In this GQ thread, Shagnasty posted this link, which claims that, despite all evidence to the contrary, churches of the Baptist persuasion are not properly termed “Protestant.” I’ve heard this assertion before, and it never made any sense to me.
The crux of the author’s argument seems to be that Baptists claim the spiritual legacy of various pre-Reformation non-RC confessions that all had similar doctrines, eg:
This sounds like a load to me; weren’t the Albigensians basically Jesusified Zoroastrians? And the author basically hand-waves away the fact that what we today call “Baptism” arose from a stew of Calvinism and Puritanism in the mid-16th century.
It’s no skin off my nose if a Baptist doesn’t want to be called a Protestant, but it seems to be contrary to the historical record. But I’ll be the first to admit that I’m a bit fuzzy on the details since my European History AP’s, and I’m willing to be persuaded.
Historically, modern Baptists are spiritually descended from the sepratist, “gathered church” congregationalist movements that were part of the Calvist Reformed tradition in 17th century Britain, the same way that the Congregationalists and Quakers are, for example.
However, some Baptists in the Landmarkian tradition disagree with this, and the reason is more theological than historical. The logic goes like this.
Jesus promised his followers that Christianity would always exist; that “I will be with you until the end of time”.
However, if you casually look at history, this doesn’t seem to have happened. After Constantine, the true christians seem to have disappeared, and the history of the Middle Ages shows the evil, pagan, demonic Catholic Church (and the equally evil, pagan, demonic Orthodox Church) to be the only game in town. True bible believing Christianity seems to have died.
Ah, says the Landmarkian, not so fast! Throughout the middle ages, there were regular outbreaks of what the Catholic church called “heresy”. Obviously, these heretics were part of the true Christian chuch, forced to go into hiding when Constantine corrupted Christianity and turned it into paganism. Every so often, some of these bible believers would be found and suppressed, and the Catholic church, to hide what they were really doing, would accuse them of weird heresies.
So, in the 17th century, when the Baptists started up, that was just the actual church, founded by Jesus, able to come out of hiding. So it’s not “Protestant”, because unlike Lutheranism and Calvinism, which were founded to protest the Catholics (and who are just as bad as they are), Baptists are part of the true Christian Church, founded by God.
Any Baptists who actually knows history may well see Waldensians & other such groups as predecessors, but they’ll shy away from Montanists (being a charismatic & “prophet”-led movement) and flee outright from the A_B_C heresies (Albigensians, Bogomils, Cathars- which all seem to be the same thing in different regions).
IANA Baptist, but I could see a Baptist differentiated that tradition from the Protestant Reformation by noting that their Anabaptist predecessors were greatly at odds with the Calvinist & Lutheran Reformers. The C&L Reformers seeing the AnaBs as dangerous radicals, the AnaBs seeing the C&L’s as sell-outs who wouldn’t reform enough.
I was raised on Miller’s Church History in which the author traces what he calls “the silver line” of succession of the “true church” from the 1st century to the 19th century. He also makes the theological assumption that this “true church” has always been around in some form or another through the ages. This would be similar to Baptist successionism, although the author is not a Baptist; he’s just anti-Catholic.
Shame on you BrainGlutton! There is nothing “silly” or incorrect about dialect. That is the way it is most often pronounced in the South. (See Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition). Isn’t that where most Baptist churches are located?
I am about five miles from the Center for all Southern Baptists. Come to visit and I’ll take you there so that you can tell them how silly they are to pronounce it that way. Then I’ll take you to a jazz club so that your teeth can unclench.
I don’t care. Say “Baptist.” Now say “Babtist.” The latter just sounds silly by comparison. You wouldn’t expect the substitution of a single voiced consonant for an unvoiced consonant would make that much difference, but that’s how it is.
Why do African-Americans object so strongly to the word “nigger”? For historical and cultural reasons mainly, but also, I have no doubt, because “nigger” just sounds nasty and disparaging and dismissive. Say “bigger,” “chigger,” “digger.” Completely innocuous. Now say “nigger.” Owing to a curious confluence of phonetic factors, it’s a word you can hardly say at all without sneering. Which is not true of “negro.”
“Baptist” instead of “Babtist” sounds strange to my ears.
And Southerners have trouble with the word negro too. We used to say negra. And that’s not as pretty as negro which sounds noble. But it just doesn’t come natural to our dialects. Of course, I wouldn’t use either now.
I wouldn’t have dreamed that a denomination as loosely organized as the Southern Babtists had a definable geographical center. Where is this place, if I may ask? I’ll have to ask my wife (Southern Baptist born, raised, and dunked), when she wakes up, if she knows what you’re referring to.
I’m perfectly fine with their pronouncing ‘Baptist’ any way they want. It’s their denomination, after all. But I sure wish they’d be kinder to ‘Jesus.’ “For the love of Christ,” I want to say, “quit mangling His name!” I’d be perfectly happy to go the rest of my life without hearing a preacher talk about Geeeeeezus.
So the silver thread is the Baptist version of a Wiccan’s claim that there was a line of succession kept alive, underground, back through the Burning Times. That’s kind of comforting. Either that or I’m easily amused.
Hey, some Baptists are playing with “Celtic Christianity.” Of course, archaeology, linguistics & physical anthropology (especially DNA testing) are redefining the definition of “Celtic.”
These sound like nice services, with positive values. But, back in the “Dark Ages,” the people of the British Isles did not call themselves Celts. Old-time Irish Christianity–as taught in The Other Island–despite some differences in doctrine, was definitely Catholic.
This reminds me of a “Tales from Lake Wobegon” episode in which Garrison Keillor described the “Sanctified Brethren” in which he was raised. (Fictional, but based on his actual natal church, the Plymouth Brethren.) From memory:
Actually, it reminds me even more of some Chick tracts I’ve read.
There are Wiccans out there who don’t buy into the whole Burning Times thing either, except as a myth, and insist (I agree with them, though I’m not Wiccan) that their religion dates from the 1950s. I’ve seen some interesting online fights about it.
It’s not a geographic center. It is their organizational center. The building itself (and the denomination also) are called The Southern Baptist Convention. It’s in Brentwood, Tennessee.
Many denominations are run almost like businesses or corporations. I assume the Baptist Sunday School Board is still separate from this. For many years the Baptist Sunday School Board (a publishing house) was located within easy walking distance of the United Methodist Publishing House in Nashville. They published all of the materials for Baptists and Methodists. That may still be true.
I do know what you mean about Southern Baptists be loosely organized. I believe each church is independent.
I was raised Baptist (but not Southern Baptist) - I never heard anyone claim that we weren’t Protestant. Of course, I never heard anyone ever say anything much about church history at all - I don’t think it existed before our congregation was founded in the 1960’s.
had a definable geographical center. Where is this place, if I may ask? I’ll have to ask my wife (Southern Baptist born, raised, and dunked), when she wakes up, if she knows what you’re referring to.