SBC seminary prof’s departure to Anglicanism prompts discussion of Baptists & tradition

I remember about 20 years back, I attended the funeral of a coworker at an Episcopal church, and noticed that they really read a lot of Scripture--I ended up joking they could ignore more than I was accustomed to hear in my church. I was then reminded how in my boyhood United Methodist church, we would have OT, NT, and Gospel readings each week. So I get, to a degree, how one would see the Anglican communion as having some good things to share.

But that noted, I also remember the decades of hideous rejection of God's Word in things like sexuality by Anglican/Episcopal/United Methodist churches, and I've got to come to the conclusion that despite those Bible readings, they've gotten pretty good at ignoring them. So with that, along with my rejection of the notion of bishops, I can't go with Barrett. There is good to be had with Anglicanism, but I cannot throw my hat in with membership there.

One thing that we miss in the Baptist circle is the model of "independent", where everyone does their own thing. We miss the historic traditions. Many in the SBC have abandoned regulative principle of worship, we have abandoned the historic creeds.... And that is the interest that is pulling some of the individuals back to these older denominations.

But that noted, I also remember the decades of hideous rejection of God's Word in things like sexuality by Anglican/Episcopal/United Methodist churches, and I've got to come to the conclusion that despite those Bible readings, they've gotten pretty good at ignoring them.

Barrett joined the ACNA, which is comprised of approximately 1000 churches, most of which left the Episcopal church in the late 2000s, early 2010s due to its progressive, liberal views on doctrine and social teaching, including sexuality.

I have lived long enough to admit that I have always been a Baptist, and have seen the pendulum swing from traditional over to contemporary and back to liturgical across the spectrum of churches. One thing that is kind of becoming an increasing, discomforting sound, like a noisy wheel bearing or fingernails on an old chalkboard, is the increasingly repeated mantra ... we have abandoned the historic creeds. Perhaps this is reactionary, but I will wade in a bit.

I think there is a need for guarding against romanticizing the past, especially the creeds. I am not suggesting they are without value. They are ancient theology statements which addressed issues confronting the Church in the moment of their being written. Occasional reading and rehearsing is good in our Baptist circles, for we do stand on the shoulders of the past, with allowances for our precise and robust theology. I have become more alert to the fact of their presence and importance. But it is also good to remember that all of that information is repeated many times over in past and present collections of reliable theology textbooks.

In addition, why not emphasize the historicity of the first century church, i.e., the New Testament, even more, rather than focusing on the decisions or viewpoints of the church later on? After all, the first century is the beginning. This is not to downplay or denigrate historical theology, but rather to emphasize Sola Scriptura within our own theology and tradition. This is in contrast to a more structured denominational approach where Primae Scriptura is often relied upon. It is important to be aware of the movement afoot away from the literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic toward a group-think, magisterial hermeneutic as emphasized by Barrett, Trueman, and others. Sometimes what some call historic traditions in the past were really hierarchical control by clergy over illiterate congregants, particularly in the RCC. A difference of opinion, or freedom of conscience, wasn't really applauded. Ask John Bunyan. Our regulative principle must be derived from the NT, not from ancient denominational traditions.

In my opinion, Baptists will need to be aware and guard against an overemphasis on the creeds. Creedalism and liturgical worship trends toward denominational structure, control, and logically results in a return to a magisterial approach within the Church. With a commitment to Biblical Authority and Individual Soul Liberty as expressed in the New Testament, this is something with which a Baptist will not be able to agree.

So, what to do? Know the creeds, refer to them occasionally, but be careful to not lend credence to the belief that they are authoritative. Adjust preaching styles so that doctrinally sound messages are delivered while showing relevance to living each day for Christ, carrying our cross. Our regulative principle must be derived from the NT, not from ancient denominational tradition.

Joel, good point, and it's interesting to see how the ACNA is not part of the global Anglican communion, but...somehow has ties with a southern Anglican tradition, which I'd guess is. Let's just say it's a really interesting "org chart".

Jeff,

To counterpoint your comments, and I do agree with much of what you say. What I feel that we lack today in Independent Churches is that we have drifted in many ways into each church having their own interpretation. I do agree with you that creeds are historical, but one of the advantages of Creeds, Confessions as well as Catechisms, is that they provide a solid foundation on theology. It embeds into our congregants the understanding of what we believe, why we believe it and they can articulate what we believe. Baptists say they want to be independent, but as fast as they can, they always form denominations, fellowship groups... Liturgy provides a basis and structure around regulative worship practices. I do agree with your concerns as well, so their needs to be a balance. But there is value in bringing some of this back. Most Baptists can speak about the latest Christian author, but struggle in speaking about Augistine, Iranaeus or others. So there is value in understanding first century church.