You may have missed it (like me), but yesterday was the anniversary of the Anabaptist Movement. This was a big deal for Dr. Paige Patterson and will be a perpetual observance at SWBTS. According to the school’s website:
President Paige Patterson proclaimed January 21 Radical Reformation Day at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary . . . “Today is a very significant day,” Patterson said, adding, “… a day that from this day forward in the life of Southwestern Seminary is going to be a day celebrated.”
Update: Baptist Press ran a story about this today.
If you need a refresher, you can read about the Anabaptist movement on wikipedia or the hall of church history. There were many groups that broke off during the Protestant Reformation. These were called “radical” when they would not wait for reforms to come slowly. Among these was a split from the Swiss church that led. The first Anabaptists rejected infant baptism and didn’t like the slow pace of Zwingli on other issues. The rest of the story doesn’t resonate so well with Southern Baptists and few maintain a direct link back to this group.
What Would A Radical Reformation Mean For The SBC?
Dr. Patterson’s words made me think about our current culture in the Southern Baptist Convention. Many people are calling for different reforms in the SBC. But I wonder if the Radical Reformation is a good model for the SBC. What would happen if we had some radical reformation in our own ranks?
1. 40,000 Church Splits
The radical reformers didn’t stop with Baptism. Soon, any doctrinal division led to another movement. The radical reformers were church-splitters, sometimes for good and sometimes for ill. If SBC pastors followed their lead, then every local body would find good warrant to divide.
2. Protest Our Own Convention
Those pastors who were left would still be too radical to shout AMEN at our annual meetings. In fact, they would have to stand outside in protest this summer in Louisville. As a matter of conscience they could not participate in our corporate false witness regarding membership. Let’s not forget all the trouble these radicals would cause in the exhibit hall – every exhibit would be ransacked in the name of holiness.
3. Ban All Political Speakers At The SBC
Maybe this is not such a bad idea? The radical reformers were all about separation of church and state (after they failed to takeover a few cities). The idea of worldly leaders addressing our meetings would be an abomination. In fact, if we followed Grebel’s notions that Christians may not be magistrates, we’d need to remove several several Baptist congressmen from our churches.
4. Seek The Spirit’s Manifestations
Another shock to our SBC ways would be all the spiritual manifestations that come with the radical reformation. I would guess many Southern Baptists would become upset if “words of prophecy” started appearing as a regular feature in Baptist Press.
5. Bye Bye Baptist Faith & Message
The Anabaptists were not excited about confessions and typically rejected them altogether. So one might expect that a radical SBC reformation would greatly cut or eliminate our statement of faith.
6. The Ban Would Be Reported In Our ACP
One missing piece to our statistical records is the number of believers we have placed under the ban. This would change if we recovered the sense of holiness that accompanied the radical reformation. We might even have a goal to Ban 1 million members in 2009. At that rate, we could see real separation restored to our fellowships within 10 years.
What Do You Think?
I admit some of these thoughts were amusing to me and I dobut if we could really anticipate what radicals would do among us. But what do you think the Anabaptists might say if they could see us now? Is radical reformation the need of our day?
3 and 4 would be incredible!!
If 5 happened it would not be long before we stopped existing…
Matt Svobodas last blog post..Should Christians Support Torture?
Most Anabaptists believed in the Doctrines of Grace, as The Waldenses and the Paulicans.
3 AND 4 WOULD BE GOOD, BUT NOT 5, But not all Anabaptists believed that.
Dr. Paul W. Foltz
Funny post. You had me laughing at a a few of them. I think Patterson’s a nut if he thinks anybody is going to carry on that ridiculous tradition.
Good post, Tony. No, the need of our day is that we actually follow Jesus. We need Jesus desperately. I studied the Anabaptists quite a bit in seminary. My theology professor at GGBTS was quite smitten with them. There were a lot of good things about the Anabaptists and they restored a lot to the church. They should be admired. But, for the life of me, I cannot figure out why SWBTS is making such a big deal about people from 400 years ago. History is important. I love it. It is a great teaching tool. But, if I walk… Read more »
Tony, et al I am glad Dr. Patterson’s proclamation is getting some digital ink. Though I am a wee-bit confused about whether you intend here a serious tone or a spoof. I honestly cannot tell (no I am not kidding!). Alan apparently assumes it is serious. He writes: if I walk into my church and say, “The Anabaptists say . . . ” Well, you know what will happen. But, if I walk in and say, “The Bible says . . .” people listen. Wasn’t the Conservative Resurgence about a return to inerrancy and Scripture? Why are we trying to… Read more »
Peter, I agree with the Anabaptists in their dissent against tradition. Actually, I admire them greatly and their theology influenced mine a great deal where it was Biblical. My point is just that the appeal to Anabaptist theology from SWBTS is growing stronger and stronger it seems. If we are not careful, it can easily become the tradition of the Anabaptists that we appeal to and not Scripture. In doing that, we will end up disavowing their witness while holding them up as examples. Ironic. I think that a better approach would be to compare these movements with the Word… Read more »
Hmmm…. Let’s apply your logic to the idea of the SBC run by Magisterial Reformers. (Of course, following your lead, we will hold up only the most heinous examples of their behavior as normative) 1. State church of baptized non-believers—the only splitting this church does is splitting wood. I don’t know how this will mesh with the idea of regenerate church membership, but we’ll leave that for Tom Ascol and Malcolm Yarnell to humbly bring before the magistrate / SBC President. 2. Heretic burning at our own convention—it’s difficult to hear the AMEN over the roaring fire. Maybe the exhibit… Read more »
@ Jim: Thanks for the great reply, there are two sides to every coin. Your satire demonstrates the point of mine, the past is gone and God has given us different challenges in our day. I enjoy church history and pray that God would help me love these brothers across time. But (like so many are saying here) – we need to recognize our heritage as a mixed blessing. Like some other commentators have said, let’s hold all of this up to the Bible and learn what we can.
If an uncritical following of the Anabaptists is your worry, then you need not worry much. Tony’s own post is evidence of that. It seems to me that Tony’s point is precisely that the appeal to the Anabaptists is being made inconsistently. What is the basis of this inconsistency? Have the good folks over at SWBTS not bothered to study the Anabaptists as carefully as Tony has? Maybe—just perhaps—out of all those people over in Fort Worth, we have one or two just almost as wise and devout as Alan. Perhaps it has occurred to someone to examine Anabaptist belief… Read more »
Alan, Thanks for the exchange, brother. Once again, you sense the need to caution that “If we are not careful, it can easily become the tradition of the Anabaptists that we appeal to and not Scripture.” From my vantage point, this is nothing less than complete overkill, skewing a simple proclamation for celebration of our reformation roots given by one of our seminary presidents. To follow your curious logic to its end would decimate any acknowledgment of our heritage whatsoever. In addition, thinking it better to “compare these movements with the Word of God,” because “Anabaptists DID have some theological… Read more »
Alan, you said: But, for the life of me, I cannot figure out why SWBTS is making such a big deal about people from 400 years ago. History is important. I love it. It is a great teaching tool. But, if I walk into my church and say, “The Anabaptists say . . . ” people listen.
Isn’t this exactly what Calvinists do? As in, “Calvin said…”
I like Bart’s idea.. in general look at the whole lot of them and compare to the Bible and try and live your life by what Jesus said and did!
God bless,
Sallie
Bart, Maybe I am being overly sensitive about this, but I don’t think I am. I’ve been in more than my share of disagreements in the blogosphere and tend to ignore snarky comments. But, it has been appeared to me for some time that you have little respect for me or my opinions/comments. Your sarcasm and condescending tone toward me has been apparent for some time, at least to me. I have ignored it and tried to discuss issues with you. I’ll be honest with you now, though, this comment was offensive and uncalled for, in my opinion: “Maybe—just perhaps—out… Read more »
Alan, Just wrapping up one itsy-bitsy loose thread and, if you desire, you may have the last word. In praising Dr. Patterson’s lecture on Anabaptists at Union, you ask, “Why not make the same points [that Dr. Patterson did in appealing to Anabaptists] by appealing to English and American Baptists from the 1600’s and 1700’s? You will accomplish the same thing without the controversy.” Again, Alan, I must press this point: Post 1610 English Baptists were not spontaneously generated out of nothing. Though you obviously know this since you explicitly asserted “Clearly there are direct links” (emphasis added), the question… Read more »
Alan,
Perhaps not every time I offer an opposing viewpoint, but whenever I make the argument that I’m following the Bible and the opposing view is following unbiblical historical tradition, you may indeed infer that my statement has deliberate implications upon the wisdom and/or piety of those whom I am critiquing.
Peter, You might note that the same points are indeed simultaneously being advanced by reference to 17th century Baptists, 18th century Baptists, 19th century Baptists, and Anabaptists where appropriate. Yet the prediction that these other avenues of argumentation would not yield controversy has not borne out in experience. If the argument is not an attack upon the Anabaptists, it is an assault against the Landmarkers or the schismatics or whomever. The ideas of regenerate church membership, believer’s baptism, and the like are controversial in-and-of-themselves and have been since the sixteenth century and before. They are controversial not only among the… Read more »
Bart, That would make sense if that was the argument that I made. But, it was not. I don’t think that I claimed that anyone was advocating anything unbiblical. Please show me where I said that. Actually, I know that SWBTS is taking what IS Biblical from the Anabaptists and are highlighting that. I have said that again and again. My question involves why they feel the need to celebrate the Anabaptists in this the way that they are when there are many attendent problems with other aspects of Anabaptist history. It was a question that apparently has no answer.… Read more »
Alan,
Re-reading your comments, you are right that you did not explicitly assert that SWBTS was actually promulgating the unbiblical errors of the Anabaptists, and I was wrong for reading that into your anti-SWBTS criticisms. My apologies.
And among my regrets in jumping the gun is the fact that my snarkiness has completely overshadowed the points that I have decisively made: 1. SWBTS obviously is doing precisely what you have suggested that they should do: They have taken only the best and most biblical portion of the Anabaptist legacy and are drawing attention to it. 2. The constant attacks against SWBTS as being “Landmarkist” demonstrate that (a) SWBTS is highlighting not Anabaptists alone but is drawing our attention to all of those who have championed biblical ecclesiology, and (b) there is no safeguard against controversy in restricting… Read more »
great satire believer’s baptism gets you wet. The baptism of the Spirit 9I Corinthians 12;13] puts you into the body.
Terry T 01.23.09 at 10:46 pm Your comment is awaiting moderation. Okay folks am I just missing it or what? I find this topic to be both important and inconsequential. It is important since the historic reality is that far more in the Anabaptist / Radical Reformation is undesirable than anyone has mentioned. Are we going to go ahead and adopt the idea of multiple wives as several of the Anabaptists did? Of course not, but the point is that theologically we have more in common with the Reformers (Calvin, Luther, et al) than we do the Anabaptists. Yes they… Read more »
Church discipline is a matter that needs to be restored as the bible teaches it. However, the restoration needs to be done with great care. I know of two churches which ceased the practice of church discipline due to miscarriages. Some one got disciplined, while the real culprit escaped. The Charleston Assn. published a manual of discipline. Dr. James Leo Garrett brought out an edition of the Charleston Discipline back in the 60s or 50s. I have a copy. Discipline is more than just excluding some errant member; it is an attempt to train believers in Godly living. The real… Read more »