You Can Be Deep in History And Remain Baptist

I’m not unsettled when a well-known Baptist becomes Anglican

You can be deep in history and remain Baptist. The Particular Baptists who arose in England during the 1630s, 40s, and 50s knew themselves to be part of the Protestant movement, yet they saw themselves as a renewal movement within it. This is evident in their efforts to write the London Baptist Confession of 1644, which was revised in 1646 to align not only with the Westminster Confession but also with the Separatist Statement of 1596. They self-consciously wanted to show that they were a renewal movement within the broader Protestant movement in England.

Though they were not allowed into the Westminster Assembly (unlike other Congregationalists), by 1647 they became tolerated under the new government. This was the result of the London Baptist Confession’s persuasive and careful articulation. It was a reasonable confession, closely aligned with Reformation thinking—especially in its 1646 revision.

With the advent of the Savoy Declaration some years later, the English Particular Baptists once again composed a confession in 1677, later republished in 1689 as the Second London Baptist Confession. Once again, they made clear: we are not Anabaptists. We are a people with convictions grounded in the Bible, on believer’s baptism, and on congregational church government. Beyond that, we see ourselves in alignment with the Congregationalist Savoy Declaration, the Westminster Confession of the Presbyterians, and even, in some respects, with the Church of England’s Thirty-Nine Articles.

While they assumed a separatist stance toward the established church, they did not see themselves as separate from the broader Christian Reformation and Protestant movement. It’s true that they likely cannot be categorized as “Reformed”—at least in the 17th century—because that term was linked to specific national confessions. But they saw themselves (and others began to see them) as Protestant.

In fact, they became tolerated during the Interregnum period and joined Oliver Cromwell’s army. As soldiers, they planted congregations in places like Scotland and Ireland. So not only were they tolerated and placed in positions of influence, they were also highly evangelistic and committed to church planting.

Certainly, the later history of Baptists—especially in the 20th century in North America—begins to blur these distinctions. General, Particular, and even Anabaptist groups start to meld together. You get capital-B Baptist and lower-case-b baptistic churches. I acknowledge that things get more confusing at that point. But at least in their origin and purpose, the Particular Baptists understood themselves as a renewal movement within Protestantism.

That means the entire Protestant tradition is part of the inheritance Baptists stand within. And the Protestant tradition is itself part of the broader catholic tradition—an inheritance passed down through Spirit-gifted men and women across the centuries, by whom Christ has built his church on earth and in heaven.

So I’m not unsettled when a well-known Baptist writer becomes Anglican. I’m saddened, sure. But I see it as a Protestant-to-Protestant migration, one I don’t feel compelled to make myself. I’m not angry. I am, however, motivated to show that there are riches in the Baptist and Protestant tradition that demonstrate you can be both Baptist and deeply rooted in history.

I’m currently working with a group of authors, thinkers, and theologians on a project that explores exactly this. Keep watching for more.

By the way, my friend Jon Cleland and I are podcasting through the London Baptist Confessions. You can listen and subscribe here: