Among the most dramatic defections from the Baptist tradition are the ones where individuals end up in the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church. The main reason why I label these conversions “most dramatic” is because of how the conversion is explained by the individual who went through it. Unlike the others addressed in this series, this movement has given rise to the grandest of statements and speeches from former Baptists (and Evangelicals at large). On more than one occasion I have seen a post or a blog from one of these converts passionately describing how they came to see the need for episcopal succession, how they felt the security of a truly unified Church, and how they ultimately found peace in joining the one true Church which Christ founded (given the focus on succession).

I have labelled this movement away from the Baptist tradition “The Apostolic Movement.” In this movement, the spiritual stakes are at their highest. Not only do the issues in question challenge a person’s Baptist convictions, they present an attack on the fundamental questions which make Protestantism, protestant. So, why have I remained a Baptist after encountering the grand theological arguments which have convinced many others?

Episcopacy and Apostolic Succession

One of areas where I see the movement begin to take hold in person’s spiritual development is when they are challenged to read the “Fathers” (the leading theologians of the early Church) on church government and apostolic succession. What typically follows this challenge is the sending of an article (by a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox apologist) which contains a series of quotations from the Fathers which supposedly demonstrate their belief in the episcopal form of church government and their adherence to apostolic succession of the early bishops; the central terms used are defined by the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox person who sent or compiled the article. On many occasions I have been on the receiving end of such articles and must admit that initially they can seem quite convincing at first: The article presents quote after quote from early church leaders showing that, on the face of it, they (the Christians who immediately followed the Apostles) believed that the Church must be ruled by bishops who can trace their succession back to the Apostles themselves. Yet, these articles lose their apologetic strength when analyzed and critiqued with historical and theological rigor:

(1) Recognize that the meaning and implication of words can change. Just because many of the church fathers spoke of “bishops” this does not mean that they understood the role, authority, and position of bishops in the same way that medieval, renaissance, and modern advocates of episcopal government did and do.

(2) Understand that lists of quotes aiming to convince a reader often leave out quotations that oppose their objective. Like most other theological issues, polity was not a settled issue in the early church and one can find plenty of dissenting voices to the rise of mono-episcopal, monarchical church government throughout those early centuries. Further and more generally, the Fathers would often disagree with and among themselves and their earlier works as they continued to study, learn, and develop Christian tradition.

(3) Remember that the Fathers were not perfect. It could very well be true that some or many of the Church Fathers are actually saying what the article implies. Yet, to repeat the famous saying, the best of men are still men at best. As I learned when studying the issue of patristic views on polity, many of these developments began in response to a felt, practical need. The strictly theological arguments often only follow after the practice is established.

A United Church

Another concern for Baptists and Evangelicals wooed by the Apostolic Movement is their claim to possessing the unity that Christ intended. They’ll hear the common lines claiming that the 30,000+ Protestant denominations demonstrate Protestantism’s lack of truth and the Spirit. This leads some to wonder or suppose, if Christ intended a unified Church why is Protestantism so divided? While on one level the amount of disunity in Protestant and Evangelical circles is indeed concerning, there are several realities worth keeping in mind:

(1) The 30 000 Protestant denominations figure has been debunked by both Protestant and Roman Catholic apologists. While we can and should lament the division in the Church, it is easy to overstate the reality. Further, it is worth remembering that while there are many Protestant denominations, many of them are only separate due to practical and historical concerns not true theological differences. Also, many denominations with minor disagreements are still unified in broader church fellowships while still being distinct denominations, strictly speaking.

(2) Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are not as unified as they can claim on paper. Roman Catholicism is home to perhaps as much theological diversity as Protestantism. Yet, they sidestep the issue by giving lip service to the Papacy (and this itself has been breaking down, especially during Francis’ pontificate). Likewise, Eastern Orthodoxy also has its fair share of disunity, especially as entire national churches are currently in schism with one another.

(3) Protestantism has a unity that is common to all Christians. We must not discount the doctrine of the “invisible church.” While Evangelicals might not experience the grand vision of visible unity as found in other groups, there remains the truth of the unity of the invisible Church which is the foundation of our identity as Christians, which is expressed in broader, trans-denominational fellowships.

Know Your Roots!

Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox flaunt their claim to be the one true Church which Jesus Christ founded (typically based on the dubious and untenable case of apostolic succession). Further, they will argue that Baptists and other Evangelicals are rootless faith communities, only beginning with the Reformation and therefore having no legitimate claim to be the Church Christ founded. There are several realities that I am drawn back to when hearing statements such as these:

(1) There are many Churches which claim to be the one true Church. If your objective is to join the institution which claims to be the one true Church Christ founded, and to follow what it says without question, you have many options. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church are merely the two largest. The Oriental Orthodox Church, Assyrian Church of the East, and a myriad of other Churches all make similar claims. This issue is hardly as simple as it is often presented, even if you concede the “Apostolic Movement’s” point of view on the matter.

(2) The Church Jesus founded is a body united to him by faith. To join the Church Jesus founded, one doesn’t need to obsess about joining a particular institution with a certain historical pedigree. Rather, one should focus on having genuine faith in Christ and following his truth as presented the Scriptures, that is: joining his “invisible church” (Christ’s bride in all times and places). From there, joining a “visible church” (an assembly of Christ’s bride in a particular time and place) which accurately embraces, lives out, and presents the truth of Scripture is entirely more important than joining a church with any claim to historical lineage.

(3) Pre-Reformation church history is still the Baptist’s church history. Just because we identify as Protestants, Evangelicals, or Baptists, doesn’t mean we need to concede or abandon church history. The Baptist movement did not begin in a vacuum. Baptists, as a movement, trace our roots through the English Reformation, the medieval Western Church, back to apostolic times. While we might have major disagreements with preceding church figures, those figures are still our forbearers, history, and roots.

This Apostolic Movement has lured many Baptists and Evangelicals away from their traditions. Part of why it has been so effective is that its proponents can present short, powerful claims, that sound quite compelling especially when left unverified or untested. The reality is that it’s much easier to spread claims than it is to refute them, as refuting claims often requires study, patience, a mind for literary and historical context – rarities in today’s twitterized culture. Yet, after putting in the time, reading primary sources, asking questions, and seriously weighing issues, I have found that there are plenty of reasons to remain a Baptist despite hearing the constant claims coming from those pushing and embracing the Apostolic Movement. Ultimately, I believe the Baptist tradition provides the solid ground so many young Evangelicals are longing for; rightly understood the Baptist faith can easily embrace, provide and apply the catholicity and history of the Church all the while being grounded in the unchanging, infallible word of God. Yet to do so in the face of these challenges, Baptists must embrace a spirit of humility, critical thought, and charity as many of these “Apostolic” claims can only be soundly refuted with respectable familiarity with Scripture, theology, and church history.

Stay tuned for my final post in this series where I will provide some concluding thoughts and recommended resources.