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.

Heroes: Baptist & Other

Human heroes. We all have them. All of them are flawed, for they are all sons and daughters of Adam and Eve. Yet, it is not unbiblical to have such (see Hebrews 11).

But which ones to choose from in the wide and broad history of the Church? Well, this question will be answered in part by one’s theological and ecclesiological perspective. Not totally, of course. I have always admired Dietrich Bonhoeffer, for instance, despite my disagreement with some elements of his Lutheranism and his reception of critical theology. But his exposition of Nachfolge in his study of the Sermon on the Mount and above all his study of what Christian community should be in his Life Together, from the very first when I read them, won my heart’s delight and conviction.

But for us who are Baptists who are the best guides? Where do we find those who will most challenge us with their radical Christ-centred Christianity? That question was answered for me in the academic year 1985-1986, when I picked up a copy of Andrew Fuller’s works—the 3-volume 1845 edition that Pastor Lloyd Sprinkle has republished.

I read Fuller’s essay The Promise of the Spirit—in part because of my early interest in the work and person of the Holy Spirit. I was smitten—yes, smitten by the force of his argument and his passion for the extension of the Kingdom of Christ and his biblical defence of the church’s utter need for the Spirit’s empowerment.

From Fuller I was led to his friends—William Carey, John Ryland, John Sutcliff, and above all Samuel Pearce. Then to Christopher Anderson, John Fawcett, Benjamin Beddome, Joseph Kinghorn, Benjamin Francis, Joshua Thomas, William Staughton, Anne Steele, Anne Dutton, the Stennetts and then back into the 17th century to men like William Kiffin, Hanserd Knollys, Hercules Collins, Benjamin Keach—where should I stop? In other words: I found my guides in men and women who were the fathers and mothers of my denominational persuasion, Baptist. Since then I have discovered Canadian Baptists in the 19th century like D.A. McGregor and William Fraser, and Americans like Oliver Hart and four men I am learning to know—J.P. Boyce, John Broadus, Basil Manly, Jr., and William Williams.

The theology of these brothers and sisters have set the ethos and temper, timber and shape of our denominational frame. And though their foundational work was not perfect, I have found it better than any other. Though I do admire many others—especially men like Jonathan Edwards and Basil of Caesarea—in the life and theology of these Particular Baptists I have found riches for the spirit and for the mind and a pattern of the Christian life most in accord—in my opinion—with Scripture.

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.

Oliver Cromwell & Religious Freedom

It is often argued that religious freedom as a concept owes its origins to the eighteenth-century Enlightenment and its rejection of the religious dogmatism of the both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. In point of fact, in the English-speaking world, it is the previous century that is critical in the development of the idea of religious toleration. And it is in the matrix of certain circles of seventeenth-century English Puritanism, where, far from being the Taliban-like regime of popular imagination, the idea that religious coercion by the state is fundamentally wrong was birthed. Take, for instance, the Puritan military leader Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658), a man whose name is still regarded with great abhorrence in certain parts of the British Isles and who is frequently, though wrongly, considered to have been a tyrant when he ruled England in the 1650s. During the civil wars that engulfed the British archipelago between 1642 and 1651, Cromwell played a key role as a general fighting for the Puritan cause against the royal house of Stuart. As he reflected on the cause of these wars, he came to the conviction that one of the main reasons that he and many others had taken up the sword against their king was to secure genuine religious liberty.[1] Scholars differ as to the exact parameters of Cromwell’s policy of religious toleration and all of the motives that guided him in this regard.[2] Yet, there is no gainsaying the plain fact that Cromwell had a burning desire for an atmosphere of genuine religious toleration that was far in advance of what most in the Europe of his day were willing to sanction. As he told Parliament in 1654:

"Is not Liberty of Conscience in religion a fundamental? So long as there is liberty of conscience for the supreme magistrate to exercise his conscience in erecting what form of church-government he is satisfied he should set up, why should not he give it to others? Liberty of conscience is a natural right… All the money of this nation would not have tempted men to fight upon such an account as they have engaged, if they had not had hopes of liberty, better than they had from Episcopacy, or than would have been afforded them from a Scottish Presbytery, or an English either…"

The one place that Cromwell drew the line with regard to religious liberty was where that liberty threatened the maintenance of public law and order.

Probably the most amazing statement by Cromwell in favour of such toleration is a remark that he made in 1652. He forthrightly declared that “he had rather that Mahometanism were permitted amongst us than that one of God’s children should be persecuted.”[3] Central to this declaration is the conviction that if unity between the various groups of Christians is not immediately possible, then a second best is liberty of conscience.[4] This statement also reveals, as English historian Geoffrey F. Nuttall has noted, a sturdy faith in the might of the Holy Spirit to lead Christian men and women of differing views into unity.[5]

As John Owen (1616-1683), one of Cromwell’s army chaplains, stated shortly after Cromwell’s death—in a statement that well sums up Cromwell’s view of religious liberty: "The Spirit of Christ is in himself too free, great and generous a Spirit, to suffer himself to be used by any human arm, to whip men into belief; he drives not, but gently leads into all truth, and persuades men to dwell in the tents of like precious Faith; which would lose of its preciousness and value, if that sparkle of freeness shone not in it."[6]

[1] Roger Howell, Jr., “Cromwell and English liberty” in R.C. Richardson and G. M. Ridden, eds., Freedom and the English Revolution. Essays in history and literature (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1986), 28.

[2] See, for instance, Robert S. Paul, The Lord Protector: Religion and Politics in the Life of Oliver Cromwell (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1955), 324-333; H. F. Lovell Cocks, The Religious Life of Oliver Cromwell (London: Independent Press Ltd., 1960), 45-63; George A. Drake, “Oliver Cromwell and the Quest for Religious Toleration” in Jerald C. Brauer, ed., The Impact of the Church Upon Its Culture (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1968), 267-291; Howell, Jr., “Cromwell and English liberty”, 25-44; Blair Worden, “Toleration and the Cromwellian Protectorate” in W. J. Sheils, ed., Persecution and Toleration (Oxford: Basil Blackwell for the Ecclesiastical History Society, 1984), 199-233; J. C. Davis, “Cromwell’s religion” in John Morrill, Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution (London/New York: Longman, 1990), 191-199.

[3] Cited Nuttall, The Holy Spirit in Puritan Faith and Experience (2nd ed.; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1947), 127. From The Fourth Paper, Presented by Maior Butler, to the Honourable Committe of Parliament, for the Propagating the Gospel of Christ Jesus (London: G. Calvert, 1652).

[4] Davis, “Cromwell’s religion”, 198-199.

[5] Holy Spirit in Puritan Faith and Experience, 127.

[6] The Savoy Declaration, Preface [http://www.creeds.net/congregational/savoy/index.htm; accessed September 28, 2007].

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.

Piety & Elegance

“Piety was not at war with elegance.” These words of William Wilberforce well express a growing conviction. Far too many evangelicals in our day would have been more at home with the Quakers of a bygone era with their austerity and, dare I say it, drabness, than with the Puritans (like John Owen with his red leather boots and yellow cloak!) or their eighteenth-century Evangelical heirs.

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).

Discovering John of Damascus

Church history is endlessly fascinating. For one, it is populated by remarkable individuals, many of whom I hardly know and whose lives beckon and promise wisdom and inspiration. Such a one is John of Damasacus, the eighth century theologian. I knew the name of course, but until a few weeks ago when I began preparing for a talk at Sola Scriptura's Toronto conference on Islam, I really knew next to nothing. I have significant disagreements, of course. His rebuttal of iconoclasm, for one. But what a deft responder to Islam. He isolated one of the central issues of Islam, central, that is, to its self-identity: Islam's rejection of the Trinity. Allah has no son and no associates. John, who read Arabic and the Qur'an in Arabic, saw this clearly and responds accordingly.

A delight to find and read.

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.

Advancing the Truth

Given a lifetime of going to school--first as a student and then as a teacher--it should not be surprising that I view the autumn, not the new year in January, as the time of fresh beginnings. All across this continent seminary students and professors stand on the threshold of a new year. The best of them have come together to spend time reading and meditating on Holy Scripture, studying theology and the history of the church, learning Greek and Hebrew, worshipping and praying together, and learning how to serve the church. These schools do so in the hope that their communities would be two things: places of truth and Christian integrity and places of Christian love and genuine community. The eighteenth-century Baptist theologian Andrew Fuller once brought both of these things together in a beautiful passage when he observed that it is not by “converting the pulpit into a stage of strife…that truth is promoted.” Rather, it is “by reading, by calm and serious reflection, by humble prayer, and by a free and friendly communication of our thoughts to one another in private conversation, that truth makes progress.”[1]

Of course there is a time for clear proclamation that does not shrink from controversy--Fuller knew this better than anyone of his day. But it is noteworthy the means he cited for the advance of the truth. Truth advances by:

· reading · reflection/meditation on what has been read · prayer · fellowship.

Where did Fuller learn about the importance of truth? From Scripture. For example, one of the results of the outpouring of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost was the fact that those who were converted on that day “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine” (Acts 2:42). The teaching and preaching of the Apostles became food for their souls and a light for their path.

And many years later, when the Apostle Paul came to write what was his final letter to Timothy, he urged his close friend to guard jealously the treasure of apostolic doctrine that had been committed to his care, and to do this in reliance upon the Holy Spirit who indwelt him (2 Timothy 1:13-14). After a lifetime of ministry Paul well knew that the faithful transmission of orthodox doctrine from one generation to another cannot be done without the keeping power of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, in urging Timothy to rely upon the Spirit for help in this regard, Paul is obviously convinced that doctrine matters to the Spirit of God and that when he comes to indwell a man or a woman he gives that person a concern for truth and doctrine.

Finally, it is not at all fortuitous that our Lord calls the Holy Spirit “the Spirit of truth” (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13). He is the One who imparts the truth in the Scriptures to the people of God, illumines it for them, and enables them to put it into practice.

Looking at this from the perspective of subjective experience, we can say that the New Testament bears eloquent witness to the fact that solid doctrine is essential to sound spirituality. In the words of Charles Haddon Spurgeon: the coals of orthodoxy are ever necessary for the fire of spirituality.[2] Where orthodox doctrine is regarded as unimportant, the fire of Christian piety will inevitably be quenched.

[1] “Remarks on Two Sermons by W.W. Horne” (Complete Works, III, 582).

[2] This phrase is attribted to Spurgeon by David Kingdon, “C H Spurgeon and the Downgrade Controversy” in his et al., A Marvelous Ministry. How the All-round Ministry of C H Spurgeon Speaks to Us Today (Ligonier, Pennsylvania: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1993), 128. See also the remarks of Robert M. Bowman, Jr., Orthodoxy & Heresy. A Biblical Guide to Doctrinal Discernment (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 18-20.

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/ .

Andrew Fuller Conference Two Weeks Away

Two weeks from today will be the Andrew Fuller the Reader Conference with Drs Russell Moore and Tom Nettles, and Drs Carl Trueman and Jeff Jue from Westminster Theological Seminary as keynote speakers. It will explore the theological influences on Fuller, ranging from the Reformers, John Owen, and Jonathan Edwards. There will also be a number of parallel sessions by junior scholars that will explore various aspects of Fuller’s thought. It promises to be an extremely informative and inspiring time. It will be the first conference of The Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies, newly established on the campus of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. There is still time to register: go to https://www.regonline.com/AndrewFullerTheReader and we will see you at Southern on August 27-28.

Baptists and Calvinism: A Brief Reply to Dr. Garrett

In a recent series of articles on Baptists and Calvinism, Dr. James Leo Garrett, Jr., has produced a good overview of some of the key issues that Baptists have faced regarding Calvinism over the centuries of their existence. I deeply appreciated the irenicism of the articles, the passion for missions and the finely nuanced scholarship. Dr. Garrett correctly points that “Baptists have not been in total agreement on these issues.”[1] Nor have Baptist historians always been in agreement about how to interpret Calvinism in Baptist life. I was especially intrigued by some of Dr. Garrett’s remarks regarding eighteenth-century English Baptist life. The bane of Hyper-Calvinism He argues first of all that Hyper-Calvinism was the bane of missions in certain quarters of English Baptist life in the eighteenth century. In his words:

“When the learned John Gill in London was teaching the tenets of Dort and some of the teachings of Hyper-Calvinism, the Particular Baptists were in a deplorable state of spiritual decline and apathy. It took a casting off of Hyper-Calvinism and an overhauling of Dortian Calvinism to bring Particular Baptists into the Evangelical Revival and to the point of leading the modern Protestant missionary movement. Moreover it has been the evangelical or missionary form of Calvinism that in the providence of God through William Carey and Andrew Fuller and Charles Haddon Spurgeon and John Leadley Dagg propelled Baptists from a tiny minority sect to a major Christian denomination. Hence the teachings of Dort do matter inasmuch as there are effects of such teachings.”[2] Now, it is important to realize that in the eighteenth century Gill’s teaching was not uniform throughout the English Baptist denomination. There was the vital Calvinistic Baptist tradition associated with the Bristol Baptist Academy, for instance, that preserved a rich balance between the sovereignty of God and evangelism. The Academy produced remarkable Evangelical Calvinists like the younger Andrew Gifford (1700-1784), who supported George Whitefield, Benjamin Francis (1734-1799), an indefatigable evangelist, and Benjamin Beddome (1717-1795), who knew revival in the town where his ministry was centred, Bourton-on-the-Water. Moreover, while there is little doubt that there was decline among many Baptist quarters in England during this period—especially seen in London, Yorkshire, the East Anglian counties of Norfolk and Suffolk and the area covered by the Northamptonshire Association—to fix the blame chiefly on Gill and his “Dortian Calvinism” is an over-simplification.[3] Russell E. Richey, for instance, points out that there were ongoing legal restrictions, which effectively confined Baptist preaching to the meeting house.[4] Deryck W. Lovegrove, on the other hand, locates the real problem of Baptists during this period in the matter of their isolation. “The very strength of independency,” he notes, “the internal cohesion of the gathered church, became its weakness as geographical remoteness conspired with autonomy and lack of common purpose to foster numerical decline.”[5] And Isabel Rivers sees a loss of identity as a key factor in the decline of the Baptists. Speaking about the dissenters in general, she states: “The experience of…persecution and heroic leadership must have given a sense of identity and commitment to the nonconformists not shared by the succeeding generations of dissenters.”[6] In short, the decline of the Baptists during the early and mid-eighteenth century cannot be easily attributed to simply one cause.[7] As the studies of Richey, Lovegrove and Rivers indicate, there were a variety of factors at work: political and sociological, as well as theological. Recent historiographical approaches demand that we consider not simply the realm of ideas in analyzing denominational history but also the social and political climate. Yet, Garrett is not wrong to point out that there was decline. Andrew Fuller, who, as Garrett notes, was instrumental in the revitalization of the Baptists in the final decades of the century, summed up this situation of decline in his own inimitable style when he declared: “Had matters gone on but for a few years, the Baptists would have become a perfect dunghill in society.”[8] But, it is vital for Baptist historians to ask this: is Fuller here speaking in strict statistical terms of every nook and cranny of the denomination, or making a more general observation? One of the myths in Baptist history has been to take Fuller’s words as totally applicable to the entire denomination in England.

Was Andrew Fuller a Calvinist? Then, in a later article, “How prominent Baptists stack up: Have leading Baptist theologians affirmed teachings of Dortian Calvinism?”, Garrett makes the following comment about Andrew Fuller’s own commitment to Calvinism: according to Garrett, Fuller “strongly advocated repentance and faith as duties,” but he “supported only two of Dortian Calvinism’s five points[,] limited atonement and irresistible grace.”[9] These remarks are very curious and have no basis in Fuller’s works. Fuller was a five-point Calvinist through and through. Yes, he did argue, against Hyper-Calvinism, that repentance and faith were duties. Hyper-Calvinists had argued that sinners are unable to do anything spiritually good, and thus are under no obligation to exercise faith in Christ. They supported their argument by reference to such texts as John 6:44 (“No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him”) and 1 Corinthians 2:14 (“the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned”). The inability of which these passages speak, Fuller contended in response, is a moral inability, which is rooted in the sinful disposition of the heart. Men and women refuse to come to Christ because of their aversion to him. They fail to understand the gospel and the things of the Spirit because they lack the means by which such matters are understood, namely, the presence of the indwelling Spirit. And they lack the Spirit because their hearts are closed to God. These verses are not speaking of a physical inability—such as insanity or mental deficiency—which excuses its subject of blame.[10] In making this distinction between physical and moral inability, which Fuller derived from Jonathan Edwards, Fuller was seeking to affirm a scriptural paradox: sinful men and women are utterly powerless to turn to God except through the regenerative work of God’s Holy Spirit, yet this powerlessness is the result of their own sinful hearts.[11] In other words, Fuller takes seriously the Scriptures’ affirmation of the total/radical depravity of the human heart. This led Fuller to address the role of the Spirit’s work in conversion. Hyper-Calvinists argued that if repentance and faith are ascribed by the Scriptures to the work of the Spirit, then “they cannot be duties required of sinners.” As Fuller points out, though, the force of this objection is dependent upon the supposition that “we do not stand in need of the Holy Spirit to enable us to comply with our duty.” What is amazing about this supposition is that Arminianism assumes the same. For the Arminian, because faith is commanded of sinners by God, then they must be able to believe without the irresistible drawing of the Spirit. Similarly, the Hyper-Calvinist reasons that since faith is wrought by the Spirit it cannot be an act of obedience. The truth of the matter, however, is that “we need the influence of the Holy Spirit to enable us to do our duty” and that “repentance and faith, therefore, may be duties, notwithstanding their being the gifts of God.”[12] Fuller thus affirmed the biblical via media on this issue. In his confession of faith that he made when he was inducted into his second pastoral charge, at Kettering in 1783, Fuller maintained that he believed in “the doctrine of eternal personal election and predestination” and that “those who are effectually called of God never fall away so as to perish everlastingly, but persevere in holiness till they arrive at endless happiness.”[13] It is a Baptist urban myth that Fuller abandoned his Calvinistic heritage. He affirmed it to the end of his earthly life.

Distinct proof of this can be found when Fuller came to die in 1815, in a last letter to his close friend, John Ryland, Jr. (1753-1825), in which he affirmed his belief in the perseverance of the saints. After quoting a portion of 2 Timothy 1:12, Fuller went on to say:

“I am a poor, guilty creature; but Christ is an almighty Saviour. I have preached and written much against the abuse of the doctrine of grace; but that doctrine is all my salvation and all my desire. I have no other hope, than from salvation by mere sovereign, efficacious grace, through the atonement of my Lord and Saviour. With this hope, I can go into eternity with composure.”[14]

What I love about Andrew Fuller is this wholehearted commitment to the doctrines of grace and his passion for missions. He did not compromise either. And in so doing, he proved to be a safe guide for Baptists today.

[1] James Leo Garrett, Jr., “A question facing Baptist churches: Does Dortian Calvinism really matter?”, The Alabama Baptist (Thursday, August 2, 2007) (http://www.al.com/living/alabamabaptist/index.ssf?/base/living/118581125997920.xml&coll=8; accessed august 6, 2007).

[2] Garrett, Jr., “A question facing Baptist churches.”

[3] Deryck W. Lovegrove, Established Church, Sectarian People. Itineracy and the transformation of English Dissent, 1780-1830 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 7; B.R. White, “Reviews: H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage: Four centuries of Baptist witness”, The Baptist Quarterly, 32 (1987-1988), 256.

[4] “Effects of Toleration on Eighteenth-Century Dissent”, The Journal of Religious History, 8 (1974-1975), 350-363. There were exceptions, of course. Between 1688 and 1705 William Mitchel and David Crosley (1669-1744) evangelized towns and villages throughout east Lancashire and West Yorkshire from their base at Rossendale. For further details, see W.E. Blomfield, “Yorkshire Baptist Churches in the 17th and 18th Centuries” in The Baptists of Yorkshire (2nd ed.; Bradford/London; Wm. Byles & Sons Ltd./London: Kingsgate Press, 1912), 73-88; Ian Sellers, ed., Our Heritage. The Baptists of Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cheshire (Leeds: The Yorkshire Baptist Association/The Lancashire and Cheshire Baptist Association, 1987), 10-11.

[5] Established Church, Sectarian People, 7.

[6] Reason, Grace, and Sentiment. A Study of the Language of Religion and Ethics in England, 1660-1780 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), I, 169.

[7] Barrie R. White, Letter to the author, May 6, 1991.

[8] Cited Simon Valentine, “A wrestler who fought the Devil”, Baptist Times, 7297 (March 1, 1990), 6.

[9] James Leo Garrett, Jr., “How prominent Baptists stack up: Have leading Baptist theologians affirmed teachings of Dortian Calvinism?”, The Alabama Baptist (Thursday, August 2, 2007) (http://www.al.com/living/alabamabaptist/index.ssf?/base/living/118581123097920.xml&coll=8)

[10] The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation in The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, revised Joseph Belcher (1845 ed.; repr. Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 2:376-379.

[11] James E. Tull, Shapers of Baptist Thought (1972 ed.; repr. Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1984), 90.

[12] Works, 2:379-380.

[13] Confession of Faith VIII and XIV in Michael A.G. Haykin, ed., The Armies of the Lamb: The spirituality of Andrew Fuller (Dundas, Ontario: Joshua Press, 2001), 276, 279.

[14] Cited John Ryland, The Work of Faith, the Labour of Love, and the Patience of Hope Illustrated; in the Life and Death of the Reverend Andrew Fuller (London: Button & Son, 1816), 544-546.