The Christian Fundamentalist and Homosexual Clergy: A Critical Analysis

DISCLAIMER It does not matter if the doctrine of fundamentalism is right.  Nor does it matter if I agree or disagree with the views expounded in this analysis.  The point of this article is to provide an argument against a topic within a larger point of view.  So assuming anything about my personal views is prohibited, but pointing out the flaws in my argument is not.  I welcome and encourage your feedback.

There is a pattern that the United States is experiencing today.  Since the push for civil rights in the 1960s, our society has increasingly expected us to become more tolerant.  But the idea of becoming tolerant starkly contradicts one of the oldest traditions in the United States: Christian fundamentalism.  This analysis is not necessarily aiming to condemn or condone those who hold a belief in Christian fundamentalism.  For who is anyone to condemn an entire sect of Christianity with so little words?  The primary goal is to identify a fundamental flaw, a contradiction that many doctrines within fundamentalism share.

In America, social scientists classify Protestantism as a part of two categories: evangelicals and mainline.  Churches that practice Christian fundamentalism are evangelicals.  And one of the ways that they can be identified is that they tend to interpret the bible more literally than those mainline denominations.  Mainline denominations have a more liberal view than their Christian counterparts, the evangelicals.  The doctrines of mainline denominations tend to highlight knowledge in the theology of the scriptures as opposed to the knowledge of the contents of the scripture that the fundamentalists tend to emphasize.

Jerry Falwell, the founder of Liberty University, was a
prominent fundamentalist contributing to the rise of
what is known as the "Religious Right."

Take for example the creation story in Genesis.  Most mainline Christian denominations maintain that the story is a myth and not a verbatim account of how God created the universe.  Because fundamentalists take on a literal translation of scripture, their interpretation of the creation story is quite different, they believe that Genesis is a word for word account of how the world began.  Then it follows accordingly that if the scripture says that Adam was created from dirt and Eve was created from a rib that is literally what happened.  But there have been changes in this view.

A large denomination in the fundamentalist movement, the Church of the Nazarene, has fine-tuned their statement of beliefs in a way that welcomes other arguments.[1]  And although the tolerance of this denomination is represented by the questioning of the church’s traditional stance on creationism – primarily due to the arguments of scientists at Nazarene universities – there has yet to be tolerance in sexuality.

There is an intriguing parallel that exists within the church today.  It has been brought about by a relatively recent change in cultural norms.  There have been many times when changes in the norms of society have played a significant role in influencing the grey areas of Christian theology.  The Reformation alone yields voluminous examples.  But a revolution is not needed for a change in doctrine; a doctrinal change could be  caused by the changing factors in society or an acknowledgement by the church that they have changed, maybe too much or too little, with the factors of society.

There were many times when the United States experienced such significant changes in culture that churches elected to change their position on certain issues.  One good example of this can be seen in the wide acceptance of the female’s role in church practices and position.  The suburbanization of America drew families away from their urban kinships and melded them into community groups.  This led to them becoming a more-involved part of community groups, including churches.  During this time the churches of America experienced an influx of women that felt empowered, civilly protected and ready to serve.  An increasingly liberal view which allowed women of the church to be integrated into the clergy became the norm for the churches of the United States.  

Even though there was, at first, resistance from fundamentalists to allow women to be leaders of the church, it eventually became a waning effort and, over time, many denominations came to accept it.  Keep in mind that, unlike women, it is not out of the ordinary for denominations that practice fundamentalism to condemn an acceptance of homosexual clergy in a “no matter what” fashion.  But regardless of whether or not fundamentalists are intolerant toward allowing homosexual clergy, they are tolerant in having women as clergy.  And whether they want to acknowledge it or not, this acceptance of women was spurred, in part, by a change in the culture of the society.  But regardless if there are firm theological grounds for women to be accepted as clergy, there is still a flaw in their argument for the criteria to hold a position within the church.

Fundamentalist Pat Roberson was also
a leader of the Religious Right movement.

The fundamentalist doctrine maintains that the practice of heterosexuality is the only acceptable type of sexuality, outside of celibacy, that, when practiced, can sustain purity.[2]  In addition to sex being between two consenting adults of the opposite sex, it is also necessary that they be married.  Any violation of or deviance from these specific criteria, is considered absolutely immoral as well as undesirable traits for those holding positions in the clergy.[3]  Therefore, the single act of having intercourse with someone of the same sex is a sin and the ongoing act of being in a homosexual relationship is a contradiction to the one male, one female concept in Genesis.

This is very much an argument of fundamentalists.  Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, and any marriage outside of the Adam and Eve covenant/model, like a marriage between two people of the same sex, goes against the perfect plan God set about in the beginning.  The basic argument here, that homosexuals should not be allowed to serve as clergy, becomes intriguing once the existential traits of a single act of sin is contrasted with those of ongoing acts of sin.

If, in having sex, a sin is committed, the violators are not necessarily obligated to continue in sin.  Jesus was the sacrifice that took the stead of everyone and therefore, anyone can be forgiven from any sin as long as they honestly repent – or, in other words, decide today what your purpose will be from here on out.[4] [5]

To sin is to err.  To continue in sin is to be devoted to sin.  And to be devoted to sin is to be a sinner.[6]  Scripture tells us that a person cannot serve two masters; to be devoted to one is to deny the other.[7]  Therefore sin can only be abolished if we truly repent from the way in which we were living our lives before we asked for forgiveness.

Take for example adultery.  If someone commits adultery, the initial act of having sex with a person outside of the marriage with your first spouse is a sin.  And to continue in the sin of adultery is to be an adulterer.  This is the same for homosexuality.  The act of having sex with someone of the gender is seen as a homosexual act.  And, as the logic goes, those continuing in homosexual acts are homosexuals.  Repenting requires both the turning away and refusal to continue the sinful act or acts from which they have asked for forgiveness.  Therefore, because no one can be forgiven for sin that will be committed in the future, those who elect to continue in sin are not forgiven, regardless if they ask for forgiveness or not.  To know forgiveness is to bear fruit.  Therefore, you will know those who are forgiven by the fruit that they bear.[8]  When Paul speaks about fruitfulness in Galatians, he highlights that those bearing the fruits of the spirit have “…crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.”[9]

Those who repent are given a clean slate and are empowered by Christ to not continue in the same sins that are often treasured activities of their past.[10]  The sinner may be driven by his penitence to ask for forgiveness, but it is his repentance through the power of Christ that breaks the continuity of sin in his life.  Therefore, the sinner that is forgiven continues not in sin until he freely elects to do so.[11]

Continuing in sin implies that sin will be committed in the future.  And according to this view, even if same-sex couples often ask for forgiveness they cannot be forgiven because they obligate themselves to commit sins in the future by not repenting from their lifestyle.  But is the eschewing of the homosexual lifestyle congruent with the beliefs and practices of a fundamentalist church?  Well, not exactly, especially when considering their theological argument for a different, but rather more openly accepted group of continuing sinners.

As it has been established, the sinful nature of homosexuality is directly dependent upon the individual’s repentance of sin.  Although the repentance of sin does not, by any means, guarantee a sinless future, the individual does turn away from the particular life for which he had asked forgiveness.[12]  The interesting part of this is not in how adamant fundamentalist churches are in maintaining their stance on homosexual clergy.  It is in the absolute contradiction of holding tight to that view.

In the fundamentalist denominations, a key argument in condemning homosexual clergy is founded upon the idea of the unwillingness to repent, or, in other words, they choose to continue in sin.  But it seems they are ignoring something.  Homosexuality is not the only sin in the bible that defines a continuance in sin.  In both Matthew and Mark, Jesus defines another type of person that, in a particular situation, would be considered as continuing in sin.

Matthew 19: 1-9

 ¹ When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan.

² Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

³ Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

⁴ “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’^[a]

⁵and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’^[b]?

⁶ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

⁷ “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

⁸ Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

⁹ I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Mark 10: 1-12

¹ Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

² Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

³ “What did Moses command you?” he replied.

⁴ They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”

⁵ “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied.

⁶ “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’^[a]

⁷ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,^[b]

⁸ and the two will become one flesh.’^[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh.

⁹ Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

¹⁰ When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.

¹¹ He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.

¹² And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” 

(emphasis added)

The lesson that Jesus teaches here helps to shine more light upon those clergy that are currently allowed in many of the fundamentalist churches, but, as with those who are homosexual, continue in sin.

In both Matthew and Mark, Jesus teaches that divorcing for the wrong reason, those reasons outside of what is given in the bible, is sin.  Further, the person who divorces in this particular situation and marries a person that is not their first spouse, in fact, commits adultery.  As scripture says, the act of marrying someone that is not your first spouse is a sin.  And, therefore, not repenting from the sin of marrying someone other than a first spouse sets into motion a continuous string of sinful acts.  Consequently, the only option of renewal from an adulterous relationship is to divorce any spouse outside of the first.  From there, the individual only has the choice to stay single or remarry his first spouse.  And just as the disallowing of clergy that are homosexual is built upon the idea that they live in continual sin, the allowing of clergy that are continually living in sin because of an unbiblical remarriage is, in fact, hypocrisy.

Fundamentalists have become extremely tolerant on the issue of divorce.  The changes of cultural norms within society have caused a change in their doctrine.  This increase in tolerance, though, has led to the discrimination of others wanting to become a part of the church.  The prominent counterargument is that those who have remarried outside of these guidelines can be redeemed by Christ as he redeemed the woman at the well in John 4.  The woman at the well had been married before, but it was not clear that she was married after her redemption.  Therefore, it cannot be rightfully deduced that there is redemption for those who wish to marry outside of their first spouse.  And just like the homosexual who continues in sin, so do those individuals who divorce for the wrong reasons and then marry someone that is not their first spouse.

This is the reality of the doctrine of fundamentalism.  Fundamentalist denominations have to make a choice: either support the integration of homosexual clergy, or rid their sanctuaries of those that clearly violate the doctrine they follow.  The denial of one group is just as wicked as the justification of the other.  Amending the truths set forth by a specific doctrine is a part of being an established church, regardless of how difficult the adoption may be.  And the adoption of those truths that may arise over time can only come in a church that is open and willing to change when they cannot provide a comparable rebuttal to a biblically based argument guided wholly by the doctrine they follow.

---

[1] Church of the Nazarene. Manual of the Church of the Nazarene 2009-2013. Nazarene Publishing House, 2009. (p.373). “903.9. The Church of the Nazarene believes in the biblical account of creation (“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth . . .”—Genesis 1:1). We oppose any godless

interpretation of the origin of the universe and of humankind (Hebrews 11:3). (1, 5.1, 7)”

[2] When translated literally, these verses represent the fundamentalists’ position on condemning homosexuality: Genesis 1:27; 19:1-25; Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1^st Corinthians 6:9-11; 1^st Timothy 1:8-10.

[3] 1^st Timothy 3:2, 12 – Although speaking of the clergy, it is still applicable in this context: ‘overseers/deacons are to be a husband of but one wife.’

[4] Metanoeo n./ Metanoia v. – Meta meaning "after" and noia meaning "mind" – having an “after-mindedness” or deciding today what your mind will be tomorrow and there on out.

[5] http://www.heavendwellers.com/sb_107_metanoeO.htm

[6] Hamartōlos – to be devoted to sin, sinner.

[7] Matthew 6:24

[8] Matthew 7:16

[9] Galatians 5:24

[10] Romans 7:14-25

[11] Not to be confused with the forgiveness that comes with salvation, the sinner spoken of here is one who has already accepted Christ.  Both Armenians and Calvinists believe that there is freewill outside of salvation.

[12] This assumes that the individual’s repentance was pure and true and not an empty, disconnected commitment.

NY Times Book Review: The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright

Joshua Carpenter:
Random-Knuts
Main Contributor

The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright has seriously altered my expectations for the quality of writing found in any genre of literature.  The care taken by Wright to describe each and every detail sets this book apart from most other non-fiction book.  Moreover, the exceptional writing drives home the point of the entire book: to show the connections and continuity between key individuals, groups and governments which make up the axis of terror that the War on Terrorism is currently fighting.  Unlike any other, this book caught my interest from the preface and kept me coming back for more, sans the typical dry-spells of interest.  No one can talk about terrorist groups or Islamic fundamentalism unless they know the message the information in this book brings.

Perfect Score, 3 out of 3 Knuts!

The original of the full review can be found on the New York Times' website here.

Works Cited

Filkins, Dexter. The Plot Against America. August 6, 2006. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/books/review/06filkins.html (accessed December 24, 2010).



The Plot Against America

Print                          Save                          Share

Review by DEXTER FILKINS

Published: August 6, 2006

THE LOOMING TOWER

Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11.

By Lawrence Wright.

Illustrated. 469 pp. Alfred A. Knopf. $27.95. 

Click to buy from Amazon!

When Mohamed Atta and his four Saudi confederates commandeered a Boeing 767 and steered it into the north tower of the World Trade Center, they began a story that still consumes us nearly five years on, and one that seems, on bad days, to promise war without end.

But the events of Sept. 11, 2001, were in many ways less the start of a tale than the end of one, or at least the climax of one, begun many years before in many different precincts: in the middle-class suburbs of Cairo, in the mosques of Hamburg, in Jidda, in Islamabad, in the quiet university town of Greeley, Colo.



Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Osama bin Laden



In its simplest terms, this is the story of how a small group of men, with a frightening mix of delusion and calculation, rose from a tormented civilization to mount a catastrophic assault on the world’s mightiest power, and how another group of men and women, convinced that such an attack was on the way, tried desperately to stop it.

What a story it is. And what a riveting tale Lawrence Wright fashions in this marvelous book. “The Looming Tower” is not just a detailed, heart-stopping account of the events leading up to 9/11, written with style and verve, and carried along by villains and heroes that only a crime novelist could dream up. It’s an education, too — though you’d never know it — a thoughtful examination of the world that produced the men who brought us 9/11, and of their progeny who bedevil us today. The portrait of John O’Neill, the driven, demon-ridden F.B.I. agent who worked so frantically to stop Osama bin Laden, only to perish in the attack on the World Trade Center, is worth the price of the book alone. “The Looming Tower” is a thriller. And it’s a tragedy, too.

In the nearly five years since the attacks, we’ve heard oceans of commentary on the whys and how-comes and what-it-means and what’s nexts. Wright, a staff writer for The New Yorker — where portions of this book have appeared — has put his boots on the ground in the hard places, conducted the interviews and done the sleuthing. Others talked, he listened. And so he has unearthed an astonishing amount of detail about Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mullah Muhammad Omar and all the rest of them. They come alive.

Who knew, for instance, that bin Laden, far from being a warrior-stoic fighting against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, was actually a pathetic stick-in-the-mud who would fall ill before battle? That the combat-hardened Afghans, so tired of bin Laden’s behavior, declared him and his Arab associates “useless”? Or that he was a permissive father and indulgent husband? Or that he is only six feet tall?
More important, who knew — I sure didn’t — that bin Laden had left behind such a long trail of words? Wright has found them in books, on film, in audio recordings, in people’s notebooks and memories. This has allowed him to draw an in-depth portrait of bin Laden, and to chart his evolution from a self-conscious step-child growing up in Jidda, Saudi Arabia, to the visionary cave-dwelling madman who mimics the Holy Prophet in his most humdrum daily habits.

Wright takes the title of his book from the fourth sura of the Koran, which bin Laden repeated three times in a speech videotaped just as the hijackers were preparing to fly. The video was found later, on a computer in Hamburg.

“Wherever you are, death will find you, Even in the looming tower.”
There is poetry, too. Here is a particularly chilling bit, found on another videotape, which bin Laden had read aloud at the wedding of his 17-year-old son, Mohammed. The celebration took place not long after a pair of Qaeda suicide bombers, riding in a tiny boat filled with explosives, nearly sank the billion-dollar guided missile destroyer Cole. At least with regard to his abilities as an author, bin Laden was unusually modest: he let someone else write the words. “I am not, as most of our brothers know, a warrior of the word,” he said.

A destroyer, even the brave might fear,

She inspires horror in the harbor and the open sea,

She goes into the waves flanked by arrogance, haughtiness and fake might,

To her doom she progresses slowly, clothed in a huge illusion,

Awaiting her is a dinghy, bobbing in the waves.

“The Looming Tower” is full of such surprising detail. Al Qaeda’s leaders had all but shelved the 9/11 plot when they realized they lacked foot soldiers who could pass convincingly as westernized Muslims in the United States. At just the right moment Atta appeared in Afghanistan, along with Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Ziad al-Jarrah and Marwan al-Shehhi, all Western-educated transplants, offering themselves up for slaughter. The game was on.

Just as dramatic as the portraits of bin Laden and Zawahiri is Wright’s account of the roots of Islamic militancy — the intellectual, spiritual and material world from which the plotters came. Wright draws a fascinating picture of Sayyid Qutb, the font of modern Islamic fundamentalism, a frail, middle-aged writer who found himself, as a visitor to the United States and a student at Colorado State College of Education in Greeley in the 1940’s, overwhelmed by the unbridled splendor and godlessness of modern America. And by the sex: like so many others who followed him, Qutb seemed simultaneously drawn to and repelled by American women, so free and unselfconscious in their sexuality. The result is a kind of delirium:

“A girl looks at you, appearing as if she were an enchanting nymph or an escaped mermaid,” Qutb wrote, “but as she approaches, you sense only the screaming instinct inside her, and you can smell her burning body, not the scent of perfume, but flesh, only flesh. Tasty flesh, truly, but flesh nonetheless.”
It wasn’t much later that Qutb began writing elaborate rationalizations for killing non-Muslims and waging war against the West. Years later, Atta expressed a similar mix of obsession and disgust for women. Indeed, anyone who has spent time in the Middle East will recognize such tortured emotions.
WRIGHT shows, correctly, that at the root of Islamic militancy — its anger, its antimodernity, its justifications for murder — lies a feeling of intense humiliation. Islam plays a role in this, with its straitjacketed and all-encompassing worldview. But whether the militant hails from a middle-class family or an impoverished one, is intensely religious or a “theological amateur,” as Wright calls bin Laden and his cohort, he springs almost invariably from an ossified society with an autocratic government that is unable to provide any reason to believe in the future. Islam offers dignity, even in — especially in — death. Living in the West, Atta and the others felt these things more acutely, not less. As Wright notes:

“Their motivations varied, but they had in common a belief that Islam — pure and primitive, unmitigated by modernity and uncompromised by politics — would cure the wounds that socialism or Arab nationalism had failed to heal. They were angry but powerless in their own countries. They did not see themselves as terrorists but as revolutionaries who, like all such men throughout history, had been pushed into action by the simple human need for justice. Some had experienced brutal repression; some were simply drawn to bloody chaos. From the beginning of Al Qaeda, there were reformers and there were nihilists. The dynamic between them was irreconcilable and self-destructive, but events were moving so quickly that it was almost impossible to tell the philosophers from the sociopaths. They were glued together by the charismatic personality of Osama bin Laden, which contained both strands, idealism and nihilism, in a potent mix.”

Frances M. Roberts/The New York Times

F.B.I. counterterrorism expert John O’Neill

who died in the Sept. 11 attacks.



In John O’Neill, bin Laden almost met his match. The supervisor of the F.B.I.’s New York office and of the team assigned to track Al Qaeda in the United States, O’Neill felt, as strongly as anyone in the government, that Al Qaeda was coming to America. He was a relentless investigator, a volcanic personality and sometimes his own worst enemy. In the end he broke himself on a government bureaucracy that could not — and would not — move as quickly as he did. O’Neill and others like him were in a race with Al Qaeda, and although we know how the race ended, it’s astonishing — and heartbreaking — to learn how close it was.

Some of the F.B.I.’s field agents, as we now know, had premonitions of what was coming. When the supervisor of the Minneapolis field office was admonished, in August 2001, for expressing fears that an Islamic radical attending flight school might be planning a suicide attack, he shot back defiantly that he was “trying to keep someone from taking a plane and crashing into the World Trade Center.” Amazing.

The most gut-wrenching scenes are the ones that show F.B.I. agents trying, as 9/11 approached, to pry information from their rivals inside the United States government. The C.I.A., Wright says, knew that high-level Qaeda operatives had held a meeting in Malaysia in January 2000, and, later, that two of them had entered the United States. Both men turned out to be part of the team that hijacked the planes on Sept. 11. The C.I.A. failed to inform agencies like the F.B.I. — which might have been able to locate the men and break up the plot — until late in the summer of 2001.

The fateful struggle between the C.I.A. and F.B.I. in the months leading up to the attacks has been outlined before, but never in such detail. At meetings, C.I.A. analysts dangled photos of two of the eventual hijackers in front of F.B.I. agents, but wouldn’t tell them who they were. The F.B.I. agents could sense that the C.I.A. possessed crucial pieces of evidence about Islamic radicals they were investigating, but couldn’t tell what they were. The tension came to a head at a meeting in New York on June 11, exactly three months before the catastrophe, which ended with F.B.I. and C.I.A. agents shouting at each other across the room.

In one of the most remarkable scenes in the book, Ali Soufan, an F.B.I. agent assigned to Al Qaeda, was taken aside on Sept. 12 and finally shown the names and photos of the men the C.I.A. had known for more than a year and a half were in America. The planes had already struck. Soufan ran to the bathroom and retched.

Great stuff. I just wish Wright had given us something, even a chapter, on the hijackings themselves; as

it is, he takes us right up to the moment, and then straight to the burning towers. Perhaps he felt that ground was too well-trodden. My other complaint is more substantive. Through the enormous amount of legwork he has done, tracking down people who worked with bin Laden and Zawahiri over the years, Wright has drawn up verbatim reconstructions of entire conversations, some of which took place more than a decade ago. Many of these conversations are riveting. Still, in some cases, it’s hard to believe that memories are that good.

“The Looming Tower” ends near the Pakistani border, where Zawahiri, or someone who looked like him, rode through a village on horseback and then disappeared into the mountains. It’s not a definitive ending; there is no closure. And that’s the point. For as amazing as the story of Al Qaeda and the road to 9/11 is, it’s not over yet.

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.

A View of Stephen Hawking's New Book from the Other Side.

Set aside an hour, get out your thinking caps, and get ready for a deeper than deep conversation when you click the link below. William Lane Craig explains why Hawking doesn't really say anything new in his book "The Grand Design." I support his argument against the book, but not necessarily the views of the site from which the audio file came.


Click here for the Interview --> The Argument Against Stephen Hawking's Book "The Grand Design."