New Voice Media | Associated Baptist Press
     
 
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Home arrow Opinion arrow Opinion: With globalism, what are Baptists’ new frontiers?
 
Opinion: With globalism, what are Baptists’ new frontiers? Print E-mail
By Bill Leonard   
Wednesday, October 07, 2009

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the second of four essays by Baptist historians and thinkers all dealing with the theme, “History Speaks to Hard Questions Baptists Ask,” that will be published by Associated Baptist Press on each of the next four Wednesdays. The essays are reprinted from a series of 24 articles written for the Baptist History and Heritage Society to commemorate this year’s 400th anniversary of the founding of the Baptist tradition. ABP invited a panel to select the top four in the series. All of the essays in the series are available on the BHHS website. Because the articles were produced by free-thinking Baptists, the BHHS staff and board may or may not agree with their content.

(ABP) -- Baptist globalism is nothing new. It began when William Carey and his family landed in India in 1793, sent by the Baptist Missionary Society.

For the first time in its almost 200-year history, the insular Baptist movement took the gospel outside Britain and North America. In a sense, the technology of travel paved the way for a global identity and a change in the prevailing Calvinism of the day. The movement spread, and the formation of the Baptist World Alliance in 1905 was clear evidence of Baptists’ global identity.

By the late 20th and early 21st centuries, however, a new globalism took shape, impacting Baptists and everyone else. It was evident in worldwide economics; the Internet; increased international travel; cell phones; the fall of the Soviet Union; the rise of the European Union; and the industrialization of countries such as China, India, Vietnam and Brazil. For Christians, short-term missionary experience, enhanced by air travel, sent people onto “foreign fields” where they had never been before, linking local congregations in “partnerships” alongside or outside older denominational connections.

Likewise, Christians in many of the so-called “mission fields” have become the missionizers, sending a new generation of “witnesses” around the globe. Thus, as denominational resources decline and organizational systems redefine themselves, new international networks of churches and individuals are taking shape in ways that influence Baptist theology and practice.

This new globalism is important for several reasons:

● It forces Baptists to recognize their theological and practical diversity as never before. For example, what similarities and differences do Baptists in Japan share with Baptists in Africa or North America? How is Baptist identity shaped by its minority status in most countries of the world? (The United States is the exception.)

● Globalism compels Baptists to confront religious pluralism as never before, revisiting their earliest views on religious liberty and the role of conscience and uncoerced faith.

● A burgeoning non-denominationalism worldwide requires Baptists to reexamine their own historic identity in new and immediate ways. What does it mean to be Baptist in a world where “brand-name” religion is often increasingly minimized, overlooked or completely dismissed?

● How can Baptists assert the uniqueness of their commitment to Jesus Christ and their own approach to Scripture and tradition while developing honest and respectful ecumenical and interfaith dialogue, an essential element of the new globalism?

● Will the current global economic crisis turn around soon, or will it deepen? If it deepens, Baptists like other churches and communities will face rising need amid declining ministry support. In fact, economic realities may force Baptists to rethink the way they “do church,” utilize facilities, organize for mission, and respond to human need.

Given those realities, how might Baptist history and tradition inform the new globalism? A few brief suggestions must suffice.

First, the Baptist commitment to congregational autonomy and localism means that Baptist churches may attract people who are drawn to particular faith communities even if they are wary of national or global denominational or churchly affiliations. Local congregations are free to pursue ministry in ways that engage persons in ministry before they ever look at the name on the door.

Second, Baptists’ historic views on the nature of religious freedom are as insightful now as when first articulated in the 17th century. Indeed, the early Baptists conceived a response to pluralism that allowed for unashamed assertion of their Christian convictions while affirming radical religious liberty for the heretic and atheist alike.

Third, early Baptists’ concern to balance individual faith with churchly community opens the door to new global partnerships between groups of Baptists who wish to do ministry together, even when they do not agree on what it means to be Baptist!

Finally, the historic emphasis on the partnership of clergy and laity in common ministry should shape Baptist concern for “voice” and vocation worldwide. Voice means that all Baptists must speak from their consciences and demand the right to present the gospel as they perceive it, even when differences occur. Vocation means that the church is called to help all people -- male and female, old and young, clergy and laity -- discover their calling, the source of their identity in the world. For Baptists that sense of identity and service is grounded in Jesus Christ, a calling that turns us outward on the needs of the globe, not inward on ourselves. Jesus personified such a vision. At their best, Baptists must mirror that calling in the world, whatever century they may occupy.

-30-

Bill J. Leonard is dean and professor of church history at The School of Divinity of Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C.

 

EDITORIAL DISCLAIMER: As part of our mission to provide credible and compelling information about matters of faith, Associated Baptist Press actively seeks a diversity of viewpoints in its columns, commentaries and other opinion-based content. Opinions expressed in these articles are not intended to represent ABP editorial policy and do not necessarily reflect the views of ABP’s staff, board of directors or supporters.

 





Reddit!Del.icio.us!Google!Live!Facebook!Slashdot!Technorati!StumbleUpon!Spurl!Newsvine!Blinklist!Furl!Fark!Yahoo!Ma.gnolia!Free social bookmarking plugins and extensions for Joomla! websites!
Comments (10)Add Comment
...
written by pjerwin, October 08, 2009
Bill Leonard wrote:
For the first time in its almost 200-year history, the insular Baptist movement took the gospel outside Britain and North America.
So, forget all about Baptist beginnings in Amsterdam, not Britain or America, and its closely related Anabaptist precursors in Germany, Switzerland, and France. And forget the natural and historical reasons it was "insular" for almost 200 years. English Separatists were influenced by Anabaptists, that is to say, what would become defining core beliefs came from outside Britain and America. Those ideas had to be brought into Britain and America and be cultivated there for a time before they could, in due time, move out again.

As usual, Leonard lays aside the undenialble historical Baptist faith and practice based on biblical truth, preferring instead to mischaracterize it as emphasizing speaking "from their conscience," rather than speaking from Scripture, and presenting the Gospel, not as Scripture presents it, but "as they perceive it." He seems to think that saying it is "grounded in Jesus Christ" mitigates the issue, but the historical Baptist understanding of Jesus Christ is grounded in Scripture. This is the lesson the Anglican Communion is having to come to grips with in this "new globalism" as they discover that global Christianity is far more conservative and biblically grounded than the western mainlines.
...
written by ABP Reader, October 08, 2009
As usual, Leonard seeks to avoid tendentious historical citation or biased revisionism in search of what it means to be Baptist. Still, Leonard's piece and pjerwin's comment are only opinions. In my opinion, Leonard's extensive published research on Baptist history lends considerable credibility to his opinion over against that of pjerwin's opinions about "historical Baptist faith and practice."

If being "grounded in Jesus Christ" and his body is a problem, then hopefully I have serious and long-term problems.
sneaky leftist needling?
written by Xenophon, October 08, 2009
Dr. Leonard sez: "Globalism compels Baptists to confront religious pluralism as never before, revisiting their earliest views on religious liberty and the role of conscience and uncoerced faith."

Reading between the lines here, I suspect that Dr. Leonard is trying to prick the conscience of conservative Christians in America to embrace a leftist view of state-church separation and cultural Christianity. The thinking here seems to be something like the following: Surely Baptists or any Christians would like to see Hindu or Muslim or whatever other religion lose their place of preeminence in other countries, so to be fair, we should seek the lessen the influence of Protestant Christianity in the United States. Am I in the ballpark of understanding this apparent jab?

I would respond to this plea for equality and fairness by saying that it is highly unlikely that, say, India will ensconce Christian symbols or proclamations in their official state buildings or activities anytime soon. India is a Hindu country and culture. Eighty percent of Indians are Hindu. There is a sizable Muslim population in parts of the country. Other religions are present but in relatively small numbers. So, what should India do in these sticky matters concerning civic religion that so engage us Americans? Should they ban all public demonstrations or acknowledgment of their Hindu heritage? Should they take active steps to lessen the influence of the Hindu majority even if Christians' or Sikhs' rights are not violated so that we Christians along with everyone else feels "included"? Should they take up the Napoleonic Code and read more Denis Diderot so that they can become "neutral" in their public policies relating to religion? No matter what the authorities do in India, they will be acting from a particular metaphysical, religious point of view. There is no way to avoid imposing some alien ideology on them if the governmental authorities actively intervene in order to do any of the proposals I have just suggested. Whatever they might do to move in the direction of the French model, they would be subverting the freedom of Hindus to shape their society as they see fit. I would argue that any intervention by the state beyond protecting their people's basic rights would be unjust.

So, what would I like to see in non-Christian countries in regard to their Christian minorities? I would hope that non-Christian, non-Western governments and people would treat them as legal equals so that Christians' lives and property are not taken from them unjustly or even threatened to be taken from them. I would also hope to see their freedom of speech and association be protected so that they can worship freely and proselytize freely. That is it. If Christians have to endure non-Christian symbols on prominent display, hear proclamations to Allah or Vishnu, or have festivals going on right outside their houses parading down the public streets that they find offensive, that is part of living in a non-Christian culture. Those people who form the dominant social order have their rights and their freedoms, too, and we should respect their culture.

What Christians in non-Christian countries need to do is pray, witness, and live exemplary lives in the hope of winning their fellow countrymen to Christ. We in America should assist them in any way that we can. Then and only then can Christians expect the culture to change from the bottom up.
...
written by pjerwin, October 08, 2009
ABP Reader wrote:
Leonard's extensive published research on Baptist history lends considerable credibility to his opinion over against that of pjerwin's opinions about "historical Baptist faith and practice."
That's a good illustration of the liberal hermeneutic. Don't let those pesky historical facts get in the way and ignore the ramifications of current events when they don't wok for you.

Don't take either Leonard's or my word for it, do the research yourself using primary resources -- that's what Dr. E. Glenn Hinson taught us in Church History class, lo those many years ago at SBTS. For an unbiased look at background on historical Baptist thought, you could start with Smythe and Helwys themselves from the early turn of the 17th century. Try Smythe's own "Short Confession of Faith in XX Articles" written about 1609, Helwys' 1610 "A Short Confession," "Propositions and Conclusions Concerning True Christian Religion" written by Smythe's followers about 1612-1614 after his death. There's ample non-tendentious primary evidence from the remainder of that century in the form of a variety of Baptist confessions and declarations. Trace their thought through the next two centuries, in fact, and you'll discover a remarkable coherence. Theological peculiarities based not on being "grounded in Christ," but on seeking fidelity to Scripture, led them to eventually move in the various directions we knnow as the wide body of Baptists.

As regards the lessons of the Anglican Communion in current events, I would point to the rupture being experienced as more and more Episcopal (American Anglican) congregations affliate with other more conservative global bodies, especially those in Africa, over many of the same issues being dealt with by Baptists. In the context of global Christianity, Baptist ignore this to their own detriment.
...
written by pjerwin, October 08, 2009
Being grounded in Jesus Christ is not a problem at all, just the opposite. The question is whether it's a Christ of our own imaginations or the Christ of the Bible, as Baptists have historically -- at least prior to the 20th century -- been grounded.
...
written by ABP Reader, October 08, 2009
I'm glad pjerwin has reminded Baptists of just a few of the documents from the earliest decades of the movement. Having read fairly widely in the early Baptist literature myself, I'm well aware of the widespread diversity and commonality of the period. Funny, though, how the coherence you speak of, pjerwin, so quickly resulted in splits and factions over what the text of scripture might mean. Smyth and Helwys remained theological friends for how long? The earliest Baptists fought continuously over what the text means. Baptists still do.

While pjerwin might like to make and enforce the rules (or argue that he's/she's identified the rules) by which other Baptists should read the Bible and try to figure out what it means, thankfully he or she doesn't get to do so. That's one of the things about the Baptist heritage I like.
...
written by ABP Reader, October 08, 2009
By the way, pjerwin, would you mind letting the rest of us know who the "Christ of the Bible" really is since you are apparently free of all bias, imagination, and agenda? And, if I don't reach the same conclusion as you, please be patient with my biased, imaginative, and agenda-laden attempt to make sense of the Christian scriptures.
...
written by pjerwin, October 09, 2009
Okay, let's break this down a little. Let's just consider the idea of globalism and Leonard's observation:
For the first time in its almost 200-year history, the insular Baptist movement took the gospel outside Britain and North America
Do you agree that the Baptist movement, as such, came to England from outside of England? If so, what does that say about historical globalism and Baptists, considering that it then spread from England to America? Do you agree that Leonard's use of the word "insular" is intended to draw attention to a negative aspect of the English and American Baptist life of that time? Is insularity really what that was about or was something else happening? What's your understanding/opinion?
...
written by ABP Reader, October 14, 2009
If you want to count English Separatists who went to Amsterdam, baptized themselves, and then returned to England as an international movement, then so be it. I would hardly call that global.

I wouldn't presume to know why Leonard employed insular. It is clear that Baptists were not itching to take the gospel to the rest of the world or else Carey's now-famous sermon may have needed a different title. Still, I don't mind the "insular" term here because it seems to carry the idea that Baptists began to think more globably 200 or so years into their existence. That is an acceptable use of the term in my opinion.
...
written by Opie2334, October 14, 2009
Doesn't the issue concerning the "internationality" of Baptist origins have more to do with the "Anabaptist precursors" in Germany and Switzerland that pjerwin speaks of in the first comment? Obviously Helwys and Smyth are British; but what influenced them? Were there properly-termed "proto-baptists"?

Either way, this seems to miss the main bulk of Leonard's article, which I took to be the four points at the end of the article. It seems to me that these are valid regardless of how one feels about the word "insular."

Readers alone are responsible for the content of the comments they post here. The comments are subject to the site’s terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the ABP News. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.
Write comment
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
busy
 
< Prev   Next >
Copyright © 2007-2010 Associated Baptist Press, All Rights Reserved.