“Thomas
Chalmers, as all the world knows, was born in the Fifeshire town of Anstruther
in the year 1780”. If that was true in
1908 when William Beveridge published his “Makers of the Scottish Church” what
a change the past 100 years have seen. In
his own timeframe Thomas Carlyle called him “The chief Scotsman of his age,” he
even came to the notice of Karl Marx who labelled him the “arch parson.” When he died it was said that though it “was
the dust of a Presbyterian minister which the coffin contained; and yet they
were burying him amid the tears of a nation, and with more than kingly honours.” But today, Chalmers is a forgotten and
largely neglected figure. And that is
nothing short of tragedy.
And
in many ways it is hard to explain. Some people are forgotten because they don’t
publish much. This is not true of
Chalmers. His collected writing
published in his lifetime run to 35 volumes.
Some people might be forgotten because they don’t found anything that
endures. But to take two institutions
that Chalmers founded, the Free Church of Scotland and New College Edinburgh – both
exist today. Nor was his influence
confined to Scotland. William Wilberforce
heard him preach and said that "all the world was wild about Dr.
Chalmers." In America the theologians
of Princeton Seminary read and appreciated Chalmers. Samuel Miller said that from Chalmers
writings he received “impressions of his moral and heavenly grandeur.”
But
perhaps there are two reasons for his neglect.
First, he addressed the specific
political and economic problems of his day, as well as the spiritual, and so he
wrote a number of works which are heavily dated. Even faithful sons of the Free Church of
Scotland may struggle to get overly excited by works like “On Political Economy
in connection with the Moral State and Moral Prospects of Society” with
chapters like “On the Increase and Limit of Food”. Nor is a work like “On Cuvier's Theory of the
Earth” going to grab attention today.
And because he wrote much on social themes, secondary literature on
Chalmers has often focused on these areas – perhaps creating the false impression
of a man who spoke to his time, but does not have much to say to ours. Second,
perhaps some who we might expect to warm to Chalmers are put off because of his
view of the relation between science and Scripture. Chalmers for example accepted, and it is fair
to say enthusiastically embraced, the views emerging in his day over the old
age of the earth. Now, we will return to
critical of Chalmers on this topic later – but we shouldn’t throw the baby out
with the bathwater and ignore Chalmers because of his views here. I remember a few years ago I was talking to
someone at a wedding and as we struck up conversation he asked who I was
reading. I replied “Thomas Chalmers”. He looked puzzled and said, “but he was a
raving liberal.” While we have to
wrestle critically with Chalmers here, to call him a liberal is a tragedy.
Now,
it is hard to capture the genius of Chalmers in a brief discussion – due to the
sheer scope of his life. His life moves
from being a minister in a rural church, to leading large city congregations,
to being a professor of moral philosophy, to being a professor of
theology. He leads over 1/3 of the
Church of Scotland out of the denomination to form the Free Church of Scotland,
launches a massive church building programme and sets in place the structures
to support the church. All the while he
maintains renown as an orator, preacher, political economist, philanthropist,
educationalist, ecclesiastical statesman and – above all – as an incomparable
motivator of his fellow Christians.
What we will
try and do is look at his life and draw lessons from it as we go through.
Chalmers the Moralist
Chalmers
was born in 1790, as we all know, in Anstruther in Fife. He grew up in a godly home as the 6th
of 14 children. His parents were sincere
Christians. At the age of 15 he went to
St Andrews to study and there fell into the deadly trap of “Moderatism.” It is important to remember that there have
been few if any “golden ages” in church history. We might think of the late 18th
and early 19th centuries as prime candidates for such. The age before Darwin, the age before higher
criticism, the age before atheism was the “default” position. But no.
Unbelief manifests itself in many ways, religious as well as
irreligious. For instance, it is hard to
imagine a more religious people than the Pharisees, and yet it is also
difficult to imagine a group of people so dead in unbelief. And so it was in the Scottish Church. Vital religion had largely died. There was the form of godliness but the power
had long gone. To be “evangelical,” to
be “serious” about religion was no less despised in those days than our own,
particularly among ministers. The great,
and none too tactful, Highland minister Lachlan MacKenzie of Lochcarron (1754-1819)
said “If people go to perdition in these days it is not for want of
ministers. The clergy are likely to
become soon as plentiful as the locusts in Egypt, and which of them is the
greatest plague of the two, time and the experience of the church will
discover.”
So
when Chalmers arrived in St Andrews, destined by his father for the gospel
ministry, he encountered the chilling and deadly atmosphere of Moderatism. Chalmers said there that he “inhaled not only
a distaste only, but a positive contempt for all that is peculiarly gospel.” When he finished his studies he eventually
was called to be the pastor in Kilmany.
At this stage he is unconverted with, as he said, a “contempt” for what
he later embraced as the gospel. He
rejected the substitutionary atonement of Christ, “The tenets ... that the
Author of Nature required the death of Jesus for the reparation of violated
justice are rejected by all free and rational enquirers.” He rejected justification by faith alone, “Let
us tremble to think that anything but virtue can recommend us to the Almighty.” And this he did as one who subscribed to the
Westminster Confession of Faith!
Chalmers
also had a very low view of the ministry, holding an assistantship in
Mathematics at the University of St Andrews and offering lectures on science as
well. Part of his natural drive and self-confidence
can be seen in that he lost his position at the University through criticising
his senior college in Mathematics. In a
statement which he was later to bitterly regret he reflected his derisory view of
the ministry by stating that: “The author of this pamphlet can assert from what
to him is the highest of all authority – the authority of his own experience –
that, after the satisfactory discharge of his parish duties, a minister may
enjoy five days in the week of uninterrupted leisure for the prosecution of any
science in which his taste may dispose him to engage.” Some years later when this statement was
thrown back in his face a converted Chalmers said, “Alas! So I thought in my ignorance and pride. I have now no reserve in saying that the
sentiment was wrong, and that, in the utterance of it, I penned what was most
outrageously wrong. Strangely blinded
that I was! What, sir, is the object of
mathematical science? Magnitude and the
proportions of magnitude. But then, sir,
I had forgotten two magnitudes – I thought not of the littleness of time – I
recklessly thought not of the greatness of eternity.”
Chalmers Conversion
As
Chalmers went about his leisurely ways he was brought into the valley of the
shadow of death. His brother and sister
died of tuberculosis in 1806 and 1808 respectively. As the “clergyman” in the family he had to
pastor them in their dying days. His
brother asked Chalmers to do something that was distasteful to him - read aloud
puritan sermons to him! His sister asked
him to do something even more uncomfortable, namely sing the psalms to
her! Over this period he sang through
the Psalter 5 times to her. Chalmers
then became ill himself in 1809. While
he recovered, he faced more crises, for example, another sister died. Through this God was working in Chalmers, and
in 1810 as he was reading William Wilberforce’s Practical View of the Prevailing Religious Systems of Professed
Christians a revolution came about in his spiritual life. Chalmers was a converted man. He later wrote: “as I got on in reading it,
[I] felt myself on the eve of a great revelation in all my opinions about
Christianity … I am now most thoroughly of the opinion, and it is an opinion
founded on experience, that on the system of “Do this and live” – no peace and
even no true and worthy obedience, can ever be obtained. It is “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and
thou shalt be saved.” When this belief
enters the heart, joy and confidence enter along with it.”
Application: Perhaps somewhere around the UK today there
is someone labouring in a parish, confused in unbelief, whom God will use, like
Chalmers, to awaken a nation. May this
be our prayer!
Chalmers Renewed
Pastorate in Kilmany
A
passion was ignited in Chalmers heart for the bible. Before his conversion, one of the members of
his congregation said to him: “I find you aye busy, sir, with one thing or
another; but come when I may, I never find you at your studies for the
Sabbath.” “Oh!” said Chalmers, “an hour
or two on the Saturday evening is quite enough for that.” But regarding the converted Chalmers the same
man said, “I never come in now, sir, but I find you at your bible!” To which Chalmers responded: “All too little,
John, all too little”.
Application: Perhaps we lack Chalmers power because we lack his acquaintance with the word
of God?
This
love of the Bible became evident as Chalmers threw himself wholeheartedly into
the work of the emerging Bible society movement. Remember the Bible Society began in 1804 in
London, and the Scottish Bible Society was founded in Edinburgh in 1809. Being new, being innovative was something
that never troubled Chalmers.
As
well as the work for Bible Societies, and related to it, was Chalmers
passionate attachment to mission and the emerging missionary societies. In 1813 he published a sermon “The two great
instruments appointed for the propagation of the Gospel.” This was a powerful sermon on the text “faith
comes by hearing, and hearing by the word.”
Here is his conclusion: “Those to whom Christ is precious will long that
others should taste of that preciousness.
Those who … [rejoice in] the sufficiency of the atonement will long that
the knowledge of a remedy so effectual should be carried around the globe … In
a word those who love the honour of the Saviour, will long that his kingdom be
extended till all the nations of the earth be brought under his one grand and
universal monarchy – till the powers of darkness shall be extinguished – till
the mighty Spirit which Christ purchased by His obedience shall subdue every
heart, shall root out the existence of sin, [and] shall restore the degeneracy
of our fallen nature…” As a result of
this he became a director of the London Missionary Society.
Application: Chalmers, like another great
Presbyterian Charles Hodge, was a man who transcended denominational
boundaries. He embraced the new
voluntary societies for bible distribution and mission. He worked with those outside the Presbyterian
tradition. How comfortable are we doing working
with those outside our circles?
Another
example of Chalmers willingness to embrace change was that he was willing to
adapt the form of his language to his hearers, stating that, “I feel that I do
not come close enough to the heart and experience of my hearers, and begin to
think that the phraseology of the old writers must be given up for one more
accommodated to the present age.” It was
said that [Blakie] “not a vestige did he borrow of traditional forms, hardly
any of the traditional phraseology.” In his famous sermon on “the common people
heard him gladly.” Chalmers said that
“We hear of the orator of fashion, the orator of the learned, the orator of the
mob. A minister of Jesus Christ should
be none of these; and if an orator at all, it should be his distinction that he
is an orator of the [whole] species.”
That was his goal, to speak to all in his age, whatever their station in
life.
Chalmers
was by all accounts an extraordinary preacher.
This he achieved while breaking all the conventional rules of pulpit
eloquence of his day. First, he read his
sermon from a manuscript rather than preaching extemporaneously. Second, he suffered from “the obstacles of a
provincial education, an ungraceful person, and an unharmonious voice.” But despite this he had a power that
captivated. Hear the classic description
of his preaching: “His voice is neither strong nor melodious, his gestures
neither easy nor graceful; but on the contrary exceptionally rude and awkward;
his pronunciation not only broadly national, but broadly provincial, distorting
every word he utters into some barbarous novelty … He commences in a low
drawling key, which has not even the merit of being solemn, and advances from
sentence to sentence, and from paragraph to paragraph, while you seek in vain
to catch a single echo that gives promise of what is to come … But then, with
what tenfold richness does this preliminary curtain make the glories of his
eloquence to shine forth … I have never heard either in England or Scotland, or
in any other country, any preacher whose eloquence is capable of producing an
effect so strong and irresistible.”
Two
key things about Chalmers preaching:
-
“By
far the most effective ingredient of good preaching is the personal piety of the
preacher himself.” This is the
“spiritual conviction” that was identified as the key to his preaching.
-
“The
great aim of our ministry is to win souls.”
Application: Is this the great aim or our lives,
and our ministries?
W.G.
Blakie stated that “his whole discourse was … a boiling, foaming current, a
mingled stream of exposition illustration and application, directed to the one
great object of moving his audience to action.
His soul was so penetrated with his subject, his whole nature was so
roused and electrified by it, that others could not but be roused and
electrified too.”
Two Glasgow
Pastorates
In
1815 Chalmers was called to Glasgow, to the Tron Parish Church. Some of his greatest work was done in
Glasgow. When he arrived he was
responsible for a parish of around 12,000.
His church could accommodate 1300.
And of his church, which was full, less than 100 people came from his
parish. His parish was working class - his
congregation was the emerging middle class.
And
so what would you do? You have a large
congregation. You have a lot of duties to perform. Surely you are content with your lot? Well this is where Chalmers “heart for
mission” begins to shine through. We
have seen it a little in his support for bible societies, in his willingness to
adapt his language, but here it really shines out.
First, he engages in systematic parish
visitation. That is over 2,200
households. Over two years he visits
them all. As part of this he reenergises
the eldership in his parish increasing the number of elders from 8 to 25 one
year after moving to the Tron.
Second, he organised mid-week services in
conjunction with visitation. For many
this was the only service they would have.
Remember the church was woefully small in comparison to the number of
people in the parish. Recall also that
in those days you had to pay a “seat rent” to get a seat in the church - which
for those who were poverty stricken was not straightforward!
Third, he embraced the emerging Sunday
School movement. He organised his parish
into districts giving each teacher a manageable size of catchment area. He established 47 schools in his parish. A number of his teachers went on to be
ministers having received a grounding in visiting working class homes, getting
to know the conditions in which people lived, and trying to make the Christian
faith understandable to groups of children who, one suspects, would not have
necessarily been the most willing listeners.
Fourth, he fought against the secularisation
of the ministry. It is almost staggering
to think what the duties of a parish minister involved in those days. From administering what today is social
security benefit, to sitting on town councils debating whether pig or ox broth
was better for the ill. He stated “I am
gradually separating myself from all this trash, and long to establish … [that
my] entire time [be] disposable to the purposes to which the apostles gave
themselves wholly, that is the ministry of the word and prayer.”
Application: Chalmers was clearly comfortable
breaking the accepted mould. Be that in
adopting contemporary language. Be that
in taking the church out in to the world.
Be that in embracing bible societies and the missionary movement. Chalmers clearly and wisely distinguished
between what were fixed principles and matters simply of preference and
form. What can we do today? How do we become “all things to all men”
without abandoning our duty to “contend earnestly for the faith”?
Application: Breaking the mould can be a bad
thing. When in Glasgow Chalmers
published works (e.g. Astronomical Discourses) accepting the emerging
geology. This raises the question of
whether Chalmers’ embrace of the teachings of natural science ultimately set
the scene for the embrace of higher criticism and the death of the Free Church
he founded. For myself, I think the answer is that he set a trajectory which could, and sadly did, lead the Free Church astray.
Iain
Murray correctly notes that for Chalmers “the care of souls was not to end in
the pulpit. He pressed upon his divinity
students what became known as the “aggressive principle”, that is to say, they
must take the gospel to the people; the unchurched must not be left alone,
rather they must be pursued wherever they are to be found.”
A
couple of interesting anecdotes:
·
Chalmers
drew huge crowds and at times this could present a danger to safety. On one occasion he later related to a fellow
pastor the steps he had taken to reduce crowds:
“I preached the same sermon in the morning and for the very purpose of
preventing the oppressive annoyance of such a densely crowded place I intimated
that I should preach it again in the evening.
Have you ever tried that plan?”
“I did not smile,” said the other minister, “I laughed outright. ‘No, my friend,’ I replied. ‘Very few of us need to resort to special
means to get thin audiences!’”
·
Chalmers
was preaching in the High Church, Edinburgh. A report of his sermon: “In those
days his action was violent in the extreme.
The whole energy of the man seemed to be thrown into his limbs: the
pulpit cushion got such a dusting as it had not known since the days of John
Knox. He was enveloped in a cloud of
dust – his gown flew around his shoulders; but he held his audience rapt until
one was unconscious of time and space.”
In
order to cope with the large scale population movements and to try his ideas in
a new setting Chalmers took advantage of plans to set up a new parish, St
Johns. He also wished to demonstrate
that the Church itself through the diaconate could care for the poor, without
specific state levies. He also set up
schools for general education, with a Christian base.
The
success of the St John’s experiment has been much debated. What is clear is that a passion for church
planting to meet population growth, combined with a revitalisation of the
deaconate to care for the poor, aligned with his earlier revitalisation of the
eldership was a key achievement, and a large step to better days ahead.
Chalmers the
Professor
In
1823 Chalmers moved back to St Andrews to be Professor of Moral Philosophy. Why did he do this? Chalmers was aware of St Andrews as a
stronghold of the “moderates”. Why did
he abandon his church in Glasgow? Well
the answer I think lies in strategic usefulness. What he could do in one congregation himself,
he could inspire scores of students who passed through his classroom to
do. It was as a teacher of the rising
generation he felt he could do most for “the Christian good of Scotland.”
When
in St Andrews Chalmers remained an enthusiastic supporter of mission –
encouraging the first Church of Scotland missionary Alexander Duff as he went
to India. He was chair of the St Andrews
Missionary Society. While in St Andrews
300 students passed through his hands.
He used his planned influence well, having many groups of students round
for meals and holding fellowships on Sabbath evenings. After 5 years in St
Andrews, (now 1828) during which his wife threatened to become a non-conformist
to escape the moderatism of the Church of Scotland, Chalmers transferred to the
Chair of Divinity in Edinburgh. Here he
became the leading evangelical in the church, and in 1832 was appointed
moderator of the General Assembly.
Chalmers
had a longstanding vision that “through every district of the land there would
be a church to which the people may repair.”
In 1834 he was appointed to lead a new “Church Extension
Committee.” Over the next 7 years he
raised funds equivalent to £22m today and saw 220 new churches planted.
In
Edinburgh he was appointed to the Church’s foreign mission board, he was a
patron of the Edinburgh University Missionary Association and took an honorary
position on the Board of Foreign Mission of the Presbyterian Church in
America. However, by this time the
balance of power in terms of mission support in Scotland swung from voluntary
societies to the Church. That I think
was a good thing.
In
Edinburgh Chalmers was able to influence a rising generation. Names you may have heard of came under is
sway: Robert Murray McCheyne, William Cunningham, Andrew Bonar, Horatius Bonar,
George Smeaton and others. One example
of what he did is on Saturday mornings he got his students to gather for prayer
in New College and in pairs visit the poorest areas of the city. One of those who gathered was McCheyne and it
was said of him that “In Chalmers more than any other person that McCheyne
found the mould for his ecclesiastical and religious thought.”
The Disruption
Through
the labours of Chalmers and others an evangelical revival had been occurring
and in 1834 they had the majority in the Church. A controversy had been brewing for some time
over the right of congregations to choose their own ministers, rather than the
rich landowners imposing their choice.
The 1834 assembly gave congregations the right to veto the appointment
of any minister that they could not agree to.
This led to a significant dispute between the Church and the state which
eventually was decided in the House of Lords against the rights of the
Church. Believing that “the crown rights
of King Jesus” had been violated by the state Chalmers led nearly 40% of the
ministers out of the Church of Scotland to form the Free Church of
Scotland. Soon 800 churches were
established and a new theological college in Edinburgh founded. Some key
features of Chalmers vision for the Free Church:
-
Strong
churches support the weak by giving funds to support their work. This was known as the “sustentation fund” and
was a practical expression of Presbyterian unity.
-
Passionately
evangelistic e.g. reaching out in the West Port of Edinburgh
-
Non-denominational
e.g. despite being the leading founder of the denomination, Chalmers could say “Who
cares for the Free Church compared with the Christian good of Scotland.”
-
Committed
to evangelical unity e.g. Chalmers was one of the founders of the Evangelical Alliance.
What
is a real testament to Chalmers is that when the Free Church split from the
Church of Scotland, every single missionary identified themselves with the new
Free Church!
Chalmers
died 4 years after the Free Church was founded.
Andrew Bonar said: “Remember that very few men, and very few ministers,
keep up to the end the edge that was on their spirit at the first.” Chalmers
did.
Application: How does Chalmer’s founding a new
denomination fit with Christian unity? Why
split the church over the election of ministers when there is a “plague” of
Moderate ministers in the church? Which
if any of these should have split the Kirk?
So,
the life of Thomas Chalmers. Wouldn’t it
be good if a day could come when articles on Chalmers could once again begin:
“Thomas Chalmers, as all the world knows, was born in the
Fifeshire town of Anstruther in the year 1780”!
