Baxter #4 - Teach Your Children (and Adults) Well

One of the great Australian memoirs of the 20th Century was Robin Dalton's Aunts Up The Cross. In it Dalton recalls her eccentric upbringing in bohemian Kings Cross in the years leading up to World War II. Her house was filled with an assortment of genteel relatives in reduced circumstances, including a great-aunt who would wear a fox-fur cape and sunglasses to bed. Dalton recalls her mother as a woman imbibed with the Australian love of gambling in all forms, in particular horse racing and Bridge. Despite her mother's passion for cards, Dalton herself never learned to play Bridge as she was often told (directly or otherwise) that playing bad Bridge was in such poor taste as to border on a sin. It was easier for her never to learn, a move which reveals that despite the obvious bond between mother and daughter that permeates the narrative there was no plan to pass on this particular family passion in a relevant and non-threatening way.

In the second half of The Reformed Pastor, Baxter turns his attention to the task of catechesis. He is of the opinion that, despite the many advances that the English Church had taken over the previous century, the laity were still woefully ignorant of the most basic aspects of the Christian Faith. Worse still, when questions of faith did arise they were generally unwilling to go to their local ministers to have their minds set at rest. Baxter has already stated that he felt that the clergy were generally well equipped to answer such questions and indeed had rejoiced at the fact that the standard of ministers in the realm was so high. Preaching from the pulpit had proved not to be effective at combating general ignorance. Therefore, Baxter contends that a primary responsibility of the clergy should be the active education of those under his care in the fundamentals of the Christian faith. It is not enough to assume that they will pick up knowledge by osmosis or private study.

Baxter proposes that each minister have a plan to visit his sheep in turn, to enquire as to their spiritual health and knowledge, and to instruct them privately on any points on which they are confused or ignorant. While not wishing to detract at all from the ministry of the pulpit, he feels that this must be complemented by private instruction if it is to have the most profitable impact. He rightly discerns that during sermons the preacher cannot pace his message to suit all people equally, and so many will either get left behind or become distracted during the message. However, in private consultation, the minister can open the Scriptures and repeat his points carefully to make sure the individual understands what is being taught and can have opportunities for questions or objections. In such a way the individual is matured in their faith and comes to know that the minister is as much a private instructor as a public orator, making it more likely that the minister will be consulted on matters of faith and doctrine again in the future. Such a ministry breaks down the barriers between clergy and laity, gives general confidence to what is being taught, and will head off superstitions or heresy.

Over the last several days I attended a ministry conference where congregation retention across demographics was discussed in the context of the diocesan plan for church growth. It struck me that while our evangelism strategies (and implementation) could always be better, our greatest problem is not one of evangelism but of catechesis, particularly in our youth ministry. NCLS figures show that we have no problem in attracting numbers to our children and youth ministries, but there tends to be a dramatic drop in adolescence and early adulthood. I believe this results from a glitch in our thinking with which Baxter can assist. Much effort is given to strategies for running programs, events, and pastoral strategies for youth. Little is given to catechesis, despite its strong avocation by generations of evangelicals.

I am aware that this issue has been addressed before, but I am adding my voice to the chorus. We need to get serious about instructing our youth in the apostolic and catholic faith. It is inexcusable if we are in the situation of asking our senior youth what a Sacrament is or what the Creeds teach and get only blank looks in reply. As far as I am aware there are not any local diocesan resources for instructing our youth in preparation for Confirmation. On that note, when exactly did Confirmation become an Optional Extra? We need to start younger and do better!

Baxter #3 - Humility Through Introspection

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.

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.

Baxter #1 - Test Yourself

Greetings my public!

I must grovel for your pardon at not having updated sooner, but I was caught up in the maelstrom of Easter followed by a delightful holiday. During my absence I have slowly been ploughing through Richard Baxter's major pastoral work The Reformed Pastor. A couple of observations before I begin.

First, I must admit to being less than convinced of the merits of Puritanism. This is not to say that I disagree with the major theological thrusts of the great 17th Century divines (Sibbes, Owen, Baxter, etc). Indeed, from what I have read, they contributed a great deal to our understanding of Scripture and provided valuable reflection on the work of the Genevan Reformers of the previous century. However, it is clear that Puritanism was more "fine china" than "sturdy mug" - prone to easy fracturing and therefore must be handled gently. I am yet to form a judgment on their ecclesiology (perhaps Baxter will help in this regard) but to my eye it seems unnecessarily minimalist. Perhaps those who more schooled than myself in this period will throw up their hands at my assumptions, but I am willing to admit that my views come from ignorance. I am determined to approach Baxter in the same way that I approached Herbert, without preconceptions about the fitness of the views that I will find. I am aware that Puritanism has strongly influenced my own tradition - I wish to discover if this has been an influence for the good by keeping a critical approach to the text.

Second, I am extremely glad that I read Chrysostom before starting with Baxter. As will be seen, they approach the question of "pastoral fitness" from completely different angles, shaped by their cultures and experiences. It has reminded me how deep the wells of theology can go. It seems the more I read the more I need to read.

Baxter begins his treatise like a doctor examining a sick patient. His aim is to correct the poor standards of pastoral ministry then operating in England. Those who believe that the age of turbulent priests ended with Henry VIII should look to Baxter's work for an alternate view. Laziness, immorality, careerism, and open disdain for God's Word came just as easily to a Protestant church as to a Catholic one.

The solution that Baxter proposes contrasts markedly with that of Chrysostom. While the Golden Tongue wished to ensure that only the most incorruptible of the church should be advanced to ordination, Baxter starts with the assumption that corruptibility is a beast to be kept at bay by all those in ministry. Baxter is more theologically correct in his anthropology, but this does not mean that he is comfortably with lower standards. On the contrary, it is evident that Baxter wants only those who have a true heart to call people back to God to take on pastoral tasks. But even those whose motives are pure should be willing to submit themselves to frequent and rigorous spiritual examination to see whether their lives, faith, or doctrine has begun to decay. The title of Baxter's work is therefore most appropriate - there can be no pastor who is not reformed or in the process of reformation. To ignore this need and to rely on one's own moral standing to maintain purity is a dangerous game that puts souls in peril.

[note: I don't think that Chrysostom was exceedingly in error in his anthropology (though perhaps in his later years, given the bitter experiences that were to follow, he may have been more circumspect). Instead, I think that Chrysostom took the view that past performance was a good indicator of future behaviour. Those who had shown themselves worthy and godly servants in the past, full of charity and piety, were those who were less likely to resist the temptations that come with the pastoral office.]

Baxter's work is refreshing. It smacks of practical, sometimes bitter, experience of a national church that had not fulfilled the promises of the Reformation. Despite occasional archaisms, he paints a picture of the rough waters of ministry that is eerily familiar to anyone with a modicum of practical experience. If I was to have one criticism of this first section of the book it is that Baxter occasionally has a touch of the "Athanasian Lurgy"
- repeating points he has already made when answering a new question. While it means that he is less open to the charge of not answering objections fully it does lend a certain tediousness to his prose. Perhaps he will correct this as he goes on.