March 09, 2009
An Anabaptist Attitude
Today there is a radical resurgence of Calvinistic, Reformed thought. A simple visit to a Christian bookseller or a careful listen to Christian radio reveals that dispensational, Baptist positions are becoming increasingly rare ~ Chuck Phelps, Maranatha Baptist Bible College
This implies, of course, that Calvinism is the same as Reformed, that Calvinism is incompatible with Dispensationalism, that Calvinism is incompatible with Baptist. And so forth.
Not all Calvinists are the same, Chuck.
I’m Calvinist, yes, but I have an Anabaptist attitude. I am not so much a part of the hip “young, restless, and Reformed” Calvinists today with the cold beer in one hand and an iPhone in the other to be too cool to be unpopular and to be unabashedly committed to certain Anabaptist principles. Nor am I such a sycophantic admirer of the Reformed establishmentarianism that I disavow any admiration of, or any spiritual kinship to, many of our Anabaptist forbears. In fact, it’s my Anabaptist attitude that makes me not like it when men in para-church organizations use their place of prominence to start making sweeping, broad-brushing insinuations about very particular labels and specific convictions that I cherish among a people I cherish, fundamentalists.
I’m a Calvinist, indeed. I’m also a strong, local church man, a Baptist, and, yes, I am absolutely a fundamentalist. And, ironically, it’s my Anabaptist attitude that is stirred up by statements coming from MBBC and the FBF that, by implication if not direct statement, try to lump anyone who does not agree with them to the letter on soteriology and church polity as a threat to historic fundamentalism. It is, indeed, a threat to their weak, powerless, and failing fundamentalism, but it is patently false to frighten people by suggesting that those who are Calvinistic in soteriology and those who are committed to a different understanding of church leadership are abandoning the fundamentals of Fundamentalist and Baptist heritage.
I am perfectly happy to include them under my umbrella. They are Baptists and Fundamentalists; but when they say by implication that we are not Baptists or Fundamentalists unless we lock-step with them on these two areas then they are no longer historically accurate. It’s pure politics from here on out.
Hopefully, this little entry will help you begin to organize your thoughts when labels start flying.
There seems to be a reaction to the J.M. Carroll bizarreries in Baptist thought that has resulted in a categorical denial of any kind of influence whatsoever of Anabaptist thought in Baptist history and development, or for that matter their undeniable contribution to all free churches everywhere in our modern era. I think this is problematic on several levels, but it is not my purpose in this post to explain my reasons for that here.
Instead, I would like to give my readers a simple explanation of the good Anabaptists (because there was a host of bad ones) and why I think that their spirit should live on in today’s controversies within Calvinistic evangelicalism and quasi-Arminian fundamentalism. It’s about both the helpfulness and unhelpfulness of labels. For some, this will be an over simplification of a very complex subject. For all, however, I hope that the simplification does not divert from the facts, but rather elucidates the reality of 16th Century Christianity and its relevance for today.
In order to do this, I would suggest that everyone learn the “3 R’s of the 16th Century Christian World.” Looking back over five centuries into the 16th Century you can basically lump anyone who professed Christ into one of three categories as shown below: Roman, Reformed, or Radical. These are labels.
We won’t spend much time on the first two categories, but I think it is helpful to see a graphic of the first two “R’s” to understand more fully the complexity of the last category, the Radicals. The labels get less and less useful, or at least more complex, as we move from left to right in our graph. The professors of Christ who clung to the Roman Church are easily defined because the Roman Catholic Church was, and is, monolithic. While there are certainly more strands within Roman Catholicism today, there is still enough unanimity of thought that to know one Roman Catholic is to know them all as far as their fundamental theological convictions go. Thus, the following picture illustrates the oneness of the Roman Catholic Church.
With the Reformers it gets a little more complex (and my picture below fails to identify the Anglican, Puritan, and Scottish reforms that would be in various stages of development in the 16th Century), but Reformers were already distinguishing themselves from other kinds of Reformers. In other words, to know one Reformer was not necessarily to know all the Reformers. Their commonality, however, lay in the area of ecclesiology, the doctrine of the church (and even here they differed). However, their common view of the church was essentially a conviction about a visible oneness on earth that was at the very least closely linked to the civil government.
Thus, if one considers those professors of Christ who followed the Reformed thought in the area of ecclesiology they could be put into the second “R” category, but there were already very distinctive categories within that major category as my picture illustrates below.
But there was another amazing group of true believers in Jesus Christ who were lumped into another category that included all kinds of people, including strange sects, dangerous cults, and theological heretics. They were all called Anabaptists, but they were not all the same. That category looked much like the following picture.
The pictures are of men that were both in the “Radical” category, both referred to as Anabaptist, but both of them were very, very different. Blaurock was a Gospel-preaching evangelist with strong convictions about the purity of the church, believer’s baptism, and the separation of church and state. Basically, he’d be a normal conservative evangelical today with a few quirky ideas, one of our pastors. Servetus, on the other hand, was an anti-trinitarian heretic who is burning in hell as we speak. They were both called “anabaptist.”
This leads to my first rule of thumb for thinking through controversies: We must differentiate in our minds between labels and definitions. A label is a descriptive word/phrase ascribed to a person/group/theory as a convenient generalized classification. The obvious weakness is that a label cannot adequately encapsulate the whole meaning of whatever it is ascribed to. It cannot define the contents, so to speak. “Hotdog” is a label. Do you know the contents?
There are some people who have enough elasticity of mind to comprehend this obvious fact when they study history. Leonard Verduin is a refreshing example of a Reformed professor who understood the complexity of the third category, the Radicals, or the “step-children of the Reformation,” as he called them. He states the problem concisely.
He lists just four Anabaptists:
1. Menno (pretty good, and founder of the Mennonites).
2. Munster (very bad).
3. Schwenkfeld (bad, but not harmful to society)
4. Servetus (scientist, bad theologian, and condemned by both the Roman Catholic Church and the Reformers, burned at the stake in Geneva).
Four very different men with very different kinds of followings. The pictures on the slide above are of two good men, Conrad Grebel and Balthazar Hubmaier. Both men are men that I admire. Their raw courage to stand by principles that I cherish are something that I reflect on often. And yet these men were distinct from one another.
However, it seems that while looking at both past controversies and dealing with present controversies, many people brandish labels without realizing that labels cannot possibly define a person specifically and sometimes this ends up being particularly useful to a subtle agenda-driven lecture.
Let me illustrate. It’s the year 2509 A.D. and we are sitting in a lecture hall listening to the professor teach on Religious History from the early 2000s. He is not a believer in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but he is a renowned Church historian. In the lecture we hear him make the following remarks.
“On September 11, 2001 a group of fundamentalists steered airplanes (an ancient mode of transportation common in that day) into two major buildings of the once-renowned city of New York. Thousands were killed.”
This is, of course, a true statement. Then in the same lecture a student raises his hand to ask a question about my friend, Dr. Chris Anderson (he’ll have a doctorate by five centuries from now), who was alive during that era. The student is interested, of course, because there is a monument to Anderson in the state of Ohio and, though it is covered with moss, he’s intrigued because his devout grandmother loves to sing hymns that were composed by the long-dead pastor. What did men like Anderson do during the crisis of terrorism in the early 2000s?, he wonders. To which the professor responds truthfully and dismissively.
Well, Chris Anderson, was pastor of a small, unaffiliated group of independent minded religious people. He was a fundamentalist. Next question.”
Actually, that is a true statement. But the label “fundamentalist” doesn’t help the student understand either Anderson or the actual issues of the day. In fact, the teacher has implied that Anderson and the terrorists were essentially alike. If the professor wanted to be fair he should have devoted time, not just to label, but to define as fairly as he could what Anderson believed and how he conducted himself. The students in the classroom would realize that the difference between the terrorists on the planes and the pastor in Ohio are worlds apart. However, because of the teacher’s bias against Anderson’s doctrine he has effectively suggested that Anderson was also a terrorist.
The Anabaptists that I admire were fiercely independent. They could not have cared less what the Establishment thought of them. In the main, the evangelical Anabaptists had one major controversy with the Reformers. It was about the purity of the visible church. This controversy would result in an unambiguous call for two great principles that are cherished by most American Christians today:
1. The separation of church and state, and
2. The autonomy of the local church.
You have to love the fruit of their influence. You also have to love their attitude. They were misfits with spine.
Fundamentalists decry the abuse of the term “fundamentalist.” They hate being lumped together with snake-handlers and terrorists. But then so many of them almost literally suggest that the person who holds Calvinistic soteriology is embracing everything else that is Reformed. Or they spit out the word “Reformed” as if any and all that are under that label are like the cold, spirit-less witch-hunters of Salem. Then they try to marginalize anyone who is independent enough not to parrot their version of everything so as to alienate them from influence in their associations and colleges, etc.
Let’s be plain. I’m not going to be invited to speak at Maranatha chapel any time soon. That’s fine. But, the real test is this: if men of my convictions can be effectively branded as non-baptist or non-fundamentalist or even non-dispensationalist this forces any other institution that claims to hold the same convictions as MBBC to cope with our stigma if they dare to associate with us. Since it is obviously easiest not to get stuck in that quagmire they back off from associating with the “radicals” like me and find themselves then fishing for constituents in the same pool as MBBC, only now they have the disadvantage of not being the “leader” in taking such a stand against all those “non-baptist,” “non-fundamentalists,” etc. They’re weak. And the champion who marginalized the radicals pulls ahead.
It works because too many Fundamental Baptists are not Anabaptist enough. They trumpet autonomy of the local church, but they can’t think autonomously if they were held at gun point. That’s why not only is their preaching cliche; their whole ministry has become a boring cliche.
It’s pure politics. Just like the “magisterial Reformers” (Verduin). And it raises my Anabaptist hackles.
Posted by Bob Bixby at March 9, 2009 07:14 PM | eMail this entry! | 2022 WordsThis entry was posted in the following categories: Fundamentalism
Agree. Making preferences and secondary issues matters of separation is not what fundamentalism is about. Fundamentalism is about separating from those who do not hold to the fundamentals. Phelps and others should know that.
Posted by: Jamie Bickel at March 9, 2009 01:18 PMIt works because too many Fundamental Baptists are not Anabaptist enough. They trumpet autonomy of the local church, but they can’t think autonomously if they were held at gun point. That’s why not only is their preaching cliche; their whole ministry has become a boring cliche.
This is the crux of the matter. We do not properly apply or understand the doctrine of separation or the autonomous local church distinctive.
Could it be that some of the problem is a lack of trust in the sufficiency of Scripture as well as the work of the Holy Spirit within a particular congregation? For some reason, fundamentalism as currently consituted feels the need to seek to influence a church that is far removed from one’s own church or ministry. Instead of doing our best to follow Christ within our own family and local church.
Posted by: Coach C at March 9, 2009 01:43 PMSound words, Bob. I am enrolling at Maranatha this fall for their MDiv program. It’s almost purely practical.
I wonder how they will react when I label myself as “Bob Bixby-ish.” :D
Posted by: Matthew Olmstead at March 9, 2009 01:44 PMwell, I’m not sure about all this, but I think I can agree with the future history prof regarding our friend Chris…
heh, heh…
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Good post. Marginalisation of the “radicals” is the story of the day.
Posted by: Jason at March 9, 2009 06:55 PMIt is frustrating. We are told to take these various institutions/leaders seriously, and than we find them making broad generalizations that demonstrate a lack of understanding on the most basic level.
While fundamentalism seeks to find its feet again, they need to reassess their commitment to intellectual rigor as a spiritual discipline rather than a marketing ploy.
Garry
Well, Bob, you’ve done it again. You really have a gift for clarifying issues and making us think. I’m not sure I’ve ever met you, but I’m learning to appreciate you a lot.
Posted by: G N Barkman at March 10, 2009 09:15 AMYou should put Zwingli in with the radicals. He was a wicked man.
Posted by: Michael at March 10, 2009 09:26 AMUnlike Dr. Phelps, I think the resurgence of reformed thought is good. And I don’t know the context of his comment very well. But Bob, isn’t it possible that he is not equating “Calvinism” and “Reformed” but stating his view that thought deserving both labels is on the rise?
Don’t know if this helps, but I was just thinking. ‘Cause it sure does seem like Reformed Calvinism (not just calvinism) is on the rise — the baptistic tradition is no longer the only game in town.
Of course, I’m all for the Reformed version of Calvinism (as opposed to the baptist or Anabaptist). Why would anyone want to take only Calvinistic soteriology from the great reformers? There’s lots of other good stuff — not the least of which is a connected church as opposed to an independent church.
As to your major point, of course, you are right. There were more types of Anabaptists than there are crayolas in a box. Come to think of it, kind of like evangelicals and fundamentalists today.
Blessings.
Posted by: Keith at March 10, 2009 11:23 AMBob,
Great article. On the question of if some independent types will be brave enough to reach out to those of us who care not to be “pushed” into submission, my answer is really….who cares?
If they are spineless and unwilling to look at friend Chuck and say, “brother…I disagree with your view of these Reformed, independent guys” then do we really want that kind of participation within our koinonia? I don’t. I mean if they could handle the variety, I could. But if they want to shove all who disagree under label X and attempt to marginalize that…..why bother? In the end they are faithless men when they fear the acceptance of each other, more than the fidelity of the Scriptures. That’s where this lands bud!
Move on and let it go. The Lord will forge new relationships while He builds His church. Why worry about the old wineskins?
Straight Ahead!
jt
“opinionum varietas et opinantium unitas non sunt hasusta” Jeremiah Burroughs (1600-1646)
Matthew Olmstead,
Based on your comments re: MDiv MBBC, perhaps consider DBTS? Or, if you’re geography allows attendance at a school in WI, why not MN? How about Central in Plymouth? Both schools would have quite good rigor, without rigor mortis. No seminary is perfect of course, but why lock into a place where you are already concerned their emphasis will be “purely practical?” There were some practical matters taught (ministry classes, etc.) but, like classical Divinity degrees, it was an academic degree. And in a very real way, that is what a Divinity degree is—academic. The academic rigor is what furthered the spiritual and devotional element of personal growth while in seminary. I don’t know you, but an MDiv is a HUGE commitment, and will make a HUGE difference in how you minister. Just 2cents from someone who is very grateful for all that God did to me and for me through the MDiv work at DBTS.
My 2 cents as well in response to Sam and Matt -
I suspect that the MBBC MDiv will be very comparable to Central and DBTS. The Bible faculty currently at MBBC are really outstanding and well-qualified. Many of them have “calvinistic leanings” - almost all of them will publically admit to being persuaded of anywhere from 3 to 5 “points”.
This is why Dr. Phelp’s recent comments caused a reaction. Many alum hope that the comments do not signal a shift in theology.
There are a whole slew of recent Maranatha MABS grads who are invested in ministry all over this country and beyond. I can name six young, calvinistic, MBBC grads off the top of my head who are involved in church planting right now and probably another half-dozen who plan to be involved in church planting or missions work in the very near future.
I am not completely convinced that we absolutely need another fundamentalist seminary, but I am convinced that the education will be rigorous - and there might be an advantage to going to seminary in a small town versus an expensive, metro area like Minneapolis, Detroit or Philly. Also, the MBBC M-div program will feature “accelerated” study - meaning that a Biblical studies undergrad will be able to get a jump on seminary courses before graduation. Again, I cannot tell whether or not this is a good idea, but it is a unique concept and time will tell . . .
Posted by: Coach C at March 10, 2009 05:36 PMI frankly wish that MBBC was a little bit more amenable to our kind of fundamentalism because it would be a huge blessing to have a seminary that close to us. We have so many ministry-minded men in this church and lots of potential college students. But I’m not going to send people from my church to an institution that is telling them what they are learning in our church is “precarious.”
TEDS is the next closest thing. But it’s so expensive. I guess we’ll start one here! ;-)
Posted by: bob at March 10, 2009 06:15 PMI’m enjoying watching all of you Baptists brutalize each other. Who needs to drown you? The Reformers should have just left you alone and watched you take each other down. :)
BTW, Bob, the “moss” bit hurt.
Anyway, I’ll just get back in my “independent Bible church” spot on the sidelines now. Have at it, fellas.
Posted by: Chris Anderson at March 10, 2009 10:15 PMSeveral years back, Ambassador Baptist Bible Collage had a smear campaign against Calvinism posted on their college website. This was about the same time that many in our fundamental circles were passing out Dave Hunt’s “scholarly” book like it was parade candy. At that time I was glad that MBBC represented a different strand of fundamentalism. While they never promoted a Calvinistic soteriology during my years there, I never recall hearing any cheap shots at it either.
Jump to a couple of weeks ago, when I received an email from MBBC’s new president. The concerning remarks are posted at the beginning of Bob’s article. Oh how I would have loved to read about the concern over the radical resurgence of shallow doctrine, decisionalism, the emergent church, materialism, and performance based spirituality. Such was not the case. I contacted the school and asked for clarification. Even though he should have clarified himself from the beginning, I gave the school the benefit of the doubt by contacting them.
I’ve heard back from the school but I still really don’t have a good feel for what was meant by the comments. I was told that the radical resurgence of Calvinism has to do with Hyper Calvinism and reformed traditions. If those are the books selling like hotcakes in the Christian bookstores, I’d be surprised. If the thrust of the note was really about combating Hyper Calvinism, I’d not be the least bit concerned with the aforementioned note.
To get a better idea of who these bookselling threats are, I asked about some of the men I enjoy reading from. John Piper was given as a threat. Anyone who knows about John Piper knows that he is not a hyper Calvinist, by any legitimate definitions I’m aware of. John Piper surely has his warts like everyone else, but come on, is he really a threat to biblical fundamentalism? He is one of the men that young fundamentalist tend to read and listen to. In my opinion, that is the real reason for him being a threat. A student needs to be able to pick out the wheat from the chaff in any writer or speaker, including their teachers. All of us guys in preacher boy class had to be good sifters, with the variety of guest speakers we heard from. We also had to sift through what our President taught. While I surely did not agree with some of the teachings of our then president, I respected him and did not consider him a threat. Good men differ. This is why blackballing men like Piper seems to me to do more damage than good. John Piper is not a liberal and is not denying any fundamentals of the faith that I’m aware of.
I agree with many of you who feel that a public clarification should be made by Dr. Phellps. The staff knows from personal contact and from being on this site, that some of their alumni and others in IFBism are concerned. I’d love to see a public statement that says that the school thinks highly of those such as Spurgeon who were Calvinists and men who still follow the scripture as he did. How about a little public clarification that uses the “Calvinist” word in a positive way? Oh, but wait, that might make those upset who were pleased with the vague critical language of the first note.
Bob
Any chance we can get Morgan’s “whatever that was” moved to an appropriate thread.
Posted by: Steve at March 11, 2009 02:16 AMI took it off. I do not know who Morgan is, but the remark was not on topic.
Posted by: bob at March 11, 2009 08:19 AMSteve, I appreciate your comments. I was not a preacher boy at MBBC, but many statements made in that class were repeated to me by roommates, etc. Not everything that came out of that class was considered true -especially when a speaker said that the best way for a pastor to achieve financial security for his family was to grow your church. Of course, he rejected all forms of pragmatism at the same time . . .
Anyway, the point is that if the mission of a college is to teach us how to think, to evaluate truth on the basis of Scripture and to be discerning in regards to books, speakers, etc., then I feel like my time at MBBC was not wasted.
Ironically, this independent streak sometimes comes around to damage the school in some respects. MBBC alums tend to be on the dis-loyal side when compared to other fundie schools. Not because they don’t appreciate and value the education they received, but because they don’t automatically accept everything that comes out of the halls of the former Sacred Heart Academy.
This is a good thing in the long run.
Posted by: Coach C at March 11, 2009 10:16 AMCoach C,
I agree with your analysis, but I’m going to argue that this current trend coming out of MBBC is going to harm its reputation and its student body. I don’t think it’s disloyalty to face this hijacking of principles head-on. Quite the contrary, in my opinion.
Posted by: Ben at March 11, 2009 10:43 AMI don’t necessarily call it disloyalty because I think it is loyalty to a higher cause. But this independent streak in MBBC grads is a good thing - you and I agree on this. In fact, this “independent streak” is helping to curb the effect of the current trend.
Posted by: Coach C at March 11, 2009 01:02 PMBalthasar Hubmaier, “Truth is Immortal.”
Coach C, MBBC grads disloyal?
Ben, so you think MBBC is changing? And that bothers you? You liked it how it was. I liked it how it was was. When it’s all said and done, perpetuity isn’t promised to the college. I’m glad MBBC didn’t teach me to be loyal to a college.
Posted by: Kent at March 11, 2009 04:41 PMYup, I know well that trying to make MBBC’s historical theology seem steady is an exercise in herding cats, apart from maybe one constant influence, that is. But I may never agree with you more than when you say, “I’m glad MBBC didn’t teach me to be loyal to a college.”
Posted by: Ben at March 11, 2009 08:21 PMSee, I’m humored by this. My own conception of things is that Maranatha grads are incredibly loyal, bleed blue and gold (or yellow), and rival the old BJU when it comes to die-hard loyalty. I about fell out of my chair when Josh said that MBBC alumni are not as loyal as other Bible colleges.
I hope you’re right, though.
Posted by: bob at March 11, 2009 09:15 PMI guess the question comes down to how exactly do we measure loyalty? And a few comments that may or may not matter . . .
When I was coaching at MBBC, I can’t tell you how many BJU grads with incredibly athletic off-spring required their kids to attend a school with no inter-collegiate sports simply because, “that’s where I went”. We had a few alumni kids at MBBC, but it was by no means automatic.
This is slowly changing, but BJU grads out-give MBBC grads by a huge percentage. I won’t reveal the exact percentages here, but it was significant. That might have more to do with more business/lawyer/doctor grads vs pastor/teacher/coach grads . . . but we are talking percentage who give, not amount of gifts.
This is anecdotal, but when the interracial dating controversy was raging, it seemed like every BJU grad, other than Ben, was defending the school. I don’t think MBBC grads would put up with something like that.
MBBC education grads are free to use any curriculum they like. ;)
Kent, I think that your generation has tended to be more loyal than my generation. More and more people are viewing the place as simply a decent place for a good college education . . . and then move on with their lives.
Posted by: Coach C at March 11, 2009 10:17 PMBob,
I appreciate your willingness to correct the error where you see it. You know of at least one MBBC alum who is not really loyal. :-)
Jason
Posted by: Jason at March 12, 2009 12:09 PMBob,
I appreciate your willingness to correct the error where you see it. You know of at least one MBBC alum who is not really loyal. :-)
Jason
Posted by: Jason at March 12, 2009 12:10 PM
