If all the Christian denominations (I use the term for lack of another) were to be written down on cards and arranged taxonomically, where would the Baptists go? In a recent interview I heard the phrase “schismatic Protestants” applied to Baptists, and it has me thinking. First, I suspect that many baptists would be more offended at being called a Protestant than at being described as schismatic. Schisma (the Greek word for “division” found in 1 Corinthians 1:10, 11:18, 12:25) is not a word that evokes a passionate spirit of vindication in the heart of a baptist.
If there is a polar opposite end of Christendom from the Baptists, it would be Roman Catholics (Eastern Orthodoxy could be included as well, but as Baptists come from the Western side of Christendom they clashed with Roman Catholicism more than Eastern Orthodoxy). For Roman Catholicism, Jesus’ high priestly prayer that His disciples would be “one” (John 17:21-23) must be fulfilled institutionally, and therefore there can only be one valid institution. Schism is an existential threat, and while individuals may lapse with relatively little danger, schism represents a threat to the institution. The RC claim to be the true church means that an institutional unity is required and that anyone who challenges that unity – which actually is an assault upon the Establishment authority – are schismatic and probably heretics.
Thus, Roman Catholicism is offended – in the true sense of that word – by institutional divisions (schisms) such as “The Great Schism” which took place in 1054, in which the Western Church and Eastern Church were rent apart by the mutual excommunications of Pope Leo IX (Rome and the Western World) and Patriarch Michael Cerularius (Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire of the East), as well as by the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century.
The description of Baptists as “schismatic protestants” came to my ears in an interview conducted by Richard Ackernman, aka Redeemed Zoomer, who has engaged in a project entitled Reconquista (or Operation Reformation). According to Ackerman, only the mainline denominations springing from the Reformation are legitimate and all other denominations are schismatic. His goal is to have believers re-integrate into mainline denominations and reconquer the liberal theology that has taken them captive.
This whole category of thought sparked a lot of internal thoughts as I had never really considered whether or not Baptists are schismatic, and what in the world it means to be schismatic. If you are a Baptist reading this, you may feel as though this whole topic is interesting but unrelated to you. It’s like Star Wars – the fighting is enjoyable but it takes place in a galaxy far far away. In what follows, I am going to dive into that topic because I do think it is relevant to how we (Baptists) perceive ourselves as part of the Body of Christ, and then I am going to make a recommendation that I don’t think everyone will appreciate.
On Unity and Schism
Unity of believers was not only a high priority for Jesus (John 17:20-23), but also for the apostles (1 Corinthians 12:25). As I read about the early history of the church through the first few centuries, I can certainly imagine myself striving for that kind of unity. I can imagine myself supporting the early ecumenical councils. In light of the terrible opposition posed by paganism and political persecution, sticking together would have been not only a theological goal, but also a pragmatic necessity. I believe that all Christians share in the accomplishments of those first few centuries, such as the ecumenical creeds (Apostles, Nicene, Chalcedon) and the formalization of the canon of Scripture. I don’t believe these belong exclusively to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. I believe that all Christians may lay claim to these as part of the history of God’s people in the Age of Grace.
During this time, the bishops of 5 great cities – Antioch, Jerusalem, Rome, Constantinople, and Alexandria – were highly respected and influential over all churches. But by the time Emperor Justinian I formally organized them as the governing body of the universal church, things were starting to get wonky. Power would vacillate between Church and State (or Emperor and Pope). The confusion between the civil and the ecclesiological would be further complicated by the Islamic capture of Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople, leaving only Rome and Constantinople to fight between themselves over power. A fight that eventually led to the Great Schism of 1054.
At some point the desire for institutional unity began to look like Empire building, and I can imagine myself starting to think “maybe this isn’t what Jesus meant when he prayed for unity”. Following the Great Schism of 1054, the Western Church was ruled by Rome and the Papacy, but there were problems. Centuries before the Reformation formally kicked off there were already groups like Waldensians, Hussites, and Lollards (followers of John Wycliffe) who were critical of what the Western Church had become. But when the Reformation “formally” kicked off in 1517, there really was a schism. Or schisms. Out of the reformers we can identity Lutherans, Magisterial Protestants, and Radicals. Today, Roman Catholics make up about half of all Christians globally, while Protestants make up between 35-40%.
For the Roman Catholic, the sheer number of Protestant denominations is abhorrent and evidence of their own superiority. From their perspective, the infallible Word requires an infallible interpretation in order to be of any good, and if every Protestant denomination interprets the Word differently, how can any one denomination claim to have the Truth? This is contrasted with the church at Rome, where interpretation lies with councils and the Magisterium.
Perhaps because I prefer nations to Empires, I don’t think that institutional unity is necessary in order for Christ’s prayer for unity to come to pass. It seems to me that a global Ecclesiological institution (such as Roman Catholicism) is just as undesirable as a global civil government. Therefore, I reject the Roman Catholic charge of schism outright, and I think the unity that Christians should work towards is primarily spiritual, and secondarily institutional. Since we haven’t gotten the first part of that worked out yet, we certainly aren’t going to achieve the next step.
Examining the Charge
Let us begin with the charge of being a Protestant. As a matter of taxonomy, I am fine with being called a Protestant. There is a sect among us called Landmark Baptists that make the claim that there has been an uninterrupted line of Baptists all the way back to the time of the apostles, and this has been expressed in a book called Trail of Blood. I find Landmarkism to make the same error made by Roman Catholicism, just in favor of the Baptists. I don’t find the theological or historical evidence for this viewpoint to be compelling, but I do agree that many of the proto-Reformers (such as the Waldensians) were more baptistic than the mainline Protestant denominations of today. A baptist genealogy would have to entail expert and specific definitions of historical succession from very limited historical data which exceeds my abilities.
One reason I am comfortable being grouped with the Protestants is that Baptist theology is rooted in a sola scriptura mindset. If there were pre-Reformation – even ancient – challenges to the hegemony of the Western church, they did not originate in a historical succession but in a rediscovery of the Scriptures. The teachings of Peter Waldo (to take an example of a proto-Reformer) came from the same source as Martin Luther’s: the Word of God. So one could either say that every attempt at reformation/revival that challenged the authority of Roman Catholicism was baptistic, or you could say that Baptists took up the sola scriptura challenge as all previous attempts at reformation had done. I don’t think it matters which view you take of that, and therefore I don’t mind being lumped in with other reformers who also arrived at their theology by returning to the Scriptures.
What of the charge of being schismatic? The charge of schism has such little effect against Baptists because our ecclesiology teaches that there is no God-ordained institution above or beyond the local church. For the Baptist, to speak of schism is to be speaking of the unity of a single, local church (such as the church at Corinth), not of the body of Christ writ large around the world. The problems at Corinth had to be resolved for the sake of institutional unity, but that institution was the local church.
To apply that same reasoning to the universal church is, in my opinion, to ask for the impossible. One could imagine maintaining a kind of institutional unity at the denominational level, but beyond that seems impractical. What happens when nations go to war? What happens when geographical and political distances result in local congregations evolving distinct traditions and liturgy from one another (such as happened between the Roman and Byzantine Empires)? We live in a time of unprecedented communication, and yet even now I maintain that there is a certain amount of conceit in thinking that an administrative body in some random city – lets say Brussels – would know how to direct the course of the church in Egypt.
I believe that institutional unity is required at the local church level. If you are a member of a Protestant denomination, I believe unity is required there as well. Beyond that, I do not believe that a lack of institutional unity is, in and of itself, sinfully schismatic. But is there a kind of unity outside of institutional unity? I say do say yes to that. I think it is possible to be “spiritually” schismatic in a sinful way.
By “spiritually schismatic”, I mean a sense of Christian identity that prevents reasonable fellowship and participation with the larger Christian community. There are baptists who act (and possibly believe) that baptist churches are the only legitimate New Testament churches, and I reject this assumption. This really is schismatic, because it puts an unbiblical division between baptist churches and all other churches. The effect this has is to question the authentic work of the Spirit of God in building Christ’s church apart from the work He is doing in Baptist churches. The reason I reject this is because there is no biblical justification for such a view.
Of course, that brings up the question of what “reasonable fellowship and participation” means. It does not mean compromising on doctrinal positions. Perhaps one reason why someone might describe Baptists as schismatic is because we are credobaptists – we only baptize upon a profession of faith. On top of that, most Baptists insist upon immersion as the only acceptable form of baptism. Thus, a Presbyterian couple who were baptized as babies cannot join the local Baptist church unless they agree to get rebaptized as professing believers, and this has led to the charge of being schismatic. But this is a genuine doctrinal distinction that does not lead to sinful schisma. If the practice can be justified by Scripture, it is a legitimate point of division and not a sinful human preference. The denominations exist for reasons: they are not all the same.
Some “Reasonable” Recommendations
Baptists should participate in the larger life of the Body of Christ through contributing scholarly works, fellowship at the local community level with ecumenical Christian endeavors such as community pantries and praying at the flagpole, and treat other churches in their community as legitimate churches belonging to Christ.
I also would like to encourage my baptist friends to accept baptisms that meet Scriptural qualifications, even if they took place at a non-Baptist church. The practice of only receiving baptisms from other baptist churches is an indication that you believe that only baptist churches are legitimate. If that is, in fact, what you believe, then I believe this is an unnecessarily schismatic position to take within the body of Christ. The criteria should not be the name on the church, but the conformity to the Scriptural standards of baptism. If the individual was immersed in water as a professing believer, then you should consider accepting their baptism.
Conclusion
The very nature of being a baptist is, within Christendom, radical. We are the most radical of the Reformers in our rejection of infant baptism, separation of Church and State, and emphasis on local church autonomy. When one holds to views that may be considered extreme by others, one should strive in spirit to be as much of a peacemaker as possible. A spirit of schism can lead to unnecessary divisions within the body of Christ, with whom we will all one day have to share the new heavens and the new earth.
