Baptist History and Theology

I am currently working on my Ph.D. in Historical Theology at a Catholic university, Saint Louis University. As a baptist, General Association of General Baptists, this has caused me to do a great deal of thinking about how baptist history and how we perceive it effects our theology.

One area of interest that has arisen from this exploration is how the idea of successionism in baptist history has played a sort of self-affirming role in baptist theology.

I am interested in any thoughts about this subject or other subjects with respect to the history-theology connection.

 

Glen,

The quotation you give seems also very biblical. As we read the lives of Abraham, David, Paul, and even Jesus, it is not in our reading that we make meaning. Meaning is made through our encounter with the same God they lived out. However, the recounting of their lives and deeds has shaped our theological reflection tremendously.

As I look at my tradition's attempts at historical inquiry, I am baffled by the amount of myth introduced into the life of our founder, Benoni Stinson. What I am struggling with is the application of this. As a historian, it is difficult not to be condesending, but the faith testified in these works resonates strongly with me. It seems that how we write history shows our faith in a positive way, in spite of our biases.

 

Josh,

It is all about historical method. One important thing that we can do is to become philosophically self-appropriated, so we can better see how our biases effect our narratives. However, on the other side, this is quite impossible. Practically speaking, when looking at the life of Benoni, and the biographies that have been presented (Revis, Mongomery, Williams, Laslie, Latch, etc.), it is easy to see which have sound historical method and which don't (you know what I mean), and for the most part which are myth and which are not (the inclusion of successionism is a big clue: you know my quip comparing Latch to Genesis).

Good to see your post. I'm staying at SLU tonight. Doing some research on John Henry Newman. E-mail me and let me know how your big sermon for sunday is coming.

 

J.R.,

Yes, prior to the Civil War up to the 1970ish our histories were plagued by successionism.

We may need to identify what General Baptists we are speaking about. Maybe after you post we can know where we are.

In reference to my original question, do you think successionism as a historiographical approach says more about our theology or our history?

 

J.R.,

I have heard of works you are refering to (in fact I saw some very old copies just last week in the archives at Oakland City University (the only school for the Stinson group). However, unless I am mistaken, Wood's was not from our group either.

There are several histories, but some of the more recent works that employed successionism were done by Laslie (I can't remember the title of this book) and Ollie Latch (General Baptists in History, The History of General Baptists). Both of these gentleman are twentieth century writers. There have really only been two works written without this blemish: Craig Shull, The God of Our Fathers; Randy Mills, Christ Tasted Death for Every Man. Latch's works have been kind of the accepted works for the last 40 years; however, Mills book was published in 2000 and is gaining acceptance.

My question from before: I think successionism is a primarily theological based method of interpretation. I am wondering if it is not only driven by theology, but can we look at these works as pieces of theology in coming to grips with our theological heritage. I am thinking out loud (kinda). I'm thinking about doing some research in this area for publication.