The Failure of the American Baptist culture Copyright o 1982 by Geneva Divinity School. Permission to reprint any essay, in part or in whole, must be obtained from the author. Any reprints must credit Christiani~y and Civilization. , ISSN 0278-8187 ISBN 0-939404 -04-4 Qup%mmilg ala Qhliliymfll No. 1 SPRING, 1982 PUBLISHED BY GENEVA DIVINITY SCHOOL Editors: Associate Editors: JAMES B. JORDAN CRAIG S. BULKELEY LEWIS E. BULKELEY GARY NORTH RAY R. SUTTON JAMES MICHAEL PETERS Symposium on The Failure of the American Baptist Culture Edited by James B. Jordan EDITORS INTRODUCTION By James B. Jordan . ..v PART I: THE CRISIS OF AMERICAN BAPTIST CULTURE THE INTELLECTUAL SCHIZOPHRENIA OF THE NEW CHRISTIAN RIGHT By Gary North . .. ...1 SOCIAL APOLOGETICS By KevinCraig. ...41 THE MORAL MAJORITY: AN ANABAPTIST CRITIQUE (a review of Robert E. Webber’s The Moral Majority: Right or Wrong?) By James B. Jordan . ...77 OF THE CHRISTIAN MISSION (A Confessional Statement) By The Association of Reformation Churches. 94 MEDIA THEO-POP (a review of Richard Quebedeaux’s By What Authority: The Rise of Personality Cults in American Christianity) By Michael R. Gilstrap . ...99 PART II: BACKGROUND STUDIES IN BAPTIST THOUGHT AND CULTURE BAPTISM, REDEMPTIVE HISTORY, AND ESCHATOLOGY: THE PARAMETERS OF DEBATE By P. Richard Flinn . ...111 (Continued on next page) THE BAPTIST FAILURE By Ray R. Sutton . ...152 CALVINS COVENANTAL RESPONSE TO THE ANABAPTIST VIEW OF BAPTISM By Peter A. Lillback . 185 ASTOROGER WILLIAMSAND HIS’’BANISHMENT” FROM THE MASSACHUSETTS PLANTATION (A Selection) By Henry Martyn Dexter . ...233 CHRISTIANITY AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY: A LETTER TO THE REVEREND KEMPER D. SMITH By Craig S. Bulkeley . ...244 A REFORMED VIEW OF FREEMASONRY By Everett C. De Velde, Jr . ...277 PART III : REVIEWS OF BOOKS THE ALCOHOLIC REPUBLIC: AN AMERICAN TRADITION (by W. J. Rorabaugh) Reviewed by James Michael Peters. ...284 ANABAPTISM AND ASCETICISM: A STUDY IN INTELLECTUAL ORIGINS (by Kenneth Ronald Davis) Reviewed by Ray R. Sutton . ...287 Contributors . 294 About Christianity and Civilization.. 296 Publication Schedule . 302 EDITORS INTRODUCTION James B. Jordan “The Failure of American Baptist Culture” might seem a puz- zling topic for a symposium of essays, but the contention of the editors of Christianity and Civilization is that American culture or civi- lization has been, in the main, a Baptist modification of old catholic and Reformed culture. The New Christian Right, in its attempts to stem the tide of degeneracy in American life, is a Baptistic move- ment, and this is the reason why the New Christian Right finds itself in a condition of crisis, confusion, and indeed impotence. The thesis the editors are setting forth, then, is that American Christianity must return to a full-orbed Biblical and Reformed theology, and set aside Baptistic individualism,if it is to have anything to say to modern problems — indeed, if it is to survive. The purpose of this introduction is to set forth, in broad strokes, the kinds of problems that the various essays in this symposium deal with. This introduction, then, is a kind of road map to the s ym - posium as a whole, and it is our hope that the reader will read this introduction before turning to any of the particular essays of the symposium itself. Most Christians who have wrestled with the question of infant baptism (or paedobaptism), over against professor’s baptism (the Baptist position), have noticed that each side seemingly has strong Biblical arguments for its case. For several centuries, theologians and preachers have hurled Bible texts and theological arguments back and forth, without convincing the other side. Even at this date in history, the vast majority of Christendom holds to and practices infant baptism (and a large segment practices paedocommunion as well). In America, however, the Baptistic mind set has prevailed to a very great extent. In fact, we might say that Americans are instinc- tive Baptists. During the brief efflorescence of the Jesus Movement a decade ago, we saw virtually no new converts who did not “feel a need” to be baptized by immersion. An individualistic, voluntaristic decisionism is endemic and pandemic to American culture. These observations, we believe, point us to the true character of the debate between Baptists and catholics (broadly speaking, of course; catholicity is a matter of intent, and its opposite is v vi CHRISTIANITY AND CIVILIZATION independency, also a matter of intent). The editors, obviously, are catholic, though by no means Roman. To be precise, we are Reformed catholics, committed to the theology of Calvinism as it has found expression (for instance) in Scottish Presbyterian govern- ment, Dutch Reformed thought, and (to an extent) in Anglican worship. We recognize, obviously, that evangelical Baptists are our Christian brethren. These essays are not a declaration of war against Baptists,but an invitation to them to reconsider their position. What, then, is the true character of the debate between Baptists and Calvinists, between independents and catholics ? That character is presuppositional, rather than exegetical. The purpose of the essays in this symposium is to expose these presuppositions, so that a more intelligent discussion of the problems can ensue. In this introduction, I should like to paint the picture in broad strokes. I have no doubt but that much of what I have to say here will be offensive to some Baptist brethren. I ask only that they listen carefully. I am not trying to be offensive, but to provoke thought along unaccustomed lines. So to get right to it, let us look at some differences between Reformed and Baptistic thought in the area of the Trinity. The Bible teaches us that God is a Person, and so we can pray to God. The Bible also teaches us that God is three Persons, and so we can pray to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. God’s Oneness is not the same as His Threeness, but God is every bit as much One as He is Three, and every bit as much Three as He is One. Consistent Christians, therefore, are not Tri-theists (three gods), nor are they pure Mono-theists (one God); rather, they are Trinitarian. The doctrine of the Trinity teaches us that the one and the many are equally ultimate in God, and thus are equally ultimate in God’s creation. This Christian belief preserves us from the errors of in- dividualism on the one hand and corporatism on the other. Let’s take some examples. In some societies, the family is such a closed, corporate body that the individual has no place outside the family. Indeed, in many of the ancient world cultures, the father might kill his wife or chil- dren or slaves if he chose to do so. On the other hand, modern soci- ety has virtually destroyed the family through individualism. Rebellion surrounds us on every hand. The Bible presents the fam- ily as a balance between the one and the many. The family is a real entity, a genuine corporation,and God deals with the family as a EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION vii family, Thus, unlike the Baptists, Presbyterians baptize entire fami- lies, including wives and children; showing that the entire family is in some ways within the sphere of God’s covenant life. On the other hand, each “member of the family stands before God as a true indivi- dual both in this life and on the day of judgment, so that rebellious wives and husbands can, in extremity, be divorced, and rebellious children disinherited. Again, this stands over against some corpora- tistic forms of Christianity which do not allow divorce. Consistent Presbyterianism alone is able to produce a genuinely Trinitarian view of the family. Second, in many societies the state is given all power over the in- dividual, while in some others, the individual is given all power over against the state.Totalitarianism and anarchism are the result. Presbyterians have always been in the forefront of the political battle against both of these extremes. The War for Independence was characterized by the British as a “Scotch-Irish Rebellion, ” that is, a Presbyterian revolt. Presbyterians object to statism as an encroach- ment on true liberty, but they also object to anarchy. The Puritans and Presbyterians had little use for the anarchistic Anabaptists and Quakers of their day. As John Cotton put it, “If the people are gov- ernors, who then shall be governed?” Think about it. That is a good argument, in the light of the Biblical command to submit to the powers that be. Presbyterians, unlike the Anabaptists, did not rebel against the statist powers, but unlike the Romanists and Anglicans, they did not acquiesce in them either. They submitted and also worked for change. When forced to do so, they took up arms. Consistent Presbyterianism alone is able to produce a genuinely Trinitarian view of the State. Third, in some circles the church is organized as a top-heavy corporation, with a legislative bureaucracy at the top which directs everything below. Indeed, a local church does not really exist unless it belongs to the larger, corporate church. This is the Roman, Anglican, and liberal Presbyterian and Lutheran way. At the other extreme we have the Baptists. Among the Baptists, each church is a separate corporation. No real connection among the churches is allowed to exist, and certainly no heirarchy. Independency, in vary- ing degrees, is the rule. Only among the Presbyterians do we find the Trinitarian presupposition, the equal ultimacy of the one and the many, at work. In Presbyterianism, each local church is a real entity, but so is the connected church at large. The ascending courts of Presbyterianism are just that: courts of appeal, not legislatures.