Book Review: First Freedom

Jason Duesing, Thomas White, and Malcolm Yarnell III have compiled a series of essays from various contributors that collectively offer the reader an introductory and yet wide-ranging look at the subject of religious liberty. They have done a commendable job, and the result is a helpful introduction (even if disjointed in some places).

Jason G. Duesing, Thomas White, and Malcolm B. Yarnell III, eds., First Freedom: The Beginning and End of Religious Liberty, Second (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016).

Introduction

Jason Duesing, Thomas White, and Malcolm Yarnell III have compiled a series of essays from various contributors that collectively offer the reader an introductory and yet wide-ranging look at the subject of religious liberty. This volume is the second edition, published in 2016 (the first was published in 2007), and the opening acknowledgements celebrate the collaborative efforts of “three seminaries, one university, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission [of the Southern Baptist Convention], and a Baptist publishing house.”^{^[1]} Each author offers his particular expertise to “provide an introductory look at the biblical and historical beginnings of religious liberty” as well as some descriptions of “its contemporary expression and defense.”^[2] Throughout this volume there is also an emphasis on the historical “price that was paid” by “Baptist brothers and sisters” in the past “for the establishment and defense of religious liberty.”^[3]

The book is divided into three successive sections – a historical section, a pedagogical one, and a final one that promotes activity and strategies for the reader. Of course, there is an overlap of the subject matter and methodologies in each distinct section, and each chapter is written as an essay that may stand alone, but the editors have aimed at these categories for readability and logical progression. One of the weaknesses of a book like this, however – one that compiles essays from various authors – is that it is difficult to provide the reader with a consistent and coherent argument throughout the book. Duesing, White, and Yarnell have done a commendable job, and the result is a helpful introduction (even if disjointed in some places) to the concept of religious liberty from a Baptist perspective.

Book Summary

Part One

Part one of this volume offers a brief look at some versions of religious liberty as they appear in history. Both Paige Patterson (then president and professor of theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) and Thomas White (president and professor of systematic theology at Cedarville University) highlighted the historic Anabaptist emphasis on a form of religious liberty that certainly was echoed among English and American Baptists. These two authors did not address whether there is a genuine historical connection between Swiss and German Anabaptists and later Baptists in England and America, but they did make note of the common Anabaptist theme of religious liberty. Patterson and White seem to imply that there is a strong theological and philosophical connection (and maybe even a historical one?) between Anabaptists and Baptists on the doctrine of religious liberty, and this deserves to be addressed more clearly than what we are offered in these chapters devoted to providing the historical background. And yet, while this historical ground is contentious and shaky, the point remains that Anabaptists were chronologically the forerunners of later religious liberty proponents.

In the third chapter, suppling yet more historical background, Malcolm Yarnell (then professor of systematic theology, directory of the Oxford study program, director of the Center for Theological Research, and chair of the systematic theology department at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) claimed that there are two traditions of early American political theology. The “major tradition” he called the “Virginia tradition,” and the “minor tradition” he called the “South Carolina tradition.”^[4] Both are prominent streams of Baptist thought and argumentation, so Yarnell himself admited that the “minor” and “major” labels are not to so easy to assign. And yet there does seem to be a clearly recognizable difference between the Virginia and the South Carolina traditions.

Yarnell said the Virginia tradition is “identified with the rhetoric of John Leland, the agitation of the Danbury Baptist Association, and the subsequent separation doctrine in the federal judiciary.”^[5] Roger Williams, Thomas Jefferson, and Hugo Black (though Jefferson and Black were not Baptists) all played their part in establishing and perpetuating the Virginia tradition of religious liberty, which is marked by an “emphasis on human and the separation of church and state.”^[6] William Screven, Oliver Hart, and Richard Furman (as well as other contemporaries and theological descendants of these men) played their part in promoting and institutionalizing the South Carolina tradition of religious liberty, which is perceived through the “lenses” of “divine Providence, human constitutionality, and social orderliness.”^[7]In the end, Yarnell, White, and Patterson all urged the reader to strive for a better imperfect system until the perfect comes at the arrival of King Jesus.

Part Two

Part two of this book is intended to be pedagogical. Three more authors seem focused on giving the reader a definition, an explanation, and a strategy to engage the world around with the doctrine of religious liberty. This section is important for obvious reasons, one might even say that it ought to be the core contribution of such a book, but it is quite disappointing in its delivery. Barrett Duke (then vice president for public policy and research at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention) contributed the least helpful and most digressive chapter of this book. The title suggests that Duke will offer a definition of religious liberty (The Christian Doctrine of Religious Liberty), but he did not.^[8] What he advanced instead was an entirely new set of arguments (i.e., natural law, social, and theological) that are separated from the historical background we were given in the first three chapters. Even the theological arguments Duke presented are disconnected from the ones that were forwarded by historic Baptists (i.e., two kingdoms, jurisdictions of the church and state, etc.), and the reader is left wondering what doctrine of religious liberty Duke was arguing for.

The closest Duke came to providing a definition in his chapter was a list of “three useful categories of religious freedom,” which he borrowed from Philip Wogaman.^[9] These are (1) “absolute religious liberty” or “the internal freedom to believe and worship as one pleases,” (2) “qualified absolute religious liberty” or “the freedom to profess or to express one’s faith verbally,” and (3) “qualified religious liberty” or “the freedom to act in accordance with one’s religious insights and values.”^[10] But even here, Duke did not make it clear which (if any) of these he believed to be definitional of religious liberty, and he implied that any of the three might be warranted in various circumstances.^[11] In conclusion to Duke’s chapter, he simply cited Article XVII of the Baptist Faith and Message (on Religious Liberty) without explanation or comment. This article certainly is a definition of religious liberty, but Duke did not serve the reader well by neglecting to articulate how the article connects to the rest of his chapter, what the article means in practice, or why it is part of the confession of faith for Southern Baptists.

Evan Lenow (then assistant professor of ethics, Bobby L. and Janis Eklund Chair of Stewardship, director of the Richard Land Center for Cultural Engagement, director of the Center for Biblical Stewardship, and chair of the ethics department of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) contributed the second of these core chapters, and his is slightly better than Duke’s. Lenow took up his pen to explain why religious liberty is a means to an end. It is the freedom of believing citizens to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ without fear of state-sanctioned or state-allowed reprisals. Churches and their numerous members, and not the state or its citizens, are responsible to evangelize the world. And religious liberty provides a free platform from which to carry out this function. Lenow did, in fact, assert and defend this perspective, even though he did make a couple of minor historical errors.^[12]

Like Patterson and White (in Part One), Lenow also strongly implied that the Baptists in America during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were directly influenced by the Anabaptists in sixteenth-century Europe. And what is more, Lenow presented a truncated selection of Baptist representatives from America – the first two perceived even by their contemporaries as idiosyncratic outliers among Baptists in America – Roger Williams, John Leland, and Edgar Mullins. There is no doubt that all three of these men have had a significant impact on the Baptist views of religious liberty, but they are hardly the only influential voices on the subject, and they all represent what Yarnell called the “Virginia tradition” of Baptists in his earlier chapter. The “South Carolina tradition” is absent in Lenow’s historical summary, and this is the sort of disjointedness that seems almost inevitable in a volume with multiple contributors with varying perspectives of their own.

The third chapter of this middle section was authored by Andrew Walker (then director of policy studies for the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention), and his contribution is far better in both substance and form than the other two. Walker’s chapter is also lacking an explicit definition of religious liberty, though one assumes that Walker ought to have been able to depend upon Duke to provide such a thing in his own chapter. But the reader can piece together a functional definition from what Walker asserts near the end of his chapter. He says religious liberty is “like a lineman who clears the way for a running back,” it is “a small state and a large church,” and a kind of religious “pluralism.”^[13] With greater clarity, Walker says, “religion and politics must inexorably relate to one another. The exercise of religion requires nothing more and nothing less than a legal order that does not co-opt religion for state purposes nor impede the church’s mission.”^[14] Such a description of various features of religious liberty does indeed provide a functional definition.

Walker’s chapter is most concerned, however, not with defining religious liberty, but with exploring the relationship between religious liberty and the public square. For this purpose, Walker did provide a definition of the public square: “a matrix and amalgamation of cultural forces that provide a horizon of meaning for public life… In short, the public square is a function of our shared interaction within the institutions of culture.”^[15] And our shared interaction within the institutions of our present culture is changing dramatically, says Walker. Two specific features of the moral revolution that has taken place are (1) the “clash of orthodoxies” between the LGBTQ+ advocates and traditional Christians and (2) the presumption on the part of non-religious people in American culture that religious adherents have bad or nefarious motives for clinging to their ethical standards.^[16]

Walker provided arguments for a paradigm shift, for the adoption of various strategies, and for a comprehensive proposal. The paradigm shift he urged the reader to embrace is to view “religious liberty as hospitality and… as accommodation.”^[17] The sort of accommodation Walker promoted is one of religious pluralism, where all citizens seek understanding and give respect to those with whom they may disagree. The strategies Walker presented generally call for a return to the “ethos and intellectual milieu that birthed American principles, namely, natural rights.”^[18] Ultimately, the rights of citizens will be grounded in something that transcends government, or they will merely be decided and distributed by government itself. Walker claimed that the natural rights argument is a common-ground approach for Christians to contend for pre-political rights that are endowed by our Creator. And, finally, Walker’s proposal is an invitation (even an urging) for some Christians to commit themselves to political and public engagement for the sake of gospel and ecclesiastical advancement in American culture. Like missionary sponsors in the nineteenth century, public advocates today can “hold the ropes for those who labor to plant churches, evangelize, and equip the body of Christ.”^[19]

Andrew Walker’s chapter serves as a foundation and a pivot point for this book. As I mentioned earlier, Duke and Lenow contributed chapters that should have offered more substance, but they largely failed to provide anything significant or unique in their chapters or to meaningfully develop the theme of religious liberty in a cohesive way with the rest of the authors. Walker, on the other hand, did some of their work for them as well as his own. And his own work was to urge the reader to public engagement of some sort, even if only as an understanding and hospitable neighbor. Though Walker certainly hoped for more from some of his readers.

Part Three

The remaining section (Part three) and its four chapters provide the reader with a summary of several challenges to religious liberty, which have only become more apparent since the publication of this book. In chapter seven, Russell Moore (then president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention) argued for a gospel and ecclesiastical emphasis in “the Baptist struggle for religious freedom.”^[20] American Evangelicals may indeed vote largely as a block, but they need not primarily think of themselves as a political interest group. The Baptist interest in religious liberty, from the beginning, is centered on the meaning of Christian salvation and the doctrine of the church. Therefore, says Moore, we must maintain a “firm grasp of the gospel,” and we must “protect the centrality of the church.”^[21]

Albert Mohler (president and Joseph Emerson Brown professor of Christian theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) contributed chapter eight, which offers yet more data and commentary on the clash between religious liberty and sexual freedom in American culture. Earlier in the book, Duke only touched this subject and Walker addressed it a bit more thoroughly, but Mohler here advanced his thesis: “we now face an inevitable conflict of liberties,”^[22] and “if we lose religious liberty, all other liberties will be lost, one by one.”^[23] According to Mohler, “Human rights and human dignity are temporary abstractions if they are severed from their reality as gifts of the Creator.”^[24] Thus, the state must recognize a moral standard above itself, or it will become a capricious enforcer of whatever moral regime may wield its authority. Mohler’s chapter did point to the horizon and help the reader see the gathering storm, but he did not offer much in the way of a call to specific action.

Thomas White made a second appearance, in chapter nine, having specific expertise as a Christian university president. His aim was to help the reader “prepare well to understand the coming challenges” and also to meet them with a faithful testimony.^[25] White listed several specific challenges for those connected with institutions of higher education, including the potential loss of tax-exemptions (and various hardships that might precipitate), legal penalties for Title VII and Title IX infractions, and the potential loss of accreditation. White also offered a handful of strategies for meeting these challenges. First, he said that every institution should get their documents in order. Next, he said that faculty and staff ought to be required to affirm those documents, including an explicit statement or confession of faith. Then, White said that universities would do well to lean into their distinctive Christian education, even making a biblical worldview part of the basic curriculum plan. Fourth, White said that schools ought to require chapel and emphasize the importance of spiritual growth and discipleship on campus. And last, he said that universities should require a personal profession of faith from prospective students. These strategies effectively double-down on the distinctly Christian character of Christian education, and White argued that this is the way forward in an increasingly antagonistic environment for religious liberty.

In chapter ten, Travis Wussow (then directory of international justice and religious liberty and general counsel for the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention) explained and argued for a foreign policy effort to promote religious pluralism worldwide, especially in those countries that are Muslim-dominated and often antagonistic to this sort of religious liberty. Wussow acknowledged that international law cannot be enforced in such a way so as to require foreign states to grant their citizens the kind of religious liberty that is enjoyed by citizens of another state. However, he did argue that international law does have influence, and there are economic levers to pull in an effort to promote various foreign policy goals. Wussow did note two specific applications of religious liberty in modern Islamic countries: one, by aiming to remove criminal penalties for “apostasy,” and two, by encouraging Muslims to view religious conversion away from Islam as something other than “apostasy.”^[26] While Wussow pointed to some positive advancements, it seems highly unlikely that either of these applications is likely to gain much ground in the near future.

In the final chapter of this book, Jason Duesing (provost and associate professor of historical theology at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) ended much where he began. He summarized the books aims: “first, to show how Christians have defended religious liberty throughout history;” “second… to present the biblical and rational defense for the practice and protection of religious liberty;” and “third… [to] review the present and future threats to religious liberty.”^[27] Duesing invites the reader to consider the “end goal” of religious liberty by contemplating the humbling sacrifice and the glorious exaltation of the Lord Jesus Christ described in Philippians 2. He said that there is both a warning and a hope, as well as an implied commission to use the time between the sacrificial cross and the judgment throne. Duesing concluded by saying, “Hope. Warning. Good news that Jesus is Lord shared while there still is time even at the risk of one’s security, safety, and rights – all for the glory of God. This is the true end of religious liberty.”^[28]

Conclusion

Like all books with various contributing authors, some are better contributors than others, and some parts are of greater value than the whole. This short introduction to the topic of religious liberty is also hindered by its cultural and political moment. The challenges to religious liberty (which comprise a good portion of the substance and interaction of this book) are somewhat dated after nearly ten years. In some ways, the challenges articulated have become greater and more clearly defined with time, but the challenges themselves and the proposed strategies to meet them are inevitably limited to the priorities and structures of the moment in which they were written.

No doubt, some of the proposals and truth-claims in this book are timeless, and these shall be applicable to any audience. Because this is true, and because this book does provide some good historical background for the concept of religious liberty among the Baptists, it seems that the reader may benefit from reading it. There are better books and other resources that will give readers a more comprehensive, consistent, and historically conversant exposure to religious liberty, but First Freedom can certainly be a decent introduction. It is easy to read, it has several quality chapters, and it is a hope-filled and thoughtful call for Christians to live today as ambassadors for Christ while King Jesus is still receiving new converts into His kingdom. One day religious liberty will be no more, but until then, let us seek its true end.

Marc Minter is husband to Cassie and father to Micah and Malachi. He is also the Senior Pastor of First Baptist Church of Diana, TX. Website: fbcdiana.org. Email: marc@fbcdiana.org.

^[1] Jason G. Duesing, Thomas White, and Malcolm B. Yarnell III, eds., First Freedom: The Beginning and End of Religious Liberty, Second (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016). xi.

^[2] First Freedom, 7.

^[3] First Freedom, 7.

^[4] First Freedom, 51.

^[5] First Freedom, 51.

^[6] First Freedom, 79.

^[7] First Freedom, 78.

^[8] In his introduction, Jason Duesing says that Duke provides “several definitions of religious liberty, including the entire article from the Baptist Faith and Message 2000” (First Freedom, 6). However, I am unable to find even a single definition of religious liberty in Duke’s chapter, other than the article from the Baptist Faith and Message that is tacked onto the end. And one wonders why Duke offered nearly no comment on the article from the BF&M. It is merely appended as something of an afterthought.

^[9] First Freedom, 107.

^[10] First Freedom, 107.

^[11] Duke said that “government must step in to protect its citizens” when “some people… abuse any liberty” (First Freedom, 107). But Duke did not explain what sort of religious liberty he wanted to promote or what sort of qualifications he would like to have marking off the parameters of religious liberty.

^[12] One example of a historical error is Lenow’s assertion that Christianity “became the official religion of the [Roman] empire under Constantine” (First Freedom, 112). Of course, Constantine did issue the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, but this was an edict of toleration and legalization, not conscription. It was Theodosius the Great who issued the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 AD which did officially mandate Nicene Christianity as the state religion.

^[13] First Freedom, 154-155.

^[14] First Freedom, 152.

^[15] First Freedom, 128-129.

^[16] First Freedom, 129.

^[17] First Freedom, 145.

^[18] First Freedom, 146.

^[19] First Freedom, 155.

^[20] First Freedom, 160.

^[21] First Freedom, 165.

^[22] First Freedom, 174.

^[23] First Freedom, 170.

^[24] First Freedom, 170.

^[25] First Freedom, 182.

^[26] First Freedom, 240-241.

^[27] First Freedom, 249.

^[28] First Freedom, 257.

Book Review: The Writings of John Leland

John Leland, The Writings of John Leland, ed. L. F. Greene, Religion in America (New York, NY: Arno Press, 1969).

Introduction

John Leland (May 14, 1754 – January 14, 1841) was a bigger-than-life character, the sort that seems crafted for an enthralling biography. This book is not a biography, but a compilation of more than one hundred writings from the pen of John Leland – everything from political speeches to private letters, and autobiography to personal proverbs. John Leland was a Baptist preacher, a political activist, and a one-of-a-kind American; and L. F. Greene has provided the reader with first-hand exposure to Leland’s own thoughts in the man’s own words. This is the kind of book that historians want within reach while reading the fascinating biography, so that they might chase down footnotes and have more access to the subject at hand.

The Writings of John Leland was originally published in 1845 by G. W. Wood and reprinted by Arno Press in 1969 (access a PDF version online HERE). L. F. Greene was the original editor and compiler of these writings, and I was unable to find much information at all about Greene. The editor says in the preface that the suggestion to produce such a work initially came from “the Leland family,” but there is not much to learn about the editor. Greene’s humility is obvious in the repeated statements of “inadequacy,” insufficient time, and hope that an “abler hand” might accomplish the task instead.^[1] It does seem that Greene was not the best person for the job of publishing this kind of work (as I shall address below in my critique), but generations of readers and historians are grateful for the effort.^[2]

Book Summary

Leland’s writings are eclectic, but they can be generally categorized under several headings: (1) biography, (2) public arguments, (3) sermons and speeches, (4) letters, and (5) philosophical musing.

Biography

The first writing of the book is “Events in the Life of John Leland,” which is a fast-moving autobiography of Leland’s entire life.^[3] This opening chapter is exemplary of the way in which Leland tells stories of his life and experiences, and the reader is introduced to quite a lot of information in this first essay. Leland tells of his coerced baptism as a young child in the late 1750s. He recounts his pietistic and mystical conversion to Christianity as well as his punctilious baptism as a New Light convert of the First Great Awakening, both in in June of 1774. Leland’s internal call to preaching ministry had been percolating in his mind for some time, but on the Sunday following his baptism, he believed that call was miraculously confirmed. Leland tells little of his marriage to Sally Devine in September of 1776 and much of his itinerate preaching escapades, including a meticulous reporting of baptisms performed (1,515 by Leland’s own count on October 30, 1831).^[4] Such is the content of most of Leland’s biographical writings.

It is interesting to note here that Leland does not include very much of his experiences as pastor of the Third Baptist Church of Cheshire, Massachusetts, either in this opening narrative or in the other biographical writings within. Leland was the official pastor of this church (on-and-off) for about forty years, but he largely used the church and town as something of a home base for his itinerate ministry. In fact, one of the main examples of Leland’s bizarre individualism (even strange for a Baptist in the early nineteenth century!) is his unwillingness for more than a decade to fulfill his pastoral duty of administering the Lord’s Supper among the Cheshire church.

Public Arguments

Leland’s public arguments often came in the form of newspaper articles, and these epitomized his efforts to influence public opinion on a number of issues, including religious liberty, political policy, and chattel slavery. One article published in the Virginia Chronicle in 1790 exemplifies all three. Leland offers a brief history of Virginia as an English chartered state that became a state of the American republic. He explains a little of the various religious sects that populated the region and their development and distinctions over time, arguing for civil policy that would allow freedom of religious expression among the inhabitants. Leland believed that “Civil government is certainly a curse to mankind; but it is a necessary curse, in this fallen state, to prevent greater evils.”^[5] And Leland argued that the civil government and the church must necessarily be disentangled from one another, so that each could pursue its God-ordained ends. He wrote, “No national church, can, in its organization, be the Gospel Church.”^[6]

And yet, Leland was not interested in a society that was free from moral constraint, and his advocacy for the liberation of African slaves is a strong example. While Leland was less clear in his solution for the “evil” of slavery in his later years, he was perfectly clear in 1790. Leland wrote, “The whole scene of slavery is pregnant with enormous evils… If these… attend it, why not liberate them at once? Would to Heaven this were done! The sweets of rural and social life will never by well enjoyed, until it is the case.”^[7] Regrettably, Leland was unusual among his Baptist peers in early America in such a direct and public assault on an obvious evil.

Sermons and Speeches

Leland did not manuscript his sermons, and what content we do have of them seems to indicate that he preached a mixture of revivalism and patriotism. Occasionally a listener would transcribe them or summarize them. Leland most often preached as a revivalist itinerate, but he was also a sought-after preacher for special occasions. One such sermon was preached at the ordination of Reverend Luman Birch in 1806. Herein we may learn something of Leland’s view regarding the minister’s “call” or sense of divine appointment to the ministry of preaching.

Leland listed six descriptors of the way in which ministers are “called” to their role. First, the “call to the ministry does not depend upon the brilliancy of natural talents.”^[8] God Himself furnishes the man for the task to which he is called. Second, it does not “depend upon the acquisition of schools.”^[9] The Holy Spirit must enlighten the preacher’s mind, and no amount of education would sufficiently prepare him. Third, the call to ministry is not the same as “a gracious call out of darkness into the marvelous light of the gospel.”^[10] All saints or Christians are called in this way, but ministers receive an additional and distinct call. Fourth, “it is not subservient to the will or choice of men.”^[11] What God calls a man to do cannot be thwarted by the obstinance of mere mortals who may not recognize it. Fifth, “it is not miraculous.”^[12] The call to preaching ministry does not have to be accompanied by signs and wonders. And sixth, “the call is by special mission.”^[13] By this Leland asserted that preachers are those who have received a special gifting from Christ, namely “the furniture of mind” and “a constraint to improve.”^[14]

It is not hard to hear Leland making an argument here for his own ministry calling as well as his general view of what it means to be “called” as a minister more generally. He certainly embodied these descriptors in his own life and ministry.

Letters

Leland wrote various letters to politicians, to Baptist associations and churches, and to private parties. In 1836, Leland wrote to the Honorable George Nixon Briggs, a Massachusetts senator at that time and the Governor of Massachusetts from 1844-1851. While Leland began with some statements of apparent humility, he did not hesitate to instruct the senator that his particular committee had “grown to a giant” that “abused” its civil power.^[15]

Leland used the medium of a circular letter of the Shaftsbury Association in 1793 to urge Baptists to embrace the Bible as “the only confession of faith they dare adopt” and to resist any use of “pope or king” to coerce unity of beliefs or practice.^[16] In this letter, Leland outlined his argument that the Bible is the “guide” and “sure word of prophecy” to “direct [the] course” of Christians in the world.^[17] In summary, he asserted that the Bible has stood the test of time, it has “weight in the argument,” it is harmonious in its teaching, it is attested by fulfilled prophecy, it is “sublime” in its “style,” it produces “wonderful effects” in those that read and heed it, it has adherents who have been willing to endure “patient sufferings” to obey it, it has remained in the face of terrible “attempts to destroy” it, it presents a better ethic than any other in the world, it reflects the character of God Himself, judgments have fallen upon those who have “destroyed these writings,” and God has preserved those who have aimed to keep the words of it in their lives.^[18] Whatever we might say of Leland’s hermeneutic or his consistency with Scripture, we read in his words a proclamation of a high view of Scripture itself.

Philosophical Musings

Like many Baptists of his day, Leland was not formally educated as a theologian. However, his mind was active, and his thought was both rational and contemplative. Some of the most interesting writings from Leland’s pen are recorded at the end of this volume in a chapter entitled “Short and Unconnected Sentences.”^[19] These include speculative philosophical ideas, personal development principles, and biblical thought experiments (just to name a few).

Critique

This volume is the sort that historians love. It provides a one-stop-shop for primary source documents on a key figure in Baptist and American history. But this particular compilation of writings has a major flaw – it offers almost no historical or narrative context for the documents contained within. L. F. Greene give dates and titles for most of the documents, but there is no explanation for the occasion, the likely motives, or the context from which Leland likely wrote these various texts. Because of this lack, historians are prone to feel some frustration with it as well. It is probably beneficial to read Eric Smith’s biography of Leland (John Leland: A Jeffersonian Baptist in Early America) before picking up this volume so that the reader might gain some insight to these details that would otherwise be missing.

Conclusion

There is no substitute for primary source documents. This volume offers the reader a direct perspective of John Leland in his own words. His thought, activism, preaching, and public rhetoric was a major influence on the societal, political, and religious developments on the early American landscape. The reader will benefit greatly from having access to these writings. But the reader will find even greater benefit from reading this volume in light of other works that may provide the necessary context for understanding the significance of the writings here.

^[1] John Leland, The Writings of John Leland, ed. L. F. Greene, Religion in America (New York, NY: Arno Press, 1969). 3.

^[2] Dr. Eric Smith is an historian and John Leland biographer, and he believes that “L. F. Greene” is Louise Greene (Leland’s granddaughter). I have confirmed that one of Leland’s daughters (Fanny) did marry James Greene, the son-in-law who took in the aging widower after Leland’s wife died in 1837 (Leland, 45). It is possible that James and Fanny Greene (also sometimes spelled “Green”) did have a daughter named Louise, and it is indeed possible that she is L. F. Greene. James A. Patterson cites “Louise F. Greene” as the editor of Writings of the Late Elder John Leland in his biography of James Robinson Graves, published in 2012. Smith does the same in his biography of John Leland, published in 2022.

^[3] Leland, 9.

^[4] Leland, 38.

^[5] Leland, 103.

^[6] Leland 107.

^[7] Leland, 96-97.

^[8] Leland, 311.

^[9] Leland, 311.

^[10] Leland, 311.

^[11] Leland, 311.

^[12] Leland, 312.

^[13] Leland, 312.

^[14] Leland, 312.

^[15] Leland, 676.

^[16] Leland, 196.

^[17] Leland, 196.

^[18] Leland, 196-199.

^[19] Leland, 723.

Book Review: Separation of Church and State

Philip Hamburger, Separation of Church and State, First Harvard University Press paperback (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004).

Introduction

Philip Hamburger is a graduate of Princeton University (1979) and Yale Law School (1982). He is the Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, and he is the Chief Executive Officer of the New Civil Liberties Alliance. He has written several books over the last two decades, but this one (Separation of Church and State, originally published in 2002) is something of a bombshell on the field of conventional wisdom regarding the concept of separation between church and state. Hamburger not only diverges from the typical interpretation of church-state separation, but he also provides a great deal of evidence that the concept itself has transformed quite significantly over time and that the present application of it is nearly the opposite of its original intention.

On one of the opening pages, Hamburger cites three statements that form the pathway of perspectival development on this thoroughly American idea. The first is from the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The second is from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association – “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” And the third is from the Supreme Court judgment, written by Justice Hugo Black, in the case of Everson v. Board of Education – “In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’” Thus, Justice Hugo Black established a judicial (as well as social and political) precedent by interpreting the First Amendment through the prism of Thomas Jefferson’s pen, which Hamburger argues was a tool for atypical political and religious ideas in the early nineteenth century (and far more so in the eighteenth century) and intentionally innovative.

Book Summary

Hamburger provides a thesis statement in his introduction. He writes, “this book attempts to understand how Americans came to interpret the First Amendment in terms of separation of church and state, and through this inquiry it traces how Americans eventually transformed their religious liberty.”^[1] In summary, Hamburger argues that it is “misleading to understand either eighteenth-century religious liberty or the First Amendment in terms of separation of church and state.”^[2] Rather the sort of liberty sought by many of America’s founders and the various religious dissenters who argued for it was defined by a limitation upon governmental institutions and not religious ones. Specifically, Americans (including both religious and non-religious) wanted the freedom to believe and behave according to various religious traditions without civil penalty. The dominant religious worldview of eighteenth-century America was Protestant Christianity, and religious liberty was comprehended from this perspective. Thus, dissenters and non-religious Americans generally maintained that atheists, Roman Catholics, and Muslims were prohibited from participating in civil institutions. However, it was the civil institutions themselves that ought to be prohibited from exercising authority in Protestant ecclesiastical affairs.

Hamburger organized this book in four main parts, each focusing on theoretical and practical developments in the concept of religious liberty, which correspond to a basic chronological structure. Part I provides the eighteenth-century context for the religious liberty debate. Hamburger demonstrates that it was not the dissenters who argued for separation, but their establishment opponents who slandered them by making the accusation that separation was the real goal. In fact, dissenters not only denied the accusation, but many of them expressed a willingness to maintain a genuine connection between church and state.

In Part II, Hamburger explains how the Democratic Republicans (the opposing party to the Federalists) in the early nineteenth century shifted the entire religious liberty debate. Thomas Jefferson’s presidential bid was hotly contested by the Federalists, and many establishment preachers made public their opposition to Jefferson’s candidacy. Jefferson was not himself a religious man, and so his lack of ecclesiastical adherence was a major target of the Federalists. In an effort to reduce the heat of these attacks, Republicans argued for the removal of religion from politics. Thus, politics became a form of religion, and America’s perspective of religious liberty was pushed in the direction of separation. It is also important to note here that Hamburger provided evidence that Baptist dissenters did not embrace the Jeffersonian concept of separation any more than the establishmentarian Federalists did at that time.

Hamburger argues, in Part III, that it was really during the mid-nineteenth century that Americans more commonly began to embrace an increasingly radical view of separation. It was then that theological liberals and everyday Americans were animated by a shared public enemy – Roman Catholicism. It was Roman Catholics who then represented the sort of establishmentarianism from which Americans had broken free during the previous century. And Rome was inherently establishmentarian (so the argument went), unlike the various Protestant traditions which generally defined American culture and religion at that time. This anti-Catholic sentiment was coupled with another societal development that made a total separation between religion and politics seem not only possible but necessary. Americans became a society of all sorts of specializations and public-private distinctions. Educators, politicians, lawyers, judges, legislators, merchants, and even consumers all found a great deal of convenience in separating their religious beliefs from their professional work or their participation in the American economy. Some claimed private religious belief, and some felt an obligation to the general societal ethic which was influenced by the traditional religious beliefs of others, but Americans were largely desirous of professional and leisure activities that could be separated from any religious constraints. Thus, anti-Catholic sentiment and American pragmatism made separation seem like an American fundamental.

In Part IV, Hamburger moves to the crux of his argument – the legal establishment of a developed constitutional interpretation of the First Amendment. In the twentieth century what became an American fundamental or principle over the course of about one hundred years was given judicial authority by no less than the Supreme Court of the United States of America. And the interpretive grid that was employed in order to offer historic grounding for such an interpretation was the innovative and thoroughly secularist words of Thomas Jefferson, even though his concept of separation at the beginning of the nineteenth century was neither widely embraced by the public nor a desire of the strongest advocates for religious dissent.

Hamburger concludes, “In the transfiguring light of their fears, Americans saw religious liberty anew, no longer merely as a limitation on government, but also as a means of separating themselves and their government from threatening claims of ecclesiastical authority. Americans thereby gradually forgot the character of their older, antiestablishment religious liberty and eventually came to understand their religious freedom as a separation of church and state.”^[3]

Conclusion

Having read many of the primary sources from eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Baptists (including nearly all of the published writings of Isaac Backus and John Leland), I can say that Hamburger’s argument from the first half of this book rings true. Hamburger is exactly right about Leland’s idiosyncrasies as a Baptist and his infatuation with Jeffersonian politics. And Hamburger is also accurate in his description of the anti-establishment arguments from most Baptists in colonial and early America. They were not interested in extended religious liberty to “papists” (i.e., Roman Catholics), “Turks” (i.e., Muslims), or atheists. And most of them not only tolerated a religious oath for civil office, but they also advocated for such a thing. Even religious dissenters believed that an ordered and prosperous civil society necessitated a prerequisite embrace of Christian (namely Protestant) doctrine and ethics.

Hamburger’s historical receipts are matched by his judicial acumen as he interacts with the more recent developments in “America’s principle” as interpreted from the First Amendment. He rightly and effectively shows how religious liberty has become far more a restraint on religion than a restraint on government. And he also makes a compelling case for the claim that politics and government have become a religion of their own. But in the absence of genuine religious influence – which establishes and reinforces moral standards and civil order – citizens will inevitably turn to government when chaos threatens, and they will demand civil coercion and penalties. What a different view of American society this would become from what was envisioned and established by our founders.

This book was accessible in its content, logical and forceful in its argument, and compelling with regard to the evidence provided. I believe Hamburger has successfully demonstrated that the concept of religious liberty deserves more than the misleading, intellectually unfair, and historically inaccurate phrase “separation of church and state.” If you are interested in participating in a thoughtful discussion about the American principle of religious liberty, then I highly recommend that you read this book in order to know what that principle actually is and from whence it has come.

^[1] Philip Hamburger, Separation of Church and State, First Harvard University Press paperback (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004). 3.

^[2] Hamburger, 9.

^[3] Hamburger, 492.

Backus & Leland: Contrasting Baptists on the Concept of Liberty

Introduction

Gregory Wills concludes his book Democratic Religion by saying, “Baptists had traditionally understood the democracy of Baptist churches to mean that all church members exercised ecclesiastical authority jointly, including authority over belief and behavior” (emphasis added).^[1] But, Wills goes on, “by the [early twentieth century], Baptists began to embrace the idea that a democratic church meant that all were equally free from ecclesiastical authority” (emphasis added).^[2] This essay will explore that difference of perspective among many Baptists by focusing on two Baptists in particular, Isaac Backus and John Leland.

While Backus and Leland were both leading advocates for liberty of conscience during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, their respective applications of this principle represent contrasting views of individual and ecclesiastical authority. Baptists have always argued for a democratic form of religion and genuine freedom from civil regulation in the practice of it, but among every generation of Baptists there are those who differ with one another about how to practice democratized religion.

Isaac Backus represents the sort of Baptist that Greg Wills calls “church-oriented evangelicalism.”^[3] Backus argued strongly for liberty of conscience, but he understood such a liberty should be exercised under the authority of a local church. John Leland, on the other hand, represents a fully individualized sort of Baptist, the kind of evangelical that embraced an amplified form of pietism.^[4] He shared Backus’s perspective of a free conscience, but he also believed that neither state nor church should intrude on the “religious opinions of men.”^[5] Leland asserted, “religion is a matter between God and individuals.”^[6]

This paper will show many similarities and some significant contrasts between these two Baptist heroes, Isaac Backus and John Leland. And we will contend that Backus represents a better Baptist advocate for religious liberty, since his arguments and practices maintain a high view of the local church, while Leland’s arguments and practices lead to the obsolescence of the local church. First, we will provide an introduction of the two men in their historic context. Second, we will compare some of their arguments for liberty of conscience and separation between the governments of church and state. Third, we will document some of the contrasts between their applications of religious liberty, especially regarding their distinct ministries. And finally, we will conclude by tracing some connection with this historic contrast of heroes to an ongoing divergence among some Baptists in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

Part I: Baptist Contemporaries

Though Isaac Backus was born thirty years before John Leland, and Leland outlived Backus by thirty-five years, their overlapping lives had a good deal in common. They both left the Congregationalist establishment of eighteenth-century New England to form Baptist convictions and to engage in distinctly Baptist ministry. They both embraced and even embodied the personal conversion experiences that became so ubiquitous during the First Great Awakening.^[7] And they both stand as historic leaders among a religious movement that affected both religion and politics during the transition from British colonies to an America nation. Backus and Leland argued publicly for freedom of religion (any religion or none at all) without any compelling burden from the state. These men were Baptist leaders of the highest rank, and their pioneering spirit is a treasured heritage of freedom-loving Baptists in America today.

Isaac Backus (1724-1806)

Isaac Backus was “born and raised an ordinary yeoman farmer in Norwich, Connecticut, in the second quarter of the eighteenth century.”^[8] From the earliest age, Backus was “a member of the established [church] or Standing Order of New England.”^{^[9]} Congregationalist churches were the official religious institutions of New England, and Backus was baptized into membership as an infant, like all other good citizens at that time. However, in 1741, at age seventeen, Backus experienced evangelical conversion influenced by the ministry of itinerants like George Whitefield and James Davenport. Backus wrote of the experience in his diary,

As I was mowing alone in the field, August 24, 1741, all my past life was opened plainly before me, and I saw clearly that it had been filled up with sin… I perceived that I could never make myself better, should I live ever so long. Divine justice appeared clear in my condemnation, and I saw that God had a right to do with me as he would… And while I sat there, I was enabled by divine light to see the perfect righteousness of Christ and the freeness and riches of His grace, with such clearness, that my soul was drawn forth to trust in Him for salvation.^[10]

About ten months after his conversion, Backus became a communicant member of the Congregationalist church of Norwich.^[11] And yet, not long after, Backus and some of his fellow church members decided that the inclusion of unconverted persons among the church’s membership was an error too significant to abide. Backus had previously decided to “bear those things as a burden and to hope for a reformation,” but the church continued as it had done to intentionally welcome a mixed congregation to the Lord’s table.^[12] So, Backus and several others left the parish church in 1745 to gather for “separate” meetings.^[13] They soon formed a New Light congregation, and, after a couple of years as a traveling preacher, Backus became their pastor.

It was as the uneducated and unordained pastor of the Titicut Separatist Church that Backus wrestled with the doctrine of baptism and began forming his views on religious liberty.^[14] He was baptized as an infant, and he practiced infant baptism during the first years of his pastorate, but on August 7, 1749, two of his church members – Ebenezer Hinds and Jonathan Woods – “began to set forth antipedobaptist views.”^[15] For twenty days, Backus prayed and studied on the subject with great anxiety, since he knew that “To deny that God required the baptism of infants was to subvert the whole structure of the Bible Commonwealth.”^[16]

Then on August 27, Backus preached that “none had any right to baptism but Believers, and that plunging [seemed] the only right mode.”^[17] However, even as he preached the sermon, Backus later wrote in his diary, “I felt my mind entangled, and an awful gloom followed… [and] my mind was turned back to infant baptism.”^[18] Indeed, after a time away, making plans for his marriage to Susanna Mason, Backus returned to Titicut and called a church meeting on September 26, wherein he “retracted what [he] had preached against infant baptism.”^[19]

For more than a year, Backus continued to struggle with his own convictions, even as he continued to pastor his church and preach as an itinerant. But finally, on July 25, 1751, Backus announced to his church “that he was no longer able to believe that God had commanded infant baptism.”^[20] Instead, “none ought to be baptized, and thus have the outward mark of Christ’s disciples put upon them, except those who give evidence of having believed in him.”^[21] And Backus was baptized as a conscious believer about a month later, on August 22. Benjamin Pierce pastored a church in Rhode Island, but he was preaching at a church nearby. Pierce gave Backus the “opportunity to practice as [he] now believed was right.”^[22] “Therefore,” as Backus himself later wrote, “I told some account of my conversion and then of my experiences as to these things, which gave satisfaction; then I went down into the water with [Pierce] and was baptized.”^[23]

This pivotal moment for Isaac Backus did not, however, become the full embrace of Baptist convictions for his church. That did not happen for another four and a half years. Backus sought to “maintain his church and others in [the Separate-Baptist] faction upon an open-communion basis.”^[24] He “agreed to conduct dedication services for infants or to let pedobaptists bring in another minister for baptism by sprinkling.”^[25] But by January of 1756, Backus “was ready to give up the experiment with open-communion.”^[26] He led six members of the Titicut Separate Church to form a new church altogether, one that was consciously and unequivocally Baptist. On January 16, The First Baptist Church of Middleborough, Massachusetts, was established on the basis of their shared “confession of faith,” a shared constitution of “church affairs,” and a shared “covenant” of church membership.^[27]

Backus would serve and lead as the pastor of First Baptist Middleborough for the next fifty years, until his death. It is here, in the personal wrestling, the pastoral shepherding, and in the ecclesiastical structuring of Backus’s Christian ministry that he differs so significantly from his contemporary, John Leland. Both men believed that religion should not be restrained or managed by civil authorities, but Backus’s argument and practice of religious liberty was unquestionably church-shaped. Leland, on the other hand, seems to have thought that the institution of the church was just as dangerous as the state when it comes to threatening religious liberty.

John Leland (1754-1841)

Thirty years after the birth of Isaac Backus and nearly ten years after Backus left the established church in Norwich to form a new and Separate congregation, on May 14, 1754, John Leland was born. As a man, Leland claimed that his father, James, was “convinced… by reading the Bible, that believers were the only proper subjects of baptism, and immersion the only gospel mode.”^[28] Nevertheless, Leland said that his father “sunk from his conviction,” and “invited the [Congregationalist] minister of the town to come to his house on a certain Sunday… and baptize” all his children.^[29]

Leland says that he was “something more than three years old” at the time of his baptism, but the church records in Grafton list him at age five.^[30] Either way, Leland’s precocious character seems to have been evident quite early. He told the story, “when I found out what the object of the meeting was, I was greatly terrified, and betook myself to flight.”^[31] However, his “flight was in vain,” for he was “pursued” and “overtaken” by “the maid,” who “caught” him and delivered him to his father and the minister.^[32] Whether this tale is embellished or not, only heaven knows, but Leland’s account of his reluctant baptism epitomizes his uncanny independence in matters of religion. The historian Eric Smith says, “[Leland] instinctively grasped that religious acts must be free and voluntary to be genuine.”^[33] At a minimum, the adult Leland wanted everyone to know that he valued this instinct.

During his upbringing, Leland was exposed to both of the clashing religious cultures in New England. The Grafton Congregationalist Church represented the established and traditional culture of the passing generation, and the Nonconformists or Separatists represented the vigorous and innovative culture of the rising generation. Eric Smith writes, “James Leland kept John and his siblings in the regular Sabbath services at the Grafton Congregational Church,” but “at home, James read the Bible aloud, catechized the children, and discussed religion regularly at family meals.”^[34] And yet, with all of this exposure to gospel light, John Leland placed the time of his conversion after his teenage years.

Leland was an active and independent young man with a sinful appetite, which (by his own admission) he fed quite well as a teenager. But at one point God impressed on Leland’s mind a sense of impending judgment, and he began to seek for conversion among revivalistic enthusiasts. Leland says that he “heard much preaching and conversation about the change which is essential to salvation,”^[35] but he “had never passed through stages of distress… equal to what [he] supposed as essential pre-requisite to conversion.”^[36]

Finally, Leland says, “One evening, as I was walking on the road alone… [I] expressed myself thus: ‘I am not a Christian; I have never been convicted and converted like others.”^[37] But “soon after this,” Leland went on, “I felt my soul yield up to Christ and trust in him.”^[38] It was, as Smith wrote, “a Bible impression that provided [Leland] the assurance he craved.”^[39] Smith also points out that Leland was adamant, “at no point did he consult a local minister or involve the church in his spiritual quest.”^[40] Leland’s conversion story, Smith says, “is striking for its solitary character.”^[41]

Leland was among the New Lights or the “radical evangelicals” who embraced the charismatic and mystical elements of Christianity, which emphasized personal and sensational experience.^[42] In his writings and preaching, Leland recounted many occasions of supernatural encounters throughout his life, including “premonitions, visions and dreams, divine healings, and angelic visitations.”^[43] This personal access to divine power and even spiritual enlightenment only strengthened Leland’s conviction that he needed nothing but his own mind, the Bible, and a little time and diligence to arrive upon the right understanding of any Christian doctrine or practice.

On June 1, 1774, Leland was baptized by Noah Alden, a Separate Baptist pastor from Bellingham.^[44] For his part, when he presented himself for baptism, Leland was hoping that the “preacher” would “discern” that he “was deceived” and “reject” him as a baptismal candidate.^[45] But, as Leland told it, Alden had no probing questions to ask and no interest in discerning the true condition of Leland’s soul. Alden merely asked if Leland “believed in the Calvinistical doctrine.”^[46] After a brief exchange, wherein Leland claimed some ignorance of such doctrine, Alden “received” Leland for baptism, and Leland “would not give back” his request for it.^[47] Leland’s baptism, like his conversion, seems to have been largely a matter of his personal initiative and his own intellectual and emotional consideration.

Leland’s foray into preaching ministry, which came nineteen days after he was baptized, was also a self-initiated and personally confirmed. Even before his baptism, Leland and another man about his age were setting up “evening meetings” where they would “sing, pray, and speak according to our proportion of faith.”^[48] But Leland was in a “constant” state of “worry” about “preaching” during that season of his life, since he was still not sure whether he was truly converted.^[49] However, on Sunday, June 20, 1744, Leland had his “conscience… arrested” by Scriptures brought to his mind and Bible verses he admittedly read out of their context.^[50] Leland became convinced that he “must either… open my mouth and give glory to the name of God, or his curse would fall upon me.”^[51] So, Leland preached his first sermon as a man commissioned by God to do so, and the experience was exhilarating for him. He said, “At the beginning, my mind was somewhat bewildered… but continuing, my ideas brightened, and after a while I enjoyed such freedom of thought and utterance of words as I had never before.”^[52] Thus, Leland’s personal call from God into the preaching ministry was confirmed.

The significance of Leland’s personal conversion and his personal call to preach was highlighted by Eric Smith in his 2022 biography. Smith wrote, “The self-reliant Leland resolved the two defining issues of his life, his conversion and his call to preach, with God alone, professedly neither seeking nor receiving the assistance of the church.”^[53] Indeed, for “more than sixty years, John Leland rode circuit up and down the Atlantic seaboard as a fervent Baptist itinerant evangelist.”^[54] From start to finish, Leland was an “independent operator,” and he was only ever “loosely connected to church or denomination.”^[55] Leland “insisted on hammering out his own belief system, depending as exclusively as possible on his open Bible and God-given common sense.”^[56] And his “private study produced an eclectic and idiosyncratic blend of traditional Calvinism, charismatic New Light spirituality, and Jeffersonian rationalism.”^[57]

Leland’s long ministry and public arguments reflected his personal experiences and convictions. The fundamental starting point for Leland’s idea of religious liberty was individual conscience, and from Leland’s perspective, the organized church could be just as stifling to religious freedom as an overstepping state. Leland seems to have gone further than Backus, not only arguing that religion should be free from restraint and management by civil authorities, but that ecclesiastical authorities must also give way to an utterly individualized sense of freedom to believe and behave according to one’s personal conviction.

Part II: Baptist Co-belligerents

Backus and Leland were both strong public advocates for religious freedom. So notable were their similarities on religious liberty that Edwin Gaustad has proposed a “Backus-Leland Tradition.”^[58] Gaustad argues that Backus and Leland shared overlapping views of “the individual Christian and his freedom,” “the visible church,” and “the visible churches and the Church.”^[59] While Backus and Leland actually differed quite noticeably in their views of the visible church and the relationship of church and state,^[60] they did argue similarly for religious freedom during a time when there was hardly such a thing in North America.^[61]

Church-State Relationship

Prior to and immediately after the founding of an American nation, Baptists on the North American continent argued for a greater religious freedom than they often enjoyed. Like the Church of England, Congregationalists in the New World were not inclined to allow for religious dissent, and they seemed just as comfortable as their Anglican brethren to use the levers of the state to enforce at least some degree of uniformity. All Baptists wanted freedom from religious taxation and persecution, but not all Baptists had the same goal in mind when it came to religious liberty. “Isaac Backus,” wrote Barry Hankins, “serves as the primary example showing that some Baptists touted religious liberty only within the parameters of a generally Christian culture.”^[62] William McLoughlin said that Backus “sought a ‘sweet harmony’ for the new American republic,” a harmony between church and state; “but,” said McLoughlin, “[Backus] helped to produce the cacophony of sectarianism and pluralism.”^[63]

The results aside, it is true that Backus saw two distinct jurisdictions – one for the church and the other for the state. Backus believed that the “secular” and “ecclesiastical” governments were intended to be distinct from the time of the New Testament. But, he says, “Constantine” was “moved” in the fourth century to “draw his sword against heretics.”^[64] This was the beginning of a church-state merger, according to both Backus and Leland, and they both believed that Christianity was negatively affected by it ever since.^[65] Backus argued that England finally did “groan under this hellish tyranny,” and the English “renounced” the Roman “head.”^[66] However, Backus pointed out that the Anglicans “set up [their own] king as their head in ecclesiastical as well as civil concernments.”^[67] Thus, says Backus, “the high places were not taken away, and the lord of bishops made such work in them, as drove our fathers from thence into America.”^[68]

And yet, Backus blamed the descendants of the Puritans, the Congregationalists in North America, for being those who “determined to pick out all that they thought was of universal and moral equity in Moses’s laws, and so to frame a Christian common-wealth here.”^{^[69]} In so doing, Backus said, “they strove very hard to have the church govern the world, till they lost their charter; since which they have yielded to have the world govern the church.”^[70] From Backus’s perspective, the two jurisdictions – church and state – must be kept distinct, otherwise the state would unavoidably encroach upon the church.

Backus did not, however, believe that the state had absolutely no interest in promoting the Christians religion. He said that “judgment and righteousness are essential to freedom,”^[71] and “rulers… ought to improve all their influence in their several stations to promote and support true religion by Gospel means and methods.”^[72] Indeed, Barry Hankins claims that Backus “supported the test-oath provision of the Massachusetts state constitution and probably voted in favor of the petition requesting that the U.S. Congress establish a bureau to license publication of Bibles.”^[73] This is why Thomas Kidd and Barry Hankins both place Backus in the “accommodationist” camp, and not the “separationist.”^[74]

Leland, for his part, was a separationist in full, albeit an inconsistent one.^[75] Writing his own history of Virginia in 1790, Leland affirmed the need for civil government, saying, “Civil government is certainly a curse to mankind; but it is a necessary curse, in this fallen state, to prevent greater evils.”^[76] But Leland said in a sermon at Cheshire in 1801 that “civil rulers… have nothing to do with religion.”^[77] And in a pamphlet on Sabbatical Laws, published in 1815, Leland said, “The work of the legislature is to make laws for the security of life, liberty and property, and leave religion to the consciences of individuals.”^[78] Then Leland added, “If the sacred code, in the New Testament, is not sufficient to govern Christians in all their religious affairs, either the wisdom or goodness of Christ is insufficient.”^[79]

Leland did seem to agree with the notion that there are distinct jurisdictions regarding the church and the state. In a pamphlet published in 1804, he argued that the church is governed by Christ as a “Christocracy.”^[80] Leland explained that the government of the church in “some parts” resembles a “monarchy,” while in “other parts” it is like a “democracy,” but it “is different from all other governments” of the world.^[81] Specifically, “Christ is absolute legislator,” and “He appoints and commissions all the spiritual officers of his government.”^[82] And “liberty and equality, the boast of democracy, is realized in the church” in the lives and relationships of “the saints.”^[83] But, said Leland, “Christ’s laws are spiritual, reaching to the hearts, thoughts, and motives of men, and requiring truth in the inward parts.”^[84] This sort of legal requirement is impossible for the state, since its laws “take cognizance of actions only.”^[85] As Leland saw it, “a man may be a good citizen of state, and at the same time be an enemy to God,” since the two legal jurisdictions are distinguished and must necessarily be so.^[86]

Liberty of Conscience

Not only did Backus and Leland agree on distinct church-state jurisdictions, but they also argued for religious liberty on the basis on conscience. In fact, Leland’s fundamental argument against the state meddling in religious affairs was not the jurisdictional distinction, but the fundamental nature and function of the individual conscience. Leland spoke of conscience as though it were its own sort of “empire” with its own innate “liberty” and authority.^[87] For Leland, it was not only the state that might encroach upon conscience but even the church itself. In a letter to the honorable e said, “Let the church be formed… of living stones, and proceed as the Bible directs, and I will be subject, and not set up my will as a standard for others; but let them not crowd into the empire of conscience.”^[88] With regard to both state and church regulations, Leland said, “if laws are made to describe what God I shall adore, how I shall worship him, and what places and times that worship shall be paid; be it known to all that I will not fall down and worship the image that is set up. ‘Where conscience begins, empire ends.’”^[89]

Backus, for his part, also affirmed that God has bestowed upon men a “liberty of conscience.”^[90] And Backus argued that the “full liberty of conscience” must include both the “inward man” and the “outward man,” not only freedom to believe but also the freedom to worship without the threat of persecution.^[91] The main target of Backus’s ire was the taxation of Separates and Baptists in order to support “pedobaptist ministers.”^[92] And even when some dissenters were exempted from such a tax, Backus argued that the requirement to “annually… certify” the substance of “our belief” as “the condition of… being exempted” was akin to “adultery” or “whoredom,” since it was effectively requiring Christian churches to “admit a higher ruler in a nation into her husband’s [i.e., Christ’s] place.”^[93]

Backus and Leland both believed that the state ought not meddle in the affairs of the church, and they both argued similarly for a new kind of religious freedom on the world stage. They both made public efforts to change the charter and practices of their state with regard to established religion and the persecution of nonconformists. Conscience is the domain of God alone, and Christ is the true king and husband of Christians in the world; therefore, the state must not impose legal demands on religious belief or practices. In the fight for religious freedom during the early days of the American experiment, Backus and Leland were co-belligerents.

Part III: Baptist Contrasts

All of the similarities and even the evident passions shared by Backus and Leland might lead one to believe that they ought to be virtually identical in their application of religious liberty. And yet, the legacy that each man left behind is dramatically different. These contemporary co-belligerents actually contrast one another quite significantly at the point of their divergent relationships with the local church.

The Pastor vs. The Itinerant

The writings of John Leland are full of personal stories, preached sermons, polemical arguments, and even political philosophies and speeches. In a pamphlet called “The Bible Baptist,” Leland argued for believer’s baptism by immersion, following many of the typical Baptist arguments.^[94] In a recorded speech, dated July 4, 1805, Leland argued for an “elective judiciary” based on “the fundamental principle of republicanism.”^[95] Leland even penned poems and hymns. One poem lyricizing his experience says, “Come old, come young, and hear me relate My life and adventures, and my present state.”^[96]

Leland was an itinerant preacher who spent his entire adult life (more than sixty years) riding horseback across untold miles of American soil to preach the evangelical way of salvation and promote an American culture marked by republican and democratic ideals. Eric Smith has noted that “Leland embodied the rise of liberal individualism that marked American society in the latter eighteenth century.”^[97] Leland “left the Congregational Church of his youth to enter the Baptist fold,” but he remained highly independent even among Baptists.^[98] He “repeatedly turned down invitations to settled pastorates… preferring the unfettered lifestyle of a self-supporting itinerant.”^[99]

Leland’s individuality was prioritized over his connection to any church. Some extracts from a letter Leland wrote, in response to a question about his views on church discipline and communion, include his statement that “church labor” and the “breaking [of] bread” is not what “the Lord… placed on” him as a regular obligation.^[100] Rather, said Leland, “whenever I think I can do good, or get good, I will attend church-meeting and… I will commune.”^[101] But, he went on, “if the church cannot bear thus with me, I wish them to give me a letter of dismission,” and “if such a letter cannot be given, consistently with the order and dignity of the church, I suppose excommunication must follow.”^[102]

Leland said that a “leading characteristic of the Baptists” is that they are “united in sentiment, respecting the New Testament” despite the fact that they have no “legalized creeds,” no “human coercion in discipline,” and “the Bible is the only confession of faith they dare adopt.”^[103] And yet some Baptists actually appreciated both creeds and discipline, and here is where Backus and Leland diverge. While Backus’s strong insistence of religious liberty and voluntary conscience parallel with Leland’s, Backus centered his everyday ministry on one local church.

Like Leland, Backus was a prolific writer and speaker. And his writings also included doctrinal arguments as well as political engagement. William McLoughlin said that Isaac Backus was “clearly a leading figure” among those who “first conceived the idea of calling a general conference to draw up a united petition to the General Court” of Massachusetts in order to persuade civil authorities to ease the “heavy trials and burdens” upon Separates who wanted “liberty” from the “Support of a worship that we can’t in conscience join.”^[104] And McLoughlin published a nearly five-hundred-page volume of Backus’s “pamphlets” that included public arguments for a call divine to preach, Christian liberty, and the doctrine of particular election.^[105]

But Backus also published a set of documents that Leland seems nearly incapable of producing or even affirming – a church confession, constitution, and covenant.^[106] The second appendix of Alvah Hovey’s historical volume on Backus is a record of those foundational documents that Backus prepared and led his fledgling congregation to adopt in 1756. Article fourteen of Backus’s confession is the affirmation that “believers” are not only “united to Jesus Christ” but also “united to each other,” having “communion one with another,” and thus “made partakers of each other’s gifts and graces.”^[107] This declaration of the communal nature of Christianity sets Backus apart from Leland, and other features of Backus’s church documents display the contrast even more significantly.

The formatting and structure of the confession, the constitution, and the covenant of the First Baptist Church of Middleborough is distributed in two parts of equal length. The first half consists of seventeen “Articles of Faith,” and part two is the church’s beliefs “Concerning Church Affairs.”^[108] One of the most striking statements among those in the church’s constitution is that baptism is affirmed as “the door of the Church,” and “none but saints… [who] give scriptural evidences of their union to Christ by faith” can “rightly partake of [the] ordinances” of the church.^[109] Such a practice would starkly contrast Leland’s story of a far more personal and individualized experience of baptism.

Backus also made it clear that his application of liberty of conscience did not preclude an obligation for Christians to “hold communion together in the worship of God… and in the ordinances and discipline of his church.”^[110] This is an unambiguous divergence from Leland’s statement that he would “commune” with his church on those occasions “whenever” he believed he might “do good” or “get good.”^[111] In fact, the membership covenant of Backus’s church includes the obligation to “give up ourselves to one another,” to “act towards each other as brethren in Christ,” and to “[watch] over one another in the love of God.”^[112]

Backus and Leland both toured as itinerant preachers, they both invested themselves in the civil and religious affairs of New England, and they both stand as leading advocates of religious liberty in the New World. And yet, Backus leaves behind a legacy of pastoring the same church for fifty years and forming the experience of Christian living within the context of church membership. Leland, on the other hand, lived independently from the confines of local church obligations. Leland was the Evangelical itinerant, but Backus was the Evangelical pastor.

Advancing Individualism

The historical record shows that Leland was indeed a regular preaching elder at Third Baptist Church in Cheshire, but Leland made it clear that he was just as free from any binding to that congregation as any other. Eric Smith wrote, “the plain truth was that the self-sufficient Leland simply did not share the Baptist reverence for the local church.”^[113]Leland “would preach consistently in Third Cheshire for more than fifty years,” said Smith, “but Leland steadily refused the church’s overtures for greater commitment; the most they could get out of him were a few one-year engagements to fill the pulpit in his later years.”^[114] And no episode demonstrates Leland’s heightened individualism than his thirteen-year refusal to administer the Lord’s Supper to the members of Third Baptist Church in Cheshire.

In a personal list of various statements, Leland responded to the church’s request that he perform the pastoral duty of administering the Supper with the church. Eric Smith describes Leland’s short response as a “breathtaking declaration of religious autonomy… [wherein] Leland… unmoored himself from every authority outside of his conscience – his own church, eighteen hundred years of Christian tradition, and even the Bible.”^[115] Even still, the church preferred to maintain what relationship they had with Leland, so they never did take any action against him. Leland continued his dubious relationship with Third Cheshire until he died, preaching and ministering there according to his own preferences and schedule, and his wide-ranging public ministry (both preaching and writing) extended this type of religious individualism to many other Baptists as well. Smith says, “Over the nineteenth century, Baptists increasingly identified themselves more with their commitment to modern notions of private judgment and ‘soul liberty’ than with the enforcement of ecclesial authority.”^[116]

One man who might be credited with making “soul liberty” the chief identifier of Baptists in America is E. Y. Mullins. Edgar Young Mullins (1860-1928) was the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary for the first quarter of the twentieth century. Better known as E. Y. Mullins, he published his Axioms of Religion in 1908, in which he asserted that the “conception of the competency of the soul under God in religion… is the distinctive contribution of Baptists to the religious thought of the race [of man]” (emphasis added).^[117] Mullins believed the doctrine of “soul competency” is the one that “comprehended all the… particulars… [of the] historical significance of the Baptists.”^[118]This doctrine, according to Mullins, is summarized in the statement, “Religion is a personal matter between the soul and God.”^[119] And it necessarily includes the “separation of Church and State,” “Justification by faith alone,” and “Regeneration… as a result of the soul’s direct dealing with God.”^[120]

John Hammett asserts, “E. Y. Mullins was by no means the creator of individualism.”^[121] Hammett admits that there is an “element of it” in the Bible, and he says the Enlightenment promoted individualism throughout Western culture. But Hammett credits “the First Great Awakening,” with “its emphasis on individual, personal conversion” for brining this distinctive into “Baptist life.”^[122] Indeed, as the historian Nathan Hatch summarized, “preachers from the periphery of American culture came to reconstruct Christianity,” and Hatch said that the “clarion message that rang out above all their diversity” was “the primacy of the individual conscience.”^[123]

Mullins, for his part, does not cite any previous or contemporaneous work in specific support of his concept of “soul competency.”^[124] However, one can hardly fail to notice a fundamental similarity between Mullins’s “soul competency” and Leland’s conception of “conscience.”^[125] It seems that Leland’s trajectory is well-maintained in Mullins, and many twentieth- and twenty-first-century Baptists carry the torch of individualism. But it is important to note that the individualized practice of Christianity is not essential to the Baptist conviction of religious liberty or the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. Greg Wills writes,

From the colonial era until the early twentieth century, Southern Baptists… rejected modernity’s individualism. Baptist piety had individualist characteristics rooted in the Reformation doctrine of the priesthood of all believers… but they repulsed the privatizing trend of democratic individualism. The church, they believed, had prerogatives that superseded those of individuals. The redeemed community determined corporately the meaning of the sacred text, the shape of Christian spirituality, and the regulation of virtue.^[126]

But Southern Baptist churches, says Wills, “experienced a revolutionary change between 1850 and 1950.”^[127]He explains, “In 1850, Southern Baptists understood democracy largely in terms of ecclesiastical authority. In 1950, they understood it primarily in terms of individual freedom.”^[128] In summary, “Evangelicals were no longer convinced that there was a divine mandate to establish pure churches as the kingdom of God on earth. The kingdom was within. Individual piety required no mediation of the ecclesiastical institutions.”^[129]

The notion of individual freedom or religious individualism is more in line with the substance and practice of John Leland’s philosophy than Isaac Backus’s. Leland traveled as an independent itinerant for sixty years, but Backus pastored the same church in Middleborough for fifty years. Leland wrote dismissively about creeds, excommunication, and the Lord’s Supper, and rejected his responsibility to submit to the authority of a local church and participate in the ordinances. But Backus penned a confession of faith, a church polity, and a membership covenant for his church, and he led his congregation in the consistent implementation of these documents for five decades. Leland settled all authority (both civil and religious) on the individual conscience, but Backus exemplified a Baptist conviction of religious liberty coupled with a high view of ecclesiastical authority. Both men were thoroughly Baptist, and both have their ongoing descendants among Baptists in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. And yet, it does seem that only one of these men led Baptists in a direction that maintains the nature and function of the local church.

^[1] Gregory A. Wills, Democratic Religion: Freedom, Authority, and Church Discipline in the Baptist South, 1785-1900 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). 137.

^[2] Wills, 137.

^[3] Wills, 139.

^[4] John Leland’s individualism will be explained further, but it is important to note here that he was a persistent preacher at Third Baptist Church in Cheshire, MA, for fifty years. However, his relationship with the church could hardly be defined as traditionally pastoral. Leland biographer Eric Smith wrote of Leland’s original agreement with the Cheshire church, and the relationship between them over the years remained just as tenuous. Smith said, “It was… agreed that while the church would recognize Leland as an elder… Leland would operate as a kind of preacher in-residence… [using] Cheshire as base of operations for his itinerant ministry, and then ‘preach [at Third Baptist] whenever he felt disposed and duty seemed to call him there.’” Eric C. Smith, John Leland: A Jeffersonian Baptist in Early America (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2022). 99.

^[5] John Leland, The Writings of John Leland, ed. L. F. Greene, Reprint (New York, NY: Arno Press, 1969). 181.

^[6] Leland, 181.

^[7] The language of “First” and “Second” Great Awakening has been demonstrated to be somewhat inaccurate by Thomas Kidd. The revivals in New England during the 1740s were preceded by others, and there were more revivals during the 1760s and 1780s. But for the purposes of this essay, the present author is content to use the phrase “First Great Awakening” to refer to those revivals in New England during the 1740s. Thomas Kidd, The Great Awakening: The Roots of Evangelical Christianity in Colonial America. Kindle (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007).

^[8] William McLoughlin, Isaac Backus and the American Pietistic Tradition, ed. Oscar Handlin, The Library of American Biography (Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1967). ix.

^[9] McLoughlin, Isaac Backus and the American Pietistic Tradition, x.

^[10] Alvah Hovey, A Memoir of the Life and Times of the Rev. Isaac Backus, ATLA Monograph Preservation Program (Boston, MA: Gould and Lincoln, 1859). 39.

^[11] William McLoughlin does not mention Backus’s conscious post-conversion connection with the Standing Order church in Norwich, merely that Backus had already been a member of the church from the time of his infant baptism. McLoughlin, Isaac Backus and the American Pietistic Tradition, x. Both Alvah Hovey and James Leo Garrett describe Backus as having “joined” the Congregational Church in Norwich after a ten-month period of hesitation due to Reverend Benjamin Lord’s inclusion of members who had “no account of any change of heart.” Ultimately, it was this practice of unregenerate membership that provoked Backus and other church members to separate from the established church in Norwich. James Leo Garrett, Baptist Theology: A Four-Century Study, 1st ed (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2009). 155. Hovey, 41-42.

^[12] Hovey, 42.

^[13] Garrett, 155.

^[14] Backus had no formal theological training, and he was not recognized as an ordained minister by the Congregationalists. Backus wrote of his own personal experience of God’s call upon him to “preach his Gospel.” Hovey, 61.

^[15] Garrett, 155. McLoughlin, Isaac Backus and the American Pietistic Tradition, 57 and 61.

^[16] McLoughlin, Isaac Backus and the American Pietistic Tradition, 59.

^[17] McLoughlin, Isaac Backus and the American Pietistic Tradition, 64.

^[18] McLoughlin, Isaac Backus and the American Pietistic Tradition, 64.

^[19] McLoughlin, Isaac Backus and the American Pietistic Tradition, 67.

^[20] McLoughlin, Isaac Backus and the American Pietistic Tradition, 73

^[21] McLoughlin, Isaac Backus and the American Pietistic Tradition, 73.

^[22] McLoughlin, Isaac Backus and the American Pietistic Tradition, 74.

^[23] McLoughlin, Isaac Backus and the American Pietistic Tradition, 74.

^[24] McLoughlin, Isaac Backus and the American Pietistic Tradition, 87.

^[25] McLoughlin, Isaac Backus and the American Pietistic Tradition, 87.

^[26] McLoughlin, Isaac Backus and the American Pietistic Tradition, 87.

^[27] Hovey, 334-339.

^[28] Leland, 9.

^[29] Leland, 9.

^[30] Leland, 9. Eric Smith notes that the “Grafton Record Book has the event listed June 28, 1759 (p. 104), which would make John five years old, not three.” Smith, 12.

^[31] Leland, 9.

^[32] Leland, 10.

^[33] Smith, 11.

^[34] Smith, 16.

^[35] Leland, 11.

^[36] Leland, 13.

^[37] Leland, 14.

^[38] Leland, 14.

^[39] Smith, 24.

^[40] Smith, 24.

^[41] Smith, 24.

^[42] Thomas Kidd has demonstrated that the “Old Light” and “New Light” dichotomy is insufficient for understanding the two poles of reaction to the eighteenth-century revivals in New England. Kidd, The Great Awakening, xiv. But the historic label is still recognized as accurate, even appearing repeatedly in Eric Smith’s 2022 Oxford University Press publication. Smith, 26.

^[43] Smith, 26.

^[44] Smith, 30.

^[45] Leland, 16.

^[46] Leland, 16.

^[47] Leland, 16.

^[48] Leland, 15.

^[49] Leland, 16.

^[50] Leland, 17.

^[51] Leland, 17.

^[52] Leland, 17.

^[53] Smith, 5.

^[54] Smith, 3.

^[55] Smith, 3.

^[56] Smith, 5.

^[57] Smith, 6.

^[58] Edwin S. Gaustad, “The Backus-Leland Tradition,” Foundations 2, no. 2 (April 1959): 131–52.

^[59] Edwin S. Gaustad, “The Backus-Leland Tradition,” Foundations 2, no. 2 (April 1959): 132.

^[60] James Leo Garrett claims that Backus and Leland had a fundamental difference in their view of the proper relationship between church and state. Garrett, 163. Barry Hankins asserted differences as well, citing William McLoughlin, who wrote at length on the Backus-Leland divide decades earlier. Barry Hankins, Uneasy in Babylon : Southern Baptist Conservatives and American Culture, Religion and American Culture (Tuscaloosa, AL: University Alabama Press, 2002). 128. Albert Wardin is yet another historian who has documented the contrasting views of Backus and Leland on the church and the state. Albert W Wardin, “Contrasting Views of Church and State: A Study of John Leland and Isaac Backus,” Baptist History and Heritage 33, no. 1 (1998): 12–20.

^[61] Rhode Island and Pennsylvania did not establish religious institutions with their governing documents, but established religion at the state and local level was nearly ubiquitous.

^[62] Hankins, 127.

^[63] Garrett, 161.

^[64] Isaac Backus, An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty, Against the Oppressions of the Present Day (Boston: John Boyle in Marlborough-Street, 1773). 14. Backus is typical of contemporary Baptists and Separatists in his assessment that Christianity and the civil government were first joined by the Roman empire and hardly separated thereafter. John Leland says much the same in a pamphlet he published in 1815 on Sabbatical laws. Leland, 442.

^[65] Leland wrote, “when Constantine the Great established Christianity in the empire… Christianity was disrobed of her virgin beauty, and prostituted to the unhallowed principle of state policy, where it has remained in a criminal commerce until the present moment.” Leland, 442.

^[66] Backus, 15.

^[67] Backus, 15.

^[68] Backus, 15.

^[69] Backus, 15-16.

^[70] Backus, 15-16.

^[71] McLoughlin, Isaac Backus on Church, State, and Calvinism, 350.

^[72] McLoughlin, Isaac Backus on Church, State, and Calvinism, 359.

^[73] Hankins, 128.

^[74] Thomas S. Kidd and Barry Hankins, Baptists in America: A History (Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2015). 205.

^[75] Eric Smith asserts that it “is unhelpful to call Leland a ‘strict separationist’ if that term implies the creation of a totally secular public square. After all, Leland preached the gospel on the floor of Congress, voiced biblical arguments as a Massachusetts state legislator, and never (that we know of) even used the term ‘wall of separation,’ though the phrase was coined specifically for New England Baptists like him.” Smith, 94. Nevertheless, Kidd and Hankins do affix the label “separationist” upon Leland, citing Leland’s claim that “Government has no more to do with the religious opinions of men than it has with the principles of mathematics.” Kidd and Hankins, 205. Even Eric Smith admits that “Leland was a more radically consistent Jeffersonian than virtually all of his Baptist peers.” Smith, 94-95. Thus, Leland may not accurately be labeled “strict,” but he was certainly a “separationist” with ample assertions that far exceeded the typical Baptists of his day.

^[76] Leland, 103.

^[77] Leland, 250.

^[78] Leland, 441.

^[79] Leland, 441. William McLoughlin points to Sabbath laws as a particular dividing line between Backus and Leland, saying, “Backus did not live to take a stand on all of these matters [i.e., moralistic laws concerning blasphemy, profanity, gambling, card playing, dancing, and theater going], and like most colonial ministers he was no teetotaler, but he would certainly have criticized John Leland for opposing the petition to end the delivery of the mail on the Sabbath and for praising Col. Richard M. Johnson’s defense of this position.” McLoughlin, Isaac Backus on Church, State, and Calvinism, 51.

^[80] Leland, 273.

^[81] Leland, 275.

^[82] Leland, 275.

^[83] Leland, 275.

^[84] Leland, 276.

^[85] Leland, 276.

^[86] Leland, 276.

^[87] Leland, 648.

^[88] Leland, 648.

^[89] Leland, 648-649.

^[90] Backus, 16.

^[91] Backus, 30.

^[92] Backus, 32.

^[93] Backus, 44-45.

^[94] Leland, 78-90.

^[95] Leland, 283-300.

^[96] Leland, 317-318.

^[97] Smith, 5.

^[98] In his biography of John Leland, Eric Smith spends an entire chapter on Leland’s relationship with Third Baptist Church in Cheshire, MA. As was already noted earlier in this essay, Leland began his fifty-year pastorate of this church by establishing his role as a “kind of preacher in residence.” Smith, 99. Throughout the first several years of Leland’s ministry in Cheshire, he had a busy itinerant ministry, but he still “preached [many] morning and evening Sunday services, composed hymns for congregational singing, officiated funerals, performed baptisms, ordained new deacons and elders, moderated business meetings, drew up a church constitution, and represented the church each year to the Shaftsbury Association.” Smith, 100. Yet, says Smith, “For all his success among the Baptists of Virginia and western Massachusetts, John Leland was never entirely at home in a Baptist church… For the self-reliant Leland, who ‘could never endure any cramping or abridgment of his own personal freedom of thought or action,’ this demand [of submission to the authority of a local congregation] was bound to create problems.” Smith, 102.

^[99] Smith, 6.

^[100] Leland, 60.

^[101] Leland, 60.

^[102] Leland, 60.

^[103] Leland, 198.

^[104] William Gerald McLoughlin, New England Dissent, 1630-1833: The Baptists and the Separation of Church and State, vol. 1 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971). 391

^[105] McLoughlin, Isaac Backus on Church, State, and Calvinism.

^[106] Eric Smith points out that Leland did pen seven articles of his faith in a letter to James Whitsitt in 1832. And Leland also led Third Baptist Church of Cheshire to publish its own confession of faith in 1834, which was a direct and unsophisticated recapitulation of traditional Calvinism. Smith, 135-136. However, Leland’s motives seem here to be far more influenced by the growing anti-Calvinism influences outside of Third Baptist Church than by any pastoral impulse to shepherd his congregation toward unity in a shared faith, governance, and fellowship.

^[107] Hovey, 335-336.

^[108] Hovey, 334, 336.

^[109] Hovey, 337.

^[110] Hovey, 338.

^[111] Leland, 60.

^[112] Hovey, 338.

^[113] Smith, 105.

^[114] Smith, 108.

^[115] Smith, 116.

^[116] Smith, 126.

^[117] E. Y. Mullins, The Axioms of Religion: A New Interpretation of the Baptist Faith (Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication Society, 1908). 54.

^[118] Mullins, 56-57.

^[119] Mullins, 54.

^[120] Mullins, 54.

^[121] John S Hammett, “From Church Competence to Soul Competence: The Devolution of Baptist Ecclesiology,” Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry 3, no. 1 (2005). 157.

^[122] Hammett, 157.

^[123] Nathan O. Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989). 35.

^[124] Mullins. His formal citations include about twenty-five unique sources, and Mullins alludes to several other sources in the text without citing them in a footnote. The volume contains no bibliography, and the sources that are cited seem to be a wide array of representative authors who offer an example or an illustration of Mullins’s substance at various points. Therefore, one can hardly expect to find a direct link between Leland and Mullins in the form of a citation. And yet, the similarity between Mullins’s “soul competency” and Leland’s “conscience” suggests a conceptual link.

^[125] E. Y. Mullins defined “soul competency” by saying “Religion is a personal matter between the soul and God.” Mullins, 54. John Leland defined “liberty of conscience” by saying, “religion is a matter between God and individuals.” Leland, 181.

^[126] Wills, viii.

^[127] Wills, 139.

^[128] Wills, 139.

^[129] Wills, 139.

The Reformation in England was a Religious Revolution

Introduction

In a 2009 article published in U.S. Catholic, a magazine printed by a community of Roman Catholic priests called Claretian Missionaries, Bryan Cones wrote, “The major churches of the Reformation… split from Rome in the 16^thcentury largely over theological differences… The Church of England, however, at least in the first place, separated from Rome largely because of a dispute regarding the validity of [Henry VIII’s] marriage to Catherine of Aragon.”^[1] With this statement, Cones represents a common view among many people today that the Church of England (or Anglicanism^[2]) is not quite as fundamentally Protestant as the other ecclesiological traditions that find their origin in the Reformation of the sixteenth century. For example, Candice Gage, writing for The North American Anglican, explained her experience with modern Anglicanism, saying, “For me, the journey into Anglicanism is like a trek backward in Reformation history, taking my own small steps away from… Protestantism.”^[3] Gage speaks of the Church of England as though it were neither Protestant nor Roman Catholic and of her experience with Anglicanism as a via media (or middle way) between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.^[4]

T. H. L. Parker notes the prominence of the view – that the English Reformation was substantially distinct from the Protestant developments elsewhere in Europe – in the opening pages of his book English Reformers. Parker writes, “[Was] Sir Maurice Powicke right to put it so baldly: ‘The one definite thing which can be said about the Reformation is England is that it was an act of State.’ Or Prof. Owen Chadwick: ‘The English Reformation was emphatically a political revolution.’”^[5] Parker argues the negative, that the Reformation in England was affected by much more than the mere wearer of the crown. In fact, he says that the Protestant convictions and practices embraced by the Church of England went farther than at least one queen wished, demonstrating that religious belief among the English clergy and laity was (at least in some instances) more influential than the dictates of the monarch.

This essay will argue that the Reformation in England was centrally focused on exactly the same fundamental theological and practical conviction as was shared by all the reformers across Europe, that Scripture alone is the word of God. Specifically, we will concentrate on a handful of English reformers and primarily those who lived during the sixteenth century in order to demonstrate that they believed in the supremacy and the necessity of Scripture in the life of the church. Though preaching the Bible was not entirely an invention of the Protestant Reformation, this brief treatise will aim to show that the Reformation in England was fundamentally religious since its emphasis on the authority and the necessity of the Scriptures in the life of the church transcends (both chronologically and philosophically) the political changes.

Describing the scene prior to the Reformation, Scott Manetsch wrote, “it would be inaccurate to conclude that Christian preaching was unknown in Catholic Europe… before the Reformation. In fact, scholars have shown that a virtual homiletic revolution occurred in Western Europe in the thirteenth century…”^[6] However, Manetsch added, “for the most part, [sermons were] absent from the day-to-day ministry of the Catholic Parish… As a general rule, preaching on the eve of the Reformation was occasional and performed by mendicants and other specialists – not by parish clergy.”^[7] Such was the case just before the Reformation, but by the mid-sixteenth century an English reformer named John Hooper did not hesitate to name “the pure preaching of the gospel” as one of the “two marks” of “the true church.”^[8] In other words, preaching – especially that which clearly articulated and explained the gospel of Jesus Christ – had become fundamental, not only as the pastoral responsibility but to the essence of the church itself.

Indeed, in 1547, when Edward VI became king of England at only nine years of age, reformers like Thomas Cranmer began to implement a Protestant pastoral theology throughout England by publishing a textbook for church liturgy, prayer, and teaching. As one modern historian, Michael Reeves, put it, “for those getting ordained [to the pastoral office], there was a new expectation: now it was clear that becoming a minister [in England] was not about being a priest who offers sacrifices… but primarily about preaching… instead of being invested with priestly clothes, [new ministers] were given a Bible.”^[9]

We will aim to show that preaching and teaching the text of the Bible was recovered among the English reformers as the fundamental pastoral responsibility because of their belief that Scripture alone is the word of God.^[10] And we will demonstrate that this Protestant conviction and practice was present among the English before and during the Reformation period by highlighting the views and practices of several Englishmen. John Wyclif was an English forerunner of the Reformation, having come and gone during the fourteenth century, but he affirms the same emphasis as later Protestants. Wyclif insisted upon the supreme authority of Scripture as well as the central pastoral duty to preach and teach the Bible. Sixteenth-century English reformers in focus below are William Tyndale, Hugh Latimer, John Hooper, John Jewel, Nicholas Ridley, and Thomas Cranmer.

These men all show a unified vision of pastoral ministry that centers on preaching and teaching the Scriptures as the supreme word of God. Through their writing and by their own examples, these English reformers taught and promoted a pastoral theology that resisted innovation and the outward display of stimulating ceremony. Instead, they aimed to cultivate and to model pastoral faithfulness in the form of reading, explaining, and applying God’s word. In this fundamental conviction and practice, these reformers show us a Reformation in England that is keeping with the broader European Reformation. There certainly were peculiarities in the way the Reformation took shape in England, but all Protestants (whether they be in England or on the continent, ruled by monarch or by emperor) shared a central belief that the Scriptures alone are the word of God.

The English Reformers

John Wyclif (1328-1384)

John Wyclif is often called the Morning Star of the Protestant Reformation because during the fourteenth century he was already promoting and emphasizing the formal dispute which became the beachhead of protest during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. More than four generations before Martin Luther nailed his ninety-five theses to the chapel door in Wittenberg, Wyclif had already made it his mission to lift the Scriptures above all earthly authorities. Luther, in his own lifetime, readily accepted the label “Wycliffite” as a derogatory term for his rejection of the doctrine of transubstantiation on the grounds that it was not to be found in the biblical text.^[11]

It is inevitable, then, that we should begin our survey of English reformers with a look at Wyclif. Not only was Wyclif the first notable Englishman to argue for the authority of the Scriptures above that of any pope or council, but he was also devoted to making the Scriptures available in the language of the English-speaking world. Furthermore, Wyclif’s supreme value of Scripture directly connects to his Bible-centered view of the pastoral ministry. Unequivocally, Wyclif believed that the most important duty of the pastor was the preaching or teaching of Scripture. He wrote, “Preaching the gospel exceeds Prayer and Administration of the sacraments, to an infinite degree… [and] Spreading the gospel has far wider and more evident benefit; it is thus the most precious activity of the Church.”^[12]

Indeed, Wyclif thought that each pastor had two basic responsibilities: first, attending to his own character and, second, attending to the task of teaching or preaching. Wyclif said, “There are two things which pertain to the status of pastor: the holiness of the pastor and the wholesomeness of his teaching.”^[13] And this was not an isolated comment from Wyclif. He elaborated, “The first condition of the pastor is to cleanse his own spring, that it may not infect the Word of God.”^[14] It was fundamental to the pastor’s role that he prevent hindrance to or distraction from his teaching by aiming for personal holiness. Wyclif went on, “as for the second condition… the pastor has a threefold office: first, to feed his sheep spiritually on the Word of God… second… to purge wisely the sheep of disease, that they may not infect themselves and others as well… [and] third… the pastor [must] defend his sheep from ravening wolves, both sensible and insensible.”^[15] For Wyclif, these three tasks were all part of the chief duty of “sewing the Word of God among his sheep.”^[16]

As was already noted, Wyclif’s view of the pastoral ministry sprang from his understanding of the authority and power of the Scriptures themselves. What is also noteworthy about Wyclif’s pastoral theology was his emphasis on divine judgment at the last day, when “Christ will require a reckoning from them [i.e., pastors] in the day of judgment, of how they have exercised in this ministry the power which he gave them.”^[17] Wyclif reasoned, “Since it is necessary that he[i.e., the pastor] answer for the sheep entrusted to him, it is therefore also necessary that he personally feed them.”^[18]And that which the under-shepherd should feed the sheep is the food which the Master prepared for them in the form of His word.

The importance of Wyclif’s views on the Scriptures and of the pastoral duty, as briefly summarized here, cannot be overstated with regard to this essay. While some historians and many popular opinions today assume that the Reformation in England was primarily or even totally a political revolution, the continuity of Wyclif’s doctrine and practice among the Church of England shows that government may have been the mere vehicle for the religiousrevolution that was already in motion. In other words, if Wyclif’s doctrine of the Scriptures and his emphasis on the pastoral responsibility of preaching the Bible are echoed in the writings and practices of English reformers nearly 200 years later, then one can hardly argue that the English Reformation was a trifling consequence of a monarchial tangent.

William Tyndale (c. 1490-1536)

Like Wyclif, William Tyndale also made it his mission to translate the Scriptures from foreign tongues to that of the common man. Unlike Wyclif, Tyndale worked with the original languages of Greek and Hebrew, rather than the Latin text, to draw out his translation to English. Both of these men highly prized the text of Scripture itself, and they both wanted to make it accessible to as many people as possible. It is not surprising, then, to see the same emphases and themes in Tyndale that we observe in Wyclif.

First, Tyndale believed that the word of God is the “light” and “power” by which God “createth [his elect] and shapeth them after the similitude, likeness, and very fashion of Christ.”^[19] For Tyndale, the biblical text is the “sustenance, comfort, and strength to courage them, that they may stand fast, and endure.”^[20] Therefore, wrote Tyndale, “are they faithful servants of Christ, and faithful ministers and dispensers of his doctrine, and true-hearted toward their brethren, which have given themselves up into the hand of God… and have translated the scripture purely and with good conscience.”^[21] According to Tyndale, a faithful translation of Scripture is the best service any minister might give for his fellow Christians, because it is through the words of the Bible that Christians are shaped into the image of Christ and preserved along the pilgrim path.

Second, Tyndale believed that Christians would be “taught… all truth” by the “Spirit of Christ” through the ministry of faithful pastors.^[22] Indeed, Tyndale wrote in his commentary on the epistle of First John, “we have all one master now in heaven, which only teacheth us with his Spirit.”^[23] His point was to say that no “master upon earth” could contradict or overtake the seat of authority, which is God’s alone, in teaching believers.^[24] But this did not mean that Tyndale wanted Christians to eschew all preachers or pastors. On the contrary, Tyndale said that it was God alone who “teacheth us with his Spirit, though by the administration and office of a faithful preacher.”^[25] Such a preacher would prove himself faithful in pastoral office by “sowing the word” and “committing the growing to God.”^[26]

Like Wyclif before him, Tyndale was declared a heretic by both the religious and political authorities of his day. Wyclif was condemned posthumously at the Council of Constance in 1415, and thirteen years later his bones were exhumed and burned. In Tyndale’s case, he suffered a heretic’s death at the hands of an executioner. But, quite notably, Tyndale was strangled and burned at the stake in 1536 by order of Henry VIII for promoting fundamentally Protestant ideas, such as the accessibility of the Scriptures in the common tongue. This was two years after the Act of Supremacy that made Henry VIII the Supreme Head of the Church of England. Such a historical fact creates a real difficulty for those who argue that the Reformation in England was largely political. It seems that even politically Protestant English monarchs sometimes tried to thwart the religious developments of the Reformation in England. But it was the religious developments, and not the political ones, that marked the Reformation in England as genuinely Protestant.

Because of the political swings in England, however, Protestant reformers could find themselves promoted one day and then executed the next. During Tyndale’s lifetime, some reforms in England were already well underway, and there was a consistent pastoral theology based upon the authority and necessity of the Scriptures expressed by the English Protestants who came after him. Again and again, whether in advance or retreat, English reformers believed and taught that faithful Christian pastors preach and teach the Bible. And this was especially obvious when Protestants were able to implement their pastoral training and programs across England, as we will see exemplified by Hugh Latimer.

Hugh Latimer (1487-1555)

Hugh Latimer was serving as the bishop of Worcester when he was slated to speak to the convocation of English clergy on June 9, 1537, about a year after the martyrdom of William Tyndale. Latimer centered his sermon upon the biblical text of Luke 16:1-2. This itself is evidence of the high value he placed on biblical exposition since he demonstrated the practice of Bible-based preaching which he called those clergy in front of him to perform in their own office. And yet, the substance of Latimer’s sermon that day gives even more evidence of his view of the fundamental responsibility of pastoral preaching and teaching.

Applying the biblical parable about a dishonest steward, Latimer told the young ministers that they were to work as stewards in Christ’s household. “These words of Christ do pertain unto us,” he said, “and admonish us of our duty.”^[27]Such a duty of pastoral ministry, according to Latimer, is to “feed with his [i.e., Christ’s] word and his sacraments… with all diligence… the church [which] is his household.”^[28] Then, quoting the Apostle Paul, Latimer said, “Let men esteem us as the ministers of Christ, and dispensers of God’s mysteries.”^[29] And faithfulness is that which is “to be looked for in a dispenser,” that “he truly dispense, and lay out the goods of the Lord.”^[30] Of course “goods,” in Latimer’s analogy here, is referring to the words or mysteries which God Himself has revealed in the form of the written text of Scripture.

Throughout the short sermon, Latimer repeatedly called the newly minted ministers to faithfulness in making use of the “money” of the Master which has been entrusted to them. The valuable investment in Latimer’s mind is, naturally, the Scriptures themselves. The ministers are not to “come” with “new money,” but they are to “take it ready coined of the good man [i.e., the Master] of the house.”^[31] They are not to “despise the money of the Lord” either by “adulterating the word of God” or by “blowing out the dreams of men” in the “stead of God’s word.”^[32] In short, faithful pastors invest the Scriptures as the only valid currency of the realm, making good deposits in the citizens of the kingdom.

According to Latimer, the fundamental responsibility for pastors is the faithful preaching and teaching of the Scriptures, because the pastoral office and even the institution of the church itself depends upon faithful stewards dealing rightly with the Master’s resources. Latimer’s perspective here is quite valuable to the present essay, because it not only shows his own pastoral theology but also that which was perpetuated and common among the clergy of all England under the tutelage of reformers like Hugh Latimer. Wyclif and Tyndale may have both been political criminals in England, but their religious convictions, especially those regarding the authority and necessity of Scripture, lived on in the English reformers that succeeded them.

John Hooper (1495-1555)

The “sometime bishop of Gloucester,”^[33] John Hooper is credited with writing A Brief and Clear Confession of the Christian Faith.^[34] This text presents a thoroughly Protestant view of the church and of the Scriptures. Sharing the same convictions as many others, Hooper names “three principle signs”^[35] or “marks by which we may know” that a church is truly Christ’s.^[36] These, he said, are “the word, the sacraments, and discipline.”^[37] Specifically, Hooper described “the word” as that “which was revealed by the Holy Ghost unto the holy Patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles of Jesus Christ; the which word is contained within the canonical books of the Old and New Testament.”^[38] Therefore, according to Hooper, the biblical text is fundamental to the existence of a true church.

In that same confession of faith, Hooper went on to describe the chief authority of the Scriptures in the life of the church. He said, “I believe, that the same word of God is of a far greater authority than the church; the which word only doth sufficiently shew and teach us all those things, that in any wise concern our salvation; both what we ought to do, and what to leave undone.”^[39] Clearly, Hooper believed that the Scriptures were both sufficient and supremely authoritative, and he also believed that these are the basis of all teaching for salvation and living. Good or faithful ministers, asserted Hooper, are those men who teach “faithful people” to “govern and order their lives” according to God’s word “without changing any thing thereof, without putting to it, or taking from it.”^[40] We may hear echos here of Latimer’s idea of stewardship. Like Latimer, Hooper understood the fundamental pastoral responsibility to be the teaching and preaching of nothing more or less than the canonical books of the Bible. Whatever one might say about the political developments in England, Hooper’s Confession was a summary of thoroughly Protestant doctrine as embraced by the reformers in England.

Hooper also wrote A Declaracion of Christe and his offyce, published in 1547, in which he articulated the uniqueness of Christ as priest to the universal church. In this book, he not only excludes Rome’s priests from such an office, he also explains that Christ continues to rule and mediate in His churches through the Scriptures. Hooper wrote, “This knowledge of Christ’s supremity and continual presence in the church admitteth no lieutenant nor general vicar. Likewise,” he said, “it admitteth not the decrees and laws of men, brought into the church contrary unto the word and scripture of God, which is only sufficient to teach all verity and truth for the salvation of man…”^[41] With such a statement, Hooper not only denied that any priest of Rome may stand in Christ’s place, he also affirmed that faithful ministers must teach nothing other than or contrary to Scripture.

According to Hooper, “Nothing can be desired necessary for men, but in this law [specifically referring here to the New Testament] it is prescribed. Of what degree, vocation, or calling soever he be, his duty is showed unto him in the scripture.”^[42] Furthermore, he wrote, “It is the office of a good man [i.e., faithful pastor] to teach the church… only by the word of Christ… The church must therefore be bound to none other authority than onto the voice of the gospel and unto the ministry thereof…”^[43] Thus, the ministry and voice of pastors ought to do nothing but recite and explain the Scriptures. Such an affirmation certainly has political implications, but it is fundamentally religious and definitional of Protestant theology.

Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556)

Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, was a major contributor to the Protestant advancement in England during the sixteenth century. His influence and manifold writings are hard to quantify, and it is beyond the ability of the present author to summarize Cranmer’s complicated leadership among the English reformers. However, his Book of Common Prayer, in its two editions (1549 and 1552), is probably one of the most influential writings of all contemporaneous Protestants in England. Cranmer published this text to create a uniformity of biblical instruction and leadership among all English churches. His goal that was achieved, even if one might dispute just how biblical were all the book’s contents.

In the preface to the 1549 edition, Cranmer wrote of the benefits of the regular and systematic reading of Scripture among the gathered church. He said, “the whole Bible… should be read over once in the yeare, intendyng thereby, that the Cleargie, and specially suche as were Ministers of the congregacion, should… be stirred up to godliness themselfes, and be more able also to exhorte other by wholsome doctrine.”^[44] Cranmer also set down the standard that all “curates shal nede none other bookes for their publique service, but this boke,” referring to his prayer book, “and the Bible.”^[45]Cranmer’s standard text was designed to ensure that every church would have ministers lead them by reading through the Scriptures and by praying according to biblical doctrines and instructions.

The preface and explanation of the use of Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer is sufficient to demonstrate his view of the importance of Scripture in the life of the church, but it does not necessarily show what Cranmer believed was the fundamental pastoral duty. For that, we may turn to his prayers. For ministers, Cranmer intended the churches to pray “That it maye please [God] to illuminate all Bishops, pastours, and ministers of the churche, with true knowledge and understanding of [God’s] word, and that bothe by theyr preaching and living, they maye set it foorth and shewe it accordyngly.”^[46] So too, Cranmer repeatedly placed within his standard text the opportunity for “the minister” to “make” an “exhortacion” or give his “sermon or homely” upon the words” of the Scripture passage read aloud.^[47] Often, the written prompt is followed by a sermon or homely manuscript that a minister could read aloud and deliver as his own.

It is true that Cranmer depended upon the authority of political leaders to implement his program and the use of his Book of Common Prayer. Cranmer, as the Archbishop of Canterbury, was himself in an office of great political authority and influence. However, for Cranmer, as with other magisterial reformers, government was the means by which he achieved his end, which was a religious reform and not merely a political one.

Nicholas Ridley (c. 1500-1555)

Nicholas Ridley was the Bishop of London. He, like John Hooper, Hugh Latimer, and Thomas Cranmer, experienced the advance of Protestantism and then a comprehensive setback under the reign of Mary. A faithful Christian witness during good times and bad, Ridley continued the ministry and teaching he had started, even in the face of fatal hostility. While Mary was the queen of England, she outlawed all Protestant reforms, and Ridley wrote A Pituous Lamentation of the Miserable Estate of the Church in England. Published during better times for Protestants, under the authorization of queen Elizabeth (r. 1558-1603), Ridley’s lament gives us considerable insight into the pastoral theology he held and to his view of the importance of the Scriptures. It also provides an emphatic focus on the religious state of England during a time when the English politics were unstable.

Ridley wrote of blessings of God during previous years when he said, “Of late all that were endued with the light and grace of understanding of God’s holy mysteries, did bless God, which had brought them out of that horrible blindness and ignorance.”^[48] “But now, alas!” he said. “England has returned again like a dog to her own vomit and spewing, and is in a worse case than ever she was.”^[49] Ridley’s lament and assessment was due to his perceived absence of the faithful preaching of Scripture, not his desire for one government or another.

Ridley was glad for the previous time when “all ministers that were admitted to the public office and ministry of God’s holy word, in their admission made a solemn profession before the congregation, that they should teach the people nothing… but that which is God’s own holy word.”^[50] According to Ridley, the ministers of England were not only fundamentally responsible to preach and teach the Scriptures, they were admitted to the office by swearing to do just that before the congregation they aimed to serve. Furthermore, Ridley exhibits a profoundly Protestant longing for religious practices that center upon Scripture, and his lament is far less about the people or systems of government than it is about the function of the pastoral office within the local church.

In a record of Ridley’s examination before “the Queen’s Commissioners” on September 13, 1555, Ridley disputed with John White, Bishop of Lincoln and representative of “blessed see of Rome” under the authority of queen Mary.^[51]After John of Lincoln urged Ridley to return to the church of Rome with apparent sincerity, Ridley responded. He said that the “bishops in the see of Rome” for a “long” time “were great maintainers and setters forth of Christ’s glory” by preaching “the true gospel” and “duly ministering” the sacraments.^[52] Indeed, he said that he “cannot nor dare but commend, reverence, and honour the see of Rome, as long as it continued in the promotion and setting forth of God’s glory, and in the due preaching of the gospel, as it did many years after Christ.”^[53]

But, said Ridley, the “Romish church” had become a “novelty,” and Ridley preferred “the antiquity of the primitive church,” which continued to be “spread throughout all the world… where Christ’s sacraments are duly ministered [and] his gospel truly preached and followed.”^[54] Thus, we observe that even upon the threat of martyrdom, Ridley maintained that the essence of a true church was found in biblical preaching and in the biblical administration of the sacraments, which are both to be administered by faithful pastors. This exchange shows how Ridley understood the ministry of pastors or ministers by contrasting what he perceived to be faithful bishops in earlier centuries with those he perceived to be damnable ones in the present.^[55] Faithful bishops or ministers or pastors preach the biblical gospel, according to Ridley, and unfaithful ministers do not.

Ridley was condemned to death under the reign of queen Mary in England because of his unwillingness to embrace the doctrines and practices of the Roman Church. His religious convictions had real political consequences, and the political changes in England that he experienced certainly affected the religious landscape. However, yet again, we may note that Ridley was echoing those notable Protestant convictions that Tyndale had articulated before him. Wyclif too, as a forerunner to the Reformation in England, had emphasized the authority and necessity of the Scriptures. Thus, the political swings seem to be secondary to the religious revolution underway during Ridley’s life.

John Jewel (1522-1571)

John Jewel was the bishop of Salisbury, and he wrote An Apologie of the church of England (published in 1560 or 1561) to clearly articulate the position of the church of England after an extraordinary swing back-and-forth between Protestantism and Romanism under the rules of competing monarchs. While the political crown may have passed from Edward VI to Jane and then to Mary, the fundamental Protestant convictions of English reformers did not move in the slightest. Jewel argued in his Apologie that only qualified men ought to serve as ministers in the church, “lawfully, duly, and orderly” called by God to be “an interpreter of the Scriptures.”^[56] By “lawfully,” Jewel means according to the qualifications set down in the Bible, namely 1 Timothy 3:1-8 and Titus 1:6-9. And the task which these qualified men were to set themselves to doing was that of interpreting or explaining the Scriptures. Like Wyclif, Tyndale, and Latimer before him, Jewel was arguing for a Protestant practice based on religious convictions about the authority and the necessity of God’s word.

Jewel went on to write that ministers have the power “to bind, to loose, to open, [and] to shut” by authorization of the pastoral office, and the doing of all of this is by “preaching of the gospel the merits of Christ.”^[57] This is a reference to a common Protestant understanding of the “use of the keys,”^[58] by which Jewel understood that ministers “teach” and “publish” the “Gospel.”^[59] Jewel said, “seeing then the key, whereby the way and entry to the Kingdom of God is opened unto us, is the word of the Gospel and the expounding of the law and Scriptures, we say plainly, where the same word is not, there is not the key.”^[60] Indeed, this, says Jewel, “is but one only power of all ministers.”^[61]

Such a view is thoroughly Protestant since the Roman Catholic authority to bind and loose rests in the claim of apostolic authority in the office of the pope. Note also that Jewel’s assertion is that there is a transcendent “Kingdom,” which supersedes that of any earthly one, and that heavenly kingdom is regulated by the Scriptures. Like other reformers who lived in various realms on the European continent, Jewel was not merely interested in a political revolution. He was articulating a religious conviction that focused upon the Scriptures as the word of God, which commanded an authority above any earthly crown.

Conclusion

John Wyclif and the English reformers who followed him all exemplify the Protestant emphasis upon the Scriptures, which most notably manifests itself in the life and function of the local church. Those who lead in the church are ministers or elders or pastors, and their fundamental responsibility, as far as these English reformers were concerned, was to preach and teach the Bible. With unmistakable consistency, all of these men asserted the same essential pastoral duty, based upon the shared conviction that the Scriptures are the word of God and supremely authoritative and necessary in the lives of Christians. In the fourteenth century, John Wyclif had already recovered this focus, and the English reformers who came generations later continued to assert and embody the same. Thus, the Reformation in England was markedly a religious revolution, not merely a political one.

While politics certainly played a major role in the Protestant Reformation among the English, government was more the apparatus for change and not the substance of it. One may distinguish between those geographical and national occasions through which Protestants worked to affect the religious changes they implemented, but the argument that such distinctions were fundamental or substantial differences seems unfounded. The English Reformation was clearly a transformation of the religious convictions and practices of the people in the English-speaking world. It is precisely this reality that makes it unsurprising that the Reformation in England had a distinct style and political flavor from the Reformation elsewhere in Europe.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cones, Brian. “How Similar Are Catholics and Anglicans?” U.S. Catholic (blog), December 9, 2009.

Cummings, Brian, ed. The Book of Common Prayer: The Texts of 1549, 1559, and 1662. Kindle. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 2011.

D’aubigne, J. H. Merle. History of the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Logos Research. Vol. 5. 5 vols. Glasgow: Williams Collins, Publisher & Queen’s Printer London: R. Groombridge & Sons, 1862.

Gage, Candice. “Why Do Anglicans Become Roman Catholic?: A Response by an Evangelical Expat.” The North American Anglican (blog), May 11, 2020.

Hanson, B. L. “Tyndale, William.” In The Essential Lexham Dictionary of Church History, edited by Michael Haykin. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2022.

Hooper, John, and Jean Garnier. A Brief and Clear Confession of the Christian Faith, Containing an Hundred Articles, According to the Order of the Apostles’ Creed. Kindle. Miami, FL: Hardpress, 2017.

Latimer, Hugh. Sermons by Hugh Latimer. Edited by George Elwes Corrie. The Parker Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1844.

Oberman, Heiko Augustinus. Forerunners of the Reformation: The Shape of Late Medieval Thought. First Fortress Press Edition. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1981.

Ozment, Steven. The Age of Reform 1250-1550: An Intellectual and Religious History of Late Medieval and Reformation Europe. New Edition. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2020.

Parker, T. H. L., ed. English Reformers. The Library of Christian Classics. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.

Pollard, Albert Frederick. Thomas Cranmer and the English Reformation (1489-1556). Logos Research. New York; London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1906.

Reeves, Michael. The Unquenchable Flame: Discovering the Heart of the Reformation. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2010.

Ridley, Nicholas. The Works of Nicholas Ridley, D.D. Edited by Henry Christmas. Logos Research Edition. Cambridge: University Press, 1843.

Russell, William R., and Timothy F. Lull, eds. Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings. 3rd Edition. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2012.

Spinka, Matthew. Advocates of Reform: From Wyclif to Erasmus. The Library of Christian Classics. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1953.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016.

Turner, M. H. “Why Is Anglicanism a Gateway to Catholicism?” Mere Orthodoxy (blog), April 28, 2020.

Endnotes

^[1] Brian Cones, “How Similar Are Catholics and Anglicans?,” U.S. Catholic (blog), December 9, 2009.

^[2] The term Anglican Church literally refers to the English Church, but the Anglican Communion is a denomination established in 1867 during the Lambeth Conference. While the Church of England has experienced modern developments, not the least of which is a shift in its common moniker, throughout this paper the terms Anglican Church and Anglicanism will refer synonymously to the Church of England, which was formally established by an Act of Supremacy by Henry VIII in 1534.

^[3] Candice Gage, “Why Do Anglicans Become Roman Catholic?: A Response by an Evangelical Expat,” The North American Anglican(blog), May 11, 2020.

^[4] Gage writes imprecisely in her article about what she refers to as “Evangelicalism,” “Protestantism,” “Anglicanism,” and “Roman Catholicism.” She does seem to distinguish between Evangelicalism and Protestantism, but it is not at all clear what specific differences she perceives between them. Most confusingly of all, she says that Anglicanism has in some sense “been welcomed into Roman Catholicism,” and she writes of “‘Protestant’ Anglicans,” as though there is such a thing as Anglicans who are not Protestant. All of her words taken in sum seem to point to the via media perspective.

^[5] T. H. L. Parker, ed., English Reformers, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006). xvi.

^[6] Scott M. Manetsch, Calvin’s Company of Pastors: Pastoral Care and the Emerging Reformed Church, 1536-1609 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). 147.

^[7] Ibid. 147.

^[8] T. H. L. Parker, ed., English Reformers, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006). 215.

^[9] Michael Reeves, The Unquenchable Flame: Discovering the Heart of the Reformation (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2010). 134-135.

^[10] It is beyond the scope of this essay to prove that preaching and teaching Scripture was a central or even fundamental pastoral responsibility at an earlier time in Christian history, but it is the present author’s perspective, nonetheless. It may be noted, however, that one can hardly read much of John Calvin or Martin Luther without seeing citations of preaching which centered upon the exposition of Scripture from the likes of John Chrysostom or Irenaeus of Lyons. And the sixteenth-century English reformers certainly understood themselves to have recovered the primitive doctrine and practice of Christianity, as is demonstrated in this essay by a portion of Nicholas Ridley’s exchange with his Roman inquisitor. Therefore, it seems appropriate to use the word “recovered” here.

^[11] Martin Luther, Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, ed. William R. Russell and Timothy F. Lull, 3rd Edition (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2012). 206.

^[12] Matthew Spinka, Advocates of Reform: From Wyclif to Erasmus, The Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1953). 49.

^[13] Ibid. 32.

^[14] Ibid. 48.

^[15] Ibid. 48.

^[16] Ibid. 48.

^[17] Ibid. 60.

^[18] Ibid. 56.

^[19] T. H. L. Parker, ed., English Reformers, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006). 105.

^[20] Ibid. 105.

^[21] Ibid. 105.

^[22] Ibid. 119.

^[23] Ibid. 119.

^[24] Ibid. 119.

^[25] Ibid. 119.

^[26] Ibid. 119.

^[27] Hugh Latimer, Sermons by Hugh Latimer, ed. George Elwes Corrie, The Parker Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1844). 34.

^[28] Ibid. 35.

^[29] Ibid. 35.

^[30] Ibid. 35.

^[31] Ibid. 36.

^[32] Ibid. 36.

^[33] John Hooper and Jean Garnier, A Brief and Clear Confession of the Christian Faith, Containing an Hundred Articles, According to the Order of the Apostles’ Creed, Kindle (Miami, FL: Hardpress, 2017). i.

^[34] There is some debate about John Hooper’s original authorship of this confession. It is argued that he merely translated it from Jean Garnier’s French confession. It is not within the scope of this essay to address the matter of genuine authorship. Even if the text is not original with Hooper, it was still published in England at least as early as 1584 by the “Printer to the Queen’s most excellent Majesty” in London. This is the version cited throughout this essay. T. H. L. Parker asserts that Hooper was indeed the author in 1550. At any rate, the text is reflective of the theology held among Protestants in England during the middle and late sixteenth century, including their pastoral theology. T. H. L. Parker, ed., English Reformers, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006). 188.

^[35] This numeration of three marks or signs of a true church is the same as John Calvin’s view, but both Calvin and Hooper were aligned with other reformers who named only two marks. Those who limited the number to two perceived that the right administration of the sacraments or ordinances necessarily included church discipline; therefore, they did not exclude Hooper’s or Calvin’s third mark, but only counted it under the heading of the second. As a matter of fact, Hooper himself once named only the two marks in at least one of his earlier writings cited in the introduction of this essay.

^[36] John Hooper and Jean Garnier, A Brief and Clear Confession of the Christian Faith, Containing an Hundred Articles, According to the Order of the Apostles’ Creed, Kindle (Miami, FL: Hardpress, 2017). 24.

^[37] Ibid. 24.

^[38] Ibid. 24-25.

^[39] Ibid. 25.

^[40] Ibid. 25.

^[41] T. H. L. Parker, ed., English Reformers, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006). 197.

^[42] Ibid. 197.

^[43] Ibid. 198.

^[44] Brian Cummings, ed., The Book of Common Prayer: The Texts of 1549, 1559, and 1662, Kindle (Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 2011). 4.

^[45] Ibid. 5.

^[46] Ibid. 42.

^[47] Ibid. 22, 54, 127, 142, etc.

^[48] Nicholas Ridley, The Works of Nicholas Ridley, D.D., ed. Henry Christmas, Logos Research Edition (Cambridge: University Press, 1843). 51.

^[49] Ibid. 51.

^[50] Ibid. 52.

^[51] Ibid. 253-255.

^[52] Ibid. 262.

^[53] Ibid. 262.

^[54] Ibid. 267.

^[55] The use of the word “damnable” here is due to Ridley’s frequent ascription of the term “Antichrist” to the bishop of Rome and those priests and bishops who participated in the Roman church of his day. Nicholas Ridley, The Works of Nicholas Ridley, D.D., ed. Henry Christmas, Logos Research Edition (Cambridge: University Press, 1843). 263, 287-289.

^[56] T. H. L. Parker, ed., English Reformers, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006). 23.

^[57] Ibid. 23.

^[58] There is no shortage of controversy regarding the correct interpretation of Matthew 16:13-20 and 18:15-20. Protestants did not agree with the Roman Church of their day, which argued that Peter received “the keys” in some personal sense, wherein those who literally became his successors would continue to bear some special authority or privilege among the people of Christ in the world. Rather, at least some of the reformers (as exemplified in this essay by Jewel) believed that it was the substance of the message Peter believed and the announcement of blessing (i.e., forgiveness of sins), which Peter heard from Christ, that constituted the substance of “the keys.” Therefore, the preaching of the gospel and the dispensation of the sacraments, in their minds, are “the keys.”

^[59] T. H. L. Parker, ed., English Reformers, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006). 24.

^[60] Ibid. 24.

^[61] Ibid. 24.

What is a Calvinist?

John Calvin (1509-1564) was a French theologian and pastor who spent most of his ministry in Geneva, Switzerland. Calvin was a major influencer during the Protestant Reformation, preaching and teaching with the fervor of a man who seemed wholly-devoted to Christ.

Calvin preached and taught expositionally through the Bible, leaving behind many commentaries on the biblical text and other insightful books on Christian belief and practice. However, Calvin’s most notable work is known as “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” which is a magnificent theological treatise. Systematic theology texts are quite numerous today, but before Calvin such a thing was rare indeed.

Calvin’s writings create a bit of difficulty for anyone to answer my main question here – What is a Calvinist? – since his Institutes alone clearly demonstrate that Calvin’s theological system and contributions were both much more expansive than many Christians suppose today. However, I am going to avoid the worthwhile debate about who is and isn’t a real Calvinist.

Rather, I am going to focus my answer to the main question – What is a Calvinist? – on the popular or common perspective. Most people who claim to be Calvinists today are merely announcing their affirmation of the so-called Five Points of Calvinism, and many modern-day Calvinists don’t even affirm all five.

Ironically, Calvin never arranged or articulated a mere five points of doctrine. The five points popularly known as Calvinism today were not even a bulleted theological structure until after the Remonstrance (followers of Jocobus Arminius) made these points the focus of their opposition – 50 years after Calvin died. Even then, however, they were not arranged as the popluar acronym TULIP. That didn’t happen until at least 200 years later.

At the Synod of Dort (1618-1619), the Remonstrance petitioned the government for an allowance to hold their theological view (throughout history religion and government have been joined more often than not). A similar doctrinal position (called Semi-Pelagiansism) had already been condemned one thousand years earlier (in AD 431 at the Council of Ephesus and again in AD 529 at the Council of Orange), and the Remonstrance wanted to avoid the same designation.

But, alas, the Remonstrance were condemned as well. The Synod of Dort ended with a judgment against Arminianism, declaring it a heresy alongside Semi-Pelagianism. The synod produces several canons (or doctrinal affirmations), some of which became the origins of the so-called Five Points of Calvinism.

The Five Points of Calvinism are:

1) Total Depravity: Fallen humans, since Adam, are thoroughly affected by sin – their bodies, minds, and wills/desires; and unregenerate people are incapable of naturally doing anything genuinely good (Rom. 3:10-18).

2) Unconditional Election: God elects some sinners unto salvation, whereby they become beneficiaries of God’s blessings, not because of any condition in them, but according to the riches of God’s gracious grace and according to the purposes of His divine will (Eph. 1:3-6).

3) Limited Atonement: Jesus Christ’s atoning work on the cross is priceless, sufficient to cover all sin and all sinners, but Christ’s atoning work was intended and effectual only for those who believe and not for anyone else (Jn. 10:14-16).

4) Irresistable Grace: God alone causes sinners to be born again (regeneration is a monergistic act), through the proclamation of the gospel and powerful work of His Holy Spirit (God normally uses means). All who are born again possess new hearts with which they respond in loving affection for God, believing and repenting by His grace (Eph. 2:1-10).

5) Perseverence of the Saints: All sinners whom God has elected unto Himself, those for whom Christ has died, those God has made spiritually alive, will pursue personal holiness in this life and will persevere to the end (Rom. 8:28-39).

Calvinism – as anemically articulated in the five points above – has been the majority view among Protestants. Historically, Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Anglicans have all affirmed these doctrines. Notable 21st-century theologians and pastors who affirm these doctrines include R.C. Sproul, Ligon Duncan, Albert Mohler, and Mark Dever.

This brief article is only intended as a very simple introduction to this theological system. I suggest much further investigation for the interested Christian, and there are numerous books and articles that might be a help.

In my estimation, Wayne Grudem’s book, Systematic Theology, does a good job of explaining the various views of biblical salvation. This would be a great starting point for further study.

Whether you embrace this view or not, it is vital that all believers look to the Bible as the ultimate authority. It is also important that we humbly and graciously investigate the Bible alongside our brothers and sisters in Christ.

What is an Arminian?

Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609) was a Dutch theologian during the later period of the Protestant Reformation. Arminius and his followers opposed some points of Reformed theology, which developed more robustly out of the writings and teaching of some of the Reformers. One of the most (maybe the most?) influential and monumental Reformed works ever written is John Calvin‘s “Institutes of the Christian Religion.”

Though they never met (Calvin died when Arminius was 4 years old), Arminius had admiration for Calvin and his outstanding biblical hermeneutics. Arminius once said, “Next to the study of the Scriptures… I exhort my students to read Calvin’s Commentaries carefully and thoroughly… for I affirm that he excels beyond comparison in the interpretation of Scripture.”

Arminius and his followers (originally called the Remonstrance at the Synod of Dort) did, however, disagree with some points of the Reformed teaching in the area of soteriology (the doctrine of salvation). Forty-two ministers organized their opposition to some of Calvin’s Reformed teaching, focusing in on five particular disputed points. These points became the five-pointed dividing line between what later came to be called Arminianism and Calvinism.

Ironically, the five-pointed dividing line became known as “The Five Points of Calvinism,” though Calvin himself had never arranged them as such. The five points or doctrines were not even a bulleted theological structure until after the Remonstrance made them the focus of their opposition – 50 years after Calvin died. Even then, however, the five affirmative doctrinal points were not arranged as TULIP. That didn’t happen until at least 200 years later.

The Five Articles of the Remonstrance represent historic Arminianism. An Arminian, in the popular sense, is someone who affirms the Arminian articles or points over against the Calvinistic or Reformed points.

The Five Articles of the Remonstrance are:

1) Conditional Predestination: God predestines some sinners for salvation, and this predestination is conditionally based on God’s foreknowledge about each person’s anticipated faith or unbelief.

2) Universal Atonement: Christ died for all humans, and God intended His sacrifice for all humans, but only those sinners who accept this atoning work will be saved.

3) Saving Faith: Sinful and Fallen humanity is unable to attain saving faith, unless he is regenerated and renewed by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit.

4) Resistible Grace: The grace of God is effective, but it is resistible, so man must cooperate with God’s grace to bring about personal salvation.

5) Uncertainty of Perseverance: Although God’s grace is abundant, the sinner can lose that grace and become lost even after he has been saved.

It is important to note that some Arminians may not affirm all five of these articles, or they may not affirm each of them with the same fervor. In recent history, the Arminian system (or some variation of it) has been the most commonly held view among American Evangelicalism. Though, most Evangelicals are not aware of the historic grounding of their doctrinal views.

The Arminian view is widely embraced among many Southern Baptists, Methodists, Nazarenes, and Wesleyans today. C.S. Lewis, A.W. Tower, and Adrian Rogers are three notable men who affirmed (at least generally) an Arminian position. There are others, but these are significant voices, and each represents a distinct platform among culture and Christianity.

In my estimation, Wayne Grudem’s book, Systematic Theology, does a good job of explaining the various views of biblical salvation. This would be a great starting point for further study.

God’s Sovereignty & Human Responsibility in Evangelism

From very early in Christian history, Christians have wrestled with the Scriptures and with each other over how to understand God’s sovereignty in relation to man’s responsibility. The subject is all-encompassing. Just consider the question, “If God is sovereign, then does man have meaningful freedom to think, speak, or act?”

But the purpose of this brief essay is to focus more narrowly on a specific area of interest, namely the activity of evangelism. More directly, I shall try to answer the question, “What is a proper understanding of the relationship between divine sovereignty and the task of personal evangelism?” In short, I will argue that God’s sovereignty and personal evangelistic activity are both essential to evangelism.

Theologically I am a compatibilist, which means I affirm the compatibility of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility (including real human volition). I believe God is sovereign over whatsoever comes to pass and man is truly and rightly responsible for all he thinks, says, and does.

I do not understand these doctrines as opposed to each other, or incompatible. Rather, I see numerous passages in Scripture that either assume or argue positively for both of these truths side-by-side (see Isaiah 10:5-19; Acts 2:22-24; Acts 4:24-28). With J.I. Packer, I affirm the antinomyand not the incongruity of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. Packer writes,

“What should one do, then, with an antinomy? Accept it for what it is, and learn to live with it. Refuse to regard the apparent inconsistency as real; put down the semblance of contradiction to the deficiency of your own understanding; think of the two principles as not rival alternatives but, in some way that at present you do not grasp, complementary to each other… Use each within the limits of its own sphere of reference… teach yourself to think of reality in a way that provides for their peaceful coexistence, remembering that reality itself has proved actually to contain them both.”^[1]

And yet, as I said above, this essay is not focusing on such a panoramic vista as is displayed in the vast subject of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Instead, I am focusing on a narrow view, writing from the compatibilist theological position in order to answer a particular question of application.

In the following content, I will argue that God’s sovereignty and personal evangelistic activity are both essential to evangelism in this world. First, I will define evangelism, recognizing that such a term may not always be readily understood. Second, I will demonstrate the necessity of God’s sovereignty in evangelism. Third, I will argue for the necessity of personal evangelistic activity in the task of evangelism. And finally, I will conclude with a call to confident and humble evangelistic activity in the world.

Defining Evangelism

J.I. Packer defines evangelism by saying, “evangelism is just preaching the gospel, the evangel. It is a work of communication in which Christians make themselves the mouthpieces for God’s message of mercy to sinners.”^[2] Packer argues that evangelism must never be defined in terms of the “effect achieved,” and, therefore, his definition is quite precise and limited.

Will Metzger agrees with Packer’s warning about confusing the results with our own human responsibility, but Metzger provides an expanded definition of evangelism. Metzger says, “Our task is to faithfully present the gospel message by our lives (what we do) and our lips (what we say).”^[3]

I like both of these definitions, especially within the context each author respectively articulated them. But I like Mack Stiles’ definition of evangelism even better than these. Stiles writes, “Evangelism is teaching (heralding, proclaiming, preaching) the gospel (the message from God that leads us to salvation) with the aim (hope, desire, goal) to persuade (convince, convert).”^[4]

With Packer, the message is rightfully central; and with Metzger, the life and conduct of the messenger are given appropriate weight. Yet with Stiles, the goal or aim of the messenger is affirmed without placing undue responsibility upon the messenger for any result. Of course, God’s glory is always the greatest aim, but this does not obliterate all other aims in evangelism, such as the lesser-but-fitting desire to see the hearer converted.

In my view, the evangelist should humbly understand that God alone can produce spiritual life, and this should keep him or her from thinking evangelistic efforts which do not result in conversion are insignificant. But the evangelist’s chief end (God’s glory) should not dispel his or her ambition to persuade the hearer.

If I might be so bold as to rearticulate a definition of evangelism by amalgamating these three, I think evangelism is teaching the gospel, the evangel, as an extension of living a life of love and obedience to Christ with the aim to persuade our hearer to believe and live as we do. This is not to say that evangelism only occurs when the hearer believes and lives as a Christian, but it is to say that conversion is indeed the aim of evangelism. Because of this target, God’s sovereignty is essential to evangelism.

God’s Sovereignty

God’s sovereignty is essential to evangelism because fallen, unregenerate humans are utterly incapable of believing the gospel and loving the God who saves. The special focus here is upon God’s sovereign act of regenerating spiritually-dead sinners. The need for such a divine action, initiated by God Himself, is indisputable when one considers the natural state of fallen, unregenerate humans.

Simply put, if God did not sovereignly and independently initiate an effectively saving relationship with at least some sinners, then no sinner would ever be saved… even if every person on earth heard and understood the gospel.

After Genesis 3, all humans bear the mark of their universal forebear, Adam. That first human’s sin brought a curse upon all creation and especially upon all humans. Not only are all people born guilty, bearing the imputed guilt of that first sin (Rom. 5:12), all humans are also born with a natural inclination towards sin and disobedience. Many passages affirm this reality, but one quintessential text on the matter is found in Ephesians 2. The Apostle Paul wrote,

“you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind” (Ephesians 2:1–3).

In this passage, we may read of the biblical understanding of human volition, especially in regard to the unregenerate man’s propensity, desire, and affection. Here the metaphor is “death,” but not physical, since “death” is something in the passage that defines people who are physically alive. In verses 2-3, there are at least two ways in which the Apostle Paul explains the form and substance of death, i.e. spiritualdeath(v1). It is portrayed as (1) following a worldly course and a powerful prince; and (2) living in fleshly passions and carrying out fleshly desires.

Following a worldly course and a powerful prince. A “worldly course” and a “powerful prince” are both examples of language not uncommon to Scripture generally or the Apostle Paul specifically. In fact, Paul uses similar language in Galatians and Colossians. To the Galatian Christians, Paul wrote of their having been “enslaved to the elementary principles of this world” (Gal. 4:3). To the saints in Colossae, he wrote of their “deliverance from the domain of darkness” (Col. 1:13). The imagery is clear: devilish dominion enslaves all those who are spiritually dead, and these zombies walk according to the dark course or path of their evil prince. This imagery may be unenjoyable to our eyes, but it is not difficult to observe.

Living in fleshly passions and carrying out desires. These “passions” and “desires” are also frequently found in the biblical text. Paul says that Christians are to renounce “worldly passions” (Titus 2:12), and Peter says Christians are to resist conformity to the “passions” that accompany a “former ignorance” that characterizes unregenerate humanity (1 Peter 1:14). Jesus made a scathing remark against fallen humans, summarizing all of this, when He said, “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires” (John 8:44). In each case, “passions” and “desires” refer to lustful cravings and preferences of the will. When such cravings are qualified by the term “fleshly,” it always conveys the idea of immoral desire.

According to Scripture, fallen man is not in sinful bondage unwillingly, but he gladly wears his chains and even pursues heavier and lengthier ones. If a fallen, unregenerate human is to believe the gospel and love the God who saves, then it must be because of some divine intervention that produces and provokes such faith and love within the person.

This is, in fact, what the Scriptures affirm God does in regenerating sinners (Jn. 3:3-8; Titus 3:4-5). God sovereignly saves sinners, gifting faith to them, and recreating them in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:8-10). God’s sovereignty is essential to evangelism because the aim of evangelism is conversion, and such ambition is absurd without the independent regenerating activity of the sovereign God.

Personal Evangelistic Activity

Personal evangelistic activity is essential to evangelism because God regenerates sinners through the declaration and reception of His word. I believe my argument for the essential element of God’s sovereignty in evangelism requires a greater defense than the essential element of personal evangelistic activity. One reason for this is that our modern western culture is loathed to even consider the possibility that anyone but ourselves could be autonomous.

Indeed, the Scriptures confront us on this foundational point, unambiguously announcing that God alone is truly autonomous. And yet, we are right to also understand a personal responsibility for every human everywhere.

As the Westminster divines put it, all humans are responsible to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Since no human does this (Rom 3:10-18), and an increased awareness of moral propriety only compounds human guilt (Rom. 3:19-20), the reality is that humans are in desperate need of a rescuer. Unless or until God graciously intervenes, humans are under God’s condemnation with no hope in themselves for escape. In other words, humans are naturally guilty, not naturally neutral or innocent.

The beauty of the gospel is that God has actually done something comprehensive and profound to rescue sinners from His own wrath. Namely, God has sent His own Son into the world (Jn. 3:16-18) as a perfectly obedient representative for all who love and trust Him (Rom. 5:15-19) and as a propitiatory sacrifice who suffered under the punishment they deserve (Rom. 3:21-26).

However, all the benefits Jesus Christ earned in this gospel only come to those who are made aware of it and believe it. Therefore, it is necessary for the gospel message to be proclaimed by those who know it to those who do not.

The Scripture succinctly states this very fact. The Apostle Paul wrote,

“Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?” (Rom. 10:13-14)

In this brief passage, we see the promise of salvation to all who believe and the essential element of preaching and receiving the gospel. In other words, the evangelist must preach (speak, proclaim, assert) the gospel (the message about the Lord Jesus Christ) in order for anyone to receive the blessings of salvation by believing (trusting, clinging to, and following Jesus).

This passage from Romans 10 logically works backward from “calling on” Christ to the essential starting point of “preaching” the message of Christ. Therefore, personal evangelistic activity is essential to evangelism because God regenerates sinners through the declaration and reception of His word.

Call to Action

The core doctrines of Christianity undergird every assertion in this essay. God holds all people everywhere responsible for their disobedience, and yet God has done everything necessary for sinners to be transferred from their status of guilty rebels to adopted and beloved children of God. Though this work is already accomplished in the person of Jesus Christ, God relates to humans through His word, and none can be saved from their sin and guilt apart from receiving and believing God’s word – namely the gospel.

And yet, simply receiving God’s word is insufficient to cause belief. Through teaching the gospel, God miraculously (according to His good pleasure) causes spiritual life in some of the recipients, which effectively results in true conversion of their heart and life.

God’s sovereignty and personal evangelistic activity are both essential to evangelism. In God’s wisdom and grace, He has ordained that His people play a part in the expansion of His kingdom in the world by proclaiming the regal and merciful message of the gospel. And in God’s lovingkindness, He sometimes grants spiritual life to the recipients of this supremely gracious message.

These realities compel me toward evangelism because I know that I must tell others about Jesus in order for them to believe in Him, and I am eager to see God work the powerful work that only He can by regenerating dead sinners through ordinary means. May God help more Christians be humbled and emboldened by these marvelous truths.

^[1]J. I. Packer. (Kindle Location 155).

^[2]J.I. Packer. (Kindle Location 335).

^[3]Metzger, Will (p. 56). Explanation added.

^[4]Stiles, J. Mack. (p. 27).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Metzger, Will. Tell the Truth: The Whole Gospel Wholly by Grace Communicated Truthfully and Lovingly: An Evangelism Training Manual for Group and Individual Use. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2012. Kindle Edition.

Packer, J. I. Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2012. Kindle Edition.

Stiles, J. Mack. Evangelism: How the Whole Church Speaks of Jesus. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014. Kindle Edition.

Dreams, Visions, and the Sufficiency of Scripture

My thesis:

God has revealed Himself commandingly and sufficiently in the written canonical word (i.e. the Bible).

It is commonplace today for Christians to accept that God speaks in ways outside of His written and authoritative Word (the sixty-six canonical books found in the Protestant Christian Bible). While all Christians recognize that God has spoken in ways outside of His written Word, particularly during the time before human authors completed the canonical books of the Bible, many Christians still expect this kind of special and personal revelation today.

Christians who expect, or at least accept, modern-day prophetic revelation from God are often called continuationists. In only rare cases do continuationists claim that these modern-day prophecies are divinely authoritative (equal to the authority of Holy Scripture), but the prophetic visions and/or dreams are also said to be in the category of revelation from God. I will attempt to provide examples of this kind of acceptance and expectation by citing some professing Christians on the matter, and I will also try to present the thinking that undergirds this nebulous position by sketching the logical assumptions at its foundation.

Ultimately, I will seek to demonstrate the logical and Scriptural problems associated with the continuationist position, and I shall argue for an outright rejection of it. In the end, I hope to concisely show that any expectation for receiving divine visions or experiencing revelatory dreams is at least awkward and at worst dangerous.

Setting the Scene

Since the Charismatic[1]movement began in the early 1900s (not becoming mainstream until the 1950s and 1960s), Christians have generally become increasingly open to the idea that God is still speaking to His people today in ways other than biblical revelation. I am the lead pastor of a First Baptist Church located in an unincorporated rural Texas town, and even among this conservative-minded Southern Baptist congregation you will find many who are quite accepting of the idea that God speaks today through visions, dreams, and other forms of special prophecy.

As far as I know, none of my congregants would affirm that any modern-day prophecies should be added to the canon of Scripture, and I am thankful for their hesitation. However, I am also confused by the apparent inconsistency in pairing these two affirmations. As I recently presented the difficulty to some of my congregants, I am utterly unable to understand how someone can receive a “word from God” that is not the “Word of God.” Yet, there are some who feel perfectly at ease with this dichotomy.

Visions of Today

Wayne Grudem, in his standard-setting systematic theological work, defines prophecy as “telling something that God has spontaneously brought to mind.”[2]This essay is primarily interested in the purported experiences of dreams and visions as God’s special revelation to twentieth and twenty-first-century people. However, such dreams and visions fall into the category of prophecy since they are intended to perform as God’s special revealing mechanism to humanity – even if only one human in particular.

Grudem also groups visions under the umbrella of prophecy when he explains how Agabus’s prophecy concerning the arrest of the Apostle Paul might be best explained as an errant articulation of a divine vision.[3]Therefore, I believe it is helpful to consider the argument for modern-day prophecies as contributing to the overall support for the expectation of modern-day visions and dreams from God. Let us now consider the argument for experiencing prophecy today and the expression of prophetic practice by those who live with a contemporary expectation of dreams and/or visions.

Post-Apostolic Prophecy

If one is going to advocate for present-day prophets, those who experience divine revelation through dreams and/or visions, he or she will need to begin by demonstrating some biblical basis for them. Dr. Harwood, presenting his own contemporary openness to revelatory dreams and visions, cited several biblical examples of these prophetic experiences. Among the Apostolic examples, Harwood says “Jesus appeared to Saul (later Paul) on the road to Damascus (Acts 9)… Later, God directed Paul’s ministry through a vision of a man from Macedonia (Acts 16:9)… God spoke to Peter through a vision of animals lowered on a sheet (Acts 10:9-23).” Just as Harwood mentioned elsewhere in his article, these are only some of the many biblical examples of such things.[4]These examples do not prove that one should expect twenty-first-century prophets, but they do present prophetic dreams and visions as having been a method used by God to communicate with people at some time in history – namely those whose spiritual office was that of Apostle and/or prophet.

Citing a few Bible passages (such as 1 Thess. 5:19-21 and 1 Cor. 14:29-38) that speak of prophets and/or prophesying, Grudem argues that this New Testament activity is practiced consistently by simply telling something God spontaneously brought to mind.[5]In these passages we also find some instruction concerning prophets and prophecies, as they existed and operated in the context of the New Testament local church. It is from this platform that the leap is made into the present day. If there were ordinary prophets who prophesied through the medium of visions and/or dreams in the New Testament, then it is at least possible that there would be some expectation to experience the same today. However, there is still one more loose string that must be tied before this massive leap can be safely attempted.

When Old Testament prophets prophesied, their words were authoritative and binding – the imposing and dependable Word of God. Yet, as we have already established, very few (none that I know of) advocates of modern-day prophecy desire to present it as equal in authority with canonized Scripture. Harwood affirms “the need to judge any supposed vision or dream against the truths already revealed in the Bible.”[6]

Billy Graham’s staff also encourages the use of “godly counsel” and the Scriptures when filtering a contemporary prophetic vision or dream. Gudem, too, distances himself from any claim that all prophets and prophecies carry the same authority as Scripture. In fact, after attempting to demonstrate from Scripture some reasons to accept that some prophetic visions have less than binding authority, Grudem says, “prophecies in the church today should be considered merely human words, not God’s words, and not equal to God’s words in authority.”[7]Grudem quoted Donald Gee, representing the Assemblies of God, in order to assist in clearing up the difficulty created by this two-tiered significance for prophecy. Gee said:

[There are] grave problems raised by the habit of giving and receiving personal “messages” of guidance through the gifts of the Spirit…. The Bible gives a place for such direction from the Holy Spirit…. But it must be kept in proportion. An examination of the Scriptures will show us that as a matter of fact the early Christians did not continually receive such voices from heaven. In most cases they made their decisions by the use of what we often call “sanctified common-sense” and lived quite normal lives. Many of our errors where spiritual gifts are concerned arise when we want the extraordinary and exceptional to be made the frequent and habitual. Let all who develop excessive desire for “messages” through the gifts take warning from the wreckage of past generations as well as of contemporaries…. The Holy Scriptures are a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path.[8]

While the heart of such a desire for propriety is commendable, the subjectivity of this position presents an extremely open-ended experience for Christians in the present day. In short, it is like calling gluttons to address their insatiable desire for food by using common sense consumption principles and by keeping proper perspective through an awareness of the problems overeating has caused for others. If gluttons were capable of benefitting from these simple measures, then they would not now be gluttons! So too, those who expect ‘messages’ of special revelation from the Holy Spirit are in no way dissuaded from expecting more by a subtle call to an arbitrary sense of propriety.

Furthermore, error is much more likely to enter through the subjective experiences of humanity than through the study and application of Scripture. Experience has always been pitted against God’s revealed truth, and the Bible is full of examples of humans trusting their own experiential understanding rather than trusting and submitting to God’s Word. As the next section will show, people will inevitably prefer the subjective and effortless (personal prophetic revelation) to the objective and challenging (the diligent study of God’s Word).

Dreamers Dream

The staff of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association claims that God speaks “primarily” through His Word, but “God may communicate through dreams or visions even today.” Of course, a caveat comes quickly behind such a statement, “but we need to carefully check any such guidance we receive with Scripture and godly counsel to be sure it is from the Lord.”[9]Billy Graham is an ordained Southern Baptist minister, and these statements from his staff are indicative of the common view among the Southern Baptist congregants that I have encountered over the last decade and across the United States.

While it can be somewhat difficult to acquire a scholarly work on the matter of contemporary visions and dreams, a more open view can be illustrated in the words of a distinctively charismatic writer. Goodwyn, a Christian Broadcasting Network producer, said, “[My] personal experience has confirmed” the notion that “dreams are the perfect way to hear from God.” She went on to say, “Through biblical study, I have found that God intends to speak to each of [His] followers in this manner.” Then Goodwyn quoted the oft-cited text for charismatics when they address this topic, “I will pour out my Spirit upon all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy. Your old men will dream dreams, and your young men will see visions” (Joel 2:28; cf Acts 2:17). She does warn, though, “It’s important to understand that not all dreams are God-given.” Indeed, she asserts, “Dreams can also be from Satan.”[10]

These two examples concerning the expectation and nature of prophetic dreams and visions are not the same in every way, but they both provide some basis for further examination of the reasoning behind the continuationists position.

I believe the following conclusion statements can be drawn from these two distinct sources above. (1) God does communicate with humans today through visions and dreams, and apart from His Word; (2) Not all visions or dreams are from God; (3) Dreams and/or visions are a personal message directly from God; (4) Subjectively, personal direct messages from God are preferable to ancient indirect ones.

First, both Graham’s staff and Goodwyn affirm that visions and dreams, as special revelation from God, are for Christians today. I shall address this further below, but this is an open and direct assault on the sufficiency of Scripture. If Christians should expect visions and dreams as a kind of supplemental revelation from God today, then the canon of Scripture is (by logical necessity) insufficient for the Christian to be completely equipped for all that God would do in and through him or her.

Second, both Graham’s staff and Goodwyn also affirm that Christians can receive misleading (at best) and nefarious (at worst) visions and dreams. While Graham’s staff does not explicitly attribute erroneous visions and dreams to Satan, as Goodwyn does, they still leave room for massive delusion. Moreover, if visions and dreams are to be weighed against the full counsel of God’s Holy Word, then what real practical use is the vision or dream? If such things are intended as a fast track to knowing God’s will or God’s truth, then pouring over the Scriptures for clarity and validation nullifies the speed and ease of the supposed route.

Third, the last two suppositions, which I believe may also be inferred from an honest assessment of the declarations cited from Graham’s staff and Goodwyn, are both linked to personal subjectivity and preference. Any Christian would jump at the opportunity to receive personal divine revelation in this mortal life. Such a thing excites my interest as I consider it, even as I do not believe it is plausible.

The sheer pleasure of a personal message from God, regardless of its content, is enough to keep a Christian consumed and pursuing the experience for quite some time. While personal divine revelation is an exciting notion, it is even more desirable when compared with the indirect and ancient revelation that one will find on the pages of Scripture. While I have heard no continuationist argue for pursuing visions or dreams over seeking God’s revelation of Himself in His Word, it does seem inevitable that Christians would eagerly look for the former over the latter.

If Christians adopt the position that prophetic visions and dreams are to be expected from God in the modern day, then a powerful fog of disillusionment may be blown upon Christians everywhere.

How will these modern-day prophets be kept in check?

Who will tell us what is the Word of God and what is not?

If prophets can be wrong about some things, how can we trust anything that they say?

If prophecy through visions and dreams is for today, then why is there such an inconsistency between the authority of biblical prophets and those we should expect in our present day?

How can something be a ‘word from God’ and not the ‘Word of God?’

All of these questions and more create a whirlwind of uncertainty, but possibly the greatest usurpation of this charismatic confidence in present-day dreams and visions is that such a confidence presents a thinly-veiled (even if naively unintentional) attack on the sufficiency of Scripture.

The Sufficiency and Authority of God’s Word

Scripture itself is the ultimate arbiter of truth, and even the continuationists (at least the ones cited above) acknowledge that Christians should turn to the Bible to either affirm or deny the validity of a dream or vision. I believe it would be logical and wise, then, to look to the Scriptures in order to affirm or deny the validity of expecting such dreams or visions in the first place. After all, if the dream or vision that contradicts Scripture should be jettisoned, then the expectation of dreams and visions may also be pitched overboard if the concept is understood to be divergent from the testimony of Scripture.

Let us investigate some aspects of two distinct passages (for the sake of brevity we may only consider two), and then judge whether it is wise to expect any personal contemporary messages from God via dreams and/or visions.

The Apostle Peter wrote to encourage Christians who seem to have been in need of a strong and comforting reminder of the trustworthiness and faithfulness of God. Peter wrote, “[We] have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place” (2 Peter 1:19). Peter was referring here to the text of Scripture that was “confirmed” by God in real human history – namely in the person and work of Christ. It seems that Peter was particularly referring to the Old Testament in this passage, but Peter also includes the writing of the Apostle Paul in the category of “Scriptures” just two chapters later in the same letter (2 Peter 3:15-16).

Blum writes, “In view of the Christological fulfillment and the Father’s confirmation of the Old Testament Scriptures, Christians are to study and pay careful attention to the Word of God. It will provide light in the midst of murky darkness for the Christian until the return of Christ…”[11]

This admonition to “pay careful attention to the Word of God” comes in contrast to Peter’s own vision and hearing of personal divine revelation. Just before Peter speaks of the “prophetic word more fully confirmed,” he recalls the pinnacle of his own personal experience with the incarnate Christ. Peter saw Jesus transfigured in glory before him and heard the voice of God from heaven (2 Peter 1:16-18), and yet Peter tells his readers to pay attention to the “prophetic word” (or written Scripture) that is better in some sense.

The sense in which the written Word of God is, in some sense, better than the incarnate Word of God is not within the scope of this brief essay. However, it is spectacularly important that we do note here what Peter has chosen to emphasize. Peter calls his readers to pay attention to the Word of God, which he deems to be better in some sense than the transfigured incarnate Christ and voice from God in heaven! This is no small matter, and we are foolish to skip over the significance of such an exhortation.

Another oft-cited passage regarding the value and function of Scripture is found in one of the Apostle Paul’s letters to his young disciple, Timothy. Paul said, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). There are two things that I hope to point out in this passage that will weigh in on our discussion.

First, Scripture is unambiguously affirmed as being “breathed out by God” (theopneustos). Because the Bible is the very words of God as breathed out by Him, then such a reality has massive implications on matters of authority, trustworthiness, and so on. The doctrine of inerrancy, for example, is largely undergirded by the fact that God Himself is true and trustworthy. R.C. Sproul says, “If the Bible is the Word of God, and if God is a God of truth, then the Bible must be inerrant – not merely in some of its parts, as some modern theologians are saying, but totally, as the church for the most part has said down through the ages of its history.”[12]

The reason for bringing up authority, inerrancy, and the “God-breathed” nature of Scripture in a discussion about modern-day prophecy, which may or may not be authoritative or inerrant, is to point out an uncomfortable dichotomy. Mathison, in his book on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, argues against the Roman Catholic interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and his argument has import for this different discussion here. Mathison says, “Any word from God is by definition God-breathed whether communicated in writing or orally.”[13] This statement from Mathison gets to the point and should cause tremendous discomfort for anyone who affirms the possibility of someone receiving a dream or vision from God that is meant to be revelatory without necessarily being inerrant or authoritative.

God only reveals the truth, and the truth He reveals is always authoritative!

The second emphatic concept that I would like to point out in the passage from 2 Timothy is that the Scripture itself affirms that it is sufficient in all that a Christian needs in order to be “complete.” The idea presented in this passage is that the Christian who receives and absorbs the biblical text is fully equipped to be and do all that God would have him or her to be and to do. Because Scripture is God’s revealed Word to humanity, and because God is no fool and no deceiver, then all Christians must expect that God has revealed Himself sufficiently in His Word. To look elsewhere for further revelation or clearer revelation or more personal revelation is to cast a disparaging look upon Scripture, which is God’s only inerrant and trustworthy revelation to humanity today.

In my view, there are many well-meaning Christians that speak of dreams or visions (even promptings or intuitions) as vehicles through which Christians may receive divine revelation today. Regardless of their motivation, it seems flat against the teaching of Scripture to regard these notions as helpful or beneficial.

At best, one’s openness or expectation for personal revelation through dreams or visions is out of step with God’s revelation in the Bible.

At worst, any acceptance or anticipation for such things draws attention away from God’s true revelation and towards foolish error.

May God give all Christians an unquenchable thirst for His Word, and may He forgive us for ever searching for Him elsewhere.

[1]Charismatics are a subcategory of evangelical Christians who emphasize the miraculous and fantastical work of God’s Holy Spirit. A particular distinguishing mark of Charismatics is the expectation of miracles, like those experienced by the early Church, especially the practice of ‘speaking in tongues.’

[2]Grudem, 1050

[3]See Grudem’s explanation of Acts 21:10-11, 1052

[4]See Harwood’s full article, Does God Speak Today Through Visions And Dreams, as cited in the bibliography below.

[5]Grudem, 1054

[6]See Harwood’s full article, Does God Speak Today Through Visions And Dreams, as cited in the bibliography below

[7]Grudem, 1055

[8]Grudem, 1041

[9]See full article at the website listed beside “Does God Reveal Things through Dreams and Visions?”

[10]See full article at the website listed beside Goodwyn, “Dreams And Visions: God Uncensored.”

[11]Geisler, 48

[12]Sproul, 121

[13]Mathison, 166

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“Does God Reveal Things through Dreams and Visions?” 2004. Billygraham.Org. Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. June 1. http://billygraham.org/answer/does-god-reveal-things-through-dreams-and-visions/.

Geisler, Norman L., ed. 1980. Inerrancy. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House.

Goodwyn, Hannah. 2015. “Dreams And Visions: God Uncensored.” Dreams And Visions: God Uncensored. Christian Broadcasting Network. Accessed October 1. http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/biblestudyandtheology/perspectives/goodwyn_dreams.aspx.

Grudem, Wayne A. 2000. Systematic Theology: an Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Harwood, Adam. 2015. “Does God Speak Today Through Visions And Dreams.” SBC Today. SBC Today. January 7. http://sbctoday.com/does-god-speak-today-through-visions-and-dreams/.

Mathison, Keith A. 2001. The Shape of Sola Scriptura. Moscow, ID: Canon Press.

Sproul, R. C. 2005. Scripture Alone: the Evangelical Doctrine. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub.

White, James. 2012. Scripture Alone. Bloomington, MN: Bethany House Publishers.

The Inspiration of Scripture

It would not be an overstatement to say that God’s revealed word has been a source of controversy from nearly the beginning of time. The serpent of old asked Eve, “Did God actually say…” (Gen. 3:1), and that question has been an incessant refrain ever since.

One of the central topics of the conversation, especially during the last 150 years, is inspiration. What do we mean when we say that God inspired the Bible? How has God inspired the texts we understand to have been written by various authors over the course of about 1,500 years?

There are many more questions that arise in this kind of conversation, but it is helpful to begin by asking, “Is the Bible the Word of God?” Of course, even this question will require some explanation, but here is a constructive starting point.

Basil Manly has written a fantastic work on exactly this topic (The Bible Doctrine of Inspiration), and I found it to be extremely productive. Surprisingly, it was also food for my soul.

Manly sets the stage by helpfully arranging the stuff of Christianity. He writes,

“Christianity is the Religion of the Book. It is not an external organization, nor a system of ceremonies, nor a philosophy, nor a vague inquiry and aspiration, nor a human invention for man’s own convenience or advantage. It is a definite system divinely given, consisting primarily of Facts, occurring both on earth and in heaven; Doctrines in connection with those facts; Commands growing out of both these; and Promises based upon them.”[1]

The ideas Manly presents here are beneficial for any context, but it seems especially so in the context of contemporary American culture. Remembering that Christianity is about propositional truths concerning real historical events, from which we derive indicatives and imperatives regarding the most important issues of human existence, should keep Christians from attempting to minimize the Christian Faith. But many still try to make it something of lesser substance or merely subjective experience.

There may be greater or lesser doctrines, and there are definitely experiences accompanying the Christian life, but the Bible is essential and foundational. And, critical to our inquiry here, it is highly interested in informing its reader that God has spoken.

Because Christianity is so dependent upon the Bible, the nature of this particular book is of great importance.

If the Bible is simply one good book among many, then it may still be of great value. While it may come as a surprise to some, there could still be a Gospel for sinners – we may still know of the person and work of Jesus Christ – even if God did not inspire the Bible. However, there are some serious problems that would arise if one were to demonstrate that the Bible is not the word of God or inspired by God.

Explaining the deficiencies of an uninspired Bible, Manly says, “It would furnish no infallible standard of truth.” Truth may still be known with an uninspired Bible, but we would have no objective standard or rule as our guide.

He goes on to say, “it would present no authoritative rule for obedience, and no ground for confident and everlasting hope.” One may still have hope, and one may still find the ‘tips’ or ‘principles’ in the Bible helpful, but there would be a lesser confidence in any promises it contained and it would have no solemn authority that any sinner must obey.

Lastly, he says, “it would offer no suitable means for testing and cultivating the docile spirit, for drawing man’s soul trustfully and lovingly upward to its Heavenly Father.”[2]

Manly touches on the nature of Scripture well here when he conveys the reality that it is precisely because the Bible is the word of God that it cultivates submission in the heart of a sinner and draws him or her near with love and trust.

Manly’s defense of Verbal Plenary Inspiration is excellent throughout this text. He articulates the doctrine well, and affirms both divine and human authorship. Both authors are vital to this doctrine. Manly writes,

“The Word is not of man, as to its source; nor depending on man, as to its authority. It is by and through man as its medium; yet not simply as the channel along which it runs, like water through a lifeless pipe, but through and by man as the agent voluntarily active and intelligent in its communication.”[3]

As with other doctrines, such as providence and the hypostatic union of Christ, there is a paradox here that requires adherents to maintain a tension without a contradiction. Manly argues for a view of inspiration that neither obliterates the human participants nor lessens the divine authority. God is the decisive source and author of the Scriptures, and intentional contributors wrote the Scriptures according to their own education, experiences, and understanding. Indeed, both of these truths are simultaneously affirmed from the Scriptures themselves.

This is neither a contradiction, for God is the author in a distinct sense and men are also authors in another distinct sense, nor is this a denial of any essential participant, for these are both the words of men and the words of God. One is not required to leave his rationality behind when he affirms this doctrine, but he is required to believe something that is ultimately a mystery to him. The mechanics are not explained in such a way so as to be understood easily by humans, but this does not necessarily mean that there is a problem with anything other than human cognitive ability.

Verbal Plenary Inspiration has been the assertion of Christians for millennia, though not necessarily under this title, but a recent question has caused the conversation to take a speculative turn.

After hearing this doctrine articulated and defended, one may still ask the question, “But how has God done this?” This question gets to the heart of many liberal and speculative arguments against Verbal Plenary Inspiration, and it may be the source of intellectual frustration for some sincere Christians. But Manly reminds us well of what we must know and remember when he says, “If we undertake to go beyond, and to explain how this was accomplished, we leave what has been made known to us for the barren and uncertain fields of conjecture.”

This question gets to the heart of many liberal and speculative arguments against Verbal Plenary Inspiration, and it may be the source of intellectual frustration for some sincere Christians. But Manly reminds us well of what we must know and remember when he says, “If we undertake to go beyond, and to explain how this was accomplished, we leave what has been made known to us for the barren and uncertain fields of conjecture.”[4]

God does not tell us how He inspired the biblical writers; He simply told us that He did.

Manly’s text masterfully and passionately defends the doctrine of inspiration. God has spoken, and He has made Himself known through human agency. The individual Christian need only believe what God has said, just as the Christian should believe that God has said it. This is the only way that a sinner may enjoy the right relationship with God that once was experienced by humanity when the question was first asked, “Did God actually say…”

May God help us to answer with confidence, “Yes, as a matter of fact, He did.”

[1] Manly, Basil (2013-10-04). The Bible Doctrine of Inspiration (Kindle Locations 6-9). Titus Books. Kindle Edition.

[2] Manly, Basil (2013-10-04). The Bible Doctrine of Inspiration (Kindle Location 27). Titus Books. Kindle Edition.

[3] Manly, Basil (2013-10-04). The Bible Doctrine of Inspiration (Kindle Locations 124-126). Titus Books. Kindle Edition.

[4] Manly, Basil (2013-10-04). The Bible Doctrine of Inspiration (Kindle Locations 138-139). Titus Books. Kindle Edition.

Introduction

Book Summary

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Conclusion

Please share it!

Introduction

Book Summary

Biography

Public Arguments

Sermons and Speeches

Letters

Philosophical Musings

Critique

Conclusion

Please share it!

Introduction

Book Summary

Conclusion

Please share it!

Part II: Baptist Co-belligerents

Please share it!

Introduction

The English Reformers

John Wyclif (1328-1384)

William Tyndale (c. 1490-1536)

Hugh Latimer (1487-1555)

John Hooper (1495-1555)

Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556)

Nicholas Ridley (c. 1500-1555)

John Jewel (1522-1571)

Conclusion

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Endnotes

Please share it!

Please share it!

Please share it!

Defining Evangelism

God’s Sovereignty

Personal Evangelistic Activity

Call to Action

Please share it!

Setting the Scene

Visions of Today

Post-Apostolic Prophecy

Dreamers Dream

The Sufficiency and Authority of God’s Word

Please share it!

Please share it!