For Bebbington, special emphasis ought to be placed on “diverse” when describing the idea of “Baptists.”  His penultimate chapter, “Baptist Identity,”  is largely dedicated to categorizing seven contemporary strands in Baptist life, which he lists as liberals, classic Evangelicals, premillennialists, charismatic renewalists, Calvinistic, Anabaptist aficionados, and High Church (p.265-71).  He concludes that Baptists “have a multifaceted identity” (p.284), and further stated:

[Baptists] originated as radical repudiators of medieval idolatry but went through many subsequent convolutions. They turned into Evangelicals and remain overwhelmingly so. They held contrasting and often conflicting views on social questions. They developed diverse understandings of the church and of the ideal relations of the church and state. Their global spread generated far more variety. Hence it is not surprising that, in the twentieth century . . . their heritage became a contested area in the largest of the national denominations, the Southern Baptists. Nor should it be unexpected that there were at least seven identifiable streams of life in the world-wide Baptist community at the opening of the twenty-first century. . . . In the end, therefore, the Baptist identity, a phenomenon of the flux of history, may elude definition. [emphasis mine]

Emphasis on the diversity of the tradition is a theme that has also been trumpeted by accomplished Baptist historian, Bill Leonard, who surveyed the kaleidoscope of Baptist groups in the American context in his 2005 book, Baptists in America, and recently reflected on the past and future of the movement in The Challenge of Being Baptist: Owning a Scandalous Past and an Uncertain Future (2010).  Leonard, a former Southern Baptist professor who now teaches at Wake Forrest University’s School of Divinity and frequently contributes Opinion columns for the Associated Baptist Press, notably debated/dialoged with Southern Seminary’s Gregory Wills at Union University’s 2006 “Baptists in America Conference: Baptist Ways or Baptist Way?“

Thomas J. Nettles, the elder statesman of Southern Seminary’s Church History stable of professors, has offered detailed critiques of both authors in the March 2012 issue of The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (aka, “JETS,” not to be confused with the football or hockey teams).  His book reviews of Baptists through the Centuries and The Challenge of Being Baptist are thorough treatments, but most notable is his critique of each author’s conclusions regarding “Baptist identity.”

Regarding Leonard, Nettles writes:

As usual, reading a work by Bill Leonard creates frustration and provokes creative thought. He is too narrow in his discussion of Baptist identity (and thus, ironically, too diffuse) and does not recognize the ongoing broad areas of theological agreement that existed among confessional Baptists in spite of their many disagreements. He is too nebulous in his view of the importance of the issue of biblical inspiration and its implications . . . He wants to transport Baptist views of liberty of conscience in society into the church as a principle of doctrinal freedom.
[JETS, March 2012, p.225-26]

Regarding Bebbington, Nettles writes:

In my view, Baptist identity can be stated clearly in terms of historic orthodoxy, Protestant evangelicalism, confessionalism, and a theologically integrated separatist ecclesiology. . . . Bebbington resists that kind of certainty in moving toward an alignment of ideas that constitute Baptist identity. . . .

Some persons and events that have appeared within the circumference of Baptist life, so my view would assert, have taken positions that place them outside that circumference– we should make no attempt to embrace them by changing the idea of what a Baptist is. A person who denies the necessity of the new birth before baptism is not a Baptist; the person who denies the deity of Christ is not a Baptist; the person who prefers subjective personal autonomy over the authority of Scripture is not a Baptist, for he cannot hold a Baptist ecclesiology principally but only as a present tradition of convenience; a person who rejects Christ’s death as a satisfaction for our sin for all who receive him by faith is not a Baptist. Bebbington, not as a theologian, but as a historian, would not endorse the drawing of such lines as warranted by a historical study of Baptist identity. Baptist principles, as few and as broadly conceived as they may be, in Bebbington’s summary, are neither universal among them nor unique to them (p.285). . . . it seems that at the end, [Bebbington] wants the reader to be less certain, rather than more certain, as to what a Baptist is.  What else does “elude definition” mean?
[JETS, March 2012, p.230]

Bebbington, Leonard, and Nettles have each offered forth their own definitions of “Baptist identity,” although their conclusions differ starkly in important key areas.  In my estimation, Bebbington’s attempt to categorize seven neat-and-tidy strands of contemporary Baptists was the low-light of an otherwise insightful and helpful history; pages 265-71 promote a flawed idea that was poorly executed in expression.  And as much as I respect Leonard’s scholarly precision in the art of description, I believe his conclusions on Baptist identity suffer from a pick-and-choose mentality that elevates “liberty of conscience” over all else and misapplies the principle of “separation of church and state” to the denominational level, resulting in a network of churches who are free to teach and practice whatever they desire yet still benefit from the resources of a larger network of churches without a clear doctrinal standard for cooperation.

No one should be surprised that I am most persuaded by the central argument of Nettles that Baptist Identity ought to be defined as theological at its core.   On that point, I am both biased and convicted.  Nevertheless, I cannot go quite so far as Nettles ventures when he asserts that theological liberals have no claim on the Baptist name.  There is a sense in which we have to concede (with a somber heart) that there are strands within the ever-evolving Baptist tradition that may not necessarily be within the “Orthodox” tradition.  Though, in our estimation, these strands may have long since departed from “the faith once for all delivered to the saints,” they nevertheless remain, like the wayward cousins who congregate amongst themselves at the family reunion.

Obviously, theological distinctions ought to limit the bounds of fellowship, and the liberal trajectory inevitably leads the nominally religious to abandon the tradition altogether.  Some notable moderate Baptist denominations (which may not actively champion liberalism yet disdain any resemblance of “creedalism”) have downplayed the significance of fellowship boundaries and have thus underminded the entire notion of theological unity in favor of practical cooperation and some loosely defined notion of “togetherness.”  Theologically confessional Baptist denominations like the Southern Baptist Convention have earned the scorn of a more politically-correct world for placing “exclusive” limitations on fellowship.  Both strands, however, have some historical warrant to make claim on the name of “Baptist,” even if their contemporary faith and practice may have long since departed from the tradition of their forerunners in centuries past.  I affirm with Nettles that there ought to be a theologically firm “Baptist Way,” yet I nevertheless admit that there already are various “Baptist Ways” which exist in our present context.

Bebbington’s conclusion that Baptist identity is “a phenomenon of the flux of history, [which] may elude definition” is a cop-out statement unworthy of a scholar of his ilk, and Nettles was right to contest it.  Bebbington would have been wiser to actually define the issue historically, draw attention to the source material he actually presented in his book, and conclude that “Baptist identity” (much like “beauty”) can be defined in the eye of the beholder.  The earliest Baptists defined their identity in a very particular way, the liberal Baptist advocates of the Social Gospel defined it in a far different way, and today various Baptist groups have diverse (perhaps even contradictory) definitions of what it means to be a Baptist.

The future of the Baptists’ identity will surely be determined by which group of Baptists is able to maintain their most cherished convictions while also reaching out to a world that is increasingly lost and spiritually confused.

“Many say the local Baptist association is dead. It may have once been the bedrock of Baptist cooperation, but why submit yourself to another mind-numbing meeting about irrelevant committees? Let’s pull the plug. It is time to end the misery.

Not so fast! I just left a meeting in which I was developing a plan for a church plant in an area of our county that has no gospel witness. We strategized together about training pastors in the Philippines. We discussed church revitalization in Scotland.

Was this a strategy session with my elders? No, it was a meeting of the Nelson Baptist Association.

You will be forgiven for having a hard time believing me. I have sat through many association meetings over the years. I have been as frustrated as you have been. I have been tempted to throw my hands up in the air and disengage. But I am glad I did not. Here’s why.

HOW WE TURNED AROUND OUR LOCAL ASSOCIATION

The Nelson Baptist Association has forty-three churches from three counties in central Kentucky. I came to this area ten years ago and was struck by the lack of health in many churches. It was messy stuff. There was suspicion, distrust, and theological apathy. Yet the association today is a long way from that. How did this turnaround happen for us so quickly?

1. A group of pastors has committed to each other.

In and through this local Baptist association, a group of pastors have established strong relationships with each other. Pastors are praying, encouraging, exhorting, and, on occasion, rebuking one another. Pastors are fighting alongside each other, not against each other.

2. We recognized the need for change.

Increasingly, there was dissatisfaction with the way things were. Funding was dwindling, attendance at meetings was pitiful, and the association was struggling to come to terms with what its purpose was.

3. We’ve been blessed with renewed leaderships.

Our association has a new Director of Missions who is an energetic, kind-hearted, well-respected man. He is a bridge-builder, but is not afraid to contend for the faith. And he is willing to come alongside pastors and invite them to be a part of the process of change.”

Associations have been important in Baptist life for centuries. I remember reading through the minutes of the Georgia Baptist Association led by Jessie Mercer for my Baptist History class at Southern Seminary. I grew up in Charleston South Carolina, home of the historic Charleston Baptist Association. I applaud Matthew’s vision and the work of the Nelson Baptist Association. I would like to think that Baptist Associations are not dead, but imagine the answer to that question depends on our efforts.

“Roberts asked the president if First Lady Michelle Obama was involved in this decision [to embrace gay marriage]. Obama said she was, and he talked specifically about his own faith in responding.’This is something that, you know, we’ve talked about over the years and she, you know, she feels the same way, she feels the same way that I do. And that is that, in the end the values that I care most deeply about and she cares most deeply about is how we treat other people and, you know, I, you know, we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. ‘”

I gotta agree with this, though: “And I’m like: What version of the Bible is he reading? It’s not the King James version. It’s not the New American Standard. It’s not the New Revised version. I don’t know what version he is getting it from.”

Grimshaw was Perpetual Curate of Haworth, Yorkshire in the mid-eighteenth century.  He was friends and co-laborers with the men of his day who are more well known to history, men like George Whitefield, John Newton, and John Wesley.  Despite his friendship with Wesley, their ministry together, and their joint sufferings for the Gospel in that they were once assaulted together by a drunken mob at Colne, it is clear enough that he did not share Wesley’s views on perfection.  In one of his letters, Grimshaw states his doctrine of perfection as follows:

My perfection is to see my own imperfection; my comfort, to feel that I have the world, flesh, and devil to overthrow through the Spirit and merits of my dear Saviour; and my desire and hope is to love God with all my heart, mind, soul, and strength, to the last gasp of life.  This is my perfection.  I know no other, expecting to lay down my life and my sword together.

- Cited by J. C. Ryle, The Christian Leaders of the Last Century, first published 1868, reprint (Moscow, ID: Charles Nolan, 2002), 120.

Winters writes,

From his exposition of the text, Manly concluded that everyone ought to consider themselves as “strangers and pilgrims in the Earth,” a consideration that offers distinct advantages for heavenly thinking. Considering oneself a stranger in the world does not call the Christian to a monkish seclusion but rather promotes “the interests of piety in our souls.” It promotes piety in the soul because it “implies a practical belief in the immortality of the soul and a future state hereafter”; indeed, earthly pilgrims recognize that the home of their soul lies beyond this present existence. Living with a pilgrim mentality gives us an awareness of “our perishing condition, and of the unstable unsatisfactory nature of all earthly things as to live in continual expectation of departure.”

Some additional advantages of considering oneself a stranger in the world are that it will impart a sense of “watchfulness and preparation for this wondrous journey to the skies,” “wean us from the love of the world,” assist us in bearing “the ills of life,” encourage “spirituality and devotion,” and will “prepare us to meet death quietly, when he comes.” To the Christian, death itself should be “no stranger to his thoughts.”

You can download the article in Southern Seminary’s publication, The Towers, May 2012 edition, here.

Here’s the publisher’s description:

“An Honest and Well-Experienced Heart” introduces us to the life and writings of Puritan preacher and author John Flavel (1627–1691). In his brief, introductory biography, Adam Embry discusses Flavel’s background, ministry, and theology of keeping the heart, which, for Flavel, “is the great business of a Christian’s life.” Centuries ago, Flavel wrote, “Above all other studies in the world, study your own hearts.” Embry guides us through forty-two short passages from Flavel’s writings that acquaint us with this dedicated Puritan minister’s piety and help us see the importance of this great business of keeping and managing our hearts.

I really need a book like this. It’s my hope that you’ll get it, and let the power of Jesus’ love and the seriousness of sin impact your life so that you love Jesus more and guard your heart from sin.

Watch it, then think: what if I just have a love of theory as it pertains to theology? What if you just love to think about theology but never practice it?

You can read the article here.

Here are some pictures of Southern’s campus throughout the years.

Greenville, South Carolina Location

Downtown Louisville Campus

Welcome Center, Today

Frederick Law Olmsted

Dr. O.S. Hawkins

Having done a Bachelor’s in Business Administration, Hawkins is now the President of GuideStone Financial Services, an organization that services retirement and benefit services for ministers. My Google search gave me some surprising information:

“GuideStone Funds has been honored with one of the most prestigious awards in the financial world for mutual fund families with up to $40 billion in assets — the 2012 Lipper Award for Best Overall Small Fund Group in the U.S., ranking No. 1 out of 182 eligible companies. The award is based on consistent risk-adjusted returns.

‘The Lipper Award for Best Overall Small Fund Group recognizes a standard of excellence that we pursue every day as we seek to honor the Lord and enable our faithful participants to invest according to their Biblical principles,’ said O.S. Hawkins, president and chief executive officer of GuideStone Financial Resources.

GuideStone Funds has achieved its leading level of excellence through its sophisticated, proprietary manager-of-managers investment platform that leverages what GuideStone believes to be the best possible intellectual capital worldwide. The 27 funds in the GuideStone Fund group are managed by more than 20 professionals dedicated to our investment process and committed to GuideStone’s Christian-based, social screening guidelines.”