Baptists Still Need Theological Retrieval

“Theological retrieval” is a buzzword in contemporary Christian theology. You don’t have to look far to see an array of theologies celebrating retrieval. Its flowers bloom in many soils.

We might look back to the Mercersburg theology and the Oxford Movement in the 19th century or to the New Theology among Roman Catholics in the 20th century. We could add to this list Karl Barth’s theology, Thomas Oden’s “classic Christianity,” the family of views that fall under the rubric “the theological interpretation of Scripture,” and many other retrieval projects. Reformed and evangelical theologians haven’t missed out on this trend, producing their own growing body of literature on the theology of the church fathers, the medieval doctors, the reformers, and the Protestant scholastics.

This article will examine the prospects and theological parameters of retrieval for Baptists in particular. Baptists have sometimes been considered a historically impoverished tradition, but at our best we’ve always understood ourselves to be a renewal movement within the one holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

Consider the answers to three fundamental questions: (1) What is theological retrieval? (2) On what theological grounds might Baptists pursue retrieval? (3) What does retrieval look like in a distinctively Baptist mode?

What Is Theological Retrieval?

Retrieval theology asks the question, How might the theological and spiritual insights of the past help to illuminate theological questions and answer ecclesial needs in the present? The goal is “retrieval for the sake of renewal,” as the Baptist historian and theologian Timothy George has often put it. We examine the theology, scriptural interpretation, liturgical practices, and spiritualities of the past as resources for renewing our churches and communions.

Theological retrieval does not—and cannot—replace careful biblical exegesis and constructive dogmatic reflection. Retrieval cannot, even in principle, constitute a project of repristination (an attempt to restore exactly the conditions of the past), because the Christian tradition itself is variegated on virtually every doctrinal issue. This is a point not often appreciated by those in the first blush of romance with retrieval: On precious few doctrinal formulations can we speak of only one “Tradition” with a capital T.

We examine the theology, scriptural interpretation, liturgical practices, and spiritualities of the past as resources for renewing our churches and communions.

As one example, consider the divine attributes often hastily and clumsily subsumed under the category of “classical Christian theism.” Noticeable and noteworthy differences appear in versions of divine simplicity as one moves from the church fathers to Thomas Aquinas to Duns Scotus. There are some underlying commonalities, but engaging the divergences is theologically fruitful as well.

Retrieval misfires if it arbitrarily selects only one figure or school (usually Thomas and Thomism) with whom to dialogue. To paraphrase something I heard a friend once observe, the goal isn’t simply to say what Thomas said; it’s to do what he did, namely, to engage the whole body of Christian doctrine on the basis of Scripture, in conversation with those who came before us, and with an eye toward logically coherent doctrinal formulations.

On What Theological Grounds Might Baptists Pursue Retrieval?

Baptists should be engaged in theological retrieval. And if we examine our confessional tradition and brightest theological lights, we discover we have been. The most influential Baptist confessions of faith and catechisms deliberately echo the language and concepts of patristic Trinitarianism and Christology. Theological luminaries such as John Gill often cited the ancient creeds, church fathers, medieval concepts, and Reformation and post-Reformation theologians in defense of the cardinal doctrines of the faith.

But Baptists, as with every tradition, need good reasons—indeed, good theological reasons endemic to the tradition itself—for making such appeals. I suggest three in particular.

First, Baptists recognize, along with all Christians, that the faith is a historically embedded reality. Humans are historical, even “traditioned” creatures. Divine revelation occurs in the course of history. Our faith is born and borne along in history. The truths of the faith must be handed down. The apostle Paul writes, “What you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). The “pattern of sound words” must be heard, guarded, and passed on to others (1:13–14). Tradition is simply Christian discipleship extended along the axis of history.

Second, appeals to the Christian tradition occur at the cross section of two doctrines Baptists have always embraced: providence and illumination. God preserves and governs all things, and he has promised a special act of providence with respect to the church: The Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth (John 16:13). “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14).

The same Spirit who inspired the Holy Scriptures illuminates the minds and hearts of those whom he indwells so that they might understand, embrace, and apply those same Scriptures. Appealing to what Oden calls the “consensual tradition” is simply recognizing the ways that the Spirit has providentially given the church insight into the central teaching of Scripture and preserved her from fatal errors on matters of first importance: the triunity of God, the deity and humanity of Christ, and the essential elements of the gospel (the life, death, descent, resurrection, ascension, session, intercession, and second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ for the salvation of the world).

Retrieval of secondary and tertiary doctrines requires a due consideration of our confessional tradition, but retrieval of the primary doctrines will lead us to embrace the creedal Christianity we share with the whole body of Christ.

Third, and related, is the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers—a doctrine that’s not unique to Baptists but arguably is uniquely and most consistently applied by any tradition committed to congregationalism. Baptists appeal to consensual doctrines, not finally because they were determined by ecclesiastical authorities, whether clerical or conciliar, but because they represent the “sense of the faithful,” the illuminated reception of scriptural truth on the part of the whole body of Christ. This is what Oden meant by the consensual tradition. Creedal Christianity represents the consensus of faithful Bible readers across space and time on the central truths of the faith.

What Does Retrieval Look like in a Distinctively Baptist Mode?

What then characterizes a uniquely Baptist mode of theological retrieval? Two elements are especially noteworthy.

First, Baptists are a people of the book. Appeals to church traditions ought never to supplant Scripture’s supremacy. Baptists are on a holy quest to seek more light from God’s Word. The constitutional authority of the Bible brooks no rivals from subsequent Christian reflection. If we become convinced from Scripture that even cherished and long-standing traditions (such as infant baptism) are out of step with the plain sense and covenantal contours of Scripture, our consciences are bound to God’s Word. Again, retrieval never replaces scriptural exegesis and sound dogmatic construction.

Someone perusing the great Baptist authors (and Protestant authors more generally) will find deference to traditional formulations. But he or she will mainly find appeal to the sacred text of Holy Scripture in defense of classical doctrines. Any contemporary projects of Baptist retrieval that remain faithful to the name will follow suit.

Second, Baptist retrieval should be routed or channeled, as it were, through our own confessional tradition. One benefit of belonging to a particular denomination is that our tradition serves as a kind of gateway through which to enter (and view) the broader Christian tradition. So, Baptist retrieval is grounded in Scripture but guided by our Baptist forebears. Again, I invite readers to consult the great confessional symbols and texts of historic Baptist theology.

So, Baptist retrieval is grounded in Scripture but guided by our Baptist forebears.

What you’ll find is a commitment to the catholic faith and to the distinctives that characterize our own ecclesiology and spirituality. Retrieval isn’t a thin, lowest-common-denominator enterprise but a thick, ecclesially specific project. We retrieve the so-called Great Tradition precisely by recovering our distinctively Baptist tradition. What we discover is that the broader tradition belongs to us as well. All things are ours, whether Paul or Cephas or Apollos or Irenaeus or Athanasius or Augustine or Aquinas or Bonaventure or Luther or Calvin or Fuller or Gill or Spurgeon—all are ours, and we are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s (1 Cor. 3:22–23).

This will admittedly take great discernment. When we examine the doctrinal, interpretive, liturgical, and spiritual practices of other traditions, we’ll find agreements, disagreements, and perhaps areas of “differentiated consensus”—places where the manifold Christian traditions aim at the same ends by different means. But reading widely and charitably in the tradition, discerning our common biblical faith, and making the necessary adjustments to our theological particulars is a deeply rewarding path—one I pray many Baptists will be bold enough to take.