Appreciating Church History as a Baptist (Part One)

There are those who might say that being a Baptist and being a lover of Church history is a contradiction. Perhaps the most famous to say this, in essence, was John Henry Newman (1801-1890) when he stated “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” Obviously this observation is autobiographical for Newman (having switched from Protestant to Roman Catholic after years of reflection) but says essentially nothing about others’ experiences.

But as a Baptist, I will admit that there does seem to be an aversion to studying church history. Let me give a few quick examples.

Decades ago, i went into Lifeway Bookstore (a Southern Baptist book provider back when they still had brick and mortar shops). I was young in my interest in church history. While looking through walls of books on discipleship, missions, Bible studies, Christian self-help, and the like, I was surprised and pleased to see “Ecclesiastical History” by Eusebius of Antioch. I quickly brought it up to the cashier. The man there said to me, “Oh, I’m so happy you got that book. My manager did not want it to be on the shelf, but I lobbied for it to be there. I feel vindicated.” I have a fear that if I had not walked into that store, it would have been the manager who had the last laugh.I teach Missions history on occasion. It is a fun course, for me anyway. I require my MDiv students to do historical research on a missionary from history. The first time I did this, I was wise enough to tell my students that they must write on a missionary who is already dead. (I once had a student who tried to do a historical study of an organization that formed in 2022.) Unfortunately, I made a mistake in not putting limits at the other end. I ended up having 1/4 of my students choosing Paul of Tarsus. The following year I added the limitation that it could not be a missionary whose name appears in the Bible. For my doctoral students, I give a list of missionaries they can choose from— none of whom any of them are likely to have heard of and none of them Baptist. Baptist seminarians will go to great lengths (seemingly) to avoid learning about church history. (It is only fair to note that this story may not demonstrate a lack of interest in history, but rather a general student desire to do as little work as possible.)In Church History class, I recall the three main “theories” of the formation of the Baptist movement/tradition. The three were “Formed out of the Anabaptist movement,” “Formed out of the Separatists from the Church of England,” and the “Trail of Blood Theory.” Looking at church history, one finds clear evidence of the Separatist roots for Baptists. One can also find early interaction with Anabaptists suggesting some role as well. The Trail of Blood theory, that Baptists go back throughout history… back to the “First Baptist Church of Jerusalem,” is thoroughly without basis. I have heard people, with straight face, claim John the Baptist as the founder of the Baptists. (Of course Baptists are not alone in this— Pentecostals Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses among others have also gone through amazing mental gymnastics to see their faith or tradition going back to the primitive church.)Among Southern Baptists, I have heard entertaining arguments as to why the Southern branch broke away from the Northern branch. These arguments either deny slavery being the reason, or allowing it as a minor reason among many. This is despite the fact that the resulting convention only differed significantly from the North in its view of slavery. Some Baptists (and other groups of a similar bent) often may go the opposite direction from the “Trail of Blood” theory and embrace a Restorationist perspective. I am using that term in this case to mean that many think that the early church was simply awesome (and essentially Baptist) but then corruption came into the church as it slowly decayed… only to be given new life (restored) through the Protestant Reformation, Pietism, and growth of the Baptist tradition. This is simply a viewpoint regarding what is good or bad (as such is immune from challenge regarding historical accuracy) but in practice it gives justification for ignoring several hundred years of church history. Years ago, I found a Chick Tract decrying Roman Catholicism. Chick Tracts were super-mini comic books. This one was not so much written to get people to leave the Roman Catholic church, but rather to make Protestant (particularly Fundamentalist or Conservative Evangelical) Christians feel good about not being RC. Even when I was young I saw the problem with the tract. It made outlandish claims and some mildly negative claims. The mildly negative claims were pretty well–known in some circles and were footnoted. The wildly outlandish claims… shockingly no footnotes at all. It was far worse in its historical analysis of the Church than “The DaVinci Code.” As a young Christian in a Baptist church, I recall hearing about Charles Spurgeon, William Carey, John Bunyan, and perhaps Roger Williams, as Baptists before the 20th century, but I don’t rememberr hearing how they related to church history, or even their place in Baptist history. They were simply men of renown who happened to be Baptists. Okay, one more. A few years ago, I was in a bit of a religious discussion on Facebook (back when I would have discussions on FB). In my arguing a point, I brought up a passage from “The Didache” (or The Teachings of the Apostles). The immediate response was “Is that in the Bible?” Of course The Didache is not in the Bible, and the responder knew that. However, it is perhaps the oldest non-canonical Christian document we have today. As such, it is incredibly valuable to gain insight as to what the earliest Christians understood about God, the Church, and the Faith. Quoting from The Didache is far more relevant than quoting from John Piper, or R.C. Sproul, or any of the book writers being bandied about. Unfortunately among Protestants the distaste for the Catholic and Orthodox seeming over-reliance on church councils, creeds, and saints has often turned “Scripture First” into “Scripture Only.” (Yes I know that the early Reformers would say Scripture Only, but it was clear that they were really giving Scripture highest place, not only place in their faith and practice.)

I could go on, but I hope the point is made that Baptists, as a whole, either ignore church history, or embrace a form of history that is not particularly historical. But does this have to be this way?

“Gospel Simplicity” is a YouTube Channel that seeks to look at doctrine and history of Christianity without polemics and conflict. The host is a Protestant, but has noted that many Protestants have watched his videos and have decided to become Roman Catholic or (it seems more commonly) Eastern Orthodox. History appears to be a big issue for some. Much of Church History was dominated by the 5 ancient churches (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Abyssinian, Coptic, and Amenian), not counting the ones that were seen to be outside the fold of “orthodoxy” such as Jacobite or Nestorian Christians. How can we as Protestants or Baptists feel good about our relationship with God if we seem to take a 90 degree turn off the stream(s) of church history?

I will explore this in my next post… which will hopefully be done tomorrow.