Book Review: Let Men Be Free

Obbie Tyler Todd, Let Men Be Free: Baptist Politics in the Early United States 1776-1835 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2022).

Introduction

In his foreword to the book, Thomas Kidd writes, “Baptists in the English-speaking world have tended to engage rather than withdraw from the political sphere,” and “there has always seemed to be a natural affinity among Baptists for politics, especially in the United States.”[1] Obbie Tyler Todd has written this book to provide a historically accurate summary of that Baptist affinity and the various features of the interplay between Baptist politics and Baptist theology and practice. For the historian, this book is a welcome addition to the conversation about Baptists in American history. And for the interested reader, this book is an accessible and informative counterweight to the common assumptions that Baptists were either political party sycophants or complete outsiders to the American political experiment.

Todd claims that this book is the “first comprehensive treatment of Baptist politics in the new American nation.”[2] It may well be, since Todd explores in detail both Baptist politics and Baptist doctrine, as well as the ways in which the former helped to shape the latter. As he describes it, “in a nation that separated church and state, religion and politics were still inextricable. Therefore, the story of Baptists in the early United States cannot be told without accounting for the theological convictions that propelled them to action and the political consequences that animated their decisions.”[3]

It is true that Baptists in America and Americans in general have embraced at least one shared fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. But as Todd argues and documents in this book, “Baptists did not always define religious liberty in quite the same way.”[4] Indeed, the same could be said of the pluralistic society that America has been since its founding as a nation. And that’s why Todd’s book is so fascinating. He affirms, like many others, that Baptists were shaped by American politics; but he also argues that America’s political philosophy was and is shaped by Baptists as well.

This book also contributes a new perspective with which to view Baptists’ political involvement in the new nation, that of Baptist Federalists. Baptist alignment with the early Republican Party (i.e., Thomas Jefferson) is well known among historians. But the story often left untold (and therefore mostly unknown) is that of the many Baptists who fought against Republicans and their descendants. This can be documented by the fact that many Baptists publicly embraced and argued for the Federalist party’s candidates and programs. From Todd’s perspective, “Baptist politics was defined not by a candidate or party or even a single issue, but by its goal: religious liberty.”[5] There were Baptists among both Republicans and Federalists. But the Baptist goal of religious liberty “seemed,” then as now, “to demand participation (and persecution) in the public square,” and Baptists participated vigorously.[6]

Book Summary

The book is structured in three basic parts. The first four chapters describe the “principles, patriotism, and partisanship” of Baptists in America during the early years (roughly 1770s through to the beginning of the Andrew Jackson presidency).[7] During this period, Baptists were perceived as political and cultural outsiders, but their involvement in both American politics and American culture was remarkable. The last three chapters explain the “policies, programs, and progress” of Baptists as they discovered and, in many ways, created their own sort of respectability and influence.[8] This was especially notable in American society and politics after the Revolutionary War and following the pivotal presidency of Thomas Jefferson.

Chapter five serves as a sort of hinge for the book, providing the reader with additional content that is not normally available in a historical exploration of this sort. Todd gives considerable detail about the various perspectives among Baptists in America with regard to the morally troubling realities of African slavery and the treatment of Native Americans. He addresses head-on the irony that many Baptists argued for a kind of religious liberty for white Baptist men that they did not do for African Americans or Native Americans. And yet Todd also documents the divergent views among Baptists on each of these important issues.

Todd writes, “it would be no exaggeration to suggest that behind every article for religious liberty in the national and state constitutions in the early republic, there were Baptists.”[9] And he also undergirds this claim with the historical facts. Baptists were not the only proponents of religious liberty, but they were absolutely a vocal and active coalition of politically interested Christians who viewed religious liberty as a necessity for their existence. As Todd says, “For Baptists, the relationship between church and state was a two-way street. Just as religion influenced civil government, civil government inevitably shaped religion. Therefore, Baptists regularly argued that religious freedom wasn’t simply about civil liberty; it was essential to biblical Christianity.”[10]

That political and religious conviction which seemed to unite all Baptists was indeed religious liberty. Todd writes, “If Baptists agreed on one thing, it was the evil of state sponsored religion.”[11] But Baptists often disagreed about the meaning and practice of religious liberty. Todd also says, “However, if Baptists disagreed on one thing, it was the nature of this ‘court of judicature, erected in every breast’ [i.e., the ‘empire of conscience’ as John Leland called it], and to what extent it should be respected in those outside the Protestant faith.”[12] Some Baptists were quite adamant that religious liberty did not mean that atheists, Roman Catholics, or Muslims should be allowed to hold political office or free to promote their own political theology.

This disagreement among Baptists in early America is on display in their divergent party affiliations, Republicans and Federalists. Todd notes that many scholars, “from Nathan O. Hatch to Daniel L. Dreisback to Thomas Kidd have tended to frame Baptists as Jeffersonians due to their mutual defense of the First Amendment.”[13] But Todd also argues that “this telling of the Baptist and American history is incomplete.”[14] Baptists did align themselves with Thomas Jefferson on the issue of religious liberty, but “America’s Baptist leadership… [was] in fact predominantly and distinctly Federalist.”[15]

It would be inaccurate to say that Republicans were champions for religious freedom and Federalists were champions of religious establishment, though Congregationalist Federalists were certainly on the side of establishment. Baptist Federalists, however, advocated for religious disestablishment without the complete neglect of civil religion. Todd writes, “Baptist Republicans and Federalists quarreled over the best way to procure and protect this most sacred freedom. In general, Baptist Republicans emphasized the restraint of government and the importance of individual rights while Baptist Federalists stressed the responsibility of government and the importance of public virtue.”[16]

And while the Federalist and Republican parties did not continue as such after the defeat of Rufus King by James Monroe in the presidential election of 1816, the general perspective of Baptists in America (both among leaders and commoners) continued to reflect similar characteristics. Baptists wanted and formed institutions for cooperation, for missions, and for social improvement. Indeed, “Religious liberty and religious nationalism were by no means mutually exclusive in the early American nation.”[17] And Baptists seemed to envision American advancement (both in domestic moral improvement and in foreign missional efforts) as Baptist and Christian advancement in the world.

In the end, Baptists did not want established religion in the sense of government-coerced religious institutions and participation. However, many Baptists did want a kind of voluntary religious establishment, in the sense that they believed the good of the nation depended upon the voluntary (and even sometimes state-encouraged) growth of Christian churches and Christian people among the nation. Thus, the Baptist view of religious liberty (both past and present) is not so easily described by the oft repeated and seldom defined phrase “separation of church and state.”

Conclusion

This book is well-researched, well-written, and much needed in the current American political debate. Baptists are a major segment of the American population, having gained many converts during the nineteenth century and many more in the twentieth. Still today, Baptists are deeply interested in religious liberty and vigorously active in the political arena. Readers of all sorts may find this book a fascinating and informative dive into the historical narrative that has shaped much of what we are experiencing today. Those particularly interested in history, politics, and Baptist political theology should consider it a must-read.

[1] Obbie Tyler Todd, Let Men Be Free: Baptist Politics in the Early United States 1776-1835 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2022). ix.

[2] Let Men Be Free, xiii.

[3] Let Men Be Free, xiv.

[4] Let Men Be Free, xv.

[5] Let Men Be Free, 1.

[6] Let Men Be Free, 1.

[7] Let Men Be Free, xvii.

[8] Let Men Be Free, xvii.

[9] Let Men Be Free, 11.

[10] Let Men Be Free, 25.

[11] Let Men Be Free, 28.

[12] Let Men Be Free, 29.

[13] Let Men Be Free, 83.

[14] Let Men Be Free, 83.

[15] Let Men Be Free, 83.

[16] Let Men Be Free, 72.

[17] Let Men Be Free, 141.

Book Review: First Freedom

Jason Duesing, Thomas White, and Malcolm Yarnell III have compiled a series of essays from various contributors that collectively offer the reader an introductory and yet wide-ranging look at the subject of religious liberty. They have done a commendable job, and the result is a helpful introduction (even if disjointed in some places).

Jason G. Duesing, Thomas White, and Malcolm B. Yarnell III, eds., First Freedom: The Beginning and End of Religious Liberty, Second (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016).

Introduction

Jason Duesing, Thomas White, and Malcolm Yarnell III have compiled a series of essays from various contributors that collectively offer the reader an introductory and yet wide-ranging look at the subject of religious liberty. This volume is the second edition, published in 2016 (the first was published in 2007), and the opening acknowledgements celebrate the collaborative efforts of “three seminaries, one university, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission [of the Southern Baptist Convention], and a Baptist publishing house.” [1] Each author offers his particular expertise to “provide an introductory look at the biblical and historical beginnings of religious liberty” as well as some descriptions of “its contemporary expression and defense.”[2] Throughout this volume there is also an emphasis on the historical “price that was paid” by “Baptist brothers and sisters” in the past “for the establishment and defense of religious liberty.”[3]

The book is divided into three successive sections – a historical section, a pedagogical one, and a final one that promotes activity and strategies for the reader. Of course, there is an overlap of the subject matter and methodologies in each distinct section, and each chapter is written as an essay that may stand alone, but the editors have aimed at these categories for readability and logical progression. One of the weaknesses of a book like this, however – one that compiles essays from various authors – is that it is difficult to provide the reader with a consistent and coherent argument throughout the book. Duesing, White, and Yarnell have done a commendable job, and the result is a helpful introduction (even if disjointed in some places) to the concept of religious liberty from a Baptist perspective.

Book Summary

Part One

Part one of this volume offers a brief look at some versions of religious liberty as they appear in history. Both Paige Patterson (then president and professor of theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) and Thomas White (president and professor of systematic theology at Cedarville University) highlighted the historic Anabaptist emphasis on a form of religious liberty that certainly was echoed among English and American Baptists. These two authors did not address whether there is a genuine historical connection between Swiss and German Anabaptists and later Baptists in England and America, but they did make note of the common Anabaptist theme of religious liberty. Patterson and White seem to imply that there is a strong theological and philosophical connection (and maybe even a historical one?) between Anabaptists and Baptists on the doctrine of religious liberty, and this deserves to be addressed more clearly than what we are offered in these chapters devoted to providing the historical background. And yet, while this historical ground is contentious and shaky, the point remains that Anabaptists were chronologically the forerunners of later religious liberty proponents.

In the third chapter, suppling yet more historical background, Malcolm Yarnell (then professor of systematic theology, directory of the Oxford study program, director of the Center for Theological Research, and chair of the systematic theology department at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) claimed that there are two traditions of early American political theology. The “major tradition” he called the “Virginia tradition,” and the “minor tradition” he called the “South Carolina tradition.”[4] Both are prominent streams of Baptist thought and argumentation, so Yarnell himself admited that the “minor” and “major” labels are not to so easy to assign. And yet there does seem to be a clearly recognizable difference between the Virginia and the South Carolina traditions.

Yarnell said the Virginia tradition is “identified with the rhetoric of John Leland, the agitation of the Danbury Baptist Association, and the subsequent separation doctrine in the federal judiciary.”[5] Roger Williams, Thomas Jefferson, and Hugo Black (though Jefferson and Black were not Baptists) all played their part in establishing and perpetuating the Virginia tradition of religious liberty, which is marked by an “emphasis on human and the separation of church and state.”[6] William Screven, Oliver Hart, and Richard Furman (as well as other contemporaries and theological descendants of these men) played their part in promoting and institutionalizing the South Carolina tradition of religious liberty, which is perceived through the “lenses” of “divine Providence, human constitutionality, and social orderliness.”[7]In the end, Yarnell, White, and Patterson all urged the reader to strive for a better imperfect system until the perfect comes at the arrival of King Jesus.

Part Two

Part two of this book is intended to be pedagogical. Three more authors seem focused on giving the reader a definition, an explanation, and a strategy to engage the world around with the doctrine of religious liberty. This section is important for obvious reasons, one might even say that it ought to be the core contribution of such a book, but it is quite disappointing in its delivery. Barrett Duke (then vice president for public policy and research at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention) contributed the least helpful and most digressive chapter of this book. The title suggests that Duke will offer a definition of religious liberty (The Christian Doctrine of Religious Liberty), but he did not.[8] What he advanced instead was an entirely new set of arguments (i.e., natural law, social, and theological) that are separated from the historical background we were given in the first three chapters. Even the theological arguments Duke presented are disconnected from the ones that were forwarded by historic Baptists (i.e., two kingdoms, jurisdictions of the church and state, etc.), and the reader is left wondering what doctrine of religious liberty Duke was arguing for.

The closest Duke came to providing a definition in his chapter was a list of “three useful categories of religious freedom,” which he borrowed from Philip Wogaman.[9] These are (1) “absolute religious liberty” or “the internal freedom to believe and worship as one pleases,” (2) “qualified absolute religious liberty” or “the freedom to profess or to express one’s faith verbally,” and (3) “qualified religious liberty” or “the freedom to act in accordance with one’s religious insights and values.”[10] But even here, Duke did not make it clear which (if any) of these he believed to be definitional of religious liberty, and he implied that any of the three might be warranted in various circumstances.[11] In conclusion to Duke’s chapter, he simply cited Article XVII of the Baptist Faith and Message (on Religious Liberty) without explanation or comment. This article certainly is a definition of religious liberty, but Duke did not serve the reader well by neglecting to articulate how the article connects to the rest of his chapter, what the article means in practice, or why it is part of the confession of faith for Southern Baptists.

Evan Lenow (then assistant professor of ethics, Bobby L. and Janis Eklund Chair of Stewardship, director of the Richard Land Center for Cultural Engagement, director of the Center for Biblical Stewardship, and chair of the ethics department of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) contributed the second of these core chapters, and his is slightly better than Duke’s. Lenow took up his pen to explain why religious liberty is a means to an end. It is the freedom of believing citizens to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ without fear of state-sanctioned or state-allowed reprisals. Churches and their numerous members, and not the state or its citizens, are responsible to evangelize the world. And religious liberty provides a free platform from which to carry out this function. Lenow did, in fact, assert and defend this perspective, even though he did make a couple of minor historical errors.[12]

Like Patterson and White (in Part One), Lenow also strongly implied that the Baptists in America during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were directly influenced by the Anabaptists in sixteenth-century Europe. And what is more, Lenow presented a truncated selection of Baptist representatives from America – the first two perceived even by their contemporaries as idiosyncratic outliers among Baptists in America – Roger Williams, John Leland, and Edgar Mullins. There is no doubt that all three of these men have had a significant impact on the Baptist views of religious liberty, but they are hardly the only influential voices on the subject, and they all represent what Yarnell called the “Virginia tradition” of Baptists in his earlier chapter. The “South Carolina tradition” is absent in Lenow’s historical summary, and this is the sort of disjointedness that seems almost inevitable in a volume with multiple contributors with varying perspectives of their own.

The third chapter of this middle section was authored by Andrew Walker (then director of policy studies for the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention), and his contribution is far better in both substance and form than the other two. Walker’s chapter is also lacking an explicit definition of religious liberty, though one assumes that Walker ought to have been able to depend upon Duke to provide such a thing in his own chapter. But the reader can piece together a functional definition from what Walker asserts near the end of his chapter. He says religious liberty is “like a lineman who clears the way for a running back,” it is “a small state and a large church,” and a kind of religious “pluralism.”[13] With greater clarity, Walker says, “religion and politics must inexorably relate to one another. The exercise of religion requires nothing more and nothing less than a legal order that does not co-opt religion for state purposes nor impede the church’s mission.”[14] Such a description of various features of religious liberty does indeed provide a functional definition. 

Walker’s chapter is most concerned, however, not with defining religious liberty, but with exploring the relationship between religious liberty and the public square. For this purpose, Walker did provide a definition of the public square: “a matrix and amalgamation of cultural forces that provide a horizon of meaning for public life… In short, the public square is a function of our shared interaction within the institutions of culture.”[15] And our shared interaction within the institutions of our present culture is changing dramatically, says Walker. Two specific features of the moral revolution that has taken place are (1) the “clash of orthodoxies” between the LGBTQ+ advocates and traditional Christians and (2) the presumption on the part of non-religious people in American culture that religious adherents have bad or nefarious motives for clinging to their ethical standards.[16]

Walker provided arguments for a paradigm shift, for the adoption of various strategies, and for a comprehensive proposal. The paradigm shift he urged the reader to embrace is to view “religious liberty as hospitality and… as accommodation.”[17] The sort of accommodation Walker promoted is one of religious pluralism, where all citizens seek understanding and give respect to those with whom they may disagree. The strategies Walker presented generally call for a return to the “ethos and intellectual milieu that birthed American principles, namely, natural rights.”[18] Ultimately, the rights of citizens will be grounded in something that transcends government, or they will merely be decided and distributed by government itself. Walker claimed that the natural rights argument is a common-ground approach for Christians to contend for pre-political rights that are endowed by our Creator. And, finally, Walker’s proposal is an invitation (even an urging) for some Christians to commit themselves to political and public engagement for the sake of gospel and ecclesiastical advancement in American culture. Like missionary sponsors in the nineteenth century, public advocates today can “hold the ropes for those who labor to plant churches, evangelize, and equip the body of Christ.”[19]

Andrew Walker’s chapter serves as a foundation and a pivot point for this book. As I mentioned earlier, Duke and Lenow contributed chapters that should have offered more substance, but they largely failed to provide anything significant or unique in their chapters or to meaningfully develop the theme of religious liberty in a cohesive way with the rest of the authors. Walker, on the other hand, did some of their work for them as well as his own. And his own work was to urge the reader to public engagement of some sort, even if only as an understanding and hospitable neighbor. Though Walker certainly hoped for more from some of his readers. 

Part Three

The remaining section (Part three) and its four chapters provide the reader with a summary of several challenges to religious liberty, which have only become more apparent since the publication of this book. In chapter seven, Russell Moore (then president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention) argued for a gospel and ecclesiastical emphasis in “the Baptist struggle for religious freedom.”[20] American Evangelicals may indeed vote largely as a block, but they need not primarily think of themselves as a political interest group. The Baptist interest in religious liberty, from the beginning, is centered on the meaning of Christian salvation and the doctrine of the church. Therefore, says Moore, we must maintain a “firm grasp of the gospel,” and we must “protect the centrality of the church.”[21]

Albert Mohler (president and Joseph Emerson Brown professor of Christian theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) contributed chapter eight, which offers yet more data and commentary on the clash between religious liberty and sexual freedom in American culture. Earlier in the book, Duke only touched this subject and Walker addressed it a bit more thoroughly, but Mohler here advanced his thesis: “we now face an inevitable conflict of liberties,”[22] and “if we lose religious liberty, all other liberties will be lost, one by one.”[23] According to Mohler, “Human rights and human dignity are temporary abstractions if they are severed from their reality as gifts of the Creator.”[24] Thus, the state must recognize a moral standard above itself, or it will become a capricious enforcer of whatever moral regime may wield its authority. Mohler’s chapter did point to the horizon and help the reader see the gathering storm, but he did not offer much in the way of a call to specific action.

Thomas White made a second appearance, in chapter nine, having specific expertise as a Christian university president. His aim was to help the reader “prepare well to understand the coming challenges” and also to meet them with a faithful testimony.[25] White listed several specific challenges for those connected with institutions of higher education, including the potential loss of tax-exemptions (and various hardships that might precipitate), legal penalties for Title VII and Title IX infractions, and the potential loss of accreditation. White also offered a handful of strategies for meeting these challenges. First, he said that every institution should get their documents in order. Next, he said that faculty and staff ought to be required to affirm those documents, including an explicit statement or confession of faith. Then, White said that universities would do well to lean into their distinctive Christian education, even making a biblical worldview part of the basic curriculum plan. Fourth, White said that schools ought to require chapel and emphasize the importance of spiritual growth and discipleship on campus. And last, he said that universities should require a personal profession of faith from prospective students. These strategies effectively double-down on the distinctly Christian character of Christian education, and White argued that this is the way forward in an increasingly antagonistic environment for religious liberty.

In chapter ten, Travis Wussow (then directory of international justice and religious liberty and general counsel for the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention) explained and argued for a foreign policy effort to promote religious pluralism worldwide, especially in those countries that are Muslim-dominated and often antagonistic to this sort of religious liberty. Wussow acknowledged that international law cannot be enforced in such a way so as to require foreign states to grant their citizens the kind of religious liberty that is enjoyed by citizens of another state. However, he did argue that international law does have influence, and there are economic levers to pull in an effort to promote various foreign policy goals. Wussow did note two specific applications of religious liberty in modern Islamic countries: one, by aiming to remove criminal penalties for “apostasy,” and two, by encouraging Muslims to view religious conversion away from Islam as something other than “apostasy.”[26] While Wussow pointed to some positive advancements, it seems highly unlikely that either of these applications is likely to gain much ground in the near future.

In the final chapter of this book, Jason Duesing (provost and associate professor of historical theology at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) ended much where he began. He summarized the books aims: “first, to show how Christians have defended religious liberty throughout history;” “second… to present the biblical and rational defense for the practice and protection of religious liberty;” and “third… [to] review the present and future threats to religious liberty.”[27] Duesing invites the reader to consider the “end goal” of religious liberty by contemplating the humbling sacrifice and the glorious exaltation of the Lord Jesus Christ described in Philippians 2. He said that there is both a warning and a hope, as well as an implied commission to use the time between the sacrificial cross and the judgment throne. Duesing concluded by saying, “Hope. Warning. Good news that Jesus is Lord shared while there still is time even at the risk of one’s security, safety, and rights – all for the glory of God. This is the true end of religious liberty.”[28]

Conclusion

Like all books with various contributing authors, some are better contributors than others, and some parts are of greater value than the whole. This short introduction to the topic of religious liberty is also hindered by its cultural and political moment. The challenges to religious liberty (which comprise a good portion of the substance and interaction of this book) are somewhat dated after nearly ten years. In some ways, the challenges articulated have become greater and more clearly defined with time, but the challenges themselves and the proposed strategies to meet them are inevitably limited to the priorities and structures of the moment in which they were written.

No doubt, some of the proposals and truth-claims in this book are timeless, and these shall be applicable to any audience. Because this is true, and because this book does provide some good historical background for the concept of religious liberty among the Baptists, it seems that the reader may benefit from reading it. There are better books and other resources that will give readers a more comprehensive, consistent, and historically conversant exposure to religious liberty, but First Freedom can certainly be a decent introduction. It is easy to read, it has several quality chapters, and it is a hope-filled and thoughtful call for Christians to live today as ambassadors for Christ while King Jesus is still receiving new converts into His kingdom. One day religious liberty will be no more, but until then, let us seek its true end.

Marc Minter is husband to Cassie and father to Micah and Malachi. He is also the Senior Pastor of First Baptist Church of Diana, TX. Website: fbcdiana.org. Email: marc@fbcdiana.org.

[1] Jason G. Duesing, Thomas White, and Malcolm B. Yarnell III, eds., First Freedom: The Beginning and End of Religious Liberty, Second (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016). xi.

[2] First Freedom, 7.

[3] First Freedom, 7.

[4] First Freedom, 51.

[5] First Freedom, 51.

[6] First Freedom, 79.

[7] First Freedom, 78.

[8] In his introduction, Jason Duesing says that Duke provides “several definitions of religious liberty, including the entire article from the Baptist Faith and Message 2000” (First Freedom, 6). However, I am unable to find even a single definition of religious liberty in Duke’s chapter, other than the article from the Baptist Faith and Message that is tacked onto the end. And one wonders why Duke offered nearly no comment on the article from the BF&M. It is merely appended as something of an afterthought. 

[9] First Freedom, 107.

[10] First Freedom, 107.

[11] Duke said that “government must step in to protect its citizens” when “some people… abuse any liberty” (First Freedom, 107). But Duke did not explain what sort of religious liberty he wanted to promote or what sort of qualifications he would like to have marking off the parameters of religious liberty.

[12] One example of a historical error is Lenow’s assertion that Christianity “became the official religion of the [Roman] empire under Constantine” (First Freedom, 112). Of course, Constantine did issue the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, but this was an edict of toleration and legalization, not conscription. It was Theodosius the Great who issued the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 AD which did officially mandate Nicene Christianity as the state religion.

[13] First Freedom, 154-155.

[14] First Freedom, 152.

[15] First Freedom, 128-129.

[16] First Freedom, 129.

[17] First Freedom, 145.

[18] First Freedom, 146.

[19] First Freedom, 155.

[20] First Freedom, 160.

[21] First Freedom, 165.

[22] First Freedom, 174.

[23] First Freedom, 170.

[24] First Freedom, 170.

[25] First Freedom, 182.

[26] First Freedom, 240-241.

[27] First Freedom, 249.

[28] First Freedom, 257.

Book Review: The Baptist Story

Anthony Chute, Nathan Finn, and Michael Haykin, The Baptist Story: From English Sect to Global Movement (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2015).

Introduction

Anthony Chute, Nathan Finn, and Michael Haykin have teamed up to provide readers with a fast-paced and wide-ranging introduction to the story of Baptist history (The Baptist Story). This 350-page volume spans the chronological, theological, and organizational developments of Baptists (as the subtitle states) from an “English sect” in the early seventeenth century to a “global movement” by the turn of the twenty-first century. This book covers a lot of ground in a relatively small volume, and therefore it is best understood as an introductory summary. Those new to Baptist doctrine and practices will benefit greatly from reading the book, and seminarians will find it a great place to begin making historical connections between Baptist history and Baptist distinctives. The book seems ready-made for group reading and conversation, even providing “For Further Study” and “Questions for Discussion” at the end of each chapter.

Historically, Baptists arose first in the English-speaking world, and this story focuses heavily on North America and Europe for that reason. And yet, Chute, Finn, and Haykin also provide quite a lot of information about Baptist expansion into non-western cultures and geography, especially after the rise of the modern missions movement in the mid-nineteenth century. While introductions to Baptist history like this do usually provide at least some information about such an expansion, these authors have made an obvious effort to give more detail than is normal. They have also written more than what is typical about those North American Baptists who lived north of the United States of America (i.e., Canada). Inevitably, a lot is left out in an introductory volume of this size and nature, but the authors have done a remarkable job in including what they have.

Book Summary

The book is divided into four major sections, the first three divided further into four distinct chapters, and concludes with an argument for several Baptist distinctives in the final section and chapter. Nearly the entire book follows the path of chronological history, which helps the reader envision an unfolding story, and each historical segment also highlights important theological and organizational developments along with important figures who shaped them and were shaped by them.

Section Four

The last chapter, which is the entirety of the fourth section, provides the reader with an explanation and affirmation of five Baptist distinctives. These, the authors contend, are best understood not as mere “conditions” or “conveniences,” but as convictions.[1] There are good reasons to wait until the last chapter to make such claims and arguments about what it means to be a Baptist, but one wonders if this final chapter might not have served the reader better by placing at the beginning of such a volume. The reader might be better prepared to see these doctrines and practices that comprise the core of Baptist identity develop throughout the book if he or she knows what to look for from the beginning.

The authors list many sources upon which one might draw in order to discover the core of Baptist identity. Sermons, prayers, hymnody, books, periodicals, pamphlets, catechisms, confessions, covenants, and church records are all full of substance that can provide the observer insight into the common beliefs and practices that unite all Baptists.[2] And having scoured these resources, the authors note that “most of the Baptist distinctives are ecclesiological in nature.”[3] They list regenerate church membership, believer’s baptism, congregational polity, local church autonomy, and religious liberty as the five core distinctives. A few of these distinctives may be shared with other Christian traditions, but regenerate church membership and believer’s baptism (as Baptists have defined these doctrines) are exceptional marks to identify Baptist churches. In fact, the authors note that regenerate church membership – holding to the conviction that “formal identification with the body of Christ is only for those who have acknowledged Christ’s lordship over their lives by faith” – is “the foundational Baptist distinctive” (emphasis added).[4]

All five of these marks of Baptist identity have been developed in real time since the early seventeenth century by men and women who became convinced of their biblical mandate to believe and practice them. The authors note that some Baptists have embraced a view called Landmarkism, which relies heavily on the pseudo-historical works of George Herbert Orchard (“A Concise History of Baptists from the Time of Christ Their Founder to the 18th Century,” published in 1838) and J. M. Carroll (“The Trail of Blood,” published in 1931). The Landmark movement “officially commenced in 1851 at a meeting in Cotton Grove, Tennessee,” and Landmarkers believe that Baptists do not arise as a Protestant sect but that they have a completely distinct history from other Protestant traditions.[5] James Robinson Graves (1820-1893) and James Madison Pendleton (1811-1891) were major leaders of this movement, and Pendleton’s “Baptist Church Manual” (published in 1867) made Landmarkism a widespread perspective among Baptists whether they embraced the historical claims or not.

Section One

These ahistorical claims notwithstanding and their real impact noted, the history of Baptists truly begins with one congregation and two significant figures – John Smyth and Thomas Helwys. And in the first section of The Baptist Story, the authors sketch the Baptist beginnings. Smyth became convinced that only believers should be baptized, as a symbol of their conscious and present faith in Jesus Christ as lord and savior. His short-lived leadership was surpassed by Thomas Helwys who (in 1612) took “a handful of members” of that first English-speaking Baptist congregation back to England, from whence they came.[6] It was Helwys who led that church to embrace a distinctly Baptist confession of faith and church covenant, and it was that congregation who were the pioneers of what became the General Baptists in England.

The ideas and convictions of Baptists soon spread to the New World as well. Before Helwys split with Smyth, John Robinson had already led “about 100 members” of the Smyth congregation to break off and relocate in Leiden (in the Netherlands).[7] And this group “eventually sailed to America on board the Mayflower and landed at Plymouth… in 1620.”[8] During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Baptists in America and in England developed quite similarly. But Baptists in the New World encountered societal and political circumstances that would influence Baptist thought and practice worldwide.

Section Two

The authors trace Baptist history through the founding of the new nation in America, and then they turn (in section two) to the nineteenth century, when Baptists enjoyed great progress and endured devastating setbacks. The First and Second Great Awakenings propelled Baptist numbers beyond all but the Methodists, and advances in religious liberty provided circumstances for exponential growth. Old Baptists (arising from those seventeenth-century Baptists in England) and newer Baptists (Separates from Puritan and Congregational churches in eighteenth-century America) developed into one larger Baptist movement, though still lacking broad organizational structures that would emerge later in the nineteenth century. By the turn of the nineteenth century, many Baptists in the New World were already connecting with one another through regional associations, and within just a few decades cooperation and connection became ubiquitous through state conventions and national societies.

A few major trends began to take shape during the nineteenth century: ministerial education, missions mobilization, and societal activism. Before the Civil War, several regional schools for training Baptist ministers were founded, including Union University, Mercer University, and Baylor University. The Triennial Convention (1814) and the American Baptist Home Missions Society (1832) were each formed for the purpose of Baptist cooperation for foreign and domestic missions, respectively. These cooperative efforts among Baptists were divided between the north and the south in 1845, when the Southern Baptist Convention was formed as the result of a split over slavery and polity. Baptists in the north remained connected through affiliation with what was then called the Northern Baptist Convention. Though this divide is a tragic event of history, both conventions demonstrate a strong Baptist impulse and commitment to evangelism and church planting efforts.

Section Three

In the third section of the book, the authors focus on the twentieth and the twenty-first centuries. During these years, Baptists continued to grow in number, expand their institutional structures, and face various controversies and challenges. Baptist seminaries, Baptist conventions, and Baptist churches all seemed to become modernized. New Baptist seminaries were founded, and the schools accommodated the professionalized approach to ministry that was adopted among local Baptist churches. Baptist pastors (once commonly called elders) embraced the title of “Reverend,” and numerous staff and volunteer positions were established within the structure of local church polity and function.

In 1925 Southern Baptists adopted the Baptist Faith and Message as their confession of faith, which would serve as a sort of theological boundary marker for various convention entities (such as seminaries and missions agencies). Northern Baptists rejected the adoption of any confession, and time would prove that at least some Southern Baptists did not believe that the BF&M (in both its 1925 and 1963 versions) was actually binding in any meaningful sense. Theological liberals and moderates proliferated in Baptist seminaries and convention leadership until the late 1970s and early 1980s. What is known to conservatives as the Conservative Resurgence was the successful implementation of a political strategy to recover the Southern Baptist Convention from continuing its drift into theological liberalism, along with the mainline denominations.

The authors are right to point out along the way the painful and scandalous development of Baptists (especially Southern Baptists) on the concept of racism generally and the treatment of African Americans specifically. While various Baptists (both in America and in England) did oppose chattel slavery from its beginning, many Baptists in America came to embrace the institution and even to argue for it in overtly racist ways. So too, one major reason (maybe the main reason) the Southern Baptist Convention exists today is because of the insistence of white Southerners upon Baptist cooperation with slave-owners and the institution of slavery itself. Even after slavery was abolished in America, many Baptists in the south were complicit in societal and institutional structures that remained prejudicial against those of African descent.

The Baptist story is not one of perfection, but it is one of tenacious efforts to gather true churches of regenerate believers, to spread the good news of the gospel farther than it has presently gone, and to promote a kind of religious freedom that invites only voluntary (not coerced) sinners to join local churches by repenting of sin, believing in Christ, and being baptized as a public profession of faith. Baptists have worked hard to make their way in the world, and they have sometimes acted more worldly than as Christians, but one can hardly find a more vigorously evangelistic and democracy-loving Christian than a Baptist.

Conclusion

This is an excellent introduction to the fascinating history of Baptists. It is an accessible read for most any level of skill and knowledge. The format and resources found within the book will also be a help for interested readers to explore Baptist history further. Whether you are an experienced student of Baptist history or you are just beginning to learn the basic characters and developments, this book will help you understand how the Baptist story fits together.

[1] 325-326.

[2] 326-327.

[3] 330.

[4] 331.

[5] 171.

[6] 19.

[7] 18.

[8] 18.

Two Tales for Baptists in Indianapolis

On June 14, 1922, representatives of the Northern Baptist Convention (NBC) gathered for their annual meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana. In less than two months from now, the Southern Baptist Convention will meet in Indianapolis as well, and the controversy of our day is not unlike the situation faced among the NBC one hundred years ago. The cultural and theological milieu of the day is known to history as the fundamentalist and modernist controversy. The battle lines had been drawn, and proponents for each side were stating their case and making their moves.

Modernists were identified by an optimistic view of human nature, often redefining essential Christian doctrines (such as original sin, the atonement of Christ, and the inspiration of Scripture). Fundamentalists were identified by their convictional adherence to a core of fundamental doctrines. These “fundamentals” are often summarized as the inerrancy of Scripture, the historical reality of Christ’s virgin birth, the exclusive and substitutionary atonement of Christ, the genuine resurrection of Christ from the dead, and the authenticity of miracles recorded in Scripture.

Since the early twentieth century, the label “fundamentalist” has taken on a more negative connotation. Fundamentalists are more commonly known today as those who seem unable to differentiate between those doctrines that are truly fundamental and those that are non-essential to Christianity (such as a particular and detailed view of the millennium). There are certainly some Christians who produce a lot of heat on lesser doctrines, but an honest assessment of history must agree with J. Gresham Machen’s assessment of the controversy. Machen published his classic book “Christianity and Liberalism” in 1923, wherein he argued that liberal Christianity was not Christianity at all. Machen himself was a fundamentalist in the technical sense during a time when his sort of fundamentalism was sorely needed.

At their meeting in Indianapolis in 1922, fundamentalists among the NBC proposed that the convention adopt the New Hampshire Confession of faith. They believed that clear and public theological boundaries were necessary for unity and cooperation. But the proposal was voted down by a 2-to-1 margin. The convention delegates were assured by their leaders that the New Testament was a sufficient guide for Christian faith and practice, and voters agreed that they did not need a confession of faith to specify their beliefs and practices any further. That vote was not quite three years before the Scopes Trial of 1925 made a mockery of fundamentalist views in America’s public square, but it was clear in 1922 that many Evangelicals wanted to distance themselves from the bad press and public scorn that would inevitably come upon those Christians who held their theological ground.

In advance of the NBC annual meeting (on May 21, 1922), Harry Emerson Fosdick ascended the pulpit of the First Presbyterian Church of New York. He was a Baptist professor at Union Theological Seminary, but he was the guest preacher of a church in the modernist camp that day. Fosdick’s sermon was titled “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” and he lamented the “controversy which threatens to divide the American churches.”[1] He called for a vigorous response against those “illiberal and intolerant” fundamentalists whom he perceived as a “strange new movement in Christian thought.” Fosdick was a quintessential theological liberal, and he was exercised over the fact that theological conservatives were not only clinging to “the Christian faith” but also demanding that others resist the liberal tendency to “think our Christian life clear through in modern terms.”

Almost exactly three years after Fosdick’s sermon, Southern Baptists gathered in Memphis, TN, for their annual meeting. On May 15, 1925, the Committee on Baptist Faith and Message presented a resolution to the convention to adopt the confession of faith they had offered on the previous day. They said that the adoption of a convention-wide confession of faith was “necessary at this time” due to the “general denominational situation.”[2] Every Southern Baptist present at their original convention in 1845 came from churches that already had the Philadelphia Confession, the New Hampshire Confession, or some abstract that summarized the core substance of these. And nearly all of the messengers in 1925 came from churches with a confession of faith written into their church constitution or by-laws. But Southern Baptists recognized the importance of clarifying their theological boundaries in writing for the whole convention.

In something of a symbolic answer to Fosdick’s question, Southern Baptists said, “Yes, fundamentalists must win in order to preserve the historic Christian faith.” They seemed to agree with J. Gresham Machen, that liberal Christianity was an altogether different religion from historic Christianity. And Southern Baptists chose faithfulness to orthodox doctrine over public admiration.

It is now one hundred years later, and Southern Baptists are facing yet another watershed theological and cultural moment. The Baptist Faith and Message has been revised in 1963, 2000, and (ever-so-slightly) 2023, but we now have a confession of faith that articulates what we believe on many articles of faith. Every generation has their battlegrounds, and ours are multiple, but two obvious arenas are those of complementarity and church polity. These overlap in our present controversy over female “pastors.”

Leading up to the Southern Baptist Convention of 2023, Mike Law (an SBC pastor of Arlington Baptist Church in Arlington, VA) successfully brought a motion to the floor of the convention that aimed to clarify an article of the Baptist Faith and Message. Law proposed the amendment in 2022, and after a slight change suggested by Juan Sanchez (an SBC pastor of High Pointe Baptist Church in Austin, TX), the amendment received strong support and easily surpassed the necessary vote of the messengers. Yet, according to the SBC constitution, amendments require two successive votes of affirmation; thus, the upcoming convention meeting in Indianapolis has taken on outsized significance.

The amendment (known as the Law Amendment) articulates that the convention will only deem a church to be in friendly cooperation with the convention which: “Affirms, appoints, or employs only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture.” This is merely an additional clarification to some others that are already existent in the constitution under Article III. And each of the clarifying statements under Article III, like the Law Amendment, are practical restatements of what is already expressed in the Baptist Faith and Message. The necessity of these clarifications arises from the particular cultural and theological controversies of our day.

Like our Southern Baptist forebears, we are being urged by some Baptist leaders and by the watching world to jettison (or at least downplay) our biblical convictions in order to gain public admiration, to maintain unity, and to emphasize mission over doctrine. However, time and history have proven that no theological or ethical compromise will earn the respect of the world, and neither will it lead to greater vitality for gospel ministry and evangelism. Those churches and denominations that embraced modernist views and theological liberalism are dead today (the NBC is a good example).

The choice for Southern Baptists in 2024 is clear. We may compromise for a false unity that will lead to our demise, or we may stand for true unity on our existing convictions. If we choose the path of compromise and ambiguity, we may receive the applause of the world for a moment, but this is unlikely. We will most certainly turn a blind eye to liberalizing trends among Baptist churches that are now affiliated with the SBC, and the convention itself (along with its various entities) will suffer the consequences. But if we choose to take a stand, though we will endure the mockery of those who disagree, we may enjoy true unity and get on with the mission at hand.[3] We may give our wholehearted efforts to evangelism, church planting/revitalizing, and missions.

As we plan to gather for our Indianapolis convention (102 years after the NBC did for theirs), let us reaffirm what our Southern Baptist forebears affirmed in their own day (in 1925). Let us reaffirm our commitment to historical orthodoxy and our commitment to maintain theological boundaries. Let us reaffirm our commitment to answer Harry Emerson Fosdick and others like him, “Yes, the fundamentalists must win! And we will hold fast to the historic Christian faith!”

Marc Minter is husband to Cassie and father to Micah and Malachi. He is also the Senior Pastor of First Baptist Church of Diana, TX. Website: fbcdiana.org. Email: marc@fbcdiana.org.

[1] Shall the Fundamentalists Win? http://baptiststudiesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/shall-the-fundamentalists-win.pdf

[2] Minutes from the May 15, 1925, convention meeting. https://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/1925bfam.htm

[3] Here are Five Reasons to Support the Law Amendment. https://centerforbaptistleadership.org/five-reasons-to-support-the-law-amendment/  

Book Review: The Writings of John Leland

John Leland, The Writings of John Leland, ed. L. F. Greene, Religion in America (New York, NY: Arno Press, 1969).

Introduction

John Leland (May 14, 1754 – January 14, 1841) was a bigger-than-life character, the sort that seems crafted for an enthralling biography. This book is not a biography, but a compilation of more than one hundred writings from the pen of John Leland – everything from political speeches to private letters, and autobiography to personal proverbs. John Leland was a Baptist preacher, a political activist, and a one-of-a-kind American; and L. F. Greene has provided the reader with first-hand exposure to Leland’s own thoughts in the man’s own words. This is the kind of book that historians want within reach while reading the fascinating biography, so that they might chase down footnotes and have more access to the subject at hand. 

The Writings of John Leland was originally published in 1845 by G. W. Wood and reprinted by Arno Press in 1969 (access a PDF version online HERE). L. F. Greene was the original editor and compiler of these writings, and I was unable to find much information at all about Greene. The editor says in the preface that the suggestion to produce such a work initially came from “the Leland family,” but there is not much to learn about the editor. Greene’s humility is obvious in the repeated statements of “inadequacy,” insufficient time, and hope that an “abler hand” might accomplish the task instead.[1] It does seem that Greene was not the best person for the job of publishing this kind of work (as I shall address below in my critique), but generations of readers and historians are grateful for the effort.[2]

Book Summary

Leland’s writings are eclectic, but they can be generally categorized under several headings: (1) biography, (2) public arguments, (3) sermons and speeches, (4) letters, and (5) philosophical musing.

Biography

The first writing of the book is “Events in the Life of John Leland,” which is a fast-moving autobiography of Leland’s entire life.[3] This opening chapter is exemplary of the way in which Leland tells stories of his life and experiences, and the reader is introduced to quite a lot of information in this first essay. Leland tells of his coerced baptism as a young child in the late 1750s. He recounts his pietistic and mystical conversion to Christianity as well as his punctilious baptism as a New Light convert of the First Great Awakening, both in in June of 1774. Leland’s internal call to preaching ministry had been percolating in his mind for some time, but on the Sunday following his baptism, he believed that call was miraculously confirmed. Leland tells little of his marriage to Sally Devine in September of 1776 and much of his itinerate preaching escapades, including a meticulous reporting of baptisms performed (1,515 by Leland’s own count on October 30, 1831).[4] Such is the content of most of Leland’s biographical writings.

It is interesting to note here that Leland does not include very much of his experiences as pastor of the Third Baptist Church of Cheshire, Massachusetts, either in this opening narrative or in the other biographical writings within. Leland was the official pastor of this church (on-and-off) for about forty years, but he largely used the church and town as something of a home base for his itinerate ministry. In fact, one of the main examples of Leland’s bizarre individualism (even strange for a Baptist in the early nineteenth century!) is his unwillingness for more than a decade to fulfill his pastoral duty of administering the Lord’s Supper among the Cheshire church.

Public Arguments

Leland’s public arguments often came in the form of newspaper articles, and these epitomized his efforts to influence public opinion on a number of issues, including religious liberty, political policy, and chattel slavery. One article published in the Virginia Chronicle in 1790 exemplifies all three. Leland offers a brief history of Virginia as an English chartered state that became a state of the American republic. He explains a little of the various religious sects that populated the region and their development and distinctions over time, arguing for civil policy that would allow freedom of religious expression among the inhabitants. Leland believed that “Civil government is certainly a curse to mankind; but it is a necessary curse, in this fallen state, to prevent greater evils.”[5] And Leland argued that the civil government and the church must necessarily be disentangled from one another, so that each could pursue its God-ordained ends. He wrote, “No national church, can, in its organization, be the Gospel Church.”[6]

And yet, Leland was not interested in a society that was free from moral constraint, and his advocacy for the liberation of African slaves is a strong example. While Leland was less clear in his solution for the “evil” of slavery in his later years, he was perfectly clear in 1790. Leland wrote, “The whole scene of slavery is pregnant with enormous evils… If these… attend it, why not liberate them at once? Would to Heaven this were done! The sweets of rural and social life will never by well enjoyed, until it is the case.”[7] Regrettably, Leland was unusual among his Baptist peers in early America in such a direct and public assault on an obvious evil.

Sermons and Speeches

Leland did not manuscript his sermons, and what content we do have of them seems to indicate that he preached a mixture of revivalism and patriotism. Occasionally a listener would transcribe them or summarize them. Leland most often preached as a revivalist itinerate, but he was also a sought-after preacher for special occasions. One such sermon was preached at the ordination of Reverend Luman Birch in 1806. Herein we may learn something of Leland’s view regarding the minister’s “call” or sense of divine appointment to the ministry of preaching.

Leland listed six descriptors of the way in which ministers are “called” to their role. First, the “call to the ministry does not depend upon the brilliancy of natural talents.”[8] God Himself furnishes the man for the task to which he is called. Second, it does not “depend upon the acquisition of schools.”[9] The Holy Spirit must enlighten the preacher’s mind, and no amount of education would sufficiently prepare him. Third, the call to ministry is not the same as “a gracious call out of darkness into the marvelous light of the gospel.”[10] All saints or Christians are called in this way, but ministers receive an additional and distinct call. Fourth, “it is not subservient to the will or choice of men.”[11] What God calls a man to do cannot be thwarted by the obstinance of mere mortals who may not recognize it. Fifth, “it is not miraculous.”[12] The call to preaching ministry does not have to be accompanied by signs and wonders. And sixth, “the call is by special mission.”[13] By this Leland asserted that preachers are those who have received a special gifting from Christ, namely “the furniture of mind” and “a constraint to improve.”[14]

It is not hard to hear Leland making an argument here for his own ministry calling as well as his general view of what it means to be “called” as a minister more generally. He certainly embodied these descriptors in his own life and ministry.

Letters

Leland wrote various letters to politicians, to Baptist associations and churches, and to private parties. In 1836, Leland wrote to the Honorable George Nixon Briggs, a Massachusetts senator at that time and the Governor of Massachusetts from 1844-1851. While Leland began with some statements of apparent humility, he did not hesitate to instruct the senator that his particular committee had “grown to a giant” that “abused” its civil power.[15]

Leland used the medium of a circular letter of the Shaftsbury Association in 1793 to urge Baptists to embrace the Bible as “the only confession of faith they dare adopt” and to resist any use of “pope or king” to coerce unity of beliefs or practice.[16] In this letter, Leland outlined his argument that the Bible is the “guide” and “sure word of prophecy” to “direct [the] course” of Christians in the world.[17] In summary, he asserted that the Bible has stood the test of time, it has “weight in the argument,” it is harmonious in its teaching, it is attested by fulfilled prophecy, it is “sublime” in its “style,” it produces “wonderful effects” in those that read and heed it, it has adherents who have been willing to endure “patient sufferings” to obey it, it has remained in the face of terrible “attempts to destroy” it, it presents a better ethic than any other in the world, it reflects the character of God Himself, judgments have fallen upon those who have “destroyed these writings,” and God has preserved those who have aimed to keep the words of it in their lives.[18] Whatever we might say of Leland’s hermeneutic or his consistency with Scripture, we read in his words a proclamation of a high view of Scripture itself.

Philosophical Musings

Like many Baptists of his day, Leland was not formally educated as a theologian. However, his mind was active, and his thought was both rational and contemplative. Some of the most interesting writings from Leland’s pen are recorded at the end of this volume in a chapter entitled “Short and Unconnected Sentences.”[19] These include speculative philosophical ideas, personal development principles, and biblical thought experiments (just to name a few). 

Critique

This volume is the sort that historians love. It provides a one-stop-shop for primary source documents on a key figure in Baptist and American history. But this particular compilation of writings has a major flaw – it offers almost no historical or narrative context for the documents contained within. L. F. Greene give dates and titles for most of the documents, but there is no explanation for the occasion, the likely motives, or the context from which Leland likely wrote these various texts. Because of this lack, historians are prone to feel some frustration with it as well. It is probably beneficial to read Eric Smith’s biography of Leland (John Leland: A Jeffersonian Baptist in Early America) before picking up this volume so that the reader might gain some insight to these details that would otherwise be missing.

Conclusion

There is no substitute for primary source documents. This volume offers the reader a direct perspective of John Leland in his own words. His thought, activism, preaching, and public rhetoric was a major influence on the societal, political, and religious developments on the early American landscape. The reader will benefit greatly from having access to these writings. But the reader will find even greater benefit from reading this volume in light of other works that may provide the necessary context for understanding the significance of the writings here.

[1] John Leland, The Writings of John Leland, ed. L. F. Greene, Religion in America (New York, NY: Arno Press, 1969). 3.

[2] Dr. Eric Smith is an historian and John Leland biographer, and he believes that “L. F. Greene” is Louise Greene (Leland’s granddaughter). I have confirmed that one of Leland’s daughters (Fanny) did marry James Greene, the son-in-law who took in the aging widower after Leland’s wife died in 1837 (Leland, 45). It is possible that James and Fanny Greene (also sometimes spelled “Green”) did have a daughter named Louise, and it is indeed possible that she is L. F. Greene. James A. Patterson cites “Louise F. Greene” as the editor of Writings of the Late Elder John Leland in his biography of James Robinson Graves, published in 2012. Smith does the same in his biography of John Leland, published in 2022.

[3] Leland, 9.

[4] Leland, 38.

[5] Leland, 103.

[6] Leland 107.

[7] Leland, 96-97.

[8] Leland, 311. 

[9] Leland, 311.

[10] Leland, 311.

[11] Leland, 311.

[12] Leland, 312.

[13] Leland, 312.

[14] Leland, 312.

[15] Leland, 676.

[16] Leland, 196.

[17] Leland, 196.

[18] Leland, 196-199.

[19] Leland, 723.

Book Review: Separation of Church and State

Philip Hamburger, Separation of Church and State, First Harvard University Press paperback (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004).

Introduction

Philip Hamburger is a graduate of Princeton University (1979) and Yale Law School (1982). He is the Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, and he is the Chief Executive Officer of the New Civil Liberties Alliance. He has written several books over the last two decades, but this one (Separation of Church and State, originally published in 2002) is something of a bombshell on the field of conventional wisdom regarding the concept of separation between church and state. Hamburger not only diverges from the typical interpretation of church-state separation, but he also provides a great deal of evidence that the concept itself has transformed quite significantly over time and that the present application of it is nearly the opposite of its original intention. 

On one of the opening pages, Hamburger cites three statements that form the pathway of perspectival development on this thoroughly American idea. The first is from the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The second is from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association – “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” And the third is from the Supreme Court judgment, written by Justice Hugo Black, in the case of Everson v. Board of Education – “In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’” Thus, Justice Hugo Black established a judicial (as well as social and political) precedent by interpreting the First Amendment through the prism of Thomas Jefferson’s pen, which Hamburger argues was a tool for atypical political and religious ideas in the early nineteenth century (and far more so in the eighteenth century) and intentionally innovative.

Book Summary

Hamburger provides a thesis statement in his introduction. He writes, “this book attempts to understand how Americans came to interpret the First Amendment in terms of separation of church and state, and through this inquiry it traces how Americans eventually transformed their religious liberty.”[1] In summary, Hamburger argues that it is “misleading to understand either eighteenth-century religious liberty or the First Amendment in terms of separation of church and state.”[2] Rather the sort of liberty sought by many of America’s founders and the various religious dissenters who argued for it was defined by a limitation upon governmental institutions and not religious ones. Specifically, Americans (including both religious and non-religious) wanted the freedom to believe and behave according to various religious traditions without civil penalty. The dominant religious worldview of eighteenth-century America was Protestant Christianity, and religious liberty was comprehended from this perspective. Thus, dissenters and non-religious Americans generally maintained that atheists, Roman Catholics, and Muslims were prohibited from participating in civil institutions. However, it was the civil institutions themselves that ought to be prohibited from exercising authority in Protestant ecclesiastical affairs.

Hamburger organized this book in four main parts, each focusing on theoretical and practical developments in the concept of religious liberty, which correspond to a basic chronological structure. Part I provides the eighteenth-century context for the religious liberty debate. Hamburger demonstrates that it was not the dissenters who argued for separation, but their establishment opponents who slandered them by making the accusation that separation was the real goal. In fact, dissenters not only denied the accusation, but many of them expressed a willingness to maintain a genuine connection between church and state. 

In Part II, Hamburger explains how the Democratic Republicans (the opposing party to the Federalists) in the early nineteenth century shifted the entire religious liberty debate. Thomas Jefferson’s presidential bid was hotly contested by the Federalists, and many establishment preachers made public their opposition to Jefferson’s candidacy. Jefferson was not himself a religious man, and so his lack of ecclesiastical adherence was a major target of the Federalists. In an effort to reduce the heat of these attacks, Republicans argued for the removal of religion from politics. Thus, politics became a form of religion, and America’s perspective of religious liberty was pushed in the direction of separation. It is also important to note here that Hamburger provided evidence that Baptist dissenters did not embrace the Jeffersonian concept of separation any more than the establishmentarian Federalists did at that time.

Hamburger argues, in Part III, that it was really during the mid-nineteenth century that Americans more commonly began to embrace an increasingly radical view of separation. It was then that theological liberals and everyday Americans were animated by a shared public enemy – Roman Catholicism. It was Roman Catholics who then represented the sort of establishmentarianism from which Americans had broken free during the previous century. And Rome was inherently establishmentarian (so the argument went), unlike the various Protestant traditions which generally defined American culture and religion at that time. This anti-Catholic sentiment was coupled with another societal development that made a total separation between religion and politics seem not only possible but necessary. Americans became a society of all sorts of specializations and public-private distinctions. Educators, politicians, lawyers, judges, legislators, merchants, and even consumers all found a great deal of convenience in separating their religious beliefs from their professional work or their participation in the American economy. Some claimed private religious belief, and some felt an obligation to the general societal ethic which was influenced by the traditional religious beliefs of others, but Americans were largely desirous of professional and leisure activities that could be separated from any religious constraints. Thus, anti-Catholic sentiment and American pragmatism made separation seem like an American fundamental.

In Part IV, Hamburger moves to the crux of his argument – the legal establishment of a developed constitutional interpretation of the First Amendment. In the twentieth century what became an American fundamental or principle over the course of about one hundred years was given judicial authority by no less than the Supreme Court of the United States of America. And the interpretive grid that was employed in order to offer historic grounding for such an interpretation was the innovative and thoroughly secularist words of Thomas Jefferson, even though his concept of separation at the beginning of the nineteenth century was neither widely embraced by the public nor a desire of the strongest advocates for religious dissent. 

Hamburger concludes, “In the transfiguring light of their fears, Americans saw religious liberty anew, no longer merely as a limitation on government, but also as a means of separating themselves and their government from threatening claims of ecclesiastical authority. Americans thereby gradually forgot the character of their older, antiestablishment religious liberty and eventually came to understand their religious freedom as a separation of church and state.”[3]

Conclusion

Having read many of the primary sources from eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Baptists (including nearly all of the published writings of Isaac Backus and John Leland), I can say that Hamburger’s argument from the first half of this book rings true. Hamburger is exactly right about Leland’s idiosyncrasies as a Baptist and his infatuation with Jeffersonian politics. And Hamburger is also accurate in his description of the anti-establishment arguments from most Baptists in colonial and early America. They were not interested in extended religious liberty to “papists” (i.e., Roman Catholics), “Turks” (i.e., Muslims), or atheists. And most of them not only tolerated a religious oath for civil office, but they also advocated for such a thing. Even religious dissenters believed that an ordered and prosperous civil society necessitated a prerequisite embrace of Christian (namely Protestant) doctrine and ethics.

Hamburger’s historical receipts are matched by his judicial acumen as he interacts with the more recent developments in “America’s principle” as interpreted from the First Amendment. He rightly and effectively shows how religious liberty has become far more a restraint on religion than a restraint on government. And he also makes a compelling case for the claim that politics and government have become a religion of their own. But in the absence of genuine religious influence – which establishes and reinforces moral standards and civil order – citizens will inevitably turn to government when chaos threatens, and they will demand civil coercion and penalties. What a different view of American society this would become from what was envisioned and established by our founders.

This book was accessible in its content, logical and forceful in its argument, and compelling with regard to the evidence provided. I believe Hamburger has successfully demonstrated that the concept of religious liberty deserves more than the misleading, intellectually unfair, and historically inaccurate phrase “separation of church and state.” If you are interested in participating in a thoughtful discussion about the American principle of religious liberty, then I highly recommend that you read this book in order to know what that principle actually is and from whence it has come.

[1] Philip Hamburger, Separation of Church and State, First Harvard University Press paperback (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004). 3.

[2] Hamburger, 9.

[3] Hamburger, 492.

Book Review: John Leland, A Jeffersonian Baptist in Early America

Introduction

Eric Smith has written a superb biography of John Leland. Leland was a larger-than-life character in both Baptist and American history, and he deserves this sort of historic and biographical treatment. Smith presented Leland in true form, including both his grandeur and his foibles. Smith begins and ends this story just as Leland himself did, giving the reader a panorama of Leland’s early-life formation and his eventual demise. With the chapters in between, Smith helps the reader understand Leland’s place in Baptist and American history, even addressing some of the scholarly debate (Leland’s Calvinism or lack thereof) and an area of popular interest in our current cultural moment (Leland’s vacillating position on American slavery and the plight of African Americans during the nineteenth century).

Smith says that his primary goal with this book is to “tell Leland’s story.”[1] He has certainly accomplished this goal and more. He has presented the reader with a particular perspective of “the transformation of early America,” which as Smith says himself runs somewhat in parallel to Leland’s own life (roughly 1760-1840).[2] Indeed, “John Leland’s life intersected [many] major themes” of religious and cultural development in the fledgling nation.[3]

According to Smith, Leland “has never received a full biographical treatment.”[4] If this is so, then Eric Smith has certainly set a high standard for any that may come after. There may well be a more scholarly and technical biography written, and one might write a shorter and more popular level story, but Smith has shot the target right in the middle. This is no easy mark, and those of us who are interested in American, Christian, and Baptist history are grateful for the effort.

Book Summary

Smith begins the Leland story at his birth and early baptism. Leland was born on May 14, 1754, in Grafton Massachusetts. Leland’s own account of his baptism at three years old is the source of this tale, but it pictures Leland’s staunch independence whether it is true or not. In short, Leland was baptized by a Congregationalist minister at the command of his father, and all completely against his own will. If the story is true, then Leland came into the world believing “instinctively” that “religious acts must be free and voluntary to be genuine.”[5] If it’s a tall tale, then Leland wanted everyone to think that his lifelong convictions regarding religious freedom and freedom of conscience were present from the earliest age.

While Leland’s first “baptism” was involuntary, the “two defining issues of his life, his conversion and his call to preach” were “resolved” between Leland and his God “alone.”[6] Smith says, “at no point did [Leland] consult a local minister or involve the church in his spiritual quest” for spiritual conversion. Indeed, Smith notes, “his conversion story is striking for its solitary character.”[7] So too, Leland “determined to present himself as a candidate” for baptism when a Separate Baptist preacher, named Noah Alden, “came to nearby Northbridge to hold a baptism service.”[8] And Leland helped Alden baptize others immediately thereafter, Alden being “a short man and [fearing] that he could not raise all the female candidates from the water.”[9]

Not long after that waterlogged day, Leland experiencing believer’s baptism and administering the same to others, Leland was at a “meeting” wherein “no preacher showed up.” Leland “stood to deliver the morning sermon,” and “from then on, John decided to preach at every opportunity he received.”[10] And Leland didn’t just wait for opportunities to arise, he “launched into an itinerant ministry, setting up a forty-mile circuit around New England.”[11]

Throughout this book, Smith is diligent to continue returning to the subject of Leland’s erratic and persnickety relationships with local churches, especially one in Cheshire, Massachusetts. Leland was an itinerant preacher first, and somewhere further down his list of priorities came the duties of pastoring among a local church. The first church that sought and embraced Leland as a pastor was Mount Poney Baptist Church in northern Virginia. They accepted Leland’s demands to be exempt from the customary examination and ordination by a board of local Baptist elders and also Leland’s refusal to preach at Mount Poney more than half the Sundays in a year.[12] This arrangement lasted months, not years, and Leland continued his itinerant ministry in earnest. 

By the time Leland moved to Cheshire, Massachusetts, in 1793, he had made quite a reputation, and he was heavily involved in Baptist efforts in Virginia to pull on political levers in order to move the massive institution of religious establishment. Indeed, Smith notes that it was political expedience that compelled Leland finally to participate (if only farcically) in a formal pastoral ordination event.[13] Leland was far more recognizable as a Jeffersonian political activist than as a typical Baptist elder or pastor in the latter decades of the eighteenth century, but Smith more than adequately demonstrates that Leland was a remarkable proponent of democratic-republicans like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

In the end, John Leland was a new kind of Baptist that would shape what it means to be Baptist in America for a long time to come. Smith even proposes through lines from Leland’s individualistic proclivity in the views of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Francis Wayland, J. L. D. Hillyer, and the notoriously individualistic E. Y. Mullins. Lamentably, Smith says, “Under Leland’s influence, Baptists ‘came to see the church as merely a gathering of like-minded individuals joined to observe the duties of religion rather than as a vital part of the saving process.’”[14]

So too, many Baptists (certainly many Evangelicals) today might also lament the religious pluralism Leland embraced and promoted throughout his life. Unlike most Baptists of his day, Leland was not only willing but eager to dismantle any civil preference for Protestant Christianity. Leland believed that Christianity was true, and that it was the only hope of sinners around the world, but he also believed that absolutely nothing outside of a man’s own mind and conscience should compel him to embrace any doctrine.

Evaluation

Eric Smith has written this biography quite well. His historic detail is well-supplied, and his scholarly citations are numerous (even citing meticulous sources like church meeting minutes and newspapers). These features are combined with good storytelling and a quality writing style to give the reader a biography that is not only informative but enjoyable. The main character is interesting in his own right, drawing the reader into the turbulent waters of his life, and Smith acts as an informative tour guide, helping the reader to travel steadily down the various tributaries that all connect to this energetic river.

With a story like this, including several features and events that unfold over the course of years and even decades, it is hard to decide how to arrange the chapters. Smith seems to have chosen both of the two basic options – chronology and topic. Smith begins and ends the biography with the chronological beginning and end of Leland’s life. This suits the biography well, and it makes the reader feel as though the whole man has been on display from start to finish. But between these two ends, Smith allocated several chapters for various topics of great importance in Leland’s life – Leland’s radical independence, his populist Calvinism, his vigorous tribalism among democratic-republicans, and his not-so-consistent views on American slavery. The reader may have a tough time remembering where the story is at any given moment on the timeline of Leland’s life, trying to make comparisons in Leland’s progress or regress in one area with another, but the topics Smith covers deserve the lengthy and focused treatments.

Conclusion

This book was a joy to read. Smith’s introduction was particularly well-written and substantive, and his artistic conclusion revisited and tied together various pieces of the story quite well. Those who enjoy history, especially the religious history of America, will probably find this book among the better-quality biographies on their shelves. It has earned such a status in my own library.*

[1] Eric C. Smith, John Leland: A Jeffersonian Baptist in Early America (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2022). 8.

[2] Smith, 9.

[3] Smith, 9.

[4] Smith, 8.

[5] Smith, 11.

[6] Smith, 5.

[7] Smith, 24.

[8] Smith, 30.

[9] Smith, 30.

[10] Smith, 31.

[11] Smith, 31.

[12] Smith, 43.

[13] Smith, 73.

[14] Smith, 127.

A Pastor Who Would Not Administer the Lord’s Supper Can Teach Us Not to Avoid Church Discipline

The Third Baptist Church of Cheshire had been without a pastor for quite some time. Their most recent pastor had died unexpectedly, and the one before that had departed after a bitter fight among the church about their practice of the Lord’s Supper. John Leland had been their recognized pastor for about seven years, but in July of 1798 Leland decided that he would no longer receive or administer the Lord’s Supper among the congregation.

This was a strange development indeed, but Leland was the sort of man to do and say things that were sometimes a bit odd (even for an eighteenth-century Baptist). Throughout the years of Leland obstinacy, a pastor from a nearby church came regularly to officiate the ordinance for the Third Baptist Church. And after nearly six years of this abstinence from the Supper, Leland finally left Cheshire.

The church went without a designated pastor for a couple of years, and then they hired a promising and talented young man in 1806, named Lemuel Covell. But less than six months later, Covell died while on an itinerate preaching mission. Again, the Third Baptist Church had no pastor, and some of the members had fond memories of their time with Leland. Though he was rigid in his convictions and though his convictions could sometimes be strange, he was after all a compelling preacher and a great man.

When some of the members of Third Baptist Church reached out to Leland, to see if he might return as their pastor, a small group of members went public with their perspective that Leland ought not be a pastor or even a church member who did not commune with the rest of the church. They took their grievance to the Shaftsbury Association, the fraternity of churches of which Third Baptist was a participant.

That’s when Leland doubled down on his position of radical individualism. He made a public statement that basically outlined his intention to continue to abstain from communion and even withdraw from church attendance anytime he felt it was good for him to do so. The Shaftsbury Association advised the Cheshire church “not to retain such members” as Leland “in their connection and fellowship.”

Indeed, they said, “Let but a cold hearted or captious member of the church have the example of such a man for his excuse, and such a church would labor in vain to recover to neglected duty that member.” In other words, Leland ought not be admitted or retained in membership (much less named as pastor) if he would so flagrantly rebel against local church order and discipline. This would make a mockery of God’s house, and it would invite others to rebel in the same way.

Ultimately, it is not the association that must decide who is or is not a member of a Baptist church. The congregation itself would have to vote on the matter. And the Cheshire Church Records tell a story of confusion, cowardice, and convenience. On September 28, 1811, the following four questions were presented for a vote.

Question: If a member of the church neglects to attend the regular meetings of the church, is such a delinquent member subject to discipline?

Answer: Refuse to answer.

Question: Do the members of the church feel obligated to watch over their brethren for good?

Answer: We do.

Question: Does the church believe it to be a duty of the members to attend the meetings of the church for communion?

Answer: We do.

Question: Shall the hand of fellowship be withdrawn from any member for anything excepting immorality?

Answer: Refuse to answer.

These answers are self-contradictory. On the one hand, the congregation affirmed their responsibility to watch over their fellow church members, to do them good. And they also affirmed the duty that all members have to attend church meetings, especially those when the Lord’s Supper would be administered. But, on the other hand, they would not affirm the necessary consequence that any member (including a pastor) who refused to participate would be subject to a rebuke and ultimately (if the refusal continued) to expulsion from church membership.

In the end, the Cheshire church held on to the fact that Leland had not committed any public and egregious sin of immorality. They reasoned that since he had not committed adultery, blasphemed, or cheated another person in business then Leland ought not be excluded from the church. But communing together with fellow church members in the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper is precisely the act that distinguishes a church from any other group of Christians. To neglect or to be barred from this ordinance is the basis of the concept of excommunication (ex – out of – communion).

This episode is an embarrassing and sobering reminder that individuals and churches can value the greatness of a man and the desire for convenience above the doctrine and practice of biblical Christianity. There are many ways in which churches today may avoid confronting sin, calling for repentance, and excluding unrepentant members from their fellowship. Churches can sometimes even overlook grievous errors and rebellion on the part of their church leaders and members in an effort to keep the peace, to maintain productivity, or to avoid making hard decisions.

It is hard to imagine a pastor of a church today refusing to observe or administer the Lord’s Supper among his congregation. But many church members seem to have no problem at all with abstaining from the ordinance for years on end. Churches who allow absentee members to remain on their roster without confronting this radical individualization of Christianity will find it quite difficult to call for repentance for much of anything among their membership.

Book Review: Demanding Liberty

“Demanding Liberty: An Untold Story of American Religious Freedom” by Brandon O’Brien

Introduction

Brandon O’Brien offers the reader a popular level summary of the development of religious liberty during the early days of the American experiment through the lens of a man who had a significant role in shaping that development. Isaac Backus was “almost [the] perfect embodiment of the evangelical spirit of his times.”[1] Indeed, Backus experienced in his own life the movement from Congregationalist to New Light Separatist, and then from Separate to Baptist. During each of these movements, Backus also suffered within his own mind and social engagement the pains of such changes. It is precisely because of Backus’s personal development and how Backus himself engaged with the issues, theology, politics, and institutions of his day that O’Brien endeavors to lead the reader on a guided tour of some of the notable moments of Backus’s life and ministry. As a well-informed guide, O’Brien helps the reader not only to understand what he sees but also to make connections between the past and the present.

Book Summary

The book itself is ordered by chronology and argumentation, which coincide with one another in the life of Isaac Backus and in the development of religious liberty in early America. Many of the religious colonists in New England in the early 1700s had a negative perspective of the spiritual state of their society and churches. During the 1740s, what has come to be known as the First Great Awakening sent shockwaves through the previously established structures of colonial society. Longtime church members were claiming new spiritual conversion, religiously uninterested townspeople were committing to church membership at great cost to their reputation and purse, and established churches with institutionally trained ministers were increasingly perceived as a restraint to passionate and personally engaging religion.

O’Brien tells a brief version of the broader story, but he largely focuses on Backus’s own awakening and subsequent departure from the established church (i.e., Congregationalist or Standing Order) in Norwich to a new Separate church. O’Brien writes, “Thus Backus experienced two conversions during the Awakening. The positive conversion was that he passed from darkness to light, death to life… The negative conversion was that he began his journey toward becoming socially marginalized because of his religious convictions.”[2] This was the experience of many New Lights or enthusiasts during and after the First Great Awakening. And while the religious establishment faced “enemies everywhere,” both “pietism and rationalism,” Backus’s story clearly fits within the pietistic framework and aspiration for religious liberty.[3]

Who should decide the qualifications for local church leaders? What is a legitimate local church? Who is actually a member of a given church? Should those who neither benefit from nor agree with a certain pastor’s ministry be taxed to pay for his salary, his property, and his church-house? These were the practical questions that drove all the discussions, petitions, legislation, and legal actions regarding religious liberty in New England during the eighteenth century. Very often, Baptists answered these questions directly opposite of their established church peers. And quite frequently, when Baptists disagreed and disobeyed, they suffered social and legal consequences for it. Here too, Backus was personally and deeply involved. His own mother was arrested and poorly treated for not paying her religious tax. And Backus was the chairman of something called the Grievance Committee for the Warren Baptist Association. This committee was tasked with investigating and recording reported instances of persecution and ill-treatment of Baptists at the hands of the civil and religious establishment.

O’Brien notes that the Baptists observed an opportunity to advance the cause of religious liberty by associating it (both practically and conceptually) with the cause of civil liberty during the time of the American Revolution.[4] And yet again, Isaac Backus was the face of Baptist political engagement. He published An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty in 1773, and he presented this manifesto in front of the Massachusetts delegates to the Continental Congress in 1774. In booklet form, Backus “advanced a compelling argument that at the core of America’s liberty problem there was actually a theological problem.”[5] In short, Backus articulated a Baptist political theology, arguing for “two earthly entities” through which “God now mediates his rule” – the state and the church.[6] Backus argued that each of these entities has their own jurisdiction, the state over people’s bodies and the church over people’s souls. In both cases, these mediating institutions of God’s rule had to manage people who are naturally inclined toward all manner of sin and depravity. 

Backus failed to sway the state officials to see religious liberty his way, and he also failed to see the demise of religious establishment in Massachusetts, which didn’t happen until twenty-seven years after his death (in 1833). But O’Brien posits that a consideration of Backus’s life, thought, and public activity may be a great benefit to twenty-first-century Americans who feel the political landscape violently shaking beneath them. O’Brien says that we must understand our history, we must be willing to confess our past sins (especially those of unequally distributing civil rights), and we must be able to learn from our mistakes.[7] In addition, he says that it’s important that we perceive our role in this unfolding drama correctly. Though he does not clarify whether he believes that American Christians should perceive themselves as the establishment or the marginalized.

Evaluation and Critique

A Biography of Backus?

O’Brien said that this book was not intended as a biography of Isaac Backus, but I think it may well serve just such a purpose for many readers. O’Brien’s narrative is easy to follow, and he provides enough historical detail for the reader to be at least introduced to the panoramic canvas that is the life of Isaac Backus. It seems to me that the reader who is unfamiliar with Backus may well enjoy this book as an introductory and accessible biography of a sort.

An Invitation to Read More Backus?

If you are a fan of Isaac Backus (like I am), then you will probably be very interested in the last ten to twelve pages of this book, just before the Notes.[8] O’Brien offers a sort of annotated bibliography for various works on Evangelical engagement with American culture.[9] And he even provides a complete list of all published writings from Isaac Backus,[10] as well as the three main biographies of Backus – Maston, Hovey, and McLoughlin.[11] Both the uninitiated reader of Backus and the experienced student can enjoy this feature of O’Brien’s work in this short book. And anyone can benefit from reading more Backus.

A Thesis?

As you might be able to assess, I am having a hard time articulating what this book is. O’Brien wrote what I thought might be his thesis on page 4: “Isaac Backus advocated for a ‘sweet harmony’ between church and state. In terms of legislation, America adopted a vision for church-state relations much more similar to Backus’s than to Jefferson’s or that of the Congregationalists.”[12] But O’Brien does not aim to demonstrate what America’s vision or legislation is today. Nor does he tell us anything at all about Jefferson’s view of religious liberty, and he gives us very little substance of the Congregationalist’s view during one episode of the debate. So, this book is not an argument to explain how or even that America’s vision of religious liberty is like Backus’s. It may well be, but that’s not what this book is about.

O’Brien wrote his “goal” for the book on page 12. He said, “my goal has been to tell the story of the life and work of Isaac Backus in a way that emphasizes the most challenging or applicable details for today.”[13] Later he builds on this goal by stating what might be a possible thesis for this book on page 67. O’Brien writes, “My experiences combined with Backus’s story have convinced me that our view of religious liberty has to be large enough to encompass those we disagree with.”[14] Indeed, he later asserts, “In actual fact, religious liberty is an aspiration we have not yet fully and completely achieved.”[15]

So, I suppose it’s possible that this book is about how to achieve religious liberty by applying what we might learn from Backus’s life and example. But here again, I am not convinced that O’Brien has followed through on such a thesis. He doesn’t offer the reader a definition of religious liberty achieved. What is the promised land to which O’Brien might lead us by drawing upon the wisdom of the past and forging ahead to a better future? At key points in the unfolding story of Backus’s life, O’Brien avoids giving the reader a positive assertion about which direction is right. If we must understand our history, what specific conclusions are we to draw? Merely that there was a fight for religious liberty with various perspectives of the concept? And if we must rightly perceive our role in this drama, which better describes Christians in America, establishment or marginalized? O’Brien seems to say that we may perceive ourselves either way.

Conclusion

The benefit and enjoyment of this book will largely depend upon the reader and what he or she wants from it. If you want a popular level biography of a major figure of Baptist history, then this book will probably be enjoyable to you. There is no argument sustained throughout the book, and O’Brien hits many of the highlights of Backus’s life, which is fascinating. If you haven’t read or known much about Isaac Backus, and you’d like to have someone tell you why you ought to and where you can find good resources, then you will probably benefit from this book. As I’ve said, it’s a great introduction to Backus’s life, and the resource lists are fantastic. But if you want a short and accessible book that makes a distinctive contribution to the historical or present discussion on religious liberty, then you may leave this one on the shelf. 

[1] Brandon J. O’Brien, Demanding Liberty: An Untold Story of American Religious Freedom (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2018). 160. Cited from William McLoughlin in Isaac Backus and the American Pietistic Tradition.

[2] O’Brien, 30.

[3] O’Brien, 33.

[4] O’Brien, 112.

[5] O’Brien, 113.

[6] O’Brien, 115.

[7] O’Brien, 163.

[8] Dear, Mr. O’Brien (should Brandon O’Brien ever read this), please don’t ever publish a book again that doesn’t include numerical indicators in the text to show me (1) that there is a note or citation and (2) where I can find the endnote. I know you gave me corresponding page numbers, but this was the first time I’ve encountered such formatting, and I didn’t like it. When I saw a quotation, I didn’t know if I should even flip back to the end to see if there was a citation or a further comment on it, since there was nothing in the text to indicate that I would be rewarded for the work of finding the corresponding page number at the end of the book. Endnotes alone (instead of footnotes) are nearly enough to repel me from reading a book, but endnotes without numerical indicators in the text was a new level of frustration.

[9] O’Brien, 166-167.

[10] O’Brien, 171-176.

[11] O’Brien, 165.

[12] O’Brien, 4.

[13] O’Brien, 13.

[14] O’Brien, 67.

[15] O’Brien, 162.

Four Features of Baptist Cooperative Success

During the early days of Baptists in North America (the late 1600s and early 1700s), it became vital for local churches to affiliate with some sort of Protestant denomination. The Puritans, the Anglicans, and the Presbyterians had all migrated from Europe and had begun carving out various localities among the American colonies where their particular denominational order would be the majority. All of these groups established ecclesiastical and civil charters for the geographical areas in their purview.

Most prominent in New England were the descendants of the Puritans, which bore the name of the Standing Church or Congregationalists. In general, Baptists were a tiny minority until during and after the time of the First Great Awakening (1740s). Baptists from England had already migrated to the New World, and these became known as “Old Baptists.” But during and after the Awakening, many church members and pastors of the Standing Church began to separate. These “Separates” were all paedobaptists at first, and their only difference with the Standing Church (though a significant one) was that the Separates believed the Standing Churches had become too lax in their practice of meaningful church membership.

Once these Separates began to form their own churches, the Standing Church was reluctant to grant to them the same exemptions and toleration that they had already been giving to other minority denominations among them (like the Anglicans and the Old Baptists). The Separates were not sufficiently distinct in their beliefs and practices from the Standing Church to demonstrate a civil exemption from taxes that supported (among other things) church buildings and pastors.

Not long after Separates broke from the Standing Church, however, many of them became “Separate-Baptists.” These “new” Baptists were unlike the Old Baptists in at least a few ways. First, Separate Baptists were pietistic, proponents and beneficiaries of the First Great Awakening. They believed in the necessity of a credible profession of faith for those who would be baptized into membership, and they practiced church discipline far more vigorously.

Second, Separate Baptists were not satisfied with mere toleration from the Standing Church or Congregationalists. The often heavy burden of ecclesiastical taxes and the numerical growth of these “New Light” Baptists made them ache for liberty, not just an exemption.

Third, Separate Baptists were belligerent and ignorant outcasts in the eyes of the Standing Church, whereas the Old Baptists often enjoyed a perception nearer that of peers (though disordered ones) with the leaders of the Standing Church. Old Baptists drew their ministers from the highly educated class, just as the Standing Church did. But Separate Baptists were almost entirely led by uneducated ministers or pastors. The first Baptist college was not created (in old England or New) until the late 1700s, and the pietistic Baptists were more interested in converted and godly men than they were in academically trained men.

Nevertheless, Separate Baptists were hard-pressed to define their denominational boundaries. It was as though these they were hammering out their ecclesiology and political theology on an as-needed basis. When a majority of the members of a Separate church became convinced that believer’s baptism was the only biblical baptism, they often remained open to communing together with the other church members who continued to believe in paedobaptism. Over time, however, all of these Separate Baptist churches either split to form uniquely Baptist churches or excommunicated those members who would not adopt their strictly Baptist view of the ordinance.

This is not to say, however, that the Separate Baptists were actually “new” in the historical development of theology or that they didn’t know what they believed. As a matter of fact, it was the norm for Separate churches (including Separate Baptist churches) to establish any new local church on the basis of a shared confession of faith and a shared (and signed) church membership covenant. So too, when Baptist churches formed cooperative fellowship with other Baptist churches, a fundamental basis of their fellowship was both a confession of faith and a charter which established the polity (or authority and function) of the association.

In his awe-inspiring work (both for its academic quality and historical content), William McLoughlin listed a number of features that he believes contributed to the success of the association movement among Baptists during the latter decades of the eighteenth century.

McLoughlin wrote,

“The success of the Warren Association (and of the association movement in in general) was due to its courageous and aggressive stand on behalf of separation of church and state, its ability to bring doctrinal harmony on a basically Calvinistic creed and to hold the line against innovations and heresies, its ability to bring peace among the churches and within the churches on broad questions of practice and discipline; its evangelistic zeal and its care for new and pastorless churches; its ability to avoid interfering in congregational autonomy either in matters of internal church discipline or in quarrel between churches, or between churches and pastors; its ability to sustain and improve the morale and the sense of unity and purpose in the midst of continued persecutions and during the faltering fortunes of war peace.”

McLoughlin, William Gerald. New England Dissent, 1630-1833: The Baptists and the Separation of Church and State. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971. 508.

Listing each of these in turn, we see four features for associational success.

One, church-state distinction.

This feature was especially important during the eighteenth century in New England, but it is not unimportant to ongoing Baptist church and Baptist association success. Baptists are an inherently a voluntary people, not willing to be compelled toward church membership or subdued by an ecclesiastical or political structure above the local church. As a broad principle, we might say that associational success among Baptists depends on a high regard for local church autonomy.

Two, doctrinal harmony.

In every age, Christians must receive for themselves and be diligent to hand down the faith once for all delivered to the saints. On those doctrines which are essential to Christianity, Baptists may join with their Christian brethren from across denominational lines and say a hearty “Amen!” But local churches depend on agreement in more areas than the mere essentials of the faith. Local churches must decide who to baptize, how to be structured in their polity, and what will be the qualifications for their leaders (i.e., pastors or elders). These are some of the more important non-essential matters that every church will have to practice as essential for their own integrity and perpetuity. Any church that does not have agreement on such matters among its membership has only a matter of time before its inevitable demise.

Because of these non-essential doctrines and practices which are essential for the formation and continuation of a local church, cooperative associations of churches succeed when those uniting churches share in believing and practicing these secondary doctrines. Uniting with any association must be voluntary, at least for Baptists, but so too must any association draw stark lines between those beliefs held by the churches cooperating and those beliefs that may be held by any number of other Christian organizations or churches. Success for a Baptist association will depend on promoting harmony of shared belief and holding the line against innovation and heresy.

Three, evangelistic zeal and care for weaker churches.

While some may think of evangelistic zeal and doctrinal strictness as opposite ends of a competing spectrum, it is better to understand that these two must always be joined as two sides of the same coin. Zeal for evangelism is only zeal if there is no distinct “evangel” to be proclaimed. So too, doctrinal strictness must both exclude those who do not share those doctrinal convictions and include those who may embrace them over time. Therefore, doctrinal strictness must be joined with evangelistic zeal so that the greater goal of seeing sinners converted and Christians matured will be realized.

Furthermore, the same sensibilities that animate evangelistic zeal will also motivate care for weaker Christians and churches. Too often, larger churches and parachurch ministries promote, celebrate, and finance those ministries that are already strong and prolific. But one of the main purposes of cooperation among churches is to care for those who are weaker. Pastorless churches and small churches, new churches and diminishing churches, these all need assistance of various kinds. And successful associations will depend on a demonstration of care and support for the weaker churches among the cooperative group.

Four, unity, morale, and a clear purpose.

If associations are good for anything at all, they ought to be the occasion for local churches to cooperatively unite around a common cause. The Scripture is clear that the local church is God’s evangelistic and disciple-making institution in the world. There is no other institution or person or group that can or will ever replace the local church in God’s wise and effective plan to make Himself and His gospel known in the world. But associations can be an extra-biblical institution that structures and expands the kinds of efforts that local churches are putting into practice on the local level. When churches are able to combine their efforts with other churches, then this can promote incredible success.

But associations must always be subservient to the local churches who cooperate to form them. Associations must always promote genuine unity among the churches, highlighting and encouraging shared convictions, shared goals, and shared methods. And associations must always encourage the kinds of relationships among local churches where weaker churches can be encouraged and helped by stronger ones, where stronger churches can be humbled and corrected by smaller ones, and where all churches can cooperate together for a purpose they all share together.

There is much evidence to show that Baptist associations and conventions are experiencing a re-settling on the American cultural, political, and religious landscape. It seems productive to revisit those features which made cooperative efforts and institutions successful in the past, and especially to focus attention on a historical period of cultural, political, and religions revolution. I commend this effort of re-evaluating and reforming cooperative institutions among Baptists, and I hope to see a rejuvenated future of cooperative Baptist efforts in the years to come.