1) We believe strongly in the need for a liturgy in worship. On the other hand, the Baptist ideal in which we were brought up (fundamental and evangelical) is one of spontaneity in worship, wherever else they may see the need for structure. They do not consider prayers true unless composed extemporaneously by the person speaking them. Thus even the Lord's Prayer cannot be prayed by Baptists, much less the excellent prayers of the English Liturgy. Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and others use the repeating of the creeds to express and confirm Christian unity with all the orthodox. They use a traditional progression through the service from confession to forgiveness to praise to the word to the sacrament. This may be less spontaneous but it results in a far more thoughtful offering than the Baptist hodge-hodge of song, prayer, song, announcements, offering, song, sermon, song. The Baptists and their cousins the Bible and Community Churches constantly invoke their own authority over their members but they ignore the authority of the Historical Church (which pre-dates the Baptist name by some 1400 years) when it comes to judging what makes proper worship. As a result, we believe that the standards of worship in Baptist Churches, fundamental and otherwise, are indiscriminate and usually low. Since our conscience has become sensitive to this fact we no longer have the tolerance to participate in an offering that we believe is offensive to God's dignity.
2) Our veiw of Baptism is a mixture of ideas from various denominations, including Baptist. Under a sense of dissatisfaction with our experience of the sacraments we have been looking at scripture, church history, and the present-day beliefs and practices of various denominations. It seems to us that every denomination has lost part of the rite. Baptists are very rigid about the structure by which they administer the Ordinances. This we appreciate. We, like them, do not see the need to diminish the symbolism of baptism by taking most of the water out of the act. However, we are not anabaptists. Moreover, Baptists seem bent on removing any of the significance, symbolism, or real effect of a faithfully administered and recieved sacrament. Baptist teaching informed us that the true meaning of baptism is "an act of obedience." This seems to say that Christ instituted it so that Christians would have something to do. We, however, believe that baptism and the Lord's Supper are richly symbolic religious rites which, if recieved with faith, grant spiritual benefit to us in a way that other spiritual disciplines cannot do. Baptism in particular is the rite of conversion to the Christian Faith and as such is linked to salvation under normal conditions. This, however, is the reason why we stringently reject the practice of baptising people without their knowledge and consent. We have not baptised our baby and will not do so, which puts us out of sympathy with much of Christendom outside of Baptist circles.
3)As mentioned before, we believe in the existance of the Universal (Invisible) Church, which many Baptists deny and we also believe that as the pillar and ground of the truth, this Universal Spiritual Body has, when it speaks with one voice or in settled historic agreement, authority regarding the beliefs and practices of Christians. Fundamental Baptists taught us that to be a true Christian one had to believe "The Fundamentals of the Faith". However when it came to determining what those fundamentals are, each Christian was thrown finally on his own conscience and ability to systematize the scriptures. The guidance they offered came in the form of an appeal to our own brains and knowledge of the Bible. There was little assurance that these beliefs had credibility because all Christendom had agreed these things at one time and carefully crafted confessions explaining them in rigorous theological language. Most Baptists , in fact, seem to doubt whether much true Christianity exists outside of themselves. We do believe that the Spirit makes known to every child of God the truth about God's nature, the authority of the scriptures, and the life and death of Jesus Christ. But we also believe that under normal conditions Christians were not intended to form an exact understanding of these and other theological questions in solitude. The church is a heavenly society. It must have communion, and order, and leadership; it must preserve, pass down, and share regularly its faith and love. The church, like any society, discovers truth, captures it in forms, and preserves the forms in order to preserve the understanding of the truth. This is culture. Those who overthrow the forms risk losing the knowledge of the truth. This our Baptist friends have done. They have, to a large degree, cut themselves off from the fellowship and authority of the general body of Christ, have overthrown old Christian forms, and have neglected ancient practices and pieties in preference for their own impoverished inventions. To this we cane never return.
Our devotion to these beliefs has now landed us in a quite a pickle.
4 comments:
Here is a breakdown of the "Baptist Distinctives" (as I was taught them at Maranatha Baptist College) and where I stand on each. I will be relatively brief; please do not expect a thorough defense or even explanation of my beliefs in this comment.
1. Bible as the Only Rule of Faith and Practice.
-The Authority of the Church is real and ironically, given in Scripture itself. Pretending otherwise is dangerous and ridiculous. The Church must be unified on certain points, we might call these the Fundamentals (although I do not). The Seven Ecumenical Councils decided these. The Trinity and the Nature of Christ are some examples. To give a single example: the Church, united in East and West, decided in a council what books were in the Canon of Scripture. Each church, and even each denomination, does not have the right to trump this decision and add or detract to and from Scripture. The Roman Church has broken with the Council's decision and added the Apocrapha, placing itself in a rebellion against the true, Universal Church. Protestant and Eastern Orthodox accept only the 66 books selected by the council, as Rome once did, thus they are under the Authority of the Church. Without the authority of the Universal Church, each Christian's Bible would be different, thus making the Bible as our only rule for faith and practice a joke (Rome has done this, and serious perversions have occurred as a result). I could give many other examples of this point (like Baptism by immersion) but these will have to wait. Also, as I am not making a thorough defense, Scripture backing will have to wait as well (although it is extensive on this point).
-Scripture clearly teaches us to pursue the Good, True and Beautiful. The forms of these are in Heaven, and they ultimately flow from the nature of God Himself. Scripture does not leave us a detailed liturgy or Church architecture (although it gives strong hints) but the Church has decided that certain forms and designs are both Scriptural and reflect the forms in heaven. These forms were deduced by Church leaders guided by the Holy Spirit; the liturgy and architecture of the traditional churches reflect them. Baptists are quite opposed to liturgical worship, due to point number one.
Now I do agree with the Bible as the Only Rule of Faith and Practice, but in a different sense than modern Baptists. The Church is not above the Word of God; it is there to aid in interpreting it. Also, each local church is NOT the authority, the Universal Church is. Therefore the Fundy extra-biblical "standards" which differ from church to church anyhow, are not, I repeat NOT, covered under the Church's authority.
2. Regeneration and Immersion are Necessary for Church Membership.
-I have a lot of issues with this one. First of all, Church membership as concieved by both the new evangelical and fundamental Baptist Churches I have attended, and the Baptist College I graduated from, is a thoroughly modernist concept. No one can prove their regeneration, so each person had to be taken in on their word that they had prayed the right prayer, believed the right things (every church I attended differed as to what they were), and were baptized by immersion. Their names were added to the file in the church office. They could then vote and hold office.
My veiw on membership is different. First, while immersion is the proper mode of Baptism, I am not an anabaptist. Second, I do not pretend to be certain about anyone's regeneration and will definitly not use altar calls, sinner's prayers, lifestyle changes, or tearful testimonies as some sort of proof. Baptism is necessary for conversion, and conversion is necessary to enter the community of faith, but conversion and regeneration are not the same. Lastly, I do not believe in formal church membership at all. It is a new practice set up by the Revivalists, and exists primarily for statistical purposes. As an unprecedented and unscriptural innovation, I do not accept it at all.
3. Autonomy of the Local Church.
Local Baptist churches do not have bishops or any ecclesiastical authority or connection to each other or a greater body, except for a few relatively weak conventions (like the Southern Baptists). After intense exegetical study, I have rejected this notion. Paul (an Apostle) gave Titus (not an Apostle) authority over all the churches on the rather large island of Crete and called him an 'episcopas' which in English is 'bishop'. Timothy was also given authority over all the Churches of Ephesus, one of the largest cities of the Roman Empire. The Church has decided overwhelmingly in favor of some form of hierachal government: every denomination in all three major branches of Christendom (minus the Baptists) have decreed it to be Scriptural. And no, I don't believe a Pope is biblical and neither does two-thirds of Christendom.
4. Priesthood of the Believer.
No problems with this one. Spot-on biblical, and backed up by the Reformed and Anglican traditions. I'm not violently anti-priest, but it is a defect and not found in Scripture.
5. Separation of Church and State.
I don't think that any state has the right or the privalege to rule or interfere with the Church. Ceaseropapism is wrong. However, the Church is above the state and in a perfect world, they should exist in unity. The government ought to be Christian, and rule accordingly. And as I am a Monarchist, my ideal is the Christian King.
6. Immersion and the Lord's Supper the Only Two Ordinances.
-Immersion is the proper mode of Baptism. However, it is more than an ordinance and less than a sacrament. Alana will do a post on it and explain our beliefs in greater detail later.
-The Lord's Supper is more mystical than a mere ordinance; but it is not a means of renewing our regeneration, so it is not a sacrament. Either Alana or myself will write more on this later.
-There are more means than two by which God gives His divine grace in a special way and which are traditions that must be preserved. Marriage (now under attack), Baptism, prayer, and the laying of hands are just a few.
7. Separation (Ecclesiastically and Personally).
Separation should be natural; I disagree with both Fundys and Newies on this one. Separation occurs between individuals or organisations when differences exist. The degree of separation depends on the degree of difference. New Evangelicals attempt artificial unity, trying to create bonds that do not exist. Fundamentalists, on the other hand, create artificial separation, severing natural bonds over a single disagreement. The Baptists are not in any kind of agreement on this point; Ecclesiastical Separation is more like a theoretical construct of each Baptist Church that applies it.
As for Personal Separation, that is Fundamentalist code for Standards. Obeying the Scriptures is not enough; one has to break association with all popular brands, hairstyles, clothing and toys. It is the logical fallacy of Guilt By Association. This last point has been address in detail on Murg (Alana's old blog) and on her new blog in detail, and I have no doubt it will be the subject of many posts and comments to come, so I will now conclude my comments.
In short, if one accepts the list above as the definitive Baptist Distinctives, then I am not a very good Baptist. The Priesthood of the Believer and Baptism by Immersion are the only two areas I stand completely with them (and in Baptism there are important differences, one of which I have not yet mentioned). I wish the Baptists well and thank them for their hospitality during my sojourn with them, but now natural separation is growing. Adieu!
I'd love for you to expand this and turn it into a whole essay which I could post on the front page, W.K. Er, um...Dearest One.
(D.O.?)
Seriously, this is wonderful as it not only clarifies "our" position for others but is part of our familial progress of understanding and (hopefully, one day) decision. God job. Let's have lots of documentation.
I forgot to mention that Kamelda said somewhere that she believes in the Bible as the FINAL Rule of Faith and Practice. Would that be a better summary of your conviction?
Yes, I do like that better.
Post a Comment