Baptists together

neo-baptist blog

2008-11-12T22:30:00.002+11:00

[One of our regular readers pointed me to http://neobaptist.com/about/, and I thought it was worth pasting the intro blurb to this blog....]

Welcome to neo-baptist. This was originally a place of collective wisdom for Baptist types. It turns out that Baptist types don’t really blog so now this blog is for all types of Christians engaged in leadership of a local church, hip cool emergent pub gathering, or any other format of Christian community.

This blog is based in Australia but welcomes participation from around the world. Although there are differences between Baptists and other types there is much in common.
The word ‘neo’ can be understood in a few ways. The meaning intended for this blog is ‘new’. The Baptist church in Australia [and in other countries] occupies the middle ground of Protestantism between the liturgical traditions to the left and the Pentecostal traditions to the right, or on another linear scale the liberal to the left and the redneck to the right [although there are plenty of hardline conservative baptist churches within the State unions].

The most hardline conservative baptists have made life easier for the rest of us by congregating in their own independently aligned churches, replete with their KJV’s and 3-piece suits. There is plenty of variety within union affiliated Baptist churches. Having said that I observe that there is such a thing as a ‘typical suburban’ Baptist church, or any other denomination for that matter other than the church of Rome which has rock solid branding.

Aside from the large flagship mega-churches, and the eclectic charismatic Baptist churches, there is a fairly large middle ground. The churches that are found within this grouping have much in common.

Right now many pastors and leaders in churches are wrestling with some of the key challenges which face the churches. Our congregations straddle a number of key generations [and the cultural assumptions that come with each era], and we straddle the great modernist/postmodern divide. Many churches are dwindling due to an ageing congregation that is not being replenished by new blood. We are wrestling with proposed changes to the way we do church government, ordination etc. Many of us are wrestling with the challenges and critique thrown up by the ‘emerging church’ movement.

In my view, the churches that are thriving are the ones who are prepared to be ‘neo’ where required. Progressive Baptists are ’small-b’ baptists. I count myself as one of them. We prefer to see our identity primarily as Christians. We are evangelical by persuasion, and we can be described as baptist in that we identify with those distinctives [which we share in common with others] and obviously because we find ourselves either belonging to or ministering in a Baptist church. Leaders in other denominations share this desire to be identified in Christ alone.

Just what we are to be ‘neo’ about is up for grabs. This blog is a place where we can discuss these challenges and hopefully grow and learn together. I intend this blog to have free posting, unless of course it is abused either by spammers or people who want to be abusive. At that point it may have to move to regulated posting or registered members to the blog. Hopefully it can work without resorting to those control levels.

Let’s see where our collective wisdom can take us. Feel free to leave your thoughts.

http://neobaptist.com/about/

Can The Shack inform discussion on Baptist identity?

2008-11-12T22:20:00.003+11:00

G'day,

Here is an excellent review of the Shack from Gary Gilley. It does have relevance to our baptst distinctives, as one of our distinctives is the authority of the scriptures, and another is the Lordship of Christ. I guess an understanding of the Trinity is at the core of our evangelical beliefs and of our beliefs as Baptists.Here is the article. You may want to make it a post.
Steve Grose

(We did)

The Shack - A Book Review
By Gary Gilley
Think on These Things, September 2008 - Volume 14, Issue 9

One of the most popular and controversial Christian books of recent years is the fictional work by first time author William Young. Evangelical recording artist Michael W. Smith states, “The Shack will leave you craving for the presence of God.” Author Eugene Peterson believes “this book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress did for his. It’s that good!”

On the other hand, seminary president Al Mohler says the book “includes undiluted heresy” and many concur. Given its popularity (number one on the New York Times bestseller list for paperback fiction), influence and mixed reviews, we need to take a careful look.

Good Christian fiction has the ability to get across a message in an indirect, non-threatening yet powerful, way. Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress is the most successful in the genre and has been mightily used of the Lord to teach spiritual truth. What determines the value of fiction is how closely it adheres to Scripture. It is by these criteria that we must measure The Shack.

As a novel, while well written, its storyline is not one that would attract many people. The plot is developed around the abduction and murder of six year old Missy, beloved daughter of nominal Christian Mackenzie Philips (Mack). This great tragedy has, of course, shaped the lives of Mack and his family in horrific ways. Mack’s life is simply described as living under “The Great Sadness.” Then one day four years later God drops Mack a note in his mail box and invites him to the isolated shack where Missy was murdered. Obviously skeptical, Mack takes a chance that God might really show up and heads alone to the shack. There God, in the form of all three members of the Trinity, meets with him for the weekend. God gives Mack new insight about Himself, about life and about pain and tragedy and Mack goes home a new man.

It should be mentioned that the Trinity takes human form in the novel: the Father (called Papa throughout) appears as a large African-American woman who loves to cook; the Holy Spirit is called Sarayu (Sanskrit for air or wind) and is a small Asian woman who is translucent; and Jesus is a middle-age man, presumably of Jewish descent, who is a carpenter. Much interesting dialog takes place as members of the Trinity take turns explaining to Mack what they want him to know.

The Shack, like many books today, decries theology on the one hand while offering its own brand on the other. A story has the advantage of putting forth doctrine in a livelier manner than a systematic work can do—which is why we find most of Scripture in narrative form. The question is, does Young’s theology agree with God’s as revealed in Scripture? The short answer is “sometimes” but often Young totally misses the mark. Scripture and the ChurchYoung’s message centers on the Trinity and salvation, but before we tackle Young’s main objective it is significant that he has a couple of axes to grind concerning the Bible and the church. Young passionately rejects the cessationist view of Scripture which his character Mack was taught in seminary: “In seminary he had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture, properly interpreted, of course. God’s voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects…Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book” (pp. 65-66).

Young would prefer a God who communicates with us in our thoughts rather than on paper (i.e. the Bible) (p. 195). Realizing the subjectivity of such revelation he assures us that we will “begin to better recognize [the Holy Spirit’s] voice as we continue to grow our relationship” (p. 196). Scripture comes in second to inner voices in Young’s theology. Scripture puts God in a box; inner voices make God alive and fresh. This is what Young wants to convey.

Young also has little good to say about the church or other related institutions. While Mack had attended seminary, “none of his training was helping in the least” (p. 91) when it came to understanding God. He consistently depicts the activity of the church in a negative light: Mack is pretty sure he hasn’t met the church Jesus loves (p. 177), which is all about relationships, “not a bunch of exhausting work and long list of demands, and not sitting in endless meetings staring at the backs of people’s heads, people he really didn’t even know” (p. 178). Sunday school (p. 98) and family devotions (p. 107) both take hits as well. Systematic theology itself takes a postmodern broadside as the Holy Spirit says, “I have a great fondness for uncertainty” (p. 203). While Scripture does not place such words in the mouth of the Holy Spirit, Young’s love for uncertainty becomes frustratingly clear as he outlines his concept of salvation.

Salvation

When Mack asks how he can be part of the church, Jesus replies, “It’s simple Mack, it’s all about relationships and simply sharing life” (p. 178). On an earlier occasion Jesus tells Mack that he can get out of his mess “by re-turning. By turning back to me. By giving up your ways of power and manipulation and just come back to me” (p. 147). Yet nowhere in The Shack is the reader given a clear understanding of the gospel.

When Mack asks what Jesus accomplished by dying he is told, “Through his death and resurrection, I am now fully reconciled to the world.” When pressed to explain, God says that He is reconciled to “the whole world,” not just the believer (p. 192). Does this mean that all will be saved? Young never goes that far, however he certainly gives that impression when Mack’s father (who was an awful man and showed no signs of being saved) is found in heaven (pp. 214-215), when God says repeatedly He is particularly fond of all people, when God claims that He has forgiven all sins against Him (e.g. 118-119), that He does not “do humiliation, or guilt, or condemnation” (p. 223) and, contrary to large hunks of Scripture, God is not a God of judgment. “I don’t need to punish people for sin, sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my job to cure it” (p. 120).

While Young’s comment has some validity it does not faithfully reflect the teaching of Scripture which portray God as actively involved in the punishment of sin.Young further muddies the waters as he has Jesus reply to Mack’s question, “Is that what it means to be a Christian?” Jesus says, “Who said anything about being a Christian? I’m not a Christian…Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrat, Republicans and many who don’t vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions…I have no desire to make them Christians, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, into my beloved.” With Mack we are confused. “Does that mean,” asks Mack, “that all roads will lead to you?” Jesus denies this but then says, “What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you” (p. 182). Jesus apparently means that He will travel any road to “join them in their transformation.” The implication is that people are on many roads that lead to their self-transformation. Jesus will join people where they are on that road and apparently aid in that transformation. This is certainly not the teaching of Scripture, which tells us that we must come to the one road, the narrow way that leads to God through Jesus Christ.

The Godhead

The main thrust of the novel concerns itself with an understanding of God and how we are to be in relationship to Him. As already noted, the method by which mankind comes into the right relationship with God is cloudy at best in The Shack. Young’s Trinity is equally confusing. The author does not develop his understanding of God exclusively from Scripture and, in fact, often contradicts biblical teaching. The first issue is that of imagining and presenting human forms for the members of the Trinity. While some slack might be given for Young’s portrait of Jesus, who came in human form (although we don’t know what He looks like), the first two of the Ten Commandments would forbid us depicting the Father or the Holy Spirit in physical form. When we create an image of God in our imagination we then attempt to relate to that image—which is inevitably a false one. This is the essence of idolatry and is forbidden in the Word.

Further, the portrayal of God throughout the novel is one which humanizes Him rather than exalts Him. Young quotes Jacques Ellul, “No matter what God’s power may be, the first aspect of God is never that of absolute Master, the Almighty. It is that of the God who puts Himself on our human level and limits Himself” (p. 88). Really? This quote is in contradiction to the entirety of biblical revelation which first and often declares God to be absolute Master, yet in no way mitigates the incarnation, as Young and Ellul are trying to claim. Young further humanizes God and contradicts Scripture by teaching that all the members of the Trinity took human form at the incarnation: “When we three spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human” (p. 99).

Is Young advocating modalism (an ancient heresy which teaches that the Trinity is not composed of three distinct members but three distinct modes in which God appears throughout human history)? If not, it is abundantly clear that Young believes that the Father died on the cross with the Son and bears the marks of the cross to this day (pp. 95-95, 164). He does not believe that the Father abandoned Jesus on the cross as Scripture declares (p. 96). And any concept of authority and submission in the Godhead is denied (pp. 122, 145), although 1 Cor. 11:1-3 is clear that such authority/submission exists. More than that, God submits to us as well (p. 145).

By the end of the book God is reduced to being our servant as we are His (it’s all about relationships, not authority) (pp. 236-237). The very essence of God is challenged when Young, quoting from Unitarian-Universalist, Buckminster Fuller, declares God to be a verb not a noun (pp. 194, 204). In a related statement, Young has Jesus say of the Holy Spirit, “She is Creativity; she is Action; she is Breathing of Life” (p. 110). Yet the Bible presents God as a person (noun) not an action (verb). When this truth is denied we are moving from the biblical understanding of a personal God to an Eastern understanding of God in everything.[1]

Thus, we are not surprised when Mack asks the Holy Spirit if he will see her again he is told, “Of course, you might see me in a piece of art, or music, or silence, or through people, or in creation, or in your joy and sorrow” (p. 198). This is not biblical teaching. This idea seems repeated in a line from a song Missy creates, “Come kiss me wind and take my breath till you and I are one” (p. 233).

At what point do we become one with creation? Again, this is an Eastern concept, not a biblical one. Young reinforces his Eastern leanings with a statement right out of New Age (New Spirituality) teachings: Papa tells Mack, “Just say it out loud. There is power in what my children declare” (p. 227). Ronda Byrne would echo this idea in her book, The Secret, but you will not find it in the Bible. Further, we are told Jesus “as a human being, had no power within himself to heal anyone” (p. 100). So how did he do so? By trusting in the Holy Spirit. Jesus, the Spirit says, “is just the first to do it to the uttermost—the first to absolutely trust my life within him…” (p. 100). There is enough truth here to be confusing but not accurate. Jesus, never ceasing to be fully God, had all Divine power dwelling within Him. That He chose to limit His use of that power and rely on the Holy Spirit while on earth in no way diminishes His essence. While Jesus is our example He is not a guru blazing a trail in which in this life we too can be like God. This idea smacks of New Age teaching, not Scripture. Jesus even tells Mack that “God, who is the ground of all being, dwells in, around, and through all things—ultimately emerging as the real” (p. 112). This is pure New Age spirituality.

The Shack, while occasionally getting things right is, in the end, a dangerous piece of fiction. It undermines Scripture and the church, presents at best a mutilated gospel, misrepresents the biblical teachings concerning the Godhead and offers a New Age understanding of God and the universe. This is not a great novel to explain tragedy and pain. It is a misleading work which will confuse many and lead others astray. [1]

God IN everything is known as panentheism—an Eastern belief akin to pantheism which teaches that God IS everything. In reality there is very little difference between the two.

Will we like what we see - and where will it take us?

2008-08-04T07:24:00.001+10:00

Since joining the taskforce on Baptist Identity I have been going back and forth in my mind about the whole point of this endeavour. I read the entries on the blog and am persuaded by the systematic articulation of Baptist distinctives. What I can’t be clear about is whether this need to articulate our identity is a sign of weakness or strength.

Perhaps if the timing of our convening was at some other juncture in history I may not be squirming quite so much about what we are doing. However, I can’t divorce my thinking from the fact that we are in a context of significant religious revisionism. Our religious neighbours are engaged in, on the one hand, some very public displays of strength and, on the other, enduring intense and unflattering scrutiny.

The issue of strong sense of identity amongst our Anglican brothers and sisters has been alluded to in previous blogs. However, as a not disinterested observer of things Anglican in Sydney, I’m starting to think that conflict and disunity might be the identifying feature of Sydney Anglicanism. Across the Sydney Diocese not all churches are so staunchly in the evangelical fold as might be thought, and the handful of practising “High Anglican” churches within the Sydney diocese is increasingly under siege.

The Anglicans have a dominance on the major Sydney university campuses that is the envy of other denominations. However, it is a mistake to think that their strength derives from a sense of unity. The two organisations, Campus Bible Study (CBS) on the University of NSW campus, and the Evangelical Union (EU) on the University of Sydney campus, are culturally distinct movements. CBS is supported by St Matthias Anglican Church, and EU by St Barnabas, Broadway. They each adopt the tone of their supporting churches, EU being the more moderate of the two groups.

This groping has implications for theological training. Moore College is situated in the grounds of the University if Sydney but owes its cultural tone to the St Matthias movement. Theological students who are graduates from Sydney University can find themselves feeling not-quite-at-home in their own denominational college located in the grounds of their old university.

Sydney Anglicans have a habit of identifying themselves as just that. They are “Sydney Anglicans”. This is a shorthand to say the they are evangelical and Bible-believing as opposed to other kinds of Anglicans. I am yet to hear a Kenyan or Nigerian Anglican identify him or herself as a “Sydney Anglican” but in the terms defined by its users it would make perfect if not confusing sense. More significantly, however, the description is implicitly divisive. It accepts the need to define oneself in opposition to those who differ from the users position. With the advent of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans it now seems that “Sydney Anglicans” have been able to export their particular brand of divisiveness and conflict worldwide .It is true that the Anglicans have a strong identity but my sense is that their identity, characterised by conflict and exclusion, holds with in it the source of its own unravelling.

This week in Sydney the Catholics are proudly declaring their identity. At one and the same time they are on display for all the right reasons and all the wrong reasons. The confidence and hubris required to organise an international event calling pilgrims from all over the world are exactly the qualities that blind organisations to the notion that directing all this attention to itself may invite scrutiny on areas they don’t wish to reveal.

There have been as many articles in the paper about falling church attendances, aging congregations, scandals and a dearth of priests as there have been about exciting and inspirational events. Archbishop Pell would far rather talk about the excitement of young people taking time out of their live to pursue spiritual goals (and I’d rather hear about that too). Instead, however, he is forced (and rightly so) to answer questions about the church’s failure (yet again) to deal with issues of sexual abuse by the priesthood.

I guess my point is this. Does the issue of identity only become important when your organisation is under threat? As Steve Bartlett pointed out in a Directions 2012 Update (“Let’s Light a Fire”) our denomination is in trouble. Our denominational growth is not keeping p with population growth. People are not coming to faith . The church is less and less successful in engaging with our culture. We do get the feeling sometimes that we are witnessing the closing days of western Christianity.

How does articulating a better sense of who we are help us deal with this problem? We need to avoid the excesses of both the Anglicans and the Catholics. Firstly, we will not want to use our insights solely to identify those who differ from us, yet still identify themselves as Baptists, as the enemy. This is always a difficult issue for Baptists. We don’t do toleration well. We are better at schism. However, we do have a tradition and culture that honours and fosters the expression of Christian freedom. Our style of church governance and our light-handed denomination structures allow for diversity in ministry that a more legislative approach to church practice does not.

Secondly we need to avoid grand public gestures that are intended to exude optimism yet, because of their hollowness, have a more-than-slightly-desperate air to them. We may find that, as a taskforce, the pithy, dare I say it the sexy, one-liner about what it is to be Baptist may elude us.

I am hoping that we can lift the lid on our identity and understand ourselves sufficiently so as to contribute to a greater sense of unity and to be a guide our united endeavours in ways that are clearly Baptist.

Kristine Morrison is a midwife and member of the Social Issues Committee of the Baptist Union of NSW. She attends Ashfield Baptist Church, Sydney.

The 1989 Zagreb statement on Baptist identity

2008-07-31T15:25:00.003+10:00

Towards a Baptist identity: A Statement Ratified by the Baptist Heritage Commission in Zagreb, Yugoslavia, July 1989

This statement, in Walter B. Shurden’s judgment [and in mine], is the single best statement of the Baptist identity issued by a group of Baptists in the twentieth century. It comes from the Commission on Baptist Heritage of the Baptist World Alliance and was ratified by the Commission in July, 1989. It deserves wide circulation as an excellent representation of Baptist beliefs and commitments. The document may also be found in William H. Brackney (ed.), Faith, Life and Witness: The Papers of the Study and Research Division of The Baptist World Alliance, 1986-1990 (Birmingham, AL: Samford University Press, 1986).

Preamble

This statement on Baptist identity was produced by the Commission on Baptist Heritage as a working document for the 1986-90 Quinquennium and arises out of a brain-storming exercise at their Singapore meeting. It is deliberately intended to be a descriptive rather than a credal statement, and it is recognized that there may well need to be flexibility in translation for use in particular local situations.

The Scriptures

Baptists start with the Scriptures, which afford us God’s self-revelation, first in the unfolding of a concern for His People, but supremely in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Scriptures, as related by the Holy Spirit to our contemporary situation, are our authority in all matters of faith and practice.

What is the Gospel?

Men and women everywhere are alienated from God and from the world as God designed it. The Biblical word for this is Sin, which the Bible says is so serious that we cannot remedy this condition ourselves: there must be a radical new start which, in John 3, Jesus calls the “new birth.” The first word of the Christian gospel must always be Grace: not what we aspire to do but what God has done for us without any claim or work on our part. The grace of God, expressed in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, makes possible the restoration of the relationship with God that sin has spoiled. But this grace which is God’s free gift to all of us, like every other gift, has to be received or accepted for its purpose to be secured. This is the response that the Scriptures call Faith: a free, total and unconditional entrusting of our lives to Almighty God. We are invited to put our trust in Jesus Christ because, in Him, God has reached out to touch our sinful humanity.

Clearly this is an action that no one can take for anyone else – each individual must make a free and unfettered response for him/herself. Equally clearly, that act of trust must involve an intention to obey God’s declared will, for unless this be so, the word trust is evacuated of all possible meaning and effectiveness.

What is the Church?

Unlike many others, Baptists do not define the church in terms of structures of ministry or by the regular celebration of the ordinances. Rather, they believe that as individuals come to put their trust in God and confess Christ as Savior and Lord, (which they believe to be the scriptural conditions for baptism) so the church is created. This is why they have been advocates of what has been called the Believers’ Church or the Gathered Community (of believers gathered out of the world). From this conviction as to the nature of the church as constituted by believers covenanting together in common confession of the name of Jesus, it is seen that their practice of confining baptism (by immersion) to believers only, is entirely logical.

A local church so constituted represents in any place the church in that locality; it is fully the church, not a branch of some national or wider institution. Under the Lordship of Christ and before the open Scriptures, it is competent, when properly summoned, in church meeting to govern itself, to determine a strategy for mission in its locality, and to appoint its ministers (deacons and pastors) and other officers. These officers will serve its interests and execute its will in matters pastoral, educational and practical, but the first authority for all decision-making in a Baptist church must remain in whole church meeting.

Baptist churches reject all state interference in their activities. Each local church is free, and indeed duty-bound by the concerns of the gospel, to enter into covenant relationship with other Christians, both nationally and locally. In Baptist life, relationships have traditionally been in associations, conventions and unions, in support of missionary work at home and abroad, and internationally through the Baptist World Alliance.

Baptists ordain men, and in some, but not all parts of the family, women to the Ministry of the Word, and expect their ministries to be respected for their sacred calling. The witness and service of the church is not seen by Baptists, however, as exclusively the work of the ordained ministry but as inclusively the responsibility of the whole membership.

Most Baptists find no difficulty in a lay person celebrating at the Lord’s Table or in the Baptismal Pool, ordinances which are seen by Baptists as symbolic of the death and resurrection of Jesus, and of each believer’s identification, by faith, with Him, in both dying to sin and rising to new life in Him. This same Christocentric gospel is preached from Baptist pulpits Sunday by Sunday, for proclamation retains a central place in Baptist worship.

What is Discipleship?

Personal commitment is the starting point for every Christian, yet all need to discover the corporate dimension of the church: in common worship, in generous giving to fellowship needs, and in loyal participation in the mission of the local church.

Baptists are an evangelistic people who have always been committed to sharing their faith, to the extension of the church, and for the last two hundred years to overseas mission as well. In the name of their Lord they have given themselves to the care of the needy and oppressed. Increasingly in the twentieth century (although also in earlier times), they have seen the need to speak and act prophetically, denouncing structural evil wherever it puts God’s “Shalom” at risk. Opposed to everything that denies the rule of Christ, some even suffer imprisonment and martyrdom for their steadfast witness, imposing an obligation on all the family to support them in both prayer and action.

Recognizing the vast demands of Christian witness and discipleship, Baptists have always been a praying people, in both corporate prayer and in encouraging a pattern of individual spirituality that requires each church member to engage in regular prayer and Bible study, for the whole of Scripture rather than abstracted creed is for Baptists the determinant alike of corporate belief and individual action.

Because Baptists delay baptism until an individual has made a personal confession of faith, they are especially concerned for the Christian nurture of children and young people until they come to acknowledge Christ as Savior for themselves, thus fulfilling promises made at services of thanksgiving and blessing that they have become a common celebration of the gift of children among Baptists.

Baptists were among the first to campaign for liberation of opinion and religious practice, not only for themselves but for all people, including the unbeliever, for they believed that each individual needed to be free to make choices about faith and commitment unfettered by any outside agency. Such freedom has led the Baptists to be a diverse people with no over-arching rule demanding common thought or practice among them. But amidst that diversity there is a unity because freedom from the state or from ecclesiastical hierarchies has also meant freedom to develop in each situation a style of churchmanship which, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they believe best serves the interests of the kingdom.

Many of the characteristics described here, if not all, are held by other Christian groups. Baptist distinctiveness is best seen in holding all these attitudes together in a way that is at once loyal to the traditions of Reformed Christianity without being sectarian. They are aware that they are but one part of the whole family of Christ’s church here on earth, and seek in different ways (some within and others outside formal ecumenical structures) to lend support to the whole of the Church’s work at the witness to the kingdom that Jesus proclaimed.

Baptists are:

members of the whole Christian family who stress the experience of personal salvation through faith in Jesus, symbolized both in baptism and the Lord’s Supper;
those who under the Lordship of Jesus Christ have bonded together in free local congregations, together seeking to obey Christ in faith and in life;
those who follow the authority of Scriptures in all matters of faith and practice;
those who have claimed religious liberty for themselves and all people;
those who believe that the Great Commission to take the Gospel to the whole world is the responsibility of the whole membership.

Source: Walter B. Shurden, The Baptist Identity: Four Fragile Freedoms (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 1993), appendix 1, pp. 63-66.

Rev Rod Benson is an ethicist and a member of Dural Baptist Church, Sydney.

Towards a Baptist identity: Shurden's 'four fragile freedoms' and the 1989 Zagreb statement

2008-07-31T14:50:00.003+10:00

Fifteen years ago Walter B. Shurden, Executive Director of the Center for Baptist Studies at Mercer University, wrote a fine book titled The Baptist Identity: Four Fragile Freedoms (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 1993). In his introduction, Shurden wrote:

What makes a Baptist a Baptist? The ultimate and final answer, of course, is simple: membership in a local Baptist church. If the sisters and brothers vote you in, you are a Baptist. When a Baptist church accepts you, you are a Baptist. But there are all kinds of Baptist groups and Baptist churches! So what are the spiritual and theological marks of a Baptist? What are the generic "distinctives," the peculiar "convictions," the specific "ideals" that Baptists rally around and that make a Baptist a Baptist? What is the shape and feel of Baptist Christianity?

Winthrop Hudson, one of Baptists' best historians and keenest twentieth century interpreters, noted correctly that pioneer Baptists of seventeenth century England did not set out to identify "Baptist distinctives." Their concern was instead to be "faithful and obedient Christians" [and] their primary approach was to derive general theological principles from their serious and sincere study of the Bible.

Shurden seeks to identify what British Baptist H. Wheeler Robinson called "Baptist principles; what American Baptists in a confessional statement called "convictional genes; or what Baptist historian Edwin S. Gaustad called "that distillation, that essence, that defining difference that constitutes being Baptist." Shurden arrives at his now well known "four fragile freedoms": Bible freedom, soul freedom, church freedom and religious freedom. He did so by analyzing the sermons and addresses given by Baptists from around the world at the meetings of the Baptist World Alliance from 1905 to 1980. He outlines the following four freedoms:

Bible Freedom is the historic Baptist affirmation that the Bible, under the Lordship of Christ, must be central in the life of the individual and church and that Christians, with the best and most scholarly tools of inquiry, are both free and obligated to study and obey the Scripture.

Soul Freedom is the historic affirmation of the inalienable right and responsibility of every person to deal with God without the imposition of creed, the interference of clergy, or the intervention of civil government.

Church Freedom is the historic Baptist affirmation that local churches are free, under the Lordship of Christ, to determine their membership and leadership, to order their worship and work, to ordain whom they perceive as gifted for ministry, male or female, and to participate in the larger body of Christ, of whose unity and mission Baptists are proudly a part.

Religious Freedom is the historic Baptist affirmation of freedom OF religion, freedom FOR religion, and freedom FROM religion insisting that Caesar is not Christ and Christ is not Caesar.

Shurden also shared from a document issued by the Baptist Heritage Commission of the Baptist World Alliance in 1989 at Zagreb, Yugoslavia (now Croatia). Entitled “Towards a Baptist Identity,” the statement was deliberately descriptive rather than creedal. He used the five summary statements from this document in his book. They are as follows:

Baptists are:

members of the whole Christian family who stress the experience of personal salvationthrough faith in Jesus, symbolized both in baptism and the Lord’s Supper;
those who under the Lordship of Jesus Christ have bonded together in free local congregations, together seeking to obey Christ in faith and in life;
those who follow the authority of Scriptures in all matters of faith and practice;
those who have claimed religious liberty for themselves and all people;
those who believe that the Great Commission to take the Gospel to the whole world is the responsibility of the whole membership.

"If Baptists experience a rebirth of commitment to Bible Freedom, Soul Freedom, Church Freedom, and Religious Freedom, they would not only rediscover their roots and their identity, they would become prophetically relevant to the world today." (Shurden, The Baptist Identity, p. 55).

Shurden ends with the following statement: "The historical Baptist identity, therefore, has been chiseled primarily from freedom rather than control, voluntaryism rather than coercion, individualism rather than a 'pack mentality,' personal religion rather than proxy religion, and diversity rather than uniformity" (p. 59).

There's food for thought here for NSW Baptists as we examine where we are and where we're going. More on the 1989 Zagreb statement in the next post.

Rev Rod Benson is an ethicist and a member of Dural Baptist Church.

A NSW Baptist view of the church - from 1952

2008-07-08T17:53:00.001+10:00

Given current discussions of directions and identity and governance it was interesting to come across an older NSW Baptist statement on "The Church". The 1952 assembly adopted a fairly comprehensive statement on the nature of the church from a Baptist perspective. A bit of source and redaction criticism reveals an interesting pattern of omission and addition, but it's an useful outline of Baptist ecclesiology.

If you want to read the document go to http://bet.org.au/

Hefin Jones, Chatswood Baptist Church

Not 'go fish' but 'go teach'

2008-06-23T09:42:00.001+10:00

While numbers are important in sharpening strategy and planning for growth, I think a preoccupation with numbers of evangelistic converts is essentially unhelpful. To extend the fishing metaphor, the push to increase the "number of times we go fishing" might well result in a whole lot of catfish, stingrays and sharks.

The Great Commandment is not a call to convert the heathen, nor even a call to "go" but a call to make disciples, "teaching them to obey everything that [Jesus has] commanded them." That will deliver quality growth that multiplies. And that's where the late-20th-century church has crashed and burned.

Rod Benson is a Baptist minister and ethicist who attends Dural Baptist Church.

Emergent Baptist network

2008-06-20T14:20:00.003+10:00

I (Rod Benson) came across the following Facebook group and thought it well worth posting to the blog. As at 2.00 pm today there were 234 members. If you're not registered on Facebook, I understand that you can read the main sections of the group page, but you can't post to the group. If you'd like more information about Facebook see http://www.nswchurches.com/content/MinistryTools.aspx

Emergent Baptists
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=23945605153

I confess that I am Baptist but I look around and see only two options; moderate/liberal or conservative. I don't really identify totally with either one. I respect my heritage as a Baptist. I value the competency of a person to work out their faith before God without coercion from an ecclesial authority or from the government. I also think that the strength of kingdom mission is in the local congregation, and is best sustained by free association. I also think that the Bible is best understood with Jesus as the hermeneutical guide. When I think of baptism I think of going down to the river for a full bodied washing.

While I value these Baptist destinctives, I am in no way inclined to value my Baptist identity over anyone else's religious identity. It just happens to be the family of faith I was reared in, but I feel no need to make anyone else in my religious image. I also have no stake in the fight that has defined us for the last forty years. No one has God or theology figured out and finished. The hubris of my recent forefathers who have wasted the last four decades fighting over who is most Baptist or most right is embarrassing and not worth my time or attention. Especially when world events such as South African Apartheid, Latin American Disappearances, Rwandan Genocide, Darfurian Genocide, Middle Eastern war, global poverty, and climate change have dominated the landscape in those decades. Being the most right Baptist, or even the most right Christian is laughable in the face of these world issues.

I am a Baptist, but I am dreaming of new ways of living that identity. Something more kingdom-of-God now, rather than later. Something with a lot more room for others, be they Christian or not. Something more than church on Sunday and Wednesday night. Something that hasn't been co-opted by a political agenda, but still maintains its prophetic edge.If this confession sounds like you, I want to invite you into that dream via this site. We encourage you to join and post if you are not a Baptist. Your dream will only add to ours and make it richer.

Letter in response to an article by Steve Bartlett in TIM Magazine

2008-06-19T15:10:00.001+10:00

Dear Steve,

In John 6:37 Jesus said, “All that the Father has given me shall come to me and him that comes to me I will in no way cast out.” Further along in verse 44 He said, “No man can come to me except the Father which has sent me draw him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” These statements declare that only those given by the Father to the Son will be saved, a truth verified in section 3:3 of the Baptist Confession of Faith (1689).

How do you reconcile these facts with your statements in the recent Together in Ministry magazine where you said, “No matter how you measure it, growth among NSW/ACT Baptists is not keeping pace with population growth. The size of our movement is declining in real terms, notwithstanding the health and growth that is present in a number of our churches”?

If the church waxes and wanes in number from generation to generation, which it apparently does, then I can only conclude that at any point in time more or less people are being saved, in accordance with the fact that only the elect will be saved. And yet the tenor of your article “Let’s Light the Fire” suggests that the solution to this statistical problem lies with us when it most certainly does not.

Let me also draw your attention to section 3:1 of our Confession of Faith which states that “God has decreed in Himself from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things which shall ever come to pass.” Why then are you concerned with the current numbers in Baptist Churches when God Himself is not? And why do you think it’s your responsibility to light a fire under the churches because you think we are not doing enough? Did not Jesus say, “I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it?”

In the 32 years that I’ve been saved, one lesson has become crystal clear, regardless of how many people I witness to, and I’ve spoken to hundreds, I can save no one because salvation is of the Lord. Furthermore the church does not exist to live and breathe the mission of Jesus, that’s a figment of your imagination; the church exists to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.

Like many in leadership you seem to think that God is relying on us to advance His kingdom. If you are correct then He’s made a serious error because I haven’t got the ability or the staying power, and neither has any other Christian, including you.

The more I consider the implications of your article and its impact on the churches the more concerned I become because I cannot see from the Bible where you are coming from, which suggests that you are not. All you succeed in doing is putting us on a guilt trip when we don’t meet your expectations. I frankly consider politicians to be our enemies and I also consider pastors, by and large, to be the cause of church splits and dissension within the denomination. Indeed, coming from a split church has proven beyond doubt that pastors who find the job description of Ephesians 4:11-13 too constraining then speak of visions, gifts, empowering congregations for effective mission, and community service, etc, etc, as if God will reward all this combined activity on His behalf by saving more people. And so the saying, “Like pastor, like people” is realised and now Baptist Churches range from conservative to charismatic, and even accept people as members without baptism by immersion.

If you can convince me from Scripture that you are correct then I’ll be the first to say I’m wrong, but I don’t think you can.

I’d like to sign off by saying “Yours in Christ” but I can’t because I didn’t learn from Jesus what you are espousing, indeed the conclusion I draw from all these changes and proposed changes within the denomination is that they are a work of man, not of God. And I sincerely hope I’m wrong.

Sincerely yours,

Bill Clayton

Baptist leaders have lost the plot

2008-06-19T15:04:00.002+10:00

Jesus saved me in Thirroul Baptist Church approximately 32 years ago. Unfortunately Thirroul Baptist Church ceased to exist approximately 11 years ago because the then pastor erred badly, forcing some of us to leave. During those 21 very happy years at Thirroul I learned that Baptists are people of the Book, which is why the pulpit is in the centre of the building. I also learned that the service format was consistent everywhere and that Believers Baptism and Communion were extremely important sacraments. I still hold to these values but many Baptist ministers do not which is why we have lost our identity.

These newer style Baptist churches do not exhibit any new Biblical insights that I’m aware of, instead they’ve given ground to the charismatic and Anglican style of “one in all in, and it doesn’t matter what you believe so long as we love each other, churches that focus on fellowship not doctrine.”

Wollongong Baptist Church recently voted for open membership. Imagine, a Baptist church throwing away Believers Baptism for a mess of pottage? In reality it’s no longer a Baptist Church, albeit the name remains.

This visionary taskforce is proof positive to me that the leaders of Baptist Churches have lost the plot, which is why, when I left Thirroul I determined to a) never follow another minister again, and b) study theology so I’d know what you know. And what I’ve learned and what I’m still learning is that now we Baptists often stand for nothing and sit for everything. The days when a Baptist minister could transfer to any other Baptist Church have long gone because current practice, leadership, governance, ministry and cooperation vary enormously. And you’ve only got yourselves to blame – ‘like pastor, like people.”

In this month’s Together In Ministry there are four vacancies for pastors:
1) Melton Baptist
2) Thornleigh Baptist
3) Blayney Community Baptist (I was taught that we are the ecclesia, called out of the community)
4) Coffs Harbour Baptist

Of those four churches only Coffs Harbour Baptist want a “man of prayer, worship and the Word, Spirit filled, a teacher, motivator and a family man.” Melton Baptist want to win more people for Christ (no worries there but they should read Jn 6:44 first) and impact the community (which could mean anything and everything), Thornleigh want someone for cross-cultural ministry and Blayney will send an information pack first. If I were a pastor the only church I’d consider would be Coffs Harbour because their advertisement comes closest to the Biblical requirements.

And yet each of these churches calls themselves Baptist. No wonder you have an identity crisis. Perhaps we ought return to the “old ways” and become people of the Book and the Baptist Confession of Faith (1689), and regulate the worship services because if we don’t then perhaps this denomination is doomed to fade into oblivion like the Methodists, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians.

Two weeks ago we holidayed at [a certain NSW] Baptist Church ([pastor] trained at Morling College). At the 9am service I’d estimate the average age at around 45-50 with a smattering of couples with children) and yet the service format follows Hillsong. Round one features the dolly bird + back up singers + amplified guitars & drum worship team which has effectively destroyed congregational singing. So loud are they that singing is impossible so the congregation stands mute (I’m informed this was only the back up band, the neighbours complain about the noise from the regular band). Round two is the pastoral prayer/offering before the worship team begins round three. After this [the pastor] spoke and then the worship team ended with round four of more amplified music. And there was no benediction from the pastor either. Despite older people voicing their disapproval at the level and type of music, this format continues unabated except for the “traditional service” (ie, old fogies who refuse to change) at 11am. And this is [this pastor's] idea of a Baptist Church. In reality he has split the church into separate groups in an erroneous effort to supposedly make the services relevant (one might ask to whom but I won’t).

So where do [this pastor's] ideas come from? Not the Bible and therefore not from God so the only sources left are himself or Satan. Has he been deceived I wonder? The pastor at Thirroul certainly was, but refused to accept that falling over at a Rodney Howard Browne service, driving the church down the charismatic road and speaking in tongues, etc, was not motivated by the Holy Spirit.

And obviously Hillsong must be of God otherwise the thousands who attend wouldn’t come. Of course they don’t preach or teach about the wrath of God on unrepentant sinners but they sincerely believe we have free will pertaining to salvation and once you believe, God then becomes your mate who wants you to be prosperous.

Since we are brothers in Christ I’ve endeavoured to remain impersonal and non-accusative but I’m convinced that the problems within this denomination stem from erroneous ideas forced on the churches by ministers who have frankly been deceived. Instead of heeding God’s injunction to Joshua, you read other minister’s ideas and look at outward signs like attendance and activity as proof of God working.

Despite 32 years of listening to sermons I’ve not heard one on discernment of spirits with the result being that we sincerely believe that every thought and every idea is from God. No one really considers that Satan can deceive them despite the truths of 2 Cor 4:4 and other scriptures.

You may not agree with anything I written so I’ve attached my reply to Steve Bartlett for your appraisal. Since I’m not a minister and never will be my views are irrelevant but I do reserve the right to decide whether to follow a minister or not, and in 32 years I’ve only met one and he’s now in heaven. It was devastating to see Thirroul disintegrate internally but its worse seeing other Baptist Churches go down the very same pastor – led path.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Bill Clayton

Baptist identity discusion on Facebook

2008-06-18T21:48:00.003+10:00

For those who are familiar with the Facebook social utility, there is a group discussion on the themes germaine to this blog. Log in to Facebook, and go to the group titled "Baptist identity."

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=16375003039

Reform and revival possible through committees?

2008-06-18T21:42:00.004+10:00

I have just arrived home from an exciting meeting of the leaders of our five taskforces (charged with creating and implementing a new vision for our movement of churches to 2012 and beyond). We are all agreed on the way forward, and the Executive Committee of the denomination is now expected to approve our proposals. For the first time in many years it appears that there is unanimous support from leadership, financial resourcing AND strong popular momentum for God-directed positive change.

The projected reforms are across the board -- mission, identity, governance, pastoral health, and resource management. Of the three possibilities for change catalysts [(1) an external crisis forces change(2) a charismatic leader emerges who knows how to engender willingness to change(3) a group within the larger body resolves to seek change -- from a post to our sister Facebook group page]:

(1) is not apparent;
(2) doesn't exist (a strange historical/political anomaly that distinguishes our denomination in NSW from virtually all others); and
(3) looks like where the momentum for change arises.

Three factors may undo all this promising work:

(a) spiritual opposition, most likely evident in criticism and obfuscation through committees, by-laws, attacks on the character and commitment of leaders, etc;

(b) lack of coordination and unity of purpose among the five taskforces (which each have specific and largely autonomous briefs;

(c) apathy on the part of those who say they have "seen it all before," "here we go again," and "it's not broken, so don't try to fix it."

Well, in my opinion it is broken, dysfunction is rife, and failure to take a radical but rational approach to reform would be disobedience to what God is saying to the churches.

For more on the Directions 2012 initiative see the first few post to this blog - check the archive on the right of screen.

Rod Benson is a Baptist pastor and ethicist who attends Dural Baptist Church.

Have Southern Baptists lost their way?

2008-06-13T06:38:00.002+10:00

by Manya Brachear, Chicago Tribune, 11 June 2008

As a number of conservative Protestant denominations now face decline, leaders have chosen to batten down the hatches, endorse orthodoxy and herald the importance of sharing their faith with others.

But if these denominations narrow their theology at the same time they widen their outreach, is anybody going to listen?

Case in point: the Southern Baptists, who are meeting this week in Indianapolis. This year, for the first time in decades, the nation’s largest Protestant denomination reported an unprecedented loss of about 40,000 people from 2006 to 2007. At that rate, leaders say half the Southern Baptist churches in America could disappear by 2030.

That’s why this week the denomination launched a 10-year evangelism initiative that targets college students and families with young children. The initiative also urges Southern Baptists to share their beliefs with non-Baptist friends and colleagues.

At the same meeting, the 9,500 delegates, known as messengers, are debating the reversal of two policies barring missionaries who are not baptized in a Southern Baptist church and barring other missionaries who speak in tongues. Many view the discussion topics as a sign of the denomination’s narrowing fundamentalism. They also elected as their next president Rev. Johnny Hunt, a theologically conservative mega-church pastor who many trust will revive the denomination.

In many ways, the battle for the soul of the Southern Baptist Convention has mirrored the tug of war in American society since the Nixon era. Polarizing debates over biblical inerrancy, temperance, homosexuality, abortion and the role of women in the church have divided the denomination and yielded more liberal breakaway Baptist denominations such as the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.

Again echoing a current theme in American politics, the Southern Baptist Convention this week shifted its focus to unity by unveiling a plan that everyone could agree on. Through an evangelism initiative called God’s Plan for Sharing (GPS), leaders hope to unify the fractured denomination and save more souls in the process.

"God positions us every day with opportunities for sharing our faith," Geoff Hammond, president of the North American Mission Board, said in a statement. "If you think of a GPS device, it helps get us to our destination. And our destination is every believer sharing, every person hearing by 2020."

Have Southern Baptists lost their way by narrowing their theology or has something else contributed to the decline of America’s mainline? Or, are Southern Baptists still on track despite the fall in numbers?

From http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/religion_theseeker/2008/06/have-southern-b.html, where you can post and read comments.

Early NSW Baptist doctrinal statements

2008-06-11T18:46:00.002+10:00

As Baptist evangelicals we are happy to subscribe to the 1979/2002 Statement of Beliefs. The trust deeds and constitutional doctrinal bases of early Baptist Churches in NSW and the Baptist Association and Union are of interest in getting to grips with our heritage.

John Saunder's Description to John Ham of Bathurst Street's Doctrinal Position (1847)
John Saunders the first pastor (1835-48) of the oldest continuing Baptist Church in Australia wrote to John Ham inviting him to leave Collins Street Baptist in Melbourne to become the second pastor of Bathurst Street, Sydney.
“The church, as you are aware, is an English Open Communion Baptist Church. The Articles of Faith required by the minister by our Trust Deed and to which I believe you can cheerfully subscribe are these
The doctrine of the One Living and True God,
three equal persons in the Godhead,
original sin,
particular redemption,
free justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ,
regeneration,
conversion, and sanctification by the Spirit and Grace of God,
the moral law a rule of life and conduct to all believers,
the final perseverance of the saints,
the resurrection of the body to immortal life,
the eternal happiness of the righteous and the everlasting misery of such as die impenitent.”

William H. Carey's Letter of Acceptance to Parramatta Baptist Church (1851)
William H. Carey, the grandson of the famous Baptist missionary pioneer, was called to the ministry of Parramatta Baptist in 1851. The church engaged in some negotiation with him that involved some doctrinal discussion. The upshot of it was this letter of acceptance from Carey:
“It may be as well just to recapitulate these [doctrines] so that we may have a more perfect understanding of each others views
I believe in the existance of one only living and true God, that there are three persons in the Godhead, the Father, Son & Holy Ghost
I believe in the fall of man and his consequent total depravity
I believe in the Election by God from all Eternity of a certain number of the human race whom He will everlastingly redeem
I believe in the atonement thro the death of Christ
In justification before God through the imputed righteousness of Christ
In regeneration and progressive sanctification thro the influences of the Holy Spirit of God
In the appointment of the ordinances of believers baptism by immersion only and of the Lord’s supper, both instituted by Christ
I believe in the Moral law as a rule of conduct for life to all men and especially binding upon the Believer in Christ
I believe in the death and resurrection of the bodies of all men, In a day of coming and final judgement, and in the condemnation of all who have not exercised an humble and loving faith in Christ, a Condemnation to Eternal Misery, and in the reception of all who had been Christs disciples into everlasting joy.
Such are the doctrines I believe most firmly that the scriptures teach us, and these are they which I shall hope to preach among you. May the Lord give us grace to understand and to profit by them, that thus they may make that impression upon our lives, which they were of God designed, and revealed to produce.”

The Doctrinal Basis of the New South Wales Association of Baptist Churches (1868)
After an abortive attempt to form an Association ten years earlier a number of Churches associated together to form the New South Wales Association of Baptist Churches in 1868, which later changed its name to The Baptist Union of New South Wales in 1870. The 'basis' of the association was:
The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments shall be received as the entire and complete revelation of God to Mankind and shall be the only rule of faith and practice. And we receive all Baptist Churches and Baptised Christians, who rest upon the work of Christ alone for salvation and believe that the salvation of the sinner can be effectively secured only by the Holy Spirit’s operations.

The Doctrinal Basis of The Baptist Union of New South Wales (1870)
In order to secure the inclusion of the open membership Bathurst Street Church the 'basis' was altered by dropping the second sentence of the 1868 basis.
The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments shall be received as the entire and complete revelation of God to Mankind and shall be the only rule of faith and practice.

The Model Trust Deed for Baptist Churches (1872)
A set of 'general tenets' were placed into the Model Trust Deed proposed by the Union in 1872. These 'general tenets' were later incorporated into the constitution of the Union (1894), and form the only doctrinal part of the 1919 Act of Incorporation of the Baptist Union. The 'general tenets' remain to this day as the only doctrinal statements which have legal force. The 1979/2002 Statement of Beliefs is an official exposition of these 'tenets'.
"… holding as their general tenets the Doctrines of
The Sinfulness of Man
the Divinity of Jesus Christ
and His Atonement for the Sin of Man
the need of the Holy Spirit for Conversion
the Divine Inspiriation of the Scriptures
the Resurrection of the Dead
and Rewards and Punishments in a future state
and practicing the Baptism of Believers only by Immersion.”

From http://bet.org.au/

Historic Baptist beliefs

2008-06-09T22:41:00.003+10:00

Many contemporaries have a deep―seated suspicion of catechisms. In our own Baptist denomination, many would consider the words "Baptist catechism" as mutually exclusive. A popular misconception is that catechisms are used in times and places where inadequate views of conversion predominate or the fires of evangelism have long since turned to white ash. If the Bible is preached, they continue, no catechism is necessary; catechisms tend to produce mere intellectual assent where true heart religion is absent. This concern reflects a healthy interest for the experiential side of true Christianity. Concern for conversion and fervor, however, should never diminish one's commitment to the individual truths of Christianity nor the necessity of teaching them in a full and coherent manner.―An Encouragement to Use Catechisms, Tom Nettles

Polity: A Collection of Historic Baptist Documents

Edited by Mark Dever

ANABAPTIST CONFESSIONS OF FAITH
WALDENSES CONFESSION OF FAITH, 1120 and 1544
THE SCHLEITHEIM CONFESSION, 1527
DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH, 1527
RIDEMANN'S RECHENSCHAFT, 1540
THE DORDRECHT CONFESSION, 1632
A DECLARATION OF SEVERAL PEOPLE CALLED ANABAPTISTS, 1659

ENGLISH BAPTIST-SEPARATIST CONFESSIONS
A TRUE CONFESSION, 1596
SHORT CONFESSION OF FAITH IN XX ARTICLES, 1609
A SHORT CONFESSION OF FAITH, 1610
A DECLARATION OF FAITH OF ENGLISH PEOPLE REMAINING AT AMSTERDAM, 1611
PROPOSITIONS AND CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, 1612-1614

EARLY ENGLISH BAPTIST ASSOCIATIONAL CONFESSIONS
JOHN SPILSBURY AND HIS CONFESSION
THE FIRST LONDON BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH, 1644 CURRENT TRANSLATIONS: ENGLISH SPANISH
THE FIRST LONDON BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH, 1646 Edition
AN APPENDIX TO A CONFESSION OF FAITH, 1646, Benjamin Cox (Coxe)
THE FAITH AND PRACTISE OF THIRTY CONGREGATIONS, 1651
THE TRUE GOSPEL-FAITH DECLARED ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES, 1654
THE MIDLAND CONFESSION OF FAITH, 1655
THE SOMERSET CONFESSION OF FAITH, 1656
CARTER LANE DECLARATION OF FAITH, 1757
JOHN GILL'S DECLARATION OF FAITH, 1757

ENGLISH BAPTIST GENERAL CONFESSIONS
THE STANDARD CONFESSION, 1660
THE ASSEMBLY or SECOND LONDON CONFESSION, 1677 AND 1688, approved 1689WITH SCRIPTURE REFERENCES CURRENT TRANSLATIONS: ENGLISH FRENCH SPANISH GERMAN© RUSSIAN© UKRAINIAN© CHINESE [Chinese Traditional (Big5)] PHILIPINO ITALIAN MALTESE© CROATIAN©
A SHORT CONFESSION OR A BRIEF NARRATIVE OF FAITH, 1691
THE COALHEAVER'S CONFESSION, 1745
ARTICLES OF RELIGION OF THE NEW CONNEXION, 1770

AMERICAN BAPTIST CONFESSIONS
THE PHILADELPHIA CONFESSION, 1742
THE SANDY CREEK CONFESSION, 1758
THE GOATYARD DECLARATION OF FAITH, 1792
THE NEW HAMPSHIRE BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH, 1833 CURRENT TRANSLATIONS: ENGLISH SPANISH
TREATISE ON THE FAITH AND PRACTICE OF THE FREE WILL BAPTISTS, 1834 AND 1948
THE ABSTRACT OF PRINCIPLES, 1858 CURRENT TRANSLATIONS: ENGLISH FRENCH SPANISH GERMAN ITALIANARTICLES OF FAITH PUT FORTH BY THE BAPTIST BIBLE UNION OF AMERICA, 1923
BAPTIST FAITH AND MESSAGE, 1925 CURRENT TRANSLATIONS: ENGLISH SPANISH
BAPTIST FAITH AND MESSAGE, 1963 Report of Committee on Baptist Faith and Message, May 9, 1963 Report of the Presidential Theological Study Committee, June, 1994 Report of Committee on Baptist Faith and Message, June 9, 1998 1963 and 2000 Amendment Comparisons CURRENT TRANSLATIONS: ENGLISH SPANISH
CAMBRIDGE DECLARATION, 1998

GENERAL BAPTIST CONFESSIONS
LIBERTY ASSOCIATION ARTICLES OF FAITH (1824)
GENERAL ASSOCIATION ARTICLES OF FAITH (1870)
GENERAL ASSOCIATION ARTICLES OF FAITH (1949)
A SHORT CONFESSION OF FAITH, IN TWENTY ARTICLES, JOHN SMYTH

BAPTIST CATECHISMS
A CATECHISM FOR BABES, OR LITTLE ONES, 1652
A SHORT CATECHISM ABOUT BAPTISM, 1659
INSTRUCTION FOR THE IGNORANT, BUNYAN'S CATECHISM, 1675
BENJAMIN KEACH'S CATECHISM, 1677
THE ORTHODOX CATECHISM, 1680
A CATECHISM FOR BOYS AND GIRLS
A CATECHISM OR INSTRUCTIONS FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH
THE PHILADELPHIA BAPTIST CATECHISM
THE BAPTIST CATECHISM, CHARLESTON ASSOCIATION CATECHISM, 1813CURRENT TRANSLATIONS: ENGLISH SPANISH
THE BAPTIST SCRIPTURAL CATECHISM, 1850
A PURITAN CATECHISM, 1855
A CATECHISM FOR LITTLE CHILDREN, 1864
COMPEND OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES HELD BY BAPTISTS: IN CATECHISM, 186
A CATECHISM OF BIBLE TEACHING, 1892
A BRIEF CATECHISM OF BIBLE DOCTRINE

WALDENSES CATECHISM
A CATECHISM OF THE SACRAMENTS OF BAPTISM AND THE LORD'S SUPPER

GADSBY'S CATECHISM
A CATECHISM TO VINDICATE FALSE ACCUSATIONS THAT GADSBY DID NOT PREACH THE GOSPEL

CONFESSIONS OF OTHER NATIONALITIES
GEST?DNIS VON GLAUBEN DES B?DNISSES VON EVANGELISCH-FREECHURCH GEMEINDEN, DEUTSCHLAND, 1944,[CONFESSION OF FAITH OF THE ALLIANCE OF EVANGELICAL-FREECHURCH CONGREGATIONS, GERMANY, 1944]
Bek?nelsen OM TRON Om SVENSK D?aren, 1861[THE CONFESSION OF FAITH OF THE SWEDISH BAPTISTS, 1861]
CONFESSION ET FOI ET PRINCIPES ECCLESSIASTICAL DE L'ASSOCIATION ?ANG?IQUE D'?LISES BAPTISTES FRANCOPHONES, 1879 ET 1924[CONFESSION AND FAITH AND ECCLESSIASTICAL PRINCIPLES OF THE EVANGELICAL ASSOCIATION OF FRENCH-SPEAKING BAPTIST CHURCHES, 1879 AND 1924]
HARMONY OF CALVINISTIC BAPTIST CONFESSIONS OF FAITH
First London Baptist Confession of Faith (1644/1646)
Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689)
New Hampshire Confession of Faith (1833/1853)
Abstract of Principles (1859)
Baptist Faith and Message (1925)

These five historic Calvinistic Baptist Confessions of Faith are considered to be in essential harmony and all agree on Calvinistic soteriology. Although it is true that the New Hampshire Confession of 1833 and the Statement on Baptist Faith and Message of 1925 could be accused of containing only a diluted form of Calvinism, all the basic tenets of Calvinism strictly considered are present. The difference perhaps, is that you must look for Calvinism in these two confessions, rather than be confronted by it. Historically these two confessions have been used by many churches which are not Calvinistic, or which may only hold to "eternal security."

THE FIRST LONDON CONFESSIONS OF FAITH
In Parallel Forms with Supporting Documents Being the Editions of 1644, 1646, 1651 and 1652.
Reviews by many prominent Baptist and non-Baptist scholars:

Some Early Baptist Confessions of Faith Explicitly Disowned the "Openness" Viewby John Piper
An Encouragement to Use Catechisms Part 1, Thomas J. Nettles (Founders On-Line)
An Encouragement to Use Catechisms Part 2, Thomas J. Nettles (Founders On-Line)
An Encouragement to Use CatechismsPart 3, Thomas J. Nettles (Founders On-Line)
Missions and CreedsPart 1, Thomas J. Nettles (Founders On-Line)
Missions and CreedsPart 2, Thomas J. Nettles (Founders On-Line)
What is Catechismby Zacharias Ursinus (1534-1583)
Biblical and Pastoral Basis for Confessions and Creedsby Robert S. Rayburn "Premise" Volume III, Number 3 / March 29, 1996
Are Creeds Appropriate for Bible Believing Baptists?by Thomas J. Nettles
The Need To Recover the Practise of Catechismby Kim Riddlebarger
The Legitimacy and Function of Creedsby Dean Allen/Mark Sarver
Confessing the Faith in 1644 and 1689The 1689 Confession in Americaby James M. Renihan
Seventeenth Century Reformed Confessional Theology on the Natural Law and the Decalogueby Richard Barcellos
Baptists, the Bible and Confessions, The Need for Statements of Faithby Gregory A. Wills

BOOK REVIEW:
Baptist Confessions, Covenants, and Catechisms,Edited by Timothy and Denise George
Why Creeds and Confessions?By Jay Rogers

Big is (not necessarily) better

2008-05-30T11:44:00.001+10:00

I warm to Peter Green's comments about not ignoring small churches and I wonder what the big-is-better brigade would have to offer to a Pastor like Ian Charles at Cobar where if the entire township, dogs included, attended his church he'd still have a smaller congregation than some of our bigger churches. I can think of one really big Baptist Church in Sydney that has a bit of a reputation as being mainly interested in increasing the statistics and in doing so draws members from nearby Baptist churches (and probably other denominations as well) that do a good quiet job in a local area.

Baptists are often perforce a denomination of small churches, at least in Australia, and I'm glad that one of the seminars for 'Revive 08' focusses on helping small churches to make their worship worthwhile. We also tend to think of the USA as being comprised mainly of mega-Baptist churches when in fact most of them, like NSW, are ordinary small-to-medium congregations and that is certainly so in the UK.

Not that I'm mounting a case for small churches only - I can think of a couple that really should fold-up. But I'm wary of 'big' churches. If you want to see how history moves in that regard - visit the Archives and review some of the 'great' churches of the early-to-mid 20thC. Some don't even exist now and others are but a shell. Hillsong and Christian City Church are ginormous but I'll be interested to see what they're like five years after Brian Houston and Phil Pringle move on.

Gloria and I have moved around a bit and tended to opt (where we had an option) for mid-sized to small churches where we could be involved and know everybody (or most everybody) personally. We've invariably found such places to be rewarding and we still have friends in every one of them both in and out of Australia.

I recall Rowland Croucher once remarking that 'growth' isn't necessarily synonymous with 'numbers'. A person can 'grow' spiritually but s/he is still one person. I'm not decrying a church getting bigger in numbers but sometimes it does seem that that is the main game. And I hope that that's not what we're about.

Ron Robb, a retired Navy officer, is honorary Archivist for the NSW Baptist Archives and the NSW Baptist Historical Society.

(Re)building community around the Lordship of Jesus

2008-05-16T17:17:00.002+10:00

by Peter Green

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 Higgins' 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 theological 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.

Initial comments re Baptist identity

2008-05-05T16:39:00.008+10:00

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.

Response to response to 'Devil's advocate' questions

2008-05-05T14:15:00.003+10:00

by Matthew Arkapaw

1. With regard to Baptists being theologically liberal:

How can a Baptist be someone who holds that the word of God is sufficient, supreme, and always true, and at the same time be someone who doesn’t? Holding that the Scriptures are not those things is the unembarrassed definition and essence of theological liberalism, which has reason trumping Scripture when they clash. So, unless we are happy to say that an evangelical position on Scripture is not an essential distinctive of being Baptist, I can’t see how a Baptist can be a theological liberal and be true to the name. It seems to me as illogical as saying that a Baptist may certainly be Erastian in their ecclesiology or paedobaptistic in regard to baptism.

I think you can say ‘No’ to the idea that heterodoxy is OK for a Baptist (or Christian) without necessarily “enforcing that position through church instruments”, thought police, or some kind of Baptist Magisterium running its inquisitions. Having said that, it suddenly occurs to me that the Scriptures, and Jesus their author, may actually insist that, in some sense, and at the local church level, we are forced to do just that at times (Matthew 18: 15-19; 1 Corinthians 5; 1 Timothy 1: 3-7).

2.With regard to Sola Scriptura:

i. We should remember that the issue is authority for “matters of faith and conduct” and the question of where the church is to look for its authority, rather than pagan citizenry more generally.

ii. “Where does it leave road rules?” Why do we obey road rules? I would suggest that we do so because of the authority of Scripture – which teaches us to submit to governing authorities, and so on.

iii. “professional codes of ethics” My response would be similar to my point above. I’d suggest that what Christians actually do is observe these codes to the extent that they adhere to Christian values, and not because of any authority inherent in such a code itself. And even if it were the latter, then, like the road rules, the Scripture itself has teaching on the need to respect those in authority, slaves and masters, that type of stuff. Lastly, if a code of ethics conflicted with the Bible, a Christian would not obey it. Which goes to show that it’s the Scripture that actually bears authority. It is, in effect, the sole authority, not the supreme, because other sources of ‘authority’ are only obeyed in so far as they agree with the Scripture.

iv. “moral matters not dealt with in Scripture.” Not sure what examples would be given here, but for the sake of argument, these situations would leave us without obligation, and in the realm of Christian freedom (which in itself is a situation the Scriptures will guide us on – Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 10, meat offered to idols and all that). A moral matter not dealt with in Scripture leaves us without obligation because only God can obligate us in a truly authoritative sense. If the opinion of a philosopher or ethicist cannot bind the conscience of a Christian (and nothing can bind the conscience of a Christian except the Scripture) then such an opinion is not actually authoritative. We could call it, ‘recommendational’ if recommendational wasn’t a made up word.
All of my above points would, I think, be in line with the meaning of Sola Scriptura as the Reformers understood it.

Reason, experience and tradition all inform us, but they bear no authority in any real sense of that term – except to the extent that they agree with Scripture – which is really just the same as saying they have no authority as such, only Scripture does. Let me ask a question. Do you feel morally obliged to obey the dictates of your reason, or your experience, or your traditions? I don’t. These things have influence (which we are free to accept or reject depending on a variety of factors) but they have no authority – no obligating power vis-à-vis my godliness.

So, I’d suggest that the notion of the Bible as the ‘sole’ authority is not only tenable, but essential, and that sola scriptura is what, at root, separates Biblical Christianity from Roman Catholicism (Scripture plus Tradition), Liberalism (Scripture plus Reason) and mysticism of all kinds (Scripture plus experience). Again, that’s not to say we are not influenced by other people and ideas (or obliged to obey them when the Scripture says we should – for example parents and church leaders giving godly instruction), but it is to say that there is such a categorical gulf between the normative authority of Scripture and any other so called ‘authority’ that calling any other ‘authority’ an authority is really a misnomer. If you were a glutton for punishment and really wanted to know where I was coming from on the subject of Sola Scriptura and the sufficiency of Scripture I’d recommend Lloyd-Jones ‘What is an Evangelical’ pages 69-74 where he takes up this precise issue, and more broadly, R.L. Reymond’s ‘A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith’ pages 83-87.

3.On the question of Pentecostalism and Baptist identity:

Not sure that “groups with contradictory allegiances” is something worth celebrating anymore than a person with multiple personality disorder would jump for joy at their condition. With regard to distinctive yet nonetheless overlapping allegiances I think you’re right. The question is, what allegiances are genuinely overlapping, and what allegiances are at odds? In the case of Pentecostalism I reckon a case can be made that it is a genuinely new and separate group in the history of Christendom – as separate as Catholicism is from Protestantism, and Protestantism from Russian Orthodoxy, etc etc. But that’s a whopper of a topic.

4. On the question of non-evangelical Baptists:

"many evangelicals who are not Baptists" agreed. "Some Baptists who are not evangelicals." Disagreed. Certainly a person could be a Baptist in name and membership and not be an evangelical, but I’m wondering about the deeper question of fidelity to our cluster of convictions that designate us as Baptist. Really, how could a NSW Baptist, for example, not be evangelical if they subscribe to our statement of faith? If they do not subscribe to it, are they not something else in ‘Baptist disguise’?! As an aside, I tend to think that anyone afraid of ‘thought police’ in any context ought to have the courage of their convictions and nail their colours to the mast. Do not those who hide their beliefs because of what others will say or do make a virtue of concealment, or worse, love a stipend more than being honest with themselves and others? Hmmmm.

Nice duelling with you Rod (or should that be dialogue-ing?)

Matthew Arkapaw is a pastor at Mortdale-Oatley Baptist Church.

The Baptist World Alliance as an ecclesial movement

2008-05-02T14:49:00.004+10:00

by Neville Callam

[this article is posted here because I believe it has important things to say to Baptists in NSW & ACT, and to Taskforce 2. - Rod Benson]

May has been set aside for Baptists worldwide to highlight the ministry we share through the Baptist World Alliance. We are a movement that sees the hand of God in both our origin as a faith community and in our appearance as a world movement.

We took the name Baptist World Alliance some four decades after a number of worldwide ecclesial bodies came into being. Anglican Communion gives expression to the worldwide union of Anglicans and originated in 1867. In 1875, the Presbyterians formed the Alliance of Reformed Churches, bringing together those churches throughout the world that hold to the Presbyterian System. Six years later, in 1881, the Methodist Ecumenical Conference met in London for the first time. They formed the World Methodist Council. Old Catholics joined to establish The Old Catholic Union of Utrecht in 1889, and in 1891, the first International Congregational Council met in London.

Eighteen years after the BWA came into being, Lutherans took the name Lutheran World Convention (1923), and later Federation (1947). They now describe themselves as a communion of Christian churches in the Lutheran tradition.

Of course, we know that the BWA does not consider itself as a church in the way that the Catholic Church (Latin Rite and Eastern Rite), for example, regards itself as a church with parishes in various locations, held in communion with each other through their communion with their bishops who are themselves in communion with the bishop of Rome. This is not the Baptist way of understanding church.

Yet, in adopting the name Alliance, hardly could the Baptists have chosen a name that could more emphatically assert our separateness and independence, together with our voluntary decision to work together in a worldwide entity to achieve certain ends. We understand the local church to be the covenanted community gathered in the presence of Christ and pledged to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit in pursuing the will of the Father for the ministry it is called to fulfill.

The task of developing and understanding structures beyond the local church has never been very easy for us Baptists. The Baptist authors of On the Way of Trust remind us that:

The word 'Alliance' implies a task-orientation, that churches are to ally with each other to achieve a particular aim, to get a job of work done; so, the implication is that when this has been achieved, then the alliance can be dissolved - or indeed, it may be abandoned if the objective does not seem likely to be achieved.

One may offer a compelling argument for the name the Baptists chose for their organization in 1905. What other name would satisfy those who fiercely guarded their valued independence as autonomous congregations or conventions/unions?

Again and again, early leaders in the BWA sought to answer fears that cooperation among Baptists on the global level might compromise powers at the local level. Take, for example, what President John Clifford said at the Second World Congress which convened in Philadelphia, USA, in 1911. One of his friends had written to him saying that it was “a very great thing for Baptists to be joined together to help and encourage those of like faith in the maintenance of their convictions.” However, Clifford's friend expressed the hope that the Baptist World Alliance might “never become a 'Catholic' Baptist 'Council' to dominate the expression of faith and … establish a Baptist 'Papacy'.”

In providing reassurance for those gathered at the Congress, Clifford trumpeted with conviction:

There is no need for anxiety. The complete autonomy of the separate church is a creation of grace, and will not suffer. Each society will insist on maintaining its independence… The glorious liberty of the sons of God will not be impaired. The free man will be free.

Although Clifford did try gently to suggest that this independence must be checked by the churches' responsibility “to secure the good of the whole brotherhood” and that liberty must be used “to further the wider aims of the voluntary association of believers,” the truth is that he felt the need to encourage Baptists not to feel threatened by the existence of structures to further cooperation beyond the local level.

Similarly, at the fourth Congress held in Toronto, Canada, in 1928, BWA General Secretary J. H. Rushbrooke found it necessary to say that if the BWA “interfered with or complicated the work of… missionary societies and boards, it would stand condemned on practical grounds and would be promptly electrocuted 'without benefit of clergy'.” “Our Alliance,” he continued, “is indeed unique in the earth. No formal contract binds us each to each - any one of the constituent groups could secede at any moment; their adhesion is in the strictest sense voluntary.”

Now, more than a hundred years after that wonderful day in 1905 when the BWA was born, do we not need to revisit the matter of our self-understanding as a world movement? In the light of the superb exposition Nigel Wright offered at the Elstal Conference last year on the notion of the autonomy of the local church, do we not need to revisit our understanding of the BWA to better nuance the nature of our voluntary partnership and cooperation in the worldwide Baptist movement?

Over the years, the need for us to revisit the matter of the ecclesiological significance of the BWA as a global movement has been raised. If the true mission of theology is linked to the service of the church to the glory of God, would it not be a great gift to the BWA if more of our Baptist theologians would address their minds to this subject and make their findings available as we seek the advance of the worldwide fellowship into which God has called us, Baptists, to the glory and praise of God? Already those collaborating in the series of Studies in Baptist History and Thought, published by Paternoster, are blazing a great trail.

Let us join in the conversation they have begun and mine the treasures of our history and theology to address more precisely the question, “What is the precise ecclesiological significance of the BWA?”

Neville Callam is General Secretary of the Baptist World Alliance. This article first appeared in BWA News, May 2008.

Response to 'Devil's advocate questions'

2008-05-02T14:45:00.003+10:00

by Rod Benson

Here’s a quick response to Matthew's five questions:

1. A Baptist may certainly be a “liberal” Christian, in the sense of subscribing to politically and/or theologically liberal views. To say “No” and to enforce that position through church instruments would not be Baptist. Nor would it be something Jesus would have done. My approach to problems of orthodoxy/heterodoxy is to be gracious and tenacious toward those who view things differently, believing that “truth will out.”

2. The notion of the Bible as our “sole authority” is untenable. Where does it leave road rules, professional codes of ethics, or moral matters not dealt with by Scripture?

3. The issue this question raises for me is that we are not dealing with separate and autonomous groups (such as, for example, distinct species, or spiral galaxies) but groups with distinctive AND overlapping (and sometimes contradictory) allegiances. This is normal for advanced human communities, and should be celebrated. There’s more to enlightenment than The Enlightenment.

4. I know many evangelical Christians who are not Baptist. Jesus, for example. Paul. In fact, millions of Christians before 1500. You get the point. And I know some Baptists who are not evangelicals (but I can’t name them or the Baptist thought police will track them down…).

5. We are free to define Baptist identity according to all three lines of thought you noted. I think that would be very helpful. For my part, what is most important in the expression of my faith is devotion to Jesus Christ and obedience to Scripture, properly interpreted in the evangelical tradition. I think that aligns me with a lot of good Baptist Christians. Contemporary and historical consensus counts for very little, except in helping me to understand and appreciate the strange ways of most 21st century Christians in the West.

Rod Benson is an ethicist and public theologian with the Tinsley Institute. He attends Dural Baptist Church.

Devil's advocate questions

2008-05-02T14:39:00.001+10:00

by Matthew Arkapaw

I’m interested to know if thinking through the following questions fall within Taskforce 2's frame of reference. And if they do, how do we go about talking about such things? And if they do not, what other ‘interesting questions’ fall outside of the frame of reference? Questions such as:

1. Can you be a liberal ‘Christian’ and be a Baptist? If the answer is ‘no’ what do we understand ‘liberal Christian’ to mean?

2. If we determined that a genuine part of Baptist identity was not in accord with our statement of faith, would we hope to begin a dialogue on that issue? For example, is it ‘Baptist’ to believe that the Bible is our supreme authority or that it is our sole authority? If we were, for example, to say that Baptists ought to hold to Scripture as our sole authority, would we want the denomination to re-visit our statement of faith which refers to Scripture as the supreme authority?

3. Why is a Pentecostal not a Baptist? (No, there is no punch line). Or are Pentecostals Baptists? After all, they believe in a believer’s church and congregationalism in some sense of the word. They practice believer baptism by immersion. They ‘associate’. They believe in ‘born again’ Christianity and evangelism. They are similarly ‘non-liturgical’. They claim to be Bible people who adhere to the solas of the Reformation. If we can’t answer such a question, do we really have a handle on what Baptist identity is and is not? How would we answer that question?

4. Is this statement true? You can be an evangelical and not be a Baptist. That is, you cannot reduce being evangelical down to something synonymous with being Baptist (for there are many non-Baptist evangelical brothers and sisters). However, you cannot be a Baptist and not be an evangelical. Being a Baptist cannot be less than being evangelical.

5. Is the purpose of the taskforce to define Baptist identity according to the majority current opinion in the denomination, or according to the most accurate historical definitions we can come up with, or according to what we think most closely adheres to Biblical Christianity on any given issue?

Matthew Arkapaw is a pastor at Mortdale-Oatley Baptist Church.

Liberty of conscience

2008-05-02T14:22:00.002+10:00

by Matthew Arkapaw

I often hear ‘liberty of conscience’ talked about in Baptist churches in a way that I think misunderstands what it actually refers to. As I understand it, the Baptist idea of liberty of conscience does not mean people are free to do what they like and believe what they like, nor that they have a ‘right’ to do so. It actually has a rather narrow twofold historical meaning.

Firstly, that the state, or ecclesiastical, hierarchy has no apriori right, in God’s eyes, to order the beliefs and practices of a local church which gathers around the word of God and gives evidence of the work of the Spirit of Jesus. Such a church is ‘free’ to organize itself, and consider itself spiritually legitimate, regardless of the church’s connection to a state or ecclesiastical hierarchy.

The only caveat on such ‘liberty’ would be in the case of a congregation voluntarily associating with a group, and voluntarily submitting to certain rules for the sake of belonging to that group. So, for example, a church in our union could not expect to reject our statement of faith and remain in our union. Such a church would not necessarily be anathematized as anti-gospel (depending on what it rejected!), but it could not reasonably expect to stay in the union. It would not be at ‘liberty’ to reject the statement and yet remain in the group that finds its common ground in the statement. This is simply logical.

Secondly, liberty of conscience refers to the belief that force (manipulation, threat of punishment, or even the minimizing of civil liberties) is not a biblically valid way of promoting and maintaining the Christian church. This is where the early Baptists differed radically from the Magisterial Reformers. Thus, even in the early 17th century the early Baptists thought no person should be socially or politically disadvantaged for being Roman Catholic, or ‘Mohammedan’ or atheistic, or whatever. Coercion (political, social, economic, physical) should not force a person to go against their conscience. Such ‘conversion’ is invalid in the eyes of Baptists and does not appear in the New Testament.

Likewise, there should be no social or political disadvantage for a person converting out of Christianity and into another faith (the spiritual disadvantage, of course, remains terribly absolute and would be clearly explained to the person, but the decision would be made on the basis of their un-coerced conscience, and they would be accountable to God for that. They would not be accountable to any earthly power in any earthly way.)

If I’m on the right track here then we would need to be careful about using the phrase ‘Baptists believe in the liberty of conscience’ to suggest that ministers, churches, or individual members of our churches have some kind of doctrinal and behavioral liberty per se.

Matthew Arkapaw is a pastor at Mortdale-Oatley Baptist Church (Sydney).

Reaffirming Baptist identity

2008-04-30T12:18:00.002+10:00

by John Stanhope
30 April 2008

How one views re-affirming Baptist identity depends on where one is coming from:

Always Baptist
Came from another Christian denomination
Came from another religion
Came from no religion.

I and my wife Loreen were raised in the Associated Churches of Christ. My mother was raised in ACOC, my father was raised Methodist and joined ACOC at age about 20 because he was convinced of believer’s baptism. My parents were active supporters of moves towards ACOC-Baptist union, and could not understand repeated failures of negotiations, which my mother blamed on Baptist ‘intransigence’, when practices of both denominations seemed so similar. I came to understand that superficial similarities of practice masked deep doctrinal differences, and gravitated into Baptist membership (with Loreen). I had no early contact with Baptist churches, but Loreen had in Tamworth when posted there as a teacher. Finding no church of Christ, she visited other denominations and found the Baptist church met her needs at that time. She was challenged about systematic Bible study, and chose Melbourne Bible Institute, because among other considerations it was non-denominational in character. She later returned to her parents’ home and we met at Lane Cove Church of Christ where we were married in 1959.

Our experience of Baptist church life after marriage was in Boroko PNG 1966-67, USA 1970-71, NZ 1971-80, and Epping NSW from 1981. The issues which led me (or later confirmed my decision) to make the Baptist denomination my choice were as follows:

1. Does the New Testament contain a blue-print for church life?

ACOC were convinced, but I am not – I think that most Christian denominations can justify their practices from the NT text. The NT describes believers’ adaptations to local conditions.

2. Is baptism essential for salvation?

ACOC then taught baptismal regeneration. Without believers’ baptism by total immersion, one’s salvation was doubtful at best. I felt that this belief was incompatible with the NT concept that salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ and His finished atoning work. I cannot add to His work to secure my salvation.

3. Should communion be celebrated weekly?

ACOC taught that it must be so, indeed they practised communion not only every Sunday morning, but also as an appendix to the evening service so that people unable to attend morning service could have communion. To me this is legalistic, tending to support the idea that observance of ritual can make me more acceptable to God. Ritual and habit have their place in a disciplined Christian life, but should not be matters of obligation.

4. Should the congregation bear a denominational label?

ACOC taught that the church should be known only by a title found in the NT. To me that defied historical reality, and in fact ACOC and other branches of the Campbellite movement used NT titles as distinguishing labels – if that is not denominational labelling, what is it?

5. Should the local congregation be governed by elders and deacons?

What is the role and status of the pastor? In ACOC, the presence of elders and deacons, under those titles, was obligatory; and these officials were superior to the pastor, who was ‘a paid preacher’ (a phrase I heard frequently in my youth). As in point 1, this form of legalistic interpretation of the NT presupposes a fixed form of church governance with limited capacity to adapt to local conditions. The status of the pastor was also unsatisfactory in ACOC (not that Baptist churches are always free from pastor-deacon conflict).

6. What is the basis of salvation from sin and entry into eternal life?

ACOC taught personal faith and confession of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, plus believers’ baptism. I became convinced that salvation is gained by faith alone, with obedience, baptism and continuing commitment following as fruit.

7. ACOC teaching rejected the doctrine of original sin.

I became convinced that human nature was inherently corrupt. Study of the Bible and of Augustine’s and Calvin’s writings on the subject confirmed my new understanding.

8. Tolerance of theological diversity concerning free will and predestination.

ACOC taught strongly the free will view of humanity. I became convinced through Bible and theological study that Calvin’s view of God’s sovereignty in predestination was correct. When looking for alternative churches, I learned that the Baptist denomination, formed by the coming together of both Free Will and Calvinistic Baptist churches in Britain, had of necessity to allow divergence of view on this matter. But even in the 40+ years I have been a Baptist, I find that free will preaching seems to be increasing and Reformed teaching hardly ever heard. I am also worried by current Baptist reluctance to countenance a dispensational view regarding the second advent of Christ – I understand the history of Second Advent teaching in NSW has been a hurtful one, but the denomination needs to be healed and move on.

9. What is the extent of scriptural authority?

ACOC concentrated greatly on the NT (gliding over passages of the NT that did not support their doctrinal preferences). I found that Baptist preaching and teaching had a more balanced view of the whole Bible.

10. What about Christian unity?

The Campbellite movement originated in a belief that all Christians could and should unite into one body, by following the blue print they believed NT study provided. Division was seen as a sin. My study of church history led me to believe that division is a result of sin, and may or may not be sinful in itself. I believe God destroyed the unity of medieval Christianity because that system was leading people astray and challenging His lordship. This conditions my attitude to issues such as the ecumenical movement. I believe in co-operation between Christians (and indeed any fellow citizens) as far as is appropriate to whatever issue is being considered. I believe in the co-operation of Christian individuals and congregations to achieve specific Godly objectives, but not merely to increase the prestige and power of an ecclesiastical organization.

Dr John Stanhope is a member of Epping Baptist Church.

A Baptist Museum?

2008-04-28T11:02:00.004+10:00

by Kristine Morrison

“We live in uncertain times. People are looking for identity”. This is a quote from Dawn Casey, the newly appointed director of the Sydney Powerhouse Museum. She believes that museums have an important role to play in shaping a community’s identity.

Dawn Casey’s goal is to promote the Powerhouse Museum as Australia’s premier museum in the areas of science and technology. In order to achieve this she has a wish list of improvements to the site at an estimated cost of $25 million. She accepts that currently in NSW, when hospitals and roads are the more pragmatic concerns of the government of the day, it may be difficult to argue for budgetary increases for the museum. Her rationale for a strengthening of the museum’s image is that at times when nations perceive their national identity to be in need of re-invigorating, regardless of their economic strength, part of the governmental strategy is to build or revamp their national museums. She points to nations such as South Africa, Vietnam and Germany where the shaping of a new national and cultural identity have gone hand-in-hand with refurbishment of national museums (Sydney Morning Herald, 21.3.08).

Given that there is some sense of uncertainty about our denominational identity, and that the goal of our Taskforce is to re-invigorate a sense of Baptist identity, perhaps one of our strategies ought to be the establishment of a Baptist Museum in Sydney.

Anyone who read “Weird and Wonderful”, the very amusing article on five of Sydney’s more quirky Museums in this month’s Sydney Magazine, might cringe at what would be found in a museum devoted to NSW Baptists. Images of large sepia photographs of bearded men arranged next to dusty artefacts from tribal regions of Papua New Guinea and Northern Australia. Perhaps we won’t do that.

In fact we do have a kind of a museum. The Baptist Archives are located on the Morling College Campus. The archives do indeed hold many sepia photographs of people, churches and events. They also contain early church records, old minute books, still photographs and films, and all kinds of documents that chronicle the activities of our churches since Baptist work began in NSW.

There are three reasons why the Archive is important for cultivating a sense of Baptist Identity today. The first is so that our sense of ourselves is based on fact not myth. We can only forge a healthy sense of identity if we have a realistic understanding our origins. By examining our past we may come to understand that some of the so-called villains may have had rather more complex motivations and insights than we at first believed. In contrast some of our heroes may have possessed some fairly human flaws. In turn this understanding allows us to have either more compassion for our predecessors or allows us to think that if this flawed person can achieve this then so too can I.

The second reason for the importance of a holding place for records of the past is the emotional connection they allow us to hold with our predecessors. Church Minute books are the every day account of a functioning church. They may seem to be dull reading but they provide the reader with a picture of how groups of believers seek to live out the great commission in their local area. On the one hand the subject of the maintenance of the pastor’s bicycle (a recurring topic in the Minute books of the Millthorpe Baptist Church) may seem mundane. However, on reading the accounts of such meetings it is clear that the concern is the ease and efficiency of the pastor’s travels in order for him to be with the people in his care. Details of the minutia of life in another era connect us with people of the past and remind us of the commonality, despite the separation of time, of our cause and our goals.

A third reason for the significance of the archives is that it supports the research work of students and academics who have a professional interest in Baptist History. It also assists the work of enthusiastic amateurs and groups such as the Baptist Historical Society.

On 1st May the Baptist Historical Society is hosting a lecture on the life and ministry of the Reverend John Saunders in the Morling College Chapel. Saunders was the second Baptist minister in NSW and an outstanding reformer for the rights of indigenous people, convicts and the poor. It will be a good opportunity for those of us who are able to attend to reflect on our origins and to consider ways to integrate traditions of social action with into our contemporary Baptist identity.

I believe that an accurate account of our past is necessary for the formation of a healthy identity. We don’t have a museum, and in truth we don’t really need one. However, we do have a working archive that, by its very existence as a place where historical records are ordered and organised, contributes in some part to the shaping of an authentic Baptist identity for the future.

Kristine Morrison is a midwife and attends Ashfield Baptist Church.

Small steps to encourage Baptist identity

2008-04-16T13:13:00.004+10:00

I realise that this is not the real answer, but sometimes little things such as inserting on Church websites ( as set out below) create a sense of community and belonging and can create a temptation to think about such issues. I also think the Taskforce should consider what is taught to all Morling College students about our Baptist Identity.

1. Statement of faith
We believe that the Bible is the basis of our Faith and practice; therefore I think it would be good to have reference to a site that includes it, such as http://www.biblegateway.com/ Very few church websites do this.

2. A simple statement of Baptist Beliefs:
http://baptistnsw.asn.au/what_do_baptist_believe.html

3. Major NSW Baptist agencies in NSW:
NSW Baptists http://baptistnsw.asn.au/
Baptist Community Services - http://www.bcs.org.au/
Morling College - http://www.morling.nsw.edu.au/index.html
HopeStreet - http://www.hopestreet.org.au/
Baptist Youth Ministries - http://www.baptistyouthministries.org.au/
Baptist Investments & Finance - http://www.bif.com.au/

4. National:
BUA - http://www.baptist.org.au/
Crossover - http://www.crossover.baptist.org.au/
Baptist World Aid Australia - http://www.shareanopportunity.org/
Global Interaction - http://www.globalinteraction.org.au/index.php>>

5. International:
Baptist World Alliance - http://www.bwanet.org/

Another site that incorporates some very good features is http://www.teddingtonbaptist.org.uk/tbchome.htm The Virtual tour is very well done and I believe is used by schools to understand what a church is like and what happens. I do not know if you know anyone has the skills to adapt it.

John Church is a businessman and member of Gordon Baptist Church.

Caution: Baptist distinctives ahead

2008-03-28T12:50:00.013+11:00

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:

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?).
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.

Baptist principles and historical context

2008-03-28T11:43:00.003+11:00

An interesting blog! I would want to challenge a few of the statements made in [Steve Grose's] posting as I suspect they underplay some of the historical and ecclesiastical issues that our early Baptist forebears were reacting and dissenting from at the time, rather than defining new and absolute principles for our Baptist ecclesiology . . . but I suspect it is a little too soon for me to starting wading into controversial issues of this nature in the Aussie context.

My doctoral thesis was around a rethinking of Baptist ecclesiology for a twenty-first century context and the primacy of mission as our purpose – but that can wait for another day . . .

Rev Dr Brian Winslade is Director of National Ministries for the Baptist Union of Australia.

Janus-faced Baptists looking the other way

2008-03-27T08:58:00.008+11:00

Yesterday one of our leading NSW Baptists emailed me, congratulating us on the creation of this blog site, and responding to my posts. He said, among other things, "I find it interesting that neither the websites of Blakehurst or Dural Baptist Churches do or say much about Baptist identity. I think you should start with these - you obviously have some influence with each and the reactions would be interesting. I think it illustrates the issue that you will be addressing."

Here's an edited version of my response:

The Blakehurst and Dural omissions are probably unintentional and due to ignorance or the perception that identity/heritage is not important. We have only moved to Dural this year, but I’ve attended membership classes and the connection between Dural Baptist Church and the Baptist Union of NSW, Baptist Union of Australia and Baptist World Alliance was made clear (and in a positive light).

We have Rick Warren to thank for this, since DBC and many of our larger churches use versions of his membership seminar material to train prospective members. I too did this in Qld and at Blakehurst. I have no reservations in commending Rick Warren and Bill Hybels for the incalculable positive influence they have brought to evangelical churches in the past 20 years.

I watched several YouTube clips of Hybels last night and they reinforced this perception. Of course, Hybels is not Baptist, but he sounds a lot like a NSW Baptist in my opinion! And both Warren and Hybels are embracing a wide social vision while not letting go of the fundamental importance of personal and corporate evangelism.

Sadly, in my opinion many of our churches in NSW are on the whole Janus-faced with one face effaced. I think this is at a deep level ideologically driven, as a reflection of a (barely acknowledged but profoundly significant) aspect of the Protestant ethos, and an impatience among many church leaders with the more reflective and scholarly approaches to Baptist liturgy, polity and spirituality that have enriched our tradition in the past.

The ideology to which I refer is political, not religious. It emanates from radical liberalism and individualism – which have many good effects but actively destroy/transform the past. If you’re familiar with Thomas L. Friedman’s The Lexus and the Olive Tree, and its application to Christianity, you’ll understand what I’m talking about. It’s a lot more powerful than his much-touted Golden Arches Theory. For a good illustration, see Jeff Sharlet, “Soldiers of Christ” in Harpers May 2005 (only available by subscription, but I have an electronic copy you can request).

What should be done to address the problem of historical amnesia and ignorance? Many things together, including:

Teach theological students on church history and Baptist distinctives (as we already do).
Train our pastors and church leaders to appreciate and apply Baptist history and principles to their preaching, teaching and planning.
Encourage more research on Australian Baptist history and identity, and encourage younger scholars (perhaps by introducing a local version of the excellent YSBA program running out of Georgetown College in Kentucky – which enabled me to present a paper on NSW Baptists at Oxford in 2007, and - more important - engage with international Baptist colleagues around my age and younger).
Provide all our churches with copies of up-to-date print and online primers on Baptist history, principles and community (i.e. networks like BUA, BWA, etc).
Encourage churches to include material on Baptist heritage and identity in membership classes/seminars.
Freshen up the image of our archives and history so that their activities appeal to a wider (and younger) audience.
Enhance sales and marketing opportunities (e.g. by establishing a national online shop for Baptist books and training materials on Baptist history and identity – not only evangelistic resources!).
Encourage new forms of communication for those who feel at home with web- and mobile-based communications (but who don’t read books) – and remember that a static website is worse than a closed book.

I’m sure there are many more good ideas.

Rod Benson is a NSW Baptist minister and ethicist. He attends Dural Baptist Church.

My family

2008-03-26T06:51:00.001+11:00

For rather different reasons from those outlined by Phil Waugh in an earlier article on this blog, my great-great-great grandmother Mary Seaton also wished she was an Anglican.

Mary and her husband Daniel arrived in Australia in 1853. They settled in the western district of NSW and, although they were Baptists, they attended an Anglican church as there were no Baptist churches in the area.

Despite their regularity in worship they were informed that if any of their children died they could not be buried in the church cemetery, as they had not been christened. Infant and child mortality being what it was in those days Mary Seaton arranged for her children to be christened at the Anglican church in Kelso. In time a Baptist work was established in the area and Mary and Daniel were foundation members at the Orange Baptist Church.

There was a period in my life when I wished I were in the Uniting church. It seemed to me that prospects for women in ministry in our denomination were so dismal that the most fruitful option for them was to join the uniting church. Although I had no vocation for the ministry myself I wanted to identify with a denomination that affirmed women’s place in every aspect of church life.

However, even as I was flirting with feminist theology on the Uniting Church campus, I was also listening to Dr Graeme Chatfield’s lectures in Church History at Morling College. As the story of the Anabaptists unfolded, I realised that the struggle to give expression to the ideal of Christian liberty was noble, costly and by no means resolved.

There are therefore two aspects to my decision to remain a Baptist. The first is the ideal. I can’t think of anything better than to explore the limits of what it means to be a free believer and to do that in the company of other believers. Where Baptist churches adhere to principles of congregational government, a believer is free to flourish in whatever ministry God has called him or her to exercise.

The second aspect is more personal. I think about my family and what being Baptist meant to them. There is a portrait of my great-great grandfather Henry Warburton in the Millthorpe Museum. He is wearing what appears to be a Lodge Medallion of some kind. I’m speculating, but my guess is that it represents the Temperance Lodge at Spring Hill (still standing) that the Baptists established there.

I think about my great grandfather Horace Warburton who, although he was a farmer during the Great Depression, was also an ardent supporter of denominational outreach activities.

My nanna was Edith Pickersgill. She was a great cook. It was said that, when the Millthorpe Show was on, you needed to be early for dinner to get on the Baptist Table. Edith and her sister Hilda were famous in the district for their Cream Puffs.

My own parents, June and Arthur Pickersgill, (whose stories are not yet complete) have been great church members in whatever church they have attended. They have both been active in Sunday School, youth work, church administration hospitality and pastoral support.

How could I walk away from any of that? Could these people, and others like them, have flourished as they did in a different denomination?

Kristine Morrison is a midwife who attends Ashfield Baptist Church in Sydney.

Why I am a Baptist (part 10 of 10)

2008-03-25T08:53:00.003+11:00

So... Why am I a Baptist today?

In Rediscovering Church, Bill Hybels relates a discussion at a Harvard Business School seminar about the mission statement of Willow Creek Community Church. One student summed up the statement in four words: "Turning atheists into missionaries." Most of those with whom we share the gospel will not be atheists, but those words express part of what Jesus calls his church to do in the power of his Spirit. It's far easier to fulfil your life mission as part of a strategic team than it is to go it alone, or attempt to achieve great things in a poorly-organised and loosely-connected crowd.

I was not born into a family of Baptists, and my early post-conversion experience did not bring me into close contact with Baptists. I joined a Baptist church as an adult, thirteen years after my conversion to Christianity, because I discovered in their fellowship of churches a spirit of genuine devotion to God, a passionate commitment to evangelism and mission, and structures that facilitated effective ministry in the church and the world.

No single distinctive is sufficient, though, to secure my allegiance to the Baptist family of churches. Nor have I found among Baptists an ideal church. However, the recognition of an absolute and objective authority, coupled with the principle of individual freedom, provides a powerful and practical attraction to me and to many others who have joined Baptist churches from other faith communities. The challenge for us all is to avoid both 'bibliolatry' and antinomianism, and to maintain a balance in which we obey the Great Commandment and fulfil the Great Commission with all our hearts.

Baptist churches mutually share a rich and honourable heritage and a wealth of resources that enable us to fulfil our calling as followers of Christ. A single autonomous church or individual cannot justly claim ownership of that heritage and does not have legitimate access to those resources and the synergies they make possible.

There is sufficient diversity within Baptist churches for those searching for a spiritual home to find what they are seeking. Indeed, the diversity evident among Baptist churches with which I am familiar (i.e. Queensland and New South Wales) is virtually unmatched in any other denomination - and the diversity continues to widen. Globally, Baptists encompass virtually the whole spectrum of church styles, theology and (to a lesser degree) polities.

And, if a common theology or liturgy or polity lacks the power to draw Baptist Christians together, then a clear, comprehensive, and biblically-based vision for the future will generate relational unity, lead to a sense of ownership where that is lacking, and do much to heal wounds and encourage genuine partnership.

The future for Australian Baptists appears both exhilarating and daunting. I find strength in the knowledge that others better than myself have walked where I now tread, and in the assurance that I do not walk alone. That's why I am happy to call myself a Baptist.

Rod Benson is a NSW Baptist minister and ethicist. He attends Dural Baptist Church.

Why I am a Baptist (part 9 of 10)

2008-03-25T08:51:00.001+11:00

The freedom and challenge of objective authority

The effect of this latter distinctive on modern Baptist beliefs and practices has been threefold. First, it maintains a fundamental Baptist commitment to the apostolic teaching and apostolic gospel as recorded in the scriptures. This affirmation of objective truth in relation to the knowledge of God and the means of salvation is at the core of what it means to be an evangelical Christian.

But the Bible has more to offer than a 'fire escape from hell'; it is a manual for living. As Rowland Croucher notes, "Baptists are encouraged to be keen 'Bible people,' seeking with an open and reverent mind to understand what God is saying to us today. Sometimes we won't find specific answers to all our modern problems there, but we'll always find God's guiding principles." Thus the Bible is especially relevant in contemporary Western culture where an objective moral framework has been dismantled with nothing offered to take its place.

Second, it provides a rule or measure against which all theories, doctrines and practices may be tested. Although this may be perceived as irrelevant or counter-productive from a postmodern point of view, it is an essential requirement if we are to defend and pass on "the faith that was once entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3).

Third, it defines the broad purposes of the church as worship, evangelism, fellowship/integration, discipleship and service to others, while allowing for freedom of individual and corporate expression of these purposes within a unified faith community.

Three cautionary points should also be noted. First, adherence to 'sola scriptura' as the defining characteristic of a denomination's identity necessitates a reliance upon certain interpretive principles, and both the choice of an interpretive framework and the degree to which interpretation is forced to comply with theological preconceptions and practical expedience are open to dispute.

While scripture itself emphasises its inspiration and authority, many Baptists that I know take this to imply inerrancy, and many more approach scripture with a view that Tony Campolo describes as 'virtual inerrancy,' reading and applying scripture as though it was inerrant. Caution and humility rather than brashness and dogmatism should be the rule here.

Second, a dogmatic emphasis on biblical literalism may result in the emergence of some negative aspects of religious fundamentalism within a denomination. Baptist church history is peppered with instances where individuals or groups have vehemently disagreed on the basis of a literal interpretation of scripture, and this has often proved significantly damaging to both Christian fellowship and the growth of God's kingdom. Unfortunately, those days are not over.

Third, if scripture is authoritative and normative, then extrabiblical influences on the practices and teaching of a denomination should be identified and counteracted. Such influences may arise, for example, from popular culture, partisan political forces, or the media. Emphasis should be placed not only on the spiritual and eternal implications of the gospel, but on its social and temporal ramifications.

In the past Baptists have defended and lived out a gospel derived from the literal teaching of scripture and which has spoken to the full spectrum of human need; it is to be hoped that this remains so in the future.

More in the next post....

Rod Benson is a NSW Baptist minister and ethicist. He attends Dural Baptist Church.

Why I am a Baptist (part 8 of 10)

2008-03-25T08:50:00.001+11:00

Authority of scripture

While Beasley-Murray begins his treatise on Baptist principles with the subject of religious conversion and baptism, other scholars (for example, Brackney and Nickerson) commence with the authority of the Bible. The early Baptists tested particular doctrines and practices according to whether they were commanded or legitimated by scripture.

From John Smyth on, Baptists "refused to accept any human authority, bishop, church, or decree unless it agreed with scripture," since scripture alone spoke with no uncertain sound on essential matters, and, as the word of God, provided the supreme and ultimate authority for all matters of faith and conduct.

For Baptists, church tradition, creeds, confessions, episcopal pronouncements and conciliar statements all take a secondary place to scripture. Baptists took the Bible literally and specifically, inciting persecution and ostracisation for their beliefs and practices, and prompting detailed exegesis and teaching of its contents and theology. Every historically verifiable emphasis and distinctive identified as Baptist may be traced back to this all-encompassing principle of alignment with biblical teaching.

The doctrines of justification by faith and the accompanying sign of believer's baptism by immersion are clearly taught in scripture. The Baptist understanding of the nature of the church, regenerate membership and the headship of Christ find their source in the Bible, as does the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers and the associated eschewal of episcopacy, presbyterial government, a separated order of priests and sacerdotalism.

While the principle of congregational church government does not find explicit endorsement in scripture, in its ideal form it does preserve the biblical principles of the Lordship of Christ and the guidance of a congregation by the power of the Holy Spirit.

The principle of religious liberty was also found to have its basis in scripture and in biblical theology, while its practice permitted the exercise of personal faith even in circumstances where civil or ecclesiastical authorities favoured unbiblical practice.

Through the centuries since 1609 Baptists have usually approached spiritual, political, social and economic issues by resorting to scripture and seeking the mind and will of God through its reliable pages. Thus, if it is proper to speak of a single primary Baptist distinctive, that distinctive would be the conscientious loyalty and trust which Baptists have historically placed in the Christian scriptures.

More in the next post....

Rod Benson is a NSW Baptist minister and ethicist. He attends Dural Baptist Church.

Why I am a Baptist (part 7 of 10)

2008-03-25T08:48:00.003+11:00

Liberty of conscience

Baptist churches first emerged in the early seventeenth century in response to desires for religious reform of the Roman Catholic church and the conviction that existing Protestant reform was insufficient and not in keeping with the teaching of scripture. In England, the Baptist emphasis was on the necessity of believer's baptism, which presupposed a regenerate church membership, and the authority of scripture over ecclesiastical tradition and credal statements.

The issue of the relationship between church and state quickly arose as Baptist Christians began to suffer severe persecution from the state church in England, and, to a lesser degree, from Puritans and Separatists.

The insistence of English Baptists on the principle of religious liberty put them at odds with the crown which sought to maintain uniformity and control of a state church. Baptists joined Separatists and Anabaptists in calling for the separation of church and state. However, during the 'Commonwealth Period,' many Baptists gained the respect of their Puritan compatriots by fighting against the king in the Civil War; they saw this as a fight for both civil and religious liberty.

The oppressive Clarendon Code implemented by Charles II resulted in intense persecution and social marginalisation for Baptists, but was followed by the Act of Toleration in 1689 securing basic human rights to worship, preach and print religious literature.

In North America the situation was vastly different. These colonies were largely settled by displaced dissenters seeking political and religious freedom, and, although persecution continued from Anglicans and Puritans, their migration resulted in radically different historical developments and the incorporation of the principle of religious liberty into the American Constitution in 1791.

That tradition of liberty bears fruit in our own century. For example, at proceedings of the first Congress of the Baptist World Alliance in 1905, the Alliance stated that "the world must not be permitted to forget what the Baptist doctrine of soul liberty, broadening into the conception of personal liberty and finding expression in the ordinances of civil liberty, has wrought for the political emancipation of mankind."

This is a profound statement, indicating the degree of influence that the Baptist emphasis of religious liberty has had on the world of ideas. More recently Australian Baptist Athol Gill argued that religious liberty should be widened to acknowledge and respect general human rights: "The social and the economic, the political and the religious dimensions of human existence are all involved."

As well as liberty from state control and interference, Baptists have of course asserted the independence of the local church from similar controls imposed by other churches or a denomination. Religious liberty, then, is a central and powerful principle in Baptist history, although Baptists are not alone in advocating or fighting for it.

More in the next post....

Rod Benson is a NSW Baptist minister and ethicist. He attends Dural Baptist Church.

Why I am a Baptist (part 6 of 10)

2008-03-25T08:46:00.002+11:00

Form of church government

In addition to the doctrines of regenerate membership, the headship of Christ and the priesthood of all believers, Baptists have also defended the principle of congregational government of the local church.

This is not to be understood purely as democratic government (although principles of democracy usually apply at associational and denominational levels) but the government of Christ administered by the church members through the power of the Holy Spirit. From John Smyth's day until the present day the congregational 'church meeting' has been the primary decision-making instrument of Baptist churches [although this is now changing in many of our larger NSW churches].

Smyth argued that it was not the pope nor the bishop nor the church elders (nor the pastor) but the congregation who ruled the visible church, coining the phrase "saints as kings." Garrett links the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers with the principle of congregational government by suggesting that the latter is an expression of the former.

As with previous distinctives, congregational government is not unique to Baptists; Congregationalist churches share the principle. Further, if one stresses congregational government as a Baptist distinctive, one must also acknowledge that it has no overt scriptural basis.

More in the next post....

Rod Benson is a NSW Baptist minister and ethicist. He attends Dural Baptist Church.

Why I am a Baptist (part 5 of 10)

2008-03-25T08:44:00.001+11:00

Nature of the priesthood

The second element of ecclesiology in which Baptists have articulated a particular view is in the realm of church polity, through their affirmation of two related matters: the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers and the principle of congregational government.

Reacting against the excesses and omissions of the Reformation churches, Baptists in the seventeenth century believed that Anglican ministers were ordained by a corrupt episcopacy and did not bear the character of Christ in their personal lives. Their response to this sad situation was to emphasise the biblical doctrine of the priesthood of all true believers and the championing of congregational government.

In doing so, early Baptists were directly influenced by English Separatism and indirectly by continental Anabaptists. They also emphasised the soul's competency before God, or 'voluntary religion' - what we might call a spiritual individualism.

The doctrine of the priesthood of all believers had two implications: there was no need for a mediating priest to stand between the believer and God; and no one person or group had any special claim on spirituality or access to God, although gifted and effective leaders were regularly set apart for particular ministries such as preaching and pastoral care.

The words of the Baptist Reply to the Lambeth Appeal of 1920 ably defend the Baptist conviction: "For us there is no more exalted office than a ministry charged with preaching the Word of God and with the care of souls . . . Yet any full description of the ministerial functions exercised among us must also take account of other believers who, at the call of the Church, may preside at the observance of the Lord's Supper or fulfil any other duties which the Church assigns to them."

Similarly, in an Australian context Graeme Garrett reflects this understanding of priesthood: "Every believer is called by Christ and charged with doing the work of the gospel in the world. Every believer is 'ordained' (set apart) in this sense. The moment of this 'ordination' we call baptism."

More in the next post....

Rod Benson is a NSW Baptist minister and ethicist. He attends Dural Baptist Church.

Why I am a Baptist (part 4 of 10)

2008-03-25T08:43:00.001+11:00

Spiritual authority

Alongside the Baptist belief in a regenerate membership is the strongly-held belief that a local church ought to be responsible to no external authority other than Christ who is the Head of the church.

This principle not only exalts Christ to the highest place in church life; it also disallows the adoption of other common models of ecclesiastical authority and organisation such as episcopacy, presbyterianism and rule by a charismatic pastor. As Beasley-Murray notes, "the church, whether local or universal, is only the church in so far as it relates to Christ as its Redeemer and its Head."

Of course, Roman Catholic and Anglican churches (and most other churches) would agree with this, but it is Baptists - along with Congregationalists, Open Brethren and other non-conformist faith communities - who practice the headship of Christ in a real sense within congregational life. Again, Baptists are not alone in preserving this distinctive principle.

More in the next post....

Rod Benson is a NSW Baptist minister and ethicist. He attends Dural Baptist Church.

Why I am a Baptist (part 3 of 10)

2008-03-25T08:40:00.003+11:00

Nature of the church

Baptist understanding of ecclesiology has historically set apart Baptist faith and practice from those of other faith communities, and may be divided into two parts: the nature of the church (comprising the doctrines of regenerate membership and the headship of Christ) and church polity (dealing with the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers and the principle of congregational government).

As noted above, John Smyth believed that baptismal confession of Christ as Saviour should form the basis for membership in the church. In other words, admission to church membership should not be on the basis of one's political citizenship or on the basis of a divine covenant ratified by infant baptism, but on the basis of a personal faith in Jesus Christ. In this respect early Baptists differed sharply from Anglican, Reformed, Puritan (and many Separatist) Christians in their application of the principle of regenerate membership.

In his major study of Baptist history, H. Leon McBeth suggests that the origin of Baptists may be best explained as a search for a pure church composed of true believers, observing the gospel ordinances and obeying the commands of Christ. Indeed, Vedder, a fellow Baptist historian of an earlier generation, identifies the insistence upon a regenerate membership as the chief distinctive principle of Baptists, emphasising the fact that the true church finds its identity not in a worldly organisation or body but in spiritual life.

Similarly, Brackney describes Baptist ecclesiology as "a new vision for the visible church" and hails it as "the most fundamental contribution which Baptists made to Christian theology." These comments by Vedder and Brackney are strong statements and need to be weighed against available historical evidence.

As noted above, although the Reformers returned to the doctrine of justification by faith, they held to a covenantal view of membership in the body of Christ and the local church. The Puritans and Separatists also, due to their insistence on infant baptism, favoured covenant membership.

However, the early Anabaptists, who certainly preceded the earliest Baptists by a couple of generations, generally taught believer's baptism and regenerate membership in addition to the principles of congregational church government and the separation of church and state. Thus Baptists were not the first group of Christians to hold the doctrine of regenerate membership, even in the immediate aftermath of the Reformation.

It is certainly true that seventeenth century Baptists made a significant departure from their Puritan and Separatist fellows in adopting regeneracy as the requirement for membership, but other dissenting groups of Christians had previously held such a belief (for example, Moravians and Mennonites). It is also true that Baptist ecclesiology developed over the following three centuries to arrive at particular views of the sacraments, membership, denominational organisation and Christian ministry, but again none of these views is unique to Baptists.

In his discussion of baptism and church membership in present-day Queensland, Nickerson affirms the doctrine of regenerate membership but mentions it only in passing, devoting more space to reasons why certain Baptist churches admit to membership persons not baptised by immersion as believers. Beasley-Murray refers to the notion of a community covenant in relation to membership, stressing the responsibilities and relationships that exist within a church of regenerate people in contrast to the prevailing situation among Anglican and Roman Catholic churches in Britain.

Baptists have, from the early seventeenth century to the present day, held to the scriptural principle of a regenerate church membership. This high view of the visible church sets Baptists apart from other faith communities who support notions of a state church or covenantal membership, but aligns them with other Christians who share a common belief in regenerate membership and for whom such a belief is also distinctive.

More in the next post....

Rod Benson is a NSW Baptist minister and ethicist. He attends Dural Baptist Church.

Why I am a Baptist (part 2 of 10)

2008-03-25T08:00:00.005+11:00

The ordinance of baptism

This is often viewed as the preeminent defining characteristic of Baptist faith and witness. As the designation suggests, Baptists hold the teaching and practice of baptism as integral to the expression of their faith. This has been so since the beginnings of Baptist witness. Some even go to the extent of claiming - erroneously - that John the Baptist was the founder of the Baptist church tradition!

Prior to the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church practiced infant baptism as a sacrament leading to salvation. While returning to the doctrine of justification by faith and reaffirming the concept of 'scripture alone,' the Reformers of the sixteenth century retained the practice of infant baptism since they held that membership of a local church was on a covenantal basis. It's worth noting that, for example, Queensland's original Dinmore Baptist Church (constituted in 1895) performed infant baptism and admitted those so baptised into church membership in recognition of their covenant relationship with Christ.

Certain Protestant Christians reacted to the Reformation churches and emphasised the need for the separation of church and state, congregational autonomy (in place of episcopacy or presbyterial church government) and religious toleration (in the face of violent persecution of dissenters by the Established church and the state). These Christians were known as Separatists.

However, some Protestant Christians believed that even the Separatists were not doing justice to the principles rediscovered by the Reformers, and desired to carry the Reformation forward to what they saw as its logical conclusion. In addition to the basic Protestant doctrines of the Reformers, and the emphases of the Separatists, they highlighted the biblical teaching of believer's baptism and the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers.

In calling for (and practicing) believer's baptism, these Christians (called Baptists from the early seventeenth century) pointed out that Christian baptism was intended, from biblical times, to be performed for believers on the basis of their personal confession of Christ as Lord and Saviour.
The baptism of infants was therefore inappropriate since infants could not confess faith in Christ and were thus not regenerate at the moment of their baptism. Baptists also returned to the biblical practice of baptism by total immersion, although the first Baptists practiced baptism by affusion.

John Smyth is one of the first Protestants to argue that baptism should be applied to believers only, and that baptismal confession should form the basis of membership in the church [1]. Smyth believed that churches practising infant baptism as a sacrament were false churches, and sought to obey scriptural principles for baptism and church membership. Others followed and joined him, and believer's baptism soon came to be adjectival for seventeenth century Baptists.

This remains the case today: Baptists are primarily differentiated from other denominational traditions by their view and practice of believer's baptism. For example, in 1991 the Heritage Taskforce to the Annual Assembly of the Baptist Union of Victoria found that the most important aspect of being a Baptist in that state was the affirmation of believer's baptism. On the other hand, among Queensland Baptists, at least one church does not require believers to be baptised before becoming members, and other churches have recently discussed the issue at length.

Believer's baptism by immersion, however, is also practiced by many other faith communities (such as most Pentecostal and charismatic groups in Australia); and during the last quarter century both British and American Baptists have engaged in dialogue with Reformed and Anglican communions regarding the meaning of baptism and its relation to church membership, perhaps foreshadowing a rapprochement.

Ecumenical councils are likewise finding common ground with traditional Baptist beliefs. In 1982, a consultation of the World Council of Churches in Lima, Peru, concluded that "while the possibility that infant baptism was also practiced in the apostolic age cannot be excluded, baptism upon personal profession of faith is the most clearly attested pattern in the New Testament documents."

Believer's baptism, then, while a primary principle and practice of Baptists for almost 400 years, does not clearly distinguish Baptists from other Christian groups.

More in the next post....

[1] In an earlier version of this article I was criticised for erroneously crediting John Smyth as the first Protestant to practise believer's baptism. Others certainly preceded Smyth: Mennonites, for example, have observed that the the 1527 Schleitheim Articles teach emphatically against infant baptism. Smyth's conviction, in 1609, that baptism should be applied to believers only, and that this voluntary confession should form the basis of the church, was probably driven by a strong desire for a pure church - a desire shared by many others at the time. Perhaps, as Leon McBeth suggests, the language barrier prevented Smyth and his friends from knowing much about the Mennonites at that early time. Ironically, Smyth (who had baptised himself, probably by affusion) soon came to believe that baptism was invalid unless performed by someone who had been correctly baptised, and sought re-baptism. And after his death in 1612, the remnant of his followers were received into Mennonite fellowship and disappeared from history as a separate group. But by that time there were other groups of Christians that were identifiably "Baptist," notably those led by Thomas Helwys. See H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1987), pp. 32-38.

Rod Benson is a NSW Baptist minister and ethicist. He attends Dural Baptist Church.

Why I am a Baptist (part 1 of 10)

2008-03-25T07:42:00.007+11:00

Almost ten years ago, having recently arrived in Sydney, I wrote an article for a magazine on "why I am a Baptist." That's a good exercise for all of us who call ourselves by such a name. My views have matured since that time, but have not substantially changed, so I thought I'd throw them out on this blog. Here's part one of ten.

In the closing years of the 20th century we are witnessing a remarkable cross-fertilisation of new (or not so new) ideas about the nature and purpose of the church, and how various faith traditions should respond to those ideas.

In my last pastorate [in Queensland, Australia] there was greater diversity within the churches of my city than ever before. We had mainstream evangelical pastors who found profound blessing in mystical and contemplative spirituality, while the leaders of the two largest churches - both Pentecostal - were captivated by the North American pragmatism of Bill Hybels and Rick Warren respectively.

Other local Christian leaders, having given up on the institutional church, are experimenting with house churches and seeking new paradigms to express what it means to be the people of God. In this hybrid, post-denominational and postmodern environment, you might be forgiven for wondering whether, in the ebb and flow of history, the end is near for denominational identity or formal church membership. But there is more at stake than personal preferences.

A Baptist distinctive?

If there is nothing distinctive about being Baptist, the news has yet to reach the scholars. For example, in 1907 Henry Vedder devoted a chapter of his Short History of the Baptists to distinctive Baptist principles. In mid-century, W.R. White argued that Baptists needed to propagate their distinctives, suggesting that "there are certain emphases and combinations [of basic evangelical principles] which are peculiar to us."

In a similar vein, Paul Beasley-Murray acknowledged in 1992 that, while there was no one distinctive Baptist belief, one could still speak of Baptist distinctives. He suggested that although many beliefs or practices common to Baptists were found in one or another faith community, the fact that all were common to Baptist churches gave them the status of Baptist distinctives.

Closer to home, in his summary of Baptist beliefs in Queensland, Stan Nickerson likewise takes the broad approach, speaking of Baptist distinctives in the sense of a particular combination of convictions and emphases.

The argument for a distinctive Baptist identity, then, has shifted from the early position of privileging one issue (such as believer's baptism) to the celebration of a constellation of biblically-based principles and practices the sum of which is not presently reflected in other faith communities. This can be viewed as an exercise in semantics or as a serious attempt to identify the shared sociological and theological character of Baptist churches in a global culture of rapid change.

But what is there about Baptist life and faith that is generally perceived as attractive and/or distinctive? I want to highlight seven issues frequently wheeled out in defence of Baptist distinctives, and offer some reflective comments in conclusion.

More in the next post....

Rod Benson is a NSW Baptist minister and ethicist. He attends Dural Baptist Church.

What are we changing from?

2008-03-24T16:43:00.005+11:00

A question I would ask is: What are we changing from and what to? Maybe the second part of the question is not yet clear but I aver that we must be sure about the first. If you don't know where you're coming from it is difficult to know where you want to go (one of the values of having a good historical background!).

Pre 1990s we were actually doing well, considering our numbers and financial basis. It was an era of steady church planting and growth and we were leaders in the ethnic field. We were pace-setters in the introduction of GST, church management education and especially in addressing child and sexual abuse (the Anglicans used our policies in the latter as their guide). We were one of the first to successfully integrate women into leadership without tearing the denomiation apart (I'm not claiming that much has happened in that area but the protocols are in place) and the College began to expand.

I'm not suggesting that we go back to 15 years ago but remember the adage: Before you pull a fence down - find out why it was originally erected.

One of the things suggested at the Pennant Hills meeting was to abolish all committees except the Executive Committee. That is the only committee that has any legal standing and indeed is required by the 1919 Act of Incorporartion. There can be no question that much confusion, 'patch protection' etc. is a result of a plethora of committees and sub-committees doing their own thing and acting independently of the Executive Committee.

If it all falls apart, at the end of the day (or as is now sometimes more apt - at the beginning of the night) the Executive Committee is the equivalent of the Company Board of Directors and it is they who will face the judge. That nearly happened over the actions of [a previous leader], and the present crisis over the College [demonstrates the Executive's reluctance to insist on their legal responsibility].

Obviously, some committees would need to be re-established but they should be sub-committees of the Executive Committee as they were originally, and every man doing right in his own eyes has to stop. That of course will mean vested interests so to anybody who tries to get the committee system as it is under some common sense control - I say: best of luck.

Name provided. This is an edited version of a post received on 23 March 2008.

Ten websites on Baptist beliefs

2008-03-22T09:29:00.005+11:00

There are many good books and scholarly articles that seek to identify and clarify the doctrines commonly held by Baptists over the past 400 years. Many more attempt to define our shared purpose or mission. Here's a list of ten websites and online articles that, in various ways, set forth commonly agreed beliefs, intended aims and purposes, and/or aspirations of Baptists in community:

1. Baptist beliefs on Wikipedia (a good place to start)

2. Baptist distinctives on Wikipedia (note Walter Shurden's "four fragile freedoms")

3. Phillip Johnson's Creeds archive (note especially 1644, 1689 (two versions), 1833, 1963).

4. Baptist World Alliance's statement of purpose (note especially the points made in the Centenary Message, July 2005).

5. New Baptist Covenant (North America, 2007) - note the three emphases

6. Baptist Union of Great Britain's Five Core Values (1996) - click on the five icons

7. Ken R. Manley, "Shaping the Baptist movement in Australia" (historical essay)

8. David Parker, "'Striving for the Mastery': The evolution of a post-modern church in Queensland 1945-2004" (historical essay)

9. Faith Bowers, "Baptists in the ecumenical context" (essay raising important issues for our outward focus)

10. Blakehurst Baptist Church's statement of beliefs (written by Rod Benson in 2000).

Rod Benson is a NSW Baptist minister and ethicist. He attends Dural Baptist Church.

Baptist distinctives

2008-03-21T19:34:00.002+11:00

by Steve Grose

Our Baptist Distinctives do not need to be rewritten. One of the greatest problems I perceive as a Baptist in New South Wales in 2008 is that some pastors and most church members are not clearly aware of the historical development that led to our assertion of our Baptist distinctives.

Our year book has a page that attempts to encompass those Baptist Distinctives within the Statement of Principle approved by the 2000 Annual Assembly. It was with a great deal of wisdom that our forebears only a few years ago proposed this Statement of Principle, and we should do all we can to endorse and encourage our churches to understand the importance of the distinctive beliefs that make us “Baptists” as distinct from other evangelicals.

Our Baptist distinctives flow from one solitary belief: that a person can know the living God personally. To move way from this one central idea is to participate in the depersonalisation of our society and the depersonalisation of our religion.

Regenerate membership means we understand that a church is the community of individual believers who have come to know God.

The Lordship of Christ means that we are a community of believers who have recognised that the only way to know God is through Jesus Christ, and the only way to continue to know God is through a continuing personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Biblical authority: we hold to the concept that the daily Lordship of Christ is found in daily communion with God as He has revealed Himself through His Word. This means that we submit to the authority of the Bible as God’s self-revelation, by which we may know Him.

Soul liberty: we appreciate that each person has the right to find their own way to God and to understand their own truth. We do not demand that all people should be like we are. We respect the right of association for fellowship and encouragement so that others who like us have chosen to know God in Christ through his Word may be able to meet together for such mutual encouragement and exploration of God’s will for their lives. This soul liberty is often termed the Priesthood of all believers as it recognises the individual’s relationship with God as paramount.

Autonomy of the local church: because we believe that people who know God should have the liberty to band together as they wish, we respect the right of every group of people to associate themselves together on the basis of their shared relationship with God in Christ through the Word. This means that people of like belief should associate together on the basis of their common faith and common life. A manner of association together recognising the directive of the Lord Jesus Christ and the agreement to common life and faith in the context of the local church is the Baptist Distinctive of Believer’s Baptism.

As the local church is an association of like minded souls with liberty to pursue their relationship with God, as described in their common life and belief, therefore the Baptist distinctive of a free church in a free state is an outcome we should respect. Neither church nor state should control the other, nor should there be an alliance between the two. Christians in a free society can properly influence government toward righteousness, which is not the same as a denomination or group of churches controlling the government or the government controlling the churches.

Whilst it may not seem necessary to affirm the last principle at this time, yet in some places this is an important basic tenet of Baptist belief. We signify our solidarity with other believers in other countries not as blessed as we are with our liberties by affirming this belief.

As we move forward at this time, we must at the same time look backwards to our past to see where we are coming from and who we are as Baptists distinct within the evangelical community.

Steve Grose is senior pastor of Newcastle Baptist Tabernacle.

I wish I were an Anglican....

2008-03-20T10:54:00.005+11:00

Well not really.

You see I am a Baptist and proud of it. It's just that Anglicans, particularly here in Sydney, seem to have such a strong identity. They have a sense of who they are and who they most definitely are not. The only problem is that sometimes I'm not really sure of what a Baptist is. I know who Baptists were in the past, but has that changed? Is it still relevant?

This question is very important to me. It tells me if I have something to contribute, and even how I will contribute it. Otherwise I might as well go and attend some other Church and achieve the same vague things as where I am now.

Yet I can’t escape the conviction that Baptists are uniquely placed to say some things that are very important to say, to do some things that are radically different.

So how do I find out what a Baptist is in NSW and the ACT in 2008? There is no text book that will tell me, no theological treatise that will define it. Finding that I am not alone in this search, our denomination has set up a vision taskforce that will spend the next year or so thoroughly researching the members of our Churches and attempting the impossible: to find out who we are. Be warned, we are coming for your opinions and experiences.

What we want is to discover the things that we can be proud of; the things we do best; the things we can contribute to and do better than anyone else. Perhaps it will be that God is shaping our Churches to take the best of our traditions and to mix them with some wonderful biblical insights. We want to study who we have become in areas like practice, leadership, governance, ministry and co-operation.

Perhaps with a fresh insight into our biblical core values, we can renew our efforts and even lead and influence other denominations.

Now wouldn’t that be something!

Phil Waugh
Carlingford Baptist Church

Taskforce 2 members

2008-03-18T08:27:00.002+11:00

At the first meeting on 17 March 2008, the following members were confirmed:

Rev Dr Graeme Chatfield (chairperson) - Executive Committee & Thornleigh
Rev Rod Benson (secretary) - Dural
Rev Matthew Arkapaw - Executive Committee & Mortdale-Oatley
Rev Gary Baker - Executive Committee & Bathurst
Ms Cathy Ellis - Carlingford
Rev Frank Farag - Crest Community
Rev Steve Grose - Newcastle
Mr Ian Packer - Pennant Hills
Mrs Kristine Morrison - Ashfield
Rev Phil Waugh - Carlingford

Taskforce 2: Terms of reference

2008-03-18T08:18:00.004+11:00

Here are the initial terms of reference for Taskforce 2 (note: these are dated 22 Jan 2008 and may be amended by the Taskforce):

Strategy Two: Re-affirming Baptist Identity, Co-operative Ministry and Partnership

The aims of the Taskforce will be to clarify present understanding of the core values that underpin Baptist Identity in NSW and ACT, and recommend processes for building increased awareness of what it is to be a Baptist in the 21st Century as well as achieving increased co-operation between the Baptist Union and Churches and among Baptist Departments and Agencies.

The Taskforce will:

1. Undertake a survey of Baptist leaders and churches to determine those core values in the 21st Century that they identify as being Baptist.

2. Promote the value of co-operative Baptist partnership in Ministry through
such things as publications, websites, public presentations.

3. Initiate a bi-annual forum where Baptist Departments and agencies enhance co-operative goals through shared planning and co-ordination of resources.

4. Encourage the two major events conducted by the Baptist Union (i.e. the April mini-Assembly, and the September "Revive" convention) to promote Baptist core values and the variety of denominational connections and collaborations as a public demonstration of being Baptist in the 21st Century.

5. Formalise membership of a group (currently the informal Dare to Dream group) to prepare and implement these two public events so that they inspire a varied and diverse Baptist audience.

6. Identify an agenda (strategies and resources) over 3 years for which there will be appropriate resourcing in order to equip the Baptist community in NSW and ACT for partnership in ministry [that is: who we are; how we work and where you can participate].

Undertake the following:

1. Preparation of a resource based upon case studies that will engage Denominational leaders and churches in identifying Baptist core values. The project will require survey material and responses from which a report will be prepared.

2. Item 6 (planned agenda) would grow out of the survey listed above, from additional survey information gained through other priority areas and through the contributions of Departments at the bi-annual forum.

Consultation:

• Leadership Team and the Chairman of Committees, Councils and Boards.
• The staff of Morling College.
• The Churches through MSD, Dare to Dream group, Regional Ministers, Minister’s Associations.
To achieve the outcomes, advice and data is to be sought from the whole church family (pastors, members and adherents).

Membership:

Group of 7-8 people including representation from the Dare to Dream Group and Ethnic churches.

Background to the process

2008-03-18T08:15:00.001+11:00

In February 2008, President June Heinrich published this information:

Nominations for Directions 2012 Taskforces

The Executive Committee has decided to establish five taskforces to examine the key strategy areas and bring recommendations to our family of churches. The taskforces, which will each include a member of the Executive Committee, will focus on:

• Effective mission
• Baptist identity, co-operation and partnership
• Denominational governance
• Building and sustaining healthy pastors
• Strategic use of resources

All churches are invited to nominate any suitable people for representation on the taskforces. Nominations should be in writing including a basic C.V. and sent to Alan Soden. Email: directions2012@baptistnsw.asn.au or Private Bag 8 Glebe 2037 Each taskforce will bring a progress report to the Mini Assembly on Saturday 19 April 2008.

Re-affirming Baptist identity, cooperative ministry and partnership

2008-03-18T07:43:00.001+11:00

Welcome to the Baptists Together blog!

This is a space for fellow-travellers to explore, understand and contribute to the fabric of Baptist faith and experience in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory.

Over the next few months, five task forces will develop strategies to lead our movement of churches forward together. These are:

1. Empowering congregations for effective mission
2. Re-affirming Baptist identity, cooperative ministry and partnership
3. Changing the denomination's governance structures
4. Building and sustaining healthy pastors
5. Being more intentional in the strategic use of resources

This blog reflects the thinking of and contributions to Taskforce 2.

Directions 2012

In 2001 the Baptist Union of NSW began a process of discerning and empowering future directions for the period 2002-2007. For various reasons there were mixed results for this ambitious initiative. In November 2007, our President, Dr June Heinrich, and a group of leaders met to consider key issues confronting NSW & ACT Baptists, with an external facilitator. There was enormous support for change, and the strategies emerged from this meeting. Subsequently our Executive Committee released the Secretary of the Union, Mr Alan Soden, from day to day functions to focus on facilitating the Directions 2012 process for five months.

Here's June Heinrich's take on recent developments:

The ancient words of the Proverbs writer continue to powerfully resonate in 2008, reminding us as a family of churches of the importance of seeking God’s leading and uniting together to pursue the direction God has for us.

When I accepted the role of President of the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT I was eager to use the opportunity to encourage our denominational ministries and family of churches to clarify and sharpen our vision for the future.

I was very encouraged by the Directions 2007 process, but my experience as the Chief Executive Officer at BCS has shown me that a visioning process such as this is only successful when it gains wide ownership, has clear and tangible strategies in place and there are appropriate accountability measures. With the lessons learnt from the Directions 2007 process, it was my privilege to host a gathering of leaders from across our family of churches in November last year to begin the Directions 2012 revisioning process.

It was clear to see God’s Spirit at work on the day as we all came away with the five key strategies you will read of in this update. This was just the beginning step in the process and it has been encouraging to see how the Executive Committee has already progressed these strategies. The challenge now is to ensure that Directions 2012 becomes a process that our wider family of churches embraces and shares in. We are a family of more than 340 churches. We have a number of lifetransforming shared ministries, such as Morling College, MSD, Global Interaction and Baptist World Aid Australia.

God has a great vision for us as a movement of churches. Let’s get involved and share in the vision of Directions 2012.

June Heinrich, President, Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT

More in the next post....