Baptist Bites: Adoniram and Ann Judson, Pioneer American Baptist Missionaries to Burma

     Last month, we considered the amazing and prolific ministry of William Carey, one of the true pioneers in world missions.  His passion to spread the Gospel in India has inspired thousands to heed the evangelistic call, and millions to rally behind them in support.  Two of those who caught the missionary flame were a couple very important to our history as American Baptists: Adoniram and Ann Judson, pioneering missionaries to Burma.

  Adoniram first met Ann Haseltine at a meeting of a Congregationalist mission-sending agency, the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. The meeting was held at Ann's father's home. Over dinner, Judson was taken by Ann's beauty.  On the other hand, she wasn't particularly impressed by him. But over time, his strong desire to take the Gospel to an unreached population won her over. 

Just two weeks after their wedding, the Judsons boarded a ship bound for India in February of 1812. Adoniram had been deeply inspired by the missionary accounts of William Carey, and was excited to meet him face to face. But on the long ocean voyage, Judson took some time in close study of the Greek New Testament. He was concerned that Carey might challenge him about his acceptance of infant baptism; he wanted to find good evidence that the Baptists were wrong in that regard. Instead, he wound up proving to himself that infant baptism was a false teaching--that only believer's baptism was taught in the Bible. You can imagine the discomfort for a Congregationalist missionary to suddenly find himself a Baptist! This discomfort was magnified in his wife, who pled with him to content himself with his former beliefs. She warned that if he became a Baptist, she would follow suit. However, dedicating herself to the study of Scripture (probably to guide her husband back to the "right road,") she herself came to affirm believer's baptism.

Such a radical change would come at a high price for them both. Ann feared for the possible loss of friends, and the couple would now be at cross-purposes with the Congregationalist mission board who sent them. Leaving behind one's family, home and country would be difficult enough; what would they do now that they were closing the door on their denomination and source of funding?

The Baptist missionaries in India were great blessings to them at this time. William Carey and his team members welcomed the Judsons warmly.  William Ward baptized the husband and wife by immersion, along with the colleague who met them in India, Luther Rice. (In what can only be described as providential, Rice undertook his own study of the Greek New Testament aboard his own ship, and came to the same conclusions as the Judsons!)  Carey and his friends would help them through the transition; the Judsons and Rice wrote letters of resignation to their mission board, and Rice returned to America to start the work of raising financial support among the Baptists.  He would never return to the mission field; his work as a fundraiser was so effective that he elected to remain in America to continue the work. He'd been on the ground in India; he was able to give share firsthand stories of the great work being accomplished by the Lord in India, as well as the difficulties missionaries faced, and their reliance on support back home.

Luther Rice had in his mind a great vision for mission support. Rather than traveling from city to city and making his pleas to individual churches, he worked to establish a great mission-sending convention, comprised of Baptist delegates sent from every state. This organization was initially known as the General Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denomination in the United States of America for Foreign Missions. That's a rather long and unwieldy name, so eventually they chose to go by the name, the "Triennial Convention" -- because they gathered every three years. The convention voted to support the Judsons in their work. Later the Triennial Convention was reorganized into the Northern Baptist Convention, which was renamed the American Baptist Churches USA in 1972. That’s right—this is where our denomination came from!  We’ll tell more of that story another time. 

The issue of financial support was being handled, but the hardships and spiritual warfare that so often accompany missions work were still a reality for the Judsons. The British East India Company made it extremely difficult for the Judsons to minister in India, which caused their relocation to Rangoon, Burma. They truly had to start from scratch; they had no training in the Burmese language and no written text to help them learn. Much of their early work had to focus on slowly mastering the language. Their firstborn son died tragically in 1816.  

Adoniram's time with his family was cut short when, in 1824, war erupted between Burma and Britain. The Burmese government became paranoid that western powers had agents in the country "spying" on them. They rounded up all white males in their country and imprisoned them.  Adoniram spent two years away from his family, enduring torture at the hands of his captors. Ann's actions at this time were heroic. She visited her husband in prison often, bringing food.  When she wasn't there, she relentlessly lobbied the government for his freedom, hardly giving the officials a moment's rest.  When Britain gained victory and Adoniram was released, it wasn't long until Ann died from exhaustion and the stress of persecution they had experienced; she contracted cerebral meningitis which she had no strength to fight. While still grieving his wife, Judson was further struck low by the death of their daughter in 1827. All this took place in the context of very meager results from his Gospel labors. Less than two dozen Burmese professed faith in Christ during this time.  For those of us who haven't been on the foreign mission field, it's hard to appreciate the spiritual and emotional stress that come against the Lord's servants.

It is a difficult, but wondrous paradox to learn that in the midst of what looks like crushing defeat, the Lord can work more powerfully than we could have imagined. When the Apostle Paul pled with God to take away his “thorn in the flesh,” God responded that it was in His greater purpose for the thorn to stay.  He reassured Paul that His strength was made perfect in Paul’s weakness (2 Corinthians 12:9).  When Job lost everything, yet kept His faith in God, the Lord vindicated his faith by blessing him more abundantly than before.  So it was with the Judsons; in spite of loss and apparent failure, the Lord made their ministry exceedingly fruitful over time. God blessed Adoniram with more missionary colleagues to support and strengthen him. The Burmese might have been hard-hearted toward the Gospel, with few converts.  Still, there was the Karen people, a tribe who had been brutally oppressed by the majority Burmans—so much so that they lived in hiding among the hills and forests.  But when Adoniram’s new colleague, George Boardman, preached the Gospel to the Karens, that tribe readily came to Christ in great numbers.  The first day, 34 of them were baptized by Boardman and his colleague, a Mr. Mason. By then, only 22 Burmans had become Christians in more than a decade of Judson’s ministry.  By 1890, however, about 1,200 Burmese had converted to Christianity and 30,000 Karens professed faith and were baptized.  The rapid growth of the church brought about the foundation of the Karen College and Theological Seminary in Rangoon (1872). And since then, a thriving Baptist community of Karen, Burman, and other tribespeople has arisen, numbering over 500,000.

Before their troubles began in 1824, Ann was a powerful missionary force in her own right.  She was passionate about evangelism, and she and Adoniram adopted orphan girls in terrible poverty as their own. To lift little girls out of extreme poverty, she started a girls' school. She was quite a scholar herself: in 1819, she translated the Gospel of Matthew into Thai. She also helped her husband in his Bible translation work by doing the translations of Daniel and Jonah into Burmese. For the benefit of prospective supporters back home, she also wrote A Particular Relation of the American Baptist Mission to the Burman Empire in 1823. This was a powerful call to action. This, and many letters sent back to the States, brought a sense of reality and urgency for the continuing support of missions. Many biographies written about her, and she is considered the most influential woman missionary in American History.

Though his soul-winning work was slow, and he languished in prison far too long, Adoniram’s work to translate the Bible into the Burmese language (completed 1834) was crucial to all that followed. He composed a Burmese-English dictionary which remains the standard text today. After Ann’s death, he and his colleagues established a church and Christian School at the city of Moulmein (Mawlamyine, present-day Myanmar). God gave him two more wives to be his companions in ministry: Sarah Hall Boardman (widow of George Boardman), who died in 1845, and Emily Chubbock, who married him in 1846 and was his wife until his own death in 1849. 

I wish I could share much more about the lives of this remarkable man, and about his first wife, but we must close for this month. There are also many more facets to our identity as Baptists, but I want to discuss one more before I close out our series: the Associational Principle. As I’ve already mentioned, associations were formed to pool resources and send out missionaries. They were also formed for fellowship and for the training and credentialing of approved ministers. Next month we’ll turn our lens to examine the formation and growth of associations to close out our survey of Baptist identity.

Sources: 

Armitage, Thomas, History of the Baptists, Traced According to their Vital Principles. New York: Bryan, Taylor & Co., 1890. (Kindle edition)

Boston University School of Theology, "Judson, Adoniram (1788-1850): Pioneer American Baptist Missionary in Burma."  Internet Article (https://www.bu.edu/missiology/missionary-biography/i-k/judson-adoniram-1788-1850/)

Boston University School of Theology, "Judson, Ann Haseltine (1789-1826): Pioneer Baptist Missionary to Burma (Myanmar)." Internet Article (https://www.bu.edu/missiology/missionary-biography/i-k/judson-ann-hasseltine-1789-1826/)

Chute, Anthony L., Finn, Nathan A. and Haykin, Michael A.G. The Baptist Story: From English Sect to Global Movement. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2015. (Kindle edition)

Editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica, "Adoniram Judson: American Missionary." Internet Article (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Adoniram-Judson)

Baptist Bites: William Carey, Father of Modern Missions

     To understand who Baptists are, it's essential to figure in missions as a major part of our spiritual DNA. I would dare to say that it is the biggest piece of what motivates us to form voluntary associations between congregations; we hold each church to be an autonomous ecclesiastical unit, but we also understand that it takes churches working together to support a vigorous mission program around the world. The missions mandate is a central part of our doctrine as well; when Jesus commanded us to "go and make disciples of all nations" (Mt. 28:19), we take that literally. As we learned last month, however, that wasn't always the case. In the days when predestination was more strongly emphasized for salvation, it wasn't apparent to many Christian leaders that worldwide evangelism was necessary. That's where the passionate teaching of Andrew Fuller figured in.  With his book, The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, he laid out the powerful argument that it was our Christian duty to proclaim the Gospel and command people everywhere to repent of sin and follow Christ.

        Fuller went beyond merely thinking and writing about missions; he personally invested much time and energy into missions advocacy. He was a leader in the formation of the Baptist Missionary Society in 1792, serving as its secretary until his death in 1815. He traveled extensively throughout Britain and Ireland to speak, raising both enthusiasm and funds. This private effort was needed because, at the time, there was little wider support for missionary efforts. Corporate interests, such as the British East India Company, worked to bar missionaries from the countries in which they had commercial interests. They feared that missionaries' work would be harmful to their economic prospects. Political leaders weren't terribly interested in supporting missionaries, nor were the leaders of denominational organizations. It was necessary for people like Fuller to go directly to the people. If their speeches won over the support of their audiences, they would become members of the Society who would pay dues to support missionaries.

        The most famous missionary sent by the Baptist Missionary Society was William Carey, widely regarded as the father of modern missions.  He was also a dear, personal friend of Fuller's.  Carey was a brilliant man, largely self-educated after his formal schooling ended in his early teen years. He was apprenticed as a cobbler, but he certainly had the mind of a scholar. His curiosity and learning was impressive in many areas; he had a particular talent for languages. He mastered Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Italian and Dutch before he ever departed for Asia, where he learned many more languages.

        Carey was ordained as a Particular Baptist minister in 1787 and became one of the twelve co-founders of the Baptist Missionary Society in 1792. When the Society began its work, they searched for a missionary they could send out.  They faced some discouragement in that no one stepped forward right away, but in time, Carey felt that God was calling him to take the Gospel to India. In 1793 he departed for the field along with his wife and children. The Society pledged their full support for the endeavor, and in particular his friends Andrew Fuller, John Sutcliff and John Ryland (other co-founders of the Society).  They envisioned sending Carey to India as if they were lowering him into a deep gold mine, and they promised to "hold the ropes" so long as Carey lived and ministered.

        Heroes don't earn the label without facing great difficulty, however, and Carey certainly faced his own. From the outset, the British East India Company was determined to stand in his way.  This money-making venture was so powerful as to essentially rule the nation of India for many years. It wasn't until 1858 that the British Parliament stripped the company of political power and placed India under direct control of the Crown. They held all the power when Carey arrived, and they forbade him from settling in Calcutta. They didn't want his preaching to limit their ability to exploit India's resources and people. He had to migrate up-river and establish operations in Serampore. 

        The work itself was anything but easy. For the first seven years, Carey saw no converts. It would have taken some time to learn the Bengali language well enough to communicate, to be sure. But even still, imagine teaching and preaching with all your heart, only to see the Gospel falling upon apparently deaf ears. To support his family, Carey also had to take a job as manager at an indigo factory. Missions work is some of the most intense spiritual warfare one can encounter, and discouragement is one of the Enemy's chief weapons.  To discouragement was added grief when his son, Peter, died of dysentery. Carey was devastated, but his wife, Dorothy, suffered a nervous breakdown. She never recovered and eventually lost all touch with reality. We can only imagine the blow this would have been to Carey, his life companion now taken from him as well. He wrote in his diary, "This is indeed the valley of the shadow of death to me...O what would I give for a kind sympathetic friend such as I had in England to whom I might open my heart."  Dorothy tragically died in 1807. She had never felt called to the mission field from the start, and she was quite abusive to her husband after her mental break. But say whatever you will, she sacrificed both sanity and life for the Gospel.

        As was the case with Job, however, God restored much to William Carey's life to reward him for his faithfulness through so much difficulty. To join him on the mission field, the Baptist Missionary Society dispatched William Ward and Joshua Marshman. They were just the balm Carey needed for his soul, and the three of them became excellent partners in Gospel ministry. They were more like brothers than friends, working so harmoniously that visitors were amazed by the synergy between the "Serampore Trio," as they were dubbed. Their work was prolific.  For example, as William Ward was also a printer by trade, the three of them set up a press and began to translate Scripture into no less than 44 regional languages. Carey translated the Bible into Sanskrit himself.  They built a paper mill and a steam engine to amplify the work. They also produced grammars and dictionaries to further the inhabitants' literacy in their own language.

        Their work went beyond translating and distributing the Bible. They noticed a lack of news sources in the Bengali language, so they started a newspaper. Carey conducted extensive agricultural experiments, helping to found the Agricultural and Horticultural Society of India in 1820. The "Serampore Trio" founded 26 churches and 126 schools, including the first girls' school. The combined enrollment of these was 10,000.  They also set up a seminary for training local ministers, a savings bank, and India's first medical mission. This is significant, because of a man named Krishna Pal, a Hindu carpenter.  Though he'd heard the Gospel previously from some Moravian missionaries, he hadn't yet given his life to Christ. But one day in 1800, he was bathing in the river, where he fell and injured his shoulder. The mission at Serampore was close by; they nurtured him back to health and both shared and displayed the love of Christ to him. Krishna Pal embraced Christ as Savior and was baptized. He went on to become one of the most powerful preachers at the mission (he was why they started a seminary). William Carey described him as "fluent, perspicacious and affectionate, in a very high degree."  Pal and Carey worked together to challenge some of the social problems in India; Carey campaigned against the practice of suttee (burning a widow on her husband's funeral pyre), and Pal publicly challenged the caste system that kept people in such terrible bondage.

        It did take a very long time for the Gospel to catch fire and spread in India, and we admire the faithful, longsuffering nature of William Carey, who doggedly believed in the motto, "Expect great things from God, attempt great things for God." He and his colleagues provided the inspirational example whose stories propelled thousands of others to enter the mission field. The work of the "Serampore Trio" was so beneficial to Indian society that when the British East India Company's charter came up for renewal in 1813, Parliament put in a clause that forbade the Company from interfering from missionaries' work; they were to be granted free access. This opened the door for more missionaries to work.  New Missionary Societies sprung up throughout Europe and America. This includes the London Missionary Society, the Netherlands Missionary Society, as well as others formed in Switzerland, Germany, Denmark and France.

        One American who was greatly inspired by the work of William Carey and his friends was named Adoniram Judson. Reading of the great things God did in India, Judson felt called by God to bring the Gospel to Burma. Though he started out as a Congregationalist missionary, he developed Baptist convictions during his voyage. This prompted stateside Baptists to found a new missions agency, the American Baptist Missionary Union, in 1814.  That joint effort among Baptist churches in America went on to be the founding of...us! More of Judson's story next month.

Your Brother and Servant,

Pastor Scott

Note: My sources for this article include The Baptist Story: From English Sect to Global Movement, by Anthony L. Chute, Nathan A. Finn and Michael A.G. Haykin. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2015; Who's Who in Christian History by J.D. Douglas, Philip W. Comfort, and Donald Mitchell, ed. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1992; and The Story of Christianity: Volume 2, The Reformation to the Present Day by Justo L. González. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1985.

Baptist Bites: Andrew Fuller, Theologian and Catalyst for Baptist World Missions

     A hundred years seems like a long time, but there was an amazing amount of revolution crammed into a single century.  If you think I'm writing about our century, you've got good reasons. But actually, I mean the 18th century. Think about it: the Industrial Revolution began in 1760's Great Britain and swept the world. The American Revolution started a tsunami in geopolitics; the traditional balance of power was upset, accelerating the shift from monarchies to democracies. The French Revolution followed in its wake, beginning in 1787.  Added to the technological, econonomic and political revolutions that took place, we covered the spiritual revolution called the First Great Awakening (1730-1755) last month. There was an additional, Second Great Awakening from 1790-1840. Taken together, you can see how so many of the old, familiar things about the Western world were suddenly tipped over, broken up and reassembled in surprising ways. The Baptist movement was in the middle of all that flux, contributing to it and being transformed by it.

     Simply gaining the freedom to meet and worship according to their Biblical convictions was a grueling, ongoing battle; we've covered some of this in previous months. But as their churches multiplied and enjoyed more relative peace, Baptists were able to shift their focus from survival to mission. The first step was to lay some theological groundwork: a compelling, scriptural challenge to take up Christ’s mandate for world missions. 

     English pastor, Andrew Fuller (1754-1815) was one of the most important theologians in Baptist history. In fact, the famous preacher Charles Spurgeon called him the greatest theologian of the 18th century.  Fuller is important for this discussion because his clear, reasonable exposition of Scripture helped English Baptists move past some of the hyper-Calvinistic teachings from earlier theologians. 

     For example, John Gill (1697-1771) was a great theological leader of the previous generation. He published a series of Scripture commentaries that most Baptist preachers used in their study. Many preachers today still benefit from his work. As a rock-ribbed Calvinist, however, Gill held forth the determinative sovereignty of God in salvation: that He has elected some people for salvation while destining others for condemnation. A corollary of this thinking is that Christ's sacrifice on the cross is only meant for the elect. The non-chosen (the reprobate) do not have access to Christ's finished work.

     This type of thinking leads to some troubling applications for evangelism. If God has already elected a certain group to salvation, and if the grace God extends to them is irresistible (another Calvinist precept), then there is no use for a preacher to urge the unbelievers in his congregation to come to Christ for salvation.  The elect won't need any urging, and the reprobate can't be saved, anyway. Christ didn't die for them, only for the elect. Andrew Fuller had grown up under preaching very much in the John Gill model, by a man named John Eve. According to Fuller, Eve “had little or nothing to say to the unconverted.” Nevertheless, the Holy Spirit undertook a direct work on Fuller’s heart, and he fell under a strong conviction of his own sin. Baptized in 1770 and maturing quickly as a Christian, the church recognized that God had definitely given him gifts for ministry. In 1771 Eve left for another church and Fuller was called to be their new pastor until 1782. He was then called on to pastor the Baptist church in Kettering, Northamptonshire. Kettering was the town in which John Gill had been born.

     When Fuller started his preaching ministry, he too practiced along the lines of Gill and Eve.  However, he’d always felt unsettled by the fact that there had been no appeal to him or other unbelievers to come to Christ.  He decided to do a deep study of some of the major Calvinist theologians, including Jonathan Edwards, John Gill, John Owen, and John Bunyan. (One wonders if it was required to be named “John” in order to be a theologian in those days!) Comparing these authors on salvation, he noted that both John Bunyan and John Owen urged preachers to extend a free offer of salvation to all people.  John Gill was opposed. He came to conclude that his former style of preaching, emulating Gill, was “anti-scriptural and defective in many respects.” He decided to make his stand that Christ had come to die for the sins of “whosoever will,” to put it in the way of John 3:16. The atoning work of Christ was offered to the entire world, and would only be applied to those who would repent and believe. The culmination of his study was to publish his first work, The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, published in 1785. The book’s major theme is that “Faith in Christ is the duty of all men who hear, or have opportunity to hear, the gospel.”

     Fuller’s works helped to foster a more moderate Calvinistic belief that still upheld a version of divine election, but left open the door for all unbelievers to hear and receive the benefits of the Gospel. And once the theological impetus was established, Baptists began to experience a deep passion to see the Gospel spread to the whole world. Fuller himself was a co-founder of the Baptist Missionary Society in 1792.  It was a voluntary association of Baptist churches to contribute resources and equip missionaries. Fuller made a continuous circuit of Britain between 1798 and 1813 to fire up Baptist believers and raise funds for missionaries. During this time he was away from his home about three months out of the year. The Baptist Missionary Society basically launched the Baptist missionary movement around the world. Cooperative missions is a major pillar of who Baptists are today.

     When we resume our survey next month, we’ll look at Fuller’s deep friendship with, and the Baptist Missionary Society’s support of one of our first Baptist missionaries: William Carey. 

Source: The Baptist Story: From English Sect to Global Movement, by Anthony L. Chute, Nathan A. Finn and Michael A.G. Haykin. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2015.

Baptist Bites: Great Awakening and the Transformation of Baptist Churches

      As we've seen so far, our denominational tradition has sprung from a complex set of historical events and personalities. Not all of our ancestors were in perfect agreement on key points. The controversy between Calvinist and Arminian camps has been an example. But this month, we will introduce a powerful movement that profoundly shook up and re-shaped many religious groups. The Baptists were no exception.  The movement I refer to is the First Great Awakening, a major religious revival that swept both England and the Colonies in the 1730's and 40's.

     Almost nothing happens in a vacuum; there are reasons that revival was able to take such a dramatic hold on the people of the time.  First, think about the cultural context.  This was the time in history known as "The Age of Reason" or "The Age of Enlightenment." At this time, people began to see reason, logic and science as the true sources of knowledge.  You might guess that this would have an effect on the spiritual climate of the churches, and you'd be right.  Suddenly, doctrines which were held for most of church history were thrown open to question and ridicule. Many decried the doctrine of the Trinity as illogical and unbiblical.  They drifted back to Arianism, that old Christian heresy which denied the full deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, for Deism (the "divine watchmaker" error held by many of our nation's founders), or for full-on Universalism (the substitutionary atonement of Jesus was thought unnecessary, because all would be "saved" regardless of their religion.) Luckily we had Puritan and Baptist theologians to defend orthodox belief, like Reformed Baptist preacher John Gill, but still, churches were becoming more cerebral, worship was losing its power under the weight of excessive formalism, and everywhere churches were dwindling and dying out. Baptist churches were part of that trend.  

     An environmental factor might be worth considering too, especially here in America.  We must remember that life at that time was hard and short. Diseases like tuberculosis and smallpox were rampant.  In rural areas, there was always the danger of attack by tribes of Native Americans. The colonists were surrounded everywhere by misery and mortality. It probably made early Americans think seriously about their standing before God and our fleeting lives on earth.  We can guess that people were primed for dramatic, cathartic religious experiences that emphasized eternal life over this life.

     This is the context which made English and American society ready to listen to an urgent call to return to the Lord, to throw off the heavy shackles of dead reason and look to the welfare of their eternal souls.  The Lord had prepared preachers to speak powerfully into this time: men like Gilbert Tennent (1703-65), Jonathan Edward (1703-58), John Wesley (1703-91), and George Whitefield (1714-70).  The common message of these preachers formed the basis of what we'd call Evangelical Christianity today.  They emphasized 1) the sin nature of all people; 2) the eternal doom of sinners to separation from God in hell; 3) the availability of salvation to all who confess their sins to God and rely on the grace made possible by Jesus' substitutionary atonement; 3) the necessity of being "born again," a direct and emotional experience of new life in Jesus and closeness to God; and 4) that worship should not be cold and formal, but more personal and emotionally powerful.

     We know that the First Great Awakening had a powerfully transformative effect on society and churches, but it also produced a shaking and transformation of churches. Some churches dwindled and died, while new ones sprang up and grew rapidly. The future of existing churches was pretty much determined by how they responded to the revival. Take the First Baptist Church of Boston for instance. The pastor at the time was Rev. Jeremiah Condy, a Harvard-educated man who definitely valued reason and order.  He listened to the dramatic, emotional preaching of men like George Whitefield, and witnessed the ecstatic religious expressions of the audience.  He was absolutely repelled, and forbade any such exuberance in his church.  He had several congregants who supported the revival; they were offended and went on the attack. They charged him as an "Arminian." This was a meaningless charge, since the preaching and fruits of John Wesley were quite powerful as well--the church members were simply Calvinists and couldn't think of anything more insulting than to call him an Arminian. At any rate, they left the church and formed another congregation: the Second Baptist Church of Boston.  But here's the interesting point to notice: the new, pro-revival Second Baptist Church grew rapidly, while the traditionalist, First Baptist Church went into a steep decline.

     Another example was the experience of George Whitefield and his surprising friendship with Rev. Jenkin Jones of the Baptist Church in Philadelphia. An Anglican priest himself, Whitefield sadly found much rejection among his own kind. The Anglicans of that time favored formal, liturgical worship--that shouldn't surprise us. But in America, there were Baptist churches who were warmly supportive of the Great Awakening and the preachers who spread it.  These were the "New Light" churches, as opposed to the "Old Light" churches who held to tradition and formalism. Jenkin Jones enthusiastically invited Whitefield to come and preach in Philadelphia.  Whitefield had a background in acting which he put to good use.  He knew how to modulate his pitch and volume. During his preaching he would shout, tremble, weep as the occasion called for it and the people responded with powerful, emotional conversion experiences.  Jones proclaimed Whitefield a great blessing to the Church and openly prayed that God would prosper him ministry.  Whitefield knew where the winds of God were blowing; instead of the traditional churches we gladly "went to the Baptist and Independent meetinghouses, where Jesus Christ was preached." There were theological differences between him and Baptists like Jones, of course--Whitefield believed in infant baptism, and Jones didn't.  But still, Whitefield considered him a true brother in the faith.  He said that Jones preached "the truth as it is in Jesus," and that he was "the only preacher that I know of in Philadelphia who speaks feelingly and with authority."

     Jenkin Jones had an assistant pastor, though, named Ebenezer Kinnsersly. He was definitely an "Old Light" kind of preacher, who despised the emotionalism he saw in the revival.  In open opposition to his senior pastor, he reached out to Benjamin Franklin's Philadelphia Gazette to air his objections. He complained that the new converts were "filled brim-full of enthusiastical raptures and ecstasies, pretending to have large communications from God, to have seen ravishing visions..."  He denounced Whitefield's preaching style: "What spirit such enthusiastic ravings proceed from...they proceed not from the Spirit of God...Such whinings, such harangues, big with affected nonsense...operate on the softer passions, and work them up to a warm pitch of enthusiasm."  Jones called Kinnersly before the whole church and publicly censured him.  Eventually, Kinnsersly was excommunicated from the church.

     Clearly, the First Great Awakening produced a mixture of good effects as well as bad ones--Jonathan Edwards himself wrote to that effect.  Nonetheless, it is clear that God blessed these new, Evangelical churches with rapid increase.  The course of the Baptist churches in America was profoundly changed, and much of the results led toward our emphasis on world missions.  We'll turn to that subject soon.

My sources for this article include Baptists in America: A History by Thomas Kidd and Barry Hankins (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015); The Baptist Story: From English Sect to Global Movement by Anthony Chute, Nathan Finn, and Michael Haykin (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2015); and "Great Awakening" (History.com editors, 9/20/19), https://www.history.com/topics/european-history/great-awakening .

Baptist Bites: Faithful Freedom vs. Antinomianism

     Last month, we covered the founding of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations as a colony by Roger Williams. We took special notice that religious freedom was fixed into the DNA of the colony from the beginning.  Each resident was to “freely have and enjoy his and their own judgments and consciences in matters of religious discernment.” [from the 1663 Charter] That’s a decent way of expressing a distinctive of Baptist belief—we call it “soul freedom.” This is the right and competency of each Christian to read, interpret and apply Scripture in the service of Christ. We believe that the Holy Spirit makes this possible. He teaches us the meaning of God’s Word, applies it to our individual lives, and bends our consciences toward a life of obedience.  It happens on an individual level, but while we hold this distinctive to be important, it opens us to complications and abuses that must be wisely navigated—especially in our current times.  But I’ll turn to history to supply a couple of good illustrations.

We’ve focused on the spiritual journey of Roger Williams for a few months, noting his evolution from Anglicanism, to Puritanism, to Separatism. His bold advocacy for religious freedom put him on a collision course with both Church and State in the Massachusetts Bay Colony and led to his banishment. He escaped to the land we now call Rhode Island and began the formation of a new colony.  Three years after his exodus, Williams acknowledged that he had developed Baptist convictions and formed the First Baptist Church in America. He had become convinced that believer’s baptism was specified by Scripture, so he asked a man named Ezekiel Holliman to baptize him by immersion (Holliman had been a lay leader in Williams’ Salem congregation). Williams then re-baptized Holliman and about 10 others.

Having rejected the authority of the Puritan church, however, Williams quickly ran into the same catch-22 that John Smyth had encountered decades before. He became concerned that his baptism was invalid because it was administered by someone outside the line of apostolic succession that the Anglican church believed they had.  Williams had been baptized by a mere layman, after all. Without the spiritual pedigree offered by his denominational roots, how could his baptism be true? He came to believe that his baptism was false, as was the baptism that he had administered to the others. It caused him such anguish and confusion that a mere four months after Williams had founded the first Baptist church in the New World, he left it.  He studied and sought any other church bodies that preached apostolic doctrine with legitimate apostolic authority, but of course he couldn’t find any religious body that met his standards. Williams remained outside any church membership for the rest of his life, observing the Lord’s Supper with his wife only.  You can see that when Williams broke from the authority of church hierarchy and embraced his own freedom to interpret Scripture, his Christian walk hardly became simpler. If anything, things became so complicated for him that he couldn’t find his way out of the maze he’d constructed in his own mind.  This shows the trouble we can encounter without the collective study and discernment of a fellowship prayerfully seeking the mind of Christ in a given area 

The second example is from the life of Williams’ good friend and fellow pastor, John Clarke. He founded and pastored the second Baptist church in America at Newport, Rhode Island. Upon arrival in the New World, Clarke joined with a body of believers in Boston and made friends who were embroiled in what was known as the Antinomian Controversy. Clarke’s friends included leaders of a movement which advocated “free grace.” Adherents of this theology believed that Christ’s grace in salvation was so all-encompassing that it did not depend at all on the believer’s outward behavior—our actions can neither save us nor keep us saved. Pastor John Cotton was the main preacher of this theology, and it seems that John Clarke sympathized with it as well.  Pastor Cotton was supported by a small band of leaders representing the clergy, laity, and even political authority. (The colony’s governor at the time, Henry Vane, was a supporter.) The biggest lightning-rod of this movement was a woman named Anne Hutchinson, a formidable woman with a strong mind and strong convictions. She taught, and probably preached, on behalf of the movement in her own home.  Under her leadership the movement grew, but in her boldness, she seemed to take John Cotton’s teachings farther than her pastor had intended. She took the “free grace” emphasis to the point that amounted to “antinomianism” in the eyes of prominent church leaders in the colony. “Antinomian” means “opposed to the law.” If they were right, it amounted to a violation of the command Paul gave in his letter to the Galatians (5:13) – “For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh…”

The free-grace movement was the minority voice in Massachusetts.  Most Puritan clergy agreed that Christ’s grace alone could bring salvation: we cannot make ourselves more worthy of it by our works.  However, they taught that after new birth in Christ, our natures are changed so that we begin performing works of righteousness in gratitude and service to Christ.  Indeed, those works are fruits that signify that our faith is genuine (Eph. 2:8-10; James 2:17-18). They saw these “Antinomians” (coined by them as a derogatory term) as a threat—and the traditional faction had the power in the Colony.  In 1637 Governor Vane was voted out of office and he returned to England in disgrace. He was replaced by John Winthrop, an ardent conservative.  Both Church and State officials united in purpose to break and banish the “Antinomians.” Trials were held, and harsh sentences were handed out to every leader and supporter they could find.  They were disarmed, deprived of voting privileges, excommunicated from the church, and banished from Massachusetts.  One of the most fiery and publicized trials was that of Anne Hutchinson herself, whose intelligence and confidence enabled her to carry on a verbal fencing match with her accusers for some time.  But as the pressure mounted, she admitted to another belief that she’d been teaching for some time: many of her teachings came by direct revelation from the Holy Spirit, and such revelations were of equal weight to the Scriptures. This was of course complete heresy to the ears of her tribunal, and Anne was excommunicated and banished forthwith.

Anne Hutchinson ended up in Rhode Island because of its religious freedom protections, and although John Clarke hadn’t been a central figure, he could see the writing on the wall: he would not be welcome in Massachusetts.  He also moved to Rhode Island, where he founded and pastored the church in Newport in 1644. He definitely led the church with the same sort of “free grace” emphasis, and he did give place to the leading of the Holy Spirit in church meetings. Believers were allowed to speak, or “prophesy” as the Spirit led. “Prophecy” did not mean predictions of the future, or secret information revealed by the Spirit (unrelated to Scripture) though: it strictly meant short exhortations on Bible passages to edify the church. People were allowed to speak on the Scripture under consideration, as the Spirit provided insight, and it was done in an orderly manner.

Clarke’s Newport Baptist church was the only congregation that arose in the antinomian controversy that thrived, and I think that’s because Clarke found a balance point between unrestrained “soul freedom” and faithfulness to Biblical authority.  He avoided the confusion Roger Williams encountered when he would not trust in the Biblical discernment of any group but insisted on his own—and he and his wife ended up isolated. He also avoided the bold autonomy of Anne Hutchinson, who came to believe the insights supposedly given to her by the Holy Spirit were of equal weight to written revelation.  Clarke nurtured a church culture that gave believers a chance to speak as the Spirit led, but kept it controlled and life-giving by insisting that it center on  the final authority of God’s Word.

These historical examples are important for us today, amid a postmodern culture where all truth is believed subjective.  There is no recognition of a universal standard of truth. In this climate we Baptists, with our emphasis on soul freedom, are constantly under pressure to fall to the spirit of the age. When “my truth” and “your truth” can be diametrically opposite yet seen as equally “true,” soul freedom can easily be confused with unbridled antinomianism.  If we make personal autonomy the end-all of how we judge what it true, the only possible outcome is to be blinded, lost at sea as we are “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting” (Eph. 4:14). God does not want us swept up in this hurricane of untruth—there have to be guiding stars which we can all see and navigate by. For Baptists, the North Star is God’s written revelation to us, the Bible. That is the final authority, the one fixed point that orients everything else. But we know that we have to understand it properly, not to take it out of context so that we end up at the destination we wanted to go all along. There are triangulation points we should heed. Baptists are locally autonomous; like Smyth and Williams, we look to no creed or magisterium to decide matters for us. But we also strive to remain interdependent between congregations. We have gatherings between our congregations for fellowship, equipping, discernment, and for accreditation of our pastoral leaders. In that way congregations influence one another to stay true to God’s Word. Within our own congregations, we believe that each believer can be given insight to the meaning and application of the Scriptures under consideration. We actively encourage those insights as the Spirit shares them among us. But we also trust in the Holy Spirit to lead us to the truth together, and agree that the plain meaning of God’s Word is the one standard that all teachings must adhere to. In this way we test every spirit, as the Bible instructs, and rely on the power of God the Holy Spirit to lead us unfailingly to the Truth, instead of conflicting personal “truths” that will keep us in the dark.  The Lord wants us to shine a light that is clear, not hazy, and to sound a trumpet with a certain note on central matters of the Gospel. Baptists must keep the proper balance between soul freedom and Biblical authority to maintain the witness that our culture so desperately needs today.

Note: my sources for this article include The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness by H. Leon McBeth (Broadman Press, 1987), and Baptists in America: A History by Thomas S. Kidd and Barry Hankins (Oxford University Press, 2015)

Baptist Bites: Religious Freedom in Providence Colony

      Our story this months picks up in June 1636, when Williams and several followers met up and began to plan out a new colony: Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. To begin, they drafted a “compact” that would govern them until they were granted colony status by the King. Even in this early framework, you can observe the cardinal ethic that would guide them: religious freedom. We’ve seen that this is an historic hallmark of Baptist belief—it has remained with us since.  The compact clearly stated that ordinances would govern residents, “only in civil things.” As to the religious life of the people, the 1663 charter for the Colony  makes clear that:

No person…shall be in any wise molested, punished…or called in question for any differences in opinion in matters of religion…but that all…persons may…freely have and enjoy his and their own judgments and consciences in matters of religious concernment.

It should be noted that there was a long wait between the original compact (1636) and the official Colonial Charter from the King (1663). During the intervening years, Williams had much work to do, drawing on friendship connections he’d made with legal colleagues from his youth. His education, and their advice, give him important insights for drawing up a Charter that would be acceptable to the King. It took some campaigning on his part as well. In the early 1640s Williams traveled back to England in order to seek favor from the right people.  It was there that he composed his famous tract, The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution (1644). Though the wording was clunky, it remains one of the most powerful and stirring calls for religious freedom known to our country’s history. In the tract, Williams used Romans 13 to argue that God commanded a two-fold structure of authority: a civil state, with civil officers wielding civil weapons (law and force); and a spiritual state, with spiritual officers wielding spiritual weapons (2 Cor. 10:3-5, Eph. 6:10-18). He argued that the civil state only had authority to govern in the civic sphere, making laws governing lawful conduct and just treatment. To put it another way, he believed that the civil state was only given authority governing the “second table” of the Ten Commandments, all of which deal with our conduct toward others. The “first table,” or first half of the Commandments, deal with our relationships with and duties toward God. First-table matters were the exclusive jurisdiction of the Church, not the State.  He used the analogy of a ship to make this clearer: when a ship was out on the seas, the captain of that ship had all authority to set rules and judge infractions. Once the ship reached port, however, the captain’s authority vanished.  He himself came under the authority of the local magistrate.

Obviously, Williams was passionate about freedom of religion.  We need to take care not to read this with the jaded eyes of today’s postmodern society which will permit no absolute rule of truth.  Williams was no situational ethicist; he absolutely upheld the authority of Scripture and would not hesitate to condemn wickedness where he saw it and the Bible clearly defined it.  Williams’ stand on religious freedom was not an attempt to escape God’s truth and accountability to it.  Civil authorities were there to punish lawlessness, and the Church was there to rebuke error. At the same time, Williams’ had seen English Christians martyred for their faith in his boyhood, London home.  During his legal apprenticeship in his youth, he saw horrible miscarriages of justice -- persecution, banishment and executions -- against those who conscientiously disagreed with Church authorities.  He and his friends had experienced persecution for themselves in Massachusetts.  And though he firmly upheld God’s truth, he saw that the wickedness of men employing cruelty in the name of the Lord had to be stopped. Baptists have since held religious freedom close to their hearts.  We believe each person is free and accountable to worship and follow God in accordance with Scripture and the dictates of conscience.  But especially in our day, we see that a good thing can become a dangerous thing when carried too far.  Next month, I hope to share some thoughts on the need for Baptists to carefully watch the line between faithful freedom and antinomianism.

 

Your Brother and Servant,

Pastor Scott.

 

Note: my sources for this article include The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness by H. Leon McBeth (Broadman Press, 1987), The Rhode Island Royal Charter of 1663 (https://docs.sos.ri.gov/documents/civicsandeducation/teacherresources/RI-Charter-annotated.pdf) and The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution by Roger Williams (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65739/65739-h/65739-h.htm)

Baptist Bites: Roger Williams' Dangerous Ideas

When we last checked in with Roger Williams, he had left the Plymouth church, in 1633, and was made pastor of the church at Salem, Massachusetts.  But though he found the Plymouth church to be insufficiently “separated” from both the Anglican tradition and all those who remained in fellowship with them, his time in Plymouth had brought him into proximity with the Native American population of the area. Williams believed he had a Gospel responsibility to reach out to them, and so he began a course of learning their language. His work and writings in that area were quite helpful to other colonists; many unnecessary battles were prevented because of Williams’ primer on the language. Understanding what a stranger is actually saying is key to peaceful relations with him.  During his time with the tribespeople, however, Williams’ conscience was affected in the same manner as William Penn. He began to hold the conviction that English colonists could not lay claim to the land just because their King said so. The land belonged to the Native Americans, and if the English colonists wanted to acquire some land, they should be treating with its rightful owners.

For two years, Williams continued as pastor of the Salem church. But its proximity to Boston made him more susceptible to the attention of the ruling civil/religious authorities in the city.  In 1635, he was brought before the court to answer four charges. First was the matter we just discussed: who owned the land. Williams proclaimed that the colonists should repent of the notion that they could take the land from the Native peoples, just because the King said so.  This understandably ruffled feathers and made him some enemies. The second thing that made Williams unpopular was that he had been speaking against taking oaths to the civil authorities. He reasoned that many people in the colony were not true Christians, and that it was blasphemous to ask unbelievers to take oaths in the name of God. He did not believe that civil authorities should be bound by oaths to God in the first place; such vows should only be taken to God in service to His Own Kingdom. The third charge brought him into direct conflict with established church authorities: Williams preached that it was sinful to sit under the teaching of any minister connected with the Church of England. He further taught that true believers should also separate from anyone who would not separate from Anglicans themselves—even if it was a family member! And fourth: that the civil authorities only had sway over the bodies and property of citizens. When they attempted to make laws compelling the consciences and religious affiliations of its citizens, they were treading on ground that belonged only to the Kingdom of God. 

There was really no question as to whether Williams was “guilty” or not: he’d taught these things openly, and he made no attempt to disguise it.  The judgment of the court was that Williams would be exiled from the colony within six weeks; if he behaved himself and refrained from these teachings, they would give him until spring of 1636.  But by now we’ve come to understand how bold Williams was. He continued to meet secretly with his flock and teach them just as before. When authorities found out, they sent officers out to arrest Williams and place him on a ship bound for England. This was January of 1636.  But here is an interesting twist: apparently, Massachusetts Bay Governor Winthrop had some liking for Williams and sent word to warn him.  Williams fled to the wilderness.

For the better part of four months, Roger Williams had to face the brunt of a harsh winter.  He faced hunger and exposure to the elements; as he said, “…not knowing what bread and bed did mean…exposed to a winter’s miseries in a howling wilderness of frost and snow.”*  His choice to honor the Native communities by learning their language and addressing them as sovereign owners of their own lands, however, reaped a reward. It was their kindness that made the difference between life and death. It was a terribly uncomfortable experience, but Williams did survive.  Spring came, and by June of 1636 Williams had arrived at the place we now call Rhode Island. He and some followers from Salem worked to establish the colony of Providence Plantations.  He chose the name to give thanks to God, who had provided for his escape from his Massachusetts Bay persecutors and kept him alive through a terrible winter.  When we return next month, we’ll cover the colony and church he started, and the principles that made it truly unique for the time.  Many of those principles are still part of our DNA as Baptists.

*My sources for this article include The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness by H. Leon McBeth (Broadman Press, 1987) and Roger Williams: New England Firebrand by James E. Ernst (The MacMillan Company, 1932)