I'm trying to be kind at the moment - the title including reference to Baptist history is the 'look away now' hint to anyone who finds this topic boring or irrelevent or who is hanging on (for another 4 years at least) for the final punch line of my research.
Reading is way behind schedule - if I ever really had one, and that's probably part of the problem - but some thoughts and questions are beginning to seep through the morrasse of words lodged somewhere in my brain - and once in a while a half-sophisticated sentence flits by!
In search of a hero?
Why do all the histories I read spend so much time and energy on Helwys and Smyth? After all, not only are the writers keen to deny any connection to Dutch Anabaptists, these two guys were also in the 'wrong' strand of Baptists - you know, those heretic, biblicist, unitarian-becoming Generals. The only answer I can up with is that there is some kind of implicit longing for a Founding Father - and yes, it must be a he. If the Methodists - all variations there of - can claim Wesley - them Baptists seem to feel they need one too. Since it seems they can't find a nice Particular Baptist, and since the beginnings of the Generals are slightly earlier - which is oh, so important in asserting your non-conformist credentials - it seems Helwys and Smyth will do nicely.
Biblicism and Downgrading
The General Baptists, who constantly sought scriptural warrant for what they did or didn't do, were accused pejoratively of Biblicism. By the time Charles Haddon Spurgeon appeared and opposed biblical criticism, he was right and the other Particular Baptists were 'downgrading' (discuss). Whether CHS was a Biblicist or not, it feels as I read that the portrayal is very different in the two cases.
Synthesis
The story feels very synthetic. I have read it numerous times now, and have in my mind the diagram given to us by tutor tasked with teaching it to us. The aim seems to be to tell one Baptist story, which has a clear origin, linked to a Founding Father, a clear trajectory, suitably illustrated with heroes (99.9% men) and sweeps away any rough edges or uneven splicing along the way. Whilst many of the writers do begin with the two strands - and criticse Goadby for failing to do so adequately - I'm still left with a sense almost that the Generals were a necessary phase to be gone through, that the New Connexion was never really significant and that some of the Strict groupings are simply irrelevant. I think that it is a valiant undertaking, and one that any composite organisation I know of tries to do, but I am not sure it is entirely helpful since the rules of orthodoxy seem to keep changing.
Eye Witnesses?
Bockmeuhl (see earlier posts) seems to assert the priority of early over later written texts, giving 'living memory' greater credence to that which comes from studying and reflecting upon older material. If this thesis is correct, then whatever 20th century writers fell, Goadby's four volume enterprise (of which a reprint is sitting in my 'to get aorund to reading' heap at the moment) should be treated more seriously and his alleged muddling of General and Particular Baptists might actually be a more authentic reflection of what was. I guess it is probably a 'Modern,' 'scientific' mindset that makes us try to distil out which was what, and part of me likes that, but Goadby's pre- or early Modern approach is none the less valid, and might offer, for example, new insights on Baptist diversity in a nonpejorative fashion. Further, if we really are Post Modern, we can no longer simply assert 'later is better' (Modern world view) or 'earlier is better' (slight parody of text criticism methods) rather, each offer us some insights. Of course, the difficulty then is what to do when/if the conflicts arise - who does one believe and why? Is there just a danger that some new synthesis arises based on a different set of assumptions?
Who is reading this?
Trying to identify an implied reader - amd wondering how much I am creating this person in my own image!
Reading Underwood I very quickly got a sense of an earnest young man, possibly attracted by the lure of pecuniary advantage (since so many of heroes did very nicely thank you) lving at or aorund the time of World War 2, Questions of nationalism and the legitimacy of taking arms may have been relevant, fear of being accused of being a 'Bolshie' and admiration for Mr Churchill are all hinted at. Whilst it is hard to imagine a readership far beyond Underwood's ministeral students, I could see a lay reader also being sympathetic to what is written. And my picutre of Underwood's implied reader seems tofit broadly with Bockmeuhl's five theses (see earlier post).
Reading Hayden (CTP edition) my picture of the implied reader is very different. I find myself envisaging someone doing this module because they have to; that it is a hoop to be gone through. The wide use of pictures and cartoons - some of questionable relevance - feels like an attmept at accessibility, of making a dull subject a bit less so. This may be an unfair criticism, since other books in the series also make extensive use of illustrations. But you wouldn't spend money on getting the illustrations put in if you didn't intend them to be there - so is this a reader who needs to be jollied along? At one level, I like the 'to think about' boxes, because they encourage the reader ro try to relate what is being read to their own situation. But, again, what does this say about the reader? Is this a kind of 'Every Day with Roger' approach to Baptist history? Is it that the reader either will not, or cannot make the connections? I have not - as yet - reviewed these boxes properly, but there must be questions about the questions asked. Like Underwood, who he criticises for it, Hayden uses lots of stories of people and churches to illustrate his themes. Apart from the Generals, whose chapter ends with a sketch of a meeting house with a 'For Sale' sign, the stories are upbeat and 'successful' (though check out 2007 membership figures for some of those churches...) suggesting a reader who will be, or who needs to be, inspired by them. reading this book, I wonder if, contra Bockmeuhl (that's my half sophisticated bit) we have an implied reader who is unsympathetic and who needs to convinved not only to read the book but that its subject matter matters.
History or Baptist Principles?
Hayden's book has a tricky task - it serves as a text on history and principles. The chapters on Baptist principles frustrated me greatly because they seemed to contain neither history nor theology. As such, they failed, for me, to address the 'why' of any of our practices. Whilst the broadly ordinance theology that underlies what he says is fine by me, it is my reading of historical struggles and theological questions that has brought me to where I am. Words to the general effect of 'Baptism and Communion are sacraments but not means of special grace' are really not everso helpful whatever your view. Similar skipping over of church governance, authority of scripture etc, seems to me to suggest a reader who has this all sewn up and whose feathers are to be smoothed. I'm sure the author worked hard on these chapters, and I really enjoyed reading the original quotations on communion praxis, but they don't to me feel 'right' in this book. I suspect simlar criticisms could/should be leveled against the history chapters themselves, but the trajectory and key themes feel more in line with more detailed works.
What next?
Need a supervisor discussion (next week) but actually writing down what I've got whirling in my head already is quite helpful. What I think I have deduced so far is
- English Baptist history tends to be a synthesis, with rules changed to fit the overall trajecotry being assigned.
- There seems to be a clear desire to identify a Founding Father (or two) and some big-name heroes inluding, in no particular order, Spurgeon, Bunyan (even if shared with Congregationalists), Carey, Hall, Shakespeare (John Howard, not William!) and, if a later author at least one of Whitley and Payne.
- Baptists are male. The deaconesses do eventually get mentioned along with the Zenana missionaries - but no one ever writes about Miss Timmins and Miss Renant (too of the Zenana missionaires I discovered when writing my history essays on Baptist women; note how neither has a first name). Just once in a blue moon Anne Steele (hymnwriter) or Margaret Jarman get mentioned.
- Whilst I believe Roger Hayden does try to make a connection bewteen then and now, overall I detect very little evidence to suggest that the writer or reader expects or attempts this connection. The idea that understanding the past might inform the present and shape the future just is not there. Which might explain why the chapters on Baptist principles failed to inspire me.
I'm sure I could waffle a good 6k words on this, but I'll need to get some literature to back up my thoughts. I'd also like to read Roger Hayden's second edition to see what has changed.
Comments
Just a thought - what's a Baptist now?
How is one defined? Will future generations look back on individuals and the conversations between them (D Coffey, R Jenkins, A Phillips, P Fiddes, N Wright, J Gordon, J Kilpin, K Coleman, C Gorton, R Searle, etc. - please forgive me anyone who's got missed out) and try to make sense of the swirling currents, or merely take the more dominant, still mainly male leaders (college principals, gen secs et al) and try to spin a story around them and their actions?
Pick a trajectory.
Well, that is probably the only time my name will appear in a list with such worthies, so I'll make the most of it!
If anyone came to visit this blog, apart from my lousy typing, they might think that most Baptists were called Andy! They might alsothink that Dibley was a real place and that Dawn French/Geraldine Grainger is vicar just up the road from me!
So who would be in a list of late, 20th early 21st century Baptist greats? And why? Good question! Any suggestions that Andy hasn't already suggested?
Sean Winter and Bobby Ball - obviously.
Another dialectical pairing; one a comedian and the other not?
My list of british baptist theologians (http://andygoodliff.typepad.com/my_weblog/baptist_theologians/index.html):
john colwell, paul fiddes, nigel wright, steve holmes, chris ellis, brian haymes, anthony cross, rob ellis (all men so far I'm afraid) - but not enough academic baptists sadly .... so go for it catriona ...
Other I'd be inclined to include would be:
david coffey, ruth bottoms, ruth gouldbourne, sean winter, myra blyth, wale hudson roberts ...
Andy J - what are you saying about your erstwhile Biblical studies tutor?!
Andy G - good point - most of the Baptist worthies (so far as I can tell) weren't theologians, which possibly/probably says something about Baptist theology.
When I look at those composite portait thingies, most of them I've never even heard of either, which may suggest that greatness is as temporal as we are (frail as summer's flowers we flourish? Time, like an ever rolling stream bears all [of us] away... forgotten as dream dies at break of day?). Maybe if we can come up with enough names we could make our own composite portrait thingy - but who would take centre stage?!
"I know the answer ought to be Jesus... but it sounds like a squirrel!"
Sorry - an old sermon illustration.
Is this part of the background to your thesis: that time eliminates the memory of complexity and the rich texture of life?
We often make sense of the present by finding key events or significant stories that bring an issue or a character into sharp relief. Maybe a sharp relief that gives us a reasonable map to navigate by, but not the whole story and certainly not the story others would want to tell and act upon, especially where the outcome is contested. Hence theology and hence quite a bit of the New (and Old) Testament.
Those who make sense of the past often do so by plotting a course back from where we are now to where we must have started from. They draw a reasonably straight and reasonably single line through the cluster of alternative points that could have been chosen - taking the average, disregarding the points that seem to lie way off the mean, tracing the pattern and the trend that emerges from the historic overview.
But the choice of a trajectory is determined partly by the viewpoint of the historian - and by their own view of where we are now (witness the Victorian myth of the progress of the Anglo-Saxons from Christianised Germanic tribe to the worthy sons -and daughters, though not as many -of Empire). There's a sort of historic idealism that can underlie this view of progress towards the current perfect state of things. So you don't pick up the stuff that conflicts, because it lies off your trajectory.
So back to the primary sources we go to re-examine the assumptions and see if another trajectory was possible, but that throws us back into the sea of unsung and forgotten heroes, out of whose complexity arose those other people - the ones we remember - who attracted more attention and influence. Their very distinctiveness and clarity of vision or purpose makes them stand out from the background, though they may have been one of a kind and literally out of the ordinary.
It's harder to tell a story with a cast of thousands and keep everyone's attention - Mary Ann Evans managed it, others haven't. I definitely agree people like Myra Blyth and Wale Hudson Roberts deserve a place in our new kaleidoscope (as do the new exegetical double act of Winter and Ball)! But which characters you choose and how you arrange them determines the tale you tell, not just the way you tell it.
Woffle over. I still think the answer's Jesus!
You mean you don't have to be called Andy to be a Baptist? Oh well - back to the sermon :-)
Andy J - thanks for this; very eerudite. This is exactly one of the things I understand that later 20th century historians wrestled with. I could go all Theresa of Avila and say 'I think I've posted on this before but I'm not sure where,' but as her mixture of migraines and muddled memory did my head in I will simply say check out my archives and it is there (but finding the relevant posts is left as an exercsie to student!)
For example, Rowan Williams noted that we often explore history when we discover that soemthing has changed. James Hopewell notes that church history is often dull because it omits the tensions. I think what I'm hoping to try to get at is something on how we can read/write history so that is useful for making our churches more healthy. Some of the social historians talk about patchworks as a metaphor, though I think something more woven is a better analogy.
(By the way, some of my earlier posts you could check out include 17th Janury 2007, 'thinking on virtual paper' and 7th March 2007 'braiding threads'. See, unlike Theresa I can be bothered to look back!!)
Questions raise questions - so,
Is it possible to tell a general Baptist story for a movement in which churches have often been set up by local people for local reasons?
Isn't the essential story of Baptists to be found in local primary sources?
Why did some communities develop a Baptist tradition and others a Congregational? Baptists and Congregationalists share more than Bunyan, they share a form of governance that revolves around local control - there is a story to be told about why Congregational churches developed in some place and Baptist in others (but rarely alongside one another) - and there is more to it than how we welcome children or even Baptist or Congregational Principles.
Why do Baptist and Congregational history's ignore each other?
It might be in your plans - but I wonder if there is some mileage in comparing the general histories with some local case studies?
From my long ago Social History degree in Loughborough which spent some time working on the 1851 Religious Census - I seem to remember that there are a couple of Baptist churches with very different roots in the area - one had a better than usual church history book (Baxtergate?) and goes back to very early times - others were 19thC mill owner churches - so you are in an area with good sources.
I thought I must have got that bee buzzing around in my bonnet from somewhere. The last serious history book I read (about 8 years ago!) was an erudite and lengthy book on British history called 'The Isles'. It challenged the Churchillian 'myth' (probably in its technical sense) that Christian Anglo Saxon Britain was always distinct from the rest of the world (especially Europe) and the plucky Brits were always destined for greatness because of their unique national character. The author argued that 'the Isles' had always been part of a much wider European cultural and political scene, which they didn't want to acknowledge - especially post-Reformation.
Not surprisingly he was writing this at a time of European enlargement, Scottish and Welsh devolution, hotly contested multiculturalism and widespread pre-millennial angst over whether there was still or ever had been such a thing as 'Englishness'.
Fits the Rowan Williams account of why we revisit history, and clearly could have started from a committed socio-political position on all those changing current conditions.
I wonder if history is ever written out of mere curiosity, or whether there's always another question to be asked or a set of current conditions to inform or defend?
Anyway, I must stop commenting on your research topic. You have a clear and fascinating objective, which I'm confident you won't be diverted from by my woffle. But I don't want to appear to be suggesting how you might suck eggs... because who would want to do that?
Craig, thanks for that. I have to admit Idon't know much about Baxtergate beyond the fact that it is a 'merged' church and that it owns a lot of property in Loughborough and is quite a social action kind of fellowship. As their erstwhile minister moderates D+1, maybe at some point I'll ask him about it.
Andy, when did I become your grandmother? Seriously though, I have appreciated the comments and am intrigued as to why this post, of all the stuff I've written, has attracted so much, and such interesting, comment. I think you you win 'commenter of the year' award 2008 for qunatity, quality and making me smile. So thank you. Though it's still a penguin, not a squirrel!!
Don't know about you becoming my grandmother (scary thought!), but one of our congregation just turned out to be my fifth cousin, following the maternal line. Dangerous stuff, this genealogy!
How on earth did we get on to that? We weren't even talking about Luke 3.
Pick a trajectory!
Careful, you'll be off into Matthew next and orbits, planetary alignments, comets and other heavenly bodies before you know it.
I think this exchange is becoming too much fun - is the merry madness of Advnet overwork affecting us maybe?!