The New Atheism
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 54, No. 1 – Fall 2011
Managing Editor: Malcolm B. Yarnell III
By James H. Slatton. Macon: Mercer University Press, 2009. 348 + xx pages. Hardcover, $40.00.
James Slatton has produced a biography of William H. Whitsitt (1841–1911) worth reading. Granted permission by Whitsitt’s granddaughter, Slatton uses Whitsitt’s previously (and still currently) sealed diaries to provide a firsthand account of Whitsitt’s life and trials. Limited by the fact that the diaries recount only the events of 1885–1899, Slatton fills in the gaps to present a complete biography. When Slatton lets the diaries speak, and he does so with freedom and clarity, Whitsitt portrays a largely bitter and elitist temperament. However, when the diaries are silent, Slatton paints the picture of a heroic Whitsitt “hounded from office for his discovery of ‘an inconvenient truth’” (x). Thankfully, the reader gains enough access not only to draw his own conclusions but also to understand from where Slatton comes.
Slatton begins the volume in 1862 with the interruption of Whitsitt’s first pastorate by the Civil War. The War not only takes Whitsitt away from the Mill Creek Baptist Church in Nashville for a time, but also gives Whitsitt cause to leave his commitments to Landmarkism. Reared in a home that regularly read the Tennessee Baptist during the days of Landmark ascendency, Whitsitt would have a front row seat as the movement grew in popularity and followed the writings of J.R. Graves, A.C. Dayton, and J.M. Pendleton. In fact, Graves would preach Whitsitt’s ordination sermon.
Slatton describes how several imprisonments during the war would provide Whitsitt the opportunity to associate with other Baptists throughout the country. Instead of finding them half-hearted and erroneous as he had been taught, Whitsitt found that these non-Landmark Baptists “often excelled me in the graces of the spirit” (14). Such experiences led Whitsitt to question his commitments and change his outlook leading him to altogether abandoning Landmarkism. By 1866, Whitsitt left Nashville and enrolled at the University of Virginia where his “conversion from Landmarkism was highly supported” (25). There he met John A. Broadus and eventually followed him to study at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary then located in Greenville, South Carolina. His time at the seminary led to further studies in Germany followed by a pastorate in Virginia until the seminary called him to join the faculty in 1872.
Slatton shows that during Whitsitt’s early years at Southern, he “developed into a gentlemen of considerable refinement as well as scholarship” (53). As Whitsitt took on more elite status he began to question his commitment to the Baptist tradition. He writes in his journal, “I am greatly oppressed by the fact that the spirit of my people is foreign from my spirit; that they are far more narrow & pharisaical & sectarian than accounts with my conception of Christianity” (53). Whitsitt’s decision to remain Baptist appears more of a decision based on practical considerations and a commitment to tradition than to any real doctrinal conviction. In fact, Slatton states that Whitsitt even “considered writing an article arguing that the New Testament model of church government as Baptists interpreted it was not suited to the present needs of the church” (55).
Crawford H. Toy became Whitsitt’s closest friend and colleague at Southern. Toy, the nephew of R.B.C. Howell, also had studied in Germany after the war and came to hold a prominent position at Southern that garnered great popularity. However, the revelation of Toy’s embrace of higher criticism led to Toy’s dismissal from the seminary in 1879. Slatton depicts how Toy’s departure stirred Whitsitt to embitterment toward both Boyce, the school’s president, and Broadus, though he only expressed it in the pages of his diary. During the summer of 1880 Whitsitt traveled to London to pursue research to disprove the Landmark theory of Baptist origins and to show that Baptists began in 1641 as a part of the English Separatist movement. So enthralled with his discovery, Whitsitt determined to publish his findings anonymously through four articles in the New York Independent. Whitsitt would later regret posing as a non-Baptist in a pedobaptist publication. For all the controversy that surrounded Whitsitt in the years ahead, his momentary decision to publish in the Independent made all the difference for the outcome of his tenure at the seminary.
In 1885, Whitsitt began keeping the diary that Slatton describes as reflecting “his candid—and often uncomplimentary—opinions about his fellow professors” and thus part of the reason why he instructed it remained sealed for one hundred years (104). Slatton reprints several surprising statements from the diaries including Whitsitt’s prediction that “the time must inevitably come when the Baptists shall give up the practice of immersion …. To surrender close communion will be a prelude to the surrender of immersion. Neither of them is consistent with other practices of the Baptists; the sooner they can be abolished the better” (113). In 1893, Whitsitt published his views on the origins of Baptists, this time under his own name, in Johnson’s Universal Cyclopedia. This led to further skirmishes with the Landmarkers though these did not prevent Whitsitt’s election as president of the seminary in 1895 after the death of Broadus. The challenges from the Landmarkers did continue, however, and when the revelation came that Whitsitt penned the 1880 articles in the Independent the smell of blood permeated the water.
Slatton pieces together all the intricacies of the Whitsitt controversy with helpful care. As an example, he shows that Whitsitt’s choice to refer to the start of the practice of immersion by the English Baptists in 1641 as an “invention” rather than a “restoration” was no small mistake. For Whitsitt to imply that immersion was a practice foreign even to the early Christians of the New Testament and that the English Baptists were the first to institute the practice, drew ire from many. Whitsitt would later retract his statement affirming that John the Baptist did, in fact, practice immersion, but by then the opposition had mounted. Soon there came cause to believe that Whitsitt had authored other anonymous articles in the Independent advocating pedobaptism, and the result brought Whitsitt before the seminary Board of Trustees to read a statement of apology and retraction. At this point Slatton shows that Whitsitt and his supporters attempted to interpret the controversy as one concerning academic freedom and the right of Whitsitt to pursue research as he saw fit. Whitsitt’s supporters urged him not to resign and to continue to fight for “the freedom of research and the right of free speech in the Seminary” (244). However, it appears that they were overlooking Whitsitt’s confessed dishonesty regarding the articles in the Independent as well as his stated commitment to adhere to the confession of faith of the seminary, the Abstract of Principles.
Eventually, Whitsitt would resign under pressure from both his allies and adversaries, though he would quickly come to regret that decision. Slatton rightly notes that Whitsitt’s removal only served as a Landmark victory in part, as the next president did not share their views and Whitsitt’s conclusions regarding Baptist origins would go on to serve as the dominate view among Baptists in the twentieth century. Slatton attempts to link the Whitsitt controversy with the “moderate-fundamentalist controversy” among Southern Baptists in the 1980s and 1990s by opining the merits of an academic freedom tethered to the priesthood of the believer. Slatton amazingly argues that merely to cite “freedom within the bounds of the institution’s articles of faith” fails to accomplish the goal of ensuring that the “opinions of the masses” are “reflected in the teaching of the professors” (322–23). Slatton believes that “assemblies of the people—local and state associations and the national convention—were not really competent or feasible venues for adjudicating questions of fact, or science, or doctrine” (322). He concludes, in fact, that the Whitsitt controversy “evokes a haunting sense of déjà vu” for those who experienced the controversy among Southern Baptists in the late twentieth century.
Slatton’s biography of Whitsitt captures and presents well a previously untold portion of Whitsitt’s life and thought as recorded in Whitsitt’s private diaries. Slatton’s attention to detail, care for his subject matter, and desire to honor the family who gave him privileged access to the sealed materials comes through in a thoughtful, well organized, and engaging presentation. However, when Slatton leaves his primary task and attempts to make comparisons to Southern Baptist controversies of the immediate past, he skews the storyline and muddies the water of an otherwise helpful history.
