Monday, August 27, 2018

Circumcision and Baptism

The case can be made from the New Testament that there is a connection between the circumcision of the old covenant and the baptism of the new covenant. The degree of their correlation can be debated, but the following is a key passage that seems to indicate a link.

In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
Colossians 2:11-12

If circumcision and baptism are connected, then there could be some significant implications for the belief that we receive forgiveness of sins through baptism, as opposed to the position that we are baptized as a testimony to forgiveness of sins that has already happened. As an exercise, I am going to quote some New Testament passages, starting in Romans, that talk about circumcision and then see what happens if I replace references to circumcision with references to baptism.

For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Romans 2:25-29

Next, I will insert baptism in place of circumcision, and for this particular passage, I will also make a substitution for the word Jew. Just to be clear, the above passage is Scripture, and the following is my little "experiment."

For baptism verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy baptism is made un-baptism. Therefore if the un-baptism keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his un-baptism be counted for baptism? And shall not un-baptism which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and baptism dost transgress the law? For he is not a Christian, which is one outwardly; neither is that baptism, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Christian, which is one inwardly; and baptism is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Now, I am not saying that these substitutions are automatically valid, but they do provide some food for thought. Let's try another verse.

Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
Romans 3:30

Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the baptism by faith, and un-baptism through faith.

From here, we turn to a section of Scripture where Paul is discussing the faith of Abraham, and how this faith counted as righteousness.

Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
Romans 4:9-12

Cometh this blessedness then upon the baptism only, or upon the un-baptism also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in baptism, or in un-baptism? Not in baptism, but in un-baptism. And he received the sign of baptism, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being unbaptized: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not baptized; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of baptism to them who are not of the baptism only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet unbaptized.

It seems clear to me that in this passage from Romans, Paul is explaining that Abraham was made righteous because of his faith, and then he circumcised himself as a sign of this righteousness. He didn't become righteous because of his circumcision; he already was. Given that, I realize that it might be a stretch to consider baptism and circumcision fully interchangeable in these verses. On the other hand, if this is a valid comparison, it would be a clear indication that baptism is a sign that demonstrates that a person is already righteous, not the means by which a person becomes righteous. From here, let's check out what Paul has to say in some of his other letters.

Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
1 Corinthians 7:18-19

Is any man called being baptized? let him not become unbaptized. Is any called in un-baptism? let him not be baptized. Baptism is nothing, and un-baptism is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

At this point, I want to clarify that I believe that baptism is required for Christians. After all, it is a commandment of God. So, why is Paul making a distinction between circumcision (or baptism) and the commandments of God? Aren't circumcision and baptism commandments? This is definitely open to interpretation, but perhaps the apostle is referring to "commandments of God" by which we become righteous (excluding circumcision/baptism). I think a similar idea might be at play in the following passage from Galatians. I don't think Paul is telling us that any person who is circumcised cannot be a Christian but rather that it is false to be circumcised (baptized?) with the purpose of becoming righteous.

Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Galatians 5:2-3

Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be baptized, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is baptized, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
Galatians 5:6

For in Jesus Christ neither baptism availeth any thing, nor un-baptism; but faith which worketh by love.

As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh. But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
Galatians 6:12-15

As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be baptized; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For neither they themselves who are baptized keep the law; but desire to have you baptized, that they may glory in your flesh. But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. For in Christ Jesus neither baptism availeth any thing, nor un-baptism, but a new creature.

The idea of being constrained to be baptized is striking, especially if you consider the history of certain institutional churches and their penchant for compulsory infant baptism. The next verse immediately follows the widely quoted Bible verses from Ephesians 2 that inform us that we are saved by grace through faith, not by works.

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
Ephesians 2:11

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Un-baptism by that which is called the Baptism in the flesh made by hands;

For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
Philippians 3:3

For we are the baptism, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Colossians 2:11

In whom also ye are baptized with the baptism made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the baptism of Christ:

Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
Colossians 3:11

Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, baptism nor un-baptism, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

Fascinating results. Has this exercise been worthwhile? I hope so, but as with many things, that probably depends on your point of view. Soli Deo gloria.

Wednesday, May 2, 2018

What Does Baptism Mean?


There are many different views on the meaning of baptism, so let's take a look at what the Bible has to say on the subject. We know that in Acts 2:38 that Peter tells the people to be baptized for the remission of sins. One observation I would make about this verse is that it follows the question, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” So, Peter’s answer is repent and get baptized—because that is what we can do. Remission of sins and the gift of Holy Spirit come from God; we can’t get these things ourselves. One position holds that being baptized “for the remission of sins” means to be baptized with the purpose of remission of sins. “With the purpose of” is certainly one way in which the preposition “for” can be used—but not the only way. However, if you look up “for” in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, there are 10 different definitions for this word. For instance, “for” can also mean “in place of” or “representing” or “because of.” We can easily see examples of this. If I read the Bible for more wisdom, that means I am reading so that I get more wisdom. On the other hand, let’s say you want to stand up for truth in a society that increasingly rejects God. In this case, you would not be standing up to get truth, but rather you would be standing up to signify the truth that you have from God. We can also notice this distinction in the Scriptures.

And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him. And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them. 
Luke 5:12-14

After healing the man, Jesus told him to go to the priest and make an offering for his cleansing. Was the cleansing a result of the offering? Clearly not, because the man was cleansed by Jesus before he made the offering. Rather, the offering was in response to his cleansing, to signify his cleansing. In like manner, consider the possibility that baptism for the remission of sins means baptism to signify the remission of sins. Similarly, we can think about 1 Corinthians 11. Verse 15 says that a woman’s hair is “given her for a covering.” Many people read this and think that this verse is telling them that the hair is the only covering. However, based on my understanding of the head covering, it is evident from the context of the chapter that this is not the way “for” is being used in this case. Instead, it might be more accurate to explain this verse in the sense of a woman’s hair being given her because of a covering, or representing a covering. As I mentioned, context is the key, whether studying the Bible or any other type of writing.

I think different viewpoints on baptism are in part due to a different understanding of when the new birth takes place. Under the perspective that your sins are forgiven through water baptism, it would follow that we are born again through water baptism. I, on the other hand, would hold that the new birth and the washing of our sins occurs prior to water baptism. To consider what the Bible says about the new birth, we of course need to look at the third chapter of John. In verse 5, Jesus tells Nicodemus, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Being born of water refers to baptism, right? Well, not necessarily. Many times in the Scriptures, the Word of God is referred to as cleansing or life-giving water. Here are a few examples.

Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. 
John 15:3

But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. 
John 4:14

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.                                                                                                                                           Ephesians 5:25-27

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
1 Peter 1:23

In this last verse, Peter clearly tells us that our new birth is accomplished by the word of God. We cannot be regenerated through water, because water is corruptible. Therefore, the water from John 3:5 must be incorruptible water—the word of God. In 1 Corinthians 6:11, we learn that we who were formerly unrighteous have been washed, sanctified, and justified “in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (emphasis added).

What if, even though the actual cleansing is accomplished by the word of God, it can only take place during water baptism? Let’s consider what we know. Peter said in Acts 2:39 that the promise he just mentioned in the previous verse, which includes the gift of the Holy Spirit, was for everyone that the Lord would call. In Romans 8:9, Paul informs us that any person who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to Christ. It is obvious from this verse (among others) that all believers are filled with the Spirit. Conversely, if any person who has not been filled with the Spirit does not belong to Christ, then this person has not been washed of their sins or born again. So we need to ask, are there any occasions when receiving the Holy Spirit clearly occurs separately from water baptism? In Acts 8, when Phillip preached to the residents of Samaria about the kingdom of God, the people responded “with one accord” and were baptized.

Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
Acts 8:14-17

If the Samaritans were born again through water baptism, why didn’t they receive the Spirit until the apostles laid hands on them? We can see something similar in Paul’s conversion. The Lord told Ananias to put his hands on Saul for the recovery of his sight. When Ananias came to where Saul was staying, he put his hands on Saul and told him that he had been sent so that Saul would get his sight back and so that Saul would be filled with the Holy Spirit. After these things had taken place, only then was Saul baptized (Acts 9:10-18).

Also, let's talk about the conversion of Cornelius and his household in Acts 10. As Peter preached, “through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins,” the Holy Spirit fell on his listeners. In response, Peter remarked to the Jewish believers that had accompanied him that these Gentiles should be baptized, since these Gentiles had received the Spirit just as they, the Jews, had. Is Peter referring to the events in Acts 2, when he and the other apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit? Well, his companions in this case are not his fellow apostles, but believers from Joppa who had decided to go with him. What happened to the apostles in Acts 2 is described as both being filled with the Spirit and as the baptism of the Spirit. The possibility has been suggested that these are two different occurrences, instead of the same thing being described in different ways, and also that Acts 2 and 10 are the only occasions that definitively show the baptism of the Holy Spirit. If this is the case, then baptism of the Holy Spirit doesn’t apply to the believers who went with Peter. Yet, Peter said that Cornelius and his companions had received the Holy Spirit in the same way as both Peter himself and the brethren from Joppa had received. As soon as there was clear evidence that the Gentiles had received the Spirit, then it was time for them to get baptized.

Next, let’s look at Romans 6. In this passage, Paul explains that “we are buried with him by baptism into death.” This may seem like a silly question, but here it is: when was Christ buried? Obviously, after He was dead. Jesus was crucified, He died, and then He was buried in the tomb. You don’t bury someone who hasn’t died yet. There are several Bible verses that show that we also have to be crucified and die to sin, such as Galatians 5:24. Furthermore, Paul tells us that, “if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin” (Romans 8:10). Death does not happen during the burial but rather precedes it. If baptism is a burial, then it must happen after we are dead to sin.

It is clear that the New Testament teaches that we are washed from our sins by the blood of Jesus, but I gather some believers would differ on how this blood is applied. I presume that those Christians that believe in forgiveness of sins through baptism would hold that washing in the blood of Jesus happens when we are baptized in water. Let’s consider a few Bible passages that talk about the cleansing power of Jesus’s blood. In 1 John 1:7, the cleansing blood is associated with walking in the light and fellowship with other believers. Two verses later, the apostle explains that forgiveness and cleansing are results of the confession of sins.  Other verses that describe how the blood of Jesus makes us right with God include Ephesians 2:13, Hebrews 10:19, 1 Peter 1:2, and Revelation 1:5. I don’t doubt that you could point out many more such verses. Many different aspects of our faith are associated with the blood of Jesus in these verses, but can anyone show me which ones demonstrate that washing in the blood takes place during water baptism?

To find a passage that does in fact talk about baptism, one place we can go to is 1 Corinthians 10. Here, Paul lets us know the Israelites “were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” This occurrence from the Old Testament is an example for us (verse 11), so let’s see what we can learn from it. In the book of Exodus, when did the children of Israel apply the blood? Did it happen while they were passing though the baptism in the Red Sea? No, they applied the blood to their doorposts in anticipation of the Passover, before they left Egypt. The Passover sacrifice of the Israelites was a perfect lamb, which is a type of our Passover sacrifice, Christ (1 Corinthians 5:7). First was the death of the lamb, then the application of the blood, followed by the baptism in the sea.

Are there other types of baptism in the Old Testament? Baptism is associated with the Great Flood in 1 Peter 3. Verse 21 indicates that baptism saves us. Is this proof that we are forgiven of our sins through baptism in water? Well, perhaps not. One of the key words here is “figure.” Noah and his family being saved by water is a “like figure” as being saved by baptism. A figure of a concept is not the same as the concept itself. Peter clarifies what he is talking about in the rest of verse. Salvation is “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh” (which is what literal water does), “but the answer of a good conscience toward God.” Does a person who is still in their sins have a good conscience toward God? The good conscience comes first, from which follows baptism as the answer. Water baptism, a physical washing, is a symbol of our salvation, a spiritual washing. There are other Biblical examples of a spiritual truth being testified to via a physical event. When we keep the Lord’s Supper, the bread and the grape juice are symbols; they are not literally the body and blood of Christ, as some would believe.

There is one final point I want to consider. For the sake of argument, let’s say that all of my above points are wrong and that I am misunderstanding the Bible on this topic. Then we have to ask, does having a wrong understanding of baptism prevent someone from being saved? To put it another way, is the essence of Christianity having correct theology? I’m not denying that theology is important—but then, so is how we live. The Scriptures mention many things that will keep people out of the kingdom. During the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said you can judge a tree by its fruit (Matthew 7:16-20) and that the people who practice iniquity will not enter the kingdom (7:21-23). In Matthew 25, Jesus describes the Judgment where He will separate the sheep from the goats. Is the separation based on sheep=baptized for the remission of sins and goats=not baptized for the remission of sins? According to Jesus (and His perspective is the only one that matters), the sheep inherit the kingdom because the fruits of their lives demonstrate their love for the Lord, while the fruits (or lack thereof) of the goats show otherwise. Before His ascension, Jesus said (Mark 16:16), “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Jesus did not say, “He that is baptized for the wrong reason shall be damned.” The Lord tells us that condemnation is a result of unbelief, not the result of an incorrect view of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul indicates that “the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God,” and then he proceeds to make a list of who he is referring to when he mentions “the unrighteous.”  Once again, the kingdom is barred to people whose lives show that they are not following Christ—not to people who have the wrong belief about baptism. We have another depiction of the Judgment in Revelation 20:12, where we see the dead judged according to their works, not according to their doctrinal beliefs. These examples (and I could list more) illustrate why I believe the essence of Christianity is discipleship, not theology.
 
Jesus also said that we will be judged in the same way that we judge. Does this mean we don’t use discernment? Does this mean we overlook sin in people’s lives? Of course not! We are clearly instructed to admonish anyone who calls himself a brother but is engaged in sin. I want to indicate clearly that nothing I have said is meant to imply that I doubt the salvation of any Christian who believes that sins are forgiven during baptism. I believe that two Christians can have a doctrinal disagreement and still be brothers. However, considering the consequences of wrong judgment, it behooves us to be very careful how and why we condemn any individuals who, while being flawed, do not have obvious sin in their lives and have expressed their desire to conform their lives to the example of Jesus.

Monday, January 1, 2018

The Failure of the Holy Experiment

In my last post, I looked at William Penn's attempt to establish a colony based on the teachings of Christ, which he called his Holy Experiment. For the sake of thoroughness, I did want to point out that, despite the overall Christian character of the Pennsylvania colony, slavery was permitted. (Later on, the Quakers became one of the first Christian groups to oppose slavery.) Nevertheless, Penn's colony was very enlightened regarding fair treatment of the Indians as well as granting religious freedom. William Penn's descendants continued to be proprietors of Pennsylvania after his death, and the Provincial Assembly was composed mostly of pacifist Quakers until the time of the Revolution. So why did the experiment fail?

By establishing religious freedom, as demonstrated in the Charter of Privileges of 1701, Penn created a haven for persecuted, non-resistant religious groups such as the Amish, the Mennonites, and the Moravians, in addition to his fellow Quakers. However, the freedoms and opportunities offered by Pennsylvania also attracted larger numbers of other groups--including many German Lutherans, Irish Catholics, and Scottish Presbyterians--who had no qualms with fighting. Nevertheless, Pennsylvania was open to all these settlers, unlike more restrictive colonies that did not tolerate residents who did not conform to the official church of the colony. Consequently, the Pennsylvania that had been founded on the principles of toleration and non-resistance had become the home of many people who were not inclined to be either tolerant or non-resistant.

In the spring of 1776, after fighting had already broken out between Britain and the colonies, the Quaker-led Assembly of Pennsylvania was still opposed to breaking with the mother country. In fact, the anti-war Quakers were victorious in an election in May of that year, keeping their majority in the legislature. However, this result was not acceptable to many non-Quaker agitators who vehemently supported armed insurrection against British authority. Therefore, since democratic methods had not secured the desired outcome, these radicals completely circumvented the lawful governing body of Pennsylvania.  Individuals who supported independence had formed extralegal organizations, such as the Committees of Correspondence, to foment opposition to Britain. With support from the Continental Congress, these committees usurped governmental power in Pennsylvania, calling for a state constitutional convention to create a pro-rebel state government. Having lost all authority to this coup, the Assembly disbanded. Ironically, it was the magnanimity of William Penn in allowing people who didn't share his Biblical convictions to settle in his colony that paved the way for these same people and their descendants to wrest control of his Holy Experiment from the peaceful Quakers. I believe the Pennsylvania that was founded by William Penn might be the closest example in history of a truly Christian state, but it failed because an earthly state that is governed according to Christian principles cannot endure in such a condition. Either (1) the rulers will be corrupted by power and depart from following Jesus, or (2) the rulers will maintain their convictions but get shoved out of power by people who do not share their principles--which is exactly what happened in Pennsylvania. The Quakers were pacifists, so they would be violating their beliefs if they fought to retain their power. (Of course, groups like the Anabaptists believed that Christians had no business being in government in the first place.)

During the colonial period, Britain allowed German and other foreign settlers to come to Pennsylvania on the condition that they swore loyalty to the British crown. The non-resistant churches were opposed to swearing oaths, since the practice had been forbidden by Jesus (Matthew 5:33-37). However, grateful for the chance to escape the persecution they faced in Europe, these churches affirmed their loyalty to the king--as long as this loyalty didn't conflict with the teachings of their King, Jesus. The non-resistant Christians largely lived in peace--until the revolutionaries took control of the Pennsylvania government. One of the first actions of the new government was to require the following oath from all Pennsylvania residents.

“I, [name], do swear (or affirm) that I renounce and refuse all allegiance to George III, king of Great Britain, his heirs and successors; and that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as a free and independent State, and that I will not at any time, do or cause to be done any matter or thing that will be prejudicial, or injurious to the freedom and independence thereof;....as declared by Congress, and also, that I will discover and make known to some justice of the peace of said State all treasons or traitorous conspiracies which I now know or hereafter shall know to be formed against this or any of the United States of America.”

Perhaps the rebels felt they were being generous by allowing the option to "affirm" rather than "swear." Regardless, for the non-resistant Christians, affirmation of this oath was still impossible. They said they were going to be loyal to the king, so they were loyal to the king. In other words, their yes meant yes and their no meant no. This was not the case for most of the other professing Christian foreigners who had settled in the Quaker colony, who had outright sworn loyalty to the British crown and then turned around and swore loyalty to rebelling Pennsylvania. Even without the issue of competing loyalty oaths, the New Testament makes it clear, most notably in Romans 13, that believers are to obey the government, which has been granted its authority by God. The only exception is if the government tries to compel its citizens to violate Scripture. Having studied the history of the period, it is my personal view that the British rule of the American colonies was not the great tyranny that the revolutionaries made it out to be, but this is the topic for another essay. For the sake of argument, let's say that all the colonial complaints were valid, and the British government was horribly oppressive. Even in this situation, the non-resistant Christians would still honor the government, seeing how the New Testament lacks an exception that allows believers to disobey the authorities if they are unjust.

Sadly, these Scriptural considerations were not a concern for the professing Christians who were actively engaged in overthrowing British rule, not to mention the teachings of Jesus that tell His followers to love their enemies (Matthew 5:43-48). And if they weren't worried about violating the Bible, then others couldn't be worried about it either. In addition to enacting the above oath, the Pennsylvania revolutionaries imposed strict penalties for those who refused to take it, which included bans on buying and selling property, voting or holding office, possessing weapons, or even travelling away from one's local area. This persecution was instigated by the same folks who were claiming to fight for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." And if some of these restrictions sound familiar to you, you're not alone; many of the non-resistant Christians in Pennsylvania found their predicament far too similar to those who refused to take the mark of the beast in Revelation 13.

Unsurprisingly, the revolutionary Pennsylvania government initiated conscription to support the insurrection, and just as unsurprisingly the non-resistant churches refused to comply. As a result, the Christians who were just trying to follow Jesus saw even more hardships, ranging from jail time to exile to confiscation of property. For example, there would be families where the husband was thrown in prison and the wife and children would be left in a house stripped off all possessions, including the stoves that would be the only source of heat in the coming winter. In a few extreme cases, there were even executions of people who opposed the war, including an old Quaker man. Just to reiterate, most, if not all, of the individuals who were responsible for these heinous acts would have professed Christianity, but they persecuted those Christians who were trying to conform their lives to the principles of Christ's kingdom.

After the revolutionaries succeeded in defeating the British, the persecution against the non-resistant Christians gradually died down, and some repayments were made for confiscated property. However, a very dangerous pattern had been established, where Christians who are opposed to violence would be persecuted whenever the U.S. was fighting a war. For instance, during World War I, a number of Hutterites (an Anabaptist group that practices communal living) were drafted and essentially tortured for refusing to cooperate with the military in any way. On one occasion, two Hutterite brothers were left in a cold, damp prison cell in their underclothes (because they would not wear a uniform) long enough that they contracted pneumonia and died. (The story of these Hutterite brothers, Joseph and Michael Hofer, can be read here: The Martyrs of Alcatraz.)

"It's a good thing you live in a country where many people have died to defend your freedom not to fight." I have lost count of the number of times I have heard statements similar to this one when I attempt to explain why, based on my understanding of what Jesus taught, I believe followers of Christ should not be involved in war or any other type of violence. It is true that, in the present day, the United States and many other countries recognize conscientious objectors. However, this present reality follows a long history of suffering by believers who refuse to fight for the kingdoms of this world, including good ol' "Christian" America. In conclusion, is it the right course of action for today's Christians to combat our culture's growing ungodliness by attempting to restore the country to its "Christian" foundation? I would say no, because no such Christian foundation exists. Penn's Holy Experiment was established on much nobler principles than the United States, where one of the strongest motivations for independence was a bunch of hot-headed colonists who didn't want to pay their taxes. Yet, Penn's vision failed because of the actions of people who were being disobedient to several Biblical teachings. Instead of repeating Penn's well-intentioned mistake--diluting the kingdom of God by mixing it with an earthly government--let our spiritual efforts be focused on calling souls to the only kingdom that will endure forever.

Sources:

Dr. Roland M. Baumann, The Pennsylvania Revolution, 1989.

K. D. Keane, Persecution of Christians During the American Revolution, 2015.