Benjamin Franklin: On Rebaptism…Again

March 1, 2013

One of the more common “gotcha questions” in the late 19th century discussion of rebaptism in the Stone-Campbell Movement was something like this:

Is baptism administered to a person scripturally valid when he claims he is in Christ before he was baptized, and will contend that his sins were all forgiven him before he submitted to the institution of baptism, and will still further affirm that baptism is not essential in order to remission of sins of any person.

This is the question Benjamin Franklin is asked in the 1872 American Christian Review (15.26 [25 June 1872] 204). For those who advocate “rebaptizing” those who have previously been immersed without the knowledge that baptism was for the remission of sins this is the ultimate question. One who answers this question in the affirmative demonstrates that they don’t really believe baptism is for the remission of sins. It is the question that many advocates of rebaptism believe will sufficiently illuminate the discussion that no honest person could deny that rebaptism was necessary in this instance. That this was the point of the question is evident when one reads the literature of the controversy in the 1890s-1910s (including the 1914 McQuiddy-Durst Debate).

Benjamin Franklin (1812-1878), the great defender of Campbell’s agenda in the Christian Baptist, responds in a surprising way. At least it would alarm many rebaptists.

A man is “scripturally baptized” when he is baptized according to the Scriptures. A man who believes in Christ, repents and is immersed, is scripturally baptized. His misunderstanding about something else could not invalidate his baptism. The Lord says: “He who believes and is immersed shall be save.” Suppose the man misunderstood: thought he was in Christ before he was immersed; or that he was pardoned, would that make void the promise of God?  Surely not. He believed with all his heart and was immersed, and thus came to the promise of God, that he should be saved or pardoned. That promise can not fail because he did not understand when he was in Christ or pardoned. The work to do for that man is not enough to convince him that what he had done, and done rightly, is to be discarded and repudiated, but teach him “the way of the Lord more perfectly,” or, in other words, correct his understanding in the things  wherein he does not understand, and leave what he had done rightly unmolested. There are evils connected with an ultra course in the above matter that many brethren do not see.

Franklin is quite willing to accept the obedience of this person who, in his opinion, thoroughly misunderstands the timing of pardon. He obeyed. That is sufficient. God does the rest.

But the most interesting point to me is the last sentence. He warns the church that to do otherwise is to proceed down a path that leads to some severe consequences. I think Franklin recognized the sectarianism that was in play with rebaptists. This is something David Lipscomb, James A. Harding, and Daniel Sommer would also recognize.  It was a dire warning that eventually came true.

McGary thought it was a reason to divide or might lead to division since some recognize and accept people as Christians who are not really Christians.

7 Comments | Stone-Campbell | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Benjamin Franklin on Rebaptism

February 14, 2013

In the years prior to the Firm Foundation (begun in 1884) there was practical unanimity on the question of whether one who had been previously immersed to obey God but without the knowledge of its saving import should be rebaptized. The answer was an unequivocal “No.” The only significant part of the Stone-Campbell Movement that answered “Yes” was the Virginians who followed John Thomas in the mid-1830s.  Alexander Campbell opposed their understanding of the rebaptism and regarded it as rank sectarianism.  Anyone immersed upon a confession of faith in Jesus as the Christ, thought Campbell, was legitimately baptized and needed no further “re-d0″ when they later learned that baptism was for the remission of sins.

Benjamin Franklin (1812-1878), a northern right-wing leader within the Stone-Campbell Movement in the mid-19th century, agreed with Campbell and the vast majority of “his brethren.”  A correspondent to his American Christian Review asked that since “some twenty years ago [he] was immersed and united with the  Baptist Church,” whether it was now “requisite for [him] to be immersed again, in understanding more fully  what is meant by immersion and what it is for?” He recognized that the Baptists believe baptism to be “the door into the church,” while “we hold it as being a positive command and for the remission of sins.”

Franklin’s response counsels against rebaptism (ACR 2 [1860] 26):

We do not think you ought to be immersed again. While it is certainly desirable to understand as far as we can any appointment we submit to, the want of a full understanding does not invalidate the ordinance….You believed in the Lord, loved him and aimed to obey and understood sufficiently to do what he commanded. As a matter of course, in reading and practicing for many years, you will understand more clearly and fully. We presume this is the case generally; but this does not prove, the necessity of taking incipient steps again that have long since been honestly taken.

Later northern conservatives followed Franklin’s lead on this point. Daniel Sommer, for example, regard the Firm Foundation’s  rebaptism agenda as a divisive and sectarian hobby. Nevertheless, despite the support of David Lipscomb and James A. Harding in the south as well as other luminaries from the Gospel Advocate, the Firm Foundation perspective ultimately became the majority view within Churches of Christ by the 1940s.

31 Comments | Stone-Campbell | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

19th Century Middle Ground: Women in the Assembly

February 11, 2013

Benjamin Franklin (1812-1878) was the leader of northern conservatives in the mid-19th century within the Stone-Campbell Movement. His American Christian Review was the most widely read periodical of the movement after the Civil War. He led the fight, for example, against the introduction of instrumental music into worship assemblies and grounded the argument for an exclusive ”five public acts of worship” in the idea of positive law. He represented the “right wing” of the Stone-Campbell Movement in the postbellum North.

Recognizing this context lends weight to his moderate position concerning the presence of the female voice in the public assemblies of the gathered church. He took this moderating position because he found, to his satisfaction, explicit ground for it in Scripture. When asked his opinion on “sisters taking part in public worship,” he responded (ACR 3.5 [1860] 18):

It depends on upon what part in the public worship is meant. They are not allowed to teach, or to usurp authority over the man, but that they may not sing, pray, commune and exhort, we think no man can prove. The words “suffer not a woman to speak,” we think, is of the same import as “suffer not a woman to teach,” in another place. It is clear that women prayed in the primitive church, or Paul’s speaking of their “praying with the head uncovered” would have been without meaning.  They could not have prayed without speaking, but they could without teaching.

Franklin was convinced that there were “two extremes–the one not permitting women to open their lips in any worshipping assembly, and the other making them public preachers and teachers” (ACR 10 [2 July 1867] 213).

The practice of northern “Churches of Christ”–extending into the early 20th century with Daniel Sommer among others–encouraged women to pray audibly, exhort the congregation and participate in the leadership of the song service. This pervasive practice among northern congregations was ultimately overwhelmed by the practice of the more dominant southern “Churches of Christ” who regarded any public role by women as unseemly and unbiblical (e.g., David Lipscomb and James A. Harding). Their influence squelched the practices of the northern churches and silenced the women in the assembly except for congregational singing. Daniel Sommer noted this trend and remonstrated against it.

It is good to see some congregations of “Churches of Christ” renewing the practice of their 19th century northern ancestors and opening the assembly to hear the female voice in prayer, reading, and exhortation.

22 Comments | Stone-Campbell | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Stone-Campbell Hermeneutics V – Moral and Positive Law

May 31, 2008

Be grateful–this post is under 2500 words. :-) I plan one more on Stone-Campbell Hermeneutics and I will move to thinking about a biblical-theologial hermeneutic for contemporary Churches of Christ.

The Distinction between Moral and Positive Law

The distinction between positive law and moral law in the modern era finds its roots in Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan (1651). He distinguishes between those laws which “have been laws from eternity” (moral or natural) and those laws which have been made “by the will of those that have sovereign power over others” (e.g., God or human governments; Leviathan, 26)

This distinction was appropriated by Reformed theologians. Charles Hodge, the 19th century Presbyterian Princeton Seminary professor, is a good example of this. He referred to “moral” laws as those “permanent relations of men” that arise out of the character of God and the nature of things (thus, a form of natural law). But “positive” laws “derive all their authority from the explicit command of God.” So, while moral laws are those which obligate human beings due to the nature of things or the nature of God, positive laws refer to “external rites and ceremonies.” As a result, “the criterion of such laws is that they would not be binding unless positively enacted.” Consequently, there is a fundamental difference between moral and positive commands. Moral laws are obligatory “in their own nature,” but positive laws are obligatory solely by the explicit command of God (Systematic Theology, III:267, 269). In the case of the Sabbath, as a specific example, it is a “moral duty that the people should assemble for religious instruction and for the united worship of God” which “was obligatory before the time of Moses, and would have been binding had he never existed.” But it is a “positive [law] that the seventh rather than any other day of the week should be thus set apart” (Systematic Theology, III:323-324).

Preachers and writers in the 19thcentury Stone-Campbell Movement used this distinction with some regularity. Thomas Campbell used the language of “positive divine ordinances” in the Declaration and Address (1809) and regularly preached the “positive institutions as tests of obedience.” Baptism, according to Alexander Campbell, is a “positive ordinance” as opposed to a “moral” precept. J. W. McGarvey claimed that there was a time “when every preacher in the Reformation had one or more discourses on Positive institutions, and with many it was a favorite subject” (“Is Baptism a Positive Institution?, Apostolic Times 5 (26 June 1873), 4. David Lipscomb apparently regularly preached a sermon on the distinction of moral and positive law (as heard by E. H. Hoover). The Sand Creek church divided because a segment introduced “innovations” in violation of the “positive commands of God.” W. H. Hopson offers a good example how this distinction was used to underscore the essentiality of baptism in his sermon “Baptism Essential to Salvation” while Issac Errett uses the distinction to prioritize the spirit of obedience over failure of positive obedience despite a heart to obey and J. S. Sweeny applies the distinction in a way that we leave the unimmersed to divine “equity” rather than human judgment. The clearest presentation of its function in Stone-Campbell theology is the frequently reprinted sermon by Benjamin Franklin entitled “Divine Positive Law.”

I hope this demonstrates the pervasive nature of this distinction within the Stone-Campbell Movement. I remember points and sermons based upon this distinction in my own lifetime, but this language is not the common language of 20th century Churches of Christ.  However, the idea or concept is integral to our theological hermeneutic. We may not use the language any longer but the idea is deeply embedded in our DNA.

According to Franklin’s sermon, positive law is “the highest test of respect for divine authority” since it “tests” the condition of the “heart” as it penetrates “deep down into the inmost depths of the soul.” Obedience to positive law “rises above mere morality…into the pure region of faith.” Disobedience to positive law reveals the “spirit of disobedience.” Obedience to positive law is the absolute test of loyalty even more so than moral transformation because moral obedience has the crutches of reason, consequences and natural law to support it.  Obedience to positive law is wholly an act of faith.

Examples of Positive Law

Applied to Baptism

At the root of the insistence of the absolute essentiality of baptism is this idea of positive law. Positive commands are clear. James A. Harding, for example, believed the clarity of the baptismal command was unassailable. “If a man does not understand the baptismal question, in this country,” he argued, “it is because he will not, not because he cannot understand. It is not the Lord’s fault; he made the matter plain enough” (“Should Unbaptized Sectarians Be Called Upon to Lead the Prayers of the Lord’s House,” Gospel Advocate 25 [22 February 1883],118).

The problem is not baptism itself, but the heart. “Now let it be understood,” Harding wrote, “I do not find fault with these people because they have not been baptized. That is not the disease; it is only a symptom; unbelief is the disease; their hearts are not right…What right have we to call upon these people who will not obey the Lord, who cannot eve endure to hear all of his commands repeated, to lead the services of our Father’s house” (“Union Meetings,” Gospel Advocate 25 [27 June 1883], 410).  Because the command is so clear and so simple, a refusal to obey must reflect an unbelieving heart, a spirit of disobedience. The positive command to be immersed, then, serves the function of testing the loyalty and heart of a person. Obedience to this positive command identifies whose heart is sincerely interested in obeying God.

So, whoever refuses to be immersed as a believing adult is either stupid (positive commands are clear, are they not?) or rebellious. If one does not obey the clear command of God–even if they don’t see it as so “clear”–they reveal an unbelieving, rebellious heart who never really wanted to obey in the first place.

For more on this point see chapter 7 in Down in the River to Pray by John Mark Hicks and Greg Taylor.

Applied to Public Worship

The five acts of worship are positive commands for assembled saints.  Since worship must proceed out of faith (hearing the word of God), it must be conducted according to how God prescribes his worship.  “Man knows what worship is, only as the Lord has prescribed it,” Franklin writes. “The worship is all positive, and comes with the weight of authority.” God has a law of worship for his community and when the church assembles it must follow the “positive” ordinances of the Lord.  “The precise things he prescribes are acceptable to and please him, and nothing else” because the Lord is the “Supreme Lawgiver” (Franklin, “A Distinctive Plea,” American Christian Review 15 [29 October 1872], 348). Consequently, “the worship is divinely prescribed” and “God has ordained [all] special acts of worship” (Franklin, “What Is To Be Done?” American Christian Review 13 [25 October 1870], 340). “The Lord and his Apostles,” Franklin writes, “established the worship for Christians–prescribed every item in it–every act” (Franklin, “Conclusive,” American Christian Review 13 [18 October 1870], 332). These “five acts of public worship” are singing, teaching, communing, contributing and praying (H. Turner, “Does the New Testament Determine the Elements of the Public Worship?” Christian Quarterly 2 [January 1870] 250-258).

The significance of applying positive law to the worship assembly is extremely important. If one conceives of the worship assembly as a function of positive law, then it must be regulated by specific authorizations (through CEI) on the analogy of ritual prescriptions in the Old Testament (and in the case of positive legalities it is read even more strictly than the rituals of the OT). To  change, subtract from or add to these positive ordinances is to display the “spirit of disobedience.”  The “performance of the acts of worship and devotion prescribed by his supreme authority are all so many tests, trials of love, respect and devotion we have in our hearts for the Lord,” wrote Franklin.  “These acts try the heart, probe it and test the state of it” (“What Is To Be Done?” 340). Failure to obey these positive prescriptions–or add to them or subtract from them–reveals a rebellious heart.

The acts of worship, then, on the first day of the week (and they are prescribed only for the first day of the week) distinguish between faithful and unfaithful hearts. Indeed, “rendering obedience in all his appointments in the true spirit of obedience,” according to Albert Allen,” is the highest worship, veneration, or homage the Christian can ever offer while in the flesh” (“The Contribution,” Lard’s Quarterly 3 (1863), 419).  Obedience to positive law is a higher value than obedience to moral law and consequently, for some, faithful assembly is more important than faithful discipleship or at least faithful assembly is the highest form of discipleship. Those who innovate upon God’s law are unfaithful. The worship assembly with its positive ordinances became a test of loyalty and faithfulness, and thus a test of fellowship. Consequently, the question of instrumental music became a dividing line for Churches of Christ.  “The original worship, in all its items,” Franklin declared, “must be maintained or all is lost” (“Distinctive Plea,” American Christian Review 14 [5 December 1871], 388).

For more on this point see chapter 5 in A Gathered People by John Mark Hicks, Johnny Melton and Bobby Valentine.

Implications and Observations

  • It prioritizes positive commands over moral commands.
  • It prioritizes positive obedience over moral obedience.
  • It prioritizes positive perfectionism over moral transformation.
  • It prioritizes baptism and Sunday assembly over daily discipleship.

I offer James A. Harding’s own words where these implications are rather explicit (Debate on Baptism and the Work of the Holy Spirit [1889], 256-7).

/While the positive law is not right in the nature of things (in so far as mortals can see), but it is right because it is commanded. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper under the new covenant, and the ceremonial law of the Jews under the old covenant, are illustrations of positive law…Positive law differs from moral law in that it can be obeyed perfectly. Positive law is therefore a more perfect test of faith and love, a more perfect test of allegiance to God, than moral law…For these two reasons, doubtless, God has ever been more ready to overlook the infractions of moral, than of positive law; and for the same reasons the positive is peculiarly adapted to the expression and the perfection offaith. I would not have you suppose that I think God would for a moment tolerate a willful violation of moral law. No, no: I simply mean that God, who knows so well our inherited weakness, is patient and gentle with us in our imperfect obedience to this law, and in our many backslidings from it. But positive law we can obey perfectly, and he is strict and stern in demanding that we shall do it.

Everyone should read that again. It is actually quite startling. God is patient with moral weakness and imperfection but he is stern with positive infractions and the reason is–and this is so very important–we are naturally imperfect in terms of morality but God expects perfect obedience of his positive ordinances. We can obey the law perfectly–at least the positive law!  Perfect obedience to the positive ordinances is required, expected and, if lacking, damning.

Consequently, a person can struggle with the weakness of gambling, or lying, or greed, or even racism–and withthis God is patient.  But if one misunderstands the ritual of baptism, or worships with the instrument, or does not eat the Supper every week, or eats the Supper on a day other than Sunday, etc., God is “strict and stern” just as he was with Nadab and Abihu or Uzzah. God demands, in this system, perfect and precise obedience to his positive ordinances or it is death.

It is little wonder, then, that many members of the church got the idea (and I certainly had it in my youth) that it is more important to faithfully observe the divine (positive) ordinances than it was to devote ourselves to discipleship or morality. The positive ordinances were a “higher” law than the moral law. The latter is something we all struggle with but the former is expected or else! Ultimately, this is the problem of the “angry God” scenario that Larry James described in a recent blog. God gets angry with those who do not understand or perfectly implement his positive ordinances while he is patient, kind and understanding toward those who struggle with moral weakness.

Of course, some were not as gracious as Harding. Some saw the problem here.  But instead of thinking that God might be patient, kind and understanding about the positive ordinances like the moral ones, they pictured God as unyielding, stern and strict with the moral law just as he was with the positive law. Thus, the one who dies breaking the law speeding (a moral violation of the command to obey the government) is as much in danger of hellfire as the one who dies on the way to be baptized (failure to comply with positive obedience). [If you think my analogy is a "straw man" read footnotes 249 and 250 in my Moser paper.]  God is equally distressed by both and there is no grace for either as long as they fail to keep “all the commands” of God (see the footnotes for the quote). Ultimately, grace is for the perfect! Now that’s an irony.

Hermeneutical Point

If obeying positive law is the quintessence of faithfulness and positive law is primarily a legal notion, then what is needed is a legal hermeneutic.  Or, was it the legal hermeneutic that produced the search for legal authority, for positive law? In either event, the hermeneutical task for Churches of Christ has always been to discover what God requires of us, especially what he requires in terms of positive ordinances. Our hermeneutic has been tailored to answer that question.

Our hermeneutic, then, served an ecclesial perfectionism, that is, the search for the divine positive ordinances which are necessary as a faithful New Testament church. And, yet, we could never agree on what the state of that perfection actually was.  We divided over communion cups, Bible classes, the proper use of the church treasury, kitchens in the church building, etc. It is logical that we would divide because our hermeneutic plus ecclesial perfectionism equals incessant squabbling as we struggle to “get it right” as if (and it did in the minds of many) our salvation depended on it.

Surely Alexander Campbell is turning over in his grave by now.  The hermeneutic which enabled him to return to the “ancient order” for the “happiness and usefulness” of Christians came to serve an ecclesial perfectionism, identify the terms of communion, and practice an ecclesiology without grace.

Resources

 John Mark Hicks, “A Gracious Separatist: Moral and Positive Law in the Theology of James A. Harding.” Restoration Quarterly 42.3 (2000), 129-147.

John Mark Hicks, “K. C. Moser and Churches of Christ: A Theological Perspective.”  Restoration Quarterly 37.4 (1995), 193-211.

17 Comments | Hermeneutics, Stone-Campbell | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 938 other followers

%d bloggers like this: