by Scott Higgins
As I understand it there is only one Baptist distinctive – that we recognise the crucified and risen Christ is Lord. This is the only thing a “Baptist” insists upon. Everything else is a working out of this.
We submit to Scripture because we perceive that it is through the Scriptures that we hear the voice of our Lord. We refuse to allow State, bishops, denominations or churches to bind the conscience of the individual because we believe that none of these can take the place of our Lord. We practise believers baptism because we recognise baptism as a sign of one’s commitment to following Christ as Lord. We practise local church autonomy because we believe each church must respond to what it perceives the living Christ to be saying to it. We practise congregational government because we believe pastors and church leaders do not have a monopoly on Christ, but that all believers stand equal together under Christ. We associate in a denomination because we believe that Christ can accomplish things through his followers working cooperatively that are beyond the capacity of a single congregation. And so on.
This has some important ramifications for the ways we relate to one another as fellow Baptists. Our statement of faith, attitudes to believers baptism, congregational autonomy, etc are not what define us as Baptist, but our attempts to work out what it means to recognise Christ as Lord. As such these all have a secondary status for Baptists. This does not make them unimportant – clearly many of these things are very significant for the ways we follow Christ. It does however mean that they can never be sacrosanct.
As a Baptist I should always: (1) be open to critiquing any doctrine, value or practise if it is found to be inconsistent with the Lordship of Christ; (2) respect the freedom of my fellow Baptists (and others) to question, critique or challenge any doctrine, value and practise. As a result all doctrinal, values and practise statements should be regarded as affirmations of the consensus that exists among Baptists, rather than as definitive of what it means to be a Baptist. This leaves room for both the followers of Christ as Lord who affirm the consensus and for those followers of Christ as Lord who do not.
As I see it, evangelical Baptists (of which I would consider myself one) constantly run the danger of substituting the bible as Lord for Christ as Lord. My conviction is that the Scriptures are the definitive witness to the story and word of Christ, and as such they are my supreme authority for faith and practise. This gets the reasoning the right way round –I don’t trust the Scriptures because of any special quality in them but because I am convinced the Jesus to whom they testify was raised from the dead and thus designated Lord of all. Having believed and chosen to follow I naturally turn to the Scriptures to learn of him, his story and his will.
Most evangelicals seem to reason the other way – I trust Christ as Lord because I trust the Scriptures. This, erroneously in my opinion, makes what we say about the Scriptures the defining reality of faith as opposed to what we say about Jesus being the defining reality.
I would prefer us to say that what defines us as Baptist is our affirmation that Christ is Lord of all and then explicate the consensus that exists among us as to what this means in terms of doctrines, values and practises, while simultaneously recognising that there are those among us who do not affirm all parts of the consensus.
Scott Higgins is an ordained NSW Baptist minister serving with Baptist World Aid Australia.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree that the basic premise of Baptist belief and practice is that Jesus crucified and risen is Lord. And I also agree that we must view this in the most radical terms.
However, this is not really distinctive of Baptists. That definition could as well apply to, say, Mennonites, and even to many Catholics, with whom we would otherwise part company a rather short distance down the road.
One question we should consider is whether there is anything truly distinctive about being Baptist, or whether we only maintain our Baptist identity because of history and inertia. To be radical in our beliefs implies that we have to question our own existence.
Considering what Martin Marty describes as "the Baptistification of the church" (as a whole) it is arguable that other churches have caught up on us sufficiently, and perhaps passed us far enough in the areas we have not emphasised, that we should, in fact, pack our bags and run to join them, rather than maintain a separate identity with the aim of bearing witness to distinctives which no longer distinguish.
I also appreciate Scott's emphasis on the centrality of Christ rather than of scripture: I see we hold similar views on this subject. I do believe that some of the problems we have experienced in the past arise from an over-emphasis on questions of inspiration and inerrancy, and a lack of focus on Jesus.
I think, overall, that a greater problem for us is our difficulty in moving from a denominational view of identity to questions of what must my local church look like. When I was in College, I was concerned that too many both of faculty and of the students had a "Carlingford mentality": that is, that the large churches were doing it right, and that the smaller churches should emulate them. Furthermore, it seemed that the only thing that most Baptist churches need, by this theory, is to do a bit more earnestly what they have always done.
I kept feeling that we really needed -- and still need -- to "reinvent the church" (http://www.silverstreet-au.com/
html/reinvent_the_church_.html)
Perhaps we should address this issue of Baptist identity at the point where we Baptists theoretically begin: how must a community centred on Christ live its corporate life in a fallen world?
In a sense this goes back to my previous comment on June Heinrich's introduction to this blog, that what we really need is revival, in the sense of a rebuilding of community around the Lordship of Jesus.
Peter Green is pastor of Silver Street Baptist Mission in Marrickville.
Almost an Amen: The Lordship of Christ as a Fundamental Presupposition
Scott began 'As I understand it there is only one Baptist distinctive - that we recognise the crucified and risen Christ is Lord. This is the only things a "Baptist" insists upon. Everything else is a working out of this.'
I can almost give this paragraph a hearty "Amen" - there is so much to agree on here. But I hope Scott won't mind too much if I agree with Peter Green in saying that surely the Lordship of Christ is not a Baptist distinctive. Where I agree with Scott is the fundamental nature of the wholehearted affirmation that the crucified Jesus is the risen and exalted Christ our Lord - the son of God, God come in the flesh. Scott's second paragraph well illustrates the fundamental character of the affirmation of 'Jesus is Lord'.
I'd think though that 'Jesus is Lord' is a fundamental principle which drives many to be Baptists rather than Methodists, Presbyterians, or Pentecostals. Rather than seeing it as a distinctive, we should see it as a fundamental principle or presupposition, the functional non-negotiable which lies at the heart of our beliefs. Surely this a presupposition we share with many who do not identify or agree with baptist beliefs. In fact it is a presupposition which might lead us in all honesty to leave the Baptist 'denomination' for the Methodists or the Presbyterians or the Pentecostals or even principled non-denominationalism.
One of the reasons I am a Baptist is that I do believe that consistent application of the Lordship of Christ leads to Baptist beliefs, though I am open to the possibility that I might be mistaken about that. "Yet more light..."
However, 'Jesus is Lord' is no bare affirmation. Jesus has chosen to exercise his Lordship in various definite ways. Jesus' own affirmations about the link of himself and his words suggests that we ought not to play off the Lordship of Christ against Scripture itself. Too facile a dichotomy between God and His Word is likely to prove deeply problematic. Scripture is the Lordship of Christ expressed in words.
And further, 'Jesus is Lord' is no lone affirmation. Jesus comes to us not only as the Christ, but as the Son of the Father and with his Father as the donor and sponsor of the Spirit. The Jesus who is this Lord is the Son from all eternity, God in the flesh, crucified and risen and now exalted, who through his death won the gifts which God showers on him and those united with him by faith: righteousness, holiness, sonship, the spirit and life.
One might appropriately say that Jesus is Lord as our one fundamental presupposition as long we recognise that it is not a context free affirmation but is laden with meaning. My worry is that 'Jesus is Lord' or even 'the leading of the Spirit' or even 'gospel' can become theological shorthand and ultimately context free and therefore semantically empty banners which we attach to our projects and causes.
Elsewhere in this blogsite I have argued that God himself in his triune majesty and God as he reveals himself in Scripture are the fundamental principles or maybe presuppositions of Baptist belief. Of course we share this understanding with many brothers and sisters in Christ who have not come to the same understanding as we have about various more distinctively Baptist beliefs. God has acted in creation and redemption and acted in speech to accomplish and reveal his work: Jesus the wrath bearing/averting sacrifice and ever living risen head of his people. This gospel is an essential of Baptist belief as it is of many others who love the Lord Jesus. As Scott pointed out many of our distinctive beliefs rise out of our commitment to Christ's lordship - believer's baptism, the autonomous local congregation, etc. But these distinctives are consequences of much deeper presuppositions.
What happens when the distinctives are held but without the presuppositions? Then we are merely holding onto the husk of a tradition - and it avails us nothing. What happens if we hold onto the presuppositions but without the distinctives? Then we are known by God and will know him and see him face to face, even if we cannot call ourselves 'Baptist'.
Post a Comment