In my previous post, I focused on getting the gospel right. In this offering, I want us to ponder together two different ways to think about Baptist identity. I’ll conclude by making my own view of this matter as clear as I can.
Many Baptist Studies scholars argue it is better to avoid speaking of Baptist identity (singular)—we should instead recognize that there are a variety of Baptist identities. One well-respected historian encapsulates this approach in the title of his Baptist history textbook Baptist Ways: A History. Sometimes scholars go a step further and at least imply this multiplicity of identities is itself virtuous, even the genius of Baptist Christianity. Many scholars demur on the latter point, but still agree there is more than one way Baptists articulate their vision of the Christian life, some of which are incompatible with one another.
Other scholars opt for a different understanding of this issue. Some historians and theologians argue for a singular Baptist identity comprised of particular distinctive or principles, even if there may be some variety in how these Baptist principles are applied. There are conservative and progressive variations of this theme, but differences aside those scholars who embrace this approach are all attempting to outline what they believe is the “true” Baptist identity. I think it is accurate to say this way of thinking about Baptist identity is widely represented among grassroots Baptists in conservative groups like the Southern Baptist Convention and moderate networks like Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.
I actually think both approaches have some validity, though neither is adequate in and of itself if we are to fully engage this issue. For me, it boils down to the difference between description and prescription. Those who argue there are multiple Baptist identities are surely correct—this can be easily demonstrated. But “is” isn’t necessarily the same thing as “ought,” and this is where prescription comes in. While it is surely true there are different Baptist identities, most of them are attempts to align belief and practice with what some group of Baptists honestly believes the Scriptures to teach. In other words, different Baptist identities simply represent varied attempts to offer the best (biblical, healthy, beneficial) Baptist way among all the various competing Baptist ways.
There is clearly more than one view of Baptist identity even among conservative Southern Baptists. I spoke to this in my first post when I contrasted those who downplay their Baptistness in an effort to emphasize their gospel-centeredness with those who seem to embrace what I call a “Bapto-centric” vision of Christianity. And these are just two options—others add into the mix particular views of pastoral leadership, soteriology, worship styles, or even moral issues. Southern Baptists are really pretty diverse, though admittedly not as diverse as we were prior to the Conservative Resurgence.
It isn’t my intention to flesh out all the similarities and differences between the various visions of Baptist identity in the SBC, though I think that would be a worthwhile project. Rather than focus on description, in this series of posts I’m offering a constructive proposal about what I believe is the best way to understand Baptist identity in the early years of the twenty-first century. In other words, I’m being prescriptive. I know some will disagree with my proposal, and I’m fine with that. But I hope to advance the conversation in a way that helps Baptists to think about their identity in a way that tethers our Baptist convictions and emphases to the good news of Jesus Christ.
——————–
Note: This is the second post in an ongoing series on the relationship between the gospel and Baptist identity. The earlier posts include the following:
The Gospel and Baptist Identity: Introduction
The Gospel and Baptist Identity: What is the Gospel?
[...] [...]
[...] my last post, I outlined two different ways of discussing Baptist identity. I also tried to make clear that in [...]