Then and Now: Christopher Anderson, Scotch Baptists, and Current Issues

In 1806, Christopher Anderson, the pastor of Charlotte Chapel in Edinburgh, Scotland, a Baptist church with ties to the English Particular Baptists wrote in a letter a few comments about a particular group known to history as the Scotch Baptists. After affirming that he was in agreement with them in many areas, he expressed aspects of their practice that he found troubling.

The preaching of the gospel was his first concern. Here the message was not so much the problem, as the way in which it was communicated and the means that were used in so doing. While this certainly related to the membership of the Scotch Baptist churches, he seems to have had the leadership, in those bodies comprised of a plurality of elders, in mind.

I long to see [them show] more zeal for the glory of God, and more diligence in devising and using means for gathering in the ordained unto eternal life. If they would address the conscience as well as the understanding of men, or be more frequent and pointed in their addresses, and speak with a little more life, it is likely that the Lord’s Day evening they have begun would be more easily gathered and kept together.

These congregations appear to have been wary of the use of different means and methods in evangelism. Anderson does not expand on this subject, but it seems quite possible that this stems from a High, or even Hyper-Calvinistic framework carried over from the Scotch Baptists’ early connections to the Glasite/Sandemanian sect.

Another issue Anderson found with them was the message they were proclaiming. It appears to have been a primarily intellectual message, which did not appeal to men’s consciences so as to persuade them to repent of sin and trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. It seems that their problem was headed in the direction of those modern day people concerning whom John Frame writes:

In our contemporary discussions of church growth it is important both to remember that evangelism is God’s work and to consider what human means will be most effective. Many Calvinists are embarrassed to use this language, which seems at first glance to detract from God’s sovereignty in salvation. But since this language is in the Bible, this embarrassment will have to be traced to hyper-Calvinism, rather than to genuine Calvinism. We should never argue, for example, that since God is the one who persuades men of truth, we should never seek in our preaching to persuade – or that since God is the one who reaches the heart, we should never seek in our ministry to reach the hearts of people...
I have heard Calvinists say that our goal in preaching should be only to spread the word, not to bring conversion, since that is God’s work. The result is often a kind of preaching that covers biblical content, but unbiblically fails to plead with sinners to repent and believe. Let us be clear on this point: the goal of evangelistic preaching is conversion. And the goal of all preaching is a sincere response of repentance and faith. (John Frame, "The Doctrine of God" (A Theology of Lordship, Volume 2), notes 5 and 6, pp. 122-123)

The Scotch Baptists may not have been full-blown Hyper-Calvinists, but Anderson believed they did not preach as often as the should, and when they did their messages were of a more vague and abstract nature than is seemly of messengers of the gospel.

Employing some understatement, Anderson wishes that the Scotch Baptist leaders had ‘a little more life’ when preaching. Again, he spares us the unpleasant details, but one can imagine somewhat dry preaching that looks and sounds like it is being read like a lecture from a text book in the most boring way by a man who if empowered by the Sprit gives little indication of it and conducts the service as though it were a funeral and not a celebration of the resurrected triumphant Christ.

Anderson moves on to dealing with the congregation, and the way in which they treat church leaders. He is concerned that they have over-reacted to the excesses of some groups and have come to view those who pastor them as no different than themselves. He writes,

Their sentiments also respecting the pastoral office are a great deal too low. From the height of clerical dignity they have run to the opposite extreme, and seem to imagine a man can attend to the Church of God, his family, and a worldly calling, and do justice to all, at least their practice seems to warrant this opinion. Not that I think a Church should be without a pastor until they can support him, or that two or three years at a university is necessary for the office; - far from it. A pastor may be chosen and labour with his own hands till the Church can support him.

The main issue at hand is one of support. There were Scotch Baptist churches that were quite able to support their leaders but did not, in effect requiring those who ministered among them to work full-time secular jobs to provide for themselves and their families whilst at the same time actively serving in the ministry of the church. Could it be that this is at least part of the reason for the somewhat tired, lifeless, infrequent gospel preaching mentioned earlier? And yet, the failure to support a pastor was Scotch Baptist policy, a proudly held distinctive that separated members of this stream of thought from men such as Anderson, and churches such as Charlotte Chapel, Edinburgh. This is not entirely different from the over-reaction of those who have left cultic groups with lofty clerics (like the Word of Faith movement, where individuals are idolized and well meaning but ignorant people fork out millions to little anti-Christs) who settle into local churches, but see no pressing need to give financially with any degree of faithfulness or generosity.

The Scotch Baptist failure to properly fulfil Biblical injunctions to boldly, fearlessly, and persuasively preach the gospel and to show honour to those who faithfully proclaim God’s word and shepherd his flock is sad, and indeed, tragic. Read the excerpt again:

I long to see [them show] more zeal for the glory of God, and more diligence in devising and using means for gathering in the ordained unto eternal life. If they would address the conscience as well as the understanding of men, or be more frequent and pointed in their addresses, and speak with a little more life, it is likely that the Lord’s Day evening they have begun would be more easily gathered and kept together. Their sentiments also respecting the pastoral office are a great deal too low. From the height of clerical dignity they have run to the opposite extreme, and seem to imagine a man can attend to the Church of God, his family, and a worldly calling, and do justice to all, at least their practice seems to warrant this opinion. Not that I think a Church should be without a pastor until they can support him, or that two or three years at a university is necessary for the office; - far from it. A pastor may be chosen and labour with his own hands till the Church can support him. (Brian R. Talbot, The Search for a Common Identity: The Origins of the Baptist Union of Scotland 1800-1870  (Studies in Baptist History and Thought, vol. 9; Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2003), p. 116)

The question is: if Anderson were living today, would his letter have been any different? To paraphrase a news channel tagline, ‘I report. You decide.’