Dr. Scott Culpepper is Assistant Professor of History at Louisiana College and he is the author of Francis Johnson and the English Separatist Influence.  He is married to Ginger and the father of 3His education includes:

Ph.D., Baylor University
M.A., Northwestern State University
M. Div., New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
B.A., Louisiana College

The Baptist traditions are a complicated stream fed by many theological and ecclesiological tributaries.  Some of those streams consist of the Anabaptist traditions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.  There is no doubt that interaction did occur between the early founders of the Baptist traditions, both General and Particular, and some Anabaptist groups, particularly Mennonite groups living in the Dutch Republic.  It is certainly debatable, and it has been debated extensively, how much direct influence the Anabaptist tradition had on shaping the Baptists.  While some Baptists have clung to an “Anabaptist kinship” theory of Baptist origins, others have argued that the Baptist traditions owe more to the influence of the English Separatist movement from which they first appeared and against which they defined themselves.  Both traditions have much to recommend them, and both have had some influence in the development of Baptists.  In addition, the Dutch Remonstrant tradition may also have influenced the early General Baptist movement.  The complexity of the relationships between the various Baptist traditions and the movements that came before them demands that we be careful and humble in assessing how much Baptists owe to each one.  Above all else, we must be cautious about using history, especially history done with a political agenda, to provide the trump card in our contemporary theological debates.

Much of the recent scholarship on the topic of Baptist/Anabaptist relations comes from an interesting subset of the larger Baptist family.  Southern Baptists have fostered a historiographical school, largely encouraged by the work of scholars at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, which has celebrated the Anabaptist tradition as an important, sometimes as the most important, precursor of the Baptists.  I describe the promotion of Anabaptist foundations coming from Southern Baptists as interesting because Southern Baptists seem primarily interested in historical Anabaptist influence rather than forging any significant contemporary links with Anabaptist groups.  The Southern Baptist Convention, born in the midst of debates over slavery and missionary appointments in 1845, has never itself had any formal or informal connection to Anabaptist groups.  There was no Anabaptist connection to the founders of the convention nor was there any attempt to express a preference for Anabaptist influence over English Separatism at the founding of the convention.

The historiographical school that formed at Southwestern Theological Seminary owed a great deal to the teaching and writing of Dr. William R. Estep, professor of church history at Southwestern from 1954-1990.  Dr. Estep was an expert in Anabaptist studies and author of the widely used survey text, The Anabaptist Story.[i]  Estep influenced two generations of Baptist seminarians to give the Anabaptist movement greater weight when assessing the genetic influences on Southern Baptists.  H. Leon McBeth, a student of Estep and later colleague at Southwestern, helped to continue this emphasis in his teaching and in the textbook The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness. McBeth, as a colleague of William Estep, was respectful of the Estep tradition of Anabaptist Influence but also indicated that the Particular Baptist tradition could be genetically traced through Henry Jacob and other Independents who had been influenced by English Separatism.[ii]  Contemporary heirs to the Estep tradition in Southern Baptist life include scholars such as Malcolm Yarnell III of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and Dr. Steve Lemke of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.  These scholars were particularly drawn to Anabaptist influences because of the common tradition of persecuted dissent they shared with Baptists and also because of their shared theological views, including believer’s baptism and congregational autonomy.

Whatever qualms one might have regarding the theological diversity of the Anabaptist movements, a feature that often gets lost in Southern Baptist discussions of a unified Anabaptist tradition that never truly existed, one can certainly see why contemporary Southern Baptists might want to demonstrate genetic links to the Anabaptists.  They were certainly assertive about their belief in believer’s baptism, a belief for which they were willing to suffer ostracism and death.  Anabaptists generally rejected the conflation of church and state though, unlike most Baptists, they also rejected all association with secular powers.  And they did endorse a congregational autonomy with individual churches led by pastors and deacons.  The complication, however, is that the above sentences only describe some Anabaptist groups, in particular the Swiss Brethren and some Mennonites.  Not all groups that fell under the category of Anabaptist in the seventeenth century could be accepted as theologically orthodox by evangelicals today.  George H. Williams, professor of church history at Harvard Divinity School, demonstrated the complexity of Anabaptist identity in The Radical Reformation.[iii]  William’s typology of Anabaptist identities alone makes the book an essential tool for Anabaptist studies.  One might legitimately ask Southern Baptists who quote freely from Balthasar Hubmaier’s work what is to be done with the problematic Melchior Hoffman?  Thomas Helwys had some definite aversions to Hoffman’s Christology.  Have Southern Baptists been influenced as much by the radical revolutionary Thomas Müntzer as they have been inspired by heroic martyr Michael Sattler?  Some survivors of rural Southern Baptist business meetings might be tempted to say yes.  In order to access properly the nature of Anabaptist influence on Southern Baptists, it is necessary to define accurately and specifically the points of contact between the two traditions.  We will turn our attention to that task in the second part of this series.



[i] William R. Estep, The Anabaptist Story, 3rd edition, (Grand Rapides, MI:  William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1996).

[ii] H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage:  Four Centuries of Baptist Witness, (Nashville, TN:  Broadman Press, 1987), 36.

[iii] George H. Williams, The Radical Reformation, (Philadephia, PA:  The Westminster Press, 1962).

 

Drew Wales

I am a disciple of Jesus Christ, a husband to Rachel, father to Harper, and a student at the Caskey School of Divinity at Louisiana College pursuing an M.A. in Biblical and Theological Studies.

More Posts

  • Cody Kingham

    Enjoyed the read!

    • http://www.thedailybleat.com/ Joshua Breland

      Come back tomorrow for Part II! 

  • Robert Vaughn

    Interesting piece, Scott. Enjoyed reading it. I want to make a few observations.
    “Above all else, we must be cautious about using history, especially history done with a political agenda, to provide the trump card in our contemporary theological debates.”I began to notice several years ago what seemed to be some preferences for Anabaptist Kinship vs English Separatism theories related to one’s view pro or con of Calvinism. I am glad to see the renewed interest in Continental Anabaptism even though I think it may be driven to some extent by anti-Calvinist theology. On the other hand, Glen Stassen’s “Anabaptist Influence in the Origin of the Particular Baptists” shows the influence of Menno Simon’s Foundation of Christian Doctrine on the Particular Baptist 1644 London Confession. So far as I know this has not been disputed.
    “There was no Anabaptist connection to the founders of the convention nor was there any attempt to express a preference for Anabaptist influence over English Separatism at the founding of the convention.”I’ve made no study of this specifically in regard to the founders of the SBC, but wouldn’t it be likely that many of them held a successionist viewpoint (probably of the style of Howell rather than Graves)?
    “Not all groups that fell under the category of Anabaptist in the seventeenth century could be accepted as theologically orthodox by evangelicals today.”In reading about the Anabaptists, I’ve found it troubling that often some of the best brethren among them had connections (for example, baptized by) to some of the most unorthodox. Nevertheless, historical inquiry and not theology must decide what connections Baptists had/have to them. Judging by theology alone, in 500 years it might be hard to look back and believe that the current predominantly Calvinistic theology conservative faculty of the Southern Seminary had any connection to those formerly faculty there who believed in apostasy, denied the Genesis account of Creation, denied subsitutionary atonement, and held a low view of inspiration.
    Have now also read part two and look forward to part three. Thanks.

    • Scott Culpepper

       Robert,

      Thank you for taking the time to read and respond.  I appreciate your comments and your interest.  Glen Stassen’s article is an interesting piece which does indicate some possible influence from continental Anabaptists on Particular Baptist views of baptism and church order.  I interact with his work in my book, “Francis Johnson and the English Separatist Influence,” because he also makes the argument that the English Separatist “Trve Confession” of 1596 crafted by Johnson’s church  influenced the writing of the First London Confession.  I mentioned in the article that Particulars possibly adopted immersion because of the Anabaptist example, but should probably cite Stassen’s work more prominently as one person who demonstrates that influence.  I hope it will be clear by the time all three sections are posted that I have no personal animosity towards the advancing the idea of Anabaptist influence in Baptist life.  I have a great deal of admiration for them, especially in regard to their willingness to reject the conflation of Christianity and the state.  My goal is to encourage us look at the history of our origins honestly and charitably to prevent just the sort of political agenda-driven reinterpretations that you describe.
          It is very possible that some of the SBC founders harbored successionist views.  It is a question that merits further study.  I would need to qualify my statement to some degree if that were the case with a large number of them, though we should probably distinguish between contemporary proponents of a dominant Anabaptist kinship and successionists.  I see successionists as diminishing the Anabaptist influence rather than promoting it because they are saying that Anabaptists are only one of a large body of traditions that provided a link between Baptists and the first century.
           In giving problematic examples of Anabaptist theological errata, my goal was to demonstrate that we are dealing with a very complex tradition whose complexity is often obscured by polemics or denominational histories that want to make the connections too simple and neat.  Every theological movement has its strange uncle and cousins, every theological tree has some strange fruit grow on adjoining branches.  That is no less true of Reformed traditions than it is of more Arminian traditions.  I thought your example drawn from the recent history of the SBC is a good one, though I think future historians will have more perspective on the differences within the SBC because of the larger context of the SBC conflict as an echo of Modernist/Fundementalist controversies earlier in the century. 
           Thank you for your questions, comments, and suggestions.  I look forward to discussing more in the future.

      • Ben Stratton

        Bro. Culpepper,

        I have enjoyed reading your articles. You wrote: “here was no Anabaptist connection to the founders of the
        convention nor
        was there any attempt to express a preference for Anabaptist influence
        over English Separatism at the founding of the convention.” As well as
        ” It is very possible that some of the SBC founders harbored
        successionist views. It is a question that merits further study.”

        I would go as far as stating that all of founders of the Southern
        Baptist Convention believed in some form of Baptist successionism. This
        was the norm / standard among Southern, Northern, Missionary,
        Primitive, General, English, etc. Baptists until William Whitsitt came
        along. Here are some quotes that clearly show what the founders of the
        SBC believed about Baptist origins:

        “Let these authorities suffice for the present. They prove conclusively
        for they are concessions wrung from unfriendly lips by truth too
        stubborn to be compromised, that the Baptists were not called out of
        mystical Babylon by Luther or Calvin, or Henry the 8th, that they
        existed long before the time and dreary darkness of the world’s moral
        midnight, and we give this as the concluding reason Why I Am A
        Baptist.” John L. Waller, The Western Baptist Review; 1848: p. 166.

        “It is not pretended that always there have been a people called
        Baptists. The name is nothing; we only maintain that always there have
        been people who have cherished and practiced Baptist principles. The
        Welsh churches claim an unbroken continuity since the days of the
        Apostles.” William Carey Crane, The Baptist Preacher, 1846; pps.
        144-149.

        “1846 years since Jesus Christ came on earth to set up a kingdom, which
        is to endure to the end of time. . . . What is called ecclesiastical
        history is the narrative of almost everything but the History of the
        Churches of Jesus Christ. . . . We have evidence before us, full and
        conclusive, that the great body of the ancient Waldenses would now pass
        for sound, consistent Baptists. From them originated the Lollards and
        Wycliffites in England and Several of the Old English Baptist
        Churches.” R.B.C. Howell, The Baptist, Vol. 3; 1846.

        Many other quotes could be supplied.

        • Scott Culpepper

          Ben,
          Thanks for your response. I would agree that a good number of Baptists at the time of the SBC founding were Sucessionist, especially in the Deep South. The question that I think bears further study is to what degree the leaders of the SBC who set the direction of the convention in its earliest days embraced Secessionism. While the three gentlemen you quoted definitely are endorsing Sucessionism, I have studied representatives of the Charleston tradition such as Basil Manly, Sr. who seem to accept a Reformation era origin for the Baptists. William Carey Crane was actually linked to two academic institutions from which I graduated. He was president of Mount Lebanon University in Louisiana (a precursor to Louisiana College) at the beginning of the Civil War and later president of Baylor in Texas While I agree that Sucessionism was very prevalent on a popular level in the SBC, I have my doubts that the same can be said for Northern Baptists. Certainly the more educated of them would have access to British scholarship that seriously questioned Sucessionist ideas.
          While I think the Sucessionist angle is an interesting one, I believe the essence of what I was saying in my comments still stands even if there was a strong Sucessionist strength among the founders for two reasons. The first is because there was no attempt to reconnect with any of these alleged precursors of the Baptists, including the Anabaptists. There were no formal links of any kind between Anabaptists and Southern Baptists in the nineteenth century. Secondly, and more importantly, I do not see belief in Anabaptist kinship and Sucessionism as the same thing. Twentieth century scholars who advanced a primarily Anabaptist view of Baptist origins framed the debate in terms of Baptist origins. In other words, they accept a Reformation era origin for Baptists. Sucessionists would equate Baptist origins with Christian origins and posit that what we practice has always been practiced by someone. A Sucessionist would see both Waledenses and Anabaptists as an evolutionary step towards the final product, Baptists. Those who endorse Anabaptist kindship see Anabaptists as recovering ancient Christian beliefs and practices after a long period of incubation. The Founders would not have preferred Anabaptists over other precursors even if they had been primarily Sucessionists. I see proponents of Sucessionism and Anabaptist kinship as having very different agendas and perspectives. There was certainly no attempt to deny English Separatists a place in the pantheon of influences on Baptists at the founding of the convention. That controversy, as you rightly said, began later with William H. Whitsitt’s courageous and groundbreaking work of historical scholarship which overturned so many mistaken notions held by nineteenth century Baptists. Thanks for your comments and quotes. You have given me some good food for thought and avenues for further inquiry.

          • Ben Stratton

            You wrote: “I have studied representatives of the Charleston tradition such as Basil
            Manly, Sr. who seem to accept a Reformation era origin for the
            Baptists.”

            I have studied this subject pretty extensively and have never found any
            Baptists (North or South) before William Whittisitt who believed in the
            English Separatist theory of Baptist origins. The one exception to this
            is the anonymous “Pike” who wrote in the Religious Herald in the
            1880′s. Further proof of this is the fact that when J.R. Graves
            reprinted G.H. Orchard’s Baptist History in the 1850′s, there was no
            controversy over the book from his fellow Baptists. Now the Methodists
            and Presbyterians were up in arms over the book, but I don’t know of any
            Baptists who criticized Graves or Orchard over the book. I would very
            much like to know of your source where Basil Manly Sr. accepted a
            Reformation ere origins for the Baptists.

            You also wrote: “While I agree that Sucessionism was very prevalent on a popular level in
            the SBC, I have my doubts that the same can be said for Northern
            Baptists.”

            It surprises many people to learn that Northern Baptists also accepted
            successionism. Some example of this include R.J.W. Buckland of
            Rochester Seminary, Jesse Thomas of Crozer Seminary and E.T. Hiscox,
            author of the famous church manuel. Thomas was a strong Northern
            Baptist oppenent of Whitsitt, when that controversy broke out. Buckland
            authored an interesting article on Baptist history in the book “Madison
            Avenue Lectures.” W.A. Jarrell, Texas Baptist and author of “Baptist
            Perpetuity”, claimed that Buckland had wrote him shortily before his
            (Buckland’s) death and claimed that he (Buckland) was working on a book
            to prove Baptist successionism. This information is in the beginning of
            Jarrell’s book. Many other examples could be given. Successionism was
            the standard Baptist belief in the 19th century. After Whitsitt, most
            Baptist historians quickly changed positions. But before Whitsitt, the
            belief was common place.

            You wrote: “I see proponents of Sucessionism and Anabaptist kinship as having very different agendas and perspectives.”

            I agree. Modern day proponents of Anabaptist kinship claim that the
            Anabaptists influenced the theological beliefs of Baptists, but deny
            that there was any actual connection between Baptists and Anabaptists.
            This is not what 17th, 18th, and 19th century Baptists believed. These
            Baptists believed in both a theological and physical connection between
            Anabaptists and Baptists. It wasn’t until H.C. Vedder and A.H. Newman
            that modern Baptists began to deny the physical connection, yet still
            claim a theological connection.

          • Scott Culpepper

            Ben,
            Sorry it has taken me so long to reply. I have been in the process of moving and distracted by handling all the attending details. I did not mean to imply that persons before Whitsitt advocated a belief in the English Separatist origin of Baptist per se, but that many did acknowledge an indebtedness to the Reformation of the sixteenth century. And that, while they may have argued that Baptist principles were the true doctrines of the apostolic church, they were under no illusions that there had been a process of recovering these New Testament doctrines during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The quote about Manly Sr. that came to my mind in my answer was not one by him, but rather about him. It comes from the funeral sermon for Manly Sr. delivered by James Petigru Boyce on December 22, 1868. “In his doctrinal statements, Dr. Manly was a decided Calvinist. When he went to Charleston, that church was associated with others, which maintained the doctrines of the ‘Century Confession,” which accords on all points except peculiar Baptist doctrines, with the well known confession of the Westminster Divines. To the views of the Century Confession, Dr. Manly gave his cordial assent and they were always maintained by him.” I agree that in terms of a belief in the survival of those “peculiar Baptist doctrines” through mediating traditions across the centuries that you could possibly identify the majority of Southern Baptists and many Northern Baptists as well in the nineteenth century as embracing a form of moderate Baptist Successionism. I would still argue that such a moderate successionism would be different from the more dogmatic successionism of groups like the Landmarkists.
            I was surprised by the number of northern examples that you presented. I assume there was some influence by popular English Baptist historians such as Thomas Crosby? Have you presented your research in a published form or a forum like this one? If not, I would encourage you to do so. It sounds like you have collected some interesting and valuable materials. Thanks for the discussion. I have learned a great deal more about successionism through our interaction.