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 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.

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 credited as the first Protestant to argue that baptism should be applied to believers only, and that baptismal confession should form the basis of membership in the church. Smyth believed that churches practicing 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, for example, 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 them from other Christian groups.

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.

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.

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."

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 'church meeting' has been the primary decision-making instrument of Baptist 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.

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.

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.

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.

Why I am a Baptist

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 alone, or 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. 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
Senior Pastor, Blakehurst Baptist Church
Sydney, Australia

[Footnote]:

Hi.

I was just wandering through your new items, and noticed a small error
in Rod Benson's essay on "Why I am a Baptist."  He says in passing:

>John Smyth is credited as the first Protestant to argue that baptism
>should be applied to believers only, and that baptismal
>confession should form the basis of membership in the church.

Of course this isn't quite true.  This was one of the doctrines that
Smith picked up from the Mennonites.  The 1527 Schleitheim Articles
spoke quite strongly against infant baptism.

Ross

---
Dr. Ross Bogue                          
Physics Department - 4560               Tel: (309) 438-2933
Illinois State University               FAX: (309) 438-5413
Normal, IL 61790