Missing “Hymn” in New Jars of Clay Compilation

I recently bought Jars of Clay’s compilation The Essential Jars of Clay (2007). Sweet! But was very surprised to find that one of my favourite songs from their Much Afraid CD was absent, namely “Hymn.” “Hymn” is a truly awesome song, both lyrics and music. The chorus is so rich: “Oh gaze of love so melt my pride That I may in Your house but kneel And in my brokenness to cry Spring worship unto Thee.”

Oh, Lord Jesus, it is this very thing I need: an overwhelming sense of your love—not fleeting, but ongoing day by day—that melts my pride and gives me the ability to truly worship. This is what genuine humanity is about!

Imitating 18th Century Evangelical Catholicity

One of the most prominent features of the Evangelical Revival in the eighteenth century as its genuinely catholic perspective when it came to ecclesiological issues. For instance, it was said of William Grimshaw (1708-1763), the influential evangelical curate of Haworth in Yorkshire, that he embraced Christians of all denominations, saying, ‘I love them and I will love them, and none shall make me do otherwise: and my House shall always be open to them all.”[1]

Good evidence of Grimshaw’s catholicity is to be found in his active support for Baptist causes throughout Yorkshire, despite the fact that a number of them had drawn some of their members from among Grimshaw’s converts. Although such sheep-stealing did not sit well with Grimshaw, he was able to joke about it, saying, “The worst of it is, that so many of my chickens turn ducks!”[2]

It should be noted, though, that not all of the leading figures of the Revival had sympathies as broad as those of Grimshaw. For example, Charles Wesley (1708- 1788), in a journal entry for October 30, 1756, minced no words when he described Baptists as: “A carnal cavilling, contentious sect, always watching to steal away our [i.e. Methodist] children, and make them as dead as themselves.” [3]

On the other hand, there were men like William Carey (1761-1834), of whom Charles Spurgeon once said: “I admire [William] Carey for being a Baptist: he had none of the false charity which might prompt some to conceal their belief for fear of offending others; but at the same time he was a man who loved all who loved the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Now that is a model to imitate.

[1] Cited in Frank Baker, William Grimshaw, 1708-1763 (London: The Epworth Press, 1963), p. 245.

[2] Cited in Baker, p. 243.

[3] Cited in John R Tyson, ed., Charles Wesley: A Reader (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), p. 418.

[4] Howel Harris, 1714-1773: The Last Enthusiast (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1965), p. 29.

John Whitgift on the Puritans

Here is a fascinating quote by John Whitgift (1530-1604), Archbishop of Canterbury from 1583 till his death in 1604, about the Puritans. Though mentored by the Marian martyr John Bradford, he was hostile to the Puritans from 1570 onwards when he debated Thomas Cartwright (1535-1603). The Puritans, according to Whitgift, “think themselves to be mundiores caeteris, more pure than others as the Cathari dyd [sic], and separate themselves from all other Churches and congregations as spotted and defyled [sic].”[1] Many students of the Puritan movement, including this one, would beg to differ.

[1] An Answere to a certen Libel intituled an Admonition to the Parliament (London, 1572), 18.

John Collett Ryland & His Supposed Hyper-Calvinism Revisited

If someone told me of a pastor who went to a church of 30 members and in the course of his ministry at that church over twenty-five years it took in 320 members, and further, if my informant told me that that pastor supported one of the greatest evangelists of the century in his open-air preaching in the town on a number of occasions, how would I describe such a man? The epithet Hyper-Calvinist would not be at all appropriate, would it? Yet, this man—and I am blogging about John Collett Ryland (d.1792)—has been frequently so described because of a withering rebuke he once gave to William Carey (1761-1834) and his idea of cross-cultural missions. I am more and more convinced that Ryland was not a Hyper-Calvinist. He was converted in a revival under the evangelical Calvinistic ministry of Benjamin Beddome (1717-1795) and went to the strongly evangelical Calvinistic school of the Bristol Baptist Academy, where he was taught by Bernard Foskett (1685-1758) and Hugh Evans (1712-1781)—who was a forebear of H.C.G. Moule—neither of whom were Hyper in their Calvinism. And he delighted in the preaching of George Whitefield (1714-1770), who preached in his town of Northampton, England.

What myths have been perpetrated in the teaching of Baptist history!

What then of his rebuke of the young Carey? The heart of that rebuke had to do with eschatological timing: Ryland had adopted the end-times thinking of John Gill (1697-1771), where the gospel could not be taken unhindered to the nations till the two witnesses of Revelation 11 were slain, which would not happen till well into the nineteenth century! Wrong thinking, yes. But not the Hyper-Calvinist bogeyman of far too many treatments of Baptist history.

John Lukacs on Why We Should Do History

John Lukacs is fast becoming one of my favourite historians. In his recent study of the invasion of the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany in June of 1941, he notes that one of the most important reasons for remembering the past is the correction of misreadings of the historical record, since, as he says, “the pursuit of truth is often a struggle through a jungle of sentiments and twisted statements of ‘facts’.” As Lukacs puts it: “The most important (and yes, perennial) duty of the historian is to struggle against the prevalence of untruths.”[1]

[1] June 1941: Hitler and Stalin (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2006), 142.

Piety & Elegance Revisited

Since posting on piety and elegance a day or so ago, I have realized from one or two of the comments that I need to clarify what I was saying. Sometimes a pithy blog-post works, sometimes not. This time my pithiness contributed to misunderstanding, I fear. I am not recommending over-the-top spending on clothes or lifestyle. Scripture calls us always to be careful in how we use money. I am recommending dressing nicely and smartly for the public square. Dowdiness is not piety. And nor is “gym-ware.” The latter seems to be the rage in our culture—and Christians have followed suit. Wearing gym clothes is fine when doing athletics—but not for the public square. Clothes do not recommend us to God, to be sure. But they do say something about the heart.

Ontario: Yours to Win for Christ

For many years I regarded the English countryside as the nicest in the world and implicitly thought that of southern Ontario sub-standard. It was about ten years ago I realized that there is a real beauty in this part of the province, more than matching many of the beauty spots of England, where I was born. I have spent a lot of time driving the roads and highways and back-roads of this province. This trekking has given me a rich appreciation of what a beautiful land we live in. But equally I have developed a love for the churches of this province, especially those that I know best, Baptist and baptistic causes tucked away in small communities, villages and hamlets and small towns.

After twenty-five years of teaching/preaching in such communities there are not a ton I have not been to. I thank God for the rich experience of visiting many of these churches--in places like Port Elgin and Tiverton, Sarnia and London, Port Perry and Lindsay, Boston and Hespeler, Delhi and Dutton, Woodstock and Exeter, Otterville and Chatham, Guelph and Wyoming, Arthur and Collingwood, Orangeville and Alton, Tilbury and Kanata, Georgetown and Huntsville, Ancaster and Binbrook, Flamborough Centre and Grand Valley, Wiarton and Hepworth, Meaford and North Bay, Bracebridge and Orillia. And with such visits comes a desire to see these causes flourish.

What this travelling has given me is a global view of the needs of this province and its glorious Christian riches. The needs are great, really great. Imposible for us weak, fallible sinners to meet. Only God can meet such needs. But glory to his name, he uses sinners, weak and flawed, to do his work.

Where then are the men and women who will stand up and seek the kingdom of the Lord Jesus in this province? This is no time to immerse ourselves simply in our own corners. While acting locally we must think globally. Parochialism cannot rule if we are truly praying the Lord's Prayer, "Thy kingdom come."

Fitting especially servants of the Word for the task of evangelism in this province there is needed a global vision that refuses to be bound to parochial thinking, but sees beyond its own four walls and genuinely seeks the coming of the Kingdom in this land. How on earth can we ever engage in the great task of evangelizing the far corners of this earth, taking the gospel to lands of Muslim idolatry and secular European quarters, if we do not have strong churches at home? Churches especially in the larger urban centres, like Toronto, need to see themselves as resource centres for smaller works in the rest of the province.

Soldiers of Christ in truth arrayed, rise up and have done with lesser things and labour for the Master in this province. We must be assured that if we do not do it, God's kingdom will come but He will use others to bring it in and pass us by. He is no man's debtor, and simply because we are the heirs of a great past, does not mean he is obliged to use us. There are churches in this province with rich heritages but today they are living in those pasts, stuck in the ruts of their traditionalism. Look to Christ and break free from such bondages! Be again his free people--the glory of what it means to be Baptist (oh the vast diference between tradition and traditionalism). Be assured that if we do not, God can and will raise up others and other causes and they shall know his presence and have the joy of seeing sinners saved and the saints edified.

Addendum: study the age of Carey and Fuller, and see what God can do with fully-yielded saints!

So, What Are Blogs for ?

What are blogs for? A good question and one deserving of a thoughtful response, especially when the blogger is a professing Christian. Maybe a way at answering this question is by asking and answering the negative: what are blogs not for?

Well Christian blogs should not be for self-promotion. It is disturbing that far too many Christian blogs are shamelessly pushing self and not seeing the potential for kingdom expansion via the blogosphere. Everything from personal agendas to personal stuff is being pushed. But here, as everywhere else, we must shape our interaction in the public square by humility.

Nor are blogs a place for covertly forgetting the Christian duty to be gentle. Far too many blogs are rude and full of vitriol. And all in the name of boldness for Christ! God forbid that Christian blogs be like such. As Jonathan Edwards--no wimp!--once said, Christian piety is a sweet flame.

So what are blogs for? They should be places of winsome proclamation, explicitly and implicity, that Christ is Lord

“A Faithful Life Has a Serious Purpose”: Remembering Geoffrey Nuttall

This past July, 24 July 2007 to be exact, one of the most influential church historians of the twentieth century died: Geoffrey Fillingham Nuttall (1911-2007). His way of doing church history I have always found exhilarating and profound, and a delight to read. He often focused papers on “small” figures of church history—but he was equally at home with the thought of major authors like Richard Baxter and Philip Doddridge. His specialty was 17th and 18th century English and Welsh Nonconformity, and it was a delight to sit at his feet and learn about figures ranging from the world of seventeenth-century Quakerism to the late eighteenth-century Particular Baptist community (my own central interest). As Alan Argent noted, “from the age of 19 to within three years of his death, Nuttall wrote prolifically” (for reference, see obituary below). Budding church historians would do well getting hold of one or two of his books and some of his articles, and perusing them, their style and method of argumentation.

I have never forgotten my first read of his major work, The Holy Spirit in Puritan Faith and Experience (1946). The depth of research and sureness of historical judgment was displayed on every page and a lasting impression made about Puritan pneumatology. But I also learned much about the methodology of being an historian, especially the need to build one’s case from primary source material. His argument in the book that the Quakers were the radical left-wing of the Puritan movement was controversial at the time, and still is in some quarters. I confess that his arguments have intrigued me though not fully convinced me.

I never met him to my regret, but in the early stages of my work on John Sutcliff (1752-1814), correspondence with him was an enormous help. Reading the obituaries below, one thing that stood out in addition to his remarkable scholarship was his love of the church and his keen consciousness of being an heir of Nonconformity.

For full obituaries, see “The Rev Geoffrey Nuttall”, The Times (August 29, 2007) [The Rev Geoffrey Nuttall obituary - Times Online]; Alan Argent, “The Rev Geoffrey Nuttall”, The Guardian (September 12, 2007) [Obituary: The Rev Geoffrey Nuttall | Obituaries | Guardian Unlimited]; “The Reverend Geoffrey Nuttall”, The Daily Telegraph (August 14, 2007) [The Reverend Geoffrey Nuttall - Telegraph]; and David M. Thompson, “Geoffrey Nuttall”, The Independent (August 14, 2007) [Geoffrey Nuttall - Independent Online Edition > Obituaries]. See also the Wikipedia article: “Geoffrey Nuttall” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Nuttall; accessed September 20, 2007).

The Top Ten Needs of a Theological School

A dear brother, Clint Humfrey (see COWBOYOLOGY ), recently asked me what, in my opinion, were the “top ten most important things for founding a theological institution for training pastors?” Well, I would say the following are vital—the order is not important: 1) The school must be confessional—the school must have a solid statement of faith that at a minimum affirms inerrancy, a robust Nicene Trinitarianism and Chalcedonian Christology, the solas of the Reformation, justification by faith alone, and the doctrines of grace. All faculty at the school need to yearly pledge their commitment to the statement of faith without any mental reservation.

2) The school must be passionate about missions, local and global.

3) The leadership of the school must be subject to an association of local churches, whose pastors and members are vitally involved in supporting the church in spiritual and material ways. I fully believe that the ownership of such a school is best drawn from a group of churches.

4) The school must be committed to the highest academic standards and provincial/state accreditation needs to be eventually sought.

5) The majority of the teachers should have had some pastoral experience and they must be demonstrably lovers of the church.

6) The leadership of the school needs to be directly appointed by a Board of Directors/Trustees drawn from the churches supporting the school.

7) Along with the academic emphases of the school, there must be a stress on spirituality/spiritual formation/piety.

8) The school needs, at a minimum, a good solid reference library of 10,000 volumes.

9) Each of the students entering the school must have a recommendation from a local church. In turn, they must be involved, throughout their studies, in practical ministry.

10) Days of prayer need to be instituted and observed by the school.

Reflections on Going to Southern & Leaving Ontario

This past spring I made the decision to accept the offer of a full-time position at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky. I am thrilled but also deeply humbled by this opportunity that divine providence has placed before me. I am biased, but I think Southern to be the finest seminary in North America at this point in time. Yet, leaving Ontario, where I have taught in the field of theological education for twenty-five years, has not been easy. It is hard to believe that it was twenty-five years ago this very month that I began teaching at Central Baptist Seminary in Toronto and then Gormley, where I was from 1982-1993. I thoroughly loved my time at Central . I have very fond memories of serving under Ted Barton, George Bell, and John Wilson, and labouring with men like Stan Fowler, Richard Mitchell, and Hugh Rendle. I was immersed into Fellowship Baptist life and I grew to love this body of churches.

But financial problems intervened and forced a merger with London Baptist Bible College and Seminary (LBBCS) and the resulting entity became Heritage Theological Seminary. At first Heritage was located in London from 1993-1995, and I made the commute initially to London. And then, from 1995 onwards it has been located in Cambridge, where the school bought over the old Encyclopedia Britannica building (actually a very new building). I especially loved going to London, one of the most beautiful cities in southern. The university feel of the town, some of the great bookstores and eateries made my time there a delight. Through this time it was a privilege to serve under Marvin Brubacher, still a good friend.

From January 1999 to December 2002 I was very much part-time at Heritage, though, as I was the full-time Editorial Director of Joshua Press (JP). When the financial situation at JP, though, necessitated a move, I went to Toronto Baptist Seminary from 2003-2007 and have been Principal from July 2003. Here again it has been a joy to serve with devoted faculty and keen students.

Thinking of a move, as I have noted above, has not been easy. I love Ontario and I know, after twenty-five years of teaching in this province, the great need we have for solid theological education. In a word, the churches need a school that is deeply committed to orthodoxy, yet fully in touch with the culture. Not an easy thing to be.

All too often, it is one or the other: conversant with the culture and out of step with Scriptural realities, or rooted in biblical orthodoxy but fighting old battles that most people no longer remember. As Luther is reported to have once said: if we are fighting and skirmishing where the enemy is not attacking, we are failing to truly fight the war.

And more than ever I believe we need to be committed to networking and the need to labour alongside those who stand for the same core truths that we love. The absolute independency that some in this province prize is, in my opinion, the high road to impotency. To be sure, if we need to stand alone when others are caving in to theological error and the passing fads of theologia, then stand alone we must. Dare to be a Daniel, as we have long sung. But all too often this translates into a pettiness and a refusal to work with others unless they see utterly everything our way. Without sacrificing theological integrity we need to find essentially like-minded brothers and sisters and labour side by side.

Then, we have to be willing to show genuine humility and consider others’ needs. The time is long past when we could fight turf wars in our churches when all around us people are going to hell! If changes must be made to ecclesial structures for the sake of the Kingdom, then let’s make them.

Finally, we need genuine vision for what God can do here and so move beyond the malaise of Canadian character that all too often afflicts the churches here and is slow to seek greatness: expecting great things from God, we must attempt great things for his Kingdom.

Spirituality–Roman Catholic or Biblical?

Spirituality is something constantly on people’s minds today. Oh, how times have changed from the mid-twentieth century. Here are two noteworthy items: First, an excellent book review by Rick Philips of Mother Teresa’s latest (posthumous) book: Reformation21 Blog» Mother Teresa's Redemption. Do read the review, it is extremely illuminating. Second, Dr Don Whitney, my colleague at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is holding a national conference of his Center for Biblical Spirituality on the Southern Seminary campus this October. I strongly recommend all reading this blog to think about attending what promises to be a fabulous conference. If there is anyone in North America who knows the field of biblical spirituality it is Dr Whitney. For details, see his website, http://biblicalspirituality.org/ .

Theology Fashionistas and CH Spurgeon

Here is a snippet taken from a letter from one of my favourite Baptists, the inimitable C.H. Spurgeon, to the Scots Presbyterian Alexander Whyte, with whose writings I spent a delightful summer a few years back that issued in a book on his piety. It was written on September 13, 1884, at the height of the Down-grade controversy. “I am beginning to be banned as a stupid old fogey, who sticks in the mud & will not advance. …When they [those ridiculing Spurgeon’s theology] have gone round the whirligig they will pass some of us again, but they will there and then again begin to be behind us, & not before us as they dream.”

To all things there is a season. And so it is with theology—even the good solid theology of a Spurgeon. It is biblical truth. Of that there is no doubt. But such truth is not always in fashion. Right now, we are on the crest of a small wave of interest in Calvinist theology—Oh to make the most of this opportunity. But it is not always so.

And so it proved to be in Spurgeon’s day. He lived on the eve of a great depression and Calvinism was going out of fashion. And there are fashionistas in theology as much as in any other human sphere of activity or thought—people not terribly interested in truth, but passionate about being in style and not considered “a stupid old fogey.” The worst thing in the world in their books would be to be branded by such a label. But Spurgeon’s analysis was spot on: in the things of theology, the world’s passing fancies are not the ultimate judge of what is best. Rather: the Word of the Monarch is.

And frankly, when all is said and done, if the King deems your embrace of the latest theological fashion to come down the runway to be treason, not matter how mild—that is utterly disastrous for that is the only judgement that counts.

“The Life of Religion”

I have always loved reading the histories of local churches: they record the joys and triumphs, struggles and challenges of believers whose names are not recorded in the story of the Great Tradition of the Church, but whose names are written on the hands of the Crucified One and inscribed in that great Book of the Blood-bought brothers and sisters of the Lamb. Quite recently I was given a copy of the history of St. George Baptist Church, St. George, Ontario: 150 Years: St. George Baptist Church, 1824-1974 ([St. George, Ontario]: [St. George Baptist Church, 1974]). My attention was drawn to a statement of faith at the beginning of the book (p.3) and this clause: “The life of Religion consisteth in Communion with God and Christians.”

There are some today who find this incongruous since they have erected a linguistic distinction between religion—which is a bad thing—and “communion” with God or relationship—which is a good thing. For some, they are like east and west: the twain shall never meet. Such a view finds these words of the St. George statement of faith utterly contradictory: by definition, religion can never entail relationship.

Of course, at a fundamental level the problem here is the failure to understand language as it has been used in the past. But is there more? Does such a view as outlined above assume that the Christian message is only about relationship? If so, is there not more? If the heart of Christianity is communion—is it not the case that this communion/relationship is expressed in times of formal and informal worship? Does it not involve catechism and creed? In other words: the Christian religion is the inevitable result of Christian relationship and those Baptist forebears of St. George were on to something us moderns (or should I say post-moderns?) need to embrace.

A Caveat to My Appreciation for Dr. Packer

A few posts ago I posted an appreciation of Dr. Packer and the impact of his writing upon me. In light of some very helpful feedback about that post I need to make it clear that my deep and heartfelt appreciation of Dr. Packer does not entail endorsement of all that Dr. Packer has written. I suppose my appreciation is similar to when I cite Dr Packer’s writings in my own writings. I do not add a caveat that I disagree with his position vis-a-vis such things as ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together). Would my quoting, say something from his Knowing God, mean that I endorse everything that he has written? Of course not.

So it was with my appreciation. It was a genuine appreciation for the blessing that Dr. Packer’s writings have been to me and not an endorsement of all of his views.

Christianity & Islam: Which Is the True Religion of Peace?

Which religion is truly a religion of peace: Christianity or Islam? Well, simply compare Islam's first three centuries with those of Christianity. In both cases these respective periods of time were foundational—canonical, one can say—to the two religions. Which one of the two made its way by peaceful propagation by men and women who had no power beyond that of their personal lives of holiness and their words? And which one of them made its way by bloody conquest and military might?

And today: which religion is seeking to expand its realm by violence and which one by word and godly life?

The answer to the first question is obvious to anyone who wishes to study the historical records. And the answer to the second—well simply read or listen to the latest news report. When was the last time you heard of Christians blowing themselves up in indiscriminate acts of killing and maiming innocent bystanders? There is something dreadfully wrong with a religion that tolerates the random violence we see and hear about regularly with regard to Islam. And I am not thinking about the fighting in Iraq.

Much of life is complex—but some things are simple. Simply simple! Surely the answer to the question “which religion, Christianity or Islam, is truly a religion of peace?” is one of the latter.