The Evangelistic Fervor of a 17th Century Particular Baptist

By Steve Weaver

When Andrew Fuller was wrestling with the question of whether or not the gospel should be preached indiscriminately to all, he found a model for promiscuous gospel preaching in the seventeenth-century English Particular Baptist John Bunyan. Fuller noted that Bunyan, contrary to the contemporary Particular Baptist examples of preaching he knew, regularly addressed the unconverted directly and appealed to them to trust in Christ's saving work. Fuller would eventually realize that the hyper-Calvinistic approach was an intrusion into Particular Baptist life and not faithful to its original heritage. Seventeenth-century Particular Baptists preached the gospel to all, calling upon all to believe and repent.

Along with Bunyan, Fuller could have also read the writings of men such as Benjamin Keach, Thomas Harrison, William Collins and Hercules Collins. Each of these men were convinced Calvinists soteriologically, subscribing to the Second London Confession of Faith. Yet, each of these men pleaded with sinners to be saved. In his funeral sermon for Hercules Collins, John Piggott commented upon the evangelistic zeal of Collins by saying that “no man could preach with a more affectionate regard to the salvation of souls.”[1] He later called the regular attenders of the Wapping-street Church who remained unsaved as witnesses to the gospel fervor of Hercules Collins: “You are witnesses with what zeal and fervour, with what constancy and seriousness he used to warn and persuade you.”[2] Piggott then began to plead with the lost present himself by crying out, “Tho you have been deaf to his former preaching, yet listen to the voice of this providence, lest you continue in your slumber till you sleep the sleep of death.” He then closed with these forceful words:

You cannot but see, unless you will close your eyes, that this world and the fashion of it is passing away. O what a change will a few months or years make in this numerous assembly! Yea, what a sad change has little more than a fortnight made in this congregation! He that was so lately preaching in this pulpit, is now wrapped in his shroud, and confined to his coffin; and the lips that so often dispersed knowledge amongst you, are sealed up till the resurrection. Here’s the body of your late minister; but his soul is entered into the joy of his Lord. O that those of you that would not be persuaded by him living, might be wrought upon by his death! For tho he is dead, he yet speaketh; and what doth he say; both to ministers and people, but “Be ye also ready, for in such an hour as you think not, the Son of Man cometh?”[3]

Historical evidence such as this should put to rest the claims of some that Calvinism necessarily inhibits evangelistic fervor. Hyper-Calvinism, indeed, is an error that must be rejected by Calvinist and non-Calvinist alike. Those who refuse to call upon all sinners to believe and repent are not only disobedient to the clear teaching of Scripture, they are also not living up to the best of their Calvinistic Baptist heritage exemplified by men such as John Bunyan, Hercules Collins, and Andrew Fuller.

---

^[1] John Piggott, Eleven Sermons, 236.

^[2] Ibid., 240.

^[3]Ibid.

__________________

Steve Weaver serves as a research assistant to the director of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies and a junior fellow of the Center. He also serves as senior pastor of Farmdale Baptist Church in Frankfort, KY. Steve and his wife Gretta have six children between the ages of 2 and 14.

The Domestic Benefits of “A Right Spirit”

By Dustin Bruce

With the recent birth of my daughter, I have given much thought to Paul’s command to “bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). I’ve read page after page on the importance of family worship, catechetical instruction, consistent discipline, and more. Andrew Fuller joined a chorus of helpful voices in offering a bit of heart piercing counsel.

Fuller, in a 1798 sermon at Ipswich, gave a sermon on David’s request that God “renew a right spirit within me” (Psalm 51:10). Surprisingly, Fuller elaborated on the familial benefits of possessing a right spirit in relation to God. According to Fuller, David was never more a sinner than when he dealt with Uriah, but he was never more a saint than when, in true repentance, he penned the 51^st Psalm. He goes on to speak of a right spirit as signifying true religion, which he defines as follows:

A right spirit is a spirit of love to God, and love to our neighbour, and a right disposition to ourselves. A right spirit towards God is a spirit of love to him, a spirit of faith in God, a spirit of gratitude to God, a spirit of submission to God, a spirit of obedience to God, and so of every grace of the Spirit of God. A right spirit is not that of him who has experienced right feelings at a distant period only, but of one who habitually lives in the exercise of them: a constant spirit, as expressed in the margin. The term right has respect to some rule; this rule is the law of God, which is a right rule—the rule by which the Spirit of God works in the conversion of a sinner: hence he has said, “I will write the law in their hearts;” and as this is the rule by which God works, so it is the rule by which Christians ought to walk.^[1]

The personal consequences to losing a right spirit are devastating. However, failure to maintain such a spirit affects one’s family as well. First, the loss of a right spirit makes us ineffective Christians at home. As Fuller explains,

We can do no good in our families. When a person has lost his right spirit, he commonly lives in the neglect of his duties, and too often in the commission of some small sins, neither of which seem to affect his conscience, so that religion appears of little consequence in the eyes of those around him. As he has not a savour of religion in his own mind, he cannot communicate it to others. As he has no love to God, no zeal for God, he cannot enkindle the flame of them in others. And it is mostly found when a person is in such a state, when he attempts to perform duties, he does it in such a manner, that, instead of exciting lively emotions in the lives of others, makes them burdensome, and so become disgustful. Sin unrepented of will spoil our usefulness. Guilt will chain our minds, and keep us from the discharge of what we know to be our duty. In this state we cannot with freedom or pleasure engage in it, and so give it up. Thus it appears we can do no good during this state of mind in our families.^[2]

Second, we cannot rightly enjoy our families without a right spirit. Fuller goes on,

It is essentially necessary that we should possess this right spirit, rightly to enjoy what is good in this life. There is no good to be enjoyed in our families, nor good done, without it. The domestic comforts of life are no comforts without it; nor are our relatives a support to us. We may rove among our connexions from object to object, seeking relief, but all will be in vain. The great defect is in ourselves; wanting the right spirit which gives a relish to our comforts, we want the great essential of all.

As the consequence of this, instead of the cheerfulness which infuses a savour into the comforts of social life, and which ought to be seen on our countenances by our domestics, there is nothing but gloom and sullen despair. ^[3]

In typical fashion, Fuller penetrates to the heart of domestic piety. The great responsibility of bringing up children, as well as the great joy associated with it, are both dependent on the possessing of a right spirit. Family worship may go wrong more than it goes right and children may forget catechisms. But they will never forget growing up in a home with parents who maintained a right spirit of love toward God. May we join David in praying, “Create in me a clean heart, oh God; and renew a right spirit within me.”

---

^[1] Andrew Gunton Fuller, The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, Volume 3: Expositions—Miscellaneous, ed. Joseph Belcher (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 837.

^[2] Andrew Gunton Fuller, The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, Volume 3: Expositions—Miscellaneous, ed. Joseph Belcher (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 839.

^[3] Andrew Gunton Fuller, The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, Volume 3: Expositions—Miscellaneous, ed. Joseph Belcher (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 840.

___________________

Dustin Bruce lives in Louisville, KY where he is pursuing a PhD in Biblical Spirituality at Southern Seminary. He is a graduate of Auburn University and Southwestern Seminary. Dustin and his wife, Whitney, originally hail from Alabama.

On The Spiritual Value of Historic Christian Texts

By Ryan Patrick Hoselton

Until recently, I doubted the merit of meditating on historic Christian writings. I can easily absorb these texts out of intellectual interest, but when it comes to growing spiritually, I reach for the Bible or contemporary devotional writings. However, my attitude has changed after being challenged to spend a month meditating daily on a collection of historic Christian texts. Here are three of my thoughts on why this exercise is enormously valuable to Christians today.

First, the Holy Spirit’s work in the lives of believers is atemporal. He produces spiritual fruits and gifting in every Christian no matter what era he or she inhabits. Thus, to take for granted that Christians today can offer superior resources for spiritual growth and that texts from the past are outdated and irrelevant is to undermine the Spirit’s work throughout history. This posture is also proud and self-righteous because it rests the criteria and source for vital spirituality in one’s culture rather than in the Spirit’s work.

Second, studying historic Christian texts can emend abuses in spirituality today. If a believer limited his or her devotional resources to a particular period, he or she will inevitably adopt the damaging principles and practices of that era. The reason why men like John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, and Andrew Fuller offered such excellent and discerning spiritual insight is because they drew heavily from past writings to correct the errors of their day. Meditating on historic devotional texts also helps believers today to avoid imitating the mistakes of previous generations.

Third, meditating on historic Christian texts is beneficial as a companion to studying Scripture because the believer can observe how others have reflected on the Word of God and put it into practice. God designed the church to learn from each other—Paul exhorted the members to actively be “teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom” (Col. 3.16). Each individual believer, even though he or she may study and meditate on Scripture tirelessly day and night, needs the example and instruction of others. This cycle of mutual learning and growing should extend beyond one’s local and temporal church body to the church in other ages. Christians from the past have valuable lessons on how to interpret and apply Scripture in worship and action for believers today.

God has provided ample resources for the church to grow in holiness and love. Of course no text compares to the Scriptures to “train yourself for godliness” and correct false thinking and practices (1 Tim. 4.7). But God also uses the example of godly men and women of the past to encourage Christians today, and we would greatly benefit to imitate them as they imitated Christ.

__________________

Ryan Patrick Hoselton is pursuing a ThM at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He lives in Louisville, KY with his wife Jaclyn, and they are expecting their first child in August.

Don’t Judge a Theologian by His Unpublished Musings

By Nathan A. Finn

A good reminder from pastor and Jonathan Edwards scholar Josh Moody:

This brings up a more general point about Edwards’s many notebooks and “Miscellanies” from which Edwards scholars love to quote. They are fascinating, there are many of them, and they are rich with insights into how Edwards’s mind worked. But they can also be dangerous. We must never forget that they were not intended to be published. That they have been is a good thing because they give us insight into the working mind of an undisputed theological genius. But they are not necessarily fully-formed opinions. It’s like looking at Van Gogh’s oil paint palate and drawing conclusions about what kind of painting style he believed in. It might give us insight into his method, and we might draw some connections between that and what he painted, but it wouldn’t tell us finally what he wanted to paint. Only Edwards’s published works, by his own intention, during his own lifetime, reveal with certainty what he wanted to say. Perhaps Edwards has hidden opinions in his notebooks not consistent with his preaching and writing, but the majority of Edwards scholarship has long shown that not to be the case. Each time  I engage with fellow Edwards scholars on the “Miscellanies,” I make a fresh resolution to comb through all my personal extended notes and jottings on theological matters. If I am to be held to the stake for every semiformulated idea I have ever penned in private journals, I had better get rid of some of them before I pass through the veil.

See Moody’s helpful (and punchy) chapter “Edwards and Justification Today” in Jonathan Edwards and Justification (Crossway, 2012), ed. Josh Moody, pp. 30–31.

________________________

Nathan A. Finn is associate professor of historical theology and Baptist Studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is also an elder at First Baptist Church of Durham, NC and a senior fellow of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies.

Why read an obscure Baptist pastor from the seventeenth century—Abraham Cheare?

By Michael A.G. Haykin

The history of the Baptists’ reception of their own past is a fascinating one in its own right. Most of the Baptist works of the seventeenth century were never reprinted and consequently a significant amount of their thought was obscure to their eighteenth-century heirs. To be sure, there was a certain amount of reflection on the past by eighteenth-century authors like Thomas Crosby (1683–c.1751) and Joseph Ivimey (1773–1834), but it was the Victorian Baptists who really began to delve into Baptist history and that for a variety of reasons: the Victorians in general were fascinated by the past; in England this exploration of Baptist history was linked to the realization of the strength of the Nonconformist cause and became a vehicle to express Baptist pride; while, in America it was used by many to prove (or disprove) the theology of Landmarkism. Then came the twentieth century, which was probably the worst of all centuries for remembering the past. After World War I the ambience in the west was increasingly one in which the past was seen as old lumber to be discarded to make way for new perspectives, in the very same way that Victorian Gothic buildings were being leveled to make way for Art Deco and postmodernist structures. Even in the renaissance of interest in the Puritans that has been taking place in the past fifty years, both in regard to academic scholarship and to popular literature, it seems that the Baptists have been forgotten. Nearly all of the Puritan figures who are being studied or read are either Presbyterians or Congregationalists. With the exception of the celebrated John Bunyan (1628–1688) and to a lesser degree, Hanserd Knollys (1599–1691), William Kiffin (1616–1701) and Benjamin Keach (1640–1704), the Baptists of the seventeenth century have been largely forgotten. Thankfully this is changing, however, as Baptist scholars are rediscovering their forebears. And among these forebears is the subject of this post, Abraham Cheare (1626–1668).

Why should an early twenty-first-century Christian take the time to learn about Abraham Cheare and read his writings? Well, first of all, suffering for religious beliefs, as he did for eight years till it killed him, is not foreign to the modern world. Around the world, there are numerous contexts where religious toleration is all but non-existent and men and woman have to count the cost if they wish to be public about their convictions. And increasingly in the west an intolerant cultural elite are targeting the Church and seeking to muzzle Christian witness. Here then, Cheare can help us enormously, for Cheare was a Puritan and after 1660, when the Anglican state church sought to extirpate Puritanism, Cheare and many others knew first-hand what it was to suffer for Christ’s sake. His example and writings in this regard are tremendously helpful for Christians undergoing the same today.

Then, Cheare, above all things, sought to be guided by the Scriptures, not simply when it came to church polity but in all of his life. His life and writings exemplify what “being biblical” looks like. In this regard, then, he is a quintessential Puritan, for Puritanism was above all things a movement that sought to be Word-centered. Modern-day Christians would not cross every ‘t’ and dot every ‘i’ the way Cheare does; but his passion to be found living in accord with the Scriptures is certainly worthy of imitation.

And simply reading the past for its own sake is important, for there we see God at work. To quote Richard Baxter, the Puritan contemporary of Cheare: “[T]he writing of church-history is the duty of all ages, because God’s works are to be known, as well as his Word… He that knoweth not what state the church and world is in, and hath been in, in former ages, and what God hath been doing in the world, and how error and sin have been resisting him, and with what success, doth want much to the completing of his knowledge.”[1]

---

[1] The Life of Faith in The Practical Works of the Rev. Richard Baxter, ed. William Orme (London: James Duncan, 1830), 12:364.

___________________

Michael A.G. Haykin is the director of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies. He also serves as Professor of Church History and Biblical Spirituality at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Haykin and his wife Alison have two grown children, Victoria and Nigel.

Celebrating 1,700 years of the Edict of Milan

By Ryan Patrick Hoselton

The year 2013 marks the 1,700^th anniversary of the Edict of Milan. This decree has had a significant impact on the history of the Christian church, serving as a blueprint for religious freedom throughout the centuries. Emperors Constantine and Licinius published the document together, and although Licinius would later revoke the principles of the Edict, Constantine conquered him and enforced it throughout the Empire. Believers today should certainly celebrate this event because it took a major step towards alleviating the violent persecution directed toward Christians.

Here are some of the major points that the Edict stressed:

1)      Freedom in worship is “of profit to all mankind.” Man’s relationship with God is his “first and chiefest care,” and in order for everyone to flourish in this pursuit, the State shouldn’t interfere.

2)      Freedom of religion is beneficial to the State. The authors stated that the purpose of the Edict was for “establishing public tranquility.” Religious oppression facilitates violence and strife among citizens of the same society.

3)      Civil equality belongs to all people regardless of one’s religion. In many areas of the empire, Christians were not allowed to own land and many churches were dispossessed of their properties. This Edict restored land to Christians and condemned any such civil discrimination based on religion.

4)      The Emperors believed that this Edict would win divine favor, resulting in success and happiness in their realm.

History has proven time and again that State coercion in religious matters has not fared well for those societies—even “Christian” ones. Christians should actively promote religious freedom throughout the world. Even more, we should treat humans of all faiths with dignity and fairness. The Apostles never resorted to force but always employed respectful and passionate persuasion to draw others to Christianity (Acts 17.4, 18.4, 19.26, 26.28, 2 Cor. 5.11). Christians living in societies that guard religious freedom are indebted to the Edict of Milan.

Constantine and Licinius, “The ‘Edict of Milan’,” in Documents of the Christian Church, translated and edited by Henry Bettenson (London: Oxford University Press, 1963), 22.

__________________

Ryan Patrick Hoselton is pursuing a ThM at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He lives in Louisville, KY with his wife Jaclyn, and they are expecting their first child in August.

Prayer: Common Ground for Origen of Alexandria and Fuller of Kettering

By Dustin W. Benge

Throughout church history men have written treatises on the subject of prayer using the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:9–13) as a framework to shape their pastoral instruction. Perhaps no connection could be made between early church father, Origen of Alexandria (184/185–253/254) and Andrew Fuller (1754–1815), except they both gave insightful expositions on the Lord’s Prayer.

Origen’s treatise on prayer (De Oratione) reads more as a practical pastoral handbook than a major theological treatise. Origen gave a beautiful interpretation of the opening address of the Lord’s Prayer, “Our Father, who art in heaven.” Origen believed a Christian could not proceed with the following petitions and requests contained within the Lord’s Prayer until this opening phrase is rightly understood. Origen pointed out that the Old Testament does not know the name “Father” as an alternative for God, in the Christian sense of a steady and changeless adoption.^[1] Only those who have received the spirit of adoption can recite the prayer rightly. Therefore, the entire life of a believer should consist in lifting up prayers that contain, “Our Father who art in heaven,” because the conduct of every believer should be heavenly, not worldly. Origen explained:

Let us not suppose that the Scriptures teach us to say “Our Father” at any appointed time of prayer. Rather, if we understand the earlier discussion of praying “constantly” (1 Thess 5:17), let our whole life be a constant prayer in which we say “Our Father in heaven” and let us keep our commonwealth (Phil 3:20) not in any way on earth, but in every way in heaven, the throne of God, because the kingdom of God is established in all those who bear the image of Man from heaven (1 Cor 15:49) and have thus become heavenly.^[2]

Like Origen, Fuller began his exegesis of the Lord’s Prayer by establishing that prayer must be dependent upon the character of the one to whom we are allowed to draw near, namely, “Our Father.” The recognition of God as “Our Father” implies that sinners have become “adopted alien[s] put among the children.”^[3] Those adopted into God’s family can therefore rightly approach God as their Father but it must, as Fuller clarifies, be through a Mediator. Fully consistent with the Messianic age, Christ set himself within the context of the prayer as the One through which the Christian must come if he or she is to approach God as “Father.” Fuller states, “The encouragement contained in this tender appellation is inexpressible. The love, the care, the pity, which it comprehends, and the filial confidence which it inspires, must, if we are not wanting to ourselves, render prayer as a most blessed exercise.”^[4]

Origen and Fuller arrive at the same conclusion. They both see the phrase, “Our Father,” as the affirmation within the Lord’s Prayer that anchors the proceeding requests and brings great confidence within the one praying. Understanding God as “our Father” is the gift that causes the joy of prayer to be realized.

---

                ^[1] On Prayer (De Oratione) (Coptic Orthodox Church Network).

                ^[2] Origen, “On Prayer,” 125.

                ^[3] The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, 1:578.

                ^[4] The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, 1:578.

________________________

Dustin W. Benge (Ph.D. Candidate, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) serves as Associate Pastor and Pastor for Family Ministries at Christ Fellowship Baptist Church in Mobile, AL. Dustin is a junior fellow of the Andrew Fuller Center and lives with his wife, Molli, in Mobile.

The First Abolitionist: Gregory of Nyssa on Slavery

By Dustin Bruce

Though it rubs against our modern sensibilities, Christians in the ancient world generally accepted slavery as a normal, albeit unfortunate, aspect of human reality. One expert has summarized, “In antiquity, only the rare Christian perceived the gospel to be incompatible with the institution of slavery.”[1] Gregory of Nyssa (A.D. 330–395), the youngest of the Cappadocian Fathers, was just such a rare Christian.

Gregory, in what is considered “the most scathing critique of slaveholding in all of antiquity,” attacked the institution as incompatible with humanity’s creation in the image of God.[2] Gregory’s remarkable diatribe against the practice of slavery may be found in his fourth homily on Ecclesiastes, specifically addressing 2:7, “I bought male and female slaves, and had slaves who were born in my house. I had also great possessions of herds and flocks, more than any who had been before me in Jerusalem” (ESV).

Of all the Preacher’s boasting, this statement stands as the worst affront to Gregory and in his mind, God.[3] He asks, “Do any of the things listed here…suggest as much arrogance as the man’s idea that he as a man can be master over his fellows?”[4] Such a declaration of slaveholding reveals the “vast extent of his boastfulness.”[5] Gregory states sharply, “Such a voice as his is raised in open defiance against God.”[6]

For Gregory, slavery violates the characteristics of man as created in the image of God. The following portions are a mere sampling of his powerful argument:

‘I acquired slaves and slave girls.’ What is that you say? You condemn a person to slavery whose nature is free and independent, and in doing so you lay down a law in opposition to God, overturning the natural law established by him. For you subject to the yoke of slavery one who was created precisely to be a master of the earth, and who was ordained to rule by the creator, as if you were deliberately attacking and fighting against the divine command.[7]

What price did you put on reason? How many obols did you pay as a fair price for the image of God? For how many staters have you sold the nature specially formed by God? ‘God said, “Let us make man in our image and likeness.”’[8]

Gregory of Nyssa holds a unique place among the Fathers as the singular opponent of the existence of slavery in any form. With comments reminiscent of a William Wilberforce speech or a Frederick Douglass discourse, Gregory sharply denounces the practice of enslaving a person who bears the image of God as immoral and contrary to God’s intentions for humanity. Not only is Gregory’s condemnation of slavery unique, it is also instructive. With millions of modern day slaves, all bearing the image of God, existing in a state of tortuous bondage throughout the globe, may all God’s people be as bold as Gregory in asking, “who can buy a man, who can sell him, when he is made in the likeness of God.”[9]

---

[1]Jennifer A. Glancy, Slavery as Moral Problem: In the Early Church and Today (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), 78.

[2]Glancy, Slavery as Moral Problem, 97.

[3]It is interesting to note that Gregory understands the Preacher to be offering a public confession for his sins in this portion of Ecclesiastes. Daniel F. Stramara Jr., “Gregory of Nyssa: An Ardent Abolitionist,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 41, no. 1 (1997): 43.

[4]Translation taken from Trevor Dennis, “Man Beyond Price: Gregory of Nyssa and Slavery,” in Heaven and Earth : Essex Essays in Theology and Ethics (Worthington, West Sussex: Churchman, 1986), 130. Also, an English translation may be found in Stuart George Hall and Rachel Moriarty, eds., Gregory of Nyssa, Homilies on Ecclesiastes (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1993), 74–75.

[5]Dennis, “Man Beyond Price,” 135.

[6]Dennis, “Man Beyond Price,” 135.

[7]Dennis, “Man Beyond Price,” 135.

[8]Dennis, “Man Beyond Price,” 136.

[9]Dennis, “Man Beyond Price,” 136.

___________________

Dustin Bruce lives in Louisville, KY where he is pursuing a PhD in Biblical Spirituality at Southern Seminary. He is a graduate of Auburn University and Southwestern Seminary. Dustin and his wife, Whitney, originally hail from Alabama.

On Assessing Historical Revivals

By Nathan A. Finn

One of the courses I teach at Southeastern Seminary is a PhD seminar on The History and Theology of Spiritual Awakening. The seminar is cross-listed in the fields of historical theology and evangelism, so the participants include a mix of students studying church history, systematic theology, and evangelism. I have also co-taught a masters-level elective on this same topic with my colleague Alvin Reid, who is an evangelism professor and co-author of a textbook on revival history.

Last summer, I had a conversation with the historian David Bebbington about the difficulties of being a Christian historian who studies revival. We agreed it can be tricky for a variety of reasons. First, there is nothing approaching a universal definition of such terms as revival and awakening among either everyday Christians or scholars. Is revival a surprising work of God or a pre-planned event? Is revival a return to what ought to be normal Christianity or a season of heightened spiritual experience? Is revival primarily about spiritual renewal among believers, gospel advance among unbelievers, or both?  (Bebbington argues for at least five different ways to define revival.)

Second, many folks read their theological biases into various revivals, assessing them as true or false revival based upon their degree of conformity to the presupposed theological criteria. This leads some cessationists to completely dismiss Charismatic revivals, some Calvinists to treat much of the Second Great Awakening with suspicion, and some theological liberals to treat most any revival as little more than social forces influencing the church. Hank Hanegraaff, Iain Murray, and William McGloughlin are representatives of these respective tendencies.

Third, there is the balancing act of being both a historian who wants to treat historical revivals with some degree of critical distance and an evangelical Christian who longs for revival in my own life and church. Finding a balance between cold detachment and filiopietistic preachiness is easier said than done. Harry Stout probably titled to far in the former direction in his controversial biography of George Whitefield, while the works of popular revival historians such as J. Edwin Orr are more about edifying the saints than they are interpreting historical revivals.

Nigel Scotland of Trinity College at Bristol University (UK) is a church historian who has written extensively on the history of evangelicalism in the British Isles. He is also a believing Christian who both writes about and longs for spiritual awakening. In an article in the most recent issue of the journal Evangelical Quarterly, Scotland offers his own definition of revival and suggests nine characteristics that can be used to assess the authenticity of historical revivals. He defines revival as “a sovereign work of God the Father, consisting of a powerful intensification of God’s saving work in and through his people.” His nine characteristics are as follows:

1. A sovereign work of God
2. A work which repeats New Testament Christianity
3. A work which renews the church
4. An enduring work of God
5. A work which magnifies Jesus Christ
6. A work of God brought about by biblically appointed means
7. A work which releases the gifts and fruit of the Holy Spirit
8. A work which often included the conversion of large numbers of people
9. A work which transforms the community in which it is located

My point in passing on Scotland’s list is not to suggest that he has solved the dilemma. Frankly, I have questions about some of his characteristics. (What does it mean to “repeat” NT Christianity?) I simply want to point out how one evangelical historian is thinking through this particular dilemma. The next time I teach my doctoral seminar, I suspect we’ll spend some time talking through Scotland’s article as we try to balance being revival-minded Christians and careful historians and theologians of revival.

If you want to read the article for yourself, see Nigel Scotland, “Towards a Biblical Understanding and Assessment of Revival,” Evangelical Quarterly 85.2 (Spring 2013): 121–34.

________________________

Nathan A. Finn is associate professor of historical theology and Baptist Studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is also an elder at First Baptist Church of Durham, NC and a senior fellow of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies.

Evangelical Preaching: “The End Dominates the Action”

By Evan D. Burns

In his “Concluding Reflections” of The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, Andrew Fuller wrote “On the Duty of Ministers in Dealing with the Unconverted.”  In his arguments, he warned against engaging in ministry without preaching the gospel as the “leading theme of our ministrations.”[1]  Fuller also warned against preaching the gospel and promising only blessings of religion “to the neglect of exhortations, calls, and warnings.”[2]  He argued that both Jesus and the Apostles implored sinners to repent, believe, and be reconciled to God.  Arguing against those hyper-Calvinists who said that such indiscriminate gospel calls are cruel to the non-elect, Fuller said that it is not cruel because such people have no desire for God in their hearts.  They choose according the prevailing disposition of their hearts, which is always darkness.

After this, he concluded his plea for evangelical gospel preaching by contending for the use of the law to wound the conscience in order that the gospel might heal it.  He had no toleration for soft preaching that entertained and made false promises of blessings with no call for repentance and submission to Christ’s lordship.  The gospel call demands compliance.  He said:

…enforcing the duties of religion, either on sinners or saints, is by some called preaching the law. If it were so, it is enough for us that such was the preaching of Christ and his apostles. It is folly and presumption to affect to be more evangelical than they were. All practical preaching, however, is not preaching the law. That only, I apprehend, ought to be censured as preaching the law, in which our acceptance with God is, in some way or other, placed to the account of our obedience to its precepts. When eternal life is represented as the reward of repentance, faith, and sincere obedience, (as it too frequently is, and that under the complaisant form of being “through the merits of Christ,”) this is preaching the law, and not the gospel. But the precepts of the law may be illustrated and enforced for evangelical purposes; as tending to vindicate the Divine character and government; to convince of sin; to show the necessity of a Saviour, with the freeness of salvation; to ascertain the nature of true religion; and to point out the rule of Christian conduct. …

If the foregoing principles be just, it is the duty of ministers not only to exhort their carnal auditors to believe in Jesus Christ for the salvation of their souls; but it is at our peril to exhort them to any thing short of it, or which does not involve or imply it… We have sunk into such a compromising way of dealing with the unconverted as to have well nigh lost the spirit of the primitive preachers; and hence it is that sinners of every description can sit so quietly as they do, year after year, in our places of worship. It was not so with the hearers of Peter and Paul. They were either “pricked in the heart” in one way, or “cut to the heart” in another. Their preaching commended itself to “every man’s conscience in the sight of God.” How shall we account for this difference? Is there not some important error or defect in our ministrations? … I conceive there is scarcely a minister amongst us whose preaching has not been more or less influenced by the lethargic systems of the age.^[3]

____________________________________

[1] The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, Volume 2: Controversial Publications, ed. Joseph Belcher (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 386.

[2]Works, II, 386.

^[3]Works, II, 386–387.

____________________

Evan D. Burns (Ph.D. Candidate, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is on faculty at Asia Biblical Theological Seminary, and he lives in Thailand with his wife and twin sons.  They are missionaries with Training Leaders International.

Recommended Books on Baptist Historical Theology

By Nathan A. Finn

James Leo Garrett, Baptist Theology: A Four Century Study (Mercer University Press, 2009). This volume, written by the dean of Southern Baptist theologians, is the most exhaustive survey of Baptist theology. As a general rule, Garrett sticks with description rather than prescription, providing a useful summary of major figures, movements, themes, and controversies. One particularly helpful contribution is Garrett’s discussion of Baptist biblical theologians alongside historical theologians.

William H. Brackney, A Genetic History of Baptist Thought (Mercer University Press, 2004). Brackney is arguably the most influential Baptist historian in North America. His volume is more interpretive than Garrett’s and is more overtly colored by a more moderate perspective. Brackney is particularly interested in mapping out the evolution of Baptist identity, using the image of genetics as an interpretive grid. Brackney was for many years an American Baptist, so his discussion of theological trends among Baptists in the North is especially helpful.

Timothy George and David S.Dockery, eds., Baptist Theologians (Broadman, 1990). This volume is a collection of essays introducing some of the key theologians in the Baptist tradition. The subjects and contributors represent a wide variety of theological perspectives. A shorter (and more uniformly conservative) version of this book, which includes some new essays, was published as Theologians of the Baptist Tradition (B&H Academic, 2001).

Fisher Humphreys, The Way We Were: How Southern Baptist Theology Has Changed and What It Means To Us All, 2^nd ed. (Smyth & Helwys, 2002). Paul Basden, ed., Has Our Theology Changed? Southern Baptist Thought Since 1845 (B&H, 1994). These two volumes survey the history of Southern Baptist theology from a mostly moderate perspective. Humphrey’s volume does a fairly good job of identifying different theological “camps” among Southern Baptists, while Basden’s collection of essays focuses upon specific doctrinal topics.

L. Russ Bush and Tom J. Nettles, Baptists and the Bible, 2^nd ed. (B&H Academic, 2000). This influential volume looks at the history of Baptist perspectives on the inspiration, authority, and truthfulness of the Bible. The authors demonstrate that Baptists have normally held to a high view of Scripture and defended its inerrancy and infallibility.

Thomas J. Nettles, By His Grace and For His Glory: A Historical, Theological, and Practical Study of the Doctrines of Grace in Baptist Life, 20^th Anniversary ed. (Founders Press, 2006). Nettles’s volume focuses upon the history of Calvinism in the Baptist tradition. His overall thesis is sound, though historians might quibble with him over specific details and individuals. This revised edition includes controversies in the SBC over Calvinism through 2005.

Anthony R. Cross, Baptism and the Baptists: Theology and Practice in Twentieth-Century Britain (Paternoster, 2000). Stanley K. Fowler, More Than a Symbol: The British Baptist Recovery of Baptismal Sacramentalism (Wipf and Stock, 2007). These two volumes discuss the history of the debate among British Baptists over the nature of baptism, specifically whether or not there is a sacramental element to baptism. Though relatively few North American Baptists have been participants in this debate, this issue has dominated British Baptist discussions much like biblical inerrancy and gender roles have dominated Southern Baptist discussions.

________________________

Nathan A. Finn is associate professor of historical theology and Baptist Studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is also an elder at First Baptist Church of Durham, NC and a senior fellow of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies.

Augustine of Hippo’s Theology of Moral Reasoning

By Ryan Patrick Hoselton

Christians today have two options: hiding under a rock, or confronting complicated and disturbing moral issues. The past month alone has witnessed an ethical Blitzkrieg on Christian values. From the Gosnell trials to the Marathon Bombing, with two more states on the verge of legalizing homosexual marriage and insecure international relations, believers are overwhelmed with moral conundrums. Thankfully, there are resources from the past that help Christians think through the moral dilemmas of today—nothing is new under the sun. Augustine’s work, The City of God, is an excellent example of such a resource, and while it may not comprehensively address every nuance of our modern ethical crises, it’s a good place to establish a moral framework for working in that direction.

In this work, Augustine (354-430) depicts two realms: the earthly city and the heavenly city. The earthly city is transient and corrupt, and the heavenly city is eternal and glorious. In Book XIX, Augustine explains what differentiates the citizens of these cities: one worships and serves God, and the other serves the self. The worship of God establishes true virtue while self-worship leads to immorality. He expounds this point:

Now in serving God the soul rightly commands the body, and in the soul itself the reason which is subject to its Lord God rightly commands the lusts and the other perverted elements. That being so, when a man does not serve God, what amount of justice are we to suppose to exist in his being? For if a soul does not serve God it cannot with any kind of justice command the body, nor can a man’s reason control the vicious elements in the soul. (XIX.21)

If God is not the master of our actions, then our conduct will serve evil. Service to God subjects the mind, will, and actions to righteousness rather than corruption.

The worship of God grounds not only justice but also true happiness and wisdom. When the saints inhabit the heavenly city, they experience supreme joy because they no longer serve other things. The “present reality without” the future hope of being righteous in God is “a false happiness, in fact, an utter misery” (XIX.20). The things humans serve in the earthly city will not only tend to evil but also to profound disappointment. True wisdom must direct “its just dealings with others” towards “that ultimate state in which God will be all in all, in the assurance of eternity and the perfection of peace” (XIX.20). If believers want to act morally wise in the present age, they must pattern their conduct on the heavenly city rather than the earthly city.

Make no mistake, Augustine warns, for many will exploit the virtues to serve selfish ends rather than serving God. Non-Christians and Christians alike can fall into this insidious trap. Augustine explains, “if the soul and reason do not serve God as God himself has commanded that he should be served, then they do not in any way exercise the right kind of rule over the body and the vicious propensities” (XIX.25). Thus, it is essential for believers to constantly study and cherish God’s commands if they hope to gain moral discernment.

In sum, the foundation of virtue is the worship and love of God. Moral reasoning that is not subject to the service of God is vulnerable to serve all kinds of evils, for “it is not something that comes from man, but something above man, that makes his life blessed” (XIX.25). Augustine grounded his confrontation with the moral issues of his day in this framework, and believers today would do well to imitate him.

St. Augustine. The City of God. Trans. Henry Bettenson. New York: Penguin Books, 1972, 1984.

__________________

Ryan Patrick Hoselton is pursuing a ThM at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He lives in Louisville, KY with his wife Jaclyn, and they are expecting their first child in August.

Francis Wayland and Richard Fuller: Debating Slavery with Christian Civility

By Nathan A. Finn

In a couple of weeks, I’ll be reading a paper at the annual meeting of the Baptist History and Heritage Society titled “Debating Domestic Slavery: The Wayland-Fuller Correspondence in Context.” My paper will focus on the story behind the book Domestic Slavery Considered as a Scriptural Institution (1845). I’ve long been interested in this important book; my colleague Keith Harper and I co-edited a new edition of Domestic Slavery for Mercer University Press in 2008. It was my first book.

Domestic Slavery is a collection of letters between southerner Richard Fuller and northerner Francis Wayland. Both of these men were devout Christians, Baptist leaders, and moderates within their respective camps in the slavery debate. According to Mark Noll, “This exchange was one of the United States’ last serious one-on-one debates where advocates for and against slavery engaged each other directly, with reasonable restraint, and with evident intent to hear out the opponent to the extent possible.”[1]

In the book, Fuller argues that slavery was not inherently sinful, but concedes that there were many sinful practices associated with chattel slavery in the South. For his part, Wayland argues that slavery was inherently sinful, but concedes that in many instances owning slaves was a moral blind spot among otherwise godly men in the South. Wayland also criticizes the abolition movement for being too radical in its call for immediate emancipation.

Fuller and Wayland make their respective cases in different ways. Fuller, who was an eloquent and widely respected preacher, wrote letters that are saturated with Scripture references defending slavery. That said, most modern readers would agree that many of these citations are taken out of context or otherwise misinterpreted. Fuller’s exegesis is a textbook example of the so-called southern theological defense of slavery.

Wayland's letters are rhetorically brilliant, but largely absent of Scripture besides references to the golden rule and Paul’s epistle to Philemon. His arguments are based more on common sense and natural law arguments. He had made these sorts of arguments in his earlier books The Elements of Moral Science (1835) and The Limitations of Human Responsibility (1838). The former was the most popular ethics textbook in America in the nineteenth century, though it was banned at most southern schools because of Wayland’s anti-slavery views.

Their respective arguments notwithstanding, Domestic Slavery is a model of Christian civility. Wayland and Fuller continually refer to each other as “my dear friend,” and in this case, they really meant it. Neither engages in ad hominem attacks of the other. Both men are quick to affirm anything they see as right and truthful in the other’s argument. Though Wayland really does believe Fuller is misreading Scripture, and though Fuller really is convinced Wayland is ignoring Scripture, the two men are always cordial and dignified; they never paint the other as sub-Christian or impugn each other’s motives. These two esteemed antebellum Baptists remind us that it is possible to debate even the most controversial issues in a Christ-like manner.

---

[1] Mark Noll, The Civil War as Theological Crisis (Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 36–37.

________________________

Nathan A. Finn is associate professor of historical theology and Baptist Studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is also an elder at First Baptist Church of Durham, NC and a senior fellow of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies.

Andrew Fuller’s final sermon—vintage Fuller

By Michael A. G. Haykin

Andrew Fuller passed into the presence of the Lord he had served faithfully for most of his life 198 years ago today. In the months prior to his death he had been preaching through 1 Corinthians and had reached the middle of the fourth chapter before his death. His last sermon, though, was on Isaiah 66:2, preached on April 2, 1815. John Jenkinson (1799–1876), sixteen years old at the time and one of Fuller’s regular hearers—he would later pastor another Baptist work in Kettering, the scene of Fuller’s ministry since 1782—many years later recalled Fuller’s “unequalled expository labours,” as he put it, and heard that final sermon.

He noted that Fuller’s main points were three in number (very Baptist-like!):

“God’s approval of poverty of spirit, or genuine humility: of contrition of spirit, or true repentance: of tenderness of spirit, or a godly shrinking from sin and temptation.”

(In R.L. Greenall, ed., The Autobiography of the Rev. John Jenkinson, Baptist Minister of Kettering and Oakham [Victor Hatley Memorial Series, vol.3; Northampton, Northamptonshire: Northamptonshire Record Society, 2010], 22­–23).

These points are vintage Fuller—and a key reason why we remember his life and witness with thanksgiving to the God who enabled him to do all that he did.

_______________

Michael A.G. Haykin is the director of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies. He also serves as Professor of Church History and Biblical Spirituality at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Haykin and his wife Alison have two grown children, Victoria and Nigel.

Zwingli Against the Zwinglians?

By Ian Hugh Clary

Zwinglianism is the view that the elements of the Lord’s Supper are only a memorial and that Christ is in no sense present—what some have called the “real absence” view, or the memorialist view. The Eucharist was a hotly debated topic during the Reformation that resulted in deep lines drawn between the Reformed, particularly the Swiss, and the Lutherans. Luther could barely bring himself to say that Zwingli was a brother in the Lord because the Zurich theologian refused to believe in consubstantiation. It is often noted that Calvin sought to steer a middle course between the Lutheran and Zwinglian forms by offering a “spiritual presence” view, where the Spirit draws the believer by faith into true communion with Christ in the elements. The so-called memorial view had a continuing influence in subsequent Reformed theology, and even more so in broader evangelicalism. But was Zwingli a Zwinglian?

W. P. Stephens, in his Zwingli: An Introduction to His Thought (Oxford, 2001) puts Zwingli in perspective. The heat of Zwingli’s debate with Luther centred on the words of Christ who said of the bread, “This is my body.” For Zwingli, the word “is” should be understood as “signifies.” For Luther this was anathema. At the Marburg Colloquy (1529), though some headway towards agreement was made, the two Reformers could not agree on this point. However, this did not entail that Zwingli denied any presence of Christ in the supper. After the colloquy, Zwingli expressed his belief in the “real presence” of Christ. Stephens, pointing to Zwingli’s works like An Account of the Faith (1530) and The Letter to the Princes of Germany (1530), says, “Zwingli made it clear that the bread was not mere bread, and he began to affirm terms such as presence, true, and sacramental” (105). In the appendix to his An Exposition of the Faith (1531) Zwingli said, “We believe Christ to be truly present in the Supper, indeed we do not believe that it is the Lord’s Supper unless Christ is present” (Stephens, 105). This change in emphasis came with a greater stress on the bread and the wine, both of which were “divine and sacred” (Stephens, 107).

Stephens does an excellent job tracing out Zwingli’s overall Eucharistic theology. After establishing that Zwingli was not really a “Zwinglian,” as the term has become known, he also makes the important point that Zwingli was consistent in his theology from his early to his later years. While his earlier views were nascent, his later views did not contradict them. In 1523 Zwingli spoke of the soul being fed in the supper. Admittedly he emphasised the “symbolic” understanding of the elements after 1524, yet he held this view when he spoke of feeding on Christ. Stephens summarizes Zwingli’s overall thought saying, “The more positive notes in the later Zwingli do not indicate a real shift in his position, rather a difference of emphasis” (Stephens, 109). The concern for Zwingli, as for other Reformers at this time, was the place of faith in the communicant—he guarded against any gracious effect for the unbeliever who partakes. In this, he appealed to the early Luther who emphasized the need for faith. While issues of Christology and philosophy play into their differences, Zwingli was not as far from Luther as the German Reformer thought. Though he they did not share full agreement, Zwingli was much closer to Calvin, whose view Luther was not so scathingly against.

So, in a sense, Zwingli was against the Zwinglians.

_____________________

Ian Hugh Clary is finishing doctoral studies under Adriaan Neele at Universiteit van die Vrystaat (Blomfontein), where he is writing a dissertation on the evangelical historiography of Arnold Dallimore. He has co-authored two local church histories with Michael Haykin and contributed articles to numerous scholarly journals. Ian serves as a pastor of BridgeWay Covenant Church in Toronto where he lives with his wife and two children.

A Missionary Vision of the Glory of God

By Dustin W. Benge

David Brainerd (1718–1747) yearned for the salvation of Native Americans scattered along the colonial trails of America and farther west. From 1742 to 1747 he toiled among tribes in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Initially he saw little to encourage him and seriously considered abandoning his labors among them altogether. But in time the situation reversed itself, and scores of Native Americans came to know Christ. Brainerd’s poor health, however, eventually forced him to abandon his missionary efforts, and at age twenty-nine he died.

Brainerd spent his last days in the home of his celebrated friend, Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758). Before his death, Brainerd consented to leave his diary with Edwards for publication. That volume has had an untold impact on the lives of others because it reveals Brainerd’s devotion, earnestness, sincerity, and self-denying spirit.

Missionaries such as Henry Martyn (1781–1812), William Carey (1761–1834), and Jim Elliot (1927–1956) have spoken of the great inspiration they received from reading Brainerd’s diary. These are some of the last entries Brainerd made:

This day, I saw clearly that I should never be happy, yea, that God Himself could not make me happy, unless I could be in a capacity to “please and glorify Him forever.” Take away this and admit me into all the fine havens that can be conceived of by men or angels, and I should still be miserable forever. . . . Oh, to love and praise God more, to please Him forever! This my soul panted after and even now pants for while I write. Oh, that God might be glorified in the whole earth! . . . Was still in a sweet and comfortable frame; and was again melted with desires that God might be glorified, and with longings to love and live to Him. . . . And oh, I longed to be with God, to behold His glory and to bow in His presence!

It is clear that Brainerd’s desire was to magnify God’s glory before the world. He also looked forward to his earthly departure because he longed to see the glory of God in heaven. What exactly does the phrase "the glory of God" refer? It is the sum of who God is—the sum of his attributes and divine nature. Throughout history, God has endeavored to show all men and women His glory.

________________________

Dustin W. Benge (Ph.D. Candidate, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) serves as Associate Pastor and Pastor for Family Ministries at Christ Fellowship Baptist Church in Mobile, AL. Dustin is a junior fellow of the Andrew Fuller Center and lives with his wife, Molli, in Mobile.

Unfolding the Word of God

By Evan D. Burns

Andrew Fuller loved to stare long and hard at Scripture in deep meditation and study.  His pastoral methods were marked by providing good food for his flock and by protecting them from contaminated food.  Fuller despised false doctrine, and he was quick to engage those who promoted such error.  One way he protected his flock from confusion and uncertainty was by expounding difficult and seemingly contradictory passages in Scripture.  In a large section in the first volume of his Works called “Passages Apparently Contradictory,” Fuller would take a couple of verses with ostensible contradictions and clarify their coherence having considered each of their historical, literary, and theological contexts.  As he did this for his people, he modeled how ministers today can help their flocks have more confidence in the Word of God and more certainty in its inerrancy, infallibility, and sufficiency.  The Serpent loves to ask, “did God really say….?”  If we, like Fuller, would not rest till we had a satisfactory understanding of how the hard texts fit together, those entrusted to our care would have their eyes opened to wonderful things in God’s law.  “The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple” (Ps 119:130).  The first two conflicting texts in his “Passages Apparently Contradictory” are:

“And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.”—John 5:40.

“No man can come to me except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him….  It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me”

“Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not: and he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.”—John 6:44, 45, 64, 65.

The following points demonstrate Fuller’s durable cogitation of difficult texts and how he could plainly harmonize without being too complex or too simplistic:

First, There is no way of obtaining eternal life but by Jesus Christ….  Secondly, They that enjoy eternal life must come to Christ for it….  Thirdly, It is the revealed will of Christ that everyone who hears the gospel should come to him for life….  Fourthly, The depravity of human nature is such that no man, of his own accord, will come to Christ for life….  Fifthly, The degree of this depravity is such as that, figuratively speaking, men cannot come to Christ for life….  Sixthly, A conviction of the righteousness of God’s government, of the spirituality and goodness of his law, the evil of sin, our lost condition by nature, and the justice of our condemnation, is necessary in order to our coming to Christ….  Lastly, There is absolute necessity of a special Divine agency in order to our coming to Christ….  Upon the whole, we see from these passages taken together, first, if any man is lost, whom he has to blame for it—himself; secondly, if any man is saved, whom he has to praise for it—God.^[1]

---

^[1]Andrew Gunton Fuller, The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, Volume 1: Memoirs, Sermons, Etc., ed. Joseph Belcher (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 667-69.

____________________

Evan D. Burns (Ph.D. Candidate, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is on faculty at Asia Biblical Theological Seminary, and he lives in Thailand with his wife and twin sons.  They are missionaries with Training Leaders International.

"Being Baptist": An AFCBS Conference in Sarnia, Ontario

On June 1, 2013, Dr. Michael A. G. Haykin will be leading a conference on the theme of "Being Baptist: Reflections on a History" at Sovereign Grace Community Church in Sarnia, Ontario.

Conference Schedule: 9:30–10:30am    Where did Baptists come from? 10:50–11:50am  Baptists and the challenge of the age of reason 1:00–2:00pm      Revival and the Baptists in the 18th century 2:20–3:15pm       Samuel Pearce: a Baptist hero

Contact Information: Sovereign Grace Community Church, Sarnia, ON Pastor Glenn Tomlinson 365 Talfourd Street, Sarnia, ON N7T 1R1 tel. 519-344-6100 email: glenntomlinson@cogeco.ca

Helpful Tips on Publishing Historical Monographs

By Nathan A. Finn

I need to begin this post with a caveat: I have never written a historical monograph. There are many reasons for this, chief among them my propensity toward distraction and boredom. Simply put, at this season in my life I can’t think of a single historical topic to which I want to devote 200 or more pages. I can, however, think of dozens of historical topics to which I want to devote 15–50 pages as well as numerous historic primary sources that I wish to see reprinted in critical editions. For that reason, my own scholarly publications tend to fall into three broad categories: 1) journal articles or contributed essays; 2) critical book reviews; 3) editing primary sources. Perhaps I’ll write a monograph or two at some point, but don’t hold your breath. For the time being, that’s not really my style.

Because I have never written a monograph, I’m obviously not an authority on this topic. However, I know lots of authorities on this topic. I also know that many readers of this blog are graduate students and younger church historians who probably do want to write monographs. So my desire in this post is not to position myself as an authority, but rather to point readers to a helpful resource I have found for those interested in publishing historical monographs.

Religion in American History is a consortium blog of mostly college and university historians who study American religious history. Some of the contributors are evangelicals, while others are not. Many have written on topics that at least intersect with Baptist Studies, which is a particular emphasis of the contributors to Historia Ecclesiastica. Religion in American History is a particularly helpful resource if you want to read substantive reviews of recent monographs (and sometimes important journal articles) in the field of American religious history.

Randall Stephens, who serves as one of the three “blogmeisters” for Religion in American History, has written a helpful post titled “Turning it into a Book.” In that post, Stephens collates suggestions from various publishers, along with his own insights on the topic. While Stephens focuses primarily on publishing for university presses, his suggestions also apply to church historians who wish to publish monographs with other types of scholarly presses such as Eerdmans, Baker Academic, IVP Academic, Pickwick, or T&T Clark (to name a few options). I think they also generally apply to historians who wish to publish textbooks or semi-scholarly books with evangelical presses such as Crossway, B&H, Moody, Zondervan, and Kregel. (For the record, the latter presses have scholarly divisions and regularly publish monographs in other disciplines such as theology, biblical studies, ethics, and apologetics. My not including them in the first list is not a “knock” on these fine publishing houses, but simply a recognition of the reality that they rarely publish scholarly monographs in my field.)

If I ever do get around to publishing a monograph (my lonely and heretofore unpublished dissertation is screaming at me from the shelf as I type), then I’ll consult Stephens’s helpful post on the front-end of that project. Perhaps many of this blog’s readers will “beat me to the punch” and publish one or more historical monographs. If so, I hope you folks also find Stephens’s post useful.

_______________________________

Nathan A. Finn is associate professor of historical theology and Baptist Studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is also an elder at First Baptist Church of Durham, NC and a senior fellow of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies.

AFCBS Conference on Baptist Women

On Saturday, May 11, 2013, in Otisville, Michigan, Dr. Michael A. G. Haykin will be speaking in a conference on women in Baptist history at Emmanuel Baptist Church (map and directions here). The conference schedule is posted below:

8:30–9:30 a.m. Contentinal Breakfast 9:30–10:30 a.m. Baptist women, 1640s–1890s 10:45–11:45 a.m. Anne Dutton (1692–1765) and her writings: a means of edification 12:00–1:00 p.m. Anne Steele (1717–1778) and her hymns: a means of revival 1:00– 2:15 p.m. Lunch and Fellowship 2:15–3:15 p.m. Ann Judson (1789–1826) and her letters: a means of missions