A criticism frequently levelled at the Puritans is that a tendency towards introspection led to misapplication of perfectly good theological principles. Perhaps they were the Gen X of the 17th Century. I could imagine John Owen or Richard Sibbes gently weeping into their small beer as they contemplated the profundity of the latest offerings by The Pixies or Mudhoney on their Ye Olde Walkmans. Then again, maybe I can't...
Yet, to be absolutely fair, the aim of Puritan theology was never navel gazing, but an honest examination of their souls in order to discover how they might serve God with more openness and honesty than was usually the case. Such indeed was the aim of Baxter in Chapter 3 of The Reformed Pastor.
At first I wondered as to whether some of this material would have been better united with Chapter 1. Certainly, much similar ground is covered. Yet here Baxter goes deeper than just common fault-finding. His aim is to uncover the sources of ecclesiastical rot, which must be located in the sinful soul.
The first problem to be dealt with is Pride. Because of Pride ministers fail to take care of those of their flock in most need of God's love, reserving their services for a Better Class Of Sinner. Pride is also responsible for a tender conscience, giving ministers an over-sensitivity that makes it difficult for them to accept (or others to give) fair criticism. Once again, I believe that Baxter and Chrysostom are approaching the same problem from different angles. While Chrysostom believes that evidence of vanity should exclude the unworthy from the priesthood, Baxter believes that all ministers should examine their motives and eliminate the vanity they find as much as possible. Baxter is positive that, with help from the Holy Spirit, improvement can be achieved. Chrysostom appears to hold character as set in stone. Although, as Dr. Phil says, past behaviour is a good predictor of future behaviour.
The second sin in Baxter's sights is Sloth (or, as he puts it, neglect of pastoral duties). Baxter has no time for those who, having accepted the Lord's challenge to put their shoulder to the wheel, find the work tiresome or not to their taste. How appropriate is this message in the modern age, when distractions assault even the most faithful Gospel worker! Baxter urges all ministers to devote themselves not only to serious study but also to the improvement of their preaching. He desires all to be earnest in their proclamation so that many might be moved to repentance. I think that earnestness is a preaching trait not seen as much as it should.
Also up for criticism is the factionalism of church politics. Baxter acknowledges that alliances and disagreements will be a natural part of any institution. However, he has strong words for those devotion to Sect over Saviour leads to unnecessary division, upsetting the Christian desire for peace. I am aware that Anglicans in Sydney have a reputation for loving a theological scrap, but in my association with many ministers I have rarely found this to be the case. Most would prefer cooperation to be the order of the day, but when faced with serious gospel challenges will not allow the message of Jesus to be compromised. As one of my revered teachers puts it, at least in Sydney matters are out in the open and discussed freely instead of being concentrated in shadowy cliques that include only the few.
Lastly, it is gratifying to see (in answer to some of my concerns of last week) that Baxter does not eliminate the issue of church discipline altogether, but instead gives it some attention in this chapter. On the positive side, he thinks that it is not given sufficient importance by pastors, going so far as to say that a minister who neglects discipline in his parish is just as bad as one who neglects poor preaching. On the negative, Baxter does not go into sufficient detail as to what a church with a healthy discipline system should look like. Perhaps his introspection up to this point makes it difficult for him to deal in tangibles.
I think it would be impossible for any minister to read this chapter of Baxter's work and not have their conscience stung in at least one tender place. These are the words of an experienced pastor who has seen it all before and had his heart broken as a result. While Baxter's list of sins is not comprehensive (representing only the major failings of his own time) there is much to be gained by a few moments quiet reflection of Baxter's still salient points.
Showing posts with label Puritanism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Puritanism. Show all posts
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Baxter #2 - Heeding Those In Your Care
In the dim distant past I was fortunate enough to study psychology at university. As a result I always have plenty of material on hand to spice up dull dinner party conversation - 'werewolves', dissociative fugue, why that anti-AIDS "Bowling Death" ad was ineffective, etc. I also learned how to decode common mental tics like Deja-vu - that eerie feeling of having been/seen/heard something before. Despite what the psychics may espouse, deja-vu derives from a misfire in your synapses when, on the presentation of a stimulus, your natural 'Recognition -> Emotional Response' process is reversed. Your consciousness then attempts to compensate by giving you the "We've Been Here Before" feeling. Perfectly natural, but in this case it really is your mind playing tricks on you!
I had such a feeling reading through chapter 2 of The Reformed Pastor this week. However, in this case, I could pinpoint exactly where the feeling came from...
Baxter continues his discursus on the oversight of the church by expanding on his key text of Acts 20:28. After instructing his readers that they must begin by taking heed of themselves he then describes how they must take heed of those whom God has given them. It is at this point that the feeling of deja-vu kicks in. It is obvious that Baxter owes a great deal to Bucer in his second chapter. His identification of the different types of 'sheep' to be dealt with follows Bucer almost exactly and his instruction about restoring those who are lost in sin also follow Bucer's pattern. This in itself is not surprising. Though Bucer's work had not appeared in English, the debt that 17th Century Puritanism owed to 16th Century Geneva made it natural that Baxter should turn to the Reformation texts for inspiration.
Baxter, following Bucer, takes pains to outline the seriousness of the work of guarding souls and calling those who have not believed in Christ to put their faith in Him. He views the congregation as the central charge of the pastor, and expresses disdain for those weak leaders who seek a comfortable living or ecclesiastical preferment rather than preaching the Gospel. None are to be neglected, but the lost are to be sought, the injured healed, the weak strengthened, etc. Those who are interested in some of the niceties would do well to read my previous posts on Bucer - the effect would be the same.
I then began asking myself, since Bucer and Baxter appear to be of a similar mind, which of their treatments I preferred. After careful consideration it is my view that not much was gained in the 100 years that separate the two tracts, and in fact a few points have suffered in the ageing.
No-one for a moment questions that Baxter strove to be biblical in all his opinions. The problem is that he does not go out of his way to demonstrating it. In many ways the main weakness that applied to Herbert also applies to Baxter - a lack of broad engagement with Scripture to justify their positions. Perhaps this was just a question of contemporary style - I haven't read enough of the 17th Century divines, either Puritan or Moderate, to make a judgment. It was, of course, possible to quibble with Bucer's exegesis (indeed, given the advances in biblical scholarship, you would be concerned if you couldn't), but at least you could feel comfortable that he was attempting to use a range of texts to justify his pastoral applications. Baxter relies on one text, and while there is nothing objectionable in his conclusions it would have been nice to see him justify them occasionally.
An area in which Baxter differs markedly from Bucer is over the issue of public penance. It will be remembered that Bucer maintained that restoration of proper application of public penance was essential for the health of the church in those cases where gross sin has seriously damaged community as evidence that the repentance of the sinner has been genuine. Indeed, Bucer devoted a large portion of his treatise to this subject. However, Baxter ignores the subject completely, willing to take declarations of contrition as evidence enough of repentance. Bucer felt that pastoral discipline should extend to both the internal and the external spheres, while Baxter seems rooted in the former. Bucer's opinions swayed me initially and I have not had cause to alter my judgment.
This is not to dismiss Baxter's approach completely. On the whole he expands upon the work that Bucer had done previously, and his prose is both affecting and compelling. It is hard not to be moved while reading Baxter to do the very best possible in our pastoral roles. At some moments, however, Baxter's enthusiasm appears to run away with him and he is not as systematic as someone like Calvin would have been. Several of his points regarding the manner of oversight overlap greatly and it is possible that this section could have been simplified. However, this was probably a tendency of the age and should not be judged too harshly.
I had such a feeling reading through chapter 2 of The Reformed Pastor this week. However, in this case, I could pinpoint exactly where the feeling came from...
Baxter continues his discursus on the oversight of the church by expanding on his key text of Acts 20:28. After instructing his readers that they must begin by taking heed of themselves he then describes how they must take heed of those whom God has given them. It is at this point that the feeling of deja-vu kicks in. It is obvious that Baxter owes a great deal to Bucer in his second chapter. His identification of the different types of 'sheep' to be dealt with follows Bucer almost exactly and his instruction about restoring those who are lost in sin also follow Bucer's pattern. This in itself is not surprising. Though Bucer's work had not appeared in English, the debt that 17th Century Puritanism owed to 16th Century Geneva made it natural that Baxter should turn to the Reformation texts for inspiration.
Baxter, following Bucer, takes pains to outline the seriousness of the work of guarding souls and calling those who have not believed in Christ to put their faith in Him. He views the congregation as the central charge of the pastor, and expresses disdain for those weak leaders who seek a comfortable living or ecclesiastical preferment rather than preaching the Gospel. None are to be neglected, but the lost are to be sought, the injured healed, the weak strengthened, etc. Those who are interested in some of the niceties would do well to read my previous posts on Bucer - the effect would be the same.
I then began asking myself, since Bucer and Baxter appear to be of a similar mind, which of their treatments I preferred. After careful consideration it is my view that not much was gained in the 100 years that separate the two tracts, and in fact a few points have suffered in the ageing.
No-one for a moment questions that Baxter strove to be biblical in all his opinions. The problem is that he does not go out of his way to demonstrating it. In many ways the main weakness that applied to Herbert also applies to Baxter - a lack of broad engagement with Scripture to justify their positions. Perhaps this was just a question of contemporary style - I haven't read enough of the 17th Century divines, either Puritan or Moderate, to make a judgment. It was, of course, possible to quibble with Bucer's exegesis (indeed, given the advances in biblical scholarship, you would be concerned if you couldn't), but at least you could feel comfortable that he was attempting to use a range of texts to justify his pastoral applications. Baxter relies on one text, and while there is nothing objectionable in his conclusions it would have been nice to see him justify them occasionally.
An area in which Baxter differs markedly from Bucer is over the issue of public penance. It will be remembered that Bucer maintained that restoration of proper application of public penance was essential for the health of the church in those cases where gross sin has seriously damaged community as evidence that the repentance of the sinner has been genuine. Indeed, Bucer devoted a large portion of his treatise to this subject. However, Baxter ignores the subject completely, willing to take declarations of contrition as evidence enough of repentance. Bucer felt that pastoral discipline should extend to both the internal and the external spheres, while Baxter seems rooted in the former. Bucer's opinions swayed me initially and I have not had cause to alter my judgment.
This is not to dismiss Baxter's approach completely. On the whole he expands upon the work that Bucer had done previously, and his prose is both affecting and compelling. It is hard not to be moved while reading Baxter to do the very best possible in our pastoral roles. At some moments, however, Baxter's enthusiasm appears to run away with him and he is not as systematic as someone like Calvin would have been. Several of his points regarding the manner of oversight overlap greatly and it is possible that this section could have been simplified. However, this was probably a tendency of the age and should not be judged too harshly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)