On novelists

Just read J.I. Packer's evaluation of the Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky: Who Is the Greatest Novelist of All Time? (HT: Justin Taylor). There must be something wrong with me! I can appreciate the depth of this novelist's faith, but I could never get into or through any of his novels. I really do not like his work! But then I have not been able to read any of the Russians, except for A Solzhenitsyn, whose Red Wheel cycle I loved (but then I cannot read his Gulag series or any of his other novels). But what can you expect from someone who has never been able to make it through Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress ?!!  No, my favourite author in the 19th century is Jane Austen (can anything be more different than Dostoevsky?) and in the 20th J.R.R. Tolkien (now there is an epic writer!).

Ten years ago

Some of my friends on Twitter have been reminiscing about where they were ten years ago. Ten years ago, I was a year into my first job outside of academia: the editorial directorship of Joshua Press. To think what has happened in this decade: I had three more years at Joshua Press, a position I loved, and then nearly came to Southern in 2002, but drew back at the last moment, and only came part-time. Instead I served as Principal of Toronto Baptist Seminary from the summer of 2003 to the fall of 2007. And now have been at Southern since January 2008 full-time. Two full years, and two of the best years of my life.

Avatar: a few scattered impressions

My family and I just got back from seeing James Cameron's Avatar. Without a doubt the graphics were amazing. The Na'vi were beautiful as were the animals of the world of Pandora. I am sure this is in part what inspired some of the culture critics' raving about the movie. But the storyline was thin and so predictable, and if one looks at it from a philosophical angle, it has a very distinct political message that, to this viewer, seems to be the standard "hate the West" rant that the Left has indulged in for years. Along with that, the Mother Earth Goddess worship of the movie is naively presented and a far cry from the horrific reality that the ancients knew.

I am fully committed to ecological stewardship--surely the mandate of Genesis 1 commits us in this direction, despite the way some have misinterpreted the text. But Avatar would pin the blame for ecological disaster on one culture--the West--when the situation is far more complex. But is this not the problem of the medium of celluloid? It cannot tackle complex issues, but is good for getting the blood boiling and thrilling the imagination.

The Second London Confession 3

It is extemely important that The Second London Confession (SLC), when it came to the section "Of Gods Decree," did not reproduce The Westminster Confession (WCF) holus-bolus. Chap. 3 of the WCF has eight paragraphs. Chap. 3 of the SLC has only seven. One, that on reprobation, has been entirely omitted. The WCF essentially reproduced the doctrine of double predestination that was part of the strong Augustinian tradition that ran from Augustine through the Venerable Bede (c.673-735) and Gottschalk (c.804-c.869) to the Reformers. The authors of the SLC, however, embraced a milder Augustinianism.

This needs exploring by someone in more detail!

An 18th Century Great Commission Resurgence

Dr. Michael Haykin is currently writing a series of articles for the state paper of Oklahoma Baptists on the 18th Century Great Commission Resurgence which launched the modern Baptist missionary movement.  The Baptist Messenger is edited by the very capable Douglas E. Baker.  The first two in the series are now online and others will be posted in the weeks ahead. The first article looks at the conditions among 18th-century Baptists which made a Great Commission Resurgence necessary.  The second article focuses on the the Prayer Call of 1784 which preceded the move of God which we know as the dawn of the modern missionary movement.  It is hoped that these articles and the ones which follow might provide a historical perspective on a contemporary phenomenon, the Great Commission Resurgence of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Posted by Steve Weaver, Research and Administrative Assistant to the Director of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies, Dr. Michael A.G. Haykin.

The Trellis and the Vine

Am reading Colin Marshall and Tony Payne, The Trellis and the Vine: The Ministry Mind-Shift that Changes Everything (Kingsford, NSA: Matthias Media, 2009) and loving it. This struck me today: the comment that "According to Paul, gospel partnership is the normal Christian life" (p.66). A hearty Amen to that! How can churches not be linked purposefully with others in gospel initiatives and defence? That some are speaks not of gospel fidelity but of disobedience to the Word.

La belle province and the gospel

On a much more pleasant note, I am thrilled to have had the opportunity to have been in Quebec twice in the past two months. Once for the Montreal Calvin conference (see the picture of the participants attached) in late October (thanks to Drs. Andre Pinard and Jason Zuidema for arranging the details of this), and then just this past week, teaching La Reforme at SEMBEQ.

The needs of Quebec are great--in some ways, greater than any in the rest of North America: a largely Roman Catholic society that, since the Quiet Revolution, has thrown off all of the legalism of the Roman Church, and embraced modernity with a passion. It is easily one of the most secularized cultures I have taught in. But teaching trips to la belle province are always a delight, mainly because of all of the dear brothers and sisters there.

Many years ago, in 1978 to be precise, I heard a French Baptist preacher, Elisee Beau (d.2009), speak at my home church of Stanley Ave. Baptist in Hamilton, ON. I had the distinct impression that I needed to learn French. That impresson was God-given and I wished I had followed it up. I spent time mastering written French, but I wish I had put the effort and energy into also mastering conversational French (my spoken French always embarasses me!).

It was five years later that Francois Picard--then a student at Central Baptist Seminary, Toronto, where I had just begun to teach, and now the President of SEMBEQ--asked if I would be willing to come to Quebec to teach at SEMBEQ. And over the past quarter of a century (wow, hard to believe it has been that long), I have been involved with teaching courses, mentoring, and giving conferences. I would not have missed it for the world. It has been so enriching!

Brothers and sisters: pray for Quebec, and for SEMBEQ and for the Evangelical Baptist churches there, for one of the most challenging mission fields is right on our doorstep here in N America.

Scripture and sex

We live in a culture that deems sexuality/gender issues as of the absolute first importance and as a result the church is having to wrestle with these issues in ways that our forebears never had to. Of these issues probably the two key ones are abortion and the issue of homosexuality. With regard to the latter, I heartily commend the recent post by Dr. Mohler on the recent brouhaha about the election of a second openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church USA: (http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/12/07/newsnote-when-gracious-restraint-fails-the-real-anglican-tragedy/). As Dr. Mohler concludes: "When truth is at stake, denominational etiquette is no basis for courageous leadership." Read the whole thing. It is also important to affirm in this debate that Holy Scripture is more than sufficient for what we need to say. While sociology, culture studies, and history can help enormously in untangling these issues, Scripture has to be our final authority. And I firmly believe that it is not ambiguous.

The esse of Reformed: a current question

I was just made aware of a recent exchange between Drs Scott Clark and James White vis-à-vis the esse of being Reformed. I have only read Dr. Clark’s response to Dr. White, in which Dr. Clark emphasizes that being Reformed cannot be limited to the five points of Calvinism. I would wholeheartedly affirm this. He then goes on to state that:

 

“…there wasn’t a single Baptist at the Synod of Dort. Why not? Because no Baptist was eligible to join a Reformed church. Why not? Because the denial of infant baptism wasn’t tolerated in the Reformed churches. …Once more, to state the obvious:  there wasn’t a single Baptist involved in the Westminster Assembly. The Baptists had promulgated their own confession in 1644. There were heated pamphlet wars between theBaptists and the Reformed in that period. Baptists were not recognized as Reformed. Why not? Because paedobaptism was regarded as essential to the Reformed faith.” (“Post-Thanksgiving Cartoons: Reply to James White"; http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/post-thanksgiving-cartoons-reply-to-james-white/#more-6079).

 

It needs noting that Baptists who embraced Calvinistic soteriology did not exist at the time of the Synod of Dort, hence they could not have been there. But the rest of Dr. Clark’s remarks are, of course, all true. There were two Baptists, namely William Kiffin and Samuel Richardson, at the doors of the Jerusalem Chamber in 1646 handing out copies of the The First London Confession (1644; 2nd ed., 1646) to delegates as they went in. But they were not inside and thus not involved in the Westminster Assembly. And there were indeed “heated pamphlet wars” between Baptists and Paedobaptists during the 1640s and 1650s. But these were all seen by the Baptists as battles within a shared faith, as will become clear in what follows.

 

And Dr, Clark also points out, à la an article that appeared in Modern Reformation that “the earliest Baptists did not think it necessary to call themselves “Reformed.” They called themselves “General” or “Particular” Baptists”.” This is also true. Particular Baptist or Calvinistic Baptist was the terminology used during the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries. “Reformed Baptist” is late twentieth-century nomenclature.

 

But, this is not the whole story as far as those seventeenth-century Baptists were concerned. After the Restoration of Charles II in 1660, they were a community under the cross, and for twenty-eight years they suffered grievous persecution, with a number of their pastors and elders dying in prisons, like the blessed Abraham Cheare. Of course, the Particular Baptists were not the only ones to suffer during this time of great persecution. All who dissented from the distinguishing rites and practices of the state church of Anglicanism suffered to one degree or another.

 

This furnace of common affliction only served to reinforce in the minds of many Particular Baptists just how much they shared with fellow Calvinists who were either Presbyterians or Congregationalists, the latter being then known as Independents. Moreover, there was at hand a document that could concretely demonstrate the essential doctrinal unity between these three groups, namely, The Westminster Confession of Faith. This Confession, the authoritative statement of faith of both the Presbyterian Church of Scotland and their English brethren, had been completed by the Westminster Assembly in November, 1646. The Independents had subsequently used it as the basis of their statement of faith, known as The Savoy Declaration, which was drawn up in 1658 by, among others, John Owen (1616-1683) and Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680). The desire to present a united Calvinist front in the face of persecution consequently led the Particular Baptists to employ the Westminster Confession, as modified by the Savoy Declaration, as the basis of a new confession, The Second London Confession of Faith (1677/1689). In the words of the preface to the Second London Confession:

 

"One thing that greatly prevailed with us to undertake this work, was (not only to give a full account of our selves to those Christians that differ from us about the subject of Baptism, but also) the profit that might from thence arise unto those that have any account of our labors, in their instruction, and establishment in the great truths of the Gospel; in the clear understanding and steady belief of which, our comfortable walking with God, and fruitfulness before him, in all our ways is most neerly concerned; and therefore we did conclude it necessary to express our selves the more fully, and distinctly, and also to fix on such a method as might be most comprehensive of those things which we designed to explain our sense, and belief of; and finding no defect, in this regard, in that fixed on by the assembly, and after them by those of the Congregational way, we did readily conclude it best to retain the same order in our present confession: and also when we observed that those last mentioned did, in their confession (for reasons which seemed of weight both to themselves and others), choose not only to express their mind in words concurrent with the former in sense, concerning all those articles wherein they were agreed, but also for the most part without any variation of the terms we did in like manner conclude it best to follow their example, in making use of the very same words with them both, in these articles (which are very many) wherein our faith and doctrine is the same with theirs, and this we did, the more abundantly, to manifest our consent with both, in all the fundamental articles of the Christian Religion; as also with many others whose orthodox confessions have been published to the world; on the behalf of the Protestants in diverse Nations and Cities: and also to convince all that we have no itch to clogge Religion with new words, but do readily acquiesce in that form of sound words which hath been, in consent with the holy Scriptures, used by others before us; hereby declaring before God, Angels, & Men, our hearty agreement with them, in that wholesome Protestant Doctrine, which, with so clear evidence of Scriptures they have asserted."[1]

 

When I read this statement, I hear my forebears, those worthies of the seventeenth century, saying that they shared a common faith with their Presbyterian and Congregationalist brethren. Dr. White is by no means the first to have thought this.

 

[1] “To the Judicious and Impartial Reader” [A Confession of Faith…1677 (Auburn, Massachusetts: B & R Press, 2000); William L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Rev. ed., Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1969), 244-245].

Reformed catholicity

In his new book, God Incarnate: Explorations in Christology (T&T Clark, 2009), Oliver Crisp has a fascinating note regarding the appropriateness of using the phrase "Reformed Catholics." He rightly points out that the Reformed tradition was an historic attempt to reform catholic Christianity. Hence, he is wary of talking of Catholics and Protestants. Rather, he wants to distinguish Reformed Catholics from Roman Catholics (p.3, n.8). I have long believed that it is quite appropriate to confess that one belongs to the one holy catholic apostolic church if one has truly believed on the Lord Jesus alone for salvation. For there is one church. It is holy by virtue of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is apostolic, being based on the Apostles' teaching. And it is catholic, in that it is universal.

In this light, there is much to be said for using the nomenclature "Reformed Catholic." Of course, as with all name tags, the term "Catholic" has associations with Roman Catholicism that are not easily shed and that, as a consequence, can easily confuse. When explained it is a great term.

And within that great body of Reformed Catholicity, I am not ashamed to call myself a Baptist.

Hebrews 13:3 all over again

I have been following the persecution by the Chinese state of the Beijing Shouwang Church ever since I discovered that I know a brother from this congregation. Please pray for them. For the facts of the case, read this report: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/15/ap/asia/main5654121.shtml. It was very telling that there are concerns that President Obama might be completely silent on this matter of religious freedom when he visits with Chinese leaders. Not good.

"All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand"

My family and I with some close friends, Adam and Rachel Reynolds, went to see Macbeth today at Stratford. Well done. The staging was superb and so was Colm Feore as the murderous Macbeth. The costume setting, according to the director Des McAnuff was “mythic mid-2oth-century Africa” [“Ideas and Insights”, Macbeth Programme (2009), p.6]. In the famous scene where Lady Macbeth is sleepwalking and seeking to rid her soul of guilt, I was struck by the lines “Here’s the smell of blood still. All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand” (Act V, Scene 1). I thought of the fact that this is not only true for Lady Macbeth, but for all of us. Surely Shakespeare is suggesting in this play that we all harbour murderous passions. See, in this regard, the lines of the Porter in Act II, scene 3—a very important figure—who, as Robert Blacker notes, “steps out of the play to remind us that we too are sinners” [“Crime and Punishment”, Macbeth Programme (2009), p.3].

And we too shall find, like Lady Macbeth, there is no perfume of this world shall “sweeten” our sinful hands. Only One and one act—sweet Jesu and his death.

Fuller first editions, the irksomeness of e-bay, and a precious truth

I recently missed out in bidding for an item on e-bay by Andrew Fuller, a first edition of his sermon Christian Patriotism: or, The Duty of Religious People Towards Their Country. A Discourse delivered at the Baptist Meeting-House in Kettering, on Lord’s-Day Evening, Aug. 14, 1803 (Printed and sold by J. W. Morris, Dunstable, 1803). Measuring 6½ inches x 4¼ inches, it is 34 pages in length. The going price for this piece was $162.00. To be utterly honest, I found the whole experience of bidding for this—watching my bids escalate in price as I tried vainly to outbid the person who bought this item—quite irksome. Why so irksome. Well, here is how my train of thinking ran. Here am I, the director of the Andrew Fuller Center, involved in the publication of the critical edition of Fuller’s works. Why shouldn’t I be given some special access to such works like this at a reasonable price to further the cause of Fuller scholarship? I must admit that such thoughts, essentially unwholesome thoughts, ran through my mind. In fact, they did more than run through it. They lodged there for a few days, and are still there, I fear. But Romans 12:3 calls me to think much more soberly of myself and my calling. My calling may involve me in the editing of some of Fuller’s works, but the world of Fuller scholarship does not revolve around me or this project. Why should I be entitled to some sort of special privilege?

This is even truer on another, far more important level: my place in this universe and my standing with God. This universe is not centred around me. I can lay claim to no special privilege with God. I must come the way of all sinners: seeking mercy through the merits of the stainless life and sweet death of the Lord Jesus.

Which Church Father Are You?

Dr. Haykin completed this quiz and discovered that he is actually Melito of Sardis.  Complete the quiz to see which Early Church Father you are.  Post your result in the comment session.

You’re St. Melito of Sardis!

You have a great love of history and liturgy. You’re attached to the traditions of the ancients, yet you recognize that the old world — great as it was — is passing away. You are loyal to the customs of your family, though you do not hesitate to call family members to account for their sins.

Find out which Church Father you are at The Way of the Fathers!
Posted by Steve Weaver, Research and Administrative Assistant to the Director of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies, Dr. Michael A.G. Haykin.

Reviewing Chris Hedges and citing Cotton Mather

I picked up a copy of the National Post this past Saturday. I used to get it regularly a few years ago, but had stopped that regular subscription out of frustration with certain things, in particular the book review section. A friend encouraged me to pick it up again. I did so on Saturday and loved what I found. Among other things I read with interest were the insightful columns reflecting on the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama, Conrad Black's response to critics of his becoming a Roman Catholic (my friend John Clubine was mentioned by name and a particular book on Cromwell, dear to me, referred to), and a number of fascinating book reviews.

One of the latter that caught my attention was Jessica Warner's review of Chris Hedges' Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and Triumph of Spectacle (Knopf, 2009), of which I have read the first few chapters and skimmed other parts of it ["Rage against the obscene", National Post (Saturday, October 10, 2009), WP14]. She is critical of Hedges' style, namely, his jeremiad against popular American culture, and suggests that this is not "really the best way to pull us back from the brink." She then comments:

"Most people, I suspect, prefer their finger-wagging decently cloaked in wit and irony. There is a reason Voltaire and Swift continue to be read--and why Cotton Mather is not."

Poor Cotton Mather! But another reason could be that Mather's jeremiad prose is laced with theological perspectives at odds with many today, whereas Voltaire definitely and to some degree Swift would be very much at home in certain aspects of this post-Enlightenment world that is grounded in the modernity project.

A good review, though, of Hedges' book.

Warfield and Barth again: responding to a criticism

My recent comparison of Warfield and Barth was commented on at the blog, "After Existentialism, Light." Kevin Davis stated my failure to appreciate Barth was because myself, and others like me, "have not had the proper training and sympathetic engagement with Barth-Torrance required to grasp this new challenge, an evangelical metaphysics. In part, this also has to do with ecclesial politics. Haykin wants a fundamentalist Calvinism as the confessional norm in the SBC, and he’s afraid of any new E. Y. Mullins arising in the SBC and compromising this goal."

I found these comments somewhat off-target for the following reasons:

I did my PhD at Toronto School of Theology, studying under the Barthian scholar Jacob Jocz, who was a tremendous scholar. I read deeply in Barth, especially his Trinitarianism for my PhD. And I have continued to read Barth on and off over the years. I am not a Barth scholar, but I feel I do know him and appreciate him. But overall neo-orthodoxy has not lived up to its promise. I should also note that I am very appreciative of one of Barth's colleagues and contemporaries, namely Dietrich Bonhoeffer, whom I have read regularly over the years and deeply appreciate, and whose writings have shaped my thinking in a numer of areas.

Then, to take one example of comparison between Warfield and Barth/Torrance: when the latter read the Fathers, they frequently read them wrongly, out of context and with their own agenda so that the Fathers end up sounding like neo-orthodox before their time. T.F. Torrance's study of grace in the Apostolic Fathers is very one-sided and fails to aprpeciate texts like the Letter to Diognetus, while his reading of Nazianzen (I am thinking of his article on Greg Naz and Calvin on the Trinity) is accepted by few patristic scholars. Warfield, on the other hand, read the Fathers well, partly because of his training as a NT scholar, and devotes monographs to their study. This rich understanding of historical theology informs his systematic study and forms the subsoil out of which he develops a rich overview of the Christian Faith. My problem with Barth and Torrance is that I find I cannot trust them when they are doing patristics, and that makes me suspicious of their interpretation of holy Scripture.

The very best training for a systematic theologian is being a biblical theologian and/or historical theologian!!

Then, there is the statement my remarks have to "do with ecclesial politics. Haykin wants a fundamentalist Calvinism as the confessional norm in the SBC, and he’s afraid of any new E. Y. Mullins arising in the SBC and compromising this goal." Let me set the record straight: I am not a fundamentalist--ask my Fundamentalist friends about my ecclesial convictions and they should clarify that pretty quickly. Secondly, I am a Calvinist and I count it a high privilege to teach at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. But I have not been involved in SBC politics, and my remarks about Warfield were theological remarks, hardly political.

And if promotion of a hegemonic fundamentalist Calvinism in the SBC were my goal, it is very curious that Dr Malcolm Yarnell, a critic of Calvinism, was invited two years running no less to speak at the Andrew Fuller Center's annual conference (this past year he had the prestigious plenary session after the conference banquet).