Book Review: What Other Church?
Add comment May 2nd, 2012
|
Baptist Successionism: A Critical Question in Baptist History – James E. McGoldrick Rowman & Littlefield (2000) Topics: Protestantism; Church History; Restorationist Movements Summary: Critique of the Landmark Baptist movement Rating: 
|
|
Buy this book from Amazon.com!! |
When fundamentalist Christians are faced with the relative novelty of many of their cherished beliefs and practices within the context of Church history, they could react in one of three ways: first, they could acknowledge the facts of history but dismiss the importance of any historical support for their ecclesial tradition as irrelevant; second, they could acknowledge the historical evidence and adjust their beliefs to be more in accordance with historical Christianity; third, they could dismiss the evidence as biased and construct a rival Church history more to their own liking.
Even though any extensive research into Church history renders the latter choice as hopeless, it is all too common within a subculture where conspiracy theories are taken seriously as historical evidence. Through numerous error filled volumes (e.g., J. M. Carroll’s Trail of Blood), revisionist histories have been constructed wherein a supposed alternate strain of Christianity conforming to the faith of the Baptists, Seventh Day Adventists, Oneness Pentecostals, etc. (according to whomever is doing the reconstruction) is traced in opposition to the known Church of history. This “other” church supposedly can be followed through dissident groups who were persecuted by the Church as heretics but who were in reality the “true Christians”.
James Edward McGoldrick deals with the claims of the “Landmark Baptist” movement (where many heretical movements are considered precursors to the Baptists) in Baptist Successionism. As a former adherent of the movement, McGoldrick understands the appeal of the revisionist product. After all, what Christian wouldn’t prefer to think their movement went back to the Apostles rather that some disgruntled Christians a millennia and a half later? Has the grace of God not been operating all these centuries? Did the Holy Spirit take a vacation?
Landmark Baptists and similar movements solve this problem by placing a rival Church of God alongside the corrupted so-called Church whose “apostasy” is usually blamed on the Emperor Constantine. Of course, one cannot argue from silence and so candidates for the “true Church” are needed and found in various sects throughout history. The effort has been so persuasive in some circles that some Baptists believe they are not Protestants but can trace their lineage back to the Apostolic Church in an unbroken succession.
McGoldrick, a professor of history at Cedarville College, was swept up by such views as an undergraduate but in his later investigations into Church history discovered them to be historically untenable. Such revisionism focuses on a few beliefs where dissident groups might agree with them but ignores the greater picture that demonstrates such groups do not resemble Baptists or any other Protestants and their motivations have nothing to do with Baptist principles. His analysis is comprehensive, impressive, and irrefutable: there were no Baptists prior to the Protestant Reformation and efforts to project Baptist beliefs upon these earlier groups are based upon wishful thinking.
McGoldrick places dissident group after dissident group under the historical microscope: Montanists, Novations, Paulicans, Bogomils, Petrobrusians, Arnoldists, Henricians, Albigenses, and Waldenses. Each group is shown to have no basic affinity to standard Baptist doctrine. Some were in schism on certain issues from the larger Church but had far more in common with them than anything we would consider Baptist. Others were so tainted by dualism as to only be “Christian” in a nominal sense. In no case is any group even remotely attached to Baptist beliefs and practices.
As an example of the methodology Landmark Baptists often employ, McGoldrick examines and refutes the claim that St. Patrick was a Baptist. This contention is ridiculous but it shows how revisionists argue from silence. For example, St. Patrick wrote very little and so they argue since he did not specfically endorse certain Catholic doctrines in writing, he must be a Baptist. The absurdity of this view, not to mention the complete absence of any evidence for the existence of Baptists, should easily disprove such attempts to produce Baptists ex nihilo.
McGoldrick also considers the claim that the Anabaptists were in the Baptist succession. That one could make such claims for a movement known to have sprung from the radical end of the Protestant Reformation is a mystery to all but those with successionist blinders, but McGoldrick patiently examines the claim and easily refutes it. Ending with a careful review of the true history of the Baptist movement, he reaches the obvious conclusion: Baptists are Protestants.
One might consider it unfortunate that a book needed to be written to demonstrate the obvious. However, given the trusting nature of many Christians and the ignorance of Church history within much of Protestantism, McGoldrick is to be commended for taking the time to answer these claims and perhaps preventing others from being swayed by this historically untenable conspiracy theory. Although aimed specifically at the Baptist successionist movement, it also answers similar claims from any group purporting to be the “other Church”. McGoldrick’s unanswerable reply is “What other church?”
