In this post I am interviewing Dr. Geoff Chang, Assistant Professor of Church History and Historical Theology and the Curator of the Spurgeon Library at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Chang’s latest book is The Army of God: Spurgeon’s Vision for the Church.
[TK] Your book is titled The Army of God, suggesting Spurgeon’s fondness for military terminology (“the church militant”) when speaking of the church’s role in the world. What drew him to that type of rhetoric?
[GC] Two main factors drew him to that kind of rhetoric: the Bible and church history. Spurgeon loved the stories of Israel’s battles, God’s defeat of Egypt, David and Goliath, and much more. At the same time, Spurgeon understood that physical Israel foreshadowed the spiritual Israel that would come through the Messiah. As those who have been rescued from sin, Christians were called not to fight against flesh and blood but to take up the sword of the Spirit. Through the preaching of the Word, God rescues sinners from the domain of darkness into the kingdom of light. This was at the heart of the church’s mission and spiritual battle.
It was this vision that Spurgeon saw played out in church history. From Athanasius’ stand against Arianism, to Luther’s denouncing of papal authority, to the martyrs who died under Mary, to Bunyan’s vision of Christian’s battle against Apollyon, Spurgeon saw the spiritual warfare of the New Testament played out in church history, and he understood that the church also had a war to fight against sin and error in his day.
You note that there were three main challenges to evangelical ecclesiology among Spurgeon’s dissenting churches: ritualism, revivalism, and rationalism. Can you briefly explain each of these challenges, and how evangelical churches reacted against them?
During the 19th century, the Oxford Movement arose in the Church of England, which sought to promote greater reverence and devotion to Christianity by returning to medieval Catholic forms, liturgies, and even doctrine. In response to this ritualism, many evangelical churches responded by swinging the pendulum to the other end, lowering their view of the church, the minister, and the sacraments. In doing so, evangelicals considered the church as having little or nothing to do with salvation. The minister, then, became more of a professional organizer rather than a minister of God’s Word.
Revivalism was also a challenge for UK evangelicals. In the 19th century revivals, culminating with Moody’s evangelistic tours, many ministers began to adopt his methods and techniques, which emphasized immediate response and numerical results. With the emphasis being on individual conversion, many churches benefited from an influx of new members. But little thought was given by these members, or their pastors, to the historic ecclesiological tradition of their churches. Practices like church membership and members meetings may have remained, but the theological reasons for them were increasingly forgotten. Evangelicals focused on cooperating together for missions and evangelism, but often at the cost of minimizing ecclesiological distinctives.
Finally, the growth of rationalism in Spurgeon’s day, which placed human reason above the authority of Scripture, also affected the ecclesiology of evangelical churches. Given the variety of doctrinal opinions, many evangelical churches downplayed the importance of their confessional documents for the sake of unity. For conservative evangelicals, the battle over the inspiration of Scripture and gospel doctrines meant that secondary ecclesiological matters had to be set aside. By the early 20th century, few evangelicals would consider matters of church government or the sacraments as essential issues.
One particular challenge Spurgeon faced was the increasingly common practice of “open membership,” in which some Baptist churches stopped requiring baptism as a believer for membership. Why did Spurgeon adhere to the traditional Baptist view of believer’s baptism as a condition of membership? Why did he not have parallel convictions about the Lord’s Supper, in the sense of limiting the Supper only to baptized believers?
Like the Puritans, Spurgeon held to the regulative principle in his ecclesiology. Because Christ reigns over the church by His Word, we are not free to do as we please in how we “do church.” Rather, in whatever He has commanded, our job is to be faithful to our King. When it came to baptism, Spurgeon understood, according to the New Testament, that it is to be restricted to those who have made a credible profession of faith. Also, along with most of church history, Spurgeon understood that baptism is the initiating ordinance into the church. Therefore, Spurgeon required those coming from paedobaptist backgrounds to be baptized as believers before joining the church. This is how we walk in obedience to the Lordship of Christ. To allow for the practice of “open membership” would be to undermine Christ’s command and the one distinctive that makes Baptist churches Baptist.
When it came to communion, however, Spurgeon was willing to welcome visitors from paedobaptist churches to the communion table. He still enforced a measure of discipline. If you were a visitor and wanted to take communion, you had to be interviewed by an elder during the week. If you were a member in good standing of another evangelical church, then you would be given a ticket, and this would allow you to participate in the communion service at the Tabernacle. The Strict Baptists were quick to point out Spurgeon’s inconsistency in allowing unbaptized people to the Table.
But Spurgeon was comfortable with this arrangement for two reasons. First, he ensured that the visitor was under the discipline of an evangelical church. Open communion back then did not mean what it means today when churches allow anyone to come to the table. And second, open communion gave expression to his belief in the universal church. There were true Christians in churches other than Baptist churches. Certainly, there was a tension. But Spurgeon was comfortable in that tension, holding to closed membership and open communion.
The Metropolitan Tabernacle had an exceptionally large membership, and yet they were quite rigorous about the membership process, accurate rolls, and church discipline. How did they achieve this rare balance of size and conviction?
By Spurgeon’s death in 1892, the Metropolitan Tabernacle had a membership of over 5300. This is remarkable given how plain their services were, how rigorous their membership process was, and how careful they were to maintain accurate rolls. They weren’t large because of modern attractional gimmicks. These weren’t inflated numbers due to sloppy membership practices. Rather, this was a meaningful membership made up of those who understood the gospel and who knew they had a role to play in the mission of the church.
But all this was not easy. There was a tremendous amount of work that went into bringing these thousands of people through the membership process – conducting membership interviews, holding congregational meetings, hearing testimonies, and much more. Once they were brought in, Spurgeon implemented different programs and tools to track non-attendance, provide pastoral visitation, enforce church discipline, and promote discipleship and service. All of this was carried out tirelessly throughout the 38 years of his pastoral ministry. The only explanation I can give for this amazing consistency is that this was, for Spurgeon (and his church), a matter of conviction. By doing this, the Metropolitan Tabernacle became a remarkable engine for advancing the gospel in his day.
In telling this story, my hope is to encourage pastors and churches to persevere in faithfulness. We may not achieve the results that Spurgeon saw, but that’s okay. The results belong to the Lord. Our calling is to be faithful to His Word and to so serve that church that she might fulfill her calling as the army of God.
Book links are part of the Amazon Associates program.
