Samuel Boykin, Editor, Christian Index
Baptists of the South are conflicted about their own faith heritage of church state separation. They have enthusiastically embraced a Confederate Constitution that, much unlike the secular United States Constitution, invokes “the favor and guidance of Almighty God” upon the Confederate States of America.
At the same time, Southern Baptist leaders have equated the Confederacy with the Old Testament nation of Israel (thus invoking the language and imagery of America’s earlier colonial Puritan theocracies); called upon churches to be diligent in observing government-sponsored days of fasting and prayer; asked the government to make demands upon the churches; declared that it is the moral duty of physically-capable white Baptist men to serve in the Confederate Army; called upon the government and army to recognize, observe and enforce Sunday as a holy day (previously, Baptists insisted that the United States government treat Sunday as any other day); insisted that the Confederacy is God’s chosen nation whose purpose is to fulfill God’s will of the subjugation of the African race, in fulfillment of biblical mandate and as an example to the entire world; spoken of the need for government leaders to be Christians; and tied the fortunes of the Confederacy to the prayers and faithfulness of Christian believers.
And yet, one church state issue troubles Confederate Baptists at large: government-paid army chaplains.
While other Southern denominations readily accept government funding for army chaplains, Baptists steadfastly resist. It is the one line in the sand of church state separation few Confederate Baptists dare to even think about crossing. Despite the obvious double-standard and hypocrisy, this lone issue allows Baptists of the South to pretend to stand firm on the convictions of their faith heritage.
An editorial in today’s Georgia Baptist Christian Index portrays Baptists as taking the high ground on church state separation. Deploring centuries of theocratic regimes prior to the Protestant Reformation and during America’s early colonial days, editor Samuel Boykin summarizes his contention that Confederacy and Christianity are entirely separated because the government has not written religious creeds, persecuted anyone for religious faith, censured the preaching of the Gospel, or appointed church ministers. In short, since the Confederacy is not a theocracy, church state entanglement is not an issue.
Conversely, the many other ways in which Boykin and other Baptist leaders have publicly married Confederacy and Christianity are ignored. And yet, Boykin offers a hint of the hollowness of his words even as he praises Baptists for refusing government funding for army chaplains:
The Saviour said emphatically, “My Kingdom is not of this world;” and hence, not to be OFFICIALLY protected or advanced by the rulers of this world. Our own country, where religion is more respected than in any other land, is a standing proof, that no connection between Church and State is necessary, not even to the extent of chaplains…the smallest possible approach to an [church state] establishment…
Even Boykin’s emphasis on “official” church state separation is questionable, given the Confederate Constitution. His pride in Baptists refusing to accept state funding for army chaplains — the “smallest possible” issue of church state “establishment” — belies his (and others) welcoming of the merger of church and state in many other ways within the Confederacy.
Note: In the original document, the word “officially” is emphasized in italics, not by caps.
Sources: “Concerning the Baptists: Their Abhorrence of State and Church Affiliations,” Christian Index, April 8, 1862. For a documentary examination of Georgia Baptists, including Samuel Boykin, and their embracing of church and state collusion in matters other than government-paid army chaplains, see Bruce T. Gourley, Diverging Loyalties: Baptists in Middle Georgia During the Civil War (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 2011).
