Andy Goodliff’s Renewing a Modern Denomination: A Study of Baptist Institutional Life in the 1990s traces the events, personalities, institutions, theologies, reports, and conversations that reshaped the Baptist Union of Great Britain (BUGB) during the pivotal decade before the beginning of the new millennium.
For many books on Baptist history, the late 20th century is a period too dramatic in depth and breadth to map out, often leading to a cursory treatment. For older readers, the 90s does not feel like “history.” For some, such as newly ordained pastors or students of Baptist history, this leaves the most recent dimension of the Baptist legacy shrouded and unclear. By recognizing the decisive character of this period, Goodliff’s study is essential reading.
Goodliff documents the two identifiable (although not entirely distinct) “streams” that amounted to a mammoth organizational reshaping of the denomination. The first was “denominational,” which was a massive decentralizing and revamping of the organizational structures at the associational and national levels, whose purpose was to orient the churches towards evangelism. This was led by figures like David Coffey and Nigel Wright. The second was “theological,” which was to deepen the thinking of the denominational leaders towards an ecumenical paradigm using the Baptist theological motif of covenant. This was undertaken particularly by thinkers such as Paul Fiddes and Brian Haymes.
Chapter 1 sets out some preliminaries. Chapter 2 looks at some of the influences and calls from denominational leaders that precipitated the shifts. Chapter 3 looks at the theological sources of renewal. These sources overlap to a degree (some are movements and others are theological themes): the role of tradition, Anabaptism, evangelicalism, the charismatic movement, the Baptist theme of covenant, the emphasis on catholicity, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the theme of mission. Chapters 4-6 focus more closely on the conversations and divergences of the two streams. For instance, ecumenism by the first stream was for evangelistic partnership; the second stream sought theological revisions to Baptist identity (e.g., baptism). Changes to the union and association in the first stream were to reduce bureaucracy and equip leaders for mission, while the second stream saw associational leadership intended more for theological guidance and clergy care. The conclusion of the book interprets three tensions in the changes: between the union as missional or robustly ecclesial, between the leading roles of the union versus the association, and between being pragmatic versus theological.
The telling of recent history is its own unique and challenging exercise. One challenge is data collection: with the proliferation of documents, the vast amount of material on any event and person can be difficult to track down and daunting to digest, let alone one that involves an organization as large as the BUGB. The enormous diversity of material cited and analyzed in this study is quite excellent. Goodliff has, quite commendably, varied his approach in the different chapters, discussing personalities, events, theologies, etc. and, in doing so, he is able to approach a very complicated and multifaceted set of events holistically.
The second challenge is with assessing recent history. Throughout the book, Goodliff offers apt commentary about the events that transpired. Yet, with events during one’s lifetime, the impact is still fresh and, particularly in this case, still ongoing. Goodliff’s interpretation of the events is reasonable, but no quick inferences should be drawn overall. In the concluding section, “What Happened Next,” Goodliff briefly compares the Baptist Union’s relative stability to the dramatic decline of the United Reformed Church by 2009. He states, “This might be an argument that the denominational reforms got something right, that despite not generating church growth, Baptists had not witnessed serious decline” (205). Whether or not a correlation can be established between the denominational and theological changes resulting in this stability is not a simple exercise. Sociological inquiries into whether, for instance, the association leadership that was put in place resulted in more conversions (as opposed to transfer growth) or whether the theological documents really reshaped the practices and preaching of the local churches to prevent membership loss would be the appropriate (albeit daunting) avenues of assessment.
One interesting counterpoint can be offered: the Canadian context of this reviewer. In contrast to the British context, firstly, Canadian Baptists produced little reflection on the nature of Baptist identity during this time. Canadian Baptists simply have not thought about what it means to be Baptist to the depth that British Baptists have done so. For instance, there is no Canadian equivalent of Fiddes’ Tracks and Traces (Wipf and Stock, 2003) or Wright’s Challenge to Change (Kingsway, 1991).
Secondly, Canadian Baptist organizational patterns did the opposite: while the British Baptists decentralized, Canadian Baptists centralized. Moves were made to de-fund association area ministers and the funds used for a centralized office in the four regional conventions, each with directors of ministry specialties (church growth, leadership development, clergy care, youth and family ministries, etc.). In Canada, this has almost rendered the associations superfluous in many areas (evangelism and ecumenism put almost entirely in the hands of the individual churches), particularly in regions where the geographic spread is immense. However, despite little reflection on Baptistic identity and centralization, Baptists in Canada retained their numbers during this time compared to the decline in the United Church of Canada, a tread similar to what Goodliff cites for the British context. All of this suggests that a true assessment of the impact of the denominational and theological changes made in the 90s would be a much more complicated exercise. Surely Goodliff’s intuition is correct that these changes were positive for the British context, but how and why is less than straightforward.
Changes made in the late nineties were changes made on the precipice of the new millennium, where things like the rise of the digital age would cause even more rapid shifting in the culture. The question is, now, over twenty years after, have these changes allowed for adaptation? Perhaps this book’s most pertinent contribution is not cataloguing the changes in the 90s but serving as inspiration that further change is possible.
Spencer Miles Boersma is assistant professor of theology at Acadia Divinity College.
Spencer Boersma
Date Of Review:
August 8, 2022
