Calvinism Defended:
Of Murder, Drowning, and Burning
By
This is the 28th section of the e-mail exchange I had with Bill, an individual who objected to Calvinism. Click here to go back to the table of contents, or here to go to the full 88 page exchange.
Bill Writes: Calvin and the Swiss Calvinists murdered thousands of innocent Anabaptists by drowning or burning at the stake.
My
Response: As
for the governments that did put those people to death, I do think it is a
shameful thing, and it is a dark spot in church history.
However, saying “thousands” of Anabaptists were put to death is a bit
of an exaggeration.
Again,
however, I think your comments are a bit divorced from the cultural and
historical context in which cases of such things did occur.
Heresy back then was a capitol offense imposed by the state (it was also
a capitol offense in the Bible…are you going to now charge Joshua and Moses as
being murderers?). It is
simply unfair to read back into history our 21st century cultural
perspective and ideas (such as freedom of religion, which, by the way, the very
religious freedoms you and I enjoy are realized because Calvinists
came to the America’s to escape religious persecution). Those who knowingly
embraced doctrines that were contrary to the established law of the land knew
precisely what could have happened to them.
For example, Martin Luther himself fully expected to be put to death for
his views. But he took a stand, and
made the declaration that his conscience was held captive to the Word of God,
and unless he was convinced by Scripture or plain reason, he would not recant.
Is this not what you hold dear as well, Bill?
The very fact that you and I can state things freely concerning these
matters without the fear of the government coming and putting us to death is not
despite
the Reformers and the Reformation, but in part because of the Reformers and the
Reformation. Luther was not alone in fearing for his life.
If you remember, Calvin also fled France for fear of his life, and
history records the persecution and martyrdom of many who were Reformed (see,
for 1 example, Foxes Book of Martyrs), a fact that you conveniently overlook.
Now,
when I interact with Roman Catholics, I do not argue that because Roman
Catholics engaged in the inquisition, or that they had many Reformed people put
to death, that the Roman Catholic doctrine concerning salvation, etc., is
therefore incorrect. That is the
straw-men of all straw-men. I
reject Roman doctrine concerning salvation, etc., because it is not compatible
with Scripture, not because some of the Roman Catholic countries and their
governments had people put to death for what they considered heresy.
To look back in history at what we would say are moral failings of mere
people, and surmise from that that their system of doctrine is incorrect is
another logical fallacy. It’s the
same thing when Muslims critique Christianity, not on the basis of the teaching
of Christianity, but because of the horrific acts carried out by the crusaders
(and of course, they completely vindicate themselves of any wrong doing).
This
leads me back to the Anabaptists. To
call the Anabaptists “innocent” is false on 2 counts. First, the Anabaptists themselves would never had thought of
themselves as “innocent” for having rejected the teaching that they opposed.
They knew full well that they were guilty of breaking the established
law. Second, the Anabaptists were
anything but “civil” in making their protests known, and they did much to
incense the leaders of the government there.
With reference to the initial protest against Zwinglian teaching, Church
historian N.R. Needham notes how Zwingli and others met privately and peacefully
with key Radical leaders, but, “Unfortunately the discussions were derailed
when some of the Radicals resorted to physically aggressive tactics—noisily
disrupting Zwinglian services of worship, vandalizing the baptismal font. (This
kind of violence was sometimes not far from the surface in rather too many of
the Radicals, and it did untold damage to their cause.).” (2000 Years of
Christ’s Power, Part Three: Renaissance
and Reformation, Needham, p. 258). Yet,
Zwingli and others still held open debates with the Radicals.
Of course, given the Radicals “radical” behavior, they did not stand
much of chance in being given serious consideration in the debate.
The city of Zurich’s council sided with Zwingli, and, as Needham says,
“enacted that those who had refused to bring their children for baptism must
do so within eight days on pain of banishment.”
(p. 259).
Please take note of that Bill. The
verdict was not that they should be put to death, but merely that if they did
not comply with the decision, they would be forced to leave Zurich.
One way to think of this is to just think of Zurich (and Geneva, and
Rome, and every other city at that time for that matter), as just extensions of
the church. Church and state were married.
If I came to your church, Bill, and began to preach the doctrines of
grace, no doubt you all would ask me to leave. But, what if I didn’t abide by your “ruling” and
I kept disrupting your church services preaching the doctrines of grace?
I have no doubt that I would be escorted to the doors.
Now imagine that your whole city, Bill, was basically considered the
“church,” and they took the doctrines of your church and made them the law
of the city, and one of the laws was that they forbade preaching the doctrines
of grace. And not let’s say I
already know that preaching the doctrines of grace is against the law in your
city, yet I continue to stand on perch in clear view of everyone preaching the
doctrines of grace. What could I
expect to happen to me if I disobeyed that law and was apprehended?
I would be banished from your city.
In our country, we put people to death for treason.
What’s the difference with that, than what happened then?
In the final analysis, none, because the actions of the Anabaptists were
viewed as treason. Anyway, I hope you see the point here.
How did
the Anabaptists react to this? Did
“pacifists” act peacefully? Not
quite. A group of them immediately
disobeyed the decisions reached by the city council, and rebaptized each other
and celebrated the Lord’s Supper among themselves outside of the established
church (state’s!) guidelines. Neeham
remarks, “To Zwingli and the city council, [the actions of the Radicals] were
acts of anarchy which struck at the roots of the Zwinglian vision of Zurich as a
united Christian community. Such
lawless turmoil could not be tolerated—any more than a Western society would
tolerate the idea of a group of its citizens deciding to ignore state law and
follow their own self-chosen legal system.”
(p. 259). How did Zwingli
and the council react? Did they
immediately have them all put to death? Not
hardly! Did they actually impose
the banishment that the law actually required?
Not immediately. They
arrested a large number of them, and once again engaged in private discussions
with them. Of course, the
discussions were fruitless as the Radicals asserted their beliefs. Needham reports, “Mantz was fined, Blaurock was banished,
and Grebel and Roubli departed the city voluntarily after being given stern
warning never to disturb the good Christian order of Zurich by their
revolutionary fanaticism.” (p.
260). Despite this, however,
Radicals that were still in Zurich continued to ignore that state’s laws.
As Needham notes, “it [the Radicals ideology] continued to manifest
itself in highly unfortunate and bizarre ways.
One notable occasion, a procession of Radicals marched through the
streets of the city, waving willow branches, chanting, “Woe unto thee,
Zurich!” and denouncing Zwingli as none other than the Great Red Dragon of the
book of Revelation.” (p. 261). Finally,
the council’s patience with the Radicals was expended, and they decreed that
anyone who rebaptized another was to be put to death by drowning.
Of course, Radicals continued their practices, fully aware of the
consequences, and, sadly, some were put to death.
Anabaptists
were just as equally intolerant of those who differed with them.
I have already mentioned how they disrupted services, among other things.
Needham goes on to say with regard to the Anabaptists:
“Anabaptists may have advocated religious toleration in society at
large…but they tended to be extremely intolerant of what they considered moral
lapses among their own. Many of the
most wounding internal divisions of the Anabaptists were over the extent and
severity of the ban.” (p. 267).
Now, please do not infer from all of this that I condone what was done to the Anabaptists, which was done in response to their actions. I do not, and every time I read about it, I am deeply saddened. However, I cannot adopt a holier than thou mentality and judge the city council of Zurich of the 16th century according to my cultural perspective and the hind-sight that I have. I must recognize that they were sinners, just like me, and if we’re all honest, most of us would have engaged in the same kind of things that those otherwise godly people did. Again, what the Anabaptists did was essentially commit treason, and they did so knowingly and with the full knowledge of the consequences.