Anabaptists and Christian Commonwealth

The Anabaptist are often seen as a threat to the established ecclesiastical and magisterial authorities (See Caner, lesson 13). In this regard the Anabaptists could be said to have baptized people out of a rejection of both the authority of the established church and the authority of the established governments of the time. The Anabaptist establishment of church as being independent of civil government, separate from civil government, and opposed to the established church proposes a vision that although ideally would appear to have a strong appeal perhaps has many problems that the vast multitude of people that espouse this doctrine do not realize.

Although as noted by Doctor Caner that the Anabaptist did not pay taxes and could be self sufficient from the state (Caner, lesson 13), the problem is that for their independence to be maintained some sort of organized government would need to be established by the Anabaptists in order to maintain economic and spiritual welfare for all people such as in the case of the building of roads, protection from the military, establishment of an Islamic state, and the administration of justice. The power of the Christian church to command the state is fundamentally important for protecting against a host of such problems as these, and without the Church at the helm of the state the tragic results could be the enslaving of Christians under authorities that are counter productive to the Christian mission.

What is really insulting is that Christians would have paid taxes under Nero, and Christ directed Peter to pay the taxes for both him and Jesus in order to not cause insult to the very same people that would later crucify them (Matthew 17:27), but the Anabaptists in contrast would not pay taxes to Christians that had been baptized in the Lord's name in a different fashion then themselves (Wow). The danger thus in the work of the Anabaptists is that it can be seen as a weapon used against others that proclaim Christ, and this can be even a harsher treatment than that given to Nero by Christians or even Pilot that both crucified Christ and gained from taxation of early Christians. Overall, the danger thus is that the Anabaptist view of religious liberty was an offense against a system that was believed and understood by the masses to be founded upon Christ himself.

Jesus Christ clearly was in prayer to his Father that it was his will that the kingdom would come and that earth would be transformed to be like heaven (Matthew 6:10), and Christ also prayed that the believers would be one just as he and the Father are one and that they would be protected by the name of the Father (John 17:10-12). One of the problems with the Anabaptists baptizing in rejection of the established church of the time is that either the established church had no believers in Christ in it or the Anabaptists could be seen as working against the prayer for unity that Christ made, and what is most ironic about this prayer is that it occurred in the context of Christ praying for the believers not to be taken out of the world but to instead be provided for in the world (this appears to be what is meant by being protected by the name of the Father). A concern to be raised is that perhaps the Anabaptists suffered death by being burnt at the stake simply because of covenant unfaithfulness on their part limiting the divine protection given by the prayer of Jesus Christ for those believers that he was in fact praying for to his Father.

The fact is that without a national church and with a plurality of religious freedom, civil law can eventually cause people to have little or no moral guidance. The point is that people may became punished for legal offenses without realizing why they are being punished, or people that should be punished by the law as a result of incredible moral misbehavior may go unpunished because the plurality of religious freedom may lack agreement upon a moral code to act as the foundation for law. In fact the Hebrew word Torah both means teaching and it means law, and in this regard the law of Moses is seen as being God's teaching or simply his doctrine and thus goes well beyond just being imposed to restrain evil (law does not just restrain evil). Overall, the Anabaptists likely made the best leadership decisions and directional decisions that they could given their circumstances, but they likely had no way of seeing into the future to realize the horrors that would result from their actions.

Today the Anabaptist vision of separation from the state is like the African-American street vision of selling illegal drugs to have a stack of cash to one day have a rap record contrast with a producer. So much media gets portrayed to represent young African-American males doing rap, having wealth, and being involved in illegal drugs that many young male African-Americans buy into the vision without realizing the reality of the future of the common person that lives a lifestyle filled with illegal drugs. In a similar way many professors and theologians dream about the separation of church and state in a environment that affords them almost every privilege and freedom known to man like a rap star having all wealth at their fingertips, and sadly just like the poor young African-American males that like any naive youth buy into such visions, the reality for the common person that buys into the separation of church and state does not add up to the vision that they had been sold.

Many large universities and seminary schools for example may have very large unions, intellectual freedom, and job security along with the ability to communicate freely to anyone at anytime about any subject, and students also have similar freedom. A common working person in contrast however that works with the public, especially in a sales related function in a large organization, will often have very limited freedom of speech if any (even far less so for management). Overall, the larger the organization the more that a company uniform may employ a worker to act as like a machine performing a specific task without any deviation in business doctrine, assigned duties, or independent interpretation of company rules and practices (note: many cities across the nation almost look identical because of franchising).

Some business for example will fire employees that associate with any other employee in any way except if they are talking strictly business (this is even the case outside of the workplace), and this can be the precautionary reaction always performed of a large business against the prospect of a union ever forming. Managers would then be hired to work at such establishments with high qualifications in order to voice lies in convincing ways that the company makes up, and in this regard employees may be told that they are going to have a job forever if they work hard when for example the company plans to lay them all off or fire them all the very next month. Not only that, but if the business did not approve of the employee going to a certain church, then the business could find ways of eliminating that employee by engineering a set of duties that the employee would not succeed in and would thus be terminated or the employer could simply require the employee to work during the times that the employee would otherwise be doing religious duties (working Sundays was an abomination centuries ago - now it would be required of many Christians). Overall, a large number of workers in many companies will simply have a home life, a work life, and will go to church if they can, and many of these people would be unable to relate to anyone else in any other environment thus limiting the ability to fellowship with other Christians or even to claim that their work is done as a result of Christ working through them.

A public school principle for example could not proclaim Christ from the Public Announcement system every morning, could not mentor children to be Christian, could not promote Christianity in school in any way, and could not have a firm theological position known to the community because if any of these things ever happened then the cost of the legal liability of handling a freedom of speech case would be more than a school district would likely afford to pay unless the principle either worked for very low pay or everyone in the school district thought and acted just like the principle (Christianity as common culture). The point is that conformity is usually the name of the game for the business world, and many business use uniforms to impose the idea that the business is making people into carbon copies of some ideal vision of a employee. Overall, any learning that occurs independently, independent ideology, or thoughts that are not controlled by the business can be seen as dangerous to the authority of the business leaders and the unity of many businesses as well.

Business, secular government, public primary and secondary schools usually all work from the same basic model. The model is that the person in charge either makes the truth to be learned, practiced and enforced, or the truth gets handed down from higher authorities to be learned, practiced, and enforced by others. Overall, since the people in charge are considered to either be neutral religiously or voiceless religiously (in order to keep the secular peace) thus the truth that gets generated and the truth that people learn trains the masses to never suspect God to be above them in authority.

The good quality about the union of church and state is that people can clearly see that Christ is in power over the world through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead ruling with an iron scepter if in fact Christ is promoted throughout the land. If a faithful Christian was questioned by inquisitors about misconduct, then Christian principles could be employed to reason for a defense. Not only that, but also when leaders rule, they can act the way that Christ would have them act without fear that they would be imposing on someone else's religious freedom.

The benefit of a true Islamic state that properly cares for its people is that it will give everyone a unified culture, way of life, moral code backed by religious principle, and a societal organization. If the same type of idea was applied to running a Christian commonwealth, then it would perhaps better fulfill what Christ prayed for to his Father before being Crucified on the cross (as noted earlier). The fact is however that many churches today do not govern much of anything, and they often offer salvation by faith alone because what the members are experiencing isn't anything like really being saved or really living in the kingdom of God for that matter. Salvation is by faith alone, but faith alone should not be the only difference between a Christian and a non-Christian (this is a noteworthy saying worth memorization).

The benefit of living in a Christian commonwealth is that the poor, abused, and mistreated could make an appeal to their Bishop, and the Bishop could solve problems in society that a king would likely feel inclined to support since hell is the alternative. In this regard the citizens could have a way of getting special help with special problems that today often are not met. Problems that take a moral interpretation of law, problems that require special attention to groups that a legal system would abuse, and many of the problems that the apostles took up would be best addressed through a Bishop working in the best interest of Christ in a church organization that supports his work. Overall, the fact that the church does not hold the power over government that it had many centuries past is a very sad state of affairs.

Truly with the problems of terrible immorality, indulgences selling slots in heaven, and the church run like the Israelites before the return of Moses, much need existed for reform and perhaps restoration. As sad as the results of history are, mankind has to live with them. The fact that humankind crucified Christ was beyond moral measure (since he is God in the flesh), but the fact that humankind put an end to much of the ruling power of the church and perverted it could have serious eternal consequences since Christ can only truly be crucified once and the church is not in the position to be crucified as a means of atonement in this regard.

Bibliography:

Caner, Ergun. CHHI 694: Lesson 13. Lynchburg, Virginia: Liberty University Online School of Religion, 2009.