Baptists are the "left wing of Christianity"?

[Esdra]

Hi

I am not sure if you guys in the US now that - as I think it’s more a European question:

The Anabaptists (like Mennonites and Hutterites and Amish etc.) call themselves the Third wing of the Reformation, better said their founders in Switzerland did so. (The first wing is Luther, the 2nd Calvin and Zwingli).
Now, I’ve read that they are also called the “left wing of Christianity”. - Living in Autria, one usually associates with “left” parties like the Social Democrats and even Communists. - However, both are known to be very liberal and usually not really involved in religion.

Now, I also know the right wing of Christianity. - This term is more familiar through the media, especially when there are elections in the US, one can read quite often about this wing. I guess with this right wing Churches like Presbyterians etc. are meant, right? [And right in the political sense is normally considered as conservative (in Austria often associated with the Catholic Church) and religious.]

Anyone thoughts or an explanation to that? - I mean why the Baptists, Anabaptists are considered as left? - Does this in the end have to do nothing with politics (see above)?

I know it’s a tricky question, as said above. - And I would say quite a European. As I guess things are differently in the US in this respect…

 

[Contarini]

Hi

I am not sure if you guys in the US now that - as I think it’s more a European question:

The Anabaptists (like Mennonites and Hutterites and Amish etc.) call themselves the Third wing of the Reformation, better said their founders in Switzerland did so. (The first wing is Luther, the 2nd Calvin and Zwingli).
Now, I’ve read that they are also called the “left wing of Christianity”. - Living in Autria, one usually associates with “left” parties like the Social Democrats and even Communists. - However, both are known to be very liberal and usually not really involved in religion.

Now, I also know the right wing of Christianity. - This term is more familiar through the media, especially when there are elections in the US, one can read quite often about this wing. I guess with this right wing Churches like Presbyterians etc. are meant, right? [And right in the political sense is normally considered as conservative (in Austria often associated with the Catholic Church) and religious.]

Anyone thoughts or an explanation to that? - I mean why the Baptists, Anabaptists are considered as left? - Does this in the end have to do nothing with politics (see above)?

I know it’s a tricky question, as said above. - And I would say quite a European. As I guess things are differently in the US in this respect…

Esdra, we’ve talked about this before. Baptists in English-speaking countries are not the same thing as Anabaptists by any means. Roland Bainton called the Anabaptists the “left wing of the Reformation,” meaning that they were the populist, radical, sometimes revolutionary element. In the 17th century context, the Puritans (including the Baptists) were “left wing” in the sense, again, that they were revolutionaries trying to change society. Baptists were the most radical of the Puritans in certain respects–again, that made them “left wing” in a way.

In America the situation is very different. After the Revolution a “democratized,” individualistic version of Protestantism became the dominant religious force in America. Baptists were an important part of that. Early Baptist leaders were radical and often quite unorthodox, but by the mid-19th century Baptists were in many ways part of the establishment. In the modern context, the vocal fundamentalist Baptists are seen as “right wing” because (like other conservative Protestants in the “Christian Right”) they want to return to an idealized version of that mid-19th-century status quo.

So what counts as “right wing” or left wing" can change over time–the terms are highly relative and often a bit arbitrary.

I strongly recommend three books for understanding American Protestantism:
Nathan Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity
Mark Noll, America’s God; and
George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture

Interesting trivia for the American Catholics on the thread: all three of these evangelical scholars have taught at Notre Dame at some point (in fact, Noll replaced Marsden at ND when Marsden recently retired).

Edwin

 

[Esdra]

Esdra, we’ve talked about this before. Baptists in English-speaking countries are not the same thing as Anabaptists by any means. Roland Bainton called the Anabaptists the “left wing of the Reformation,” meaning that they were the populist, radical, sometimes revolutionary element. In the 17th century context, the Puritans (including the Baptists) were “left wing” in the sense, again, that they were revolutionaries trying to change society. Baptists were the most radical of the Puritans in certain respects–again, that made them “left wing” in a way.

In America the situation is very different. After the Revolution a “democratized,” individualistic version of Protestantism became the dominant religious force in America. Baptists were an important part of that. Early Baptist leaders were radical and often quite unorthodox, but by the mid-19th century Baptists were in many ways part of the establishment. In the modern context, the vocal fundamentalist Baptists are seen as “right wing” because (like other conservative Protestants in the “Christian Right”) they want to return to an idealized version of that mid-19th-century status quo.

So what counts as “right wing” or left wing" can change over time–the terms are highly relative and often a bit arbitrary.

I strongly recommend three books for understanding American Protestantism:
Nathan Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity
Mark Noll, America’s God; and
George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture

Interesting trivia for the American Catholics on the thread: all three of these evangelical scholars have taught at Notre Dame at some point (in fact, Noll replaced Marsden at ND when Marsden recently retired).

Edwin

Thank you for this good answer. Although I can only remember that we haven’t been talking exactely about the points above but about a similar topic…

So what would you call the Free Evangelicals here in Austria then? Left-winged Baptists?
I only know, and I remember talking about that with you in another thread! , that the president of the Association of Free Evangelical Churches likes to trace back the origin of the “Free Evangelical Churches” to the Anabaptists and not so much to the Baptists as he said, “We are no American cult (in German he used “Sekte” which is roughly the same as the English word cult I used here in the translation). (Ana)baptists (in German he used “Taeufer”) are of European origin.”

 

[Scoobyshme]

Hi

I am not sure if you guys in the US now that - as I think it’s more a European question:

The Anabaptists (like Mennonites and Hutterites and Amish etc.) call themselves the Third wing of the Reformation, better said their founders in Switzerland did so. (The first wing is Luther, the 2nd Calvin and Zwingli).
Now, I’ve read that they are also called the “left wing of Christianity”. - Living in Autria, one usually associates with “left” parties like the Social Democrats and even Communists. - However, both are known to be very liberal and usually not really involved in religion.

Now, I also know the right wing of Christianity. - This term is more familiar through the media, especially when there are elections in the US, one can read quite often about this wing. I guess with this right wing Churches like Presbyterians etc. are meant, right? [And right in the political sense is normally considered as conservative (in Austria often associated with the Catholic Church) and religious.]

Anyone thoughts or an explanation to that? - I mean why the Baptists, Anabaptists are considered as left? - Does this in the end have to do nothing with politics (see above)?

I know it’s a tricky question, as said above. - And I would say quite a European. As I guess things are differently in the US in this respect…

It really doesn’t matter what they choose to call themselves or how they choose to refer to themselves. The fact remains that they remain out of communion with the Church. 'Nuff said.

 

[ndismyhome]

Esdra- the anabaptists were called “left” because they were the most liberal reformers, that is those who changed the most. Luther and his ilk comprise the right, as comparatively he changed little. The usage of the terms was based on the degree of theological change that these groups instituted from the standard, which was viewed as the Roman church. That is all that is meant by those classic designations.

As for current “left” and “right” talk, most people use the terms synonymously with their political meanings. “Left” churches are more politically liberal, and “right” churches are more politically conservative. These terms, as used presently, almost always primarily refer to political stances and, secondarily, to theology.

I hope that helps.

 

[Izdaari]

Baptist churches in America tend to be conservative both theologically and politically, though there are exceptions. There are sub-denominations that range from fundamentalist to liberal. Not at all the same as Anabaptists and Mennonites, who went a different direction long ago.

Presbyterians have conservative and liberal sub-denominations also. Conservative Presbyterians are typically Reformed (i.e., Calvinist).

 

[Publisher]

Hi

I am not sure if you guys in the US now that - as I think it’s more a European question:

The Anabaptists (like Mennonites and Hutterites and Amish etc.) call themselves the Third wing of the Reformation, better said their founders in Switzerland did so. (The first wing is Luther, the 2nd Calvin and Zwingli).
Now, I’ve read that they are also called the “left wing of Christianity”. - Living in Autria, one usually associates with “left” parties like the Social Democrats and even Communists. - However, both are known to be very liberal and usually not really involved in religion.

Now, I also know the right wing of Christianity. - This term is more familiar through the media, especially when there are elections in the US, one can read quite often about this wing. I guess with this right wing Churches like Presbyterians etc. are meant, right? [And right in the political sense is normally considered as conservative (in Austria often associated with the Catholic Church) and religious.]

Anyone thoughts or an explanation to that? - I mean why the Baptists, Anabaptists are considered as left? - Does this in the end have to do nothing with politics (see above)?

I know it’s a tricky question, as said above. - And I would say quite a European. As I guess things are differently in the US in this respect…

Among those of us who are members of the “Historic Peace Churches”, we see ourselves as the “Radical Reformation”…apart from the “Reformation”. We among “Mennonite, Friends and Brethren” traditions feel the Reformation did not go far enough to return to “ancient Christianity”. We each see ourselves as “rediscoverers of ancient Christianity”…typically we had a lay clergy…not so much any longer…we met in “meeting houses” instead of “churches” as WE are the Church…a call to peace…a call to truth speaking and holy living. I don’t remember which “Radical Reformationist” said it…but he said…“We did not exchange a pope of flesh for a pope of paper” as a distinguishing mark…a return to spirituality and holy living…among the Mennonites and the Brethren baptism, the Lord’s Supper and foot washing were the three ordinances that should be practiced.

It is the act of water baptism that joins one to the local church. It is an act of “obedience” rather as a “means of grace”…obedience…placing oneself under the “authority” of the local church government…but “salvation/sanctification” was the work of God in lives…God’s people were holyt…The Brethren came out fo the “Pietist” movement Mennoites were closer to the time of the Reformation…in some ways predating it among the Anabaptists.

 

[Esdra]

It really doesn’t matter what they choose to call themselves or how they choose to refer to themselves. The fact remains that they remain out of communion with the Church. 'Nuff said.

Yes, I know that a Catholic would say that. But if they were in communion with the church, they wouldn’t be “evangelical” anymore, but Catholic.
So, I decided to leave, after learning really a lot here on CAF about the CC, the CC and go this direction in a Baptist Church (althought they ain’t called Baptists but “Free Evangelicals”) here in Austria. Thus I am more interested in the history of the Reformation than in the Catholic Church and its opinion about those Churches. At least in this thread.

 

[Esdra]

Esdra- the anabaptists were called “left” because they were the most liberal reformers, that is those who changed the most. Luther and his ilk comprise the right, as comparatively he changed little. The usage of the terms was based on the degree of theological change that these groups instituted from the standard, which was viewed as the Roman church. That is all that is meant by those classic designations.

As for current “left” and “right” talk, most people use the terms synonymously with their political meanings. “Left” churches are more politically liberal, and “right” churches are more politically conservative. These terms, as used presently, almost always primarily refer to political stances and, secondarily, to theology.

I hope that helps.

That’s really a good post. That helps me a lot, thank you!
**
² Contarini: How would you classify the Free Evangelical Churches here in Austria (I belong to)? [We also have talked about that, I know. And I remember that you have quite a knowledge on that topic.] I would dare to say that they are most certainly not identical with the American Baptists.
As “left winged Baptists”? or as descestors of the Anabaptists (as the president of the BEG (=Association of Evangelical Churches in Austria)?**

 

[Esdra]

Esdra, we’ve talked about this before. Baptists in English-speaking countries are not the same thing as Anabaptists by any means. Roland Bainton called the Anabaptists the “left wing of the Reformation,” meaning that they were the populist, radical, sometimes revolutionary element. In the 17th century context, the Puritans (including the Baptists) were “left wing” in the sense, again, that they were revolutionaries trying to change society. Baptists were the most radical of the Puritans in certain respects–again, that made them “left wing” in a way.

In America the situation is very different. After the Revolution a “democratized,” individualistic version of Protestantism became the dominant religious force in America. Baptists were an important part of that. Early Baptist leaders were radical and often quite unorthodox, but by the mid-19th century Baptists were in many ways part of the establishment. In the modern context, the vocal fundamentalist Baptists are seen as “right wing” because (like other conservative Protestants in the “Christian Right”) they want to return to an idealized version of that mid-19th-century status quo.

So what counts as “right wing” or left wing" can change over time–the terms are highly relative and often a bit arbitrary.

I strongly recommend three books for understanding American Protestantism:
Nathan Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity
Mark Noll, America’s God; and
George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture

Interesting trivia for the American Catholics on the thread: all three of these evangelical scholars have taught at Notre Dame at some point (in fact, Noll replaced Marsden at ND when Marsden recently retired).

Edwin

I think it’s great that you still remember the post where we have been talking about something similar like this post.
Here is the link. Have you read my second response here? Because I’ve never got an answer so far.

 

[Contarini]

That’s really a good post. That helps me a lot, thank you!
**
² Contarini: How would you classify the Free Evangelical Churches here in Austria (I belong to)? [We also have talked about that, I know. And I remember that you have quite a knowledge on that topic.] I would dare to say that they are most certainly not identical with the American Baptists.
As “left winged Baptists”? or as descestors of the Anabaptists (as the president of the BEG (=Association of Evangelical Churches in Austria)?**

Esdra,

I don’t know a lot about “Free Evangelical Churches,” but I don’t think there’s much direct link with the Anabaptists. I may be wrong, though. I’d tend to think rather that the Freikirchen derive from 19th-century revivalist movements. But they may be a loose coalition with various origins. There have been various free-church movements in German-speaking countries that have returned to some kind of Anabaptist principles. The Church of the Brethren, which we have in the U.S., for instance, derives from 18th-century Pietism but sees itself as Anabaptist. So I’m not ruling out the idea that there are Anabaptist roots. I’m afraid my knowledge of this stuff tapers off dramatically after the 16th century!

 

[hn160]

The Lutheran Confessions condemn the Anabaptist:

ERRONEOUS ARTICLES OF THE ANABAPTISTS
9 For instance, the erroneous, heretical doctrines of the Anabaptists are not to be tolerated and allowed in the Church or in the commonwealth or in domestic life. For they teach the following:
10 1. Our righteousness before God includes not only Christ’s sole obedience and merit, but also our renewal and our own piety in which we walk before God. For the most part, they base this on their own peculiar ordinances and self-chosen spirituality, as a new sort of monasticism.
11 2. Children who are not baptized are not sinners before God, but are righteous and innocent, and are saved by their innocence without Baptism. They do not need Baptism. So they deny and reject the entire teaching about original sin and what belongs to it.
12 3. Children are not to be baptized until they have gained the use of reason and can confess their faith themselves.
13 4. The children of Christians, since they have been born of Christian and believing parents, are holy and God’s children even before and without Baptism. For this reason they do not consider the Baptism of children to be important or encourage it. They do this contrary to the clear words of the promise [Acts 2:38–39], which extends only to those who keep God’s covenant and do not despise it (Genesis 17:9 ; Colossians 2:11–15]).
14 5. A congregation in which sinners are still found is no true Christian assembly.
15 6. No sermon should be heard or attended in those church buildings in which the papal Masses have previously been said.
16 7. No one should have anything to do with those ministers of the Church who preach the Holy Gospel according to the Augsburg Confession and rebuke the errors of Anabaptists. Also, they say that no one should serve or work for them in any way, but should run away from them and shun them as perverters of God’s Word.
17 8. Under the New Testament a governmental office is not a godly estate.
18 9. A Christian cannot with a good, inviolate conscience hold a governmental office.
19 10. A Christian cannot without injury to conscience use a government office against the wicked in matters that may occur; neither can the government’s subjects appeal to its power.
20 11. A Christian cannot with a good conscience take an oath before a court or do homage to his prince or hereditary sovereign with an oath.
21 12. Officials cannot without injury to conscience take the life of evildoers.
22 13. A Christian cannot with a good conscience hold or possess any property, but is duty bound to devote it to the common treasury.
23 14. A Christian cannot with a good conscience be an innkeeper, merchant, or a weapon maker.
24 15. Married persons may be divorced because of differences in faith. The one may abandon the other and be married to another of his own faith.
25 16. Christ did not receive His flesh and blood from the Virgin Mary, but brought them with Him from heaven.
26 17. Christ is not true, essential God either, but only has more and higher gifts and glory than other men.
27 And still more articles of this kind, for they are divided among themselves into many sects. One has more and another fewer errors, and so their entire sect is in reality nothing but a new kind of monasticism.