C. H. Spurgeon - The Down-Grade Controversy
By Phil Newton
The past half-century has given rise to plenty of schisms and disruptions in the various religious institutions of America. Fundamentalism, with a capital "F," arose with vengeance in the 1950s and 60s in reaction to perceived liberalism, particularly among Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians. Admittedly, the perceptions were not inaccurate, as any historical study will confirm. But what happens so often when the pendulum swings too far to the left, in attempting corrections, it then swings too far to the right. We can do this personally, and we also see this in denominations and institutions. Liberalism on one hand can give rise to a reactionary legalism on the other. All the while, the beauty of truth and liberty in Christ are neglected while the battle rages between left and right.
My own denomination faced such a time in recent decades. Liberalism began to seep into Southern Baptist seminaries around the time of the First World War, and stayed put for years with little outcry from local churches. J. Frank Norris, John R. Rice, Lee Roberson, and Jack Hyles bolted from Southern Baptist roots in reaction to the left-leanings of theological and denominational institutions. They lobbed grenades through pulpits and publications at the liberal convention. For the most part, they were correct about liberalism swamping the seminaries and agencies but the local churches were not as a whole caught up in liberalism. They were neither liberal nor conservative - they really did not give much attention to the Scripture one way or another. Deadness might be a better term to characterize many of the churches. But the fundamentalist movement leaned toward legalism - a modern version of Pharisaism that lacked the joy and liberty borne out of expounding the doctrines of God's sovereign grace.
Little by little pastors and church members grew alarmed at the weakening of the educational arm of the denomination and its effects on the churches. A grass roots movement to stem the tide and "take back" the denomination began in 1979 with the election of an avowed conservative and inerrantist as convention president. For several years, record attendances were notched at the Southern Baptist Convention's annual meeting with election of convention president showing the highest single day attendance. "Get out the vote" campaigns, initiated by those holding biblical inerrancy and those denying inerrancy, sparked increased feuding between sides. Some of the rhetoric and methodology on both sides of the argument lacked the charity that should befit Christians. Eventually, the hold of moderates and liberals in SBC institutions was dismantled and conservative leaders were installed.
The most notable, and the largest of the annual meetings held in Dallas, TX in 1985 with 45,404 messengers registering, was preceded by a stirring sermon from W. A. Criswell, the venerable, and now late, pastor of First Baptist Dallas. He used the theme, and many illustrations from the "Down-Grade Controversy" of C. H. Spurgeon. I had never heard of the Down-Grade Controversy, though I was familiar with Spurgeon, during the time of the sermon. Decked in his white suit, Criswell displayed superb oratory with captivating illustrations to make the point. We must rescue the denomination from those that deny the inerrancy of Holy Scripture, or else we may face the same deadly effects that chilled British Baptists a hundred years earlier. The rousing ovation made quite clear that a showdown was taking place. Eventually, the Battle for the Bible, as it has been termed, was won, and the hold of liberalism in the denomination essentially broken.
While I am thankful for the restoration of our institutions to adhere to the truths that we say we believe as Baptists, I also recognize that a facade of inerrancy is only a temporary repair to the leaking dike. To adhere to biblical inerrancy is to claim that the bible is fully inspired (thus, plenary inspiration), without error in its original autographs, and profitable for the whole of life and ministry. The use of "inerrancy" in the 19th century would have been novel because "inspiration" communicated the same conviction. I listened and cheered with the crowds over sermons on the infallibility and inspiration of God's Word during those days.
But the question that I believe we now face is of even greater magnitude. We have settled the question of inerrancy - at least for most in the denomination - yet what does this inerrant Bible really teach? Many that rode the train championing biblical inerrancy scarcely come close to biblical exposition in their pulpits. Their church philosophy and ministry is driven by sociology rather than theology. They still maintain the claim to inerrancy but their people are biblically illiterate and cannot carry on even a mild theological discussion. They have stripped the gospel of its God-centeredness, referring to the cross to maintain the appearance of orthodoxy but failing to set forth the glory of the Lamb of God slain as a divine substitute to propitiate God with reference to His justice. I have often wondered why did we endure so much to battle for the Bible in the SBC if we are not determined to study it, preach it, practice it, and be directed by it?
Dr. Criswell was right to use Spurgeon and the Down-Grade Controversy to spur Southern Baptists in reclaiming biblical inerrancy for our denomination. Yet I am convinced that Spurgeon would consider our use of inerrancy to be a facade for adding respectability to our weakened gospel and man-centered methods.
The Down-Grade Beginnings
In March 1887, Spurgeon published anonymously in the Sword and Trowel, the first part of two articles entitled, "The Down Grade." One of Spurgeon's close associates and fellow pastor, Robert Shindler, penned the articles tracing the decline of biblical doctrine in the late 17th century up to the late 19th century. He pointed out how some of the Nonconformists, those that were ejected from the Anglican Church because they would not conform to its laws and liturgies, were gradually slipping away from their "old Puritan godliness of life, and the old Calvinistic form of doctrine" to become "less earnest and less simple in their preaching, more speculative and less spiritual in the matter of their discourses, and dwelt more on the moral teachings of the New Testament, than on the great central truths of revelation" [www.spurgeon.org/s_and_t/dg01.htm]. So there was less emphasis on the central doctrines of Scripture and more talk on moral and popular issues. "Ruin by sin, regeneration by the Holy Spirit, and redemption by the blood of Christ" were truths conspicuously absent from the pulpits and discussions. Though professing orthodoxy, they seldom preached the orthodox truths that Christians held for centuries. Eventually, some of the pastors and churches headed in the direction of Arianism, denying the biblical teaching of the two natures of Christ, and subsequently, culminating in embracing Unitarianism.
Among Baptists, it was the General Baptists rather than the Particular Baptists that moved away from the central teachings of Scripture. The General Baptists held to an Arminian theology while the Particular Baptists held to a Calvinistic theology. Particular Baptists held the line even while many Presbyterians and Independents did not, leaving a spiritual legacy of biblical orthodoxy and evangelicalism for the next generation.
Shindler, with Spurgeon's approval, used this background to set the stage for present concerns. 1859 was a year of great revival in England, especially among the Baptists, but it was also the year that Charles Darwin published The Origin of the Species. Darwin, along with his father and grandfather was raised in a church whose theological foundation had long been eroded. They taught, according to Shindler, "full-blow[n] Socianism," a theological system that denied the inspiration of Scripture, the Trinity, Christ's deity, original sin, the necessity of the atonement, predestination, and the bodily resurrection. Nurtured in that womb of false doctrine, Darwin could make claims against God as Creator.
Accompanying Darwinism was the Higher Criticism of Continental theologians that denied the historicity of some books of the Bible as well as denying certain human authors under divine inspiration. In a climate that welcomed intellectual advances, students were beginning to value science more than theology. This began spilling over into the pulpits of Britain. Shindler recognized the decay, and along with Spurgeon raised the alarm to the churches.
"In the case of every errant course there is always a first wrong step," he wrote. Then giving the example of a mariner, Shindler drove home his point. "If a mariner, having to traverse an unknown sea, does not put implicit confidence in his charts, and therefore does not consult them for guidance in steering the ship, he is, as anyone can see, every moment exposed to dangers of various kinds. Now, the Word of God - the Book written by holy men as they were moved by the Spirit of God - is the Christian's chart." He explained that even though one does not fully understand the charts he still follows them. After the example given, he states his point clearly: "The first step astray is a want of adequate faith in the divine inspiration of the sacred Scriptures. All the while a man bows to the authority of God's Word, he will not entertain any sentiment contrary to its teaching... But let a man question, or entertain low views of the inspiration and authority of the Bible, and he is without chart to guide him, and without anchor to hold him" ["The Down Grade," second article, Sword and Trowel, April 1887, www.spurgeon.org/s_and_t/dg02.htm].
Before ending with examples of those that held to the doctrine of inspiration, Shindler commented, "The writer is of opinion that the great majority of those who are sound in the doctrine of inspiration, are more or less Calvinistic in doctrine; and that the more the oracles of divine truth are humbly and prayerfully studied, the more closely the student's views will coincide with evangelical truth" [ibid].
Spurgeon's preface to the same April 1887 issue of Sword and Trowel affirmed Shindler's position as representing his own. However, he made a needed clarification, "We care far more for the central evangelical truths than we do for Calvinism as a system; but we believe that Calvinism has in it a conservative force which helps to hold men to the vital truth, and therefore we are sorry to see any quitting it who have once accepted it" ["Notes," Sword and Trowel, April 1887, www.spurgeon.org/s_and_t/0487nts.htm]. In other words, the Down-Grade problem had more to do with denying the central tenets of Scripture than claiming to be a Calvinist or an Arminian. "The present struggle is not a debate upon the question of Calvinism or Arminianism, but of the truth of God versus the inventions of men. All who believe the gospel should unite against that "modern thought" which is its deadly enemy" [ibid]. When men gave up the atoning sacrifice of Christ, denied the inspiration of the Scripture, and cast slurs upon justification by faith, Spurgeon considered this a call to war [ibid].
Spurgeon was most concerned with his beloved British Baptist Union. Under his influence the Baptist Union flourished in membership and finances. But he began to see the cloud in the distance that would eventually deliver such a storm that the Union would no longer stand for biblical fidelity, and thus would deny the gospel itself. And that was his chief concern - the gospel of Jesus Christ. He would not be part of union that failed to be based upon the truth of God, expressing it clearly. "It is exceedingly difficult in these times to preserve one's fidelity before God and one's fraternity among men. Should not the former be preferred to the latter if both cannot be maintained?" [Ibid]
Popularity vanishes
Charles Spurgeon's stance, ironically, made him a champion in the larger evangelical community but a goat among Baptists. Certainly, not all members of the Baptist Union opposed Spurgeon but many felt that he had overstepped his boundaries. Part of the roots of the controversy began when Baptist Union secretary, S. H. Booth, supplied Spurgeon with names and statements from members of the Union that denied inspiration or other cardinal doctrines. Spurgeon considered that a simple way of handling the problem would be to develop an evangelical confession for the Union that all members must sign. Up to this point the only belief required to be part of the Baptist Union was holding the doctrine of baptism by immersion. But the members voted down the proposal, arguing "that Baptists had always believed in the liberty of every man to state his beliefs in his own way" [Dallimore, 205]. Even though Baptists had long used confessional statements, the subtle in working of liberalism held sway against adopting common beliefs of orthodoxy.
Spurgeon was put on the spot. Most thought that he exaggerated the problem or did not have his facts straight. Secretary Booth could easily have settled the matter by exposing those that held to unorthodox teaching but he lacked the backbone to do it, even though Spurgeon urged him to come to his aid. Booth's temerity left Spurgeon no choice. He could not continue being part of a Union of Christians that did not stand firmly upon the evangelical faith. He warned,
A new religion has been initiated, which is no more Christianity than chalk is cheese; and this religion, being destitute of moral honesty, palms itself off as the old faith with slight improvements, and on this plea usurps pulpits which were erected for gospel preaching. The Atonement is scouted, the inspiration of Scripture is derided, the Holy Spirit is degraded into an influence, the punishment of sin is turned into fiction, and the resurrection into a myth, and yet these enemies of our faith expect us to call them brethren, and maintain a confederacy with them!
At the back of doctrinal falsehood comes a natural decline of spiritual life, evidenced by a taste for questionable amusements, and a weariness of devotional meetings...
Alas! Many are returning to the poisoned cups which drugged that declining generation, when it surrendered itself to Unitarian lethargy. Too many ministers are toying with the deadly cobra of "another gospel," in the form of "modern thought"...
A little plain-speaking would do a world of good just now. These gentlemen desire to be let alone. They want no noise raised. Of course thieves hate watch-dogs, and love darkness. It is time that somebody should spring his rattle, and call attention to the way in which God is being robbed of his glory, and man of his hope...
It now becomes a serious question how far those who abide by the faith once delivered to the saints should fraternize with those who have turned aside to another gospel... Let each believer judge for himself; but, for our part, we have put on a few fresh bolts to our door, and we have given orders to keep the chain up; for, under color of begging the friendship of the servant, there are those about who aim at robbing THE MASTER ["Another Word Concerning the Down-Grade," August 1887, Sword and Trowel, www.spurgoen.org/s_and_t/dg03.htm].
Raising the alarm in the Baptist Union created an explosion among Baptist ranks in Britain. Spurgeon, at the forefront, felt no pleasure in causing such a stir yet he felt compelled to do so for what he perceived the future held unless Baptists returned to the authority of Holy Scripture. "It is no joy to us to bring accusations," he wrote, "it is no pleasure to our heart to seem to be in antagonism with so many. We are never better pleased than when in fellowship with our brethren we can rejoice in the progress of the gospel" ["Our Reply to Sundry Critics and Enquirers," Sword and Trowel, September 1887, www.spurgeon.org/s_and_t/dg04.htm]. Consequently, Spurgeon was now the brunt of many attacks. Some questioned his compassion and love. Others accused him of reacting due to another inflammatory attack of gout ("Do our critics think that, like Achilles, our vulnerable point lies, not in our head, but in our heel? [Ibid]).
In what sounds like modern-day political wrangling fueled by the press, Spurgeon wrote, "When anyone even mildly protests, preachers and journalists are almost unanimous in drowning the feeble testimony either by sneers or shout." Cartoonists in the major newspapers as well as the popular religious journals lampooned Spurgeon. Editorials scathingly denounced him while promoting the position of his opponents that acted contrary to their ordination vows. "The press makes the world ring with his fame and even defends the dishonesty which clings to a stipend forfeited by the violation of his vow. It is far otherwise with the defender of the faith. He is mocked, insulted, and laughed to scorn. The spirit of the age is against him" [ibid].
It was not that every church but the Metropolitan Tabernacle had run amuck. Spurgeon cheered the many god things happening, the "Christian zeal, self-sacrifice, and holy perseverance in the world" that he observed. But how long could that last if disease spread through the ranks? He asked, "May there not be much that is beautiful and healthful in a countenance where yet there may be the symptoms of a foul disease?" And then this point made, "The church is large, and while one end of her field may rejoice us with golden grain, another part of it may be full of thorns and briers" [ibid]. Yet most of his fellow Baptists were not willing to lift a finger to remove the thorns and briers, thinking Spurgeon to be a pest in alarming them. They were satisfied with their comfort and did not want to be disturbed. In sober terms he warns, "The house is being robbed, its very walls are being digged down, but the good people who are in bed are too fond of the warmth, and too much afraid of getting broken heads, to go downstairs and meet the burglars; they are even half vexed that a certain noisy fellow will spring his rattle, or cry, "Thieves!"" [Ibid].
In October 1887, Spurgeon penned, "The Case Proved" in the Sword and Trowel, in which he answered his friends that were willing to make peace at any price. Though by this time his health continued to decline, the old soldier of the cross could not be swayed into silence. He insisted that if not for a "seal of confidential correspondence," he could name names and details of those among their number that denied the faith. His critics used this against him, saying that he was only crying, "Wolf!" Spurgeon admitted crying, "Wolf!" but only because "packs of them are howling so loudly that it would be superfluous for us to shout at all if a wretched indifferentism had not brought a deep slumber upon those who ought to guard the flocks" [www.spurgeon.org/s_and_t/dg05.htm]. The Evangelical Alliance, a group made up of various evangelical denominations in Britain, offered the same warnings as Spurgeon even before the Down-Grade Controversy erupted. Yet Baptist pastors were sleeping when they should have been guarding their flocks.
"The New Theology," as it was called, gained popularity throughout Britain while Spurgeon warned that the Huns were invading the church. The Christian World, a 19th century version of Christianity Today, openly decried the doctrine that Spurgeon stood for, mockingly stating, "It is not so irrational as to pin its faith to verbal inspiration, or so idolatrous as to make its acceptance of a true Trinity of divine manifestation cover polytheism" [ibid]. In other words, modern ministers and Christians need not hold to the verbal inspiration of Scripture or even a belief in the Trinity. To this Spurgeon asked, "Are brethren who remain orthodox prepared to endorse such sentiments by remaining in union with those who hold and teach them?" [Ibid, italics original].
"To pursue union at the expense of truth is treason to the Lord Jesus," Spurgeon wrote a month later. "We cannot give up the crown-jewels of his gospel for the sake of a larger charity. He is our Master and Lord, and we will keep his words: to tamper with his doctrine would be to be traitors to himself" ["A Fragment Upon the Down-Grade Controversy, Sword and Trowel, Nov 1887, www.spurgeon.org/s_and_t/dg06.htm]. It was not that he resisted joining hands with those that did not cross every "t" and dot every "i" with him. He advocated union on social and moral reforms even with those whose doctrine he found reprehensible. But when it came to professing evangelical believers, union must be centered on common doctrinal convictions - not on peripheral issues but on the essentials of the Faith. To lay aside doctrine for the sake of unity and peace would be to participate in error. "Fellowship with known and vital error is participation in sin," he wrote [ibid, italics original]. So what would he do? Since the Baptist Union had no doctrinal confession and consequently, no power to discipline its members, he retired from membership in the Union. He was not interested in starting a new denomination, even though many would have followed. He wanted nothing more than to stand upon the truth of the gospel, and proclaim the way to God through Christ's atoning death alone. In good conscience, he could not do so while united with those that denied original sin, the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, and the necessity of the atoning death of Christ. So he withdrew.
Within a couple of months, the Baptist Union wasted no time in voting to censure Charles Spurgeon for making accusations against them without providing the proof of names. Secretary Booth could have stopped it all by agreeing to let Spurgeon make open the names of heretics among them but he did nothing. Upon their decision, Spurgeon made a public announcement. "I would like all Christendom to know that all have asked of the Union is that it [a confessional statement] be formed on a Scriptural basis; and that I never sought to intrude upon it any Calvinistic or other personal creed, but only that form of belief which has been accepted for many years by the Evangelical Alliance, which includes members of well-nigh all Christian communities" ["The Baptist Union Censure," Sword and Trowel, February 1888, www.spurgeon.org/s_and_t/dg09.htm].
Later, a generic, open-ended confessional statement - a mere facade - was adopted that allowed the New Theology adherents to cheer in triumph over Spurgeon and his theology. Its vagueness allowed most anyone to be part of the Union without having to confess belief in "the Substitutionary Atonement of Christ, the Virgin Birth, the Holy Trinity, Sanctification, or the Second Advent of Christ." In addition, though the confession mentions, "Justification by Faith," it leaves out the vital word "only" that stood as a hallmark of the Reformation [Bacon, Spurgeon: Heir to the Puritans, 138]. In spite of this, Charles Spurgeon showed his magnanimous spirit toward Dr. Culross, president of the Union and leader in censuring him. "I wish I could have worked with you in this particular way; but, as I cannot, we are not therefore deprived of a thousand other ways of fellowship," Spurgeon told him. "You feel union of heart with men who publicly preach Universal Restitution: I do not. I mean, you feel enough fellowship to remain in the Union with them: I do not. IT is the same with other errors. Still, I am in fellowship with you, -- Union or no Union. If I think you wrong in your course, -- as I surely do, -- I will tell you so in the same spirit as that in which you have written me" ["The Down-Grade Controversy, from Mr. Spurgeon's Standpoint," Autobiography, www.spurgeon.org/misc/abio099.htm, 7].
Spurgeon had no regrets about his stance against the Baptist Union, even though it cost him friends and affected his already declining health. For him, the issue of the gospel among his fellow Baptists and the British Isles was at stake. History has proven him correct as the Baptist Union continued in its downgrade even to the present day.
Within three years, the great pastor of the 19th century stepped from this world into the presence of the King of kings whom Charles Haddon Spurgeon faithfully served. In his last words, he called his beloved Susannah, "Susie." She bent over to hear him, "Oh, wifie, I have had such a blessed time with my Lord!" He slipped into a comma, and a few days later died (January 31, 1892) at the age of fifty-seven, "worn out with a multitude of labors for the Lord he loved" [Bacon 166-167].
We cannot be content with simply claiming inerrancy. We must know what the Bible declares, stand upon, live it, practice it, preach it, teach it, share it, and let it be the root of our lives and ministry - even as Charles Haddon Spurgeon gave us example.
Sources:
Ernest Bacon, Spurgeon: Heir of the Puritans (Arlington Heights, IL: Christian
Liberty Press, 1996).
Arnold Dallimore, Spurgeon: A New Biography (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth,
1984, Reprinted 1991).
Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Sword and Trowel (reprinted editions at
_____. Autobiography, (reprinted at www.spurgeon.org).
Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way and you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by South Woods Baptist Church.
Please include the following statement on any distributed copy:
Copyright South Woods Baptist Church. Website: www.southwoodsbc.org. Used by permission as granted on web site. Questions, comments, and suggestions about our site can be sent here.
Copyright 2008, South Woods Baptist Church, All Rights Reserved