Meet the Moravians

Two Moravians didn’t volunteer to be slaves for the Gospel—three did. But none of them actually became slaves.

You may have heard a story passed on in many sermons about two Moravians. A former slave comes to the Moravians and tells them that his people are longing to hear the Gospel—but no one has access to them except for slaves. “Fine,” respond the undaunted Moravians. “We will sell ourselves into slavery.”

Then we fade into a shot of the two Moravians on the deck of a slave barge, headed to the West Indies, shouting at their weeping families, “May the Lamb that was slain receive the reward of his suffering!” And that is the last that their flesh and blood ever heard from them.

——

This story has taken on legendary proportions in the modern evangelical church, probably because of Paris Reidhead’s erstwhile viral sermon, “Ten Shekels and a Shirt,”^⁠ and its reincarnation as the “Revival Hymn.”^⁠1 But of the two scenes that pass before your mind’s eye, only one of them is true.

Fortunately for the two Moravians, the second scene is either somewhat mythical, or it is someone else’s story. The two Moravians did go to the Caribbean island of St. Thomas as missionaries, and they did preach the gospel to many slaves, but they did not become slaves themselves. Here it is worthwhile to unpack the full story of these remarkable men. I think you will agree with me that the truth of this story is just as inspiring as the legend—or more so.

Revival

The story starts with a widespread revival in the Moravian community, dated to August 13, 1727.^⁠⁠2 There was a great stirring among the immigrants who had sought asylum in Count Zinzendorf’s estate, and many spoke about the claims of Christ in unknown lands.

According to Hutton’s account, many Moravians were longing to spread the Gospel abroad during the years that followed, but without any precedent, they were unsure how to move forward. On February 11, 1728, several of them made a covenant that they would go overseas once the way forward was made clear. No Protestant church was sending its own missionaries at that time, although the Danish government had supported a few in its colonies.^⁠⁠3

In 1731, that changed. Antony Ulrich, a former slave from the Danish colony of St. Thomas, visited Copenhagen. He told the Danish king that the residents of the island and its slaves were primed to respond to the Gospel. He especially pleaded on behalf of his family members.

On July 24, 1731, Count Zinzendorf shared Antony’s story with his Moravian brothers. The shocking Macedonian call was passed on from ear to ear among the Moravians. A few were quietly contemplating the possibility of going to St. Thomas, but no one spoke up publicly or immediately.

Volunteers

In time, Johann Leonard Dober brought the matter up with his friend, Tobias Leupold, and they wrote a letter to Zinzendorf, declaring their intent to go. Zinzendorf shared the news of the letter with the congregation, but did not disclose their names.

Antony Ulrich, the Caribbean freedman, was still in Europe, and he followed up with Zinzendorf around this time (in present-day Germany). He spoke to the Moravians in Dutch. When Zinzendorf asked Ulrich about sending two men right away, Ulrich—mistakenly—told him that they could only come as slaves.

Both Leonard Dober and Tobias Leupold repeated without hesitation their willingness to go to St. Thomas, even as slaves. Dober wrote the congregation as he had earlier written their leader. It was a heroic declaration of sacrifice that shocked and stirred the Moravian settlement, and inspired many others to consider a commitment to preach abroad. In the end, though, such a sacrifice of freedom was both inadmissible and unnecessary.

Changed Plans

Eventually, the church decided that only Dober should go.^⁠⁠4 Dober then chose another Moravian named David Nitschman to accompany him. Just like Tobias Leupold, whom he replaced, Nitschman fully expected to become a slave for the Gospel. Thus, at that point, three men had publicly and enthusiastically declared that they would be enslaved in exchange for the opportunity to preach to the unreachable.

Hutton describes the two men, waiting outside Zinzendorf’s house in the pre-dawn hours on August 21st, 1732. The Count spent the night in prayer, and then he drove them part of the way to Copenhagen. They received a prayer of blessing, and departed on foot to Denmark to secure their passage to the Caribbean.

They had a few belongings and very little money. Although the idea may have been naive, both of them—Dober and Nitschman—fully intended to sell themselves into slavery.

In the end, however, the Danish king deemed this impossible. Dober and Tobias met with Von Plesz, the chamberlain of King Frederick VI. Here is the dialogue given in Hutton’s History of the Moravian Church:

Von Plesz, the king’s chamberlain, asked them how they would live.

“We shall work,” replied Nitschman, “as slaves among the slaves.”

“But,” said Von Plesz, “that is impossible. It will not be allowed. No white man ever works as a slave.”

“Very well,” replied Nitschman, “I am a carpenter, and will ply my trade.”

“But what will the potter do?”

“He will help me in my work.”

“If you go on like that,” exclaimed the Chamberlain, “you will stand your ground the wide world over.”^⁠⁠5

Twenty-five years earlier, in 1706, King Frederick IV of Denmark had sent the first Protestant missionaries to his colonies. But Dober and Nitschman went without royal support. They were not even offered passage by the Danes.

The Rest of the Story

The ‘tall tale’ of two Moravians says that they never saw their families again. In fact, Leonard Dober only stayed for about two years, until he was called to Herrnhut to take office as General Elder of the church there. Amazingly, Tobias Leupold—who had been turned down as his companion—broke the news to Dober in person in June 1734.^⁠⁠6 This was not the end of the mission, however. The Moravians would send 18 more missionaries to those islands in the next two years.

Dober arrived in Europe February 5th, 1735 and held the office of General Elder for six years, travelling often to Holland and England during the remainder of his life. He spent the last few months of his life in Herrnhut.

David Nitschman only went to St. Thomas as an assistant to Dober in his travels, and so he left St. Thomas after just four months.^⁠⁠7 Nitschman later took passage to Georgia in 1736, where he met John Wesley, and spent the later years of his life in the Moravian colony at Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

Forerunners in Protestant Missions

Today, Moravians are little known in America; we tout them as a missionary powerhouse, but that’s where the story ends—at least at missions conferences. But in the 18th century, many Europeans viewed the Moravians as a cult, an uneducated church for spiritual outcasts and fanatics.

They had strange and unique customs, some gleaned from Zinzendorf’s leadership. The original settlement had a rote discipleship system which would sound today like a drug rehab program. They were passionate, committed, communal, innovative, and evangelistic.

When John and Charles Wesley sailed to Georgia with twenty-six Moravian shipmates, they were greatly impressed by their no-nonsense attitudes and the way they returned blessing for insult. John Wesley feared for his life during day after day of violent Atlantic storms, but he wrote in his journal of the Moravians:

“In the midst of the psalm wherewith their service began, the sea broke over, split the main-sail in pieces. … A terrible screaming began among the English. The Germans calmly sang on. I asked one of them afterwards, ‘Was you not afraid?’

He answered, ‘I thank God, no.’

I asked, ‘But were not your women and children afraid?’

He replied mildly, ‘No; our women and children are not afraid to die.'”^⁠8

The Moravians’ historian takes great pride in the fact that many English Moravians preceded William Carey to the mission field. When they left for St. Thomas, Dober and Nitschman preceded William Carey by sixty years. There is no doubt that they were the first Protestant church, as far as we know, to send missionaries with no worldly or political ties.

Careers

Why, then, does the modern legend transform Nitschman and Dober into slaves? It betrays a deep confusion in modern American missiology. Maybe deep down, we believe that going overseas is pointless unless the sacrifices are tangible, irreversible, and impressive.

But it was not their romantic sacrifice that gave them access to the unreached—it was their flexibility. They did not hang on to some heroic vision of missionary life, but showed that they would undergo any hardship—even pursuing a secular vocation!

“For over one hundred years no missionary in the West Indies received from the Moravian Church one penny of salary for his services. Each man, during all the period, had first to earn his own living.”^⁠9

Maybe we should also think about where the legend ends: “They went overseas.” But that is where the preface ends, and we reach page one. Leonard Dober and David Nitschman, in fact, preached the gospel to numerous slaves. They worked hard, maintained careers, baptized disciples, and preached the Gospel in the Caribbean. And their impact outlasted them.

Results

An important point to this story is that these two were not just two among a centuries-long stream of missionaries out of Herrnhut. They were the first. Immediately inspired by their commitment, a trio of Moravians joined Hans Egede in his apostolic work in Greenland.^⁠⁠10

Many of the workers that followed our wayfaring pair to the Caribbean died of tropical diseases. After they left, 18 Moravian missionaries began work in St. Croix, and within two years, half of them had died. In fact, Moravian missionaries had to take their own headstone across the Atlantic with them, because the Caribbean islands couldn’t supply them with stones.

By the time Leonard Dober died, there were more than 5,000 former slaves in the Moravian congregations of the West Indies.^⁠11 The Moravian Brethren still have disciples in the Caribbean today, and it started with those two young men volunteering.

Takeaways

There are a few things that stick out about this story.

First, they didn’t sell themselves into slavery; they did something much less heroic—they plied their trade. No one wants to share a story of two volunteer missionaries saying: we will do anything to reach people, even manual labor.

Second, volunteering was not enough. After they declared their intent to go to the mission field, they had to find a way to support their work. They had to be sent. The church decided one of them shouldn’t go. When they got there, real life had to happen. Willingness was only one ingredient.

Third, the story didn’t end when their ship weighed anchor from Denmark; then their work had only begun. They only contributed to the work for a couple of years, but they paved the way for the Moravian missionaries that followed them—both in the West Indies, and globally.

In the end, the mythical version says more about our generation than theirs. We would not pass on the story if it did not have a ring of romance to it. The legendary retelling certainly appeals to our heartstrings. But the heroes this generation needs are not going to be those one or two who give it all, forsake their families, and cross the seas to become slaves. We need an army of workers willing to scrap their way, by any means, to the unreached and the inconvenient lost, whether or not they have to use a university degree to do so.

Share the true story and help restore our generation’s understanding of missions. As A. W. Tozer said, you don’t become a missionary by crossing the sea; you become a missionary by seeing the cross.

¹The audio of Reidhead’s famous sermon is available here.

²You can read about this revival, for example, in John Greenfield’s book, Power from on High, or The History of the Moravians by J. E. Hutton.

³See, for example:

Helen H. Holcomb, Men of Might in India Missions. 1901.

J. Ferd. Fenger. History of the Tranquebar Mission. 1842. Translated from the Danish in 1863.

Jesse Page. Amid Greenland Snows: The Early History of Arctic Missions. 1904.

⁴Remarkably, this decision was made using a system of casting lots for Scriptures, a practice that the Moravian Brethren have since given up, for obvious reasons.

⁵J. E. Hutton. History of the Moravian Church. Book II, Chapter VI. “The Foreign Missions and Their Influence.”

The story is also told by J. E. Hutton in his History of Moravian Missions. 1922.

⁶J. E. Hutton. A History of Moravian Missions. p. 37-38. 1922.

⁷“Memoir of Leonard Dober.” Periodical Accounts Relating to the Missions of the Church of the United Brethren Established Among the Heathen, vol. 12. p. 241-246.

⁸Richard Watson. The Life of John Wesley, p. 43. 1857.

⁹J. E. Hutton. A History of Moravian Missions. p. 38-39. 1922.

¹⁰Jesse Page. Amid Greenland Snows: The Early History of Arctic Missions. Ch. 6.

¹¹“Memoir of Leonard Dober.” Periodical Accounts Relating to the Missions of the Church of the United Brethren Established Among the Heathen, vol. 12. p. 241-246.

Nine Very Old Books Related to Egalitarianism and Women Preaching

Leave a reply

For reference, I've listed here nine books of interest to those studying women's roles in biblical churches. Several of these defend women's right to teach and preach (Kempe, von Grumbach, Fell); others are more of interest for other reasons.

R. W. Dale, a Congregationalist, is the earliest source I can find for the argument that Paul's "household codes" in Ephesians are uplifting to women and counter-cultural in their Roman context.

Christine de Pizan, The Book of the City of Ladies (France, 1405), trans. c. 1521.
Margery Kempe, The Book of Margery Kempe. c. 1438.
Argula von Grumbach, To the University of Ingelstadt, 1523.
Marie Dentière, Epistre très utile faicte et composée par une femme chrestienne de Tornay, envoyée à la Royne de Navarre seur du Roy de France. Contre les Turcz, Juifz, infideles, faulx chrestiens, anabaptistes, et Lutheriens. 1539.
Margaret Fell, Women’s Speaking Justified, Proved, and Allowed of by the Scriptures. London, 1666.
Harriet Livermore, Scriptural Evidence in Favour of Female Testimony in Meetings for Christian Worship. Portsmouth, NH: R. Foster, 1824.
Phoebe Palmer, The Promise of the Father. 1859.
R. W. Dale, The Epistle to the Ephesians, [1890?].
Elizabeth Baxter, The Women in the Word. London: Christian Herald, 1897.

Review: The Life of Joseph Parker

Leave a reply

The Life of Joseph Parker (1902) is the most complete biography of Joseph Parker available. It includes the story of his upbringing in Northumberland, his call to ministry, his training, and his three pastorates, the third of which came to be the most significant in London for a number of years.

I have written my own small portrait of Joseph Parker, which appears in the 2022 reprint edition of his People’s Bible series; so, I refrain here from offering a lengthy summary of Adamson’s work. But I have put down here some of the more unique aspects of his book (being as it is, one of several biographies of one of the greatest Victorian preachers).

Joseph Parker’s childhood and training are described largely from letters from people who knew him well. These are well worth reading. Parker had a singular personality. He was an inquisitive learner and did well in school, and in his early teens tutored other young scholars in Greek and mathematics. Thinking he was not suitable for a trade, his parents apprenticed him to become a stonemason, like his father, but after a short time he rejected this career path and returned to his education.

As he became famous, Parker befriended quite a number of other celebrity pastors, including Henry Ward Beecher, Charles Spurgeon, Thomas Binney, and R. W. Dale. These friendships are only mentioned by Adamson, but they receive much more attention in two books, Spurgeon and His Friendships (A. Cunningham-Burley) and Dr. Parker and His Friends (G. H. Pike).

On Parker’s early preaching, you can read more in his own works, in the introduction to Tyne Folk and in his A Preacher’s Life.

Parker’s Dream for Dissenters

The climax of Adamson’s book comes in the last few chapters. These chapters describe events that must have been quite fresh to the author and I did not see described elsewhere.

Parker had a dream of independent churches (i.e. Congregationalists) collaborating and sharing training and facilities. He expressed this view at a 1901 conference at which Alexander MacLaren (President of the Baptist Union) was presiding. His speech on the topic was looked upon critically by listeners, but oddly enough, the organizational scheme which he proposed, rejected outright in his lifetime, was later realized in some capacity as the Congregational Union of England and Wales was largely absorbed into the United Reformed Church in 1972. Regardless of the complications, his ecumenical vision for reaching and teaching his nation was ahead of his time.

Review: Ferishtah’s Fancies

Leave a reply

Author: Robert Browning (1812–1889) was an eminent English poet of the Victorian era, known for his ambitious and dramatic lyrics and monologues. He had an evangelical upbringing, and had a home-grown love for learning. His wife of many years, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, was an equally revered poet—perhaps even better—though her career was much shorter due to a chronic illness.

Overview

Ferishtah’s Fancies (1884) is a small collection of twelve poems set in Persia. It was originally intended as a single poem in twelve parts, but their cohesion is weak enough that it seems fitting to speak of it rather as twelve poems. The frame of the story is a series of dialogues between Ferishtah (Persian: angel) and others, with Ferishtah clearly speaking for Browning himself.

Orientalism

This collection’s main draw for readers aside from the author is its Persian setting. The book was published at the height of Orientalism in Europe. The book is also full of loosely oriental places, animals, and names. These come across as half-baked to anyone versed in the Near East; I am not sure, for instance, that camels are beasts of burden in Khorasan. I am also not sure what is accomplished by alluding to Fomalhaut and Mushtari (star names).

In my opinion, the many oriental allusions serve merely to distract from the book’s poetic themes. Ferishtah’s Fancies also has a few references to Job, which Browning evidently considered to have taken place in Persia.

In Persian phrase, ‘Does Job fear God for nought?’
Job’s creatureship is not abjured, thou fool!
Robert Browning, “Two Camels”, in Ferishtah’s Fancies

The biblical phrase comes from Satan’s dialogue with God (Job 1:9). But setting Job’s Book in Persia is not even one of the widely proposed locations for the book, which are Aram and Edom. A few other fringe ideas exist, the most popular of which is Arabia (sometimes Dhofar).

Parabolic Teaching

In this book he does this using a number of images or “parables”, which is probably the justification for the title, Ferishtah’s fancies. They are certainly fanciful, and lack grounding—perhaps the author thought such hypothetical absurdities to be reminiscent of the Near East. “Two Camels”, for instance, revolves around one camel who fasts in austerity and the author who feasts that he may complete his duty. “A Pillar at Sebzevar” turns on a parable of a child seeing an orange and wishing it to be the sun, as a parable for our ingratitude to God.

“Shah Abbas”, perhaps my favorite in the collection, is a dialogue about trust and implausibilities.

Hast heard of Ishak son of Absal? Ay,
The very same we heard of, ten years since,
Slain in the wars: he comes back safe and sound, —
Though twenty soldiers saw him die at Yezdt, —
Robert Browning, “Shah Abbas”

This poem has many such fictions within fictions, and they serve to move the dialogue forward. The dialogue is also less one-sided, here, as the author offers point and counterpoint.

Problem of Evil

It is no surprise that Browning alludes frequently to Job; he is ever preoccupied with the problem of the compatibility of evil and God’s goodness. But Browning treats that theme much better in other poems (e.g. Christmas-Eve and Christmas Day). In a few passages in Ferishtah’s Fancies, love is treated as antithetical to knowledge. This felt to me like Ferishtah/Browning was sweeping his difficulties under the rug. Browning at his best goes much deeper than what we see here.

Conclusion

Ferishtah’s Fancies is a minor book among Browning’s many works, and comes near the end of his canon of works. Despite his early fame, Browning’s popularity fluctuated greatly throughout his lifetime. This little collection sold decently due to European fixation on the “Orient”, but in my opinion, it does not hold a candle to his other books, or his wife’s.

Review: To God Be the Glory (Part 1)

Leave a reply

To God Be the Glory: Miracles from a Missionary’s Life (1983) is a collection of inspirational stories by Doris Hokett, missionary to Ghana and Nigeria since 1967. At the time the book was written, most of the Hoketts’ ministry took place in northern Ghana, in a West African context that was a mix of Christians, Muslims, and idol-worshipping pagans.

This little staple-bound book and its sequel (simply called To God Be the Glory, Volume 2) are made up of very short chapters of one or two pages each. They read like missionary newsletters, usually recounting answers to prayer that took place on the mission field: obstacles to ministry removed, idols overcome, provision in times of need. It is always worthwhile to record our answers to prayer and the works of the Lord in our lives, so that it can edify us and other believers.

Many of the answers to prayer involve overcoming the fear of idols. There was one young man who became Christian, but thought he would die if he removed his “juju” charm—he didn’t. There was another man who became Christian, but kept a juju charm hidden in his home for years, until it was struck by lightning!

The success of the Hoketts is part of a much larger success story of Christianity in Africa in the past 50 years. In Ghana, Christianity in general and Pentecostalism in particular have been booming since the time of the Hoketts’ arrival in the 1960s. Today, nearly a third (31%) of Ghana is now Pentecostal according to Wikipedia. This growth in Pentecostalism is apparently due to attrition of both mainline Protestantism and traditional religion (paganism) in Ghana. Christianity in Africa has exploded since 1900, especially among populations that previously practiced African traditional religions, such as Zambia, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Liberia. Uganda had been among the frontrunners, experiencing a Christian revival in the 1880s and 1890s.

Arthur Hokett passed to his reward in 2011, and Doris still does some ministry in Nigeria, though well into retirement age. Doris’ many books are available for order here. If you like short and inspirational stories, pick up a copy of To God Be the Glory.

An Evangelical Missionary in Nazi Prison

Leave a reply

He transformed his cell into a sanctuary.

The story of Herbert Schmidt in Nazi prison is returning to print after more than fifty years. The paperback price is $14.99.

“This book should be in every Pentecostal home.”
The Pentecostal Evangel

Herbert Schmidt was the first Assemblies of God missionary to eastern Europe and founded the region’s first Pentecostal Bible school. When he returned from furlough in 1939, little did he know that a Nazi prison cell awaited him. But in the midst of tragedy and war, God preserved his life and filled his heart with songs of praise in prison. This is a story of hairbreadth escapes and answers to prayer that you will not want to put down.

“In my heart a desperate cry rang out for deliverance, but I seemed to lack a strong grip in the prayer for my liberation. It was because the Holy Spirit did not back up that prayer at all, still I prayed and cried to God for my release. He however was not to deliver me but manifest his power and his great love which would transform my cell into a sanctuary. I was destined to learn to know my God from an entirely new angle.”
Herbert Schmidt’s prayer from the Gestapo prison (Danzig)

This is a testimony of God’s faithfulness in suffering. It was lost in the sands of time and has been recovered and reprinted thanks to missionaries currently serving in central Europe.

The original advertisement from the 1940s compares the story to “a modern detective story”!

“It is as thrillingly interesting as a modern detective story, with heartbreaking separations, hair-breadth escapes, and breathtaking times when discovery and death seem momentarily ready to happen. One cannot lay the book down until it has been read from cover to cover.”
Gospel Publishing House

Herbert Schmidt’s Prayer from Prison

Leave a reply

“In my heart a desperate cry rang out for deliverance, but I seemed to lack a strong grip in the prayer for my liberation. It was because the Holy Spirit did not back up that prayer at all, still I prayed and cried to God for my release. He however was not to deliver me but manifest his power and his great love which would transform my cell into a sanctuary. I was destined to learn to know my God from an entirely new angle.”
G. Herbert Schmidt, Songs in the Night, p. 54. New edition coming August 2023.

This Day in 1838: Freed Jamaicans Bury Their Chains

Leave a reply

. . . At an early hour in the morning further proceedings took place, intended to be emblematical of the extinction of slavery. A hole having been dug in the ground attached to the Suffield school-room, a coffin also having been prepared, and the ordinary instruments of slavery — a chain, a whip, an iron collar, &c. — having been deposited in it, a large concourse of persons assembled between five and six o’clock, as for the purpose of celebrating a funeral. The coffin was then duly lowered into the hole prepared for it, the congregation singing the following stanza:

Now, Slavery, we lay thy vile form in the dust.
And, buried forever, there let it remain :
And rotted, and covered with infamy’s rust,
Be every man-whip, and fetter, and chain.

After this ceremony, the flag of freedom, with the union jack at the corner of it, was hoisted, and three more cheers were given.

Religious services were held throughout the day, and Knibb preached at his own chapel, from Nehemiah 12:42–43. He presided afterwards at a public meeting, memorable from this circumstance, that all the
speakers on the occasion were descendants of Africans; and greatly to their credit, both in matter and manner, did they acquit themselves.

Hinton, John Howard. Memoir of William Knibb, Missionary in Jamaica. 2nd ed. London: Houlston & Stoneman. 1849, p. 262.

Review: God’s Lesser Glory

Leave a reply

God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism (2000) is a critique of the open theism movement, which says that future moral decisions of free agents are undetermined and therefore unknowable even to God. Bruce A. Ware is a respected Calvinist theologian and has been Professor of Christian Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary since 1998. He was also president of the Evangelical Theological Society.

God’s Lesser Glory is not the first book-length rebuttal of 1990s open theism, as Norman Geisler had preceded him with Creating God in the Image of Man (1997). Ware’s book, however, is considered a go-to resource among many Calvinists that I have met.

Ware begins his preface with a call to Christian charity, and even mentions how he knew Greg Boyd, one of the key open theist authors, in seminary. He then disagrees with Boyd that the issue at hand is not of secondary importance. Ware leaves it unclear here whether they should even be considered evangelicals, but in a 2002 article, he argued that open theists should be excluded from the Evangelical Theological Society.

Open Theology Caricatured: It Is Moral Decisions That Must Be Free

Ware mis-portrays open theism at a number of points in the book, especially with regard to which future choices God does not know. The introduction to the book immediately portrays a caricature of open theism by making an analogy to our own ignorance of the future—traffic jams, unforeseen accidents (p.17), whether we will exercise (p.125), etc. Trivial and amoral examples will follow throughout as we repeatedly discuss whether or not “Carl” is going to order shrimp salad at the Oyster Bar (p.36, 40). Such examples show that Ware has missed the point of open theism. Gordon Olson taught almost 50 years ago that it is moral choices that must be free, because it is moral choices that God holds us responsible for. God may freely and providentially arrange man’s non-moral or amoral choices (Acts 17:26), because we are not eternally held responsible for them. Even in decisions with bearing on morality, God may even arrange which option we choose without encroaching on our moral responsibility, as in the story of Pharaoh in Exodus. Ware points out more than once that Boyd and Sanders both view the future as partially undetermined and partially determined, but Ware shows no awareness of the ethical motivation behind this distinction:

1) God is providentially in control of human history, so that much of the future is determined beforehand;

2) because it is unjust to be held responsible for choices that were determined beforehand by others, future moral choices must remain free, and therefore undetermined, uncertain, and unknowable.

This also clears up many of the Bible verses which are purported by Ware to contradict open theism (p.81). In fact, it undermines entire portions of Ware’s book in which he sees open theism as inadequate for explaining biblical prophecy (p.130–140). Arguably, all or nearly all of the predictions Ware lists are amoral events, and it in no way endangers open theism for them to be predicted by God. For instance, we could say that Jesus knew from Peter’s heart that Peter would temporarily deny him under pressure, but God providentially arranged the circumstances of that denial so that it would occur thrice before the cock’s crow. Another counter-example offered by Ware is God’s foreknowledge of the length of Hezekiah’s life, which Ware sees as an inextricable difficulty to the open theist (p.95–96). He is adamant that the length of Hezekiah’s life depends on “future free choices”. But surely God can control the circumstances or timing of one person’s death without infringing on their future moral decisions, even in open theism. The same rebuttal applies to people “moving” and “building houses” in the predictions of Isaiah 44. All this shows that Ware has misunderstood the fundamental presuppositions of open theism, which involve denying God’s foreknowledge of moral choices (such as following Jesus Christ), not all free choices (such as buying shrimp salad for dinner).

Ware harps on about how the open theist God could never with certainty fulfill any of the many Scriptural prophecies, because he would have to providentially manipulate circumstances in people’s lives (i.e., “future free choices”). He goes so far as to doubt that an open theist God could guarantee the second coming of Jesus Christ! He repeatedly misconstrues libertarian freedom as an outright rejection of God’s providence, and open theism as God’s total ignorance of future events. Perhaps in this he is following the language of Boyd and Sanders; but Pratney, for instance, preaches emphatically that “God is active in human history”. Even Boyd and Sanders, who wrote rebuttals to this book, stated that Ware had misconstrued their doctrine as an outsider who was unable to follow the outworking of their philosophy.

Open Theism Caricatured: God Is Supreme over History (Even in Open Theism)

Throughout the book, Ware states baldly that God doesn’t know the future in open theism and that God “learns” as the future unfolds. After questioning the reliability of a God who (as he puts it) doesn’t know the future, Ware writes, “Many readers may be surprised to learn that this very view (namely, that God does not know much of the future and has to learn what happens as that future unfolds) is being advocated by a growing number of biblical scholars, theologians, and philosophers who identify themselves as evangelicals, some of whom teach at highly respected evangelical colleges and seminaries” (p. 18). Again, ” … generally God [in open theism] does not know what will happen in the future” (p. 19). And later, “God [in open theism] plans and works without the advantage of knowing the future” (p.144)! In certain places, open theism is more correctly stated as involving “future free human choices” (p. 18, footnote), but it is largely characterised throughout as a simple denial of foreknowledge (rather than a denial of simple foreknowledge, in favor of dynamic foreknowledge). This is further clarified in a footnote on page 34, after many pages of generalisations.

The caricature worsens as he accuses open theism of questioning God’s ability to enact any overarching plan in history: “Will God succeed in fulfilling his goals? Will history move in the direction he hopes it will? Are God’s predictions and promises sure? The only answer open theists can give to these questions is that they are hopeful that God will somehow pull it off” (p.20). (Long series of rhetorical questions are an overly frequent device in the book, p.50,68,76,77,86,95,163,177.) Again, “not even God knows whether his purposes will be fulfilled” (p.51). This is absolutely an incorrect depiction of open theism, and severely weakens Ware’s argument. At these points, he is arguing against process theism, not open theism; at other points, he levels thinly veiled criticisms at Arminianism, too.

Again, on page 98, “We [the royal we] have endeavored to demonstrate that neither the divine growth-in-knowledge texts nor the repentance texts imply that God has learned something he did not previously know.” But that is not the position of open theism either! What Ware is describing here, by using the term “learn” of God, is process theism, in which God grows and learns in response to creation. He further speaks of the open theist God as being “mistaken”. In a response to Ware, Boyd agrees with me: Ware is simply not representing the open theist position correctly. In open theism, God only “learns” in the technical sense that he “experiences” our choices as they happen, which is a fact admitted by Ware, though couched differently. Additionally, saying that God “learns something he did not previously know” implies that it was there to know, yet again missing the open theist’s philosophical presupposition that future moral choices have not been determined yet.

Limited Literature Engagement

Unsurprisingly, Ware misses the fact that open theism has been around about as long as Arminianism, although obviously as a minority position. This is a fact that is largely unknown to most critics of open theism. Ware calls it a “revisionist model of God” (p.21), tracing it, as many others have done, to the 1994 book The Openness of God, with a footnoted nod to Richard Rice’s 1980 book by the same title. Rather, Rice, Boyd, Pinnock, Sanders, and others, are only the latest instantiation of a revision of Arminianism that has been around for centuries. Arminius’ own successor at Leiden University, Conrad Vorstius, questioned God’s exhaustive foreknowledge in passing in the early 1600s; in the intellectual climate of the time, this would not be borne. But Samuel Fancourt wrote extensive and detailed arguments in favor of the open view, from both Scripture and reason, from 1725 to 1735, as did James Jones in the 1820s, L. D. McCabe in the 1870s, Gordon Olson in the early twentieth century, and Roy Elseth in 1977. None of these were known to Ware, which is excusable because they have received almost no scholarly engagement. Perhaps temporal hubris is to blame.

Less excusable is Ware’s oversight of newer scholarly material such as the many works of Terence Fretheim. Fretheim’s 1984 book The Suffering of God is considered by many to be the seminal perspective toward open theology, though Fretheim does not dogmatically claim to be an open theist. Many open theist ministers that I know were strongly influenced by Terence Fretheim and W. A. Pratney, but have never heard of Greg Boyd or John Sanders. Much Wesleyan literature on prayer also includes material in favor of open theism (Bounds, Harney, Brother Andrew).

In dealing with the biblical material, Ware engages with barely any relevant commentaries, and makes no attempt at any history of interpretation. I suppose this is because of the book’s popular audience, but it would have strengthened his argument to include at least a few references from biblical studies.

Biblical Evidence & More Begging the Question (p.65–86)

Ware’s handling of the biblical text is the high point of the book, and includes very little that is objectionable. In general, I believe that his strong criticism of open theism in these verses stems from his misunderstanding of open theism more than his misunderstanding of the Scripture.

Throughout, he strongly criticises the assertion that open theism takes the “biblical high ground” by its plain reading of divine repentance texts. This problem is first mentioned on page 25, and then returns on page 65. He states that open theists are reading these Old Testament texts wrongly, and that they are anthropomorphism, but Ware offers no diagnostic with which to test his assertion, until page 86: “A given ascription to God may rightly be understood as anthropomorphic when Scripture clearly presents God as transcending the very human or finite features it elsewhere attributes to him.” Ware should have stated this hermeneutic up front, since this is the fulcrum on which the whole chapter pivots.

The biblical discussion is frequently framed around the Old Testament: Abraham’s offering of Isaac, Moses’ prayer, the rejection of Saul, the repentance of Nineveh. It would take too much time to go over every Scripture in detail, but below I’ll address some of Ware’s interpretations.

Genesis 22:12: “Now I know” (p. 67–74)

And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
Genesis 22:12, KJV

Here God states that Abraham has passed the test by offering up Isaac, and “now he knows” that Abraham fears God. Ware points out that many verses show that Abraham already feared God. The New Testament cross-references here have some important bearing. Since God (both in open theism and classical theism) knows Abraham’s innermost thoughts, God could not have “learned” that Abraham feared him through Abraham’s act of obedience. But here, Ware is only begging the question. If Abraham had true moral freedom of choice, then his act of obedience mattered to God, and not merely as an external display of internal thoughts. Yes, Abraham was already faithful, but what God required of him in this passage was an extraordinary level of obedience, something demanded of no one else in the entire Bible. Ware’s analysis presumes that Abraham’s obedience on Mt. Moriah was a foregone conclusion because Abraham was categorically faithful. What Abraham proved here, though, was not categorical; it was a progressive faithfulness. Mere intention would not have been enough, otherwise none of us ever need act on our initial faith—God “knows our hearts”. Both testaments are adamant that God rewards us according to our works, not according to our intentions (Ps. 28:4, Jer. 25:14, Lam. 3:64, 1 Peter 1:17, Rev. 20:12). Such interpretations show that Ware is still using determinist presuppositions in analysing a non-determinist viewpoint.

Isaiah 40–48: “The end from the beginning” (p. 102–121)

Isaiah 40–48 has a number of passages in which God proclaims his foreknowledge, even in what appears to be rather general terms. In my opinion, this is just more of Ware misunderstanding open theism. Even in open theism, God has a general foreknowledge. Even in open theism, God has a plan and a direction for human history. Even in open theism, God’s foreknowledge of human history is an important evidence of his deity. Ware thinks that he has open theists completely trapped by noting that Isaiah predicted the naming of Cyrus. In reality, as I said in the beginning of this review, this is a non-moral decision, with no bearing on the eternal reward or punishment of those involved. God’s overarching providence is especially applied in Scripture in the case of kings and nations: “The king’s heart is a waterway in the hand of the LORD; He directs it where He pleases” (Prov. 21:1). God never claims in Scripture to foreknow whether someone will follow him, or whether they will receive hell or heaven at the end of their life.

Psalm 139:4 (p.123–125)

In the section on this psalm, Ware shows a disappointing lack of understanding of the Hebrew text of this psalm and the King James Version of it. First, he deals with verse 4: “For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether”. Ware only gives the NASB translation: “Even before there is a word on my tongue, / Behold, Lord, You know it all.” He assumes this is a hard case for exhaustive foreknowledge. In reality, the Hebrew has two possible readings through a syntactical ambiguity (Ellicott’s, Expositor’s Bible, Poole):

(a) “There is no word [present] on my tongue, [except that], lo, you know it altogether”
(b) “The word is not [yet] on my tongue, but, lo, you know it altogether”

So (a) would exhibit present knowledge, and (b) would exhibit foreknowledge. Poole and others considered the latter “more admirable”, apparently through its reinforcement of Calvinism. But there are many, even Calvinist interpreters, who do not understand this verse as having any reference to foreknowledge. Many commentators see this verse as asserting either God’s intimate knowledge of the meaning of our words (Barnes, Pulpit Commentary), or that God recognises our thoughts before they are formed into speech (Cambridge Bible, Expositor’s Bible, Geneva Study Bible). For what it’s worth, the latter has always been my understanding of the verse: God knows our thoughts and intentions before they are manifest in speech.

Psalm 139:16 “All my members” or “all my days”? (p.123–125)

Later, dealing with Psalm 139:16, Ware asks why the King James translators did not translate the word yamim (“days”) in Psalm 139:16 (p.125), implying that they completely left this word out. Confusingly, he then thinks that yamim was translated “members”—he seems entirely unsure how the English maps to the Hebrew here. In reality, the KJV translates yamim as an adverb, “in continuance”—an unusual solution. As for the word “members”, that was an attempt to supply the antecedent for the pronoun in “all of them” (kol-am), which is one of the chief difficulties of this passage. The pronoun simply lacks a clear antecedent. Commentators do not agree whether the phrase “all of them” (kol-am) refers forward to “days” (yamim) or backward to “imperfect substance” (golem). The King James translators took golem as having a kind of plural meaning, and translated kol-am “all of them” accordingly as “all my members“. Lange cites Clericus and Hitzig(?) as agreeing with this way of treating golem as the antecedent of the pronoun, but then rejects either golem or yamim as the antecedent. Text-critical scholars also think that something is fishy with the text here.

Translating yamim as “in continuance” (KJV) was not entirely without justification: similar words can act as a correlative conjunctions in other Semitic languages. Ware states, though, that commentators “uniformly” disagree with the King James here in not translating yamim as “days”. He is more or less justified in saying so, since he is only interested in contemporary works. In older commentaries, of course, I did find a few that are not so harsh on the King James: The Pulpit Commentary considers it the correct rendering. Ellicott considered it “possible, but not probable.”

Most intriguingly, John Calvin agrees with Gregory Boyd that Psalm 139:16 is about the miracle of pregnancy—not about meticulous foreordination of every detail of life.

Psalm 139 is a wonderful and intimate statement of divine omniscience, but it is not an unambiguous proof-text for exhaustive divine foreknowledge. This section was truly a weak point in Ware’s book, and he should have had it reviewed by someone who knew Hebrew.

Summation and Conclusion

In this review, I’ve still not handled the last part of the book, but I think it’s clear enough from what I’ve written that the biblical arguments of the book were undermined by his wholesale misrepresentation of open theism. His long-winded section on Bible prophecy had no teeth because he misunderstood how open theism works and why people believe it. His constant repetition that the open theist God “doesn’t know the future” was ostensibly a convenient shorthand, but, in my opinion, shows that his argument was not a “good faith” criticism of open theism. Such inflammatory language acts as a misdirect for uninformed readers, further polarises the discussion, and is unproductive. While Ware seeks to criticise open theism, he is mostly just criticising Greg Boyd and John Sanders—and there are many other open theists to choose from. If I recall correctly, Ware cited his own article on immutability about as much as he cited the entire wealth of biblical studies experts and Bible commentators. As someone who has heard from a variety of open theist teachers, many of Ware’s arguments simply didn’t apply.

Ware concludes that open theism has “adjusted its view of God to be culturally appealing at the expense of biblical fidelity” (p.175). If he knew the literature better, he would know that twentieth-century open theism was largely pioneered by biblical theologians such as Terence Fretheim and Walter Brueggemann, and was motivated by faithfulness to the tone and tenor of the text, especially of the Hebrew Bible, over against forced interpretations motivated by external considerations from systematic theology.

This Day in 1892

Leave a reply

Kamil Abdulmasih died on June 24, 1892 (131 years ago today). I'm reposting this entry about him from September 2017, which was also the week Nabeel Qureshi died.

Kamil Abdulmasih (or Abdul Messiah) was a Syrian Christian in the 19th century. He had befriended Cornelius van Dyck, the Bible translator, and Henry J. Jessup, a veteran missionary, and converted from Islam to the Messiah, reflected in his chosen change of name. As a young believer, he travelled with Samuel M. Zwemer to Aden (in present-day Yemen) and to Basra, Iraq. He was a bold but tactful witness to the Christian faith, and for several months spent much of his time witnessing to Muslims with Zwemer. Some of the last records of his life are about discussing faith with dozens of Muslims, sometimes for several hours at a stretch. You can read about them in a short book published by Henry H. Jessup about Kamil’s life. After a short illness, he died on June 24, 1892, under mysterious circumstances. Before any of his close friends knew that he had died, Muslim funeral rites were being performed over his body, which was guarded by soldiers. Although Basra has some of the hottest summers on the planet, it seems obvious that the officials who surrounded him immediately after his death must have also played some part in expediting it.

The sudden death of this gifted and young disciple was one of those bitter trials which can only be relieved by reference to the unerring wisdom of God, who doeth all things well.

It is the opinion of’ those associated with him that he was poisoned, but the hostility of the government, the fact that he was buried in the Moslem cemetery, and that no postmortem would have been allowed make it impossible to obtain positive proof.

The sad facts are as follows:

On Friday, June 24, 1892, Kamil died. Early in the morning Mr. Zwemer was called to conduct the funeral of the carpenter on board a foreign steamer. Owing to the extreme heat he did not call on Kamil before going home to breakfast. Mr. Cantine called on Kamil in the morning and found him suffering with symptoms of bowel disorder, violent vomiting and purging. Dr. Riggs, who was himself sick, sent him medicine by a servant. The heat was intense, and many of the people were prostrated with fevers. Kamil lived near the harbor, and the missionaries nearly two miles distant in the native quarter. At five o’clock p. m. Mr. Zwemer went to call on him and help him. Yakoob Yohanna, a Christian native, met him half way and told him of Kamil’s death. He hastened to the house, and found it occupied by Turkish soldiers, mullahs, and people who had seized his papers, sealed up his room, and were busy with Moslem prayers over his body. They protested that he was a Moslem. Mr. Zwemer insisted that he was a Christian, and begged and entreated that he should be buried with Christian burial. The evidence of his Christian faith was among the papers they had seized. But it was vain to resist this very exceptional display of armed force.

Mr. Zwemer left the body and went to the Turkish waly, and to appeal to the British consul. Meantime Mr. Cantine arrived, and Mr. Zwemer had to hasten away on receipt of a note stating that Dr. Riggs was very ill, and with high temperature.

At 10.30 p.m. Mr. Cantine came with the news that the Moslems, in spite of his protest, had performed their funeral rites and buried Kamil. But the seal of the British consul was added to that of the Turks on the room containing his property. The next day the whole town was talking over the event. Many of the Moslems told the missionaries that they knew Kamil to be a Christian and a man of pure and upright life, that he was converted from Islam, and a preacher of Christianity.

The exact spot where the Moslems buried him could never be found. The consulate did not succeed in securing his little property, but his books and papers were afterwards sold at auction, excepting the few claimed by the missionaries as their personal property.

The evidence of foul play in his death is regarded as very strong:

I. He was a young man of strong physique and had not been long unwell.

II. Had he died from ordinary disease none but his companions would have known it, and the missionaries would have been told of it before any one else.

III. It is regarded as impossible that the Turks and mullahs could have prepared his body for burial, sealed all his property, and had the military police agree to oppose any help or interference on the part of the missionaries, in so short a time as that which intervened between his death and their arrival. The washing and enshrouding of the body according to Moslem custom is a long and elaborate ceremony, and the sheikhs and mullahs must repeat the Kelimat ash-Shehada, or word of witness, ‘There is no deity but Allah, and Mohammed is his apostle,’ at every ablution, and three times after the washing, when three pots of camphor and water are poured over the body.

The following are two of the prayers recited by Moslems at a funeral:

God is Great. Holiness to thee, oh God, And to thee be praise. Great is thy Name. Great is thy greatness. Great is thy praise. There is no deity but thee.’

O God, forgive our living and our dead, and those of us who are present and those who are absent, and our children and our full-grown persons, our men and our women. O God, those whom thou dost keep alive amongst us keep alive in Islam, and those whom thou causest to die let them die in the faith.

Those who place the corpse in the grave repeat the following sentence:

We commit thee to earth in the name of God and in the religion of the prophet.

IV. Government officials were on hand to take possession of all his effects and seal up his room before his Christian brethren could arrive.

There is every indication that poison had been given him by some unknown persons, either in coffee, the usual eastern way of giving it, or as medicine.

V. The burial took place in the evening and the place of interment was concealed.

VI. According to the Moslem law, a male apostate (murtadd) is liable to be put to death, if he continue obstinate in his error. If a boy under age apostatize, he is not to be put to death, but to be imprisoned until he come to full age, when, if he continue in the state of unbelief, he must be put to death.” According to Dr. Hughes, quoting from the book “Sahih ul Bukhari” “Ikrimah relates that some apostates were brought to the Khalifa Ali and he burnt them alive; but Ibn Abbas heard of it and said that the Khalifa had not acted rightly, for the prophets had said, “Punish not with God’s punishment (i. e., fire), but whosoever changes his religion, kill him with the sword.”

VII. Kamil’s own father once wrote him virtually threatening to kill him as an apostate.

In these days the sword is not generally used to dispose of apostates from the faith. Strychnine or corrosive sublimate are more convenient, and less apt to awaken public notice, especially where an autopsy would not be allowed.

It may be that Kamil’s father used the language simply for intimidation, for I can hardly believe him to be so utterly devoid of natural affection; but religious fanaticism, whether originating in Arabia or in Rome, seems to override all laws of human affection or tenderness.

The Lord himself, the chief Shepherd, knows whether his loving child Kamil is worthy of a martyr’s crown. We know that he was faithful unto death. He fought the good fight, he kept the faith, he finished his course. His life has proved that the purest and most unsullied flowers of grace in character may grow even in the atmosphere of unchristian social life. It mattered not to him who buried him or where he was buried. He was safe beyond the reach of persecution and harm.

I have rarely met a more pure and thoroughly sincere character, sine cera. From the beginning of our acquaintance in “our flowery bright Beirut,” to his last days on the banks of the Tigris, he was a model of a humble, cheerful, courteous, Christian gentleman.

Kamil’s history is a rebuke to our unbelief in God’s willingness and power to lead Mohammedans into a hearty acceptance of Christ and his atoning sacrifice.

We are apt to be discouraged by the closely riveted and intense intellectual aversion of these millions of Moslems to the doctrines of the Trinity and of the divinity of Jesus Christ. But Kamil’s intellectual difficulties about the Trinity vanished when he felt the need of a divine Saviour. He seemed taught by the Spirit of God from the first. He exclaimed frequently at the wonderful scheme of redemption through the atoning work of Christ.

“El fida, el fida,” “redemption” he once said to me, “redemption, how wonderful! I now see how God can be just and justify the sinner. We have nothing of this in Islam. We talk of God’s mercy, but we can not see how his justice is to be satisfied.” What the Mohammedan needs above all things is a sense of sin, of personal sin, and of his need of a Saviour. (Henry H. Jessup, The Setting of the Crescent the Rising of the Sun: or, Kamil Abdul Messiah, pp. 137-144. Philadelphia: Westminster Press,1898.)

Kamil’s story is being put back into print by Pioneer Library. Click here to see the new edition.

Why Jesus Healed

Leave a reply

Surely, no one who honours the Saviour will for a moment imagine him, as he entered the chamber where the woman lay tormented, saying to himself, “Here is an opportunity of showing how mighty my Father is!” No. There was suffering; here was healing. What I could imagine him saying to himself would be, “Here I can help! Here my Father will let me put forth my healing, and give her back to her people.” What should we think of a rich man, who, suddenly brought into contact with the starving upon his own estate, should think within himself, “Here is a chance for me! Now I can let them see how rich I am!” and so plunge his hands in his pockets and lay gold upon the bare table? The receivers might well be grateful; but the arm of the poor neighbour put under the head of the dying man, would gather a deeper gratitude, a return of tenderer love. It is heart alone that can satisfy heart. It is the love of God alone that can gather to itself the love of his children.

Source: George MacDonald, “The Cure of Simon’s Wife’s Mother”, Sermon III in The Miracles of Our Lord., 1870.