41 comments

1. Uggh … left-right nonsense. Collins is highly problematic. Others noted here on “both ((sides))”
   are culpable, either via plausible deniability, cognitive dissonance or merely prioritizing career advancement. But the “sides” are the least of the problem. They are just a convenient distraction. Celebrity and notoriety is probably the biggest problem since too much compromise goes with that territory. These are newsworthy considerations but too much spin from various directions. Leading with politics and culture is definitely bad news for those prioritizing such things, like Metaxas, etc. …

   Reply ↓

   • AJ,

     The issue is not whether Francis Collins was right or wrong, but whether the story was told accurately.

     This is not to duck the material issue that she is raising. It is a real problem. As I keep saying, I don’t doubt that there are some/many in positions of leadership in “evangelicalism,” who have been captured by the cultural left.

     But what about those who have been captured by the political/cultural right?

     We have to move beyond tribalism. Christianity doesn’t have a cultural/political tribe in this world.

     I am not in a tribe with Charlie Kirk or Doug Wilson any more than one should be aligning with the Marxist.

     My issue is with the apparent selectivity in the book. I have not read it, so I can’t comment personally on factual errors, but if you read the comments and the links, you’ll see that a number of people have raised questions about the accuracy of the book.

     Reply ↓

     • I agree. I don’t have a problem with the review. And I understand many in the reformed world are being taken by the political evangelicals. I just think these reviewers should go even further in their analysis. Keep following those bread crumbs no matter where they goes. That’s real journalism. I’m not seeing it. I used Collins cause can you point me to a good expose on him? One in which he’s singing Puff the magic dragon as just a starter? That was actually terrifying for a man of such influence and standing. Metaxas is on the right and he’s also highly suspect. So are lazy journalists. I don’t see any lesser political evils at this point.

       Reply ↓

       • I think there have been articles critical of Collins. I don’t know about Metaxes I would be shocked if there were none.

         Reply ↓

         • A regular reader and commenter just called me a coward for not anything on Francis Collins but I have posted stuff on Collins.

           • Scientists Targeted and Censored After Speaking Out On Broad Vaccine Mandates
           • Preach God’s Word, Not That Of The Silly Vassal
           • Science Becomes Unsettled Again

           In the second piece I engage Collins at some length. My sharp-tongued critic didn’t do his homework.

           Basham’s critique of Collins on The Daily Wire is behind a paywall.

           Here are a few salient paragraphs. It’s the same sort of stuff that is in the book:

           Going by his concrete record, however, he seems like a strange ambassador to spread the government’s Covid messaging to theologically conservative congregations. Other than his proclamations that he is, himself, a believer, the NIH director espouses nearly no public positions that would mark him out as any different from any extreme Left-wing bureaucrat.

           He has not only defended experimentation on fetuses obtained by abortion, he has also directed record-level spending toward it. Among the priorities the NIH has funded under Collins — a University of Pittsburgh experiment that involved grafting infant scalps onto lab rats, as well as projects that relied on the harvested organs of aborted, full-term babies. Some doctors have even charged Collins with giving money to research that required extracting kidneys, ureters, and bladders from living infants.

           He further has endorsed unrestricted funding of embryonic stem cell research, personally attending President Obama’s signing of an Executive Order to reverse a previous ban on such expenditures. When Nature magazine asked him about the Trump administration’s decision to shut down fetal cell research, Collins made it clear he disagreed, saying, “I think it’s widely known that the NIH tried to protect the continued use of human fetal tissue. But ultimately, the White House decided otherwise. And we had no choice but to stand down.”

           Even when directly asked about how genetic testing has led to the increased killing of Down Syndrome babies in the womb, Collins deflected, telling Beliefnet, “I’m troubled [by] the applications of genetics that are currently possible are oftentimes in the prenatal arena…But, of course, in our current society, people are in a circumstance of being able to take advantage of those technologies.”
           When it comes to pushing an agenda of racial quotas and partiality based on skin color, Collins is a member of the Left in good standing, speaking fluently of “structural racism” and “equity” rather than equality. He’s put his money (or, rather, taxpayer money) where his mouth is, implementing new policies that require scientists seeking NIH grants to pass diversity, equity, and inclusion tests in order to qualify.

           To the most holy of progressive sacred cows — LGBTQ orthodoxy — Collins has been happy to genuflect. Having declared himself an “ally” of the gay and trans movements, he went on to say he “[applauds] the courage and resilience it takes for [LGBTQ] individuals to live openly and authentically” and is “committed to listening, respecting, and supporting [them]” as an “advocate.”
           These are not just the empty words of a hapless Christian official saying what he must to survive in a hostile political atmosphere. Collins’ declaration of allyship is deeply reflected in his leadership.

2. Thank you for publishing this article, Dr. Clark. Prior to this, I’ve only seen links to positive reviews of this book. I think we humans have a tendency to blindly accept whatever agrees with our preconceived ideas or suspicions, political or otherwise, and not question what we read or hear.

   On The Aquila Report today, there was a link to an article by Basham (Essay adaptation from her book) on First Things dated August 1. Whether the facts/accusations presented are accurate or not has yet to determined, but on my part I did notice an error. She claims that the UMC was the last of the Mainline churches to fully affirm LGBTQ+ which is not true. I’m a former member of an RCA congregation, and that denomination has not done so, although sadly I think they headed in that direction. A small point, but overlooked nonetheless.

   Reply ↓

   • Basham says that Cole is wrong about some things, e.g., that she didn’t reply to his query but she claims she did, but Janet Mefford points to Os Guiness’ refutation of at least one claim by Basham, who, in turn seems to suggest that because Guiness endorsed her book strongly (he did) the error is of no consequence. Mefford has more here. Gavin Ortlund complains here that he’s been misrepresented. Basham denies that claim.

     I’ve never seen anything quite like this.

     I don’t doubt that there’s big money on the left and the right that incentivizing people to take a side or say things that they might not.

     I would like to see the issue handled in a non-partisan way.

     Reply ↓

     • Not sure that this qualifies as non-partisan.

       More

       Reply ↓

       • Shenvi

         Reply ↓

3. Maybe Smith & Basham are both right. There are folks who enlist their Christianity in both left-wing and right-wing causes. Both threaten the church’s integrity and mission.

   Reply ↓

4. I appreciated this review and found it helpful. My question is to what degree are Basham’s criticisms fair? It appears that she may at best be a poor reader/journalist or at worst be politically motivated and dishonest, and she falls short in mischaracterizing some of her targets and speculating about their motives. So I’m hesitant to read the book for myself because I don’t want to waste my time or end up re-researching everything.

   Yet the linked review also commends Samuel James’ review. James, who has written for the Gospel Coalition, worked for Russell Moore and knows some of the subjects in the book, yet he finds some of the book to be true and important. That is, the account of the period in evangelicalism from 2012 forward when there was an increasing shift towards more progressive views and the consequences on the ground.

   I have seen criticisms about Christianity Today, The Gospel Coalition, Tim Keller, and Russell Moore. I’ve also seen insinuations about leaders who punch right and coddle left, in order to seek praise in the media. While the most pressing issue today may be the rise of the far right and Christian Nationalism, we also have to continue to speak the truth about cases where church leaders have compromised on the left, which can also serve to drive some disappointed church goers further to the right. Are there better resources on this issue than Basham?

   For reference, Samuel James’ review:
   https://www.digitalliturgies.net/p/review-shepherds-for-sale-by-megan

   Reply ↓

   • We have scheduled a review of the book. I don’t know when it will appear, but we do plan to run one.

     I don’t have much time for tribalism, which describes a lot of the sorts of criticisms that you mentioned.

     For example, the criticism “punch right, coddle left” is a perfect example of tribalism. The coral to that is “no enemies to the right.” That is sheer tribalism, which is the view that one will support ones tribe regardless of what anyone in that tribe says or does.”it exists on both the political/cultural right and left.

     I don’t doubt that there are elements of what Carl Truman calls Big Eva, who are to some degree or other, captive to the cultural left but from what I can see on social media, Basham is captive to the cultural/political right. For example, she seems very sympathetic to Wilson’s cultural agenda. I know that people have tried to call her attention to some of the things that have transpired there, but she seems completely disinterested.

     I don’t think that anyone could reasonably accuse Warren Cole Smith of being captive to the cultural left or of currying favor with social progressives. He wrote for world magazine for a number of years, which most on the left would consider “far right.”

     He is a professional, whose work I have followed for a number of years.

     Now that so much of the “right” is captive to nationalist populism, I’m not sure what is left of real social and political conservatism.

     Reply ↓

     • Regarding this: “He wrote for world magazine for a number of years, which most on the left would consider ‘far right.'”

       I agree that the Left would consider World to be “far right” but I’m not sure Basham would agree, or if she does, she might not have agreed when Marvin Olasky was still in charge.

       Unless I am wrong, Basham also wrote for World for many years as their arts and entertainment critic as well as other roles. I know she’s a graduate of World Journalism Institute.

       I would rather that Basham speak for herself, but my understanding is that she left World due to the same controversy that eventually split the staff, leading to an ultimately unsuccessful attempt by founder Joel Belz to get the two sides back on the same page. I follow Basham on Twitter and have occasionally interacted with her but I’m not an expert and don’t want to put words in her mouth, particularly because it is likely she has addressed, in things I haven’t read, this subject of her reasons for leaving World Magazine.

       It’s probably obvious that I have sympathies for Basham’s criticism in broad outline, but I am concerned about specific cases in which her evaluations of specific people and situations have been challenged.

       Reply ↓

     • Full disclosure: back in the early days of World Magazine when it wasn’t yet anywhere near as important as it later became, Joel Belz invited me to apply to work for them based on my background in Republican politics prior to my conversion.

       I went back and forth for a while with him and Marvin Olasky but never actually applied. I’m not at all clear I would have been hired if I had applied; I have significant differences with what World eventually became on the role of injecting opinion into news reporting, as opposed to reporting facts based on an underlying Christian worldview. However, my primary reason was that I believed I would be guilty of gross sin by leaving Christian Renewal in the middle of the Christian Reformed secession and that I would be validly accused of greed for filthy lucre by leaving Christian Renewal for a much better paying position at World.

       Suffice it to say that I’ve been an observer of World for a very long time and came close to applying to work for them, but decided it was best not to do so.

       I am certain Basham knows nothing about that, but some staffers still at World do know that and might be upset if I write what I did without disclosing my own differences with what became World’s philosophy of newswriting.

       Most people would say I made a major mistake by not aggressively following up on Joel Belz’s invitation to apply to World. I’m not sure. The Christian Reformed secession was, in my opinion at the time, a far more important fight. Others were available to do what World was doing but very few were able to report on the CRC fights.

       Reply ↓

5. Baseball legend Ted Williams was known for saying, “…if you don’t think too good, don’t think too much…” I’m tempted to modify his quote by saying, “…if you don’t think too good, just make up stuff…”

   Reply ↓

6. Dr. Clark,
   I’m getting a little sideways here I think. Like most here on the blog
   I’m a Christian, and I’m for sovereign States and nations.
   I’m for immigration, legal and vetted.
   I’m for limited government under the control of elected officials, that don’t convert these powers against their political rivals.
   I’m for fair and equal treatment under the rule of laws, not applied greater or lesser to one group or other.
   I’m for a free press and freedom of speech. That said, outlets like the Epoch times, Tucker Carlson, O’Keefe media group, etc, are the minority providing what I believe to be a clearer truth, though I disagree on some topics.
   I’m for Donald Trump. As messiah, as someone to usher in some form of Christian utopia? Absolutely not. I’m quite sure he’s an atheist. I don’t care if he’s Mormon or Muslim. But I do think he’s been perhaps the most vilified human ever to step forward essentially for serving their country. I like his policies to protect my private property and certain unalienable rights. Is he popular? Darn right. Is he prideful and arrogant like say Patton, or Muhammad Ali? Yup.
   But I am not a Christian nationalist.
   I look to God ultimately who is sovereign overall. And look to him alone for my continued blessings of peace and providence.

   Reply ↓

   • Well stated, Ken, and I concur! And as we know, God IS Sovereign! Signed, R. I, Biblically convinced Particular Baptist!✝️📖🙏👍😊🇺🇸

     Reply ↓

7. This M. Basham saga is thoroughly depressing. If you want to read a well-written work on liberalism in the church, just read Machen’s “Christianity and Liberalism” instead. It’s just as relevant today as ever. If he were alive today though, I think he’d write a sequel: “Christianity and Populism.”

   Reply ↓

8. His conclusion about the misdiagnosis is of course correct but I almost spit out my coffee when he said it’s on the right. Turning Point’s $80 million is a drop in the bucket compared to the literally infinite money and institutional power amd inertia propping up people like David French.

   Reply ↓

   • Zach,

     Is TPUSA the only org that has that sort of purchase? I doubt it. Even granting the proportion you suggest, isn’t amount beside the point. If a person sells himself, does the price really matter?

     Further, might someone fairly criticize your comment as reflecting the sort of tribalism that is at the root of the problem?

     Reply ↓

     • The visible American church is leftwing. Tribalism is good when the motives and ends are good, as they comport with a biblical worldview.

       Reply ↓

       • Zach,

         That is a big claim and one that I think would be difficult to defend from the facts.

         For example, the churches with which I am associated are not only theologically conservative, but they are also socially conservative. They are only about 600,000 people, but that isn’t nothing.

         Further, there is the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod and the Lutheran Church Wisconsin Evangelical Synod, and many other recognizable expressions of the visible church that are both theologically and socially conservative.

         The mainline, liberal denominations are theologically and socially liberal, but they are declining rapidly and have been for decades .

         But to your point regarding tribalism, I don’t think it can be defended from scripture or from the Reformed tradition.

         J. Gresham Machen was theologically and socially conservative, but his views fit neither the fundamentalists nor the social and theological liberals. His allegiance was to the Reformed confessions not to any particular social tribe.

         Tribalism blinds us to the truth. It leads to a party spirit or is born of it. Neither of these is befitting a Christian.

         Further, we should be open to the truth whatever its source.

         Reply ↓

9. Thank you for posting this, at a recent membership class at our church we were told that instead of making public an accusation against a fellow believer, we ought to first discuss the issue with them. Anything else is gossip and possibly slander. The proponents of this book have reminded me far too much of how the world engages, we’re supposed to be different.

   Reply ↓

   • Daniel,

     Matt 18 is God’s Word but I doubt that the intent is to require that Christians must discuss privately something published publicly before reviewing it or offering criticism.

     This was an objection frequently made by the federal visionists. One of them would publish something and someone would criticize it and they would object that we had violated Matthew 18 by not contacting them first.

     First of all, what is in view in Matthew 18 is sin. In reviewing a book or engaging with historical claims or ideas, it is not typically sin that is in view.

     “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.”

     Scripture does not say, “if your brother makes a mistake” or “If you disagree with your brothers analysis of an issue.”

     If I write something in public, which I do a frequently, I have no expectation that someone will contact me privately before criticizing me publicly.

     Reply ↓

     • Dr. Clark,

       Have you read Mrs. Basham’s book? And also, why do you care what Baptistic Evangelicals write about toward one another. Belgic Confession 29 is clear that Mrs. Basham, along with all “Baptists”, are not members of the True Church and should not bear the name of Christians because they will “not submit themselves to the yoke of Christ”.

       John

       Reply ↓

       • John,

         No, I have not read her book. I did not write the review. Warren Cole Smith did. We are just publishing a portion of it because we thought it would be of interest to our readers.

         We thought it would be of interest to our readers— and not without reason. Our quotation of Carl Truman’s essay on “Big Eva” has been viewed about 30,000 times—because Reformed people do not live in a bubble. We are a tiny minority, living amid 60 million mostly Baptistic evangelicals. What happens in that culture has some effect on us.

         For its entire history (since c. 2006-07) the HB has always paid attention to the evangelical world beyond NAPARC.

         Reply ↓

         • Dr. Clark,

           When you engage with Baptistic Evangelicals, you give their Faith credibility. If the Belgic Confession is correct, then they’re just as lost as The “church” of Latter Day Saints. Saying that to them with clarity is better than endlessly engaging with them. To engage the way you do is unfair to their souls.

         • John,

           I think we may disagree about the condition of Baptistic evangelicals. I don’t believe that most of their congregations have the marks of the true church but I don’t infer from that fact that none of them are believers. Further had the protestant reformers taken your approach to the Roman communion, the Reformation would never have happened.

           The HRA exists for two purposes:

           1) to help the reformed churches, recover their own theology, piety and practice;

           2) to help others (e.g., Baptistic evangelicals) discover the Reformed confession.

           In fact, I am trying to complete a book on that very topic.

         • Dr. Clark,

           With all due respect, you are still not being clear. You write “most of their churches”, which is confusing at best. How could a Baptist church have the marks of a true Church? If Belgic Confession 29 is correct, Baptists, all of them, are not regenerate. If “some” may be regenerate, how would we know? By your reasoning, “some” LDS members may be Regenerate too.

           John

         • John,

           I used the qualifier “most” because there are congregations and traditions, which aren’t Baptistic necessarily, but which sometimes include Baptistic congregations. E.g., I imagine that there are evangelical free congregations (or have been) which did not require believers baptism.

           I know of other congregations that fit this pattern. I know of congregations that are emerging from the Baptist world, but are in transition. I am not prepared to denounce such congregations as sects.

           I worry that your approach reflects a sort ofBaptistic, separatist, over-realized eschatology.

           We live in a fallen world and things are messy. When some of the early Protestants reformed their congregations, they continued to perform the mass for most of a decade while they brought their congregations along. In 1563 we announced the mass as a damnable idolatry, but in 1523 the world was complicated.

           In someways, I think the place we are now it’s more like 1523, then 1563.

           Remember, I am the guy who said that Baptist churches lack a mark of the true church and took a lot of heat for it. I stand by that opinion.

           As to who is and is not regenerate, the Reformed have never said that everyone outside the Reformed churches is unregenerate. We always recognized that there were believers within the Roman communion.

           As to your analogy with the LDS, there is a material difference between an irregular congregation that is Trinitarian, that is orthodox and their doctrine of justification, but wrong on covenant, church, and sacraments, and the LDS.

           There is no way that anyone could reasonably classify any LDS stake as an irregular congregation. They deny the holy catholic faith.

           Our Baptistic and Baptist friends try to affirm the holy catholic faith.

         • Dr. Clark,

           It feels like you are equivocating, claiming some are “transitioning”. My eschatology is defined by the Confessions, I’m only reading the Confessions literally and you apparently are not. Again, is the 29th article not clear? These people are as lost as those in the LDS.

         • John,

           I’m not equivocating. I’m stating facts. I’ve been working with congregations in transition for decades. It happens.

           E.g., have you listened to the story told by Chad Vegas about the journey of Sovereign Grace Bakersfield toward the Reformed confession? It’s on the HB. It was on the Heidelcast. That’s just one. It’s taken about 15 years.

           What about the OPC and PCA congregations that receive Baptists as members? The URCs regard the OPC and the PCA as true churches. We’re in communion with them. They don’t seem to fit your paradigm.

           I don’t agree with Bob Godfrey’s conclusion that Particular Baptist congregations are true churches but I take his point that we don’t live in the 16th century and that life is, in some ways, a little more complicated since the rise of the Baptist movement about 70 years after the completion of the Belgic Confession.

           I’m sure that my own view, that Baptist congregations cannot be true churches, is a minority view. I’m not prepared to denounce my brothers who disagree with me.

         • Dr. Clark,

           You wrote: “there is a material difference between an irregular congregation that is Trinitarian, that is orthodox and their doctrine of justification, but wrong on covenant, church, and sacraments, and the LDS.”

           Do you have any examples of this distinction laid out in that Reformed Confessions? Article 29 disproves that there’s a distinction.

           John

         • John,

           Again, I’m not claiming that only Reformed churches are Christian churches. E.g., we have never regarded the confessional Lutheran churches as false ore as sects but they are not Reformed. So, clearly there is a material difference between a congregation that, in good faith, professes the ecumenical faith and a cult such as the LDS.

         • I recognize you are not saying that; however, the Confessions do claim that no “Baptist” is a member of a “True” church and the Confession (Article 29) withholds them the name of “Christian”. Lutheran’s practice “Reformational” baptism (infant baptism).
           The Confessions are clear, the Baptists -of all stripes- are not members of God’s “Catholic” Church.

         • John,

           You’re drawing an inference from the Belgic. It denounces the Anabaptists unequivocally and the Baptists agree with the Anabaptists on baptism and, ultimately, on covenant but there are other ways in which they aren’t Anabaptists. They don’t have the AB Christology for example.

           You’re entitled to your opinion but if you are Reformed it ought to matter to you (as it does to me) that no church has issued a sentence or doctrinal deliverance saying that Baptists (either as persons or as congregations) are outside the holy catholic church.

       • Dr. Clark, thank you for replying to this example of sectarianism. Baptists are not Mormons. People who think that are simply wrong.

         There are plenty of Baptists who read (or hear about) the Heidelblog who might think you agree with John. I know that’s not your position, but it is the position of some in the Reformed world. I’ve read enough of your view that the “Particular Baptists” need to recover their own tradition, not claim to be part of the Reformed tradition, to know that you’re not declaring them to be unconverted Mormons but rather saying they aren’t part of the historic confessional Reformed tradition.

         The question is what the confessions say, and which confessions.

         It seems patently obvious that Guido de Bres worked in a world in which he needed to distinguish the Reformed from the Anabaptists and the Munster debacle. At a much later date, John Bunyan of Pilgrim’s Progress simply isn’t in the same category despite external similarities on baptism. The WCF rightly takes a gentler position, one which isn’t necessary contrary to that of the Belgic Confession but is certainly different in its tone and approach.

         Let’s not forget that John Owen spent a lot of time trying to help Bunyan. It’s fine to say Owen is wrong, but if someone thinks that Owen is outside the bounds of the Reformed faith, that person is defining “Reformed” in ways I doubt the Westminster Divines would recognize.

         Reply ↓

         • One difference between Bunyan and the Particular Baptist majority is that Bunyan recognized the validity of infant baptism, whereas the 1644/77/89ers did not and do not.

           I do not doubt that, had GdB faced the Baptist movement, he would not have revised the language of the confession re baptism & covenant and the (Ana)baptist covenant theology and view of baptism.

         • We mostly agree, Dr. Clark, but that depends on which 1689ers.

           It’s no longer that unusual for self-described Reformed Baptist churches to admit people to membership who were baptized as infants and believe as a matter of conviction that they should not be rebaptized. There is at least one fairly large church here in the Missouri Ozarks that will not only admit such people into membership but allow them to teach.

           Typically that happens in communities where people from a conservative Reformed background have few or no other places to go that will recognize their infant baptism. I think it’s less common in places where someone who moves to the area from an OPC, PCA, or other NAPARC background has somewhere to go. In significant parts of the South, there are no self-described Reformed options at all, let alone ones that accept infant baptism.

           Is it consistent? I’ve been having that argument for two decades with Baptists. I don’t think a Baptist church should call itself Baptist if it doesn’t require baptism following profession, but the simple fact is that some do.

           Far from being lukewarm on doctrine and history, they tend to be some of the ones that are most interested in recovering the heritage of Spurgeon, Bunyan, etc.

           I’m not sure it’s my place to tell Baptists how to interpret their own confessions and history. What I do know is that toleration for both views on baptism has been the standard Congregational position for over a century, with the key caveat being that there’s a big difference between delaying baptism and rebaptizing people already baptized as infants because their baptism is regarded as illegitimate. My understanding is Bunyan taught the first while most Baptists in his generation taught the second. I’m not an expert on Bunyan and the 1689 and will accept correction or clarification if I’ve misunderstood.

         • Bunyan is one thing and the 1689 is another. The 1689ers were very critical of Bunyan.

           If there are people who actually confess the second London, and are excepting infant baptism, they are not being consistent with their confession.

           Bunyan was not a very good Baptist. Rejecting infant baptism is of the essence of being a Baptist.

         • We agree that Bunyan was not a very good Baptist. For that I’m thankful.

           It’s of some relevance here that Bunyan, in his day, would have been considered an “Independent” when that term included not just Congregationalists but others who objected to both Presbyterian and Episcopal church government.

           That began to change in 1648 when the Cambridge Synod in New England said it did not approve of the term “Independent” and the term “Congregational” became standard in New England, eventually migrating back to England.

           The problem is that the New Englanders avoided one problem but created another with their rejection of the term “Independent” in the Cambridge Platform.

           “Congregational” did not mean rule by the congregation. That’s “Brownism.” The Cambridge Platform has an entire chapter on the qualifications and functions of ruling elders in local churches which are voluntarily “federated” (to use a Dutch concept) but are ruled locally by their own elders, not higher courts.

           Bunyan has been claimed by the Baptists, but as you point out, the 1689ers disagreed, and it’s not clear he would have wanted to be identified with the later “Particular Baptist” movement. It seems certain he’d have problems with those who practiced a strict view of admitting people to church membership and communion only if they had been baptized by full immersion following profession, which was the normal position well into the 1800s among Particular Baptists. Even as late as the early 1900s, the older Baptist position barring people from communion who hadn’t been baptized by profession was creating major problems for Italian Protestants.

           When conservative Congregationalists were fighting the same liberal-conservative battles in the late 1800s and early 1900s that the Presbyterians fought, a deliberate decision was made not to fight over baptism and Bunyan’s example was part of the reason. I agree with that decision given the context of the fundamentalist-modernist conflict, and the ability of a local church to have greater latitude in local matters than is possible in Presbyterianism.

           Obviously it can’t work in a Three Forms of Unity context, despite the “broader assembly” view of polity, and it can’t work under Presbyterian polity. I don’t know of any conservative Presbyterian body other than Ian Paisley’s Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster that allows local option on baptism, and they have other issues due to their origins in fundamentalism.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.