The Kingdom Come

I'm always careful when I write articles about the condition of Christianity and the Church. I never want to come off as some wild-eyed Frank Viola radical, who appears to seek the overthrow of 2,000 years of historic Christianity. However, there are some issues with some presentations of Christianity For example, since the rise of Dispensationalism, many Christians at least in America have had a defeatist outlook rather than a more than conquerors, advancing the kingdom view. Further, when various heresies have appeared in the Church (think Arianismⁱ), there have been otherwise solid Christians that seem too weak or confused to do the right thing.

Near the end of his life in the late 1800s, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, often called the "Prince of Preachers" was embroiled in a controversy that would cause him to lose many "friends" and allies.

In 1887, Spurgeon and and his friend and fellow pastor, Robert Shindler started a series in Spurgeon's monthly magazine, The Sword and the Trowel. The series was called The Down-Grade. It started as an observation that historically, after every revival within evangelical Christianity, it is typically followed by a "down-grade" or a drift away from sound doctrine.

DOWN-GRADE STARTS WITH TOLERANCE OF HERESY

Shindler recounts how this down grade often happens at the top first. Seminary professors and presidents who compromise with heretics so that they will appear gracious. Speaking of a specific case and man, Shindler noted:

""[Doddridge's] amiable disposition permitted him to do what men made of sterner stuff would not have done. He sometimes mingled in a fraternal manner, even exchanging pulpits, with men whose orthodoxy was called in question. It had its effect on many of the younger men, and served to lessen in the estimate of the people generally the growing divergence of sentiment." (source)

Notice the result of the "amiable disposition" (being a nice guy). It muddied the waters between what was and wasn't heresy and Christianity.

After Shindler concluded two articles, Spurgeon took up the issue alone. Spurgeon was more urgent and said:

"It now becomes a serious question how far those who abide by the faith once delivered to the saints should fraternize with those who have turned aside to another gospel. Christian love has its claims, and divisions are to be shunned as grievous evils; but how far are we justified in being in confederacy with those who are departing from the truth? It is a difficult question to answer so as to keep the balance of the duties. For the present it behooves believers to be cautious, lest they lend their support and countenance to the betrayers of the Lord. It is one thing to overleap all boundaries of denominational restriction for the truth's sake: this we hope all godly men will do more and more. It is quite another policy which would urge us to subordinate the maintenance of truth to denominational prosperity and unity. Numbers of easy-minded people wink at error so long as it is committed by a clever man and a good-natured brother, who has so many fine points about him. Let each believer judge for himself; but, for our part, we have put on a few fresh bolts to our door, and we have given orders to keep the chain up; for, under colour of begging the friendship of the servant, there are those about who aim at robbing the Master." - (source)

Spurgeon was laying the blame squarely; none of the junk we hear today from "Christians" who complain about the unfairness of "guilt by association". Of COURSE it is guilt by association. That is Spurgeon's point. What were these Christians, and especially pastors and seminary presidents doing in validating heresy??? (2 Cor 6:15)

This position caused a lot of people to turn on Spurgeon. What was he doing calling into question the faithfulness of his fellow pastors? As I'm often told today in my fight against the heresy of hyperpreterism and those pastors and seminary presidents that not only validate that heresy, but actually enroll known hyperpreterists in their seminaries to bestow "minister" degree upon them; Spurgeon was rebuked as an "attacker of the brethren".

Many urged Spurgeon to soften his tone but instead he increased his criticism on compromisers. Spurgeon clearly didn't want to be in this position as he wrote:

"It is no joy to us to bring accusations; it is no pleasure to our heart to seem to be in antagonism with so many."

Indeed, but if the very men, such as seminary presidents are complicit in the validation of heresy, what can be done?

Spurgeon's critics began to claim he was only ranting because he was sick, and indeed Spurgeon did have several physical ailments at the end of his life, but his mind was as sharp as ever. Spurgeon responded to these attacks:

"Our opponents have set to work to make sneering allusions to our sickness. All the solemn things we have written are the suggestions of our pain, and we are advised to take a long rest. With pretended compassion, but with real insolence, they would detract from the truth by pointing to the lameness of its witness. Upon this trifling we have this much to say:—In the first place, our article was written when we were in vigorous health, and it was in print before any sign of an approaching attack was discoverable. In the second place, if we were in a debate with Christians we should feel sure that, however short they might run of arguments, they would not resort to personalities."

Oh how well I understand what Spurgeon was experiencing. The detractors, who otherwise should be Christians who attack and belittle me for my efforts against hyperpreterism are of the same sort as Spurgeon laments -- even telling me to, not merely take a "long rest", but they want me to SHUT UP. They tell me how everyone is laughing at me and how no one likes me. They do indeed run short of arguments so instead resort to personal attacks.

NO COMPROMISE

Although the Bible calls us Christians to be at peace with all men as far as possible with us (Rom 12:18) the Bible also calls us not to be in "bad company" because it will eventually corrupt us. (1 Cor 15:33) Spurgeon urged his denomination union to make a clear statement of faith and require members to adhere to it. When it failed, Spurgeon eventually removed his association with the Baptist Union stating:

"Fellowship with known and vital error is participation in sin."

Exactly, it is one thing to be gracious with others as we'd hope they are with us when we swerve into error, but to wink at known vital error; even so much as to allow one of its adherents to obtain a "minister's" degree is too far to go.

After the split, many in the Baptist Union portrayed Spurgeon as acting hastily and on inaccurate understanding. They claimed he did not interact with them enough to know what was really going on. But the FACTS were, Spurgeon had continued correspondence with Samuel Harris Booth, General Secretary of the Baptist Union. But Booth had sworn Spurgeon to secrecy about their correspondence. "My letters to you were not official but in confidence," Booth wrote when he thought Spurgeon was about to blow the whistle on him. "As a matter of honor you cannot use them."

Again, I have experienced this exact thing as I am berated if and when I am forced to release otherwise private emails or phone conversations because the other participant LIES about what was said. They and their supporters then bluster and feign offense, not at the content of what was actually said, but that I dared release it. However, be warned; I live by the biblical precept of "let your yes be yes and no be no, for all else comes of evil" (Mt 5:37). You'd better not interact with me privately if you plan on lying and then trying to silence me when I must prove your lies. Spurgeon was more gracious and endured the lies from Booth without revealing the correspondence.

They accused Spurgeon of not following Mt 18:15 to go to his brothers privately; though he indeed did but was not permitted to prove it by those very same accusers.

Again, I wrote privately to the seminary in question that not only is now bestowing a "ministers" degree on a heretic, but at one point was allowing a known hyperpreterist develop student materials for this supposed Christian seminary, yet my private email was not interacted with but released to the very heretics and I have been belittled ever since for daring to even broach the subject with the seminary (see background).

Finally, in 1888 of the one-hundred members/representatives of the Council of Baptist Union, only five supported Spurgeon as the Council voted to censure Spurgeon, claiming his accusations were too vague and were merely disturbing the peace and unity. The Council, in effect voted that Spurgeon had "slandered" the Union. This is something I'm often accused of by those who support the president of the compromising seminary, though the evidence is there for all to read.

Spurgeon could have easily broken the silence and simply produced some of Booth's private letters that agreed with Spurgeon that there was heresy running within the Union. But instead Spurgeon wrote:

"If we were not extremely anxious to avoid personalities, we could point to other utterances of some of these esteemed writers which, if they did not contradict what they have now written, would be such a supplement to it that their entire mind would be better known. The warfare has been made too personal; and certain incidents in it, upon which I will not dwell, have made it too painful for me to feel any pleasure in the idea of going on with it."

I will not repeat Spurgeon's mistake. I have and will name names. I will NOT go away quietly to "preserve the reputation" of anyone. (I was actually told by a supporter of said seminary president, that even if what I am saying about him is true, I should not say it so as to "preserve his reputation" -- REALLY?)

FINAL NAIL

After Spurgeon's censure, for his urging that the Union formulate a clear statement of faith; the assembly did eventually adopt a statement of faith but it was so vague and without any teeth that it simply made matters worse. Further, Spurgeon's own brother, James Spurgeon was cited as being a major factor in getting the vague resolution to pass. So, here we have Spurgeon, censured by his denomination; portrayed as a disturber of the peace, a slanderer and now, betrayed by his own brother.

Again, I can relate since followers of the seminary president often cite to me that no one likes me; that in their circles (usually containing supporters of said seminary president), people groan at the mere mention of my name, and finally that I am "banned" from this or that forum. So??? Does this change the veracity of my argument? Is this a popularity contest? Obviously the very thing Spurgeon attempted to avoid by not naming names, yet he was still wronged.

Perhaps the final word on the issue from Spurgeon is a sentence I often quote (especially in regards to those who compromise with hyperpreterism):

"Complicity with error will take from the best of men the power to enter any successful protest against it."

The article from where much of this article sources, ends with these comments:

"The Down-Grade Controversy was a perpetual grief to Spurgeon until his death on January 31, 1892. Close friends, and even some of the students from his Pastors' College, turned against him. But Spurgeon declared to the end that he did not regret the stand he had taken.
It was surely difficult for Spurgeon himself, and even his early biographers to assess the value of the Down-Grade Controversy. In those last years of Spurgeon's life, the strife was so much in the foreground that it obscured for most observers the real importance of the stand Spurgeon had taken." - (source)

Spurgeon is an inspiration. Here is a man who took a stand, not for some radicalized new fangled doctrine he was trying to foist upon the Church, but for asking the simple thing of declaring a statement of faith and sticking to it. His denomination abandoned him. His friends betrayed him. His own brother sided with the compromisers. He lost the popularity contest. If he'd been alive in our day, surely Spurgeon would have been banned from the popular forums and his name would be a byword or mud among the compromisers. Spurgeon died a failure??? Not in my book. Those compromisers who join in the Down-grade club, cheering one another as they think they have won a victory for magnanimity and peace will be revealed when history comes to account.

REF: http://www.spurgeon.org/s_and_t/dg03.htm