Craig Gaunt

Early Anabaptists

              One question that the church has struggled with since its beginnings is its relation to the state. After all, the church as portrayed in the New Testament never had any political power in the Roman Empire. Therefore, should Christians despise and reject all state affairs and even go so far as to claim it is the anti-Christ as some cults do? Or should the church take an active role in politics because it will help to make for a godly society on earth. The church has seen both ends of the spectrum, from being the only official imperial religion to being pushed to the absolute margins in society and pursued relentlessly. Both the early church and the early Anabaptists found themselves in the later category. The later emerged into a Europe where the church and the state overlapped greatly, so much so that the average layperson did not know where one ended and the other began.

              Before the Reformation started in the 15^th and 16^th centuries, the Roman Catholic church was the foundation for most western European societies. It was this institution that oversaw and/or governed everything through the state from marriages to taxation to civil order. Those who did not swear unquestioningly allegiance to both the church with its popes, decrees, and procedures, and the emperor were not seen as real citizens and could then face persecution by the state. In this culture, the swearing of oaths and the taking of arms to defend both church and magistrate against invaders like the Turks was the norm. The church used the state to execute justice and, as far as those in power could see, both were benefited. The church was safe and the government was holy. This model had roots all the way back to Emperor Constantine who was regarded as both defender of the Roman Empire and defender of the new state religion, Christianity. The closest parallel in modern times would be the Queen of England today. This alliance was able to give the world what an ideal, early kingdom of God would look like.

              Even after the Protestant Reformation was well under way and reformers like Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli had turned their back on both pope and emperor, they still retained the idea that church and state should have close ties in order that a truly Christian civilization can finally be realized. From Luther’s writings regarding peasant uprisings to Calvin’s community in Geneva to Zwingli’s group in Zürich, all the reformers explained that church-state relations in Catholicism was exercised wrongly. However the alternative was unthinkable for if one tried to take the church out of the government, the state would become completely secularized and the church would be pushed to the parameters of civil life and would have no one to defend her.

              It was these dangerous political ends that the Anabaptists were accused of trying to implement by their beliefs of complete separation of the church and state. Therefore, the early Anabaptists were not charged as being religious heretics as much as they were accused of being politically seditious. There were charged (wrongly) with trying to overthrow their respected governments and bring anarchy to the land. The Anabaptists’ writings show they wanted neither of these and simply desired to follow Luther’s original conviction to practice faith freely by following one’s conscience and the Word of God without compulsion. They accepted Luther’s starting point of sola gratia and sola scriptura but rejected Constantinian unity in favor of the New Testament image of the church containing those who would consciously follow Jesus.[1] In fact, the Anabaptists criticized many of the Reformers for not going far enough in following what Christ has commanded in the Bible. For this, Anabaptists were branded “radical reformers”.

The Fall

To trace how the Anabaptists regarded the state and a Christian’s participation within, it helps to take a look at what point in time they viewed the church becoming corrupted. This occurred under Emperor Constantine who started a trend that promoted an idea that the church and the state should be a tight-knit unity. This continued until the Reformation, and kings were also seen as vicars of Christ, even using priestly vestments as a sign of their nobility and sovereignty.[2] However, there were some voices in the church that opposed this union even from its beginning, including figures such as Tertullian, Ambrose, Augustine, and Athanasius.[3] They saw their emperor as a member of the church but not its head.[4]

Later, after the Roman Empire had collapsed in the West, the popes of the church continued to wield power in civil life, climaxing under Pop Innocent III when higher clergy also acted as secular rulers.[5] Not only this, but infant baptism was required for a person to be a member of the church and a citizen of the state.[6] This was seen as both the main pinnacle and the last straw for the church falling from grace in the Anabaptist mindset. Compulsion was used to have conformity n the church, but nobody’s lives were changing from the power of the gospel.

As it was mentioned earlier, the situation under the Reformers was not much different, only that it was a different state church that was in charge. Many of the early Anabaptists lived under Zwingli who thought that one had to be a Christian for a political career to be truly legit.[7] He argued that one can use political means for Christian ends because the kingdom of God works through chosen tools and institutions including government.[8] He created a system that fused politics with religion in a way that he thought glorified both. He stood against war but conspired a military advancement because he viewed the ends of glorifying both gospel and government as justifying any means.[9] Later on in his writings, Zwingli believed that God’s peace could only be achieved through war and religious war at that.[10] It was all for the gospel and the glory of Zürich. Zwingli even went so far as to say that rulers were Christians so long as they governed by Natural Law or the “Golden Rule” which allowed them to wield the sword and equated them with the same status as believers.[11] He argued that Christians living in any society should demand and have a right to a Christian ruler that should use the sword to punish civil law-breakers but should also be an example to follow.[12] He reasoned that if the ruler of a Christian society is not himself a Christian then the only result would be chaos (keep in mind that Zwingli was basing this on the Old Testament model that the people of Israel would be punished if the king sinned and therefore the king represented the nation to God).[13]

Remedy? “Come out of her oh my people” (Rev. 18:4)

In this culture, the Anabaptists had the desire to “take back” the church and rebuild it on the faith of the early apostles and not the state, because the church is built on Christ and nothing else (1 Cor. 3:11).[14] Their idea of baptism was that it was a public expression of a personal decision to accept Christ and follow Him only. It was also seen as a confirmation of the individual’s desire to be brought under the authority of the church. They argued religious reform through government decrees does not only fail at bringing about a truly repentant heart, but it is not where in the New Testament or seen in the lives of Jesus or any of the disciples.[15] Additionally, infant baptism was the foundation of the church-state model. For the Anabaptists however, it was an abomination and the basis for the fact that the church was behaving unethically.[16] If an infant was baptized then he/she had no opportunity to come to Christ by faith and follow Him in obedience. They would never know what it was like to have been truly changed by the gospel because they would have grown up in the church their whole life. Plus, infant baptism was also not seen anywhere in Scripture and the fact that it required a pope to confirm it shows that it was not standard practice in the earliest days of the church.[17] However, despite not being able to defend the practice from Scripture (which is only what the Anabaptists required), Zwingli would not give up the practice. It was a reflection of mentality that many early reformers had that to have the church without the state was unheard of and impossible.

The question for these new separatists then became, well how then should Christians take our cue from Scripture when it comes to regarding the state? It has already been noted that citizens of any magistrate in Europe were required to take oaths of allegiance and bear the sword when either their province or the church was in danger. When the question came of government and bearing the sword, the Anabaptists were in agreement on one thing: the state was ordained by God and had authority to execute His judgment. Sticking with Scripture alone, this came from Romans 13. The state exists to make an orderly society among evil unbelievers and protect the good.[18] In this regard, the Anabaptists and Reformers were on equal footing.[19] Furthermore, the Anabaptists saw government as an expression of God’s love because He has contained effects of the fall of Adam and wants peace among sinful mankind.[20] This justifies governments’ existence. Despite numerous government persecutions from Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, and Zwinglians, it is safe to say that the early Anabaptists were in no way anarchists, and some groups even said they would support a magistrate only if they obeyed the Bible.[21] Plus, Anabaptists paid their taxes as they knew Scripture commanded. However, Conrad Grebel summarized the mentality of several early believers in regards to government when he said that, while government is necessary to control the unbelieving evil world, true Christians do not need a government because they have only one Lord, Jesus, and they are to be behaving like Him.[22]

With the above mentality, the Anabaptists wanted separation not for its own sake but for the sake of freedom to pursue a lifestyle that Christ has called His followers to.[23] To them, a community separate from the world but engaged with its culture while being ruled from on high was exactly what God had in mind for reaching the world.[24] This model of community has backing in both Testaments as both Israel and the church were to understand themselves as being means to reach out to a broken world and exemplifying God by their existence. The Anabaptists saw obedience to God would naturally lead to separation from the world (2 Cor. 6:17; John 17:14; Rom. 12:1-2). The Anabaptists wanted the kingdom of God on His terms rather than take the approach of Catholics and Protestants of the time who tried to blend His kingdom with the world’s governments. Plus, they viewed the Reformation had failed ethically and were not impressed by state churches.[25] They wanted to follow Jesus not just doctrinally but ethically, not just by reciting a confession of faith (which was part of their beliefs) but living as He did. They viewed that to rationalize away Jesus’ example in the New Testament is to be denying either his complete divinity or complete humanity, both of which where regarded as heresies in the early church. The Anabaptists could not see how any magistrate or church could compartmentalize Christ’s teachings for the private realm, act differently in the public sphere, and yet still call themselves Christians.[26] The burden was on them, not the Anabaptists to prove their case that Jesus called for one way of life in one sphere of influence and for another in a different sphere.[27]

This is why they believed that the present churches were not following Scripture alone because, while some claimed the Bible could not be lived out completely because of textual confusion, Anabaptists responded by saying it was because the Bible called for holiness of life which was not wanted by powerful churches and members.[28] If one had to default to a secular authority to help interpret Scripture and apply it so one does not have to obey everything, then it is dishonoring God’s Word and doing a disservice to self.[29] For the Anabaptist, obedience is both a goal and a requirement to do proper hermeneutics of Scripture because unbelievers did not have the proper reference point to understand deeper biblical truths.[30]

Different Approaches

              The Anabaptists facing persecution now had to look at how a believer is to live a faithful life to Christ while being persecuted by governments that Scripture presents as having been ordained by God. The early believers had two ways of approaching Scripture: the more literal (letter) and more allegorical (spirit). The more literal Anabaptists groups were in Switzerland and one of their more prominent figures was Michael Sattler, an ex-Benedictine monk. He wrote that there were two kingdoms in today’s world ruled by two different yet not equally powerful princes, Christ and Satan.[31] Therefore, the church must separate from the state in order to regain her purity as the bride of Christ.[32] Sattler did not agree with the taking of oaths for any reason, basing this conviction on a literal interpretation of Matt. 5:33-37. He also wrote that Christians should not wield the sword because this was the role of government.[33] In Anabaptist thinking, the government did have the power to execute criminals and this is why they rejected participation in governmental affairs entirely because the taking of another life was not permissible for a Christian.[34] They had also experienced the sad fact that when the two institutions are together, the church becomes secularized rather than the state becoming sanctified. Rather, Sattler argued that believers should use the ban, modeled in Matt. 18:15-18. A Christian does not have as their first allegiance a human king but Christ the eternal King.[35] Therefore, a Christian should act as Christ while the world follows the devil and the politics of the world. The Anabaptist waged war with the sword of the Spirit.[36] As one can see, the Swiss Brethren position was very Christocentric and this became the majority position for most Anabaptists.

              Any attempts to justify the traditional model of the church and state by appealing to the Old Testament was rejected by these early believers because the role of a religious government like that of a theocracy present in the Old Testament was no where to be found in the New.[37] Additionally, the Anabaptists saw the arrival of Christ as having inaugurated a whole new age in history that has done away with the old practices, for even Christ said that He had come to fulfill the Law (Matt. 5:17-20).[38] Therefore, the goal of a Christian should not be to establish a worldly kingdom of God but to follow Christ diligently in order to reach a kingdom “not of this world” (John 18:36). Therefore, the Schleitheim Confession acknowledged the state as both “an order of God’ but also outside the “perfection of Christ” presenting a dualistic picture.[39] The Anabaptists were aware of the paradox this created but did not try at all to solve it, choosing to simply trust God when they had no response.[40] However, they were not hostile to any of the few local magistrates who were willing to protect them. While they did argue that government is outside of Christ’s perfection, believers were allowed to enjoy the temporal benefit from its protection.[41] This made the Anabaptists vulnerable to other citizens’ accusations that they are not willing to work by taking up arms for the freedom and safety they enjoy. These accusations still remain today.

In looking at the taking of oaths, these believers saw not only scriptural justification but an anthropological one as well. When one takes an oath, one is calling upon one’s own strength to keep that oath. This is not the biblical picture of humanity; rather humankind can do nothing without the help of God so to take an oath would be dishonoring God because it fails to recognize His benevolence.[42]

              Although the writings of Sattler, Grebel, and the Schleitheim confession helped to establish modern Anabaptist theology in regards to the state, there were others who were not fanatical separatists. One was Hans Denck who fell on the “spirit” end of the scriptural spectrum mentioned earlier, and this showed that even among early Anabaptists there was rarely a consensus view about anything. In regard to taking oats, Denck argued that the Scriptures are not as clear as Sattler would promote, and it is permissible to call on God for things past as well as for truth-telling but not future (2 Cor. 1:23).[43] Speaking on the matter of taking arms, Denck said that nonviolence is the only way for a Christian, but this is based on the love of Christ and not a rigid interpretation of Scripture.[44] Therefore, Denck believed that a Christian should listen to the Holy Spirit within them, or the “Inner Word” over the “outer word” of written Scripture. Denck allowed for “loving political service” so long as one was not overtly going against their convictions.[45]

              Next, there were those who tried to establish a middle way that stressed both the inner and outer word to build a theology and system of ethics. The main one was Pilgrim Marpeck. Against the spiritualists, Marpeck emphasized “the incarnate Christ & the necessity of visible church ordinances.”[46] To respond to the literalism, he stressed freedom of the Spirit and centrality of Christ’s love in a believer’s faith.[47] Marpeck allowed for benign government service and was against the policing of taking oaths, choosing to stress the inner transformation of a person through Christ.[48]

              The most sympathetic Anabaptist group to the Reformer’s idea of church and government was lead by Balthasar Hubmaier. Hubmaier argued that trying to follow every example of Christ is foolish because a Christian has limitations and we still are mortals living in the kingdom of the world.[49] Therefore, to live as Jesus did would be impossible. The second objection that Hubmaier had was that Jesus had a specific mission on the earth and that was to die for the sins of the world so His earthly example as that role cannot be binding on all people.[50] After all, a Christian being crucified and dying is not going to save anyone’s soul from death. Finally, Hubmaier taught that God has ordained harmony not tension and strife between two kingdoms, and God can work through a secular government.[51]

              The history of Anabaptist relations to the state can be seen through Snyder’s five models. Hubmaier, wanting to attempt the Reformation model of church and state, tried to establish a community in Waldshut then Nicholsburg Moravia in which Anabaptistism would be the only official religion, but this did not last long.[52] There was a community in Munster that was governed by the apocalyptic Anabaptists that executed policies similar to the Reformation governments including expelling and excommunicating dissenters, but this was a small group.[53] There was a zero-tolerance mindset in the Hapsburg territories where the believers were hunted down and eradicated by any means necessary. In the German territories, official policy was no tolerance while unofficially they allowed the Anabaptists to be underground.[54] Finally, the Moravian policy was one of open toleration but rather than being accepting of the believers’ faith, this was only to achieve economic ends.[55] During these numerous persecutions in different places from many different denominations, thousands of believers were slaughtered and martyred. This was also a reason why the Anabaptists did not want to take up the sword because they saw an inherent hypocrisy throughout Europe when the church was not practicing the model of Jesus but their own political interests to secure their religious grip on the communities. 

Modern Times

              The Anabaptist tradition has always tried to be base its theology on one thing, the Bible. Specifically they followed the New Testament because this chronicled the life of Jesus and the early days of the church which was seen by the believers as the ideal. It is here Anabaptists formulated its mentality regarding the state for, as Hillerbrand notes, in the Scriptures there is no evidence that Christians participated in government.[56] In fact, Christ says that His followers are not to lord power over others like the Gentiles (Matt. 20:25-28). He himself exemplified this when he served those who the rest of the world had forgotten about and also fled when the people tried to make Him king by force (John 6:14, 15). He gave up any authority as God that He had and died a shameful death on a cross. The church should not use the sword because it is meant to suffer as its Head suffered. This was a lesson that the medieval church with its wealth and comfort had come to forget over the years. Additionally, God loves His enemies and this love is shown in the cross and atonement. Because God’s love is seen on the cross, this is proof that God mercifully accepts enemies, and He wants us to treat our enemies likewise. A final reason why Anabaptists could not participate in government was that the only duty the Bible outlined for a Christian’s participation in the “world” was that of the Great Commission and missionary effort.

              Anabaptists both then and now also called for their governments to remember their place according to the model God has established. They were opposed to both coercion and compulsion in religion because it was against the biblical model of leading people to Christ. However, they also shunned revolution to the government because they knew they could not bring good out of their own strength.[57] They regarded it as David regarded Saul when he was being pursued and persecuted by the fallen king: they would not lay a hand against God’s appointed tool of authority. On the contrary, they understood the church by the biblical model of sheep, and sheep could not defend themselves.[58] The Anabaptists viewed the church as having a martyr’s destiny modeled after the suffering Christ, and every true believer who followed Jesus’ example faced a third baptism; there was Spirit, water, and blood which was martyrdom.[59] The church is meant to be a visible, public reality that speaks to its culture with biblical morals and values.[60]

              The Anabaptists further resisted the sword because it destroys all possibility of repentance and an opportunity to convert and follow Christ. Violence only bred more violence, and the believers never accept the explanation that violence is sometimes necessary because we live in a fallen world. They saw no justification using this logic but were committed to overcoming evil with good. Indeed, how could churches be faithful to Christ when they used the sword even against each other which only led to death rather than the ban which was designed to reclaim and restore?[61] How could churches force its members to swear oaths of allegiance to any other head than Christ?

              The Anabaptists, by their protests and separation actually may have led to the downfall of feudal Christendom and the rise of religious liberty that even great clergy like Luther wanted for himself but no one else. By establishing themselves as a free church, it gave them an opportunity to experience the power of the pure, unhindered gospel of Christ that saves souls and changes lives.[62] They swore no other allegiance but to Christ. By challenging the idea that it is a Christian’s duty to participate in war, they called into question the exploitation some states used by saying that it was God’s will that war be waged and any who refused is not a true believer.[63] By rejecting governmental hierarchies, they were able to implement a biblical model of social power and community that could gather together to discern God’s will.[64] It is little wonder then that they were known as “radical reformers” because they took sola scriptura to its extreme end and were willing to forsake the world entirely in order to follow Christ daily.

              They saw Jesus as forming a new community that loves enemies, acts with justice, respects the poor, and challenges the rich. Very rarely, if ever, has any human government throughout history done any of these let alone all of them. Thus, the Anabaptists rejected the idea of believers participating with government because rather than an individual successfully reforming the state institution, more often it is the institution corrupting the believer because it forces them to make choices that must be made but are ultimately not godly. However, examining the changes in governments’ roles in society over the years is also worth considering. Medieval magistrates were concerned with the maintenance of their army, collecting taxes, keeping order, and upholding law. In many of the countries that Anabaptists are located, they also have programs involving insurance, health care, roads, poverty alienation, children’s rights, etc. Kemeny argues that believers can cooperate in these fields without compromising their beliefs.[65] The current author believes this as well but only to a point. While they may not admit it, government organizations have underlying ideals and ideologies that guide what their employees can and cannot say/do. They are more concerned with being politically correct then anything near godliness. Hence, while not forcing anyone to renounce their faith upon entering, working in secular government positions can slowly erode convictions or cause one to loose faith altogether.

              The Anabaptist paradigm also included other socially-related issues not being able to be covered in this paper including economic injustices and the policy among believers that they ought to share all they had with each other because they wanted to obey the model of the early church and because for them, spirituality and economics were intertwined. For the Swiss brethren, owning private property is not for the selfishness of the owner but should be used for the church and those who were in it. This was viewed as highly peculiar by outsiders at best and, not surprisingly, seditious at worst.

Anabaptists simply wanted to follow Jesus and the Scriptures, and they accused the Reformers of not going far enough and compromising biblical principles for political interests. Especially in the realm of baptism, they were alone in their belief of baptizing adults only and deplored infant baptism as they felt is was a repugnance and led no one to the foot of the cross. The Anabaptist desired only to practice their faith freely and without persecution. They also regarded the state as having polluted the church and the only solution was to cut ties between the two. However, they never saw the state as being so holy that it was anywhere comparable to Christ or so damned that it was no longer ordained by God. in short, they saw government as a necessary tool to protect good and punish evil but that is the only role it was to have. Indeed, it was to have no part in enforcing religious dogma, convicting people’s hearts of their wrongs, or trying to establish and earthly kingdom of God. The Anabaptists saw in history that when the church’s practices became state regulated, it no longer sprang forth from an individual’s heart leading to a holy life.

These Christians have many good points to teach us in this country today. Many believers of other denominations become incredibly frustrated and discouraged when certain godly political policies are voted down or not enacted. They view that the outer culture must become more Christian before the gospel can impact anyone. The Anabaptists, unlike the other denominations, never had state backing throughout their existence. To the disgruntled believers, they would answer that all one needs is to have faith and obey Christ in everything. Through this, the gospel is seen in a believer’s life which will start turning heads because it is counter-cultural. Jesus never was anointed an earthly king, but He and His disciples armed with God’s Word in their hearts and no other power spread the message of God’s love and redemption. All human empires have faded into dust but the kingdom of God still stands because, rather than depend on government, Christ is its supreme Governor.