There is a long-held saying among Baptists: when you get two Baptists together, you get three different opinions! This is most evident when one reads online Baptist history resources: many seem bent on proving that their particular view of Baptist history is the one and only true understanding of Baptist history.
History, in fact, is subject to various (and often contradictory) interpretations. Baptist history is not exempt from the interpretive confusion. Indeed, Baptists are even in disagreement over how they originated!
Views of Baptist Origins
1. Outgrowth of English Separatism -- In this view, the Baptist faith originated from within the Separatist movement, a movement which arose in Europe with the goal of breaking away from the Church of England (which previously had broken away from the Catholic Church, yet retained many of the trappings; those within the Church of England who wished to remain a part of the Church and yet purify it became known as "Puritans;" they were, in a sense, cousins to Separatists). The influence of Anabaptists upon early Baptists is considered minimal, according to this viewpoint. The earliest Baptist church is traced back to 1609 in Amsterdam, with John Smyth as pastor. The group's embracing of "believer's baptism" became the defining moment which led to the establishment of this first Baptist church. Shortly thereafter, Smyth left the group, and layman Thomas Helwys took over the leadership, leading the church back to England in 1611. This view of Baptist origins has the most historical support and is the most widely accepted view of Baptist origins. Representative writers include William H. Whitsitt, Robert G. Torbet, Winthrop S. Hudson, William G. McLoughlin and Robert A. Baker.
2. Influence of Anabaptists -- This view holds that although Baptists originated from English Separatism, their emergence owes much to the earlier Anabaptists. According to this view, some early Baptists were influenced by some Anabaptists. The Dutch Mennonites (Anabaptists), for example, shared some similarities with General Baptists (believer's baptism, religious liberty, separation of church and state, and Arminian views of salvation, predestination and original sin). However, other than this, there were significant differences between Anabaptists and Baptists (Anabaptists tended towards extreme pacifism, communal sharing of earthly goods, and an unorthodox optimistic view of human nature). Therefore, few Baptists hold to this theory of Baptist origins. Representative writers include A. C. Underwood and William R. Estep. Among some contemporary Baptist scholars who emphasize the faith of the community over soul liberty, the Anabaptist influence theory is making a comeback.
3. Continuation of Biblical Teachings -- Some Baptists "seek to go back beyond the Anabaptist movement to trace the continuity of Baptist forms of faith through the centuries" (Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage, page 56). While advocates of this view do not claim a succession of organized Baptist churches (see below), they believe that Baptist faith and practice have existed since the time of Christ. This view has a few advocates, including a number of early Baptist historians, many of whom were concerned with presenting the validity of their faith (denomination) over and above that of other denominations. Some representative writers of an earlier era include Thomas Crosby (one of the earliest Baptist historians, he wrote in the early 1700s), A.H. Newman and David Benedict.
4. Succession of Baptist Churches -- This viewpoint goes beyond mere "continuation of biblical teachings" and declares that Baptist churches actually existed in an unbroken chain since the time of Christ and John the Baptist. Commonly referred to as "Landmarkism" or the "Trail of Blood" theory (J.M.Carroll wrote a book of supposed Baptist history by this name), this view declares that those churches which stood outside the influence of the Roman Catholic Church at various times in church history were, in actuality although not in name, Baptist churches. Refusing to embrace infant baptism, these churches rejected the legitimacy of the Roman Catholic Church as a Christian entity. However, many of the historical churches which Landmarkists label as Baptist churches were actually heretical in regards to doctrine. Nonetheless, the "Landmarkist" view, despite little actual historical support, remains popular among certain Baptists. The reason for its moderate popularity (and, indeed, strong popularity among some rural Baptists in the southern and western United States) stems to some degree from a long-standing dislike of Catholics by many Baptists. Representative writers of this viewpoint include J.M Carroll, G.H. Orchard and J.M. Cramp. It should also be noted that much of the Baptist history material thus far posted on the Internet is Landmarkist in nature, indicating that Landmarkers remain a vocal lot.
The Reformed Debate
In addition to the long-running debate over Baptist origins, a new debate is now prominent in Baptist life: the question over whether or not Baptists (and particularly Southern Baptists) are historically Calvinistic. The Founders Journal (see below), along with Dr. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is doing an admirable job in championing the belief that Southern Baptists have always been strict (5 point) Calvinists. Their efforts do fall short of the truth, however, for although Baptists (including Southern Baptists) have certainly been influenced by Calvinism, they have also been much influenced by Arminianism, which historically served to moderate Calvinism and produce a warmly evangelistic theology as mirrored in the Great Awakenings. Most Baptists today hold beliefs from both Calvinistic and Arminian schools of thought. The current Calvinistic debate about Baptist history has reached the point where it is now affecting many Baptist churches throughout America. The reader will note that a number of the online Baptist history resources listed below are from the Reformed (or Calvinist) perspective. The reader should also note that within the past few years, some Reformed (or Calvinist) Baptists have shifted to using the milder-sounding terminology of "doctrines of grace" rather than "Calvinism."
Top
The Southern Baptist Controversy and Beyond
Finally, the 1980s to the present have witnessed a new fundamentalist controversy (also often referred to as a "political" and / or "biblical" controversy) within the largest Baptist denomination, which has altered the course of Southern Baptist history, and Baptist history in general. The minority fundamentalists, now firmly in charge of the national Southern Baptist Convention, have changed the direction and nature of the Convention, resulting in the first statistical decline of the denomination in some 75 years. They have sought to re-fashion Baptist history to reflect their theology and their insurgency, and as a result have caused much confusion about Baptist history among Baptist laity and the general populace.
Whereas Baptists have historically been non-creedal, the fundamentalist leadership of the SBC has forced creedalism upon Southern Baptists through the implementation of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Whereas Southern Baptists have traditionally believed in the Priesthood of all Believers, the fundamentalist leadership positions pastoral authority above the Priesthood of Believers. Whereas Baptists have historically held to the authority of Scripture and looked to Jesus and the Holy Spirit as the criterion for interpreting the Bible, the fundamentalist leadership claims that looking to Jesus and the Holy Spirit as the authority for faith is a liberal position. Instead, they have positioned the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, and/or a modern interpretation of Biblical authority known as "inerrancy," as the only valid way in which to approach Scripture.
At the state Baptist level, many traditional state Baptist conventions are asserting their autonomous rights in distancing themselves from the creedalistic, fundamentalist SBC, refusing to enforce the Baptist Faith & Message 2000.
The year 2004 witnessed a significant new development within the Southern Baptist Convention. The SBC leadership defunded the Baptist World Alliance, charging (with no merit) that the BWA is a liberal, un-American institution. In response, many state Baptist conventions and local Southern Baptist churches have increased their support of the BWA.
In 2006, a rupture within the Southern Baptist Convention occurred, as some younger (conservative) trustees of SBC agencies are accusing the older leadership of being too narrow-minded; the older leadership, in turn, views the younger leadership as being too liberal; latest skirmish demonstrates the nature of fundamentalists' quest for purity.
During the last three years, Southern Baptist leaders have publicly and repeatedly lamented the decline of the SBC, yet remain convinced that fundamentalist theology is not to blame. The problem, they maintain, is a lack of evangelism.
During the course of the Southern Baptist controversy, a number of new entities have come into existence to champion the very historic principles and cooperative spirit that the SBC leaders have long since abandoned. These include the national Cooperative Baptist Fellowship organization, evidencing the trappings of a denomination and including numerous state and regional organizations. Other moderate Baptist organizations, many of whom partner with CBF, include the Baptist Center for Ethics, Baptist Women in Ministry, the national news journal Baptists Today, the Associated Baptist Press, Smyth & Helwys Publishers, some fourteen new Baptist seminaries / divinity schools, and other entities. As the Southern Baptist Convention continues its exit from traditional Baptist life and deeper into non-denominational, evangelical, political fundamentalism, these new entities will play a significant role in maintaining a Baptist witness in America and the world.
For more information on current events in this ongoing struggle from a traditional Baptist perspective, visit BaptistLife.Com, Mainstream Baptists, The Baptist Standard or Baptists Today. To view the fundamentalist perspective, go to Baptist Press, SBC Life, or Baptist2Baptist.
0 comments:
Post a Comment