Don't be a politically primitive Baptist

In the second chapter of Richard Baxter’s treatise Of National Churches (1691) he supplies us with some evergreen answers to perennial questions—today from our Baptist brethren who sometimes accuse the more magisterially-minded of theobro cosplay. (Meaning that it’s all a fanciful LARP with no hope of success.) As these Baptists demean grander ambitions on practical grounds—which really says more about their own atrophied political imaginations and the narrow scope with which they view the world—they call for a return to the primitive, to the early church (circa second century) model, i.e., an embattled, politically powerless pilgrim people allegedly passive and politically dispassionate.

The honest among what we could call the politically primitive Baptists (see what I did there?) will admit that they are rejecting not only the predominant magisterial, confessional position but that of the past 1500 years of Christian political thought—since Constantine, apparently, no one has gotten it right on church and state, etc., probably because power corrupted them the second the emperor called for a council, or something.

So, is primitive really better, pristine Christianity when it comes to church and state? Should we revel in the rule of pagans?

Baxter has something to say about all this.

“That which was first in intention, is last in execution. Mature Reason in Man, and Princely Government in Kingdom-Churches, was first in intention, tho' not in execution. Who would wish that Pagans had still Reigned? What Christian wisheth not that the Persians, Indians, Turks, Tartars, &c. were all Christian Kingdoms?”

Something I’ve regularly said is that these political questions vis a vis church and state are ones of duty, not practicality as such—which is not to shun prudence in execution but simply to assert an ideal, a theory first rather than attempting to build a political theology on concessions.

Baxter concurs:

Obj. But tho' there be no doubt of the command, institution and duty, what hope have we of the constitution, and event that Kingdoms should become Christian?

Ans. Our Question is of the Institution and Duty: confess that, and let us do our endeavour.

Another, commoner Baptist quip—a favorite of my friend Tom Hicks—is that families, schools, cities, states, whatever—anything apart from the individual—cannot be rightly called “Christian” because these groups are not entities capable of faith and salvation as such.

This really is, I maintain, overthinking the case. Calling a nation “Christian” is not to suggest a) that a citizen’s passport will save them, or b) that the nation has a save-able soul itself (as if it exists apart from the people). Rather, it is a descriptive exercise with reference to the activity, history, practices, norms, customs, character, and history of the people of that nation both as to individual and collective action. Stephen Wolfe talked about this on a recent interview with the King’s Hall guys (which is really worth your time). I don’t think it’s ridiculous or impossible to distinguish between Christian and Muslim architecture, for example. Classically, the telos of the structure is indicated by its style, function, and orientation. A Mosque is not simply superficially different from a Cathedral. Of course, the low-church primtives probably don’t believe church architecture teaches and preaches either—it’s a building, ya know; it, like, can’t even talk! —so that’s a bad example.

In any case, Baxter keeps it simple: “Is not this a Christian Kingdom, while King and Subjects are baptized professed Christians?” But the predictable follow-up from the politically primitive is usually a warning of hypocrisy, of false converts. The argument is that where religion is privileged (i.e., established) and afforded power, hypocrisy will ensue. On the other hand, liberalism, religious market fundamentalism has apparently energized America with true religious enthusiasm and sincere professions of faith.

Baxter:

Obj. But these be mostly but nominal Hypocrite Christians.

Ans. They are visible professed Christians. The Corn is not without Straw and Chaff. Do you look for Kingdoms that consist only of the sincere?

Obj. But Churches must consist only of those that seem sincere.

Ans. All seem sincere that profess sincerity, till it be by tryal and witness publickly disproved. There are several degrees of seeming; some by fuller evidences than others; but all that Vow it, and stand to that Vow, do seem and profess it till disproved.

In other words, stop being so primitive.

Just because the early church endured pagan rule does not mean we have to, nor that Constantine was a lamentable aberration. Prudence is a virtue but sloughing off duty because of apparent impracticality is not. A Christian nation is where (at least most and historically) people are Christians doing Christian things for Christian reasons. Yes, this includes church and state, laws and policies, norms and customs. Lastly, there are always going to be hypocrites. Faith in the sincerity of profession and experience—the quintessential, evangelical revivalist instinct—is a shaky basis for a political theology.

Nothing in credobaptistic convictions or even Baptist ecclesiology demands adherents be so politically primitive. Even the Puritans did not long for the alleged political purity of the early church. That should tell you something. (And as a side note, Baxter’s vision for a national church is described as a “confederacy” of congregations. He may have been a moderate episcopalian, but there’s something in his description that, if I were still a Baptist—but also still based—would make my ears perk up. Food for thought.)