Influences and Changes in the Baptist Doctrine of the Church
in the Eighteenth Century
Part Three
The Influence of the Separates on Baptists in the South
The point we have been moving toward in this discussion of the Great Awakening and its results is that Baptist churches were suddenly and quickly invaded by an influence and pattern of thought which was at key points different from and unfamiliar to their English and American Baptist forefathers. We have already noted some of the characteristics of the Separates, but feel a necessity to speak further of their thinking and influence on Baptists. We speak now of the similarities between the Separates and the group known as Separate Baptists in the south. We shall document later how these Separate Baptists exercised a great influence on all of Baptist thinking in America, especially Southern Baptists. Note the following similarities between the Separates and the Separate Baptists.
a. Both groups were modified Calvinists and somewhat anti or non-theological.
We have already shown how the Separates placed great emphasis on experience, even sometimes overriding the importance of doctrine. Lumpkin says concerning the Separate Baptists, "They had neither aptitude nor inclination to be heavily theological. The subtleties of speculative thought held no attention for them.139 He notes later they had a weak theology, whose vagueness ultimately proved detrimental.140 He again tells us that they held to an evangelical Calvinism, but they would not countenance a rigid hyper-Calvinism such as that of the Philadelphia thought.141 So we see that the Separate Baptists were not systematic theologians, and they held to a simple theology of modified Calvinism. Concerning the doctrine of predestination, limited atonement and election, Lumpkin states that they either rejected these doctrines or said little about them.142 Goen states definitely that the Separates put them stamp on the life of Baptists in the south, especially by helping to modify the rigid Calvinism of the Philadelphia Confession, so as to leave way for their intense revivalism.143 Wamble attributes to these Separate Baptists a theology which focused on conversion.144
Some have felt that it was the Separates who saved Baptists from Arminian viewpoints. Gaustad relates one of the effects of the Separates was to give the major portion of the Baptists a Calvinistic emphasis, which altered its nature and future history in America.145 That no doubt was true in some instances, where Separates encountered General Baptists. But on the whole, they also definitely modified the Calvinism in the Particular and Regular Baptist churches in time. Smith tells of an instance where the General Baptists in North Carolina in 1750 were transformed into Particular Baptists by a Robert Williams from South Carolina and messengers from the Philadelphia Association. But he notes further that they were saved from this particular view of the atonement and extreme strict Calvinism by the coming of the Separate Baptists.146 This is exactly our point, namely, that the Separates and the Separate Baptists were modified Calvinists, because the former in a large degree influenced the latter.
b. Both groups depended heavily upon revival, mass evangelism, and a pietistic approach.
This certainly is not to castigate entirely the use of revivals, mass evangelism, or even a pietistic element in preaching and witnessing. It is to say that these techniques have their dangers, which must be carefully avoided, just as surely as the total denial of evangelism is to be shunned. Lumpkin admits there was among the Separate Baptists too great a dependence on mass evangelism and excessive emotional appeal, using almost exclusively a mass psychology to bring about a decision. He notes further that the result of this appeal to the emotions, even making this an end in itself, was dulling and obscuring of the intellectual content of the message itself.147
Goen tells us it was the Separates who bequeathed the Baptists this revivalistic tradition with their chief aim to prepare individuals for eternity, while every other concern was subjected to this evangelistic imperative.148 He adds, furthermore, that this revivalistic tradition and evangelistic zeal among Baptists came to prevail by the direct influence of the Separates.149
Lumpkin notes that a Morgan Edwards was correct, when he stated in 1772 that the North Carolina Separate Baptist preachers did resemble the Separates of New England. As Lumpkin quotes another writer, the similarity is said to be
. . . in tones of voice and actions of the body; and the people crying out underSmith informs us that the Separate Baptists with their revival zeal had some distinctive manner and practices in their preaching. Those characteristics he mentions are animated gesticulations; a piercing gaze; fluctuating tones of voice; and a sort of holy whine, which was matched often in the pew with such uninhibited responses, such as sobs, screams, and shouts of joy.151
the ministry, falling down as in fits, and awaking in extacies; and both
ministers and people resemble those regarding impulses, visions, and
revelations.150
Again, the writer must acknowledge that he is not denying the validity and necessity of genuine revivals nor evangelism. Rather we are seeking to point out some errors of the Separates and Baptists in these areas, while not denying the genuine blessings which were theirs, but not necessarily due to these methods or abuse of them.
c. Both groups undervalued the helpfulness of ministerial education.
We have already spoken of the Separate attitude in this respect. Lumpkin points out this same weakness in the Separate Baptists saying this attitude must be traced to the established churches' emphasis on education, almost to the exclusion of piety.152 But more so, he adds, it must have stemmed from their idea of conversion, which included an immediate illumination and guidance of the Holy Spirit, which made teaching and training of ministers to be of little or no help. Lumpkin summarizes this concept in the Separate Baptists as follows:
The Spirit would certainly aid those ministers who he should call and
commission. Education was counted insignificant as compared with the charismatic
endowment. The two were not mutually exclusive, but in the existential situation
of mystical experience and religious challenge, it seemed obvious that the
non-essential would be passed by and the essential regarded. There was in fact
scarcely a minister in the Separate Baptist ministry who had had formal
schooling for his ministry.153
McLoughlin adds that the Separate Baptists were not educated men, nor well read in history, politics, or theology. They assumed that their teacher was their religious experience, which would give them divine inspiration, understanding and guidance concerning God's truth and will.154 This is not to deny their strong Biblical orientation and foundation, for that would be grossly incorrect. It is only to say that they came to the Scriptures often with their religious experience already authoritative concerning a subject, and that bias kept them at times from truth in doctrine and methods. Also, without an understanding of hermeneutics and other aids to Scriptural study and interpretation, and with a closed mind to the usefulness of such helps, they were certainly prone to stumbling in their search for truth.
The writer feels a compulsion to add once again, lest he be misunderstood, that he is not arguing an either/or solution to the problem of education versus the Spirit's illumination and guidance. Rather, he feels strongly that there is the need of both, and one errs grievously in emphasizing only one of the two, whichever one it is, as has been the case frequently in the past. Such was the error of the Separates and the Separate Baptists. They strongly emphasized the Holy Spirit's presence and illumination, but to the denial of the helpfulness of godly education and training.
d. Both groups possessed a limited view of the ministry.
With their pietistic view of the complete sufficiency of the Holy Spirit to guide and train them and their single goal of evangelism, there existed also among the Separates and the Separates Baptists a limited view of the ministry. That is to say, as they were convinced that the Holy Spirit was the divine illuminator and teacher of the regenerate, then they were led to see the duty of the ministry to be the salvation of souls, or the alarming of souls already saved, so the Spirit could teach them. They failed to grasp the importance and place of teaching and educating the church membership, as part of the duty of the ministry. Lumpkin notes this characteristic stating that as a result most of their people never received much more than a rudimentary education in Christian faith and worship.155
Goen says of the Baptists that their preoccupation with this one thing, the salvation of souls, was the secret of their greatest strength, but also their greatest weakness, for it kept them from working out in their understanding the full implications of their personal religious experience.156 Hill and Torbet, speaking of Baptists in general through their history, note they neglected the formulation of their Christian theological understanding in comparison to their prominent emphasis upon personal religious experience.157 They say further in the same context that this is the reason that there have been few theologians in Baptist circles, also few contributions to apologetics. Baptists have had a tendency to stress the living of the Christian life to the exclusion of the formulation of Christian truth in any depth.
Mead points out, again not speaking of the Separates or Baptists in particular but of revivalism in general, that the method of revivalism has an effect on one's understanding of the ministry. The duty of the pastor then becomes the preparation and promotion of revivals, even attempting to keep a revival atmosphere in the services all through the year. The pastor's ability or inability to do this becomes the basis of judgment of his ministry.158 It is easy to see how this inevitably leads to a pragmatic standard of judgment for the ministry or for a sermon and even for the Christian life. If a pastor or preacher was able to produce numbers and decisions, then he could be considered a success and beyond doubt blessed of God. If a sermon resulted in numbers and decisions, then what had been preached must undoubtedly be the truth of God. Mead points out again this revivalistic pragmatism eventually played havoc with the traditionally rooted standards of doctrine and polity in the American churched.159
e. Both groups were fearful of creeds and confessions.
Having come out of strong confessional, but what they felt were corrupt churches, and having a strong emphasis on the immediate illumination of the Holy Spirit, and being convinced that each man had the right to hold those views which were in accordance with his conscience, the Separates and the Separate Baptists were extremely dubious of confessions. They feared them, thinking they might become a bridle upon a man's own individualism and right of private judgment. Lumpkin points out that the arrival of the aggressive Separate Baptists in the south in the years of 1755 to 1783 raised the issue of confessionalism in a church as never before.160
Lumpkin gives a solid example of this attitude in Virginia, as it kept the Separate Baptists from uniting with the Calvinistic or Regular Baptists for a time. Finally, the General Association of Separate Baptists of Virginia in 1783 did adopt the Philadelphia Confession, with the reservation that this acceptance did not mean that everyone was bound to the strict observance of everything contained therein. Neither did they acknowledge, and rightfully so, that it was superior or equal to the Scriptures in matters of faith and practice.161
Thus we have shown the great similarity between the Separates and the Separate Baptists of the south. Both were modified Calvinists with little concern for theological depth or study. Both depended heavenly on revival, mass evangelism, and a strong pietistic approach in their ministerial performance. Both underestimated the value or need of education in preparation for the ministry. Both possessed a limited view of the ministry, because of their naive understanding of the Holy Spirit and His word. Both failed to see the importance of training and feeding the flock. Both possessed a pragmatic judgment of preaching, causing them to assess a ministry on the a basis of numbers and decisions. Both were fearful of creeds and confessions, even though Baptists previously had used them extensively and unashamedly. Our point is that these Separates, as they either became Baptists or exerted their influence as Separate Baptists, had a great impact on Baptist thinking for years to come.
According to Lumpkin, not only has the importance of the Separate Baptists not been fully realized as to their impact on Baptists, but also their impact on all American Christianity has to a great extent gone unnoticed. He is convinced more than any others, the Separate Baptists helped to establish the nature of American Christianity, stamping it with the revivalistic mold.162 Their stamp on Baptists in particular is undeniable, and Lumpkin points out that they " . . . are historically and hereditarily the chief component of Baptist life in the South, both white and Negro . . ."163 Perhaps the most interesting observation he makes, in light of the particular thrust of this paper, is that "In many distinguishable ways the Separate Baptists live on in Southern Baptists."164
Notes:
139 Lumpkin, Baptist Foundations, p. 63.
140 Ibid., p. 153. The term "rigid hyper-Calvinism" is obviously defined differently by various people. Some would say that the Calvinism of the Philadelphia Confession was a balanced Calvinism. Thus often definitions depend on the perspective of the one defining the term.
141 Ibid., p. 157
142 Ibid., pp. 61-62.
143 Goen, Revivalism, p. 298.
144 Wooley, Baptist Advance, p. 120.
145 Gaustad, Awakening, p. 120.
146 Smith, American Christianity, Volume I, pp. 360-361.
147 Lumpkin, Baptist Foundations, p. 150.
148 Goen, Revivalism, p. 294.
149 Ibid., p. 282.
150 Lumpkin, Baptist Foundations, pp. 39-40, quoting Morgan Edwards, from "Materials Toward a History of the Baptists in the Provinces of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia" (MS in the Furman University Library, Greenville, South Carolina), p. 145.
151 Smith, American Christianity, Volume I, p. 361.
152 Lumpkin, Baptist Foundations, p. 150.
153 Ibid., pp. 150-151.
154 William G. McLoughlin, Editor, Isaac Backus on Church, State, and Calvinism, Pamphlets 1754-1789 (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1968), p. 17.
155 Lumpkin, Baptist Foundations, pp. 151-152.
156 Goen, Revivalism, p. 294.
157 Samuel S. Hill, Jr. and Robert G. Torbet, Baptists North and South (Valley Forge: The Judson Press, 1964), p. 107.
158 Mead, The Lively Experiment, pp. 125-126.
159 Ibid., p. 33.
160 William G. Lumpkin, "Baptist Confessions of Faith," Baptist Advance, Edited by Wooley, p. 12.
161 Ibid., pp. 12-13.
162 Lumpkin, Baptist Foundations, pp. 147-148.
163 Ibid., p. 154.
164 Ibid. p. 158.
0 comments:
Post a Comment