Historic Reforms in Christianity: Calvinism and the Origins of the Mennonites

The term "reform" can be both valuable and discouraging. The word alone evokes a certain complexity, but the definition reduces down to essentially meaning complete change. Although at first, it may be difficult to recognize, the process of reform is in fact painstaking. And this process was no less painful when considering the break from the Medieval Latin Christian Church in the 16th century. The Protestant Reformation brought about many movements that changed the way in which Christianity was viewed by both the Catholic Church and the public; however the name of the movement could be seen as deceiving. It is often assumed that Luther broke away from the church to declare and define Protestant theology. And from that point forward it disseminated and branched into history. But if one would delve deeper into the material, he would discover it was not that straightforward.

The establishment of Protestantism in Christian history can be characterized in four separate movements: Lutheranism, the "Reformed" Movement, the English Reformation, and the Radical Reformation Movement (Placher, History, 190.) Lutheranism dominated areas within Germany while eventually finding its way into parts of Scandinavia. The Zwigli-led "Reformed" Movement had predominately spread throughout Switzerland. The English Reformation, where England separated from the authority of the papacy, and declared the King the church’s authority (Placher, History, 227). The radical reformers are often seen as those who failed to establish a territorial church (Placher, History, 190). But nonetheless, this movement made substantial contributions to the Protestant Reformation, particularly its communal approach to the matter of church and state.

When all the facts are considered, it is not that these people are the losers of the Reformation, nor are they as radical as their name suggests. They were just so fundamentally different from the other movements within the Reformation. George H. Williams points out that the Radical Reformers can be broken down into three main movements: the Anabaptists (a movement that would birth the Mennonites), the Spiritualists, and the Anti-Trinitarians/Rationalists (Placher, History, 191). Although contrasting the theology of John Calvin and the Radical Reformers would serve a historical purpose, it does little to add to the debate which seeks to define the origin of many of these reformed movements. Moreover, it fails to identify whether or not any of the ideas of these movements were original. The most significant theological topics of Christian thought are the role of reason and revelation, works and grace, and church and state (Placher, History, 14-15).
John Calvin, the Radical Reformers and the Medieval Latin Christian Church have much in common. The theologies of each of these groups are, at times, similar. And rightly so, they were interconnected by the authority of scripture. However, they were disconnected by the way in which the scripture was interpreted, and while the connection between them established a common cause, their disconnection often led to sharp disagreements.

Much of the theologies and their differences were first begotten by many theologians of the medieval Christian Church. And although the people within the movements of Calvinism and Radical Reformers contributed much to their spread and growth, the atmosphere of reform within this specific era of time provided the primary impetus to allow these groups to cultivate and promote their doctrinal ideas. Both Calvin and the Radical Reformers addressed various topics, but their most significant contributions can be singled out. Calvin provided the movement with his doctrine of double predestination and the Radical Reformers provided an intriguing approach for separating church and state by creating a state within a state through establishing an isolated community open only to those privy and pure enough to be accepted.

Reason versus revelation is a topic that is still debated today (Placher, History, 14). If one uses reasoning to understand the divine, then he may find difficulty in recognizing part that faith plays. And yet if he relies merely on faith, then he may turn blind to reason. Calvin, for instance, believed that there was a place for both reason and revelation. "Each of us must…be stung by the consciousness of his own unhappiness as to attain at least some knowledge of God…[but] it is needful that another and better help be added to direct us to the very Creator of the universe" (Placer, Readings v II, 60.) And while he may maintain that we must be "…stung by the consciousness of our own unhappiness," his stance on irresistible grace makes revelation some part of the process outside of reason-especially when considering his focus on his own conversion (Placher, History, 219).

The stance commonly held by the Radical Reformers concerning reason and revelation can be seen in the Anabaptist leader Thomas Muntzer’s sermon before the princes. He speaks of how often revelation is rejected and calls out Marin Luther as one who often does this – pejoratively referring to him as "Brother Soft Life." He goes on to say, however, that "the beloved apostles had to be diligent to [the meaning of] visions because it is clearly written in their Acts." Further, he says that the use of revelation is, indeed, the mark of a truly apostolic, patriarchal and prophetic spirit. Placher comments that Muntzer maintained that the Holy Spirit speaking to the public had more authority than the scriptures as interpreted by scholars (Placher, Readings v. II, 28-29.)

While reason and revelation played a part of the theologies of the Reformation, this was not the first time the debate between the two had arisen. As a matter of fact, one of the earliest theologians of the medieval times struggled with this. Anselm of Canterbury approached the quandary unlike any of his predecessors. Although many of the theologians up to this point approached reason and revelation the same way as Anselm – faith seeking understanding – they rarely, if ever, bounded faith and reason as tightly as Anselm. He had done this "as daringly as anyone has" (Placher, Readings v. 1, 144), as Placher puts it. Anselm’s style was intriguing. He would often structure his writing as an A and B argument, evoking a mathematical or logical feel,

A: Thus to sin is the same things as not to render his due to God.
B: What is the dept which we owe God?
A: Every inclination of the rational creature ought to be subject to the will of God.
B: Nothing could be truer. - (Placher, Readings v. 1, 148)

But Anselm was not the only theologian from the medieval church that focused on the role for the reason and faith. Thomas Aquinas focused on it a great deal. So much so that there is a realm of philosophy, Thomism, named after him. Aquinas took Aristotle’s thought that the senses are largely needed for knowledge and applied it to his reasoning behind his theology. Concurrently, he took the Augustinian idea that all knowing begins with faith and turned it on its head. His Summa Theologiae balanced faith and reason, nature and grace (Placher, Readings v. 1, 156). Aquinas believed that there was a part for revelation and for the philosophical sciences, which are devised by human. It is therefore expedient that there be another science which is divinely inspired, besides the philosophical sciences, which are devised by human reason. It is therefore expedient that there be another science which is divinely inspired, besides the philosophical sciences" (Placher, Readings v. 157).

On the other side of reason, there were the "Mystics." Mysticism focused on the revelation of the individual. Its practitioners still focused upon the orthodoxy of the church, but because they emphasized the revelation of the individual there was a redundancy which necessarily came when defining the role of the church. A good example of how mysticism parallels the radical reformers stance on revelation can be seen in an excerpt from Meister Eckert’s Sermons. "Here God enters the soul with all he has and not in part. He enters the soul through its core and nothing may touch the core except God himself" (Placer, Readings v. 1 176). This is mysticism defined, no logical explanation of how God enters the soul, nor scripture to support these claims. Mysticism has existed well before the radical reformers, whether there is an absolute connection from which they drew their theological convictions from is another story.

The simple fact is that although Calvin sought to balance reason and revelation, he was preceded by a long-standing Augustinian thought which was focused on by those quite close to him in time. Additionally, the idea that revelation can be the means by which the knowledge of God is obtained did not begin with the radical reformers. The mystics of the late medieval period came before the reformation and had trodden down that oath quite often. Anselm was central to the idea of reason and revelation because he was the first to introduce logic and reason in a way that was more intense than his predecessors. Aquinas is important in this context because he maintained that there ought to be a balance between revelation and reason.

The role of works and grace was the center piece of the Reformation. For Martin Luther it was defining the role works played in the act of receiving salvation. Calvin’s legacy, though, is plagued and seemingly will be plagued with his view on grace and predestination. The Augustinian view maintained by the medieval church coincides with John Calvin. Moreover, the Augustinian stance on works and grace can be seen, not only in the number of theologians in the church which maintained its principles, but also in the backlash that came out of theologians straying into "Pelagian territory," focusing on freewill in choosing ones salvation (Placher, Readings v. 1, 133-137). Additionally, there is support for this view in later theologians as well: Aquinas (Placher, Readings v. 1, 161) and Thomas Bradwardine (Placher, Readings v. 1, 183).

One part of the argument for works and grace which was established concretely by Calvin was the ideas of irresistible grace and dual predestination. Calvin maintained the individual has freewill outside of choosing his own salvation. The grace for salvation is not given freely by God because it is only for the elect. And those who are elected as believers, then, are so compelled by grace that they cannot turn from the invitation of salvation. It was during and because of these reflections on how we are saved that Calvin drew his view on predestination (Placher, History, 221).

Calvin’s view on predestination was not necessarily a precedent, but his making an explicit stance on the idea of dual predestination was. Augustinian thought maintained that people were predestined to be saved. And although it could be inferred, it was not necessarily explicitly stated that this also meant that people are predestined to hell as well. John Calvin stood by this idea and explained that we are all deserving of the punishment of damnation and no one gets less than what they deserve. Some do get more than what they deserve, but only because it pleases God to do so (Placher, History 222).

It is not explicitly clear about the radical reformers’ theological stance on works and grace. Both the Anti-Trinitarians and Spiritualists were often noted for their tolerance (Anti-Trinitarians were the more doctrinally tolerant) (Placher, History, 193, 194). And the Anabaptists had a strong focus on post-infant baptism, which might suggest a doctrine of freewill (Placher, History, 191) (Placher, Readings, v. II, 26). But it is quite a coincidence that those known for tolerance have not openly stated their stance on predestination or freewill, especially during a time when there is such a focus drawn upon them. The wording in the Schleitheim Confession of Faith only supports the ambiguity which suggests a tolerance for moderate doctrinal plurality: "First. Observe concerning baptism: 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" (Placher, Readings, v. II, 31).

The final topic which these three groups shared is the role of the church and state. This topic is complicated when considering the medieval times. It seemed that incorporating the church with the state was doomed from the start. Augustine was in a conundrum. Although he was so influential in both civil and spiritual affairs, he still felt torn on the matter of whether to use state force to oversee the implementation of a theological decision. This was seen by his indecisiveness in using force against the Donatists in North Africa (Placher, History, 114). Regardless of whether he was at ease with his decision, this choice is often seen as the beginning of a long road of bad decisions for the church (Placher, History, 115).

The progressive nature of the theologians who questioned the role of the church and state seems to be a cycle of inquiring about the papacy’s authority throughout the Middle Ages. Giles of Rome had taken Aquinas’ view that the papacy had power over spiritual matters and the state had authority over the temporal matters, and, for lack of better words, destroyed it. Giles said that since heavenly power transcends all other power-nature, art or the state – and the papacy was the people’s authority of that power, the papacy, then, has the power to transcend the state (Placher, Readings v. 1, 165). Dante Aphigieri, only realizing the power the people had to tear the state apart, argued that there be independent rights for the emperors (Placher, Readings v. 1. 168). Later while dealing with the fact of two, possibly three popes, the church sought the answer to how a council would choose the pope in such an emergency in the future. Dietrich of Niem, then, argued that ecumenical councils have authority over the papacy. "Today the unity of the head is lost, for three dare to call themselves pope. A pope as pope is a man and as pope can sin as a man can err. The pope is bound to obey such a council in all things. Such a council can limit the power of the pope" (Placher, Readings v. 1, 189-190). Although the medieval church may have, at times, attacked the authority of the papacy, the Reformation attacked the entire system. And by doing this, it led to the establishment of churches with new internal structures, and of course, doctrines. These new developments, caused by the dissemination of papal authority, led to those within the Reformation to necessarily establish a new stance on the topic of church and state.

Calvin saw the state being separate from the church (Placher, Readings v. II, 64). He says that "…spiritual government, indeed, is already initiating in us upon earth" and that the role of the civil government is "to cherish and protect the outward worship of God, to defend sound doctrine of piety and the church, to adjust life to the society of men, to form social behavior to civil righteousness, to reconcile us with one another, and to promote the general peace and tranquility (Placher, Readings v. II, 65). But Calvin doesn’t stop there. He makes a broad exception. Calvin wittingly leave room for a revolt, he states that "…sometimes [God] raises up open avengers from among his servants, and arms them with commands to punish the wicked government and deliver his people, oppressed in unjust ways, from miserable calamity…" (Placher, Readings v. ii, 65). This idea of an all-encompassing protection of religious rights as opposed to a state-mandate depicting your religion and the practices therein sharply differs from many of the radical reformers. The difference is seen in both the state and its people.

The radical reformers were pacifists and sought to be disassociated with the state, so much so that they even refused to participate in military action. Because of their refusal to acknowledge the authority of the state, they created their own communities, establishing then away from communities away from those already established by the state. Part of the logic behind the doctrine of the Anabaptists ("rebaptizers") was that the transformation, however it happened, had already occurred and that infant baptisms were not scriptural. Therefore, in order to have a church with truly devoted members, those who were baptized as adults would essentially be wholly committed to the church (Placher, History, 191.) Many in the movement wanted to establish this type of church because there was a belief that the church of the past had been corrupted since the conversion of Constantine (and some maintained since the beginning of the apostolic succession) (Placher, History, 191). This could hold some reasoning behind their lack of civil obedience. Essentially, since they did not believe that the state had a place in their governing, or at least they do not see that it has authority over their spiritual life, they are withdrawn from society. But this withdrawal is intriguing and shines a light on their views about church and state. Although they are civil pacifists and they do have a form of excommunicating individuals, whether daily or not, they do these things with and within a tightly-knit community separate from the already established communities by the state. So, it could easily be said that, although they may not have a place for civil governing, concerning society as whole, they do have a preference and place for communal governing. Drawing from and contrasting this with Calvinism, Calvin told his followers that they should be obedient to the state, whereas the radical reformers were telling each other to be obedient to the community. And because the radical reformers rejected the formal state and were pacifists, they would not revolt. In fact, this contributed much to the abuses they experienced. Additionally, their focus on a communal government, which superseded the authority of the governing state in which they were established, was not something that was often seen in any of the Christian subgroups before the Reformation. If there were preceding communities who had a "communal doctrine" similar to the radical reformers, the groups were not significant enough to be mentioned in the literature.

The Reformation gave birth to many movements which sought to reform those aspects of the church with which they did not agree. Calvin put his foot down and formally established the ideas of double predestination and irresistible grace. Additionally, he argued that there should be a balance between revelation and reason by necessarily leaving salvation as an act of revelation through the rejection of freewill and the role of irresistible grace. He also tells his followers to be submissive to the state because they are the ones who give you the freedom to practice their religion. Moreover, he demands that if there is a point at which the citizens are experiencing oppressive and violent forces, it could very well be the cleansing of their immorality. Of course, Calvin made an exception which opened the path for the citizens of the state to revolt if they felt that the governmental authority was acting malevolently.

The radical reformers, no doubt, maintained that revelation was the way to God. Like their predecessors, the mystics, there was room for divine intervention. But for the radical reformers, the room was enough to experience God without the use of scripture because they felt that this could solely be revealed to them via revelation. Moreover, some believed in the literal interpretation of scripture, which, in fact, implies the thought that God reveals himself through the words of scripture – without any focus on reasoning. Again, others took the bible so literally that they did not accept the idea of a trinity because it was not explicitly stated. Additionally, they did not believe in infant baptism because it was not explicitly stated in scripture.
The radical reformers were sometimes known as being tolerant of other Protestant doctrines. Although some groups were more tolerant than others, the simple proof is in the ambiguity of the wording of their doctrine and the lack of establishing an explicit position on freewill or predestination. If the greatest contribution of one of the groups of the radical reformers were needed to be pointed out, it would be the formal establishment of the communal government within an already established state. And although the goal of other movements within the Reformation was to establish territorial churches, the radical reformers’ view was completely different. They established territorial communities. These communities served as the church and the state – they governed both spiritually and temporally. This contribution to Protestantism is important because of the prevalence of Mennonites and Amish within the United States. And the significance lies not only in the ubiquity of the group within parts of the United States, but maybe more importantly, the impressive longevity and preservation of the movement.

Placher, William C. Readings in the History of Christianity v.1. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1988.

—. Readings in the History of Christianity v.2. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1988.

Placher, William. The History of Christian Thought. Louisville: Westminster Knoxville Press, 1983.