\u201cThe parties in this conflict are . . . Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobins on the one side, and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battle ground, Christianity and Atheism the combatants . . . One party seems to regard society, with all its complicated interests, its divisions and subdivisions, as the machinery of man, which, as it has been invented and arranged by his ingenuity and skill, may be taken to pieces, reconstructed, altered, or repaired, as experience shall indicate defects or confusion in the original plan. The other party beholds in it the ordinance of God.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Is this one of our contemporaries speaking about progressive Woke elements on our current Christian scene? Apart from one or two terms of abuse in this text (\u201cJacobins\u201d) one could easily envisage this being said today on social media. But it actually comes from a sermon preached in Charleston, South Carolina, on May 26, 1850, by James Henley Thornwell (1812\u20121862), which, in his works that have come down to us, is entitled \u201cThe Christian Doctrine of Slavery.\u201d[1]<\/a> Based upon Colossians 4:1, Thornwell\u2019s sermon is a whole-hearted defence of the enslavement of African Americans, and these words above are a description of the foes of that institution in the Northern states\u2014a good number of whom were Thornwell\u2019s Christian brethren.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Such rhetoric undoubtedly contributed to the bloody Civil War that came upon America in the following decade. As the Apostle James aptly put it, \u201cthe tongue is a fire\u201d that sets ablaze the forest of human society (James 3:5b\u20126).<\/p>\n\n\n\n During the Reformation, the great controversy that set the Reformers against one another was the question of the presence of Christ at the Lord\u2019s Supper. Martin Luther (1483\u20121546), the pathfinder of the Reformation in many ways, was insistent that Christ\u2019s body and blood were actually present \u201cin, with, or under\u201d the bread and the wine. The Swiss German Reformer, Huldreich Zwinlgi (1484\u20121531) of Zurich, on the other hand, insisted that Christ\u2019s presence was a spiritual one and that the bread and the wine symbols. But Luther would have none of Zwingli\u2019s \u201cmathematics\u201d as he put it when the two men met in 1529. Since Zwingli failed to see things as Luther saw them on this issue, Luther was convinced that the Zurich Reformer was bereft of the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By the summer of 1544, when Luther wrote A Short Confession on the Holy Sacrament Against the Fanatics<\/em>, he did not hesitate to label Zwingli and all who supported his views\u2014which now included John Calvin (1509\u20121564)\u2014as \u201cheretics and murderers of souls.\u201d[2]<\/a> When Calvin heard of Luther\u2019s \u201cfierce invectives,\u201d as he called them in a letter to Henry Bullinger (1504\u20121575), Zwingli\u2019s successor in Zurich, he wisely refused to respond in kind. He thus helped to preserve a measure of unity between the Lutheran and Reformed wings of the Reformation.[3]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n When the Particular Baptist Benjamin Keach (1640\u20121704) introduced the singing of a hymn in his London church at the conclusion of the Lord\u2019s Supper in 1673\u2014claiming Matthew 26:30 as scriptural warrant\u2014only two members of the church expressed any open disapproval.[4]<\/a> By 1691, though, hymn-singing had become a weekly event in the church and it had provoked furious opposition. Twenty-two members left the church that year and eventually founded a new work. Its leaders drew up articles of faith that condemned congregational hymn-singing in a terse sentence, calling it \u201ca gross error.\u201d[5]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Leading the opposition to Keach was Isaac Marlow, a wealthy jeweller and prominent member of another London Baptist Church. The well-to-do businessman wrote and published more than eleven books and tracts during the course of this hymn-singing controversy (1690\u20131696). Although the controversy was an intramural debate among Particular Baptists, the language that the two sides employed reveals that the issue generated heat reminiscent of that which emanated from the fires of the Reformation at its outset. Marlow claimed he was labeled a \u201cRidiculous Scribbler,\u201d \u201cBrasen-Forehead,\u201d \u201cIgnoramus,\u201d and \u201cEnthusiast.\u201d But Marlow could give as good as he got. He did not hesitate to call his opponents \u201ca coterie of book burning papists,\u201d for they were seeking to undermine the Reformation by endorsing a practice that to his mind had no scriptural foundation. The upshot was that the Particular Baptist community in London was torn asunder by the controversy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this bent and fallen world, the air of which we all breathe, controversy within the church is inevitable. However, two things are especially critical with regard to times of controversy. Does the issue at stake really merit attention? Or to put it in more colloquial terms: Is this a hill to die on? And the second vital matter is how one should conduct oneself in such times.<\/p>\n\n\n\n From this vantage-point, I think it is clear that Calvin\u2019s conduct during the Lutheran-Reformed debate offers us a much more preferable pathway to follow than that of the London Particular Baptists during their fight over hymn-singing. Now, it is easy to say that in both of these cases, \u201cfierce invectives\u201d were wrong because these were not issues that went to the heart of Christianity. If they had been, then the importance of the matter would have justified all types of language. This fails to see that during the times of these two controversies, those involved did regard them as utterly vital matters. The general Scriptural model here seems to be spelled out in 2 Timothy 2:24\u201225: \u201cThe Lord\u2019s servantmust not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Yet this very passage, from what has sometimes been called Paul\u2019s \u201cswan song,\u201d is embedded in a larger text where Paul uses strong language with regard to those teaching false doctrine. Second Timothy is remarkable as being one of only two texts in the Pauline corpus\u2014the other being 1 Timothy\u2014where Paul names his theological opponents. Hymenaeus and Philetus are singled out for essentially denying the resurrection of the body by teaching that the resurrection occurs at the time of conversion. Paul does not waste words on their doctrine: it is \u201cirreverent babble\u201d and akin to \u201cgangrene\u201d (2 Tim. 2:16\u201218). There are others at Ephesus, where Timothy was ministering when Paul\u2019s final letter to him was penned, who \u201coppose the truth.\u201d Again, Paul is blunt: these people \u201care corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith\u201d (2 Tim. 3:8). Finally, in chapter 4, Paul singles out Alexander the coppersmith, a resident of Troas, who did Paul great harm\u2014was he responsible for Paul\u2019s final arrest?\u2014and opposed Paul\u2019s preaching of the gospel. Paul is confident that \u201cthe Lord will repay him according to his deeds\u201d (2 Tim. 4:14\u201215).[6]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n How can all of this be squared with Paul\u2019s admonition that a true teacher of the Faith is not \u201cquarrelsome but kind to everyone\u201d and one who corrects \u201chis opponents with gentleness\u201d? In conclusion, the solution is found along the following lines. In general, a teacher must deal gently with people and not be a man marked \u201can angry, contentious spirit.\u201d[7]<\/a> As John Newton noted:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Of all people who engage in controversy, we, who are called Calvinists, are most expressly bound by our own principles to the exercise of gentleness and moderation. If, indeed, they who differ from us have a power of changing themselves, if they can open their own eyes, and soften their own hearts, then we might with less inconsistency be offended at their obstinacy: but if we believe the very contrary to this, our part is, not to strive, but in meekness to instruct those who oppose.[8]<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n1. James Henley Thornwell, \u201cThe Christian Doctrine of Slavery\u201d in The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell<\/em>, ed. John B. Adger and John L. Girardeau(Richmond, VA: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1873), 4:405\u2012406.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
\u201cFierce Invectives\u201d about the Lord\u2019s Table<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
2. Cited Allan L. Farris, \u201cCalvin\u2019s Letter to Luther,\u201d Canadian Journal of Theology<\/em>, 10 (1964): 125.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
3. Indeed, he always spoke well of Luther even though he recognized that Luther could be given to bitter speech against anyone who disagreed with him. For Calvin, Luther was nothing less than \u201ca distinguished apostle of Christ by whose ministry the light of the Gospel has shone\u201d in Europe (cited Farris, \u201cCalvin\u2019s Letter to Luther,\u201d 127n14).<\/h6>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Bitter Words over Hymn-Singing<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
4. Thomas Crosby, The History of the English Baptists<\/em> (London, 1740), 4:299.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
5. For details of this controversy and the language used in it, see Murdina D. MacDonald, \u201cLondon Calvinistic Baptists 1689\u20121727: Tensions Within a Dissenting Community under Toleration\u201d (DPhil thesis, Regent\u2019s Park College, University of Oxford, 1982), 83\u2013108.<\/h6>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIf the Service is Honorable, it is Dangerous\u201d<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
6. Paul also mentions two elders in Asia Minor, Phygelus and Hermogenes, who failed to stand with Paul, Christ\u2019s Apostle. Their failure may or may not be a doctrinal one, but Paul deems it serious enough to mention it. See 2 Timothy 1:15.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
7. This phrase comes from John Newton, Letter XIX: On Controversy<\/em> in The Works of John Newton<\/em>, ed. Richard Cecil (London: Hamilton, Adams & Co., 1824), 1:273.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
\n
8. Newton, Letter XIX: On Controversy<\/em> in Works of John Newton<\/em>, 1:270.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n