Andrew Fuller on Baptist Antiquity

The great preponderance of Baptists living between 1609 and 1950 believed that Baptist history began in the first century and was uninterrupted from then to now. The mechanism of that succession was a matter of debate—whether it was something akin to J. R. Graves's theory of church succession or a looser theory of the succession of Baptist thought. But the prevalent modern idea that Baptists sprang from the Reformation either as a brand-new concept in Christian history or as a resumption after a 1500-year hiatus...a miniscule number in the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s believed such a thing. What I find interesting is the way that Baptist status as a small sect fostered their approach to history. In the following quote you'll read how Andrew Fuller easily imagined Baptists enduring the Middle Ages without leaving behind any historical record. Perhaps our denominational size enables our present view of history?

Yours I received & therewith Mosheim’s 2nd vol. For wh. I thank you. I have found strange feelings in reading the 1st. I have been used to read in the Old Testament numerous Promises & Prophecies of the Glory of the New Testament state. When I took Mosheim in hand I expected to find the history answer the Prophesy—But alas, I found after the first century little else but cartloads of vain traditions, Persecuting Heretics to death, Broils & Contests about Ch. Preferments, in short comprising every evil work! I sat down quite dismayed till one thought relieved me. It was this. Suppose an historian was to write a History of the state of the Church here in England in the 18th Cent. What would he write? Why, if he was popular and in high place (without wh. his history would not reach many centuries forward) he would tell us who filled the Archbishoprics of York & Canterbury, & who the Bishoprics of . . . . . . . The various veerings about for Ch. Power, the sects of the age &c &c. However we could say Blessed be God pure & undefiled, Religion has been upheld tho’ by an obscure people independent of these Church crawlers. So thought I, doubtless Pure Religion in every period has been carried tho’ perhaps by a people so obscure as seemed unworthy the notice of Ancient Historians, from whom we know the Moderns must derive all their materials. -To John Sutcliffe, Olney, England, from Andrew Fuller, Soham, England, 28 January 1781.

A Tale of Two Cities

Fort Worth

According to an article in the Dallas Morning News (here), Pastor Dwight McKissic and the other trustees of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary have reached a working agreement that will forestall McKissic's removal in June. I believe that Dwight McKissic is a godly man. I am delighted to see what appears to be reconciliation. Apparently the détente reached is one that respects the trustee process and the need to move forward past controversial decisions. Peace-loving Southern Baptists can rejoice. Southern Baptist Texan Editor Gary Ledbetter (see here) apparently has received his miracle. Although I do not doubt that many have worked toward reconciliation, I particularly want to highlight what I believe to be the peace-loving, gentle spirit of Pastor McKissic and place credit for this reconciliation there. I criticized what I believed to be intemperate remarks by Pastor McKissic, but these remarks made in moments of tremendous stress do not reflect the nature of the man. I doubt that he has compromised any of his firmly held beliefs, but he has demonstrated a cooperative willingness to move forward. Kudos to him.

Richmond

Dare we hope to see something similar develop in the board of trustees that govern the agency headquartered here? Perhaps Pastor McKissic can give counsel that would help in that other venue.

John Gill and Duty-Faith: Clarifying a Prominent Quote

Baptist historians have been hard at work over the past several years trying to ferret out the precise relationship between John Gill and hyper-Calvinism in eighteenth-century Baptist life. This article addresses that question. Thus, it is incumbent upon me to offer the following disclaimers:

1. This is not an attack upon Calvinism; it is a discussion about hyper-Calvinism.
2. In the spirit of full disclosure, I disclose that am not a Calvinist (do not adhere to the five points of Dort), although neither am I an Arminian.
3. I think that the number of actual hyper-Calvinists breathing today is pretty miniscule. I hope that the number of hyper-Sensitive is also small.

The Big Question

Is John Gill the Father of Baptist hyper-Calvinism, or is he merely the Precursor of Baptist hyper-Calvinism? In other words, was John Gill himself a hyper-Calvinist in the same sense that his followers were? I will be the first to admit that I am years away from having plumbed the full depths of John Gill's writings and thought. So far, I believe that Gill was a hyper-Calvinist in his theology, but that his pastoral practice did not reflect the the most lethal effects of hyper-Calvinist thought (i.e. a lack of evangelistic passion and effort). He was, from all I can tell, a good pastor with an evangelistic zeal. The theological question involves such catchprases as eternal justification, duty-faith, the well-meant offer, the modern question, etc. I think that hyper-Calvinism boils down to the question of duty-faith: Is it the duty of all people to believe savingly upon Christ? I believe that it is the duty of all to do so. Those who believe upon Christ are saved. Those who do not believe upon Christ are condemned for that very failure to believe.

He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:18)

Those who reject duty-faith are theologically hyper-Calvinists. I believe that John Gill rejected duty-faith; therefore, I believe that he was a hyper-Calvinist.

The Big Quote

Those who do not believe that John Gill was a hyper-Calvinist have frequently offered as proof the following quote:

Souls sensible to sin and danger, and who are crying out, What shall we do to be saved? you are to observe, and point out Christ the tree to live to them; and say, as some of the cherubs did to one in such circumstances, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, Acts 16:31. Your work is to lead men, under a sense of sin and guilt, to the blood of Christ, shed for many for the remission of sin, and this name you are to preach the forgiveness to them.

Many who employ this quote misunderstand Gill, taking this as an espousal of duty faith ("Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved") and an endorsement of general appeals on behalf of the gospel ("Your work is to lead men...to the blood of Christ")

The Big Clarification

Most biographical treatments of Gill mention Robert Hall's comment. A Dutch pastor and admirer of Gill apparently approached Hall and mentioned how much he wished that Gill's writings had been written in Dutch. "So do I," replied Hall according to the story, "for then I should not have read them. They are a continent of mud." The problem is that Gill's commentaries and theologies are written neither in English nor in Dutch. They are written in Gill. Gill is a quaint dialect of Theologian. Theologian is not a dead language, but some of its more nefarious dialects can be lethal. In other words, the discipline of theology includes some "inside language." Likewise, each particular theologian develops his own key phrases that may reflect a specific aspect of his thought and acquire an idiosyncratic meaning for him. Thus, one might clarify, "Beauty for von Balthazar means...," or "By apokatastasis panton Origen usually signifies..." Likewise, Gill has a special use for the idea of "sensible sinners." People become sensible of sin, spiritual danger, Hell, etc., through the action of special grace imparted by the Holy Spirit solely to the elect. Look again at the Gill quote:

Souls sensible to sin and danger, and who are crying out, What shall we do to be saved? you are to observe, and point out Christ the tree to live to them; and say, as some of the cherubs did to one in such circumstances, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, Acts 16:31. Your work is to lead men, under a sense of sin and guilt, to the blood of Christ, shed for many for the remission of sin, and this name you are to preach the forgiveness to them.

Gill inserts the idea of sensibility toward sin and guilt and spiritual danger as restrictive adjectival and prepositional phrases telling which souls and which men in particular merit this kind of treatment. In this quote Gill does not endorse duty-faith; he only asserts that it is the duty of the elect to have faith. He does not endorse universal appeals; he only asserts the obligation to appeal to the elect. Gill's position on duty-faith appears clearly in Body of Practical Divinity, 1:535. He did not believe that saving faith was a duty.

Ben Cole National Anthem

You'll need to look at Bro. Ben's latest (and know something about what he's been up to this year) to get the joke.

A Season of Opportunity for Conservative Democrats?

From what little I know about politics, now seems to me an ideal time for moral conservatives remaining within the Democrat Party to press their social conservative agenda.

1. The recent Democrat legislative victories included the election of putative pro-life Democrats. Social conservatives can argue with a straight face that they have given their party the keys to the kingdom.
2. The Republican Party could possibly be on the self-destructive path toward nominating a pro-abortion candidate. Even though Democrats have no hope of putting forward a legitimate pro-life nominee, if conservatives could nudge the Democrat Party rightward on social issues, they might conceivably woo back into the fold a sizable number of Southern ex-Democrats who have grown frustrated with the GOP.
3. The black and hispanic demographics are palpably pro-life and anti-gay-activism. Without them, Democrats cannot win—even this election cycle. Blacks and hispanics have an opportunity in this election cycle to flex their political muscle and demand concessions from the white, liberal, academic coalition that has dominated Democrat platform determinations since the 1970s. NARAL simply lacks the public support to put anyone into the White House.

What concessions might social conservatives demand from the Democrat Party? A pro-life plank in the party platform is probably an overreach, especially since none of the presidential candidates would support such a move. But they might be able to secure a neutral plank on the platform, similar to that endorsed by Democrats for Life of America. And I think there is a realistic hope that the Democrat platform might be altered to affirm marriage as consisting exclusively of the union of a man and a woman. After all, Howard Dean already misstated the platform in just such language to a group of evangelicals (see here), and even John Kerry has questioned the wisdom of supporting gay marriage in Democrat platforms (see here). I'm a Republican, and I don't see that changing any time soon. But social conservative issues are too important for social conservatives to put all of their eggs into the GOP basket. The nation only benefits if godly people are willing to push for the advancement of social conservative issues in every political party. The question is: Do enough social conservative leaders remain within the Democrat Party to make this kind of change, or did the party succeed in purging nearly all of them in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s to prevent any future renaissance of socially conservative Democrats?

Employment Ethics Redux

The only post that did not survive my blogotastrophy earlier this month was the most recent post (apparently Google had not had enough time to cache that one). So, I ask you all, can you build for me a biblical ethic of employment? Obviously, the topic is relevant to the current Baptist blog discussion. But beyond that, it is a topic that is relevant to virtually every member of your church. It is highly likely to be relevant to yourself. What does the Bible say? Here are some biblical topics that I think could be relevant:

1. Stewardship
2. An obligation to pay promised wages (James 5:1-6, esp. 4)
3. Obligations of masters toward slaves and slaves toward masters (Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:22-4:1; 1 Timothy 6:1-2)
4. The parable of the laborers in the vineyard? (Matthew 20:1-16)
5. Work-related passages in the Proverbs and elsewhere (like 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15)

Using this list, plus whatever other material you could contribute, can you devise a biblical ethic of employment? It would need to be one that could cover both the situation of the rich employing the poor and the poor employing the rich (e.g., Ted Kennedy working for the rest of us in the United States Senate). I'll offer a few observations that hint toward my position:

1. Although I see no proscription in the Bible against the idea of collective bargaining, certainly there is no prescription for it, either. The moral standard offered in Jesus' parable in Matthew 20 (and I think that the morality of the employer is precisely the point of the parable) is that the employer lived up to the terms of his individual negotiations with each laborer. There is nothing inherently unfair about letting each employee negotiate for himself, even if the comparative result appears inequitable.
2. The most prominent employment-related rule in the scripture requires that employers pay agreed-upon wages for work performed.
3. Rights to vacation time, sick days, 401-K retirement matching, universal health care, seniority, tenure, early retirement, overtime pay, etc., are not biblical concepts. They are fine to the degree that they are the fruit of negotiation between employer and employee, but an employer's above-board refusal to provide such things is in no way immoral.
4. An employer's first obligation is as a steward of the institution. It is better to fire one employee for the betterment of the institution than by laxity in firing to run the institution into the ground and endanger the jobs of all the institution's employees.
5. It follows from the preceding principle that some sense of non-discriminatory hiring is incumbent upon employers. The employer who foregoes the hiring of a superior employee simply because of race, religion, etc., places the institution at a comparative disadvantage to the institution that does hire the superior employee. This is poor stewardship of the institution. Of course, this assumes that the attribute by which one discriminates does not affect aptitude for the job. An audio post-production facility might very well want to hire a blind person; American Airlines's pilot recruiters probably should not. Religious conviction ought to be a factor in most of our denominational hires. The Bible makes gender a relevant factor in at least some ministry-related considerations. But for a church to discriminate against a potential pastor because he is, for example, older than 50 is a foolish decision.
6. To summarize for those of us in the employee pool: Nobody has a Christian obligation to provide a job for you. Nobody has a Christian obligation to allow you to continue in your present job. Nobody has a Christian obligation to make certain that your remuneration in your job is at equity with that of other people with the same or similar jobs. To the degree that you can demonstrate that you add superior overall value to an institution, the employer has the obligation to the owners of the institution to hire you if he can.

Mission Trip

A year and a half after Hurricane Rita roared through, the people of Port Arthur, TX, are still recovering. I'll be trying to help in my pitiful little way this week. It turns out that blogging and Baptist History instruction are not high upon their list of needs, so I'll probably be working with hammer and crowbar. Me with tools...guess how that usually turns out!