Caution: Baptist distinctives ahead

Some people are aware that I'm a history buff. In the mail today I received the latest issue of The Queensland Baptist Forum (no. 69, Apr 2008). In it is part of an ongoing series of articles by Dr David Parker on Queensland Baptists and the charismatic movement. One of several grave crises facing Queensland Baptists in the mid-1980s was the threat of schism or denominational transformation arising from allegedly strong Pentecostal-style influence in Queensland Baptist churches (stemming, in part, from the significant influence of a cohort of pastors from New Zealand).

The Baptist Union of Queensland executive dealt with this perceived problem in various ways. One way was to issue a 29-page booklet in April 1986 featuring an official statement of its views about the presence of the charismatic movement among Baptists, and three supporting papers. They provide interesting reading (I have the booklet on file), but of more interest to this blog is the following section of the official statement:

Baptist distinctives include an emphasis on: The baptism of the Holy Spirit at [i.e. not subsequent to] conversion; the infilling of the Holy Spirit as a daily experience; a warm but not excessively emotional content in worship; the subjugation of individual experience to the Word of God; the centrality of preaching and exposition [of the Word of God]; the sovereignty of God in healing; [and] congregational government (Queensland Baptist Forum 69, p. 7).

Now that is quite a statement! Apart from the theology and ecclesiology it represents, I want to make two observations relevant to our Taskforce 2 discussions:

1. Baptist "distinctives" do not arise in a vacuum but in the cut and thrust of historical struggles (whether they are theological, social or cultural in essence). They are not handed down by God to the faithful of all ages. It's important to recognise that all our distinctives have a beginning, and a reason for being that may now be irrelevant. Articulation of the value of specific Baptist "distinctives" may arise in response to a specific perceived threat (or opportunity), such as the alleged encroachment of charismatic experience in Queensland Baptist churches - or, in NSW, the fact that the ardently evangelical Anglican Diocese of Sydney has long overshadowed (some would say overwhelmed) the Baptist movement in NSW, in numbers and social/cultural/political influence. We ignore the subtle Anglican influence on our movement at our peril. Articulation of specific principles in response to specific issues means that other valid/important principles are emphasised less, or not at all. Also, the demands of a particular situation may deliver strange outcomes that say more about the leading personalities of the day than about the denomination's culture (e.g. are Queensland Baptists really to be distinguished for all time by "a warm but not excessively emotional content in worship"? And who becomes the judge of what is warm, or excessively emotional?).
2. Baptist "distinctives," like the Baptist logo, serve to brand groups of people sharing common interests, beliefs, experiences and aspirations. Branding distinguishes products from other (similar) products, enables marketing aimed at increasing trade (or, in the case of denominations, members/attenders), and cultivates a tribal mentality by generating loyalty and trust - even pride (think not only of toothpaste and cars, but football clubs). Branding is a useful function, but it can be detrimental and can be used for ignoble purposes. Viewed as a form of branding, it's not hard to think of Baptist "distinctives" as competing with other (like and unlike) brands, and falling prey to other commercially motivated moves.

That's all for now. Your comments are welcome.