Francis Wayland: The Ideal of Autonomous Baptist Churches

Throughout their history Baptists have been committed to autonomous local churches. Like other Christians, however, they have often noted the value of cooperation and fellowship between churches. A tension has resulted between the principle of independence and the benefit of association. Actual Baptist practice has resulted in a range that has, at one end, radically independent congregations who eschew any affiliation with organizations that lack specific NT sanction. At the other end are those Baptists who commit to regional (or national) conventions in which is consolidated considerable power for directing church life.

The goal of this article is to trace the history of associations in Baptist circles from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries and then to consider the theology of Francis Wayland, who developed a strong critique of the convention concept during a time when it was gaining considerable momentum in American Baptist history.

A Brief Survey of the History of Baptist Associations

Seventeenth-century English Baptists found various ways of connecting with one another. Embattled by the dominant state church, facing various legal disabilities, and struggling to survive, Baptists supported one another by crafting confessions of faith that reflected groups of congregations, joining one another in stated days of fasting and prayer, and eventually forming regional associations of churches.

Baptists at the time were divided into two major bodies, the Particular Baptists and the General Baptists. The Particular Baptists were more numerous in England and tended to stress the autonomy of local congregations. This was a response to a context in which all of the major religious bodies emerging from the Reformation organized according to the parish system under a centralized authority and permitted little or no autonomy at the local level.

Somewhat surprising is the early tendency of the General Baptists to organize in a more connectional, centralized fashion. The Orthodox Creed of 1678 clearly affirms the authority of General Baptist representative assemblies in a way that Particular Baptists would have roundly repudiated.

General councils, or assemblies, consisting of the Bishops, Elders, and Brethren, of the several churches of Christ, and being legally convened, and met together out of all the churches, and the churches appearing there by their representatives, make but one church, and have lawful right, and suffrage in this general meeting, or assembly, to act in the name of Christ.¹

Thus, two forms of Baptist church life emerged in England in the seventeenth century: a loosely-organized collection of regional associations of Particular Baptists, jealous of their independence; and a smaller number of centralized associations of General Baptists, who placed a higher premium on integrated cooperation.

In America the first organization of Baptist churches was the Philadelphia Association, organized by Particular Baptists in 1707. Given their history, it is not surprising that these Baptists took pains to disclaim superintendence over the member churches. In 1749 the Association adopted an essay by Benjamin Griffith that argued for the appropriateness of Baptist churches associating freely together as long as the central body had no “superintendency” over the churches. The principal right of the association to interfere in the affairs of a member church was the power to expel a church for a “defection in doctrine or practice” that threatened the doctrinal and ecclesiastical basis of uniting in the first place.²

As new associations arose in America, each had to address the delicate balance between local autonomy and the powers granted to the representative body. In the South, where the churches were widely separated geographically and strong personalities tended to hold sway,³ Baptists tolerated a greater degree of centralization. In the North, the determination to guard the independence of local assemblies remained strong.⁴

As is well known, the conversion of Adoniram and Ann Judson and Luther Rice to the Baptist position during their voyage to India in 1812 created an unusual opportunity for American Baptists. While the Judsons moved on to their ministry in Burma, Rice returned to America to garner support for foreign missions among the Baptists. The Baptists were poised for just such an effort, and Rice’s work eventuated in the formation of the first national Baptist organization.

In May 1814 representatives of Baptist churches from across the nation met in Philadelphia and established the General Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denomination in the United States. Because of its determination to meet every three years, this body became known as the Triennial Convention. This effort more or less superseded all of the older regional associations and united Baptists into what they willingly called a “denomination.”⁵

The first president of the Triennial Convention was Richard Furman, the dynamic pastor of First Baptist Church, Charleston, South Carolina. His election was a step in the direction of greater centralization. It was widely recognized that the Southerners preferred a stronger association, while Northerners believed a society approach to cooperative efforts would provide more protection of church autonomy. Thus, during the first fifteen years of the Triennial Convention, controversy raged over the extent of its powers and its appropriate realm of activity. By 1832, just eighteen years after its beginning, the all-inclusive convention idea was dead in the North, killed by concern for autonomy. One of the leading voices for autonomy was Francis Wayland.

Francis Wayland and His Argument for Autonomy

Wayland came to faith in Christ after hearing a sermon by Luther Rice, studied for the ministry, and at age twentyfive became the pastor of prestigious First Baptist Church in Boston. His leadership skills, vigorous intellect, and strong personality made him, in just a few years, a leading voice in denominational affairs. Writing under the pseudonym “Backus,” Wayland contributed several articles to American Baptist Magazine that advanced a strong denominational plan. He envisaged conventions at the local, regional, and national level, with delegates from each level representing their constituent churches at the next level above. In this way, “the whole denomination might be brought to concentrated and united action.”⁶

In 1827 Wayland left First Church to become the president of Brown University, where he would remain for twenty-eight years. His efforts there were extraordinarily successful, and he became one of the foremost educators in the United States. As a professor, he gave careful thought to the questions of liberty and individual responsibility. During these years his view of conventionalism among Baptist churches underwent a transformation. He became convinced that the convention ideal for which he had labored in the 1820s was incompatible with the Baptist conviction of autonomous local churches.

Wayland’s teachings find expression in 1857 in his Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches.⁷ He lays down the following concepts as the “plain and wellestablished principles” upon which rests “the doctrine of the independence of the churches”:⁸

1. Religion is “exclusively” individual in its basic nature. Its primary function is to relate individuals to God.

2. Apart from divine revelation, man cannot determine for himself how to serve God acceptably.

3. The New Testament is God’s means of supplying man with an explanation of how he can approach and serve God acceptably.

4. Every individual is responsible for understanding and obeying the NT commands. God provides aid “to guide every candid inquirer.” No one can excuse himself from this obligation because some human authority places him under competing demands.

5. “Men who, by such an examination of the New Testament, arrive at the same conclusions respecting its requirements, unite together in churches for the sake of promoting holiness in each other, and subduing the world to obedience to Christ. In doing this, however, they neither assume on the one hand, nor concede on the other, any power of original legislation over each other. Christ is the head of the church in general, and of every individual church in particular. The members all profess obedience to his laws, and by his laws they submit, at all times, to be judged. Whatever the New Testament teaches, either by precept or through example, the church may require of its members; and the individual members may require of the church. Whatever passages beyond this rule, must be left to the judgment and conscience of the individual, being without the limit of church authority.”⁹

6. This fact implies that in matters of conscience neither a church nor an individual can or should ever submit to the will of the majority. For instance, the citizens of the United States submit to their elected representatives the right to make various laws that govern their lives and properties. Nevertheless, in matters of direct responsibility to God, Christians do not give to their government representatives the right to contravene His authority.

7. “Such being the nature of representation, I ask how can a church of Christ be represented? The matters which could be committed to representatives are clearly but two: First, those which Christ has not commanded, but which are properly left to the decision of individual conscience; and secondly, those which have been commanded by Christ or his apostles. Concerning the first class, these, not being commanded, but being left to the decision of individual conscience, are already without the jurisdiction of the church, and, of course, the church can commit jurisdiction concerning them to no representation. It can not transfer to another a power which by concession it does no possess. But take the other class of duties, or obligations, those commanded by Christ. Can it commit the commands of Christ to any human tribunal? Can a church, or can churches commit the precepts of Jesus to a representation, thus acknowledging their power to add to, to abolish, or to modify what the Master has enacted? Or again: can it concede to any representation the right to interpret for us the precepts of Christ? This would be to abolish the right of private judgment, and convert us into Romanists. Nor, lastly, can we commit the execution of these laws to representatives, since the power to enforce the laws of Christ rests with each church itself. It would seem, from these simple principles, impossible that a church of Christ can be in any proper and legitimate sense be represented.”¹⁰

The result of Wayland’s argumentation is that any ecclesiastical organization beyond the local church inevitably violates individual conscience in one of two ways. It either declares what must be believed via prescriptive creed, which, Wayland asserts, is an open attack on the authority of Christ over His church’s doctrine. Second, the ecclesiastical organization may legislate only in matters that are not clearly revealed in Scripture. In this case, according to Wayland, the conscience of the individual Christian is externally forced to submit to an issue that Christ has left to private decision.

In a representative body, such as a convention, individuals who constitute churches delegate to their representatives the right to participate in a corporate process that makes decisions—either doctrinal or practical—for those churches. Such delegation, Wayland argues, is an attack on the sole authority of Christ in His church. On this basis, he supported the society method of organizing denominational work rather than the convention method. Societies are not representative bodies but rather merely independent agencies managed by individual Baptists. Local churches expressed their agreement or disagreement with a given society simply by giving or withholding financial support. Autonomy was fully secured at the local level.

Two years after penning his Notes, Wayland published Thoughts on the Missionary Organizations of the Baptist Denomination.¹¹ In this work Wayland took his logic a step further and argued that mission societies themselves involve delegated authority. Only local churches and private individuals have the right to obey New Testament mandates, since the NT knows nothing of parachurch organizations. This was a surprising position for the president of a Baptist college to take! He evidently believed that collegiate training was indifferent in the NT and therefore could be conducted by a parachurch organization. Missions, however, is mandated in the NT and thus subject solely to the authority of the local church.

Some Subsequent History and Conclusions

Following Wayland’s logic, Northern Baptists employed the society approach to denominational work throughout the nineteenth century. This method had two primary characteristics: it was inefficient (although under energetic leaders, each society had impressive accomplishments), and it guarded local church autonomy. Momentum was gathering for greater centralization, however, and the Northern Baptist Convention united all ministry societies in 1907. The story of the titanic struggle for the Northern Baptist churches between 1907 and 1930 plays out in a convention context, conservatives battling liberals over the control of convention colleges, seminaries, mission boards, etc. When the Fundamentalists subsequently withdrew from the convention, they established independent Baptist churches that associated—if at all—in loose fellowships.

Today, many “young Fundamentalists” appear to be attracted by the positive traits of centralization. The resurgence of conservative political strength within the SBC has caused some Fundamentalists to desire to become a part of that convention struggle. Might Wayland’s logic be a helpful reminder? Was Wayland right?

Some might challenge Wayland’s commitment to individualism. Given the strong sense of community that existed in the NT churches, is his individualism derived from the Scriptures or from the nineteenth-century American context? Nothing Wayland says militates against the local church functioning as a community for sanctification and evangelism. On the other hand, Romans 14:10 clearly teaches the ultimate individual responsibility entailed by religious truth: every one of us will give personal account of our beliefs and actions. Our church aids and nurtures but does not determine our spiritual status. Each individual stands alone before God.

Given this premise, Wayland’s logic in the Notes is unassailable. I cannot—yea, dare not—delegate to any man the right to make decisions for me that I will one day answer to God for. This teaching does not make every person a local church in that my association with others in a local church does not involve delegation of my responsibilities. It rather expresses my agreement with others in essential matters and our mutual acceptance in nonessentials. Indeed, the genius of congregational polity is that it carefully guards the priesthood of the individual believer even as he associates in the local body with others. A Baptist congregation delegates authority to its pastors and deacons or recognizes them as representatives of the congregation only in matters that do not pertain to the conscience. The spiritual leaders of a local Baptist church feed the congregation and serve it so that the people can govern themselves according to their mutual understanding of the mind of Christ. The joining of a local church with a convention, presbytery, or other hierarchical jurisdiction, however, does entail the delegation of individual stewardship directly from Christ to human representatives who may or may not act Biblically.

This does not mean, as Wayland eventually asserted, that local churches cannot voluntarily support mission agencies, Bible colleges, or other parachurch organizations. In my opinion, no NT responsibility is delegated in such an arrangement, and the parachurch organization does not represent the local church in any real sense.

In short, the present loose fellowships of independent Baptist churches that characterize the Baptist Fundamentalist landscape best reflect the autonomous ideal of Wayland at his best. Those desiring for the centralization of the SBC, ABC, PCA, or other similar bodies should reevaluate whether or not they can move in that direction while honoring the Scriptural and Baptist ideal of autonomous churches answering solely to Jesus Christ in all matters.

Dr. David L. Saxon is professor of Bible and Church History at Maranatha Baptist Bible College.

(Originally published in FrontLine • March/April 2009. Click here to subscribe to the magazine.)

1. Lumpkin, 120. Cited in H. Leon McBeth’s A Sourcebook for Baptist Heritage (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1990), 96. [↩]
2. See the text of Griffith’s essay in McBeth, 146. [↩]
3. For instance, what Lumpkin calls the “statesmanlike” leadership of Shubal Stearns (Baptist History in the South [St. John, IN: Larry Harrison, n.d.,], 44), McBeth refers to as a “dictatorial” leadership style (The Baptist Heritage, 232). Stearns was the pastor of Sandy Creek Baptist Church and the patriarch of the Separate Baptists in NC. The leading Regular Baptist in the South was Richard Furman, who was also a very strong personality and who favored centralization. [↩]
4. Isaac Backus, the Separate Baptist pastor who became the leader of the battle for religious liberty in New England, initially refused to join the Warren Association until he “could be satisfied that this Association did not assume jurisdiction over the churches” (McBeth, The Baptist Heritage, 243). [↩]
5. Leonard comments, “The willingness to use the word ‘denomination’ to describe this new society was an important step for Baptists in the new nation. It brought together various associations, individuals and churches concerned about the foreign missionary task” (Baptist Ways: A History [Valley Forge: Judson Press, 2003], 165). [↩]
6. Leonard, 170. [↩]
7. New York: Sheldon, Blakeman and Co., 1857. See especially pages 177–90. [↩]
8. Ibid., 178. [↩]
9. Ibid., 179–80. [↩]
10. Ibid., 180–81, italics in the original. [↩]
11. New York: Sheldon, Blakeman & Co., 1859. Cited in David A. West Sr., “Introduction to the 1988 Reprint” of Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches. [↩]