Category: History

A Sermon by Vincent van Gogh

Matthew Gage
“The Sower” (1888) by Vincent van Gogh

I hope in the future to put together some information on Vincent van Gogh and his Christian experience. So many books downplay any of this religious experiences or undertakings as expressions of his insanity, but it is clear so many of those authors have little or no understanding of Christianity themselves. I was surprised to learn while listening to the audio book of Van Gogh: The Life by Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith about Vincent’s experience with Evangelical Christianity in the late 1870’s. I recently purchased and read At Eternity’s Gate: The Spiritual Vision of Vincent van Gogh by Kathleen Powers Erickson which shows the profound and lasting impact of Vincent’s faith throughout his life.

While reading At Eternity’s Gate, I was amazed to learn that Vincent included a copy of a sermon he delivered in English as part of a letter to his brother Theo. The letter is available online thanks to the Van Gogh Museum‘s VanGoghLetters.org. It was sent to Theo van Gogh and dated November 3, 1876 and can be read in full here.

Vincent’s Sermon (1876)

Psalm 119:19 I am a stranger in the earth, hide not Thy commandments from me.

It is an old faith and it is a good faith that our life is a pilgrims progress ─ that we are strangers in the earth, but that though this be so, yet we are not alone for our Father is with us. We are pilgrims, our life is a long walk, a journey from earth to heaven.─

The beginning of this life is this. There is one who remembereth no more Her sorrow and Her anguish for joy that a man is born into the world. She is our Mother. The end of our pilgrimage is the entering in Our Fathers house where are many mansions, where He has gone before us to prepare a place for us.─ The end of this life is what we call death ─ it is an hour in which words are spoken, things are seen and felt that are kept in the secret chambers of the hearts of those who stand by, ─ it is so that all of us have such things in our hearts or forebodings of such things.─ There is sorrow in the hour when a man is born into the world, but also joy ─ deep and unspeakable ─ thankfulness so great that it reacheth the highest Heavens. Yes the Angels of God, they smile, they hope and they rejoice when a man is born in the world.─ There is sorrow in the hour of death ─ but there too is joy unspeakable when it is the hour of death of one who has fought a good fight. There is One who has said, I am the resurrection and the life, if any man believeth in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.─ There was an Apostle who heard a voice from heaven, saying: Blessed are they that die in the Lord for they rest from their labour and their works follow them. There is joy when a man is born in the world but there is greater joy when a Spirit has passed through great tribulation, when an Angel is born in Heaven. Sorrow is better than joy ─ and even in mirth the heart is sad ─ and it is better to go to the house of mourning than to the house of feasts, for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better. Our nature is sorrowful but for those who have learnt and are learning to look at Jesus Christ there is always reason to rejoice.─ It is a good word, that of St Paul: As being sorrowful yet always rejoicing. For those who believe in Jesus Christ there is no death and no sorrow that is not mixed with hope ─ no despair ─ there is only a constantly being born again, a constantly going from darkness into light.─ They do not mourn as those who have no hope ─ Christian Faith makes life to evergreen life.

We are pilgrims in the earth and strangers ─ we come from afar and we are going far.─ The journey of our life goes from the loving breast of our Mother on earth to the arms of our Father in heaven. Everything on earth changes ─ we have no abiding city here ─ it is the experience of everybody: That it is Gods will that we should part with what we dearest have on earth ─ we ourselves, we change in many respects, we are not what we once were, we shall not remain what we are now.─ From infancy we grow up to boys and girls ─ young men and young women ─ and if God spares us and helps us ─ to husbands and wives, Fathers and Mothers in our turn, and then, slowly but surely the face that once had the “early dew of morning” gets its wrinkles, the eyes that once beamed with youth and gladness speak of a sincere deep and earnest sadness ─ though they may keep the fire of Faith, Hope and Charity ─ though they may beam with Gods spirit. The hair turns grey or we loose it ─ ah ─ indeed we only pass through the earth, we only pass through life ─ we are strangers and pilgrims in the earth. The world passes and all its glory.─ Let our later days be nearer to Thee and therefore better than these.─ 

Yet we may not live on just anyhow ─ no, we have a strife to strive and a fight to fight. What is it we must do: We must love God with all our strength, with all our might, with all our heart, with all our soul, we must love our neighbour as ourselves. These two commandments we must keep and if we follow after these, if we are devoted to this, we are not alone for our Father in Heaven is with us, helps us and guides us, gives us strength day by day, hour by hour. and so we can do all things through Christ who gives us might. We are strangers in the earth, hide not Thy commandments from us. Open Thou our eyes, that we may behold wondrous things out of Thy law. Teach us to do Thy will and influence our hearts that the love of Christ may constrain us and that we may be brought to do what we must do to be saved.

On the road from earth to Heaven
Do Thou guide us with Thine eye.

We are weak but Thou art mighty
Hold us with Thy powerful hand.

Our life, we might compare it to a journey, we go from the place where we were born to a far off haven. Our earlier life might be compared to sailing on a river, but very soon the waves become higher, the wind more violent, we are at sea almost before we are aware of it ─ and the prayer from the heart ariseth to God: Protect me o God, for my bark is so small and Thy sea is so great.─ The heart of man is very much like the sea, it has its storms, it has its tides and in its depths it has its pearls too. The heart that seeks for God and for a Godly life has more storms than any other. Let us see how the Psalmist describes a storm at sea, He must have felt the storm in his heart to describe it so. We read in the 107th Psalm, They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters, these see the works of the Lord and His wonders in the deep. For He commandeth and raiseth up a stormy wind which lifteth up the waves thereof.─ They mount up to Heaven, they go down again to the depth, their soul melteth in them because of their trouble. Then they cry unto the Lord in their trouble and He bringeth them out of their distresses, He bringeth them unto their desired haven.─

Do we not feel this sometimes on the sea of our lives. Does not everyone of you feel with me the storms of life or their forebodings or their recollections?

And now let us read a description of another storm at sea in the New Testament, as we find it in the VIth Chapter of the Gospel according to St John in the 17th to the 21st verse. And the disciples entered into a ship and went over the sea toward Capernaum. And the sea arose by reason of a great wind that blew.─ So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea and drawing nigh unto the ship and they were afraid.─ Then they willingly received Him into the ship and immediately the ship was at the land whither they went. You who have experienced the great storms of life, you over whom all the waves and all the billows of the Lord have gone ─ have you not heard, when your heart failed for fear, the beloved well known voice ─ with something in its tone that reminded you of the voices that charmed your childhood ─ the voice of Him whose name is Saviour and Prince of peace, saying as it were to you personally ─ mind to you personally “It is I, be not afraid”. Fear not.─ Let not your heart be troubled. And we whose lives have been calm up to now, calm in comparison of what others have felt ─ let us not fear the storms of life, amidst the high waves of the sea and under the grey clouds of the sky we shall see Him approaching for Whom we have so often longed and watched, Him we need so ─ and we shall hear His voice, It is I, be not afraid.─ And if after an hour or season of anguish or distress or great difficulty or pain or sorrow we hear Him ask us “Dost Thou love me” then let us say, Lord Thou knowest all things, Thou knowest that I love Thee. And let us keep that heart full of the love of Christ and may from thence issue a life which the love of Christ constraineth.─ Lord Thou knowest all things, Thou knowest that I love Thee, when we look back on our past we feel sometimes as if we did love Thee, for whatsoever we have loved, we loved in Thy name. Have we not often felt as a widow and an orphan ─ in joy and prosperity as well, and more even than under grief ─ because of the thought of Thee.─

Truly our soul waiteth for Thee more than they that watch for the morning ─ our eyes are up unto Thee, o Thou who dwellest in Heavens.─ In our days too there can be such a thing as seeking the Lord.─

What is it we ask of God ─ is it a great thing? Yes it is a great thing, peace for the ground of our heart, rest for our soul ─ give us that one thing and then we want not much more, then we can do without many things, then can we suffer great things for Thy names sake.─ We want to know that we are Thine and that Thou art ours, we want to be thine ─ to be Christians.─ We want a Father, a Fathers love and a Fathers approval. May the experience of life make our eye single and fix it on Thee. May we grow better as we go on in life.

We have spoken of the storms on the journey of life, but now let us speak of the calms and joys of Christian life.─ And yet, my dear friends, let us rather cling to the seasons of difficulty and work and sorrow, even for the calms are treacherous often.

The heart has its storms, has its seasons of drooping but also its calms and even its times of exaltation.─ There is a time of sighing and of praying but there is also a time of answer to prayer. Weeping may endure for a night but joy cometh in the morning.

The heart that is fainting
May grow full to o’erflowing
And they that behold it
Shall wonder and know not
That God at its fountains
Far off has been raining.

My peace I leave with you ─ we saw how there is peace even in the storm. Thanks be to God who has given us to be born and to live in a Christian country. Has any of us forgotten the golden hours of our early days at home, and since we left that home ─ for many of us have had to leave that home and to earn their living and to make their way in the world.─ Has He not brought us thus far, have we lacked anything. We believe Lord, help Thou our unbelief. I still feel the rapture, the thrill of joy I felt when for the first time I cast a deep look in the lives of my Parents, when I felt by instinct how much they were Christians. And I still feel that feeling of eternal youth and enthusiasm wherewith I went to God, saying “I will be a Christian too”.─

Are we what we dreamt we should be? No ─ but still ─ the sorrows of life, the multitude of things of daily life and of daily duties, so much more numerous than we expected ─ the tossing to and fro in the world, they have covered it over ─ but it is not dead, it sleepeth.─ The old eternal faith and love of Christ, it may sleep in us but it is not dead and God can revive it in us. But though to be born again to eternal life, to the life of Faith, Hope and Charity ─ and to an evergreen life ─ to the life of a Christian and of a Christian workman be a gift of God, a work of God ─ and of God alone ─ yet let us put the hand to the plough on the field of our heart, let us cast out our net once more ─ let us try once more ─ God knows the intention of the spirit, God knows us better than we know ourselves for He made us and not we ourselves. He knows of what things we have need, He knows what is good for us. May He give His blessing on the seed of His word that has been sown in our hearts.

God helping us, we shall get through life.─ With every temptation He will give a way to escape.─

Father we pray Thee not that Thou shouldest take us out of the world but we pray Thee to keep us from evil. Give us neither poverty nor riches, feed us with bread convenient for us. And let Thy songs be our delight in the houses of our pilgrimage. God of our Fathers be our God: may their people be our people, their Faith our faith.─ We are strangers in the earth, hide not Thy commandments from us but may the love of Christ constrain us. Entreat us not to leave Thee or to refrain from following after Thee. Thy people shall be our people, Thou shalt be our God.─

Our life is a pilgrims progress. I once saw a very beautiful picture, it was a landscape at evening. In the distance on the right hand side a row of hills appearing blue in the evening mist. Above those hills the splendour of the sunset, the grey clouds with their linings of silver and gold and purple. The landscape is a plain or heath covered with grass and heather, here and there the white stem of a birch tree and its yellow leaves, for it was in Autumn. Through the landscape a road leads to a high mountain far far away, on the top of that mountain a city whereon the setting sun casts a glory. On the road walks a pilgrim, staff in hand. He has been walking for a good long while already and he is very tired. And now he meets a woman, a figure in black that makes one think of St Pauls word “As being sorrowful yet always rejoicing”. That Angel of God has been placed there to encourage the pilgrims and to answer their questions:

And the pilgrim asks her: Does the road go uphill then all the way?

and the answer is “Yes to the very end”─

and he asks again: And will the journey take all day long?

and the answer is: “From morn till night my friend”.

And the pilgrim goes on sorrowful yet always rejoicing ─ sorrowful because it is so far off and the road so long.─ Hopeful as he looks up to the eternal city far away, resplendent in the evening glow, and he thinks of two old sayings he has heard long ago ─ the one is:

“There must much strife be striven
There must much suffering be suffered
There must much prayer be prayed
And then the end will be peace.”

and the other:

The water comes up to the lips
But higher comes it not.

And he says, I shall be more and more tired but also nearer and nearer to Thee. Has not man a strife on earth? But there is a consolation from God in this life. An angel of God, comforting men ─ that is the Angel of Charity. Let us not forget Her.─ And when everyone of us goes back to daily things and daily duties, let us not forget ─ that things are not what they seem, that God by the things of daily life teacheth us higher things, ─ that our life is a pilgrims progress and that we are strangers in the earth ─ but that we have a God and Father who preserveth strangers, ─ and that we are all bretheren.─

Amen.

And now the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, our Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with us for evermore.

Amen.

(Reading Scripture Psalm XCI)

Tossed with rough winds and faint with fear,
Above the tempest soft and clear
What still small accents greet mine ear
“’t Is I, be not afraid.”

’t Is I, who washed thy spirit white;
’t Is I, who gave thy blind eyes sight,
’t Is I, thy Lord, thy life, thy light,
’t Is I, be not afraid.

These raging winds, this surging sea
Have spent their deadly force on me
They bear no breath of wrath to Thee
’t Is I, be not afraid.

This bitter cup, I drank it first
To Thee it is no draught accurst
The hand that gives it thee is pierced
“’t Is I, be not afraid.”

When on the other side thy feet,
Shall rest, mid thousand welcomes sweet;
One well known voice thy heart shall greet ─
’t Is I, be not afraid.

Mine eyes are watching by thy bed
Mine arms are underneath thy head
My blessing is around Thee shed
“’t Is I, be not afraid.”

Brass or Bronze?

Matthew Gage
Image by Thanasis Papazacharias from Pixabay

Compare Bible translations or references and you may notice a difference in how the Hebrew word nechosheth (Strong’s H5178) is treated. There are three possible translations that are asserted: copper, brass, or bronze. Which is accurate?

The KJV translates nechosheth as “brass” or “brazen” 131x. It can also be translated as other things, such as “fetters” or “chains” based on context. It has a very broad application. Strong’s defines it as “copper; hence, something made of that metal, that is, coin, a fetter; figuratively base (as compared with gold or silver): – brasen, brass, chain, copper, fetter (of brass), filthiness, steel”.

Is brass a proper and acceptable translation of nechosheth? Some claim it cannot be, by asserting:

  • “In ancient Israel there was no such metal known as brass.” [source]
  • “The word translated ‘brass’ in the King James Version would be more correctly translated bronze, since the alloy used was copper and tin (Ex 27:4).” [source]
  • “[Brass,] which is an alloy of copper and zinc, was not known till the thirteenth century. What is designated by this word in Scripture is properly copper (Deuteronomy 8:9).” [source]
  • “The word nechosheth is improperly translated by ‘brass.’ In most places of the Old Testament the correct translation would be copper, although it may sometimes possibly mean bronze a compound of copper and tin.” [source]

We may simplify these claims into two arguments: (1) the term brass is anachronistic and inaccurate, and (2) brass did not exist in the ancient world.

Is brass an inaccurate term?

In modern English, the word brass refers to a specific alloy of copper, but until the 1700’s is would be a more general term for any copper alloy.

The Online Etymological Dictionary states that brass was “originally any alloy of copper, in England usually with tin (this is now called bronze), later and in modern use an alloy of roughly two parts copper to one part zinc.” The same source also states: “In Middle English, the distinction between bronze (copper-tin alloy) and brass (copper-zinc alloy) was not clear, and both were called bras”.

So, etymologically and historically speaking, brass has been a much broader term to refer to any copper alloy. This changed in the 1700’s when advances in science made it easier to discern different elements and alloys, which also brought a need for more technical terminology. Wikipedia states of brass: “…its true nature as a copper-zinc alloy was not understood until the post-medieval period because the zinc vapor which reacted with copper to make brass was not recognised as a metal.” As part of this new knowledge of metals, the term bronze was first used around 1721 (see Online Etymological Dictionary and Merriam-Webster).

Therefore, we see that brass is historically as broad of a term as nechosheth. In the English of the KJV, it is the best and most accurate term.

But, with what we know today about the differences between brass and bronze, is brass still an accurate translation for today’s world? This can only be answered if we are absolutely sure that nechosheth refers exclusively to bronze and that brass is an impossibility.

Did brass exist in the ancient world?

It is clear that the alloy we today call brass was present in the ancient world. Conclusive evidence and scholarly opinion establish this fact. A few examples:

  • The Roman dupondius coin used in the early Roman Empire was often struck in a type of brass called orichalcum [source]
  • “Calamine brass” was being made in Asia Minor as far back as the 1st millennium B.C. [source]
  • “…numerous copper-zinc alloys (e.g. brass, gunmetal) that have been found in prehistoric contexts from the Aegean to India in the 3rd to the 1st millennium BC.” [source]
  • Brass artifacts have been discovered from 5th millennium B.C. in China [source]

Since (1) brass existed in the ancient world, (2) since nechosheth is vague at best about the precise alloy of the metal, we can therefore safely say it is plausible that the metals described could be actual brass.

Do we know what the metals were?

Since the term nechosheth, and even the Greek word chalkos (Strong’s G5475), are vague terms for copper or its alloys, we simply cannot say for certain the precise metal they are speaking of. The terminology is too vague and the ancient metallurgists themselves almost certainly did not have the sophisticated understanding of metal composition we have today.

It must be state that according to history and archeology that bronze was in far greater use than brass. It was far cheaper and easier to produce, and it would appear that ancient brass was considered to be more valuable. We might assume that because bronze was more common that it is more likely that bronze and not brass is being referred to. But this is purely supposition and we cannot rule out that at least some appearances of nechosheth could be referring to brass. We simply do not know since we cannot examine every object made of nechosheth.

Conclusion

The truest definition of nechosheth would need to be vague and inclusive, so “a copper alloy” is probably the best definition. In modern English, there just is not a simple, concise word to use that has that same meaning and “copper alloy” fails to be an workable translation. To try to force nechosheth to be simply bronze is inaccurate: an interpretation rather than a translation. We cannot honestly say what the metals used were by modern classification. It is like trying to take the English word snow and determine which of the dozens of terms of snow used by Eskimos it should be.

The word brass in its classic, KJV English definition is the best equivalent term to be found. It is the same broad term for any copper alloy that we see in nechosheth.

Book Review: A History of Contemporary Praise & Worship

Matthew Gage
Find it at Amazon

As I have been preparing to teach a course on church music in the near future, I have been assembling a small library of books old and new. Some are practical, some philosophical, some historical. When I found out about the recently published (December 2021) book A History of Contemporary Praise & Worship I was intrigued, and when Scott Aniol recommended it, I knew I had to buy it.

I will be clear in the start that I am no fan or supporter of either contemporary or praise & worship music in church worship. I do not even enjoy either privately. I don’t think I am the target audience of this book at all, but I thoroughly enjoyed it.

The reason I can enjoy this book along with those that do love these modern worship trends is because it is all dealt with fairly and at “face value”. The authors do a fantastic job of letting the people and events speak for themselves without providing commentary. It is honest, straightforward history, which is a rare thing in Christianity today. I personally could not write something like this, as I would want to point out along the way all of the fallacies and flaws I found in the movements.

The authors trace the origins of modern church music to two sources that they describe as “rivers”. The first is Praise & Worship (I am keeping the ampersand since they purposely use it), which traces back the Latter Rain movement, a controversial offshoot of Pentecostalism in the 1940’s that has been widely influential in more recent Charismatic movements. The second is Contemporary Worship which has many tributaries, like the Jesus People and the Church Growth movement, which all attempted to make religion more accessible or relatable to modern culture. By the late 1990’s these essentially merged into the approach used in so many churches today.

I would label the two sources as “Pentecostal” and “Pragmatic”. The first focuses on praising to the point God shows up and then intimately worshipping Him. It is founded primarily on a novel interpretation of Psalm 22:3 and some unfounded typological conclusions regarding the Tabernacle(s). It is based on human experience, emotion, and expression. The second focuses on relevance to the world outside the church. It is founded on a misconception that the church must continually adapt to culture and a rather extreme application of I Corinthians 9:22. It is based on comfort, camouflage, and compromise. (See why I just can’t be impartial?)

There is hardly a page in my copy that I did not underline a name or note some statement in the text or footnotes. There is truly a wealth of information here, most of which I believe would surprise or shock conservative Christians.

Well-written, well-researched, and well-received, this book is a great read for anyone interested in the origins of, not just the music, but of the landscape of modern American Christianity.

The Pseudo-Fundamentalism of Today’s Reformed Movement

Matthew Gage
Photo by Karl Fredrickson on Unsplash

As we look back over the centuries, we can discern movements and counter-movements in the history of Christianity. One that easily discernable today is the resurgence in America of Reformed theology and tradition. I believe this is largely a reaction to the theological drift of American Christianity toward liberalism, “wokeism”, and (dare I say it?) apostacy.

So many Christians today are seeking more from Christianity than what a modern seeker-focused megachurches are teaching. They want deeper theology and richness in their Christian walk. Just hop on any social media platform and see these modern day Puritans denounce men, movements, and messages they deem as heretical and unscriptural.

What are these people turning to? In turning from the modern they seek the ancient. In turning from the emotional they turn to the logical. In turning from the shallow they turn to the profound. They are turning more and more to the the tenets of Calvinism and Reformed theology.

The influence of Charles Spurgeon in this is tremendous. Spurgeon himself reacted to the theological drift of his day by embracing the past preachers and theologians. He promoted the writings of the Puritans like no one else.

I see a parallel to this modern Reformed movement in the Fundamentalism of the early 20th century. I am certain they will crucify me for even suggesting that if they ever read this. But at that time so many across a broad spectrum of denominations were rejecting modernism and liberalism while embracing the “old time religion”. Fundamentalism was and is a reactionary movement to the theological drift towards liberalism. It was a movement towards conservative theology and historical practice.

The same things are are driving the modern Reformed movement. They are embracing and promoting practices such as singing of traditional hymns (even resurrecting some long forgotten ones) and the use of the liturgical calendar. I like to joke that Fundamentalism wants to keep things like they were in the 1950’s, but the Reformed movement honestly tries to keep their faith and practice in the 1700’s if not the 1500’s.

The modern Reformed movement and historic Fundamentalism are born of the same desires, reacting to similar concerns of theological drift, embracing traditionalist forms of worship, and rejecting unorthodox teachings and practice. Both promote the basis of Sola Scriptura in defining faith and practice. Both embrace their heritage, some of which overlaps as in the case of Charles Spurgeon. Today both can be seen taking similar stands on issues such as the use church music or their stances on abortion. You can watch these new and upcoming Reformed leaders come to the same realizations that Fundamentalism did a century before.

While they are similar, there can still be quite a bit of difference depending on what group you are examining. I, for one, reject the liturgical calendar as an unnecessary and extra-Biblical tradition. I reject the practice of infant baptism as unscriptural though classic Reformed theology promotes it. I reject the entire Calvinist-Arminian scale for measuring theology as outdated, unnecessary, and impractical. I reject much of the ecclesiology (I find the Baptist positions more in line with Scripture) and eschatology. I would not define the doctrines of election, predestination, or atonement the same as any Reformed theologian though thankfully I believe we are in agreement in “salvation by grace through faith”.

As a side note, the one area that I am surprised that the modern Reformed movement has not taken is the promotion and use of an historic translation of the Bible such as the KJV or the Geneva Bible. They have no problem reading authors or singing songs that read more like Shakespeare than any modern literature. I find it odd that in so many ways they embrace the theology, writings, and songs from the past yet use a Bible that does not reflect the same traditions.

To conclude, I believe what we are seeing in American Christianity is another repeat of a reaction to theological drift. Just as the Fundamentalists took at stand in the early 20th century against liberalism we are seeing Reformed leaders take a stand against apostacy in the church. These two are not the same but the similarities are striking.

Book Review – “In the Name of God”

Matthew Gage
Amazon link

I heard months ago from Raymond Barber that O.S. Hawkins was writing a book on Norris and Truett. I was very excited to hear that since Hawkins had written an article about Norris and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. To hear someone within the SBC take a objective view on Norris’s ministry is quite rare.

In the Name of God: The Colliding Lives, Legends, and Legacies of J. Frank Norris and George W. Truett is published by B&H Academic. It is 213 pages long, with 152 of those being the text and the rest endnotes, bibliography, etc. List price is $29.99.

Before I begin my review, I want to acknowledge that this very website is cited as a source (see pages 64, 164, and 206) – which is so exciting for me! Having studied, collected, and written about Norris off and on for 15+ years there is a sense of vindication when you see your work cited in print. Even if it was just a reference to membership number at the First Baptist in Fort Worth which I had compiled from various sources and not something really original it still excites me. So much more so than the time this site was cited on Wikipedia. Anyway, I will note that the particular page that is referenced is not currently available. I did not put it back up after I switched over to WordPress. Guess I need to fix that.

In the annals of Southern Baptists, the name of Truett has been revered and the name of Norris reviled. Hawkins’s objective approach in this book is that there is a much more balanced view that needs to be taken of the two. The two men are so easily compared and contrasted – they ministered some 30 miles apart, their paths intersected often, they were both leading pulpiteers, they both led in building some of the earliest megachurches, and so on. This is not the first work on the subject, nor will it be the last.

Hawkins does spend far more space dealing with Norris than Truett. That is because the main thrust of this book, though many will argue and refuse to acknowledge it, is that Norris’s impact on the SBC today is greater than Truett’s. Chapter 5 – “The Influence of J. Frank Norris on Modern Southern Baptist Theology, Church Growth, Evangelism, and Practice” is the best in the book. The previous chapters are largely background for this analysis. The Baptist historian Leon McBeth had written that Norris “had no constructive part in Southern Baptist ministries in this century.” Hawkins takes him to task, even calling out that statement five times with clear examples of its error.

Hawkins is clear that the ministry and personality Norris are complex. He does not paint him as a hero nor a villain. He is objective and analytical in his approach. But he shows that Norris was right on many issues, which is difficult to find SBC writers to acknowledge. Norris’s tactics and combativeness have distracted many from seeing that in so many ways he was right.

Some points of controversy are finally addressed, such as whether Norris was valedictorian at Louisville and if Norris gave rotting fruit to SBTS staff. I will say that Hawkins does take the word of Norris and Entzminger with less skepticism than I would expect since they can embellish things a bit.

I will say that I find the writing to be uneven. Sometimes it sounds very much like a sermon with elaborate and unnecessary alliteration. A couple of sentences I honestly had to reread a few times because they felt incomplete. It is not academic or dry by any stretch. Overall an enjoyable read.

The book is well sourced (and I am not saying that because my website is referenced). However, I get the feeling that not everything in the lengthy bibliography was actually referenced in the making of this book. I cannot prove that statement, just a hunch. I compared it to my own Norris bibliography that I have been working on in an attempt to compile an exhaustive list of resources and especially Norris’s publications. Many of these books and pamphlets are extremely hard to find. It took me years to find copies of some of them. So many of them I have never been able to locate copies of and I simply have recorded their reported existence. Yet I find all but a handful listed in Hawkins’s bibliography regardless of their relevance to the subject. Perhaps he is, like me, merely acknowledging the existence of the works. I sincerely doubt he has actually referenced them all.

There are some finer points that he does get wrong. Speaking of Norris heading to Baylor University on p. 23, Hawkins writes: “No evidence exists to show how he acquired the resources for this journey and his initial college expenses…”. However, Ray Tatum (whom Hawkins references multiple times) wrote: “…Frank presented himself in the small office of the family doctor, W.A. Woods, and told him, with confidence, of his aspirations to attend Baylor University. He asked the doctor for a loan of one hundred dollars, and received ‘one hundred and fifty.'” (Conquest or Failure?, p. 42, with a citation from a 1945 article in The Fundamentalist)

Another example that Hawkins either missed or simplified is that impact of Louis Entzminger on Norris’s ministry. He credits Norris with influencing Arthur Flake’s Sunday School system (p. 111-113). It was not Norris that invented that system, but Louis Entzminger who arrived in Fort Worth in 1913 to build that Sunday School system. Entzminger is also the man who convinced Norris to adopt Premillennialism.

Some other things he is wrong on or curious:

  • Repeats the unfounded rumor that Norris killed his father-in-law (p. 27). The endnote highlights the suspicious nature of the accusation.
  • J.T. Pemberton’s name is misspelled as Pemperton repeatedly (p. 27 and so on).
  • Attributing “multisite campuses” to Norris (p. 110, 136). Norris had to be creative in finding places to meet or to hold the crowds but these were never satellites of his churches – they were the same church meeting in different places.
  • Saying that Norris “wrote” commentaries (p. 129). These were lectures he gave so writing may be a stretch.
How to spell Pemberton

I also would like to take issue with a couple of statements made about Norris’s legacy. On page 144: “In the end, much of what Norris stood for diminished. His network of churches was repeatedly divided across the decades and is virtually unnoticeable today.” [emphasis added]. Splintered, yes. Unnoticeable? Only to those who do not look. Strong SBC bias against Independent Baptists there.

Also I would like to take issue with the statement in the end notes on page 160: “The remnants of Norris’s seminary still exist today…” [emphasis added]. Remnants? That is a loaded word and surely a better one could have been used.

I suppose we can give Hawkins a pass on some of this. He is many things but a professional historian is not one.

Lest you think otherwise, I do really like this book. Hawkins’s approach and perspective is a welcome one.

I like what Hawkins brings out when he compares Norris and Truett. Norris was for “doctrinal fidelity” and Truett for “denominational loyalty”. Norris reveled in conflict, while Truett stayed aloof from it. Norris preached with passion and animation, Truett with precision and dignity.

There is little new ground covered in chapters 1 through 4. We have brief histories of Dallas and Fort Worth, biographies of Norris and Truett, and synopsis of their conflicts and interactions. You will readily find better and deeper resources for the material, except maybe the presentation of the information in chapter 4. Chapter 5 is, again, the best in the book and a welcome addition to catalog of Norris research available. That chapter could only be written in today’s time with the perspective gained over the decades.

I was very glad to see the relationship between Norris and B.H. Carroll emphasized. Too little study has been done on it.

I absolutely love this perspective on page 148: “The fact that the church [First Baptist of Fort Worth] did, indeed, fragment after his death proved to be a blessing to many sister churches as Bible-believing men and women dispersed to find their places in the local churches of their city, thereby multiplying the ministry and lasting influence of J. Frank Norris many times over.” So true. The fragmentation of the Norris empire did not weaken it, instead it multiplied it.

Final verdict: Despite my nitpicking, this is a worthy and welcome addition to anyone’s library with interest on the SBC or Norris. I think the list price of $29.99 is far too steep so maybe everyone should wait for used copies to become available.

Landmarkism: The Original Fundamental Baptists?

Matthew Gage

I have long argued that there is a connection between the Landmark Movement of the 1800’s and the the Independent Fundamental Baptist Movement of the 1900’s. Generally this is met with resistance, I think mainly because of ignorance of the subject or as an attempt to distance from some of Landmarkism’s positions. However, the more I have considered the idea, the more convinced I am that there is some link between the two.

The histories of both are so strikingly similar that a connection seems so evident yet few official ties have existed to my knowledge. Both created new separatist Baptists movements with emphases on foundational positions. Both impacted the larger Baptist world through their staunch defense of their beliefs.

Photo by NeONBRAND on Unsplash

History of Landmarkism

Landmarkism began as a movement in the mid-1800’s mainly in the Southern Baptist Convention. It’s chief spokesman was J.R. Graves (1820-1893) and other key early figures include A.C. Dayton (1813-1865) and J.M. Pendleton (1811-1891). Ben Bogard (1868-1951) was its chief defender during his lifetime.

The catalysts that launched Landmarkism are unclear. For J.R. Graves, he said that he had witnessed as a young man a minister immerse, pour, and sprinkle various converts in a single meeting. For others it was a reaction to conflicts with other denominations, especially the newly emerged Church of Christ.

My understanding of Landmark history makes me believe that the conflict with the Church of Christ is the primary reason for the rise of Landmarkism. It is not that they held any new or revolutionary position. They were responding to an attack on their own identity as an upstart group emerged to claim to be the one true church with the only true doctrines. Conflicts and debates between Landmark Baptists and the Church of Christ (or “Campbellites” as Landmarkers liked to call them) were very common. I have read numerous accounts of those debates taking place here in Texas in the late 1800’s and even into the early 1900’s.

Landmark Teachings

In The Baptist Heritage, H. Leon McBeth lists these positions as illustrative of Landmarkism’s stance on the church:

  1. Baptist churches are the only true churches in the world.
  2. The true church is a local, visible institution.
  3. The churches and the kingdom of God are coterminous.
  4. There must be no “pulpit affiliation” with non-Baptists.
  5. Only a church can do churchly acts.
  6. Baptist churches have always existed in every age by an unbroken historical succession.

As you can see, Landmarkism places much emphasis on the practice and position of the church. The extent of those positions has led many to dub them “Baptist Briders”, as their belief that only Baptist churches are the true churches and therefore only they must make up the Bride of Christ.

Relationship with Fundamentalism

Should you compare the six positions listed above to those of Fundamental Baptists, I think only #3 would not be the same generally. #1 may not be taught but is is definitely practiced, and in fact there are those that would question the validity of even a non-Fundamental Baptist church. #2, #4, #5, and #6 are definitely taught and promoted.

There are two major differences that I see. One is that Landmark Baptists can have a more organized denominational structure (Association vs. Fellowship). Two is that Fundamental Baptists are, I think, more open to be influenced by non-Baptist sources. This could be because Classic Fundamentalism was not limited to just one denomination. Many early Fundamentalist leaders and writers were not Baptists but their works are still highly valued.

Historically there hasn’t been much overlap or fellowship between the groups. Landmarkers were suspicious of Fundamentalists and largely isolated from their battles. Fundamental Baptists were often not willing to hold some of the more extreme conclusions of Landmarkism. I know of anecdotal instances of Missionary Baptist churches (a typical name here in Texas for churches with old ties to Landmark movements) having fellowship with Fundamental Baptists or even becoming Fundamental.

Similar Histories

Note – to illustrate this, I am going to here limit the breadth of Fundamental Baptists to just those whose heritage is from the Southern Baptist Convention.

Both movements began as reactions to movements or ideas that were deemed unorthodox.

Both movements sought to define what constitutes true doctrine.

Both movements created controversary in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Both movements could not wield enough influence to take control of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Both movements separated from the Southern Baptist Convention to create their own alliances and fellowships.

Both movements have their own schools/seminaries to train their own leadership.

Both movements have their historic positions continuing to influence the Southern Baptist Convention to this day.

Both movements are largely concerned with local church work and their own affairs with little effort to be ecumenical.

Conclusion

Landmark and Fundamental Baptists share many common positions and a similar history. Many of the positions of the earlier Landmark movement are evident to some degree in the Fundamental Baptist movement. Both remain defenders of their own brands of conservative Baptist identity.

I contend there that Landmarkism, with its staunch defense of Baptist identity and fierce independence, paved the way for the Independent Fundamental Baptist movement. I doubt the “Independent” portion would even exist without the principles developed and ingrained into the Baptist psyche by Landmarkism.

There is far too much to cover in just one quick article, and I doubt there is much of an audience clamoring for such a study anyway.

UPDATE – 7-13-21

Discovered this nice tidbit in a J. Frank Norris sermon I was adding to the website, in which he called J. R. Graves “the outstanding fundamentalist of his day“.

J. Frank Norris and Donald J. Trump

Matthew Gage
I can’t wait for this picture to make it onto Google Images! – MBG

On more than one occasion I have been asked to whom we can compare J. Frank Norris to today. Some preachers have imagined themselves as a spiritual heir of Norris and there are some with similarities, especially among those who were influenced by him and his ministry. Some preachers are polarizing like Norris, some are controversial like Norris, some are trailblazers like Norris, but I have yet to find another man whose life and ministry parallels that of Norris.

A couple of years ago, I had an epiphany on the matter. I saw that the presidency and actions of Donald Trump show many similarities to the ministry and methods of J. Frank Norris. I have mulled over this comparison since then and feel that I can finally articulate it enough to foster a discussion on its merits.

Now, let me say up front that there are many areas in which the two could not be more different. For instance, I do believe Norris was sincere in his faith while Trump is not (and I probably just lost a lot of readers with those two statements). The greatest attack on Norris is that he did shoot and kill a man, which was ruled to be self-defense in a court of law, and I do not see a parallel in Trump’s life. The many instances of immorality in Trump’s life and business career are different than the questionable and debatable actions of Norris. It has only been in recent years, almost seventy years after his death, that accusations made against Norris concerning improprieties with women have been put into print and gained acceptance among his detractors. Quite a different situation than the cases brought against Trump by multiple women. Also let me say that I am looking largely at the five or so years of Trump’s candidacy, election, and term in office while looking at many decades of Norris’ ministry.

What I want to emphasize here is the similar mindset and methods of these two men. How one reacted to opposition is similar to the way the other did. How one promoted his agenda is similar to the way the other did.

With no particular order, let me begin with:

I. Norris and Trump both utilized cutting-edge media to reach their audiences and were both had their message censored or ignored by traditional media outlets.

Trump was legendary for the use of his Twitter account to attack his enemies and push his message. When Trump’s message was ignored or attacked in major media outlets, he promoted upstart networks or promoted it himself online.

Norris did not have modern social media, but he was as effective as anyone at using the media of his day. He was a pioneering radio broadcaster, which is a fact that is largely unmentioned today. He used his personal paper, known by various names like The Searchlight and The Fundamentalist, to disseminate his sermons and launch attacks on his foes and even on his allies. Local newspapers and denominational publications would reject Norris’ material in their pages but his message still went out. If Norris had been able to have a Twitter account, I think he would have used it almost exactly like Trump did.

II. Norris and Trump both demeaned and demonized their opponents through name-calling and personal attacks

Trump famously gave nicknames to his opponents. “Sleepy Joe” for Joe Biden and “Pocahontas” for Elizabeth Warren are some well-known examples. His enemies, not mattering if they were in his own party, would expect to be treated to constant accusations and attacks that Trump used to transform their message or person into a caricature.

Norris had his nicknames also. For example, he said he was attacking “Dawsonism” (named after J.M. Dawson) instead of just Modernism in the Baptist denomination. He used Dawson to personify these attacks. The attacks on Dawson are legendary, but I’d like to point out that Dawson did openly and unapologetically hold modernist positions in areas such as Creation and Inspiration of the Scriptures. But Norris could not keep the battle in the theological realm and instead made it personal.

III. Norris and Trump both developed extremely loyal followings that dwindled over time and after controversy.

As I write this we are less than a month from Trump’s successor Joe Biden being sworn in as President. Yet I still see Trump flags and signs displayed proudly. Not as many as a few months ago though. After the riot at the Capitol, even some of his strongest supporters where ready for his departure. Now his own party is largely ready to move on from Trump’s time in office.

Norris had an entourage of extremely loyal followers and supporters. I have heard more than one preacher who claimed to be Norris’ “right hand man” before embarking on their own pastorates. I have seen reports that Norris would hold meetings at the same time and place as denominational conventions and outdraw those meetings. Even today, a few preachers are fiercely loyal to and quick to claim the name of Norris, but they are not many. His contemporary and somewhat rival George W. Truett is not afforded the same popularity and loyalty.

IV. Norris and Trump both used the “cult of personality” to their gain.

Trump promoted Trump. When press conferences were held in the early days of the COVID pandemic he was front and center. His campaign was largely on the name TRUMP and not the ticket of Trump/Pence.

Norris promoted Norris. Other men came and went, like John. R. Rice or G.B. Vick, but Norris was the center of attention. Roy Kemp tells of him preaching about selling J. Frank Norris to the crowds so people would come hear the Gospel. From page 17 from Kemp’s Extravaganza!:

“Then Norris – his soul on the wing – soared up, and up, and up! And for what purpose? Answer: To get his people to sell J. Frank Norris to the masses – by house to house visitation – in order that they might get the sinners out to hear him. And then, he pressed upon them, the claims of Christ, unto eternal salvation, and service in the Lord’s church; yes, and Heaven!”

V. Norris and Trump both attacked their own institutions and made enemies of those of similar beliefs.

Trump was largely and outsider to the political realm. He did not spend time strengthening his party’s influence or strength. He made enemies of some of the most influential party leaders like Romney and McCain. Many in his own party were prepared to lose a presidential election just to rid themselves of Trump.

Norris held few loyalties in his life. I think the only major denominational leader of his time that he did not attack was B.H. Carroll. He attacked leaders and programs of the local, state, and national Baptist conventions of which he began his ministry strongly advocating. He attacked his alma mater Baylor University when evidence of modernistic teachings came to light. His own followers split over Norris’ leadership when many broke away and formed the Baptist Bible Fellowship in 1950. Over the course of his life many of his enemies had earlier been in the ranks of his allies.

VI. Norris and Trump both used populism to push their agenda.

Trump appealed to the “every man” in his message. I have spoken to many people that were convinced Trump had the back of the common man. Much of his message could be interpreted as common man vs. the elite.

Norris appealed often to the common Christian layperson. He accused the denominational institutions of moving in directions that rank-and-file Baptists would not approve of. He appealed not to intellectualism, but to the ordinary faith of the ordinary Christian.

VII. Norris and Trump both thrived on controversy and upheaval and eschewed bipartisanship and compromise.

Many of Trump’s more memorable acts were in the heat of battles. I’ve already mentioned the demeaning names which he would lambast his enemies with. Those usually flew around when he was forced to work with those individuals in effort to throw pressure on them to accept his proposals. We can see much of Trump’s demeanor in the first presidential debate of 2020 in the way he went on the offensive against both Biden and the moderator Chris Wallace.

Norris fostered controversy and many of his attacks had little impact on the issues. He had an ability like P.T. Barnum to market any situation to his advantage. He used sensationalist and controversialist methods that alienated him from potential allies and often hindered any progress to address the issues at hand.

I’m sure these observations are not exhaustive but I hope that the reader can see the same conclusion that I have come to; that is, we finally have someone in Donald Trump in which we can use in comparison to foster a greater understanding of the ministry and methods of J. Frank Norris.

New Videos!

Matthew Gage

I was recently able to record a two-part lecture series that covers the basics of Baptist beliefs and history. These were done as prerecorded services at Faith Baptist Church in Decatur, TX, during the COVID-19 pandemic. I have given these lectures a few times and hope that they will be a blessing to others.

Was St. Patrick A Baptist?

Matthew Gage
Photo Credit – bobosh_t AKA “Father Ted” on Flickr, Christ the Saviour Church / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)

Unless you are a student of Baptist History then you may have not run across the theory that Saint Patrick was a Baptist. W.A. Criswell preached an entire sermon about it in 1958 and if you do a Google search you will find many blogs presenting arguments for and against. I would like to give you my opinion.

Who was Patrick?

The main source for information about Patrick are his autobiographical Confession and one Epistle. There appears to be little doubt that these Latin documents are authentic.

According to the Confession, Patrick was born in Roman Britain in the 4th or 5th century A.D. He says his father was a “deacon” (Latin diaconum) and his grandfather a “priest” (Latin presbyteri) but that Patrick was not a believer in his youth. He was kidnapped by Irish pirates at the age of sixteen and escaped home six years later. He began to study and train for the ministry.

Patrick famously returned to Ireland as a missionary. Details of his work there are fragmentary. The more famous aspects of his ministry you hear today, namely using a shamrock to illustrate the Trinity and banishing snakes from the island, are most certainly legends with no fact behind them.

What impact did Patrick have? In his own words:

“How has this happened in Ireland? Never before did they know of God except to serve idols and unclean things. But now, they have become the people of the Lord, and are called children of God. The sons and daughters of the leaders of the Irish are seen to be monks [Latin monachi] and virgins of Christ!” – Confession, Paragraph 41

Why Doubt that Patrick was Catholic?

A few reasons:

The first is one of Chronology. The Roman Catholic church was not yet the dominant power that it would become in the coming centuries. A compelling case can be made that the ministry of Patrick was retroactively adopted by Rome.

The second is the Language. Some of the words he used in Latin can have loaded meanings when translated to modern terms. Take the Latin word presbyteri that he uses as the office that his grandfather held. Most scholars seem to translate this as priest but it could be term for an elder or presbyter in the church. If you believe Patrick to be Catholic, you would translate it priest with little thought to other possible meanings. These ecclesiastical terms can have multiple meaning across denominations, traditions, regions, and centuries.

The third is Practice. Patrick seems to have only baptized adult candidates and there are no references to him performing infant baptism. He never speaks of other Catholic hallmarks such as the Eucharist or Confession. Admittedly, there are few things, such as the women who become virgins for Christ (nuns?), that are closer to Catholicism by today’s standards. However the bulk of Patrick’s ministry does not match up well with Catholic practice.

The fourth is Theology. Patrick’s writings we have today do not contain core Catholic teachings. He makes many allusions to Scripture prove that he had an intimate knowledge of the Bible. A couple of quotes that illustrate the Gospel he preached:

“It was there [Ireland] that the Lord opened up my awareness of my lack of faith. Even though it came about late, I recognized my failings. So I turned with all my heart to the Lord my God, and he looked down on my lowliness and had mercy on my youthful ignorance. He guarded me before I knew him, and before I came to wisdom and could distinguish between good and evil. He protected me and consoled me as a father does for his son.” – Confession, Paragraph 2

“These are not my own words which I have put before you in Latin; they are the words of God, and of the apostles and prophets, who have never lied. ‘Anyone who believes will be saved; anyone who does not believe will be condemned’ – God has spoken.” – Epistle, Paragraph 20

So, was Patrick a Baptist?

I personally don’t think so. But I also don’t think he was a Catholic.

The earliest centuries of Christian history or difficult to navigate. We try to categorize people or movements based on modern thought or denominations but that has many shortcomings. Patrick doesn’t fit the mold of Catholicism, but neither does he quite fit the mold of Baptists.

I think its best to let men like Patrick be themselves and speak for themselves. What is evident is that the actions of Patrick radically reshaped the history of Ireland and helped turn its people from paganism to Christianity. From his own testimony it sounds to me like he preached the true Gospel. Therefore, it seems that God greatly used Patrick and that his testimony and missionary example are still relevant today.