Posted by: nathanfinn | May 16, 2008

Initial Thoughts on the Gospel and Baptist Identity

I have spent a great deal of time over the last couple of months reflecting on the relationship between the gospel and ecclesiology. I am honestly convinced that Baptist ecclesiology better depicts the gospel and fits within the grand narrative of Scripture than other forms of ecclesiology. If I did not think so, I would be something besides a Baptist. I have spoken with several friends and colleagues around the convention about this issue. This is a topic I hit on pretty hard in my Baptist History and Distinctives classes at The College at Southeastern. I hope to write something on this topic soon–possibly more than one somethings.

Lord willing, I will also discuss this topic in future posts, hopefully in greater detail, so these are just some initial thoughts. I am very fearful that there is a false dichotomy in Southern Baptist circles between “gospel Baptists” and “identity Baptists.” While there are no doubt thoughtful Southern Baptists who emphasize different things, I suspect this particular divide has been created (or at least exacerbated) by a combination of some unhelpful bloggers, immature Calvinists who simplistically equate the gospel with the doctrines of grace, and a Baptocentrism that, while not technically Landmark in the sense of affirming Baptist succession or perpetuity, is Landmark-like in its denominational jingoism. While all of these elements may predominate in certain areas of SBC life (the blogosphere, seminary cafeterias and libraries, some conferences, some geographic regions) , I am convinced they are extremes within the broader convention. And as I argued in an earlier post titled “Varieties of SBC Conservatism,” if we are not careful, it will be the extremes that kill us.

Enter Russ Moore and Robbie Sagers of Southern Seminary. In the most recent issue of The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, these brothers have authored a fine article titled “The Kingdom of God: A Baptist Reassessment.” The article can be read online [click here] at the website of The Carl F. H. Henry Institute for Evangelical Engagement, a Southern thinktank which Moore serves as director and for which Sagers regularly blogs and occasionally authors longer commentaries. While their specific topic is somewhat broader than the relationship between the gospel and Baptist identity, they hit on the issue and other crucial items related thereto. I commend their article to you.

There are other recent publications that I believe also make significant contributions to moving Southern Baptists in the right direction. I will address them in future posts.

Posted in SBC | Tags: , , ,

« Suggested Hymn for the New Baptist Hymnal
The Questions Young Future Leaders are Asking »

Responses

NAF,

I greatly enjoyed this article as well! I too am convinced of the importance of a Baptist ecclesiology and have found my Baptist ecclesiology helpful in understanding such things as a consistent outworking of congregational mercy ministries. Regarding this, Moore and Sagers’ section on lived out Kingdom ethics applied brilliantly! They were able to articulate many things I have found to excite and undergird my Baptist ecclesiology.

because of mercy,
Ben Hedrick

By: Ben Hedrick on May 16, 2008
at 8:59 pm

I will look forward to your future discussion of the topic. The dichotomy between “gospel Baptists” and “identity Baptists” seems to be increasing, and probably not limited to Southern Baptist circles.

Thanks for linking “The Kingdom of God: A Baptist Reassessment.” I hope to read it tonight.

By: R. L. Vaughn on May 16, 2008
at 10:25 pm

Nathan,

There need not be a dichotomy. However, on the one hand, “gospel Baptist” arguments are made exegetically. On the other hand, “identity Baptist” arguments are historical arguments.

So can there be a difference rather than a dichotomy?

By: ksmith on May 18, 2008
at 4:18 am

ksmith,

I do not accept your suggestion (by implication) that there is no exegetical basis for the distinctive beliefs of Baptists. Nor, I think, would our host.

By: Bart Barber on May 18, 2008
at 4:26 am

Bart,

I don’t think Kevin is saying that there is no exegetical basis for Baptist distinctives. Kevin’s Baptist credentials are as sound as yours or mine. I think he is saying that “identity Baptists” are arguing for their views more from history than exegesis, whereas “gospel Baptists” are arguing more from exegesis rather than history. He can correct me if I’m wrong, but that is how I have read his comment.

My thoughts: I think there is strong exegetical basis for basic Baptist distinctives. That said, IMO the Bible does not always clearly articule the nuts-and-bolts of each of those distinctives, which is why different Baptists have applied their distinctives in different ways. Some Baptists who take Baptist distinctives sometimes imply that their application of an individual distinctive is the only *right* way of understanding said distinctive. This is often done by exalting the views of a particular individual, time period, etc., to a normative place in Baptist practice.

So, for example, some conservative Southern Baptists believe that 19th century SBC life is almost normative for the 21st century SBC (this could apply to both some “identity guys” and some Calvinists). Wade Burleson appears to give John Gill an almost normative place when it comes to Baptist identity. Some of my moderate friends do the same thing with E. Y. Mullins. Other folks do it with Anabaptism, or 17th century Particular Baptists, or their favorite contemporary SBC theologian, or . . . you get the point. The results are different, but the method is the same: history is being used as an apologetic rather than corroborating evidence for exegetical arguments.

So my area of disagreement with Kevin is not in what he said (again, if I am interpreting him correctly) but in that he did not say enough. There are folks on both “sides” that talk more about history than exegesis:

“Southern Baptists have traditionally affirmed [insert preference here]”

“Clear Baptist identity”

“Baptists are the immersing branch of the Puritan theological tradition”

“Baptists have never been doctrinaire Calvinists”

These are just some of the examples of this approach I have read in the last couple of years. Regrettably, I have used the approach myself in times past. Some of the above statements may be true, but the correctness of the historical assertion does not, in and of itself, validate the doctrine/distinctive/practice in question.

Sorry to respond to this discussion with a blog post, but I have been mulling this over for a LONG time. There is not enough Bible in most of our discussions about the application of Baptist distinctives, a tragic irony in a group that ousted our previous leadership because they did not have a high enough view of the Bible. And when we don’t start with Scripture, we are at the mercy of our history, and in a movement as diverse as Baptists, that leads to exactly the types of conflict we are presently facing.

NAF

By: nathanfinn on May 18, 2008
at 6:18 pm

Nathan,

Thank you for interpreting my previous post correctly. I, like Bart, find exegetical support for Baptists distinctions.

Initially, when you spoke of dichotomy, I was suggesting that both approaches are helpful in different settings. I give “gospel Baptist” answers when people ask me “why” I believe what I believe. However, I give “identity Baptist” answer when Baptist internally debate about “what” have Baptist believed?

So Nathan, does your response suggest that a merely historical defense of Baptist identity (without exegesis) is inadequate? Obviously, scripture is studied as my students examine how early Baptists interpreted scripture to support their commitments.

By: ksmith on May 19, 2008
at 2:09 am

Kevin,

Yes, a merely historical defense is inadequate. I am all for history being used as corroborating evidence. But you even have to be careful with that, because too much of it is a selective (and often shoddy) use of history, which is really using history for apologetics. Folks on all *sides* in the SBC discussion(s) do this at least some of the time. We need to do more exegesis–rigorous exegesis, not just blanket statements of “[good] Baptists believe …”–in all of our debates, dialogs, and discussions.

NAF

By: nathanfinn on May 19, 2008
at 12:47 pm

An excellent, thought provoking paper Nathan- thank you for the link.

By: Rick Thompson on May 20, 2008
at 7:57 pm

Last night I finally got around to reading “The Kingdom of God: A Baptist Reassessment.” I can always find a few things to quibble about, but it was very thought provoking. As a young pastor nearly 25 years ago, I preached a series of sermons on Sunday nights about the Kingdom of God. I decided there were about 6 aspects of the kingdom found in the N.T. I don’t know that I got it right, and I have changed on lots of things since then. But the study helped break me out of a narrow view of the Kingdom that saw it mostly as millennial, and a Scofieldian influenced idea that the church age was a parenthesis. IMO, this kingdom issue is an area of much-needed reassessment. How we view the kingdom affects (or at least should) how we view our role in the world, how we view the church’s role in the world, and probably how we look at the ordinances. I think Moore’s & Sagers’ article will help spur me toward another look at the kingdom of God.

By: R. L. Vaughn on May 21, 2008
at 2:55 pm

Leave a response






Your response:

Categories