“Why was baptism such a big deal?” Whenever I talk with new learners about the evangelical Anabaptists of the Reformation period, I know this will be a question that comes up.
One the one hand, the very idea that someone could be hunted and killed over what seemed like a squabble over baptismal practice appears extreme to many today. On the other hand, that these early radicals were willing to let themselves be drowned, hanged or even burned over their baptismal convictions seems at first glance to be perhaps wasteful. (By one estimate, 4,000 Anabaptists were martyred during the early to middle part of the 16th century.)
Why kill—or be willing to be killed—for a particular nuance on Christian doctrine? Such a question is compounded when one considers that for many evangelicals today, views on believer’s baptism vs. infant baptism now are typically categorized as being of secondary importance in comparison to matters of salvation. For the armchair historian, burning Anabaptist “heretics” is far more likely to recall the Salem witch trials than noble Christian practice.
However, on the eve of Anabaptism’s 500th anniversary, it is important to remind ourselves again why believer’s baptism was so important for these radicals and why it ought to continue to be a precious doctrine in the life of the U.S. Mennonite Brethren family today.
A baptism worth dying for
Living in the United States, we likely take for granted that there is no state religion, but rather the separation of church and state. The U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” People of all stripes have the freedom to choose their religion or none at all.
However, this church/state distinction was not the assumption of late medieval Christendom at the turn to the 16th century. Instead, in a society where every citizen was considered “Christian,” citizenship and religion went together. Therefore, baptism was the physical symbol of demarcation that carried both religious and socio-political significance. Overall, this was the understanding of the Catholic, Lutheran or Reformed state churches during this period.
By comparison, when the first Anabaptists used the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura (“by Scripture alone”), which placed the Bible as the supreme authority in matters of faith and practice, they took the New Testament’s teaching seriously. Only those who could understand and receive the word of the gospel by faith were the appropriate candidates for baptism.
Therefore, the Anabaptists’ understanding of baptism didn’t merely challenge the common understanding. Rather, it undid all Christian society by drawing a strong separation between secular and ecclesial jurisdictions.
For these evangelical Anabaptists, the true church wasn’t Christendom. Instead, the true church was made up of regenerate baptized disciples who had voluntarily placed their faith in the gospel and covenanted together to form what we call a “believers church”—a church made up of believing members instead of those baptized as infants. Moreover, their understanding of the church severed it from being under the authority of the state and relocated it properly under the sole headship of the Lord Jesus—a “free church.”
In a nutshell, for these Christians it wasn’t just a squabble over baptismal practice that was at stake but what believers baptism represented: the true church, both believing and free.
Does it still matter today?
With this background, I believe that even if we as Americans don’t risk martyrdom for our views on the church today, we should continue to promote these Anabaptist ecclesial distinctives in our current context. Here’s three reasons why.
Evangelism in our own house. If conversion is not compulsory but requires a voluntary response to hearing the gospel, then it follows that we can never assume that just because someone grew up in church that they are therefore a Christian. As a younger millennial who has watched many of my own peers walk away from Christ, I lament as I see this trend continue among Generation Z. The evidence is right before us that many “went out from us, but they did not really belong to us” (1 John 2:19).
We must remember the sobering reality of what so many youth ministry gurus repeatedly observe for why we lose students at graduation: We never really had their hearts to begin with. If we hold that the church is voluntarily made up of believing members, we must be vigilant to call our own youth to move beyond their parents’ faith and come into a genuine relationship themselves with Christ.
Meaningful discipleship and discipline. A key historic Anabaptist conviction was that if the church is made up of believers, then they ought to act like it. In this respect, their motto for Christian living could easily have been from James: “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourself” (James 1:22, ESV). “So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead” (James 2:17, ESV).
Likewise, for us today, if the church is really made up of regenerate believers, this ought to be obvious as we seek to be salt and light in our communities. Moreover, church leadership will lovingly and yet firmly call church members to this pure standard of Christian living through the practice of accountability in boldly implementing church discipline (Matt. 18:15-20; 1 Cor. 5:1-12).
Local church autonomy. Lastly, if the free church understanding of church authority is correct, then it is Christ alone who is the sole head of all local churches awaiting the gathering of the universal church at the marriage Supper of the Lamb (Rev. 19:6-10). Not the state, pope, presbytery, a pastor, deacons or any charismatic personality. Only the King of Kings has the right to rule over each local body which gathers in his name. He has, after all, paid the highest price for his bride.
With these words, I remember why some of our older denominational leaders are right to clarify that we truly are not merely a denomination. Instead, we are a “conference” of churches that cooperates together. By design, the U.S. Conference has this “flat structure,” where we all happily submit under Jesus while putting no one else in his place.
Malcolm Yarnell, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary research professor of theology who has written extensively on Anabaptism, has aptly articulated how free churches should then function: “The New Testament church is ruled by Jesus Christ, governed by the congregation, led by pastors and served by deacons.” Such a free church perspective then clearly puts into perspective practical matters of how local churches, for example, select their officers or manage their resources for the sake of the Great Commission.
The Anabaptists who came before us shed their blood to restore believers baptism and with it, this radical redefining of the nature of the church in their day. Let us see the importance of their sacrifice as we in our own time carry their teachings on the church forward. Not just because they are Anabaptist, but more importantly, because they are biblical.
Aaron Garza is the senior pastor at Bethesda Church in Huron, South Dakota. He is a graduate of Tabor College and received a Master of Divinity and Master of Theology from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, where he is currently a doctoral candidate. His research interest is the Anabaptists of the Radical Reformation. He and his wife, Justine, have two sons.
