keep the law and reach perfection—something which John denied (1 John 1:8). We have the obligation to be perfect (Matt. 5:48), meaning mature, but we know that we constantly fall short in at least some areas.
Their main teaching which evoked hostility was with respect to baptism. No, they did not insist that it was for the forgiveness of sins. In fact, they did not even agree with the Catholics who so taught. What they insisted upon was that baptism be by immersion, a teaching which earned them the ire of just about everyone, including the historian-author, Schaff. They also rejected infant baptism, which was accepted by nearly everyone. People resisted putting truth over tradition. This column will be devoted to that subject, Lord willing, next week.