Is 'Baptist' an add on...?

Is the issue of a specific 'baptist identity' simply an add on?

The add on may be considered convenient - offers to a Church or individual a body of accountability, accreditation, pension, support...

The add on may be considered:

non relevant (hence practice of dropping name 'Baptist' from Church name in favour of the much more relevant and appealling word 'community' [irony going on here]) or indeed

unwelcome as the term Baptist in light of not least some American expressions can convey something pretty ugly!

But convenient or inconvenient is 'baptist' an add on.  So viewed there can be the concern to emphasise that first we are: Christian, orthodox, evangelical, missional, charismatic, contemporary, bible believing, reformed, protestant people with at the end an oh yes 'Baptist' - in that in some general way we broadly agree with the Baptist Union's declaration of principle.

Recognisng the 'add on' special interest group nature of 'baptist' is good for (at least some) ecumenical relationhsips and working with others it. In turn some would claim also that it makes us more missionally attractive because people today are not interested in denominational difference (although I think that it is not that people don't care whether we are a denomination or not but rather they don't care as to whether we care about being a denomination - not the same thing and a discussion for another day).

On the other hand if it is simply an 'add on' the necessity of maintaining it at all on an institutional or indeed relational level  must surely come into question encalign more easily with others more like us on other grounds: georgraphical location, viewouraging us to align more readliy with others with whom we find agreement on leadership styles, certain moral issues, how we function in practice. 

All of this begs the question of course of what is the 'baptist' thing?

In order not simply to recite a list of principles I push at the idea that the baptist thing at core involves a particular view of the church whereby at core the 'church' involves a gathered and gathering hermeutical community marked by baptism which together as co-priests with one another seeks to live under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and seeks in presence of Word and Spirit to work out what it means to apply that Lordship in ministry and mission.

(Decide for yourself whether this is fair reading of the Baptist Union of Scotlands Declaration of Principle available here: http://www.scottishbaptist.org.uk/downloads

As a core matter such an understanding shapes our views on leadership, mission, etc.

In saying that at core the baptist thing is a view of church related to living under the Lordship of Jesus Christ I don't mean an adherence to this 'principle' as a belief but a convivtional commitment in practice to the way things are done. It is a pretty well established idea that principles without practice is dead!

To be sure to emphasise practice may mean that there are those called 'Baptist' who are not 'baptist' in practice and likewise those not so called who in practice are.

But to return to the question: is this 'baptist' understanding of the nature of the church in relation to the living Jesus with the attendant features 'core' to 'Baptist identity' or not?

I guess the starting place for answering this question is among those of us who own the name and have signed up to the Principle.