Megan Basham and King James

A quick caveat for those readers who are wont to see everything even seemingly critical of Basham as an attack on "our side" (note the absolutely mindless blowback that Richard Barcellos got): that's not what this post is.

Megan Basham's book, "Shepherds for Sale," has elsewhere been answered as to Gavin Ortlund (first video, follow-up video) and as to JD Greear (link to Neil Shenvi's tweets) and more generally as to quality (link to Rev Reads video).  I myself highlighted an odd claim by Megan that she reached to out to Keller in advance of publishing her book (Keller was dying of cancer when Megan was still researching Keller's views, and passed away more than a year before she published).

As someone who has often advocated for improvements to the King James version, I was naturally curious about Basham's discussion of "King James."  The two references have virtually nothing to do with the central point of Basham's tome.  Nor is this post intended to address the central point of Basham's tome (just repeating this so that the ignorant folks can ignore it a second time).

Basham's reference to "King James" is found in two portions.  The first portion comes from a passage bridging pages xiv and xv, with the second portion constituting a call-back reference at page xviii.  In both portions, Basham refers to "King James." Her index refers to this person as "James, King of England." (As a side note, you will note other issues in her citations including her bizarre citation chapter 171 of John as well as her more understandable error of noting chapter 1 in her citations of Jude.)   

Let's consider Basham's claims:

• A couple of years ago, my husband and I took an anniversary trip to Boston and visited the King's Chapel.

There is no reason to doubt this particular claim.  The only thing of interest for our discussion purposes is that it sets the stage for which King's Chapel she has in mind.  It is this one (link to page, link to Wikipedia page).  As a minor point of historical interest, the building they presumably visited is the stone church that was built from 1749-54 around the previously constructed wooden church.  The previously constructed wooden church was then shipped to Nova Scotia, where it was rebuilt.

As of the preparation of this blog post, the church lists its clergy as "The Rev. Joy K. Fallon" as "Senior Minister" ("she/her/hers") and "The Rev. Sam Holland" ("they/them/theirs").  The website also provides some historical background (link to page).

• As our guide explained, the "King's" part of that moniker is noteworthy.

 Again, I have no beef with this claim.  I would note that tour guides are great starting points for research, but that they have a tendency to create or at least perpetuate legends.  As Basham only cites this anonymous guide for the moniker being noteworthy, it's hard to tell how much she was reliant on this source for her claims.

• The Lord Bishop of London established America's first Church of England congregation in 1686, in part to shore up the Crown's authority over belligerent Puritan colonists who had a penchant for defying English law.

Here's where we begin to diverge sharply with Basham.  

According to the Chapel's page: 

In response to petitions from a small group of Anglicans in Boston, the Church of England sent Reverend Robert Ratcliffe to Massachusetts, where he, Royal Agent Edward Randolph, and Royal Governor Edmund Andros established King's Chapel as the first official Anglican church in the Dominion of New England. 

(source)

We can certainly concede that the Bishop of London had some kind of jurisdiction over the colonies from the Church of England perspective.  The Episcopal Dictionary of the Church explains:

On Oct. 1, 1633, the Privy Council ordered with regard to the colonies that “. . . in all things concerning their church government they should be under the jurisdiction of the Lord Bishop of London.” In 1638, when Laud was Archbishop of Canterbury, he proposed sending a bishop to New England. 

(see more here)

As you may have guessed from reading between the lines, one glaring problem with Basham's characterization is that the first Anglican parish was founded in Jamestown in 1607 (William Sydnor, Looking at the Episcopal Church, p. 72).  The original Jamestown church building apparently burnt down the next year.  Nevertheless, a church tower dating to the 17th century still remains as a tourist attraction (see here). So, no.  King's Chapel was not America's first Church of England congregation.

Francis William Pitt Greenwood, in 1833, actually wrote the book, "A History of the King's Chapel in Boston." (link) As the subtitle explains, it was the "Introduction of Episcopacy into the Northern Colonies."  So, someone hoping to rescue Basham's claims might note that although not America's first, it was New England's first (as also noted on the Chapel's page, cited above).

Greenwood provides a more thorough background of the political machinations that motivated Ratcliffe's arrival and the establishment of an official Anglican church in Boston.  Greenwood suggests that Edward Randolph aimed to "destroy the ancient civil rights of the colony by taking away their charter, and setting them a governor appointed by the crown." (p. 20)  Moreover, Greenwood indicates that the funding for this church was proposed to be obtained by diverting funds that were intended to be for missionary work to the American Indians ("He then repeats his favorite project of laying hold of the money designed for converting the Indians; calls it a 'bank of money,' and doubts not that it amounts to at least two thousand pounds..." p. 30)

Basham doesn't explain the accusation that "belligerent Puritan colonists" had a habit of "defying English law." Greenwood, by contrast, notes that "the general court had declared in 1677, that no persons should be hindered from performing divine service according to the church of England." (p. 16) Greenwood's book provides the following contrasting account:

Having advanced thus far in our history, it is easy to perceive that episcopalianism in New England was in a great measure indebted to the efforts, official and personal, of Edward Randolph. Though he was not so bad a man as the colonists represented and believed him to be, yet he was arbitrary, selfish and grasping, and not a champion for a religious denomination to be proud of. But a cause cannot always choose its promoters and many promoters of this cause were highly respectable members of the community, fairly entitled from the first to the liberty which they won at last. 

(p. 32)

Moreover, reading through the background material provided in Greenwood's introduction, it seems that the issue of whether the religious services and practices of the Church of England would be permitted in the Massachusetts Bay Colony was one that was sparked by the fall of Cromwell's Commonwealth and by the ascension of Charles II.  It was in 1683 that Charles II sent Edward Randolph with a quo warranto against the colony's charter (pp. 11-12).  In 1685, Charles II died and was succeeded by his brother James II of England (aka James VII of Scotland). In 1686, the "Rose frigate" arrived with a commission to Mr. Joseph Dudley as the president of Massachusetts and the colonies to the north thereof (p. 13).  

The "Dominion of New England in America" established in 1686 upon the annulling of the Massachusetts charter was vigorously resisted by the colonists, in various ways, and only lasted three years (for more discussion).  It seems unfair, therefore, to cast the New England Puritans as the lawbreakers, rather than the Roman Catholic monarchs, Charles II and James II.

• Today, the media and publishing industries insist that the political right is playing the role of King James, leveraging churches to fulfill political aims.

Above all, it is confusing at best to refer to James II as "King James." The sovereign that is usually referenced this way, because of the King James Version, is King James I of England (aka King James VI of Scotland).  

More to the point of the attempt to springboard from the anecdote, neither Charles II nor James II was trying to "leverage churches to fulfill political aims."  It would be much more accurate to say that both of these Roman Catholic monarchs (the last two in England's history) attempted to leverage political power to achieve their religious aims.  Even on Basham's account, there was not a pre-existing Church of England congregation to leverage in Boston.   

Basham's final reference to "King James" (p. xviii):

• Keeping alive the spirit of American resistance to the agendas of the powerful that so vexed King James, evangelicals just won't get with the program.

James II was an unpopular king (with Protestants in Great Britain, especially), and was deposed in the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688, an action with which the colonies could not reasonably be blamed.  In November 1685, James II dismissed the English Parliament for its refusal to pass measures granting greater religious liberty, and he did the same to the Scottish Parliament in 1686.  James II presented the question in terms of allowing Roman Catholics and Non-Conformists greater religious liberty in England and Scotland, but the action in New England can be seen largely as an extension of his and his brother's attempts to reduce the Protestant establishment.  Resistance to Roman Catholic monarchs was hardly unique to America at the time.

Just so it can be ignored for a third and final time, this post does not aim to (nor does it) contradict the main point of Basham's book.  The main point of her book is sufficiently vague and general as to be indisputable, namely that there are some "evangelical leaders" who share in at least a part of the "leftist agenda."

Rather this post points out a few errors.  Basham, in a recent interview, suggested that they would be fixing "a few little errors" for a second print run (link to a few seconds before this assertion).  We will see if even the fairly non-controversial errors are fixed:

1. Definitely not first CoE congregation in the American colonies.
2. King James II should be differentiated from the famous King James.
3. There is no chapter 171 in John's Gospel
4. Jude should be cited by verse, not chapter/verse.

To which we could also suggest at least one trivial error in the formatting of 2 Corinthians and Genesis in the index (surely these are not too controversial to fix).  

Screenshots as "receipts" follow:

...

Puritans, Slavery, and Exodus 21:16

A dear reader (name removed to protect the innocent) wrote (slightly edited below):

Exodus 21:16 (KJV) And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

a) It's common knowledge that numerous Puritans owned slaves, and at times were even chaplains on slave ships.
b) Were Puritans generally theonomist?
c) Do you know whether they ever considered that verse? It says "or if he be found in his hand". Man-stealing, and also owning the stolen "good" were worthy of capital punishment on the OT Law.

At most this would show that the Puritans were in the wrong and were inconsistent.

I answer:
a) Which puritans exactly owned slaves and/or were slave ship chaplains? I can't recall that being the case for Owens, Burroughs, Manton, Boston or even Baxter, but perhaps I'm missing something. Even in the Americas, Puritanism was primarily a Northern thing - which was generally not associated with American slavery. The supposed "common knowledge" sounds like the lyrics to that "Precious Puritans" rap song by the aptly named artist "Propaganda", but I cannot recall it actually reflecting the situation of any of the notable Puritan writers.

b) I don't know how you define "theonomist." It would be anachronistic to call the Puritans reconstructionists. But if you mean "theonomist" so as to include Calvin - most of them tended to be theonomist, within a range of variation. Radical separation of church and state was for the Anabaptists during the height of Puritanism.

c) Exodus 21:16 prohibits kidnap of a man ("steals a man"), whether to sell him into slavery or not ("and sells him" or "if he is found in his hand") on pain of death. Within the context of the Torah, this did not apply to prisoners of war or men who were purchased as slaves. Strictly speaking, the verse does not apply to people who buy slaves who were enslaved by a man-stealer.

Henry Ainsworth (technically a non-comformist) (1571-1622) in annotating the verse just mentions that the "man" here refers specifically to an Israelite, but doesn't provide other commentary on it. The reason for this argument is the parallel account in Deuteronomy 24:7.

John Lightfoot (1602-1675) had some gleanings on Exodus, but those gleanings don't mention this particular law, that I noticed.

Andrew Willett (1562-1621) had a rather detailed work on Exodus, including some discussion of this law, but I (sadly) cannot locate a copy of it.

Symon Patrick (1626-1707) was probably too late to be a Puritan (great ejection was 1662) but he is a 17th century Anglican to comment on it - and he doesn't find any general prohibition of slavery. He seems willing to read "man" more broadly than Ainsworth to include foreigners and foreign slaves.

John Calvin's Harmony does not explicitly comment on Exodus 21:16, but at Deuteonomy 24:7 he states:

The same punishment is here deservedly denounced against man-stealers as against murderers; for, so wretched was the condition of slaves, that liberty was more than half of life; and hence to deprive a man of such a great blessing, was almost to destroy him. Besides, it is not man-stealing only which is here condemned, but the accompanying evils of cruelty and fraud, i.e., if he, who had stolen a man, had likewise sold him. Now, such a sale could hardly be made among the people themselves, without the crime being immediately detected; and nothing could be more hateful than that God’s children should be alienated from the Church, and delivered over to heathen nations.

Matthew Henry (Presbyterian, 1662 – 1714) comments on Exodus 21:16:

III. Here is a law against man-stealing (v. 16): He that steals a man (that is, a person, man, woman, or child), with design to sell him to the Gentiles (for no Israelite would buy him), was adjudged to death by this statute, which is ratified by the apostle (1 Tim. 1:10 ), where men-stealers are reckoned among those wicked ones against whom laws must be made by Christian princes.

At Deuteronomy 24:7, Henry states:

II. A law against man-stealing, v. 7. It was not death by the law of Moses to steal cattle or goods; but to steal a child, or a weak and simple man, or one that a man had in his power, and to make merchandize of him, this was a capital crime, and could not be expiated, as other thefts, by restitution—so much is a man better than a sheep, Mt. 12:12 . It was a very heinous offence, for, 1. It was robbing the public of one of its members. It was taking away a man’s liberty, the liberty of a free-born Israelite, which was next in value to his life. 3. It was driving a man out from the inheritance of the land, to the privileges of which he was entitled, and bidding him go serve other gods, as David complains against Saul, 1 Sa. 26:19

John Gill (Reformed Baptist, 1697–1771)at Exodus 21:16 states:

And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him
One of the children of Israel, as the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, and so the Septuagint version: but though this law was given to the Israelites primarily, yet was made for men stealers in general, as the apostle observes, who plainly has reference to it, ( 1 Timothy 1:9-10 ) :

or if he be found in his hand;
before the selling of him, as Jarchi notes, since he stole him in order to sell him, he was guilty of death, as follows:

he shall surely be put to death;
with strangling, as the same Jewish writer remarks, as on the preceding verse; and Jarchi sets it down as a rule, that all death in the law, simply expressed, is strangling.

Likewise, John Gill at Deuteronomy 24:7 states:

If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel 
Whether grown up or little, male or female, an Israelite or a proselyte, or a freed servant; all, as Maimonides F6 says, are included in this general word "brethren"; though Aben Ezra observes, that it is added, "of the children of Israel", for explanation, since an Edomite is called a "brother". Now, a man must be "found" committing this fact; that is, it must plainly appear, there must be full proof of it by witnesses, as Jarchi explains this word:

and maketh merchandise of him;
or rather uses him as a servant, and employs him in any service to the least profit and advantage by him, even to the value of a farthing; yea, if he does but lean upon him, and he supports him, though he is an old man that is stolen; this is serving a man's self by him, as Maimonides F7, which is what is forbidden as distinct from selling him, as follows:

or selleth him:
to others; and both these, according to the above writer F8, using him for service, and selling him, are necessary to make him guilty of death; not the one without the other; but reading them disjunctively, as we do, gives the better sense of the words:

then that thief shall die;
by strangling with a napkin, as the Targum of Jonathan; and so Maimonides F9 says, his death is by strangling:

and thou shall put evil away from among you;
both him that does evil, as the Targum of Jonathan, and the guilt of it by inflicting due punishment for it; and so deter from such practices, and prevent evil coming upon the body of the people, should such a sin be connived at; see ( Exodus 21:16 ) .

FOOTNOTES:

F6 Hichot Genibah, c. 9. sect. 6.
F7 Ib. sect. 2.
F8 Ib. sect. 3.
F9 Hilchot Genibah, c. 9. sect. 1. So R. Sol. Urbin. Ohel Moed, fol. 67. 1. interprets it of service.

Matthew Poole (Noncomformist, 1624–1679) at Exodus 21:16 states:

i.e. in the manstealer's hand; q. d. though he he keep him in his own hands for his own use; for still it is a theft, and he is made that man's slave, and it is in his power to sell him to another when he pleaseth, and therefore deserves death.

(Poole refers the reader back to Exodus 21:16 at Deuteronomy 24:7).

The Geneva Bible (1560 edition is the only one I checked) did not have any comments on either verse.

Frankly, I'm not aware of any pre-19th century author that treats "man stealing" in itself as equivalent to slavery absolutely. Rather, I think uniformly it would be viewed as condemning an illicit way of obtaining slaves.  I don't want to address how slaves might licitly be obtained, but two ways seem obvious: voluntarily and as prisoners of war.  Moreover, in view of the regulation of slavery under the Mosaic law, it would seem nonsensical to interpret Exodus 21:16 or Deuteronomy 24:7 as providing for civilly administered capital punishment for all slave owners.

That said, as far as I can tell the colonial laws of Massachusetts (which I've picked because of their obvious connection to the New England Puritans) did have a law specifically against man-stealing, and it was a capital offense, and the explicit justification was Exodus 21:26.

So, no - I don't think the charge of inconsistency can rightly be laid at the feet of the Puritans, both because the Bible does not absolutely forbid slavery (it merely regulates it) and because the Puritans (at least the American ones) did punish man-stealing with death (on the books - I did not check whether or how often this was enforced).

One other thing to consider: being the chaplain of a ship is a role that speaks to a concern for the spiritual needs of those on the boat.  It is not, as far as I know, an endorsement of the particular enslavement of the particular people on the ship nor an endorsement of slavery in general.  After all, wouldn't you gladly be a prison chaplain to a bunch of prisoners who were wrongly imprisoned?

I believe that the well-named rapper, Propaganda, alleges that the Puritans took the position that there were two images of God (one for slaves and one for free men).  I would love to see his documentation as to which of the Puritans ever taught such a thing.

-TurretinFan

P.S. I realize that I mentioned the word "slavery," which is a hot-button topic for some people.  If this is you, remember that the topic of this post is narrowly limited to the question of what the Puritans believed and whether the Puritans were consistent in their application of Old Testament law to the civil laws they enacted.

Love of the Unseen Christ (and other Sermons) - Thomas Vincent

Thomas Vincent was a Puritan preacher (1634-1678) who allegedly had the whole New Testament and the Psalms memorized. Whether or not this account of his prodigious memory is correct, he wrote some very powerful sermons. Here are links to a few, together with a little sample material from each, to whet your appetite.

The True Christian's Love to the Unseen Christ

- Part 1

The life of Christianity consists very much in our love to Christ. Without love to Christ, we are as much without spiritual life—as a carcass when the soul is fled from it is without natural life. Faith without love to Christ is a dead faith, and a professor without love to Christ is a dead professor, dead in sins and trespasses. Without love to Christ we may have the name of Christians—but we are wholly without the nature of Christians. We may have the form of godliness—but are wholly without the power of godliness. "Give me your heart!" is the language of God to all people, Proverbs 23:26; and "Give me your love!" is the language of Christ to all His disciples.

- Part 2

The second sort of motives to excite your love to Christ, may be drawn from the consideration of Christ's love unto true Christians. If you are Christians indeed, Christ loves you:

(1) with the freest love;

(2) with the truest love;

(3) with the strongest love;

(4) with the surest love.

Christ's manifestation of Himself unto those who love Him

"He who loves Me shall he loved by My Father, and I will love him, and will manifest Myself to him." John 14:21

We read in Luke 4:22, "All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips." Never did such gracious and sweet words drop from the lips of any man who ever lived, as those from the lips of Christ when He was here upon the earth; and of all Christ's words, those which He spoke to His disciples in His last sermon, before His last suffering, in the 14th, 15th, and 16th chapters of John, are superlatively sweet, and none more sweet in this sermon than the words of my text read unto you, "He who loves Me shall he loved of My Father, and I will love him, and will manifest Myself to him." In the former part of the verse, we have the character of one who truly loves Christ, "He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is that loves Me." In the latter part of the verse, which is my text, we have the privilege of one who truly loves Christ; and that is in three promises which Christ makes unto him:

(1) he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father;

(2) and I will love him;

(3) and will manifest Myself to him.

Fire and Brimstone in Hell, to Burn the Wicked

The flames and fiery streams, which were rained down from heaven upon Sodom and Gomorrah formerly, and which issued forth from the earth in the eruptions of Mount Aetna lately, are but shadows of the future flames, and like painted fire in comparison, with the streams of fire and brimstone, which in hell shall burn the wicked eternally. For as the glory of heaven (while we are in the dark vale of this world) does far exceed all conception, and therefore cannot be set forth in full by any description; but as one says, whoever attempts to speak of an heavenly state, while himself is upon the earth, his discourse of that must needs be like the dark dreams and imaginations of a child, concerning the affairs of this world, while itself is yet swaddled and cradled in the womb; and the Apostle Paul himself, though he had been taken up unto the third heaven, and had such discoveries made unto him there, that he lacked words to utter what they were, as II Corinthians 12:2, 3, 4, yet acknowledges that he understood like a child, and had but dark views of this glory, even as through a glass, I Corinthians 13:11, 12. So also the torment of hell through that fire and brimstone, which shall burn the wicked, is beyond all thought to imagine, or words to express. And when we have strained our conceptions unto the highest pitch, when we have made use of the most dreadful and tremendous things that ever came to our eyes or ears, or any way to our understanding to help us in forming notions to ourselves of the horrible punishment, which the damned shall endure in the unquenchable flames of hell-fire; all does fall beneath and far short of the thing, all our views hereof by any representations, being like our sight of colours in the night, which if not in whole, yet in the greatest part do fly from our sight and disappear.

The Only Deliverer from the Wrath to Come!

"Jesus, who delivers us from the wrath to come!" 1 Thessalonians 1:10

Past pains may easily be forgotten. Future pains are not easily believed. Present pains in extremity are so grievous and afflicting that all the wealth and honor in the world cannot countervail them—and, oh, how welcome is such a physician who can give ease and remove them! But if people believingly apprehended what horrible pains and torments the wicked must endure in the unquenchable flames of hell fire, where they can have no ease, and their misery shall have no end; if they apprehended how fearful a thing it is to fall into the hands of the living God, and to be swallowed up by His wrath, which pursues all who are out of Christ, and who will certainly come and may quickly seize upon them—surely they would use their utmost diligence now to escape—surely they would, with the greatest inquisitiveness, seek out a place of refuge from the fiery tempest of God's vengeance!

This text, which makes a revelation of the only Deliverer from the wrath to come, would sound with most transcendent sweetness in their ears; and the glad tidings thereof, concerning what Jesus has done for His people, would, above all things, be most welcome in their hearts. "Jesus, who delivered us from the wrath to come!"

***

May God edify the reader of these powerful sermons!

-TurretinFan

Reformation in Brazil

Here's a link to folks who are working to spread the light of the gospel in a nation that badly needs it. It is, of course, in the local language Portuguese (link).

-Turretinfan