Evangelicals exist along a spectrum concerning their interest in ecclesiology. Some are largely disinterested in what the Bible says about how to structure the local church. Yet others express a revived interest in ecclesiology, which ministries such as 9Marks have deeply influenced in the Baptist world. Where we fall on this spectrum isn’t driven entirely by our soteriology either. We might be tempted to think that the interest in ecclesiology is inexorably linked to the revival of Calvinism. But I can assure the reader that I have many Calvinist friends who love Reformed theology but have minimal interest in ecclesiology.
Within the last year we’ve seen the potential dangers of a faulty ecclesiology when pastors are unaccountable to their congregations and oversight is transferred from the congregation to a board that consists primarily of outside ministers and businesspersons. Of course I’m speaking of James McDonald and Harvest Bible Chapel, but they aren’t alone. The church growth movement inspired many to orient ecclesiology towards quick growth and streamlined decision-making processes.
Growth and streamlined decision-making in a church can certainly be beneficial at times, and many churches are too inclined towards unnecessary, unbiblical bureaucracy. But it’s not as if the Bible say nothing about how the local church is structured or how we should understand the relationships between members, between members and pastors, and between congregations. We are bound by something greater than efficiency. We need more than the proven practices of Fortune 500 companies. Ecclesiology is an area where we have much to learn from our forebears.
Overview
The Fourth Strand of the Reformation examines some of the ecclesiological practices of the Anabaptists, English Separatists, and English General Baptists.[1] With a chapter on each group, written by three different authors (Paul Fiddes, Malcolm B. Yarnell III, and William H Brackney), this book focuses primarily on the concept of covenanting, or, as these groups often described it, “walking together.” By “walking together,” they meant covenanting with God and with one another to live faithfully according to the Bible’s teachings. Paul Fiddes refers to it as “spiritual discipline,” which “included admission to membership, the calling of ministers, pastoral care, rebuke of error, suspension from sharing in the Lord’s Table due to behavior unbecoming of a disciple, and excommunication in severe cases.”[2] These, along with faithful preaching, were the hallmarks of a true church, which they believed the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England had ceased to be.
Before going any further, we should pause to reflect on what the authors of this book mean by “the fourth strand of the Reformation.” We might begin by asking what groups make up the other three strands. They are the Lutherans, the Reformed, and the Anglicans.[3] The fourth group consists of the Anabaptists, English Separatists, and English General Baptists. Scholars often refer to the Anabaptists in particular as the “radical reformers” to distinguish them from the “magisterial reformers” such as Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli. The radical Reformers, including the English Separatists and the English Baptists, believed that the Reformation had not gone far enough in its reforms. For the Anabaptists and Baptists, further reforms included not only voluntary church membership but also believer’s baptism. This is expressly clear in the writings of Thomas Helwys.[4]
Malcolm B. Yarnell III begins the book with an assessment of early Anabaptist covenant ecclesiology. Yarnell rightly contends that Anabaptists put forward the earliest forms of covenant ecclesiology.[5] They were committed to the Bible’s teachings and the sola scriptura principle. In fact, they followed the principle to what they believed were its logical conclusions. As Yarnell explains: “The Anabaptists concurred with the magisterial Reformers’ use of sola scriptura against the traditions of the medieval church. However, they took the concept further by subjecting the theological claims of the Reformers themselves to the norm of Scripture.”[6] Yarnell concludes, “the early Anabaptists were ‘Biblicists,’ applying the regulative principle where the Reformers did not.”[7]
Building upon the work of Paul Fiddes, whose work we’ll consider next, Yarnell draws the following conclusions concerning the Zürich Anabaptists’ covenantal ecclesiology. First, the Anabaptists had a strong understanding of the covenant between the believer and God, as well as of the covenant between believers. Even with their strong emphasis on separation and holiness, Yarnell maintains, they did not lose the biblical sense of the universal church. Second, the Anabaptists distinguished between salvation and covenant but strongly affirmed the conditional nature of the covenant.
Third, the Anabaptist understanding of voluntarily covenanting or walking together as believers within the Church was always understood as being under Christ’s rule. Fourth, covenant preceded confession within Anabaptism so that baptized believers covenanting together always came before confessions of faith. Yarnell convincingly argues that the Anabaptists were first in developing a covenant ecclesiology.
Paul S. Fiddes examines English Separatist ecclesiology with particular attention to two tensions present in the Separatist confession entitled A True Confession(1596). The first tension is that of “spiritual discipline” or oversight. The English Separatists understood spiritual oversight to be the responsibility of both the members of the congregation and of the pastor(s). Fiddes writes, “While all members agree to ‘watch over’ (oversee) each other spiritually, they also recognize that Christ has called some to an office in which they have a special responsibility for oversight.”[8] The second tension that Fiddes notes is that which exists between local congregations who associate together. Not only do members of a single congregation covenant together and walk together but churches also covenant together. As Fiddes puts it: “Churches, and not just members in each church, are to walk together.”[9]
Fiddes’s point here is extremely helpful and worth considering: If the first tension is resolved, then either the congregation undermines the leadership of the pastor, or the pastor becomes an authoritarian dictator. If the second tension is resolved, and churches fail to associate together, then the result is radical autonomy. The solution is for the tensions to be “held in bonds of trust” between church and pastor and among congregations. Fiddes presents us with what he believes to be an ideal scenario: “The most satisfactory kind of covenant ecclesiology . . . leaves the relation between oversight by the congregation and oversight by the pastor undefined, and as a matter of mutual trust, under the ultimate rule of Christ.”[10]
Lastly, William H. Brackney considers the early English General Baptists’ understanding of covenant ecclesiology, which he divides into three periods. For the English General Baptists, entrance into the covenant community was predicated upon believer’s baptism, which was affirmed in the founding era of the English General Baptists. Brackney writes, “Helwys’s definition of a church was ‘a company of the faithful, being knit together by baptism upon their confession of faith.’”[11]
Within what Brackney refers to as the “defining generation,” the English General Baptists clarified some of their key ecclesiological commitments, which included concepts such as believer’s baptism by immersion, the laying on of hands following believer’s baptism, and associations and assemblies. Within what Brackney refers to as the General Baptists’ “mature ecclesiology,” we find a continued emphasis on the value of the local church, associations, and assemblies (gathering of multiple associations).[12]
Assessment
The Fourth Strand of the Reformation is a helpful exploration of covenant ecclesiology among the Anabaptists, English Separatists, and English General Baptists. Even though I’m fairly well read in this area, I found myself reflecting on aspects of ecclesiology to which I hadn’t given much thought before. The book is not intended for a general audience but may prove helpful to those interested in ecclesiology or history.
Of
particular value is the overarching concept of baptized believers covenanting
together in local churches and local churches covenanting together in
associations. This framework clearly demonstrates that God has called some to
serve uniquely as pastors and that all believers are under the spiritual
discipline of God. But many of our churches need a stronger, more biblical
understanding of what walking together as believers means in pursuing Christ
and Christlikeness, in encouraging one another, and in holding one another
accountable, under the rule of King Jesus. Such practices will help us avoid
many modern and dangerous notions of local church autonomy and individualized
Christianity.
[1]Paul S. Fiddes, William H. Brackney, and Malcolm B. Yarnell III, The Fourth Strand of the Reformation: The Covenant Ecclesiology of Anabaptists, English Separatists, and Early General Baptists, ed. Paul S. Fiddes, Centre for Baptist History and Heritage Series, vol. 17 (Oxford, UK: Regent’s Park College, 2018).
[2]Paul S. Fiddes, “Covenant and the Inheritance of Separatism,” in The Fourth Strand, 67.
[3]Paul Fiddes, “Introduction: A Fourth Strand?” in The Fourth Strand, 1.
[4]See Marvin Jones, The Beginnings of Baptist Ecclesiology: The Foundational Contributions of Thomas Helwys (Eugene, OR: Pickwick), 2017.
[5]Yarnell provides a strong response to Peter Lillback’s claim for the priority of Reformed covenant theology. Malcolm Yarnell III, “The Covenant Theology of the Early Anabaptists, 1525–1527,” in The Fourth Strand, 59-62.
[6]Yarnell, 19.
[7]Yarnell, 20.
[8]Paul S. Fiddes, “Covenant and the Inheritance of Separatism,” in The Fourth Strand, 67.
[9]Paul S. Fiddes, “Covenant and the Inheritance of Separatism,” 68.
[10]Fiddes, 88.
[11]William H. Brackney, “Baptism and Covenant: A Survey of Early English General Baptist Ecclesiology,” in The Fourth Strand, 98-99.
[12]Brackney, 108. Brackney draws several conclusions about the English General Baptists that I don’t share. These include his claim that the English General Baptists exhibited “an openness to diversity and experimentation.”
May 1, 2019
Thanks for the review. This type of study would help me better understand how our early FWB movement operated. From my reading of those churches, discipline was a primary function for them. It seems that every member was held to high standards and were often confronted so as to keep them from being an embarrassment to the church. How far we have moved from that beginning. Sadly, most ‘believers’ today seem to see themselves as approved by the Lord and as long as they can sing and tell Him how good He is, they feel no compulsion to faithfully represent Him to others or that we are to compel each other to good works. There seems to be no thought of admonition, correction of self or others, sacrifice, or submitting for the good of the Kingdom or the Glory of the Lord. Perhaps some eyes may be opened.