Matthew Barrett has recently announced that he has left the Southern Baptist Convention in favour of Anglicanism. This is significant because Barrett has been pushed forward as a leading spokesman of Classical Theism and evidence that it was possible to hold this position and remain baptistic.
Barrett writes here about his reasons for departing. There’s a lot of hyperbolic and emotive language about the storm that has come his way and resulting suffering. I wish people wouldn’t do this. Suffering is when persecution comes leading to imprisonment or death. Suffering is experiencing debilitating health conditions. It’s the literal tornado taking away the walls of your actual house not an elaborately overblown metaphor
He then talks about Baptist colleges teaching EFS. It’s worth noting that whilst Barrett may not like the formulations concerning the Son’s submission to the Father, this does not place the likes of Ware, Gruden or numerous non Baptist theologians outside of Orthodoxy.
At the same time, he has an issue with the SBC not opting to include the Nicene Creed in their articles of faith. This seems to be a bit of a strange one, in fact it looks like a bit of a set up to me. If the SBC has not previously included the Nicene creed in its documents then why is this an issue now? It’s worth noting too that what matters surely is whether or not the denomination’s own statement of faith clearly reflects and stays within the boundaries of the ancient creeds. Further, Barrett ignores the fact that the SBC have indeed agreed a resolution affirming not just Nicea but all of the historic creeds.
However, it seems to me that these issues are really a bit of a smokescreen, a distraction for what has really happened. This comes later on. Barrett describes visiting an Anglican Church and falling in love with its liturgy and rituals. He also has decided that Anglicanism polity is right.
But the crucial point is this. Barrett has concluded that paedobaptisnm is right. With a dismissive wave of the metaphorical hand, he tells us that others have provided plenty of evidence for this. As with the Trinitarian debate, he seems to think that an argument is won when he decides it.
The result is that he, himself has little to offer as evidence for significant theological shifts. He churns out the age old misrepresentation of Peter’s words in Acts 2. Remember that you have to take Peter out of context and leave out crucial parts of a sentence in order to make his description of God’s promise as having anything to do with infant baptism.
He also throws in some stuff suggesting a more corporate approach to faith. Children are brought in under their parents faith rather than their own. This is a significant departure not just from Baptist thinking but from Evangelicalism.
The real truth is that Barrett is leaving the SBC not because it voted over creeds or even because of some differences of wording amongst academics. Rather, it is because he has changed his mind on baptism. This of course is rooted in a move away from Evangelical hermeneutics that enables him to reach those conclusions.
Now, I think he is woefully wrong in his position on baptism but it is a legitimate reason to change denomination’s and churches because you’ve changed your mind. It would be best if he simply has acknowledged this and made his arguments.
Now, what does this have to do with us? You see, the reality is that most of my readers probably know little about who Barrett is. It’s unlikely that you’ve read any of his books. You may have a vague notion that I’ve given a couple of them pretty negative reviews.
So why my interest here? Well first I think it does reflect some challenges we are facing within wider reformed Evangelicalism. There’s a current push towards forms of Christian expression where so called classical theism, cultural outlooks and paedobaptism seem to be coalescing. That’s something for those interested in the bigger picture to keep an eye on.
More pertinently, I think that you could change the names and issues here and you would end up with a situation affecting most churches regularly. How often do people fall out, leave, move on and there’s a whole bluster of noise about all the things that are apparently wrong with the church. In reality it boils down to the fact that someone has changed their mind on an issue. Wouldn’t we do better in such situations to be open about the difference of opinion and allow one another to move on in good grace.
Faithroots 