I style myself as one of
those Baptists with a capital “B” Baptists. Typically what we mean by that is
that we hold Baptist baptism as the only form of scriptural baptism since we
believe that baptism must be under the authority of a scriptural church and neither
any of the Protestants nor the Catholic Church qualify, and that the Lord’s
Supper is a memorial to be observed by the members of a particular local
church.
Sometimes those of us, who
think of ourselves as capital “B” Baptists, think that we are the only Baptists
who have any historical claim to the title. I don’t see it as being that
simple. It is relatively popular right now to identify four historical “ideas”
for the existence of Baptists:
That Baptist churches have
existed and reproduced themselves since the first century.
Those who hold to this idea
of Baptist origin identify with the Anabaptists.
That the doctrines of
modern Baptists are traceable through the centuries and back to Christ.
Those in this camp deny
that churches have established churches for these two thousand years, but that
various Bible students through the centuries independently came to hold
doctrines similar to modern Baptists.
That modern Baptist
churches spring from Protestant churches that were influenced by the
Anabaptists.
In this way Baptists claim
some link to historical churches but disassociate with some of what they
consider to be the less desirable aspects of Anabaptist history.
That Baptists are merely
one of the many sub-church groups that protested away from the Protestant
Church of England.
This group denies any
connection with the Anabaptists and see the Baptist denomination as a brand new
church founded by John Smith and his contemporaries.
I am of the first bunch. I
see the Baptist church origins as being outside of Protestantism and outside of
Catholicism running parallel in time to them all the way back to John the
Baptist. I see two possible means to link Baptist churches all the way back to
Christ:
First, through the Anabaptists of mainland Europe. There is no question that
these believers existed and that they were a growing, vital Christian community
all the while Catholicism and later Protestantism existed. They were heavily
persecuted by the Catholics and Protestants so most of what we know about them
we know from the things their detractors wrote about them, but we do know they
existed. We would not agree with everything every Anabaptist held to and we
admit that they held to varied positions. But that their basic doctrinal
premises were that of Baptists, is not difficult to argue.
Second, through the ancient churches of the British Isles. It is similarly
uncomplicated to demonstrate that a Christian presence has existed in the
British Isles long before the Catholics arrived there. Many of these churches
compromised with Roman Catholicism over the centuries, but some did not. Believers
in Wales especially claim a Christian heritage that is more ancient than
Catholicism. I contend that Baptists have a right to claim that heritage as our
own.
And here we have made a
huge mistake, especially in the last fifty to seventy-five years. We have
assumed that anyone who was an Independent, Fundamental Baptist was in the same
camp as we. Oh, sure, we understood that there were minor differences, mostly
we attributed those to personalities, but we viewed all Independent Baptists as
“one of us.” The fact is, that is not the case.
- · I remember back in the 80’s hearing the head of one Independent Baptist missions agency claim to be the first Independent Baptist back into Ethiopia[1], ignoring that there had been a missionary associated with the Baptist Bible Fellowship there for previous to him.
- · I heard an Independent Baptist preacher claim to be the only Gospel preaching Baptist church in his town, but I knew for a fact that there was a church in fellowship with the Baptist Bible Fellowship in the same town[2].
The differences between the
various “camps” of Independent Baptists is real. It is more than one of simple
personalities. It is a difference
- · of philosophy,
- · of doctrine,
- · of ethics and
- · of heritage[3]
It is, in fact, a
difference of “kind.” Mixing the “kinds” has been a mistake. It has left the
members of Baptist churches confused and doctrinally compromised because of it.
The leaders, the guys who wish to assemble a multitude of pastors as their
followers[4] would like us to ignore
the differences, in fact they wish we would stop having our distinctives and
just follow them. But the differences are real. I contend that they are vital and
important to preserve.
Now, I am not suggesting
that these others are not Baptists or that they have to agree with my view of
heritage, origin and doctrine to be capital “B” Baptists. History will bear out
that Baptists, if they are anything, are varied. What I am suggesting is that
we become upfront with the differences and that we unite as Baptists with
Baptists who are doctrinally, historically and ethically the same as we are and
not merely with those who seem to be the most successful and camp under the
very broad flag of Independent, Fundamental Baptist. The differences are
important.
- · They are important to the health of local Baptist churches
- · They are important to the vitality of individual believers and
- · They are important to the preservation of “faith which was once delivered”
Marvin McKenzie
In the fields
[1] Or was it Kenya? I don't remember.
[2] Though I am not aware
of any specific instances, I am sure that there
were BBF preachers who ignored the presence of the others too.
[3] Unless we wish to claim that heritage only goes back to the
1940’s-1950’s.
