The frontier of free exchange of ideas: the Baptist Congress as a forum for Baptist concerns, 1881-1913.

Some twenty-five years ago when I worked for the American Baptist Historical Society, I discovered on the shelves a dusty, unused set of thick books entitled "Baptist Congress Proceedings."

I had not heard of this group or body and so it intrigued me. As I perused the volumes, I was immediately taken by the names involved: A. H. Strong, W. N. Clarke, Walter Rauschenbush, D. C. Macintosh, A. T. Robertson, E. Y. Mullins, E. C. Dargan, and many others. Here was a surprising collection of persons who shared the Baptist vision and who regularly exchanged papers on critical questions of their era.

I resolved to work on the Congress at some point in the future. This meeting of the Baptist History and Heritage Society in May 2003 gave me that opportunity. (1) Current events in the Baptist family actually make this study a very timely foray into the past. In keeping with the "frontier" theme of the BH&HS meeting, the Congress was on the margins, often opening uncharted territories of thought, and encouraging innovation and creativity. It also exhibited the struggle between conserving and boundary-breaking forces that Frederick Jackson Tamer spoke of long ago in his "Frontier Hypothesis."

The Baptist Congress was an annual meeting of scholars, pastors, and denominational leaders who met annually from 1881 to 1913 in various cities across North America to consider issues important to Baptists. Baptists were inspired in this regard by the Church Congress of the Episcopalians that some Baptists had attended. The stated purpose of the "Baptist Congress for the Discussion of Current Questions," as it was called, (2) was "to promote a healthful sentiment among Baptists, through free and courteous discussion of current questions by suitable persons." Its founders included John Peddie, Robert S. MacArthur, Norman Fox, Wayland Hoyt, George Dana Boardman, A. J. Rowland, George Bullen, and Elias H. Johnson. New York, Philadelphia, and Rhode Island were represented at the planning session. The first meeting was held at the St. Denis Hotel in New York, November 29, 1881. (3)

Invoked by northern sentiments and adapted principally to northern circumstances at first, the Congress was a response to the way in which dissent and dissenters were treated. Some important Baptist individuals and churches had left the denomination over the question of open versus dosed communion, and discussion of the issues was "unwarrantably restricted." Another thorny issue was that of the Second Coming of Christ, agitated among Baptists four decades earlier by William Miller, and more recently by Plymouth Brethren. But the issues and constituency broadened after only a few years to include southern representatives and international Baptists via Canada. Southern brethren were "less coy of its approaches than at first." The Congress met in 1886 in Baltimore (4) and in 1889 in Toronto, Canada, "a land flowing with milk and honey where Baptists thought themselves just as good as those in the United States--fellow citizens with the saints and household of God." (5)

The work of the Congress was supervised by a general committee of at least one hundred persons, whose actual agenda was executed by a committee of fifteen who resided in or near New York City. Any member of a Baptist congregation could become an annual member of the Congress by submitting two dollars per year. In many ways the Congress was an important complement to Baptist conventions where lasting divisions hurt fellowship, and the Congress was a more open forum than a Baptist council. E. T. Hiscox, the venerable observer of Baptist polity, described the Congress as a voluntary association. (6) It was also a significant predecessor to the Baptist World Alliance in that it gave rise to interest in discussion of a vast array of issues of polity, theology, and history that would later be captured in the Study and Research Division of the Alliance. Each meeting produced a volume of proceedings that included papers delivered, decisions reached, and an index to former proceedings. Publishers included Baptist printers in several cities. Symbolic local Baptist leaders such as Thomas Armitage (the illustrious Baptist historian), Elisha B. Andrews (Brown University president), J. Hoge Tyler (Governor of Virginia), Charles Evans Hughes (U.S. Chief Justice), Russell H. Conwell (educator and pastor), Alexander R Humphrey (Kentucky judge), and S. C. Mitchell (president of the University of South Carolina) brought greetings or presided over the meetings. Planners of the meetings obviously wanted maximum publicity for their program and their denomination.

Given the heavy control tactics used in many Baptist public forums in recent years, it is interesting to recapture the "rules of discussion" in the Congress. The Baptists were guided by the Episcopalian experience on two important matters of decorum: no votes were taken, and no assembly of Baptists was allowed to commit to anything. A chairman served as parliamentarian. Any person by showing his membership card could be recognized on the floor. Discussion was limited to the topic assigned for the occasion; no person could speak twice on the same topic, thus avoiding debate. Readers of papers were allowed twenty-five minutes, and volunteer speakers were given ten minutes. (7) Most importantly, no resolution or motion was entertained of any kind, thus prohibiting any sort of legislative or enforcing action in the name of the Congress.

It really was a frontier for the pure discussion of ideas, far removed from convention reports; society meetings; or smoke-tidied, executive-decision rooms. No Baptists were attacked on this frontier, and the Congress did not have to be defended against its foes. Three kinds of issues emerged regularly at the Congress: timely issues, troubling questions, and theological topics of continuing interest to Baptists.

Timely Issues

One could easily gauge the pulse of Baptist life in America by the issues raised every year, and by the decade, at the Congresses. For instance, in the 1880s, the Congress heard papers and discussion on the labor question, the appropriateness of amusements, the immigration question, temperance, divorce, and other than Christian religious traditions. The input of Canadians pushed the topics even broader to encompass voluntary religious groups, church/state relations, and Sabbath-keeping. During the 1890s, the concerns of municipal government were on the agenda, as well as "money power" and "war." One could also find useful treatments of topics like race relations, the legal basis of church property, socialism, (8) and "corporation relations with the state" in the early years.

Under the aegis of a new generation of Baptist thinkers after 1900, the "current questions" included religious instruction in state schools (1905), ethics of competition in business (1906), ethics in literary fiction (1907), the legitimate limits of free speech in a republic (1908), the teaching of ethics in public schools (1909), (9) criminal justice systems (1910), (10) poverty (1911), (11) and the implications of democracy upon religious life (1912).

Troubling Concerns

One of the most valued assets of the Congress was the opportunity to debate and interact over issues that created tension within the Baptist family. Some of these were matters of theology, while polity concerns and even biblical interpretation entered the agendas.

In the first decade, Baptists in the United States were agitated about liturgical matters, open versus dosed communion, the social implications of the gospel, Roman Catholics as a threat to Protestants, urbanization, and the tactics of modern evangelism. By the 1890s, the question of the authority of scripture was "front and center" as were new versions of the Bible, (12) biblical criticism, (13) the Trinity, and, as always, the teachings and "new" implications of the social gospel.

Apparently, the University of Chicago educational community and its alumni came to be dominant in setting the pace of questions in the new century. Shailer Mathews, George Burman Foster, and Gerald B. Smith were regular presenters. (14) Each year questions like a cooperative social order, the "effects" of salvation, the universal church, (15) canonical versus noncanonical literature, (16) Christian mysticism, (17) the impact of university education upon religious thinking, (18) modern theology, (19) Ritschelian thought, and ecumenical and interfaith dialogue came before participants.

Theological Topics of Continuing Interest

Certain issues, of course, constitute a Baptist theological agenda, regardless of the generation. These concern the Bible, church, and religious experience. Not surprisingly, the Congress entertained papers on the Christian life, the ordinances, (20) worship, and architecture. (21) Later, there was serious reflection on reconciliation, evangelism, the atonement, spirituality, (22) monism, (23) baptism, revelation, eschatology, the divinity of Christ, (24) and the fatherhood of God.

Because Baptists take seriously matters of church order as a theological category, the Congress each year heard papers on polity matters. Among those of heightened interest were (1) the nature of New Testament organization, (2) whether Baptists had an exclusive understanding of New Testament Christianity, and (3) the possibility of some sort of union among Baptists in the United States.

By 1907, the probability among Northern Baptists of merger with Free Baptists and/or Disciples of Christ was high, and the Congress devoted a day to the discussion, as it did for two additional years. (25) As the World Missionary Council called Christians toward an ecumenical vision, the Congress took up the matter of the universal church in 1910.

The following year, serious consideration was given to immersion as a factor in relating to other Christians. Meeting in 1912 in Ithaca, New York, a typical "rural city," members of the Congress focused most of their program on ecclesiological issues, including the rural church (26) and the over-arching question of "What is a Baptist church?" The meeting was led by archconservative Austen K. DeBlois and archliberal, George B. Foster. (27)

Three Examples

To give one a sense of the flavor of how Baptists discussed things openly and tolerantly in the late nineteenth century, three debates are noteworthy: inerrancy, the immigration question, and denominational control of schools.

Inerrancy--Delegates were plunged into the inerrancy debate at the third session of the tenth Congress meeting in Philadelphia in 1892. On Friday afternoon, after singing, "My Faith Looks Up to Thee," a prayer invoking the blessing of God, T. A. T. Hanna of Falls of the Schuylkill Church led off with a paper on the inerrancy of the scriptures. Hanna, a grandson of Adoniram Judson, approached the topic with due deference to Jehovah but unapologetically critiqued those who would attempt to demonstrate errors on the Bible. Piously, he reminded hearers of the connection of scripture with the character of God. Nothing less than one's eternal salvation was at stake. He ranged through the testimony of the Bible to itself and then wondered why the question was even before the Congress: "I do not think it is necessary for us to tap the car wheels at every station." Taking a slam against traditionalists and sacramentarians who could get along without inerrant words, he would not allow Baptists to do likewise. Of particular moment to Hanna were Jesus' understanding of the Jonah story and the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Hanna concluded by asserting that it required a larger gullet than that down which Jonah went to allow that the Bible contains errors. (28)

The next paper was written by Dr. Lyon of Harvard and presented by Leighton Williams of New York. Lyon's thesis was that the foundations of faith do not depend on the answer to the question. He argued that other world religions held their books to be inerrant. His attention was drawn almost exclusively to the Old Testament, which he thought was not in accord with history and science. Ultimately, Lyon concluded that none of the discrepancies he demonstrated robbed the Bible of its beauty and power. "It is not the word that speaks to us, but the God who dwells behind and above the word." (29)

Following the singing of "Upon the Gospel's Sacred Page the Gathered Beams of Ages Shine," J. B. Gough Pidge of Philadelphia read a third paper that sought to argue that the alleged discrepancies were only waiting sufficient corroboration from new evidence in archeological and historical discovery. One should presume the Bible's correctness until it is disproven, reasoned Pidge. He concluded by noting claims that might rest upon original autographs, but which may not be made of the copies. Like the sun that has its dark spots, Pidge allegorized, the Bible too has its blemishes, but its overall brilliance is not diminished. In the end religious truth exists in the Bible that people could not discover on their own. (30)

Howard Osgood was next and represented a conservative style of inerrantist Old Testament scholarship from (but uncharacteristic of) Rochester Theological Seminary. Osgood admitted that many people find problems harmonizing the facts of scripture, but he insisted no consistent answer to the dilemma existed. Every person's list is different. Osgood rejected the critical views in favor of a Christological understanding of the Old Testament that equated its contents with the words of Jesus. (31)

Following Osgood's paper, a free debate ensued with distinguished participants observing the ten-minute rule. Norman Fox, a pastor from New Jersey and a Congress stalwart, intoned that the Bible made no claim to its inerrancy or infallibility and that if the apostles who wrote it were not infallible, their writings on some matters may be erroneous. Nathaniel Schmidt, an Old Testament specialist at Colgate Seminary, dismissed the issue of the original autographs and declared his belief that honest interpretation reveals errors both in historical fact and scientific observation and in morals and religion. He gave thanks for the imperfections of scripture because they showed human frailty and progress in understanding. "Even with such errors, the light shines through the darkness in the Lord Jesus Christ," he retorted. (32)

The venerable E. G. Robinson, probably the most influential theologian among Baptists of his era, then serving as president emeritus of Brown University, weighed in against what he labeled "reductionism to absurdity." With Hanna's paper in mind, he refused to connect the errors in scripture with the purposes and mind of God. Rather, he urged that the positive fruits of higher criticism should be enjoyed and people should not give undue alarm for the safety of the Bible. (33) A pious pastor and board member of Crozer Seminary, James Willmarth, rejoined that one needed to distinguish carefully between human limitations and error and that when a man wrote under the influence of the Holy Spirit he did so without error, regardless of where he was thirty seconds later. (34)

This historic session of the Baptist Congress closed with a final response from T. A. T. Hanna. Deeply distressed at what he had heard, the applause for positions other than his own caused him to observe a rift in the Baptist family that was deeper than any supposed. He took offense at Pidge's charge that his paper contained not one scintilla of truth, but was a string of Bible quotations. He was unwilling to call President Robinson a friend because Robinson reduced the authority of the scriptures to dust. On behalf of the honor of the Word of God, Hanna stood with Osgood and Willmarth. His sense of shame and sorrow was profound as he watched Baptist leaders "stab the word, driving a sword into the very heart of Jesus!" With that, the Congress sang "In the Cross of Christ I Glory, Towering o'er the Wrecks of Time," and the benediction on the session was pronounced. (35) Note, however, that the "final" benediction was not pronounced on these issues in 1893 and that the foundations had been laid for what would later blossom as "fundamentalism." What goes around comes around.

The Immigration Question--My second moment worth recalling occurred at the seventh meeting of the Congress in 1888 in Richmond, Virginia. The meeting was locally billed as a "peaceful invasion of the North; Richmond capitulates" and was well attended. (36) The slate of participants was variegated from across the Baptist family, and the question of the day was "immigration." Immediately behind this issue was the national sociopolitical debate upon limiting Chinese immigration to the United States, particularly the Scott Act then under consideration in the U.S. Congress.

After two major papers pro and con, D. C. Potter, pastor of Tabernacle Baptist Church in New York City, delivered a paper on "What to Do With Foreigners?" He argued for a fine discrimination as to who should be permitted to land on American shores, because "what shall we do with the foreign people amassed together in quarters of all our large cities who bring in and hold a life entirely alien to our traditions, customs and laws? Speech, customs, and religions are squarely set against everything we hold dear."

His answer was to "Christianize them," recognizing they will not of their own devices come to Protestant churches. He pointed to the relative lack of success in allowing and promoting German and Swedish Baptists to have their own culturally distinct congregations, they being "dams of obstruction" to the currents of absorption into our national culture. Potter proposed that immigrants be made into Americans in the shortest possible time by teaching them language and educating them in American history and political process.

Lining up with Potter were Lathan Crandall of New York, Elias H. Johnson, professor at Crozer Theological Seminary, E. Nelson Blake, a lawyer from Chicago, and Frank M. Ellis, pastor of Eutaw Place Baptist Church in Baltimore. Crandall blamed the immigration problem on the Irish Catholics who virtually controlled city politics in New York and who most strenuously opposed more Chinese in American cities. Johnson feared that a rapid influx of Chinese into northern cities would result in a racial imbalance like that of the Negro in the South. He feared for the purity of the Anglo-Saxon race, and that it could not forever absorb other races. The laboring classes especially along with the Hungarians, Poles, and Italians should be restricted. Indeed, he even went so far as to argue that the Germans, Swedes, and Irish ought to be spread out from New York into the cities of the South.

Blake spoke from his vantage point as a criminal lawyer who witnessed the dregs of society pouring into Chicago and would soon enough pour in other northeastern cities. For him, it was a matter of self-defense. Ellis and Lawson connected immigration with saloon-keeping and the intemperance of foreigners. Lawson pointed to the drinking and smoking gangs of men who collected near his church in Baltimore on the Lord's Day at the time of his services.

Walter Rauschenbush, then a pastor of a German congregation in New York City, led the nonrestrictive elements of the discussion. Not surprisingly, Rauschenbush favored an entirely open immigration policy, in part because the present laws were not working. But, more importantly, God had made America for all who would come: "We all came over here sometime," he implored. In a moment of flurry, the young pastor even asserted that anarchists were a blessing to Americans because "they have set us to pay attention to the questions as we never bad before." Henry McDonald, pastor at Second Baptist, Atlanta, followed with his own testimony of being an Irish immigrant--"one of those dangerous classes." He believed very strongly in the educational power of a free government to lead new Americans to the faith and values of the Pilgrim Fathers.

Denominational Control of Schools--Finally, those of us who teach in Baptist-related schools will be instructed by the discussion in 1906 of "Shall Baptist Educational Institutions Be Subject to Formal Denominational Control?" Leading the Second Baptist Church, St. Louis, discussion before an audience of mostly "progressive conservatives," H. K. Stillwell of Cleveland, Ohio, and M. J. Breaker of Kansas delivered the primary papers. Stillwell's position was that Baptists have principles, the first among which was the authority of scripture, and thus Baptists should have the right to institutions that reflect their values. Stillwell listed four categories of schools where differing levels of denominational influence or control should be exerted: elementary and secondary schools, colleges, technical schools, and universities. Because Christian character formation was key to Baptist life, close supervision of primary education was desirable. Colleges should faithfully teach the scriptures to their graduates, but universities should be unhindered in their wider investigations by any denominational control. (37)

Breaker found difficulty with the lack of a proper denominational agency among northern Baptists but clearly supported denominational control of institutions. Three reasons characterized his thinking: the purposes of the school will be held accountable; denominational principles will be upheld, in light of denominational support; and schools represent denominational property, and, as a matter of integrity, the valuable property should not be lost. "How many wrecks strew the shore," he reasoned, "millions of dollars given to Baptist denominational schools that are no longer controlled by Baptists." (38)

A third address on the topic was given by J. P. Greene, president of William Jewell College in Missouri, who also favored Baptist control of their schools. He saw no conflict between academic freedom and religious control and reminded the Congress that the record of Baptist-controlled schools was excellent. Church-controlled schools were nearer to the people, he observed. Greene held to an evangelizing task for schools and an interrelationship with the missionary programs of the denomination. He thought every Baptist college was entitled to a "real" Baptist president and "real" Baptist professors, just as a Baptist church should have a Baptist pastor and Baptist deacons. He expressed great confidence in Baptist people to manage their institutions. (39)

The valuable discussion entered another phase when W. H. P. Faunce, president of Brown University, rose to the question. Faunce repudiated the extreme orthodoxy of the previous speakers: "I certainly have rarely heard so much heresy uttered in any session as I have heard this evening." The great liberal educator of his era, Faunce reminded the Congress of the charter of Brown University that repudiated such control, and he asserted that there was no school in the East or North that allowed denominational control; nor were there any societies that could empower any kind of control. Control was not a "Baptist way." Roman Catholics controlled schools, but no graduate school in the United States would accept a B.A. from a Catholic school. Most telling of all were Faunce's arguments that exclusively denominational faculties were weak faculties and that the Carnegie Foundation (of recent memory) was making funding possible for schools that were free of denominational controls. Faunce instead urged the examples of Yale and Princeton on his Baptist friends, namely that near these campuses were located strong congregations with powerful exponents of denominational ideals that served the Presbyterians and Congregationalists well. In the end, thought Faunce, denominational influence must be voluntary and indirect. (40) One editor from Boston, Massachusetts, wondered what would have happened if Greene and Faunce had exchanged places for two years under each other's charters; was this question a matter of institutional or regional environment? (41)

A High Point?

Perhaps the high-water mark of the Baptist Congress was reached in 1904 as delegates met at commodious Broadway Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky. A devoted but small local attendance joined delegates from a distance to hear the likes of E. Y. Mullins, in the fifth year of his presidency at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; Walter Rauschenbush, recent author of Christianizing the Social Order; John Sampey; a youthful William O. Carver; W. J. McGlothlin; Carter Helm Jones; and Ernest Dewitt Burton. Topics of interest pressed in on all sides: "What Should the Churches Demand of Theological Schools?" "The Relation of Theology to Religion," "Does the New Testament Teach a Definite Model of Church Polity?" and "How Far May One Differ from Accepted Standards and Remain a Baptist?" One of the reasons for observing the Louisville meetings as a high point was the exultant attitude of Baptist unity. Kentucky Baptists saw, in the words of Carter Helm Jones at First Baptist Church, Nashville, a "noble band of brethren as ever fought each other, and as ever loved each other, and as ever worked for each other." He hoped that his "blood kin Baptists" would "hang up their hats and spend a month with us." (42)

To be fair, though, not all Kentucky Baptists were enthused about the Congress meeting in Louisville. The editor of the Western Recorder, who attended some of the sessions, was no devotee and remarked, "that special care had been taken to prevent the exploitation of unsound views ... only think what it would have been had no such care been taken!" (43)

What Should the Churches Demand of Theological Schools?--Denominational accountability for theological education was an issue much on the minds of Baptists, especially in light of the firing of W. H. Whitsett at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and the new directions of the University of Chicago. In the first paper of session, Ernest D. Burton, New Testament professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School, rejected notions that the curriculum should be guided either by the founders of the institution or by the churches or by what the teachers were trained to believe. Rather, he argued, seminaries should be guided by an "efficient ministry," or one that achieves results. Progress of theological thought and the results of historical study must be accounted for. The seminary should be characterized by freedom of thought, mutual cooperation, a deeply religious spirit, and an investigative character. (44) Southern Seminary President Mullins followed in a second paper that championed "fundamental conceptions of Christianity" (45) and denominationalism. Evangelism, apologetics, and sociology, however useful, must be held subordinate to the greater ends. Mullins took off on a Rauschenbushian theme (Walter had not yet arrived at the meetings due to a train delay) to emphasize the kingdom of God through righteousness as the goal of the church, the minister, and the theological school. Seminaries, Mullins argued, should be open to a minority of men without college educations. The great guiding principle of a curriculum should be what is practical. Unlike his predecessor in the session, Mullins thought criticism could be damaging, and he said clearly that "A man must not cease to be evangelical when be becomes scientific." Almost a play on the words of Burton, Mullins concluded by quipping, "The true man conforms not to the law of adaptation to environment, but to the law of adaptation of environment." (46)

The Relation of Theology to Religion--The next day, delegates heard papers on this topic from outstanding contributors: C. H. Dodd of Newark, New Jersey, W. J. McGlothlin of Southern Seminary, Walter Raushenbusch of Rochester Theological Seminary, and E. Y. Mullins and W. O. Carver, also of Southern. Dodd, a liberal pastor, made the case of William Newton Clarke that theology must precede religion as the formal structure of religious data. Dodd stressed the importance of religious experience and downplayed fixed forms for theology, including old conceptualizations of the historicity of the Bible. Dodd bought completely into the theological implications of evolution and was devoted to the contributions of G. F. Hegel, F. D. E. Schleiermacher, and William Adams Brown. (47)

W. J. McGlothlin, a church historian, followed with a line of reasoning that placed theology as a debtor to religion in that it organized the details of revelation and changed in light of new circumstances and questions. Somewhat surprisingly, he argued that by its nature, "theology can never reach finality." As a true son of the Free Churches, McGlothlin reminded the audience of how stagnant many systems (including that of John Calvin) had become. He also carefully made the case for how theology helps to rationalize religion, lest it become emotionalism or sentimentality. In concluding, McGlothlin took a shot at the liberal tradition by cautioning against immanentism that he thought to be exemplary of Greek thought. Ultimately opting for more "personal" religion, he concluded much like John Smyth and others in the English Baptist tradition, "Let us recognize the changeable character of theology and keep it ready to assimilate light and truth from whatever source they come." (48)

Delegates were delighted with three ten-minute responses from professors Rauschenbush, Mullins, and Carver. Rauschenbush wanted theology as a control on religion and posited that religious practice flows from theological formulation, as with the sacraments. (49) Mullins saw much in the relation between religious experience and theology but emphasized the factor of revelation. Drawing on the language of personalism, he asserted that revelation and external truth must be gathered up in personal experience. For those interested then and now in what Mullins meant by experience, he defined it as the progressive apprehension of the transcendent God and the transcendent Christ. (50) Carver, who felt compelled to enter the discussion, wanted to stress the elements of transcendence and self-control that allowed theology and religion to relate as no other science and its data could match. (51)

Does the New Testament Teach a Definite Model of Church Polity?--Everett Gill, a doctoral graduate of Southern Seminary, began the debate with an examination of New Testament principles of church organization, namely the headship of Christ, a converted membership, obedience to prescribed ordinances, local church independency, (52) and the plurality of elders and deacons. Gill reflected a subtle Landmarkism in arguing for a permanent New Testament polity that has been recovered in the modern Baptist movement and in declaring a list of seven "sacred" principles of church polity. His closing challenge, "Let us go back to the New Testament in order to be abreast with the times," could have been uttered by James M. Pendleton, a Landmarkist. (53)

Rauschenbush, on the other hand, took no such comfort in any clear New Testament polity. He pointed out the lack of any central authority or uniformity among the churches, let alone a "Star Book" or church manual, an obvious reference to American Baptist practices. Moreover, Rauschenbush reminded the Congress that no claim to a single polity, Methodist, Presbyterian Catholic, or otherwise, would stand the scantiness of evidence. Historical criticism simply would not allow it. Likening the task to "peeling a toothsome cocoanut," (54) Rauschenbush instead urged following the spirit of Jesus Christ who taught that the first shall be last and that one should not have mastery over any other. Ministers of a new covenant, Rauschenbush held to less formalism and more of a "Christian" than "biblical" polity. (55) Lansing Burrows of Nashville and Emory Hunt of Denison University in Ohio, official respondents, agreed essentially with Rauschenbush and called for less formalism and more consultation among independent churches.

How Far May One Differ from Accepted Standards and Remain a Baptist?--This memorable twenty-second meeting of the Congress had one last topic of interest, that of Baptist identity. Plainly in view of a rising Protestant ecumenism and plans afoot for mergers of traditions in the Baptist household, plus the impact of liberal theology and Landmarkism, the issue of Baptist identity was not immaterial. Vice president of the Congress, John R. Sampey, was called on to preside over this discussion. George H. Ferris of New Haven, Connecticut, contended for diversity grounded in the New Testament. He held the days of creed-bound churches to be numbered and thus the trend was clearly toward openness and flexibility. (56)

Professor George Eager of Louisville pointed, however, to the possibility of laxity and legalisms. Liberty, he thought, could lead to license. Instead, Eager urged historic principles devolved from both Anabaptist and Congregationalist heritages. Such principles included the spirituality of religion and the church; freedom of religion from state interference; the deity of Christ and his absolute authority in matters of faith and practice; New Testament ordinances; acceptance of scriptures as the only sufficient standards of faith and practice; and faithfulness to the command of Christ to preach the gospel to every creature. (57) If a person could not in good conscience uphold those principles, that minister or member should voluntarily leave the Baptist fellowship. Two of the responses that followed characteristically sought to rearrange the priorities of the articles laid out by Eager or laid greater emphasis upon principles than practices. A third affirmed the ultimate principle of liberty of thought, since what has divided most Baptists is a matter of interpretation. (58)

An Assessment

In assessing the achievements of the Baptist Congress, several caveats are in order. First, the majority of members, locations, and participants were northern. One cannot miss, however, the meetings in Louisville, Nashville, Richmond, Augusta, St. Louis, or Baltimore as venues of Southern Baptist involvement. Secondly, participants in the Baptist Congress were overwhelmingly drawn from urban congregations, and they were well educated and aware of general trends in Protestant scholarship. They were "frontier intellectual bourgeoisie." Not every one thought the Congresses were a good idea; southern editors were, for instance, dubious. Some were downright fearful. W. B. Matteson expressed the opinion that "of all the wicked things in the world, a Baptist Congress was the most wicked." Some preachers held others on the brink of apostasy if they dared to attend sessions! (59) For some, being on the frontier could be hazardous to one's life!

The last meeting of the Baptist Congress was held in Grand Rapids in 1914. (60) Leaders agreed that interest across the Baptist family had waned and attendance had dropped. The Baptist World Alliance had become a preferred gathering. One of the founders of the Baptist Congress put it this way, "It has seemed for very many years, that we may safely compare our views, all who love the truth, all who believe in Jesus Christ, liberal or conservative, all of us in love with the truth, and in a catholic spirit towards those who may differ from us." (61)

The Baptist Congress was a true frontier of Baptist tolerance and discovery. It occurred during a "golden age" of sorts in Baptist life," and it may have been an important contributing factor. Past animosities and sectionalism were laid aside in favor of fellowship and intellectual stimulation. Our Baptist forbearers learned how to face each other with widely differing opinions and remain civil, if not congenial. Significantly, the come-outers and angry theologian/pastors were nowhere to be seen, and no one seems to have missed them!

Perhaps it is once again time for a meeting among us like the Baptist Congress. Our present attempts at "fellowship" too often reflect administrative and promotional agendas, our theologians and ethicists too infrequently interact with historians and others, and the regional and national learned societies call us to different agendas. The emerging seminars, colloquia, and continuing education events in our midst serve a worthy purpose, but a more discourse-generic, open "Baptist" forum is needed. Moreover, for Christians who value personal experience we need to be in each other's company. The writer of the first historical sketch of the Congress put it well: "With no visible head, like the Pope, with no ecclesiastical court, like the General Assembly, and with no imposed creed like the Thirty-Nine Articles or the Westminster Confession, our unity of faith and practice may best be preserved by a frequent and personal interchange of views, wherein head and heart, knowledge and faith, reverence for the past, sympathy with the present, and zeal for the future, meet and blend." (62)

Is it not time to invite ourselves to another North American Gathering of thoughtful Baptists? Even if the initial response is limited as it was in 1881, I suspect when word gets out, numbers would grow quickly. Therein lies a new frontier ahead of us all.

(1.) There are few references to the Congress in secondary Baptist literature. Robert Torbet's History of the Baptists (1963) has no mention at all. Leon McBeth's The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness (1987) identified the Congress as essentially a Northern Baptist "annual autumn talkfest" important in the context of emerging fundamentalism. McBeth dates the origins of the Congress at 1882 and 1888 (see pp. 584, 603.)

(2.) The first name was "Baptist Autumnal Conference" because it was proposed to meet in the fall of each year, distinct from the society anniversary meetings. It was also referred to as the "Baptist National Congress," the "National Congress of Baptists," the "Baptist Congress of the United States," and the "National Baptist Congress." It is not to be confused with the Congress of the Baptist World Alliance that has met every five years from 1905.

(3.) Elias H. Johnson, pastor from Rhode Island (and later professor of theology at Crozer Seminary), wrote "Introductory Essay: Then and Now" detailing the start of the Congress. See Eleventh Annual Session of the Baptist Congress for the Discussion of Current Questions [Augusta, 1893], (New York: Baptist Congress Publishing Co., 1894), x-xviii. Hereinafter the published proceedings will be abbreviated BCP.

(4.) Other meetings of the Congress in the South were: Baltimore (1886, 1907), Richmond (1888, 1900), Augusta (1893, 1910), Nashville (1896), Louisville (1904), and St. Louis (1906).

(5.) "Introductory Speeches," BCP [Toronto, 1889], 3.

(6.) "The Late Baptist Congress as Rev. E. T. Hiscox, D.D. Saw It" Religious Herald, 13 December 1888, 198.

(7.) Ibid. Some observers objected to the length of time granted to speakers from the floor who often competed with the presenters of major papers for a voice on the issues.

(8.) BCP [New York, 1885], 23-33.

(9.) BCP [New York, 1909], 144-75.

(10.) Ibid., 76-105.

(11.) BCP [Augusta, 1910], 150-78.

(12.) BCP [Providence, 1895], 66-107. Milton Evans, Alvah Hovey, George Horr, and E. H. Johnson participated in this topic; BCP [Buffalo, 1898], 73-107, where W. N. Clarke, Benjamin True, and George Merrill presented on the topic, "On What Grounds Should We Accept the Biblical Books as Our Bible?" Prominent Chicago professor Gerald Smith and Crozer dean Milton Evans counterpointed George Ferris and E. J. Forrester. See BCP [New York, 1909], 151-91. See also BCP [New York, 1885], 82-85, for an earlier version of the debate focused upon the English Revised Version.

(13.) BCP [Atlantic City, N.J., 1911], 34-76.

(14.) BCP, [Buffalo, 1898], 133-64, for the session on "naturalism."

(15.) BCP [New York, 1909], 106-50. This exchange involved Milton Evans, William Poteat, Rufus Weaver, and Charles H. Dodd.

(16.) Prominent Chicago theologian G. B. Smith joined Crozer dean Milton G. Evans in this exchange: BCP [New York, 1909], 151-91.

(17.) BCP [Atlantic City, N.J., 1911], 179-94.

(18.) BCP [Ithaca, N.Y., 1912], 70-129.

(19.) Ibid., 10-38. George B. Foster gave the lead paper.

(20.) BCP [Providence, 1895], 178-85.

(21.) BCP [New York, 1885], 55-75.

(22.) Ibid., 95-108. Involved in this discussion were the venerable Ebenezer Dodge of Hamilton, Wayland Hoyt, Thomas Armitage, and R. S. MacArthur.

(23.) BCP [Providence, 1895], 3-35. F. C. French, Alvah Hovey, and Spencer Meeser presented papers.

(24.) BCP [Atlantic City, N.J., 1911], 8-33. Frank A. Starratt of Colgate Theological Seminary led this discussion.

(25.) This was perhaps the most identifiable solid outcome of all the meetings. In 1908, the twenty-sixth Congress met in Chicago and was a joint session with "Baptists," Free Baptists, and Disciples of Christ. Just three years later the Free Baptists merged with the Northern Baptists. See BCP [Atlantic City, N.J., 1911], 77-149.

(26.) BCP [Ithaca, N.Y., 1912], 130-67. Pastors from New Hampton, N.H., Trumansburg, N.Y., Somerville, N.J., and St. Paul, Minn., participated.

(27.) Ibid., 39-69.

(28.) BCP [Philadelphia, 1892], 62-68.

(29.) Ibid., 77.

(30.) Ibid., 86.

(31.) Ibid., 86-92.

(32.) Ibid., 93, 96.

(33.) Ibid., 98.

(34.) Ibid., 99.

(35.) Ibid., 100.

(36.) "National Baptist Congress," Religious Herald, 22 November 1888. This meeting was supported by the churches in the city, but drew characteristic antagonism from the hinterland. One pastor from Wabac took a sectionalistic stance: "Who let the Baptist Congress into Virginia and what made him do it? It has been running around the Northern States until they got tired of it and now it is going to fasten on to us. Just as we got rid of one of our own ... it is only going to make trouble ... it will get around that the Baptists don't agree and ain't sound."

(37.) BCP [St. Louis, 1906], 98-109.

(38.) Ibid., 109-12.

(39.) Ibid., 112-18.

(40.) Ibid., 122.

(41.) Henry C. Mabie, "The Baptist Congress," The Watchman, 22 November 1906, 20.

(42.) BCP [Louisville, 1904], 7.

(43.) "The Baptist Congress," Western Recorder, 17 November 1904, 12.

(44.) BCP [Louisville, 1904], 9-19. The editor of the Western Recorder, who was a critic of University of Chicago President W. R. Harper, exclaimed "Alas" at the conclusion of Burton's paper. See Western Recorder, 17 November 1904, 12.

(45.) This is an interesting connection between Mullins and what would come to be called the "fundamentals." He was later an author of one of the tracts.

(46.) BCP [Louisville, 1904], 20-29; esp. 22, 27.

(47.) Ibid., 62-72.

(48.) Ibid., 74-86, esp. 77, 82.

(49.) Ibid., 90.

(50.) Ibid., 95.

(51.) Ibid., 95-97.

(52.) Ibid., 103. It is interesting to note the usage "independency" and "autonomy," the latter term coming into parlance through Mullins. Gill, by the way, associated the term "autonomy" with the business world where "no world-enterprise would allow for one moment its organization in a given locality to interfere with the affairs of its organization in another community. This idea of local autonomy is one of the letters of the modern business alphabet."

(53.) Ibid., 108.

(54.) Ibid., 111. Rauschenbush, though completely deaf, was a master of sarcasm: "We must not imagine that Christian Chinamen or Hottentots, if let alone, would proceed to elect a chairman and secretary, make motions, and put them to a vote according to Cushing's Manual."

(55.) Ibid., 108-15; esp. 109.

(56.) Ibid., 127-35.

(57.) Ibid., 136-43.

(58.) Ibid., 145-59.

(59.) "Address of W. B. Matteson" BCP [Louisville, 1904], 183.

(60.) The Baptist Almanac for 1914, 25, indicated a proposed meeting for 1915 in Worcester, Massachusetts, but it was not held, and all references to the Congress ceased in 1914.

(61.) George Bullen of Newton Theological Institution, addressing the closure of the 1895 Congress in Providence, Rhode Island, BCP [Providence, 1895] 204-05.

(62.) Alvah Hovey, "Historical Sketch of the Baptist Congress" BCP [Boston, 1883], 5.

William H. Brackney is professor of religion and director of the Program in Baptist Studies, Baylor University, Waco, Texas.