Adoniram Judson “Deeply Impressed” by an Unnamed Pious Man

July 12, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

By Evan D. Burns

Adoniram Judson (1788-1850), the first American missionary, was a man marked by inimitable missionary devotion and theological grit. Many biographies, indeed some hagiographies, have retold his remarkable story over and over again. Though many biographies exclusively portray him as a martyr-like hero, he was no island. He had friends, companions, and co-laborers who died as hard as he did, whose biographies only the historians of heaven have written. Moreover, there was an anonymous man in his life who never went with him to Burma and never knew him personally, whose name history has left unrecorded, and yet, God used this unknown man to impress God-centered piety upon Judson’s soul.

After going to school in Providence, Judson set out, surging with wanderlust, to explore the Northern States in pursuit of adventure and inspiration. He had wished to go write for the theater in New York and to also brave the untamed wilderness. His worldly aspirations broke his pious parents’ hearts. He went to visit his uncle Ephraim in the wilderness, but God appointed another man to meet him there instead. Judson’s biographer, Francis Wayland, records:

Before setting out upon his tour he had unfolded his infidel sentiments to his father, and had been treated with the severity natural to a masculine mind that has never doubted, and to a parent, who, after having made innumerable sacrifices for the son of his pride and love, sees him rush recklessly on his own destruction. His mother also, was no less distressed, and she wept, and prayed, and expostulated. He knew his superiority to his father in argument; but he had nothing to oppose to his mother’s tears and warnings, and they followed him now wherever he went. He knew he was on the verge of such a life as he despised. For the world he would not see a young brother in his perilous position; but “I,” he thought, “am in no danger. I am only seeing the world—the dark side of it, as well as the bright; and I have too much self-respect to do any thing mean or vicious.” After seeing what he wished of New York, he returned to Sheffield for his horse, intending to pursue his journey westward. His uncle, Rev. Ephraim Judson, was absent, and a very pious young man occupied his place. His conversation was characterized by godly sincerity, a solemn but gentle earnestness, which addressed itself to the heart, and Judson went away deeply impressed.[1]

Not long after meeting this pious man, Judson surrendered his life to his Lord. How many well-known men in history have been impressed by the warm-hearted piety of unknown saints? Let us never underestimate the historical impact we could have in a conversation “characterized by godly sincerity, a solemn but gentle earnestness,” that addresses the heart and leaves an indelible impression. May God be pleased to “deeply impress” future missionaries through our God-enamored piety, even in the most inadvertent conversations.

[1]Francis Wayland, A Memoir of the Life and Labors of the Rev. Adoniram Judson, D.D. (Boston: Philips, Sampson, and Company, 1853), 1:23-24.

____________________

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.

On The Spiritual Value of Historic Christian Texts

July 10, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

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

July 4, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

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.

The Book of Kells Now Available Online

July 5, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

By Dustin W. Benge

Throughout the centuries the Christian church has sought to honor the text of holy Scripture through the art of illumination. An illuminated manuscript is a text that is supplemented by the artistic addition of decorated initials, borders, and miniature illustration. The earliest surviving illuminated manuscript are from the period of AD 400 to 600, initially produced in Italy and the Eastern Roman Empire.

The Book of Kells (Irish: Leabhar Cheanannais) is one such illuminated manuscript that has been highlighted in recent months. Trinity College in Dublin, which houses the Book of Kells, has now made this beautiful work completely available online. The Book of Kells is an illuminated manuscript in Latin, containing the four Four Gospels of the New Testament with various prefatory texts and tables.

Trinity writes that the origin of the Book of Kells “is generally attributed to the scriptorium of the monastery founded around 561 by St Colum Cille on Iona, an island off the west coast of Scotland.” The college writes that it “must have been close to the year 800 that the Book of Kells was written, although there is no way of knowing if the book was produced wholly oat Iona or at Kells, or partially at each location.”

This beautifully decorated manuscript represents one of the pinnacle achievements of artistic illumination in the history of the church. You can view the book (actually, four separately bound books) in person in Dublin where only one page is displayed at a time. Or, you can view the book’s 600+ pages here. Even if you do not read Latin, you can still enjoy the talented artistry of the Celtic monks who composed this treasure.

________________________

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.

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

July 1, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

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.

The communion of saints

June 28, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

By Ian Hugh Clary

I’ve been away from home for exactly a week. The last seven days have been spent in Victoria and Vancouver where I have had the joyful privilege of teaching church history on behalf of Toronto Baptist Seminary. I’m only here for a few days more, and I want to drink my fill of the surrounding environs; the mountains in particular. In spite of the overwhelming beauty of this place, I sorely miss my family. I haven’t been away from them for such a length of time—in some ways, my Sunday evening flight east can’t come quick enough.

Yet my trip to the west coast has reminded me of a few basic facts about Christian experience, one I want to highlight for a moment. I have been thinking about the bond that Christians share in the Spirit, what has evocatively been called the “communion of the saints.” Maybe it’s that I’ve stumbled on some uniquely wonderful people in British Columbia—which I have—but I suspect that there is something more fundamentally spiritual about my relationship with those whom I have spent time with on the west coast. The very kind folk that I am staying with, though I have only known them for a few days, immediately feel like family to me. The students I teach each night feel like old friends. Even the afternoon coffee with an old friend I only just met (oh the wonders of the internet), was a treasure. When I go home I know I will miss these people deeply.

We are the body of Christ. We share in a mystical union with our saviour. We are the company of the Spirit. We have a bond with each other more basic than blood. We are in covenant together. We are working toward the same goal, and encourage each other on the way.

This experience has reinforced for me my desire to teach church history and theology—I want to be with people like this. My brothers and sisters who find some value in what I have to share with them, but who in turn pour themselves into me. This is mutual encouragement, this is familial, this is Christian friendship. And I am so thankful to God for such grace.

_____________________

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.

Theological Specificity in Translation

June 27, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

By Evan D. Burns

Andrew Fuller demonstrates in this letter his concern for theological specificity in Bible translations. He was passionate that not just words were translated, but that the theology of those words were adequately transferred. Fuller’s ability to understand Greek word definitions and how those words were used in their biblical context makes him such a valuable leader in the burgeoning missionary movement. Would that pastors and missions leaders today know the biblical languages and value theology in such a way that they can wisely discern the theological implications of missionary methods and philosophy. Fuller wrote:

Eubulus, in what he has written upon the apostolic office, having expressed a wish for the subject to be examined, I take the liberty of suggesting a few hints to his consideration.

Allowing the word apostle to signify a missionary, it does not seem to follow that calling an ordinary preacher, who is sent to publish the gospel among the heathen, by the latter name, is improper or “unscriptural.”

The word διακονειν, which is used of the office of a deacon, signifies to minister to the wants of others, or to serve. A deacon was a servant; but it does not follow that the application of the word servant to other persona as well as deacons is improper or unscriptural. A deacon was a servant of a particular kind; and such is the idea which the word conveys; but the term servant is more generic, and therefore is properly applied to persons who serve in other capacities as well as this. Every deacon was a servant, but every servant was not a deacon.

It should seem that the same may be said of αποστολος, the term used to express the office of an apostle. It signifies a messenger or missionary; but it does not follow that the application of either of these terms to other persons as well as apostles is improper or unscriptural. An apostle was a messenger, or missionary, of a particular kind; and such is the idea which the word conveys; but the terms messenger and missionary are more generic, and therefore are properly applied to any persons who are sent with a message to a distance. Every apostle was a messenger and a missionary, but every messenger and missionary was not an apostle. Epaphroditus was the αποστολος, or messenger to the Philippians to Paul (Phil. 2:25); and those who are called in our translation “the messengers of the churches” (2 Cor. 8:23) are denominated by the same name, αποστολοι. The word also that is used for the sending out of ordinary preachers of the gospel among the heathen, properly means to send on a mission; and is the same (with only the difference of the verb and the noun) as that which is rendered an apostle. “How shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach, except αποσταλωσι, they be sent?” Rom. 10:14, 15.

Upon the whole, I hope Eubulus will reconsider his censure of the translators, for naturalizing the term αποστολοι, when applied to those messengers immediately commissioned by Christ, by rendering it apostles, rather than translating it messengers or missionaries. The naturalization complained of resembles, in this instance at least, that of the common name by which we denominate the Holy Scriptures, calling them the Bible, from βιβλος, the book. To have translated this, and called it the book, would not have distinguished it from certain parts of it, which also bear that name, Matt. 1:1. But to call it the Bible suggests the very idea required; that is, the book by way of eminence, the book of books. So αποστολοι, if translated messengers, or missionaries, would not have distinguished the twelve disciples from other messengers, or missionaries; but, rendered apostles, it conveys the true idea; namely, that of messengers of an extraordinary kind, or messengers by way of eminence.[1]

[1] Fuller, A. G. (1988). The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, Volume 3: Expositions—Miscellaneous (J. Belcher, Ed.) (498–499). Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications.

____________________

Celebrating 1,700 years of the Edict of Milan

June 26, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

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.

The ideal home

June 24, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

By Michael A.G. Haykin

Of modern 20th-century novelists, J.R.R. Tolkien is, in my opinion, undoubtedly the best. And I agree wholeheartedly with those surveys done in the UK at the turn of this century that placed him way out in front of modernist novelists. Now, in The Hobbit, there is a great description of the elf-lord Elrond’s house in Rivendell: “His house was perfect, whether you liked food, or sleep, or work, or story-telling, or singing, or just sitting and thinking best, or a pleasant mixture of them all. Evil things did not come into that valley” (The Hobbit [Rev. ed.; New York: Ballantine Books, 1966), 61—this Ballantine edition is the one that I first read in the late 1960s). The description is repeated in The Lord of the Rings, Part I, where it is described as “the Last Homely House east of the Sea” and the description from The Hobbit cited (see the quotation marks) and elaborated on:

“That house was…‘a perfect house, whether you like food or sleep or story-telling or singing, or just sitting and thinking best, or a pleasant mixture of them all.’ Merely to be there was a cure for weariness, fear and sadness.” (The Fellowship of the Ring [The Lord of the Rings, Part I; 2^nd ed,; London/Sydney: Unwin Hyman, 1966], 237).

One can see the changes at a glance. But my interest is elsewhere. Surely, in this description, Tolkien has captured the western tradition’s thinking about the ideal home.

When my wife and I had our first child, Victoria, I remember hearing in a public address from one of our friends, Anna Pikkert, a description of her home when she was growing up—it was, she said, a place of security (see Tolkien’s statement in The Hobbit, “evil things did not come into that valley”). I thought to myself: that is what I want my home to be. Well, we live in a fallen world, and that dream was never fully realized. And things turn out differently from what we hope for. But Tolkien’s vision of home, encapsulated in these two descriptions, has ever been my dream. Maybe it was that Tolkien’s words, read numerous times, lingered on in my mind. Whatever the case, is this not the sort of home we want: “merely to be there was a cure for weariness, fear and sadness.”

And this, I submit, is the biblical understanding of home. Now this is something worth striving for.

___________________

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

June 18, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

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.

________________________

The First Abolitionist: Gregory of Nyssa on Slavery

June 18, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

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

June 14, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

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:

A sovereign work of God
A work which repeats New Testament Christianity
A work which renews the church
An enduring work of God
A work which magnifies Jesus Christ
A work of God brought about by biblically appointed means
A work which releases the gifts and fruit of the Holy Spirit
A work which often included the conversion of large numbers of people
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.

________________________

Evangelical Preaching: “The End Dominates the Action”

June 12, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

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.

____________________

John Gill on a Husband’s Love for his Wife

June 10, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

By Ryan Patrick Hoselton

John Gill, the illustrious 18^th century Baptist pastor and theologian, suggests that while love should be mutual between spouses, the Scriptures exhort husbands to it more frequently because they “are most wanting in the performance of it” (IV.1). His point may be debatable, but even so, his tutelage in how to love one’s wife more is worth hearing.

Basing his thoughts on Ephesians 5, Gill concisely lists four reasons why a husband should improve his love for his wife. 1) She is his own flesh. Neglecting one’s own body is unnatural and strange—it will not benefit a man in any way. 2) A man receives enormous profit from a wife. She offers support and companionship in his affairs, rejoices and weeps with him, and therefore a man should be grateful. 3) The wife is the glory of her husband. She is his crown and her conduct, devotion, and chastity makes him respectable among others. 4) Most importantly, a man should imitate Christ’s love for his church in how he loves his own wife. His love for her is a testimony to the beauty of the gospel.

With the reasons established, Gill turns to the manner in which husbands should love their wives (also neatly organized in four points). 1) He should provide for her temporal good, “signified by nourishing and cherishing her” (IV.1). The husband loves his wife through his provision of food, shelter, clothes, etc., suitable to his circumstances and abilities. If he neglects this duty, he is worse than an unbeliever (1 Tim. 5.3). 2) He should protect his wife “from all abuses and injuries: as she is the weaker vessel,” and if necessary, “risk his life in her defence” (IV.1).

While the first two ways to love one’s wife seem natural to most men, the next two may require more attentiveness and strategy. 3) Gill urges men to do “every thing that may contribute to her pleasure, peace, comfort, and happiness” (IV.1). When Paul tells the Corinthians, “he who is married must care how he may please his wife,” he is not blaming men for it but rather commending them (1 Cor. 7.33). A husband makes his wife feel comfortable when he hides her failings and covers her weaknesses in love. 4) He must lead his wife in her spiritual welfare. A man loves his wife “by joining with her in all religious exercises, in family worship, in reading, in prayer, in praise, in Christian conference and conversation” (IV.1). The husband is responsible for teaching his wife and answering her questions without misleading or belittling her.

Gill’s instructions will not transform you into the chimerical Hollywood chick-flick ladies man with quick wit, contagious humor, and an Adonis body. But this notion of romance, if attained, will eventually sag in correlation with our aging bodies. If, however, a man patterns his love after Christ rather than culture, he will have an enduring and gratifying marriage.

Gill, John. A Body of Practical Divinity; or A System of Practical Truths. 1839. Reprint, Paris, Arkansas: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 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.

Recommended Books on Baptist Historical Theology

May 24, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

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.

________________________

A Mirror for the Soul

May 22, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

By Dustin W. Benge

The revival of interest in Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) in recent years has brought his Resolutions to a new generation of readers. The Edwards Resolutions have been printed on tee-shirts, been the subject of ministry conferences, and have been read by many preachers desiring somehow to emulate the life and ministry of their author. However, Edwards was not the only preacher of the 18th century to have a list of maxims against which he regularly measured his life and heart. In fact, such lists for personal self-examination were common practice among ministers and other Christians.

Like Edwards, fellow 18th century revivalist and preacher, George Whitefield (1714–1750) also composed a list of criteria, which he used each night as a basis of judging himself on his actions during the day. Whitefield’s smaller list^{^[1]} (to be compared with the 70 Resolutions of Edwards) seems to be much more manageable for the contemporary Christian to use as a mirror into their own soul.

The list is,

Have I,

Been fervent in private prayer?

Used stated hours of prayer?

Used prayer every hour?

After or before every deliberate conversation or action, considered how it might tend to God’s glory?

After any pleasure, immediately given thanks?

Planned business for the day?

Been simple and recollected in everything?

Been zealous in undertaking and active in doing what good I could?

Been meek, cheerful, affable in everything I said or did?

Been proud, vain, unchaste, or enviable of others?

Recollected in eating and drinking? Thankful? Temperate in sleep?

Taken time for giving thanks according to Law’s rules? (William Law)^{^[2]}

Been diligent in studies?

Thought or spoken unkindly of anyone?

Confessed all sins?

^{^[1]} Arnold Dallimore, George Whitefield: The Life and Times of the Great Evangelist of the 18th Century Revival, Vol. 1, (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995), 80.

^{^[2]} To read the list of William Law, visit: http://img.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic_pdf.php?topic_id=12062&forum=34

________________________

Learn Your Religion from the Bible

May 16, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

By Evan D. Burns

In a sermon entitled, “On an Intimate and Practical Acquaintance with the Word of God,” Andrew Fuller meditated deeply on the piety exemplified in Ezra 7:10—“Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments.” Fuller made four outstanding observations about Ezra’s character, which Fuller strongly commended for Christian imitation. Here is what he gleaned so exquisitely from one verse:

SEEK THE LAW, or will, of God
1. Seek it.
2. Seek it at the fountain-head.
3. Seek the will of God in every part of the Bible.
4. Seek it perseveringly.
PREPARE YOUR HEART to seek the law of the Lord
KEEP THE LAW.
1. Dread nothing more than recommending that to your people to which you do not attend yourself.
2. More is expected from you than from others.
3. You will attend to practical preaching.
4. Attend not only to such duties as fall under the eye of man, but walk with God—in your family, and in your closet.
TEACH in Israel the statutes and judgments of God.
1. Let Christ and his apostles be your examples.
2. Give every part of the truth its due proportion.
3. Dare to teach unwelcome truths.
4. Give Scriptural proof of what you teach.
5. Consider yourself as standing engaged to teach all that hear you—rich and poor, young and old, godly and ungodly.
6. Teach privately as well as publicly.[1]

One of the most perceptive and potent points Fuller argued from this verse was the preeminence of seeking the will of God in the Bible alone. Under the first point, Fuller contended:

Seek it at the fountain-head.—You feel, I doubt not, a great esteem for many of your brethren now living, and admire the writings of some who are now no more; and you will read their productions with attention and pleasure. But whatever excellence your brethren possess, it is all borrowed; and it is mingled with error. Learn your religion from the Bible. Let that be your decisive rule. Adopt not a body of sentiments, or even a single sentiment, solely on the authority of any man—however great, however respected. Dare to think for yourself. Human compositions are fallible. But the Scriptures were written by men who wrote as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Human writings on religion resemble preaching—they are useful only so far as they illustrate the Scriptures, and induce us to search them for ourselves.^{^[2]}

[1]Andrew Gunton Fuller, The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, Volume 1: Memoirs, Sermons, Etc., ed. Joseph Belcher (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 483-486.

^{^[2]}The Complete Works, 1: 483.

____________________

Augustine of Hippo’s Theology of Moral Reasoning

May 14, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

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.

Disowned as Baptists: Conflict Between Two Early Alabama Baptist Associations

May 13, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

By Dustin Bruce

Baptists are no strangers to soteriological disputes. And while generally Baptist groups have found ways to overcome their differences and cooperate for the sake of evangelism and missions, there are cases where Baptist churches and associations have drawn the line and considered another group outside the bounds of cooperation and fellowship. One example of this occurred near Tuscaloosa, Alabama in the 1830’s and 40’s, when differences arose among churches that would form the Tuscaloosa County Baptist Association and the North River United Baptist Association.

The genesis of the controversy can be traced back to 1832, when pastor David Andrews was narrowly removed from Bethel Church in Tuscaloosa for espousing what many considered “Arminian views.” Andrews, along with a number of members of the congregation, broke off to form a new church, which shortly merged with Salem Baptist Church, also in Tuscaloosa. By 1835, Andrews had convinced enough area churches of his theology, that they were able to form the North River United Baptist Association.

The Tuscaloosa Baptist Association, conceived only a year earlier, did not recognize the legitimacy of the North River Association. The Tuscaloosa Association, whose Abstract of Principles was decidedly of the Strict Baptist persuasion, found the soteriological beliefs of the North River Association, as presented in their Articles of Faith, far too dismissive of God’s sovereignty in salvation. As a result, the Tuscaloosa Association refused to recognize the North River Association as Baptists, because they did not first consider them orthodox.

A number of neighboring Baptist associations attempted to intervene, including the Chickasaw Association from neighboring Mississippi. In response to an inquiry from the Chickasaw Association, the Tuscaloosa Association responded in a letter indicating no difficulty has ever existed between the Tuscaloosa Association and the North River Association, since the events causing the separation occurred before the formation of the Tuscaloosa Association itself. Lest you think such a statement constitutes the acceptance and approval of the North River Association, the letter states that upon organizing, the Tuscaloosa Association reviewed the actions undertaken by the churches involved in the schism, concluding the churches they had accepted into their membership were justified “in the course they had taken, and of condemning the others as disorderly, and as guilty of gross Heterodoxy.”[1] The Tuscaloosa Association felt the Chickasaw Association would be sure they were “fully justified in disowning them (North River) as Baptists” after seeing the minutes of the North River Association for themselves.[2]

In 1848, another nearby association, the Columbia Baptist Association, attempted to intervene. A meeting was organized at Pleasant Grove Baptist in Fayette, Alabama the following year. This time, the well-known Baptist leader and president of the University of Alabama, Basil Manly Sr., would preach a message aimed at reconciliation. Choosing Philippians 2:12-13 as his text, the Baptist statesman preached a moving and compelling sermon entitled “Divine Efficiency Consistent with Human Activity.” In the sermon, Manly gave a majestic defense of the compatibility between God’s sovereignty and human free will in salvation. The sermon was a smashing success. Amazingly, the North River Association incorporated Manly’s theology into a new Abstract of Principles. In response, the Tuscaloosa Association began to associate with them as Baptist brethren, ending a nearly 16-year controversy.

[1]Foster, History of Tuscaloosa County Baptist Association 1834-1934, 39.

[2]Foster, History of Tuscaloosa County Baptist Association 1834-1934, 39.

_____________________________

Francis Wayland and Richard Fuller: Debating Slavery with Christian Civility

May 10, 2013 Andrew Fuller Center

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.

________________________

Blog

By Evan D. Burns

By Ryan Patrick Hoselton

By Nathan A. Finn

By Dustin W. Benge

By Michael A.G. Haykin

By Ian Hugh Clary

By Evan D. Burns

By Ryan Patrick Hoselton

By Michael A.G. Haykin

By Dustin W. Benge

By Dustin Bruce

By Nathan A. Finn

By Evan D. Burns

By Ryan Patrick Hoselton

By Nathan A. Finn

By Dustin W. Benge

By Evan D. Burns

By Ryan Patrick Hoselton

By Dustin Bruce

By Nathan A. Finn