Baptist Bites: Roger Williams' Dangerous Ideas

When we last checked in with Roger Williams, he had left the Plymouth church, in 1633, and was made pastor of the church at Salem, Massachusetts.  But though he found the Plymouth church to be insufficiently “separated” from both the Anglican tradition and all those who remained in fellowship with them, his time in Plymouth had brought him into proximity with the Native American population of the area. Williams believed he had a Gospel responsibility to reach out to them, and so he began a course of learning their language. His work and writings in that area were quite helpful to other colonists; many unnecessary battles were prevented because of Williams’ primer on the language. Understanding what a stranger is actually saying is key to peaceful relations with him.  During his time with the tribespeople, however, Williams’ conscience was affected in the same manner as William Penn. He began to hold the conviction that English colonists could not lay claim to the land just because their King said so. The land belonged to the Native Americans, and if the English colonists wanted to acquire some land, they should be treating with its rightful owners.

For two years, Williams continued as pastor of the Salem church. But its proximity to Boston made him more susceptible to the attention of the ruling civil/religious authorities in the city.  In 1635, he was brought before the court to answer four charges. First was the matter we just discussed: who owned the land. Williams proclaimed that the colonists should repent of the notion that they could take the land from the Native peoples, just because the King said so.  This understandably ruffled feathers and made him some enemies. The second thing that made Williams unpopular was that he had been speaking against taking oaths to the civil authorities. He reasoned that many people in the colony were not true Christians, and that it was blasphemous to ask unbelievers to take oaths in the name of God. He did not believe that civil authorities should be bound by oaths to God in the first place; such vows should only be taken to God in service to His Own Kingdom. The third charge brought him into direct conflict with established church authorities: Williams preached that it was sinful to sit under the teaching of any minister connected with the Church of England. He further taught that true believers should also separate from anyone who would not separate from Anglicans themselves—even if it was a family member! And fourth: that the civil authorities only had sway over the bodies and property of citizens. When they attempted to make laws compelling the consciences and religious affiliations of its citizens, they were treading on ground that belonged only to the Kingdom of God. 

There was really no question as to whether Williams was “guilty” or not: he’d taught these things openly, and he made no attempt to disguise it.  The judgment of the court was that Williams would be exiled from the colony within six weeks; if he behaved himself and refrained from these teachings, they would give him until spring of 1636.  But by now we’ve come to understand how bold Williams was. He continued to meet secretly with his flock and teach them just as before. When authorities found out, they sent officers out to arrest Williams and place him on a ship bound for England. This was January of 1636.  But here is an interesting twist: apparently, Massachusetts Bay Governor Winthrop had some liking for Williams and sent word to warn him.  Williams fled to the wilderness.

For the better part of four months, Roger Williams had to face the brunt of a harsh winter.  He faced hunger and exposure to the elements; as he said, “…not knowing what bread and bed did mean…exposed to a winter’s miseries in a howling wilderness of frost and snow.”*  His choice to honor the Native communities by learning their language and addressing them as sovereign owners of their own lands, however, reaped a reward. It was their kindness that made the difference between life and death. It was a terribly uncomfortable experience, but Williams did survive.  Spring came, and by June of 1636 Williams had arrived at the place we now call Rhode Island. He and some followers from Salem worked to establish the colony of Providence Plantations.  He chose the name to give thanks to God, who had provided for his escape from his Massachusetts Bay persecutors and kept him alive through a terrible winter.  When we return next month, we’ll cover the colony and church he started, and the principles that made it truly unique for the time.  Many of those principles are still part of our DNA as Baptists.

*My sources for this article include The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness by H. Leon McBeth (Broadman Press, 1987) and Roger Williams: New England Firebrand by James E. Ernst (The MacMillan Company, 1932)

Baptist Bites: The Good and the Bad of Roger Williams' Separatism

      We have been surveying the life of Roger Williams, the most prominent founder of the Baptist movement here in North America. We have covered his early life and strong religious zeal. As a law clerk, he saw the unjustly harsh treatment of the nonconformists who questioned the theology and practices of the Church of England. As he pursued his theological education further and took up his first clerical position, his own convictions led him in the Separatist direction. His zealous, outspoken tone no doubt hastened the disfavor he began to experience from the Anglican hierarchy, until in 1630 he booked passage with his wife aboard the ship Lyon to America. It seems that the radar of King Charles I had locked onto him. He would have soon been arrested by the order of Charles’ Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud. Laud was England’s answer to the young Pharisee, Saul of Tarsus, who hunted down believers in Jesus and led them, shackled, to their doom.  Laud was very zealous for the high liturgy of the Church of England and demanded strict allegiance to its hierarchy. Those who fell out of line were often publicly whipped, mutilated, experienced facial branding, or exiled.  Williams had no desire for that treatment for himself and his beloved wife. But he left England with some resentment, writing to a friend that “It was bitter as death to me when Bishop Laud pursued me out of this land, and my conscience was persuaded against the national church and ceremonies and bishops.”* That backdrop is important for understanding what formed his mindset as he arrived in America.

 

His reputation for learnedness and zeal preceded him; he was promptly offered a position of teaching pastor at the prominent Boston church. Williams turned them down flat, and not in the most diplomatic tone. He judged the Boston church to be only half-hearted in their separation from the Anglican Church, and he communicated enough of that to them that the church was deeply hurt and resentful about it.  In spring of 1631 he was installed as pastor at the nearby church in Salem, but the civil/church authorities in Boston found out about it. They waged a campaign to discredit Williams and pressure the Salem church to turn him out. Williams then moved to Plymouth, where he took a position as assistant minister. The people in Plymouth gave him a warm welcome, but Williams stayed only two years. Again, he began to conclude that the Plymouth church was not “separated” to the degree he thought appropriate. Though they tried very hard to be supportive, he pushed his Separatist views to the extent that they too became hurt and pushed back. Elder William Brewster wrote that he was concerned that Williams might “run the same course of rigid Separatism and Anabaptistry, which John Smith…” had done. Brewster’s prediction turned out to be right on the money.

 

In 1633 Williams moved back to Salem, where he was appointed minister regardless of objections from his detractors in Boston. He remained there until 1635 as he progressed in his views of Separatism and religious freedom. He grew in his belief that political power should never be used to coerce the spiritual beliefs and practices of the people. When his time at Salem ended, it wasn’t because of church conflict. He had brought the ire of civil authorities. Thus began the series of events that led to his flight from Massachusetts and establishment of a new colony founded on the principle of religious liberty. It was there that Williams founded the first Baptist Church in America, though his Separatist mindset led him to pull away even from his own church. But we will discuss more of that in the future.

 

For this month, I’d like to conclude with a brief evaluation of this ever-separating impulse, held by Williams and others in Baptist history.  Protestants, and especially Baptists, have shown a keen ability for perceiving areas of belief which differ from others. This has led to many church splits and the formation of new denominations. But to what extent is this a healthy impulse? We have to be careful about evaluating historical events through the lens of modern sensibilities; our biases may cause us to dismiss people of the past too easily. We need to remember that there were principles involved in the Protestant Reformation, principles that were viewed as making the difference between eternal life and death. I would say that many reasons for the split from the Catholic Church could be viewed as true “essentials.” But Protestant groups have continued to splinter, and Baptists in particular have done so. At what point have we entered unhealthy territory? Baptists have had legitimate concerns. Believers’ Baptism is clearly attested by Scripture and Church history, and we have good reason to believe that immersion is the mode taught in Scripture. Baptists like Williams have rightly contended that belief must be freely led by independent study of the Bible, that personal conscience cannot be compelled by civil power. Williams was a true champion of this last point, and we owe so much to him and others like him who were willing to suffer persecution for these beliefs. There was much to the “good” side of the ledger for our Baptist founders.

 

But Williams is also an emblem of the factious spirit that plagued both historical and contemporary Baptists. We’ve read about why Separatists concluded there was still too much corruption and compromise in the Church of England. They believed that there could be no continued fellowship with the Anglicans.  However, Williams and other Baptists took this impulse too far. Not only were the Catholics anathema, not only were the Anglicans anathema because they would not separate from the  High-Church trappings of Catholicism – Puritans were anathema because they didn’t cut off all association with Anglicans. Even Separatist churches were the enemy if they weren’t separated enough, or even if they continued to associate with those who didn’t separate enough. Do you see the absurd and unhealthy places this can take us to, this spirit of factionalism run amok? Guilt by association is a diseased way of thinking that wounds Christ’s church. Eventually, Williams separated from the church he founded and he was all by himself. Baptists today need to learn from the unhealthy aspects of our history as well as the healthy ones. We need to learn that there is a difference between essentials and non-essentials. Baptists differ on some points from other denominations, and those differences are valuable enough to uphold. What we must not do is cast judgment upon other Christian denominations who agree with us on the essential points of orthodox belief but differ on some non-essential points.  Let us value and maintain the things that make us Baptists, but let us call biblical Christians in other denominations by their right names: brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

*Note: the direct quotations in this article are from Roger Williams: New England Firebrand by James Ernst (New York: Macmillan Company, 1932)

Baptist Bites: Roger Williams' Formative Years

     Last month, we considered the framework of intolerance and persecution of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. We need to keep this in mind, because it catalyzed one of our early American Baptist forebears, Roger Williams, to found the first colony that guaranteed religious freedom.  Williams later established the First Baptist Church in America, in Providence, Rhode Island.  But let’s look at Williams’ formative years, to understand how they forged Williams to take such bold steps in his adult life.

Roger Williams was born around the year 1603, to his parents James and Alice. His father was a successful tailor and merchant, always eager to get ahead. He provided well for his family and saw to it that they were faithful attenders at their Church of England congregation. Roger showed a lot of zeal for spiritual things early on, having a powerful religious experience at age 12. His zeal, though, would later develop along lines that his father wouldn’t anticipate.

Roger was quite serious about his education and became adept at writing shorthand. This skill was noticed by another man attending church, a prominent judge named Sir Edward Coke. He observed Roger swiftly jotting down every word of the sermon. He was so impressed with the boy’s skill that he gave him a job at his office. Coke turned out to be a valued mentor in Roger’s life. Being steeped in legal matters gave him important knowledge he’d use later, in requesting a charter for the colony of Providence Plantations (Rhode Island). Coke’s associates also provided Williams with a network of political influencers who would smooth the way for the charter’s approval.

As a law clerk, however, Williams witnessed first-hand the persecution endured by any who dissented from the teachings of the Church of England. It increasingly struck him as unjust that anyone should be oppressed for their convictions.  Sir Edward Coke sponsored much of Williams’ education, even arranging for him to study at Cambridge University. Williams completed his Bachelor’s degree, but dropped out before completing his Masters. It seems that the corruption he saw in the Anglican Church (the principles of the Church would have been a foundational component of his studies) ate at him until he couldn’t take it anymore. His dissatisfaction was a big part of his withdrawal from the school.

Williams became a chaplain to a private estate upon leaving school. He continued to show a great deal of zeal in his beliefs, and tended to show a lack of tact at times. That zeal definitely foreshadowed the future. After a failed romance and long illness, he formed a special relationship with his nurse, Mary Barnard, who was herself a minister’s daughter. They were married in 1629.

By that point, Williams’ beliefs had progressed beyond Puritanism to hardline Separatism. He was convinced that the Church of England was false and irredeemable. Only total separation from the Church would please God. Williams wanted to read the Bible for himself and come to his own convictions about what it required. But in the legal climate of England at the time, these beliefs set up Williams and his wife for almost certain persecution. Roger and Mary booked passage on a ship sailing from England to America at the end of 1630. It was a long, rough and stormy voyage getting to their new home. But not long after they arrived, Williams found that there were more storms ahead. Religious intolerance had already taken root in the New World. He would be required to take more bold stands, and more risks, until he and his family truly felt at home. We’ll turn to that story next month.

Baptist Bites: Theocracy and Persecution in the New World

     Our discovery of Baptist origins, beliefs and history has so far taken place on the continent of Europe. Over four hundred years later, it’s also important for Baptists in America to grasp how we made the jump to the New World. To begin, let’s go back to the very early days, to the dawn of the 1600’s. I hope you’ll remember that in 1608, a group of Separatist believers fled England under threat of persecution by King James I. The Separatists saw the writing on the wall and emigrated to the Netherlands.

We’ve covered two church leaders, John Smyth and Thomas Helwys. It was from their congregation that the Baptist movement developed. But we didn’t talk about another pastor, John Robinson. The group of Separatists who came to the Netherlands was large enough that they decided to split into two congregations, one led by Smyth and the other by Robinson. Robinson’s group formed their own church in the city of Leyden. The church grew along its own path; Robinson and his congregation did not agree with Smyth’s developing Baptist views and continued in their Puritan traditions. Knowing they’d never be accepted back in their homeland, they ultimately decided to establish a new one of their own. In 1620, this church took passage on a ship called The Mayflower and sailed for the New World. That’s right—this is the group we’ve come to know as “the Pilgrims,” and they established a new, theocratic society known as the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

Having been exiled under the threat of persecution, anyone might think that this new, Christian colony would be sensitive to the issue of religious freedom.  But that wasn’t the primary issue for them. Nothing was more important than believing and worshipping according to their reading of the New Testament. They condemned the Church in Rome over what they saw as blasphemous heresies, and they separated from the Church of England because it was the daughter of the Catholic tradition. It too retained corruptions of the true, Biblical faith. They sought to codify a theology and worship that was absolutely faithful to their reading of Scripture. To tolerate any deviations would be to invite God’s righteous wrath upon them all. They intended their new colony to be a theocracy—ruled by God through following His revealed Word. In the Old Testament, God had made it clear that He expected Israel to cast out any among them who did not faithfully follow God’s covenant. This might help us understand why they were so zealous to require all members of the Massachusetts Bay Colony to behave, believe and worship according to the way they read as truly faithful to God. Any who did not follow in this way were to be admonished and corrected. If they did not submit, they would be banished from the Colony or worse. This was possible because in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, civil authority and church authority were bound tightly together. If an individual refused to conform to the teachings of the church, the State stepped in to levy civil penalties on that person.

The thing about strict, legalistic rules and persecution, though, is that they often have the opposite effect from what was intended. When even minor questions or disagreements arose in the Colony, the dissenters received excessive backlash that actually radicalized them further. They were driven by harsh church and state officials to reexamine the entire Puritan system of belief. One example was Anne Hutchinson, who was arrested and banished from the Colony for questioning its hard-line Calvinist beliefs. Another was Roger Williams, who contended that the State had no right to compel the consciences or spiritual beliefs of others. We will begin examining Williams’ life next month.

Baptist Bites: Particular Baptists and Immersion

     In previous months we’ve been tracing the history of our adoption of believers’ baptism. We find no trace in the Biblical record of a known unbeliever being baptized, so Baptists have followed that example. It leads logically to the reason Baptists also refrain from baptizing babies or children too young to respond personally to Christ. But up to this point, we’ve discovered that the earliest Baptists hadn’t yet rediscovered immersion. That’s our topic for this month. 

This means, though, that we have to talk about another branch of Baptists that developed later than the Smyth-Helwys tradition. This group maintained the Calvinism of the Puritans. Calvinists emphasize the total sovereignty of God, including His “election” of certain people to whom He will give the sovereign grace to repent and believe the Gospel. They call it “sovereign grace” because they believe it cannot be resisted.  The earlier group, led by John Smyth and Thomas Helwys, had moved to the Netherlands because of persecution and were strongly influenced by the Anabaptists living there. Anabaptists follow Arminian theology: there is such a thing as “election,” but it’s based on God’s foreknowledge of certain people who will freely respond to the Gospel. They also believe saving grace can be resisted based on a person’s free choice to accept or reject the Gospel. 

There is another difference between the two groups, on the question: for whom did Jesus come to die? Calvinists believe that Jesus came to atone only for the sins of His pre-chosen elect. On the other hand, Arminians believe that Jesus came to freely and seriously offer His atoning work to all the world (to those who repent and believe).  This is the plainest reading of John 3:16, and there need be no contradiction: in His sovereignty, God has purposed that grace can be freely accepted or rejected by His human creatures—and His foreknowledge of all things allows Him to carry out His plan without the possibility of us foiling it.  The question of how widely Christ offers atonement is the question, then: those who believe He earnestly offers it in general to the whole world make up the group called “General Baptists.” Those who believe the offer of atonement is made only to the elect in particular are called “Particular Baptists.” It just so happens that the rediscovery of baptism by immersion happened first among the Particular Baptists, so we need an introduction to some of the founders of that branch of Baptist faith. 

The soil from which the Particular Baptist movement sprang was a church in London that many have nicknamed the “JLJ Church” (after the last initials of its three founding pastors, Jacob, Lathrop, and Jessey). Established in 1616, it was a very open church for the time; although it could be put on the spectrum between Puritan and Separatist, the church tried for open fellowship with all churches not teaching such bad heresy that it would jeopardize salvation. Naturally, the other traditions condemned this church for not being on their side—that’s what sinful humans do. But the openness of the JLJ church persisted into the third pastorate of Henry Jessey. He seems a unique spiritual leader; if some of his leaders found something in the New Testament that was foreign to their tradition but had adequate Scriptural backing, he and the church allowed them to pursue it with best wishes—even to the point of leaving the church. One of these was a certain “Mr. Eaton” who left because of 1) conviction that the Church of England practiced a false baptism, and thus they shouldn’t fellowship with it; and 2) belief that infant baptism was wrong.  Eaton and a group of his followers left the JLJ Church with nothing but good wishes. This new church was led by a John Spilsbury. It could be called the first Particular (Calvinist) Baptist church, because they were convinced of Believers’ Baptism and were re-baptized in that tradition. 

A second leader in the JLJ Church, Mr. Richard Blunt, began to raise the crucial question of the proper mode of Baptism. This is significant: the Baptist tradition was still in its infancy, and the question of mode hadn’t become a serious issue until now.  Around 1640, Blunt and some like-minded friends discovered in Colossians 2:12 and Romans 6:3-4 an important image in Baptism: Paul taught that when a converting sinner is baptized, his old, sinful life is symbolically put to death and buried when he goes beneath the baptismal waters. When he is brought up again, he is symbolically raised to newness of life in Christ. Blunt rightfully concluded (in my belief) that the burial and raising symbol had been lost with sprinkling or pouring. He wanted to return to the ancient mode of Baptism, re-capturing the proper meaning of baptizo (to immerse). He and his sympathizers raised the issue before the JLJ Church, who once again chose the open and gracious response. Since no English church was practicing immersion, Blunt was sent to Holland. They had learned of a small Anabaptist church that had departed from the other churches’ practice of baptism by pouring and embraced complete immersion. Blunt spoke Dutch, so he was the ideal man to send. He went to confer with the leaders of this church, to examine their scriptural reasoning for immersion and to study how it was done. 

When Blunt returned to England, he re-baptized a fellow leader named Mr. Blacklock, and then the two of them immersed the rest of their friends who shared the same belief—41 of them. The immersing group departed the JLJ Church (again, with their blessings) and formed their own. It would appear the Lord’s hand was on them. They began with two churches and increased rapidly. Before long, their influence led other early Baptist churches to adopt immersion as the proper mode—John Spilsbury’s church adopted it, for instance. This movement increased so quickly that many thought it would be a good idea to set down their beliefs in writing. So, in 1644, the First London Confession was adopted. This is a groundbreaking document in Baptist history. Though this group was Calvinist, which we are not, our own tradition agrees with the Confession’s language on Baptism by full immersion. 

These Particular Baptist congregations continued to grow and multiply. By the mid-1640’s there were at least seven churches in London alone. And their rediscovery of immersion as the proper mode of baptism had great influence among Baptists of all kinds. Before long it was being practiced by both Particular (Calvinist) Baptists, as well as General (Arminian) Baptists. One of the men Richard Blunt immersed, Mr. Mark Lucar, was instrumental in spreading the Calvinist tradition of Baptist faith to America.

That is a good point to pause our discussion for this month, because in the next article we will look at how the Baptist faith was planted and spread in North America. In particular we’ll look at a man who is very important in our own tradition: Roger Williams. Until next time!

BAPTIST BITES: Thomas Helwys

 The first people we could truly call “Baptists” developed under the leadership of two men: John Smyth, the Pastor of the congregation (whom we discussed last month) and his associate, Thomas Helwys. Helwys wasn’t a pastor at the time; he was a well-to-do layman. He came from a land-owning family and was educated at a prestigious law school in London. It’s likely he paid much of the cost for the English church to emigrate to Holland in search of religious liberty. His leadership gifts were an excellent mesh with Smyth’s. It was said that  “If Smyth brought oares, Helwys brought sayles.” [archaic spelling]  The intended meaning was that Helwys knew how to get things done. It appears that Smyth was more the “big idea” man, but prone to flights of fancy. Helwys was the clear-thinking, practical one. 

Helwys developed Baptist beliefs along with Smyth: that only true Christians composed the true church (regenerate church membership), demonstrated via believer’s baptism. They believed that infant/child baptism was not attested to in Holy Scripture. Helwys also agreed that his prior baptism was invalid, because it had been performed when he was an infant. That’s why Smyth and Helwys were rebaptized.  But when Smyth came to believe his baptism was invalid, because it should have come from a church with historic succession, Helwys parted company with him. He and 10 others maintained that baptism was a testimony of the individual’s faith, and there was no mystical power in receiving it from a church with historic succession. 

In 1611, Helwys led his small group back to England, where they planted a church in London’s Spitalfield area. This could truly be said to be the first Baptist church in England. It might seem a courageous step for this tiny group of Baptists to return to the country they had fled because of persecution. Remember that King James had vowed the expulsion of anyone refusing to conform to Anglican teachings. For those who remained, there was the real threat of being burned at the stake for heresy. That’s what happened in 1612 to two men, Bartholomew Legate and Edward Wightman.  Regardless, Helwys had come to believe that they were wrong to flee their homeland. He reasoned that if believers with the truth all fled the country, there would be no true teaching left in their own country. It was admirable for his little group to follow him. 

Helwys took on himself to try and reach the heart of the King, that he would repent of his sins. He published a book called A Short Declaration of the Mistery of Iniquity [archaic spelling]. In this book he attacked the corruption of the Church of England—especially its bid to coerce the consciences of the English subjects to worship according to its dictates. He pled for true religious liberty as a divinely-given right. His reasoning was compelling: every person will give personal account before the Judgment Seat for his beliefs and life, and it won’t avail to tell God that we were ordered to forsake the true path by some earthly authority.  It is unjust, then, for any government to threaten dungeon or death against a person for spiritual beliefs. He called for all people to have the “blessed liberty, to understand the Scriptures with their own spirits.” 

Helwys penned a handwritten note on the flyleaf of the book and sent it to King James. To put it mildly, the King was not amused. He threw Helwys into Newgate Prison, where he died in the year 1616.  His forceful response is understandable when you read even a short passage of Helwys’ challenging words:

 

Heare O King, and dispise not ye counsel of ye poore, and let their complaints come before thee. The King is a mortall man, and not God, therefore [he] hath no power over ye immortall soules of his subjects, to make lawes and ordinances for them, and to set spirituall Lords over them. If the King have authority to make spirituall Lords and laws, then he is an immortal God and not mortall man. O King, be not seduced by deceivers to sin so against God Whom thou oughtest to obey, nor against thy poore subjects who ought and will obey thee in all things with body life and goods, or let their lives be taken from ye earth. God save ye King. [archaic spelling] 

Never fear that Helwys’ death spelled the end of the Baptist movement. The mantle of leadership was passed onto others. This little band of Baptists didn’t dwindle—they grew! By 1626, there were at least 150 Baptist believers distributed among 5 churches. By 1644 there were 47!  It is surely by God’s hand that Baptists continued to thrive, even under the severe persecution they experienced under Kings James and Charles I. 

As we review Helwys’ life, we can see that though it was cut short too soon, he had a great impact on Baptist identity that continues to our day. Along with Smyth he developed the doctrines of regenerate church membership and believer’s baptism. But his powerful writing and preaching demonstrate that his biggest contributions were in the area of religious liberty. He was a champion of separation of Church and State, a belief that makes up a vital part of who we are. His book also indicates why soul freedom is such an important part of our belief as well. If we are indeed to give account before God for our own belief and behavior, it is essential that we are able to follow the leading of God’s Word, the Holy Spirit, and our consciences without constraint.  Some people may indeed fall into error, and that grieves us! We should pray for them and reason with them from Scriptures, gently and respectfully. But it is true that no person can compel the conscience of another. 

When we return next month, we’ll cover the growth of the Baptist movement with its division into two main groups, the General Baptists and the Particular Baptists. What do these terms mean, and what do they mean for us? Tune in next month to find out!

BAPTIST BITES: John Smyth and the English Separatists

The next step in our journey to understand how Baptists came to be and believe as they do takes us to the English Separatists in the late 16^th-17^th centuries.  We will see that our Anabaptist forebears continue to play a role in this journey, but Baptists themselves came into being through the leadership of John Smyth and his friend, Thomas Helwys.  This time we’ll focus our camera on Smyth, looking into Helwys’ role next month.

John Smyth was born around the year 1570. As a young man he graduated from Cambridge in 1593 and a candidate for ministry in the Church of England. He was appointed to preach in the city of Lincoln, England in 1600, but already by 1603 he was removed from office. It seems he was very boldly preaching ideas which did not conform to the doctrine of the Anglicans. In short, he was on the road to becoming a Separatist.

The Separatists believed that the Church of England needed to be further purified from unscriptural beliefs and practices they’d retained from the Roman Catholics.  You may have heard of the Puritans; that group believed that these impurities could be cleansed from within the church. The Separatist sect was more radical. They saw a big problem with the Church of England: it was established and controlled by the State. That made it impossible to purge or preserve it from corruption. Separatists were convinced that the only workable solution was to break away entirely, to preach the Word of God exactly as it is written, free of manipulation from church hierarchies or political corruption.  In this you’ll see major components of Baptist belief: our firm belief in separation of Church and State, as well as insistence on the Word of God as our only authority for belief and practice.

After his removal from the parish at Lincoln, John Smyth went back to his home town of Gainsborough, England.  There, he was quickly appointed pastor of a Congregational church.  Under his teaching, the whole congregation at Gainsborough adopted Separatist views. But they quickly came under persecution from the new King of England, James I (of King James Bible fame). He immediately set out to crack down on the Separatists, declaring that “I will make them conform themselves, or I will have them out of the land.” Pastor Smyth, accompanied by fellow church leader Thomas Helwys, fled England with their whole congregation of about 50 believers in 1607. They traveled to Amsterdam in the Netherlands, a country renowned for its religious freedom. There Smyth pastored his little, refugee congregation. As they pursued their course of study and reform, this would become history’s first Baptist congregation.

As Smyth and Helwys continued to study, they took up the question of who is scripturally qualified to be church members. Smyth grew convicted that the true church is only composed of those who have responded to the Gospel with repentance and faith and have testified to their new life in Christ through believer’s baptism.  They were convinced that infant baptism is not taught in the Bible. Of course, this is the main doctrine that forms the identity of Baptists to this day.  And the idea of “regenerate church membership,” only true Christians as members, is still cherished by us.

Other beliefs that Smyth set forth included two-fold church leadership, with pastors (elders) and deacons as the pattern set forth in the New Testament.  Even those officers would be accountable to the members. Financial support of the church should come only from the church membership—the State should not fund the Church in anyway, because with funding comes control. All of this continues to make up our spiritual DNA as Baptists.

With his new beliefs concerning Baptism, what was Smyth to do? His church was not part of a denominational body which practiced believer’s baptism.  How could they be properly baptized, then? He could think of only one course, and Helwys agreed.  Smyth first baptized himself in front of them all, after recounting his testimony and setting forth his beliefs.  Then, all the other members of the church were baptized as believers.  Note that this was a baptism by affusion, or pouring. Immersion wasn’t yet on their radar, but of course that would come with time. 

Smyth and Helwys led their church as it congregated in a meeting house rented from a local congregation of Mennonites. They found they were in close harmony with these Anabaptists on many things.  They formed deep friendships and conversations with them, and it was the Mennonites that convinced Smyth and Helwys to turn away from the Calvinist doctrine of predestination (more on that when we look at Helwys next month).

As they fellowshipped with their Mennonite friends, however, doubts were raised about whether it was legitimate for Smyth to have baptized himself.  It was suggested to him that true baptism should be administered from a church with historic succession over the generations. For good or bad, Smyth was an impressionable man, and he agreed that he’d been in error.  He, along with the majority of the congregation, applied for membership with the Mennonite church.

Helwys, however, parted ways with Smyth at this point. Along with eight or ten other members, they maintained that baptism was solely an expression of one’s personal faith and testimony—historic succession was unnecessary. They broke from Smyth’s group and continued as the “true” first Baptist church in Amsterdam.  As the mainstream of Baptist history continues with Helwys’ group, we will follow their story with the next article.

As you read this article, I trust you saw that several points of Baptist faith came together quickly through the ministry of John Smyth. Though he and Helwys had a falling-out, Smyth’s studies in God’s Word made a tremendous contribution to who we are today.  I hope you continue to find this survey to be helpful, and that you’ll have a firmer sense of footing in your own identity as a Baptist.

BAPTIST BITES: Anabaptist Forebears

     Today I’m eager to continue our series on the Baptists: how did we get here, what we believe, and why. We’ve reached the point where we need to set up some historical context. There are several early leaders and groups that bore small seeds of who we’d later become, but for our purposes we need to concentrate on the major players. This time, we look briefly at the Swiss Reformation and the Anabaptists.

     We usually associate the Protestant Reformation with great names like Martin Luther and John Calvin, but it actually sprung up in a few countries. For instance: in Switzerland, where priest Huldrych Zwingli began to speak out against corruptions and errors in the Roman Catholic Church. His “disputation” of 1523 was so effective that the city council of Zurich decided to adopt his reforms and convert to Protestantism. He preached for more radical changes than Luther, though. For instance, Zwingli held that the bread and wine of Communion did not in any way become the body and blood of the Lord; they were only symbols. We Baptists maintain that belief to this day. We also take from Zwingli the belief that God does not hold sin accountable against infants and young children until they have grown enough to understand and choose freely between good and evil, to understand their own sin and repent.

     But just as Zwingli went farther than Calvin, there were followers of Zwingli who believed his reforms didn’t go far enough. For instance, they became convinced from their studies that infant baptism was not Biblical. They saw no instances of infant baptism in the Bible, but only free decisions to be baptized upon conversion. This spiritual DNA is strong in Baptists still. The group held its first adult baptism in 1525 under the leadership of Konrad Grebel. In 1527 they (calling themselves the Swiss Brethren) adopted a formal statement of their faith, the Schleitheim Confession. The Confession had seven articles, some of which would resonate with Baptists today, some not. But certainly, their first article on Baptism would resonate with us well. It says in part,

“Baptism shall be given to all those who have learned repentance and amendment of life, and who believe truly that their sins are taken away by Christ, and to all those who walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and wish to be buried with Him in death…”

     The fourth article on Communion also agrees in large part with Baptist belief (the elements are a remembrance, not the Real Presence of Christ’s body and blood, and to be taken by true believers only). There are other articles which some (probably most) Baptists would depart from today, like refusing to take oaths, and reading the Sermon on the Mount so seriously as to refuse violence or war of any kind.

     But some of the Anabaptists’ beliefs caused political leaders to seek their banishment or extermination. When infants were baptized in State-controlled churches, those children were registered for 1) taxation and 2) conscription in military service, if that became necessary. The Brethren’s reforms sought to break the Church away from all state control. This was not to be tolerated, so even as the Schleitheim Confession was being drafted, some of the spiritual leaders were being rounded up and executed.

     Two features kept the Anabaptists from having the influence they could have had. One was their prohibition on war or violence. Though Baptists have much in common with them, most have not gone along with Anabaptist pacifism. Second was a tragic and confusing radicalization of men who followed a minister named Melchior Hoffman. Hoffmann shared many Anabaptist beliefs, and even called himself one, but many of the Anabaptist leaders thought that he was too radical, particularly in his obsession with the end times. He drew many followers, though, including a baker named Jan Matthijsz and a tailor named Jan van Leyden. Matthijsz took apocalypticism even further. He went to the city of Munster, calling himself a prophet, and began to preach that the city would soon become the New Jerusalem. Some of the misguided among Anabaptists flocked to Munster, and they were able to take over the city. The Catholic bishop sent an army to put down any resistance against his authority. Matthijsz was killed, and van Leyden took over. Van Leyden was even more deranged, calling himself the new King David, executing those who would not accept believer’s baptism, setting up a radical socialist system and instituting polygamy. Munster became a slaughterhouse. Finally the army of the Bishop was able to gain entrance after a long siege, and the “Anabaptist” leaders of the Munster Rebellion were tortured and killed.

     After this, the European powers tended to paint all Anabaptists with the same brush, lumping them all together with the radical revolutionaries (though other Anabaptist movements, like the Mennonites were quite moderate, nonviolent, and respectful of governing authority). The feeding frenzy was on, though, and Anabaptists were hunted, tortured and exterminated throughout Europe. Finally they reached Holland, where they found religious tolerance.

     Though the main channel of our Baptist heritage runs through the English Separatists (which I’ll cover next month), it is unquestionable that Anabaptist beliefs had some influence in forming who they would eventually become. Some areas of our theology are owed to them. One of our early English Baptist founders, John Smyth, actually pursued affiliation with the Mennonites along with his congregation. But for now, I hope you have found this little portrait of some of our Anabaptist ancestors to be fascinating. I hope that a picture is beginning to form in your mind of how some of our Baptist beliefs came to be.

BAPTIST BITES: Formative Beliefs

  This month we begin our series of brief articles on Baptist beliefs and history. Today I want to give a quick description of those unique beliefs that give Baptist their identity. Dr. Robert Torbet, former professor of church history at two of our American Baptist seminaries, summarizes Baptist principles in his book The Baptist Story (Judson Press, 1964). I also refer to the article, "Ten Facts You Should Know About American Baptists" from our denominational website. I would summarize our distinctives like this:

1. Jesus Christ alone is the head of the church. Our allegiance to Him should be total, not in conjunction with any human leaders.
2. The Bible is our authority in all matters of Christian faith and practice. We are non-creedal. Human creeds and confessions can aid understanding but should not be used as tests of authenticity. The Bible is the final word and standard.
3. Regenerate church membership: the local church is made of those who have received new life in Jesus and have testified to that new life through believer's baptism by immersion.
4. Baptists observe two "ordinances" of our faith. Along with believer's baptism by immersion, we celebrate The Lord's Supper, with the bread and cup serving as memorial symbols of Christ's broken body and shed blood. We differ in this aspect from other traditions who believe the elements transform into the body and blood, or that Christ's real presence is in the elements themselves.
5. Priesthood of the believer: Every Christian has direct access to God through the one Mediator, Jesus. As such, they are all responsible to give a witness of their faith through sharing the gospel news and living it for others to see. The responsibility for the life and ministry of the church, then, is upon the congregation as they contribute their spiritual gifts to the work of the whole.
6. The local church is the fundamental unit of mission in how Baptist churches carry the Gospel to people locally and globally. Local churches identify and help equip members gifted for mission, and Baptist churches cooperate to send them out and support them.
7. Soul freedom: Each person is responsible to God for decisions that will determine his/her eternal destiny. So, everyone must be free to worship God as the Scriptures and Holy Spirit direct the conscience. 
8. Local church autonomy: As Jesus alone is the head of the church, the Bible is our only authority, the local church is the fundamental unit of mission, and individuals are responsible before God to serve according to the dictates of conscience, it is natural that we uphold need for “autonomous congregations, responsible for articulating their own doctrine, style of worship and mission.” (“Ten Facts…” ABCUSA website)
9. The Church, therefore, must not be dominated by the State. Baptists are among the pioneering advocates of separation of Church and State, having faced much intolerance and State oppression in our past.

When we return next month, we’ll gaze down through history, looking for people and movements that started to lay the groundwork for the beliefs that Baptists hold today.  I hope you’ll find it interesting, and encouraging to those who’d like to know why Baptists believe the things they do.

BAPTIST BITES: An Introduction

This month, I thought I’d start a series of articles I’m calling Baptist Bites. In them, I hope to provide short, digestible accounts to the history, people and beliefs that led to who we are as Baptists today. 

In our local church we have a mix: lifetime Baptists as well as those who have joined us from other denominational roots. I think this little series will be helpful to both groups. For those who came from other traditions, there are surely some who researched Baptists as they were joining, or perhaps received a class about it later. On the other hand, people often join a new church because they’ve married someone who is an active member and wishes to remain. Perhaps they join because they find the doctrine to be Biblical and the people to be welcoming and loving (we hope that’s true of us!) In any case, they might wonder, in the back of their minds, how this Baptist tradition came to be. What are the unique beliefs that made the founding generations feel they needed to start their own denominational tradition? 

A “brush-up session” might be good for us lifetime Baptists as well. For decades, a sense of historical roots and identity has been crumbling. That’s true in churches as well as the culture in general. Many (maybe most?) new Evangelical churches are nondenominational, and many older churches are deleting the denominational identifiers from their names. They certainly have the right to do as it seems best to them, and I actually don’t mind learning from other traditions and incorporating some of their best ideas—so long as they’re Biblically-faithful. But it also seems to me that churches these days are happy to morph themselves into something entirely different without first taking the effort to understand their own tradition, why they believe as they do, and what are the really good ideas in their own spiritual heritage. If they re-invent themselves out of ignorance of their own identity, they’re in great danger of losing much that is precious—that they might come to regret after it’s gone.

I start this little series, then, in hopes that we will learn what is unique and good about this family tradition we’re part of today. To be sure, our tradition is far from perfect. That’s always the case when human beings had anything to do with it. But there are some reasons that Baptists believe and practice as they do—and some of them are pretty good reasons!

I don’t write these with the intent to make you feel inferior or wrong if you came from a different tradition that you still value. Every denominational tradition has some good ideas! My goal that we can all see and appreciate the good things that the Baptist tradition can offer in our quest to know, love and follow Jesus together. I hope it will be interesting, and maybe even a little bit fun!