John Newton and “Christian” Slave-Traders

Mike Leake

imagesYesterday, we looked at the slow-movement of John Newton from slave-trader to anti-slavery to abolitionist. It would certainly make me more comfortable to believe that once Newton became a believer that he immediately moved towards a position of abominating a practice so obviously erroneous as man-stealing. But he didn’t.

I would also note that I’m not incredibly comfortable with how long it has taken me to reject certain falsehoods or to embrace particular glories. Sanctification seems to always be a bit slower than we would prefer. But this slowness (or even at times absence) of sanctification in some areas causes us no little consternation when assessing our heroes (or villains) of the past.

Could a Christian be a slave-trader or a slave-holder?

That is a pressing question in our day as we look back upon the racism of our not so distant past. It has implications for our handling of monuments, naming of buildings, and a host of other issues. Today I want to engage this question through the lens of John Newton. How would he answer this question?

You will note that this question is not whether or not slave-trading (or holding) is consistent with Christian redemption? This question is really asking whether or not one professing belief in Jesus can hold a theological position or engage in activity which is inconsistent with Christian redemption.

I should also say from the very beginning that I doubt Newton would even answer a question framed this way. He’d likely say, “Let’s let the Lord decide”. He would probably prefer a question like, “What do we say of a person professing Jesus but living or believing in a way contrary to the faith?”

The Role of the Conscience

To such a question I believe that Newton would ask, “does he know that it’s wrong?” The conscience played a mighty role in the way Newton thought about the Christian life and making decisions. He believed that “Christ alone is the Lord of the conscience” (Vol. 6, 229) and that Christianity erred greatly when “by a fierce and rancorous superstition” the Church began to tyrannize “over the conscience, liberties, and the lives of men.” As Newton would write to a friend: 

The experience of past years has taught me to distinguish between ignorance and disobedience. The Lord is gracious to the weakness of his people; many involuntary mistakes will not interrupt their communion with him; he pities their infirmity, and teaches them to do better. But if they dispute his known will, and act against the dictates of conscience, they will surely suffer for it. This will weaken their hands, and bring distress into their hearts. Wilful sin sadly perplexes and retards our progress. May the Lord keep us from it! It raises a dark cloud, and hides the Sun of Righteousness from our view; and till he is pleased freely to shine forth again, we can do nothing; and for this perhaps he will make us wait, and cry out often, “How long, O Lord! how long?” (Vol. 1, p. 316).

There is a difference between disputing the Lord’s known will and between ignorantly living in sin. Even though I believe his assessment was not wholly accurate this is why he was able to say in 1794 that the slave-trade was not a national sin. He believed they were living in ignorance. But by 1797 he was convinced that they were willfully going against their conscience. 

Back to our question of slave-trading or slave-holding. This is why I believe Newton’s first question would be, “does he know that it’s wrong”? What foundation is this person reasoning from?

It is different for a person to say, “I know that the Bible teaches that this is wrong but I’m going to do it anyway,” and saying, “I do not believe the Bible teaches this is wrong”. The action itself may still be sin but one man is going against the “light of his conscience” and the other is not. There is a bit of a difference in how you engage such a person as well as how you assess the situation.

For both people, Newton would proceed to share the truth as he understood it in Jesus. But would ultimately leave that person up to the Lord’s care. He was very careful not to force notions into people’s hearts because, “notions resting in the head will only feed the flesh” (From Manna Horded).

What if they never repent?

What happens, though, if you continue to share the truth of Jesus with someone and they never come around to your understanding of the Bible? Or worse, what if they continue in something such as an abominable slave-trade. Should we then label them as unbelievers?

Newton was very skeptical of drawing lines. He was far more comfortable leaving folks to the Lord to decide. But it is interesting how he was able to move from not calling it a national sin in 1794 to then saying “I fear this is a national sin” in 1797.

Newton had far more patience and grace than most people. It is shocking to me that even in 1794 he could still think that people were mostly motivated by ignorance. That was six years after his Thoughts on the Slave Trade and the repeated efforts of William Wilberforce. I believe Newton had many conversations and this topic was on the forefront of discussion for those many years. Eventually Newton was able to come to the conclusion that people understood they just did not care. Here his view of the role of conscience would also come into play.

Preachers were adamant about preaching to the conscience in this period. They believed that this was a means that God used to convert sinners. But they also believed that repeatedly going against your conscience would leave you in a dire state. This is why as he pleaded with his adopted daughter to come to Christ he would encourage her to “attend to his voice in your conscience”. (Vol. 6, 322) He knew that to go against this light would cause her heart to become seared. And it was this that he eventually believed was happening all across England. Because their sin was now willful he would begin calling people to repentance on this matter.

Conclusion:

Let’s circle back to around to our central question. Can one professing faith in Jesus hold a theological position or engage in activity which is inconsistent with Christian redemption? I believe Newton would say, “absolutely!” Christians often hold theological positions and engage in activity inconsistent with redemption.

But the answer takes a darker turn when we ask whether or not a Christian can knowingly and willfully hold positions and engage in activity they know are inconsistent with redemption. Newton would have far more concern with the latter over the former. And I believe we should as well.

I realize this does not specifically answer the question of what to do with someone like Jonathan Edwards or George Whitefield. But I believe it adds a layer to the questions that we need to ask when assessing. And that added layer, I believe, will help us to view our own position with a bit less certainty. And maybe this way of thinking can also help us give more grace to those who are engaging in present sin or error.

—

I would also suggest reading this piece by Marty Duren

What Took John Newton So Long To Denounce the Slave-Trade?

Mike Leake

johnnewton-620x330John Newton, an atheist and the captain of a slave-ship, is caught in a violent storm. He cries out to God for rescue. The ship is delivered and so is a young John Newton. Upon hitting the shores of England, Newton gives up his career as a slave-trader and becomes a preacher—laboring not only to proclaim the gospel but also the abominable slave-trade in which he was involved. Oh, and somewhere in there he also wrote a song called Amazing Grace about the whole thing.

I think that’s how most people imagine the life of John Newton. But it was far from this. The storm on The Greyhound was in 1748. His slave-trading days didn’t end until 1754. His “conversion” helped him to be nicer to the slaves but he did not consider it to be an abominable practice. Newton, in his Authentic Narrative, doesn’t even list his participation in the slave trade on his list of grievous sins. As Hindmarsh notes, “participation in the cruelty of the slave trade did not yet seem even to trouble his conscience”. (58)

It was not until 1788 that Newton wrote out his Thoughts on the African Slave Trade. Some historians will unfairly place this as the first time he spoke out against the slave trade. While this might be true of his public stance he was heavily involved in the efforts of both William Wilberforce and Hannah More. But Newton was certainly not nearly as vocal about ending the Slave Trade as he was after 1788. That’s some forty years after his conversion experience.

What do we do with this historically? How can someone be convinced of an evangelical gospel and be completely blind to something such as slavery for forty years? How could he stay silent? How could it have been such a minor note in his narrative up until 1788?

A Few Proposals

One point to consider is that even though Newton considers 1748 the time of his conversion it would be another six years before he was influenced by evangelicals. His conversion at this point was mostly a change of morality, but he considered his conscience to still be stricken for quite a few years after his Greyhound experience.

Secondly, there was a vast difference between anti-slavery sentiment and abolitionist sentiments. Many in England thought that slavery was an ugly necessity. Many thought that abolition would have jolted the economy and the nation in such a way that it would have done more harm than good. The move from a slave captain, to an anti-slaver, to an abolitionist was a bit slow with Newton. A few dots had to be connected in his mind and heart.

Assessments such as that of Vivian Yenika-Agbaw are not as charitable to the actual persons involved:

“even in his plea for abolition of slave trade, he still placed a higher value on European lives, the perpetrators of the trade. It is only after he had made a case for their lives that he later described the condition of the slaves. This White supremacist legacy continues to affect race relationships even in contemporary times.”

It is correct that Newton’s Thoughts on the African Slave Trade began with the harm such a practice had upon the English people themselves. But this hardly makes Newton a white-supremacist. It makes him a faithful orator. He was appealing to the common humanity and showing how this was inconsistent with something as abominable as the slave-trade. Newton himself knew the arguments that it would take for one to move from being a slaver to a passive observer and then to take the appropriate step of being actively opposed—to become an abolitionist. So he appealed to their own self-interest first (reminded them of their humanity) and then moved to express the horrors of the treatment of Africans. If one reads the entire document you see that Newton labors to humanize the slaves. In fact he even goes so far as to suggest that their morals might even be superior to those who are slave-traders.

Why Did It Take So Long?

Newton himself said that his Thoughts were too late. He wished his eyes would have been opened and that he would have spoken sooner. But I think his journey, and as I’ll show in a moment, his own words help us to assess those who are caught up in these cultural moments and turn blind-eyes to atrocities. How do you categorize? Was John Newton unconverted until he joined the cause of abolition? Answering this question has implications for our day as well. (And I’ll attempt to flesh that out a bit more in the coming days).

For now, I’ll have you notice this. Consider these words from Newton in 1794:

I do not rank [the African slave-trade] among our national sins, because I hope, and believe, a very great majority of the nation earnestly long for its suppression. But, hitherto, petty and partial interests prevail against the voice of justice, humanity, and truth. This enormity, however, is not sufficiently laid to heart. If you are justly shocked by what you hear of the cruelties practised in France, you would, perhaps, be shocked much more, if you could fully conceive of the evils and miseries inseparable from this traffic, which I apprehend, not from hearsay, but from my own observation, are equal in atrocity, and, perhaps, superior in number, in the course of a single year, to any, or all the worst actions which have been known in France since the commencement of their revolution. There is a cry of blood against us; a cry accumulated by the accession of fresh victims, of thousands, of scores of thousands, I had almost said of hundreds of thousands, from year to year. (Works of Newton, Vol 5, p262-263)

Notice here that Newton does not call this a national sin because he believes the people are mostly ignorant and blinded to their sin. Their conscience has not yet been fully pricked. Other narratives are more compelling. “Petty and partial interests” are more prevailing upon their minds than “justice”. They are wrong. They are in error. But he’s not willing at this point to call it a national sin, because he doesn’t belief their actions are willful rebellion.

Now notice what he says in 1797:

Enough of this horrid scene. I fear the African trade is a national sin, for the enormities which accompany it are now generally known; and, though perhaps the greater part of the nation would be pleased if it were suppressed, yet, as it does not immediately affect their own interest, they are passive. (Newton, Vol. 5, p291)

Three years later Newton believed that “the enormities” were now generally known. People saw. People understood. They just did not care. This wasn’t merely ignorance or distraction, it was now willful rebellion. Their consciences had been ignored and then seared.

If we consider Newton’s own journey and his words here I think it can help us navigate some of the sticky questions that come up when assessing both history and current debates.

That’s why tomorrow I’m going to try to answer this question from the thoughts of Newton…

Can someone be a slave-holder and still a Christian?

—

Photo source: here

Why Justice Needs Proverbs

Mike Leake

photo-1603851887849-35b99ea8f7be

Whoever digs a pit will fall into it,
and a stone will come back on him who starts it rolling. –Proverbs 26:27

A couple years ago these verses were shaping and forming things in my heart. This was at the same time when Paige Patterson was being removed from SWBTS. I believed then, as I do now, that his termination was a fulfillment of this proverb. Back then I used that verse and spoke these words, Thoughts on Rolling Stones…:

I believe that during our own Conservative Resurgence we didn’t learn the lesson which Schaeffer learned. And it has cost us. We have seen an increase in polarization and infighting in what was promised to be a time of peace. I’ve observed many stones being rolled up hills in order to crush the opposition. And I guess it was thought that they (we?) were doing the Lord’s work in lugging these boulders up the hill to squash those who opposed things like inerrancy. We dug pits for modernism and postmodernism and liberal agenda. But now the stones are rolling back down the hill and our feet are inching towards the graves we dug.

There is something about human nature that likes to pick up these death-experienced stones and give them a roll ourselves. There are a few things within evangelicalism (things like purity culture) which are now being crushed by the stones they so passionately rolled up the hill. And as my own pain from fundamentalism comes to the fore, I find within my own heart a desire to push those stones up the hill to deliver another crushing blow.

I’ve been thinking a good deal about justice and equity lately. I’ve been encouraged, convicted, and inspired as I’ve read through literature like Diane Langberg’s Redeeming Power. I’ve also been reading a helpful little book to assist me in refining my writing. Yesterday I wrote a bit of a purpose statement: My goal is to employ an authentic hermeneutic, while practicing an authentic life, to cut through Christian façade and give authentic hope in Jesus.

“Cut through Christian façade” is dangerous work. It’s that of stone-rolling and pit digging…if I’m not careful. I’ll find myself dismantling things that shouldn’t be dismantled, I’ll work to deliver crushing blows to things which actually serve to buttress my faith instead of shipwreck it. And if I’m not cautious I’ll live grasp for the same type of self-serving power that I’m hoping to see dismantled.

This is why I’m intentionally tying myself to the Proverbs. You cannot do justice and equity well without the Proverbs, or rather without Wisdom. And there are few better places to be heavily steeped in biblical wisdom than in the Proverbs. Consider Proverbs 2:6-15. Here we see that wisdom will “guard the paths of justice” and it will be through wisdom that we “understand righteousness and justice and equity, every good path.”

Biblical wisdom helps us fight for justice but also tethers us in such a way that rolling stones up hills loses its appeal. For any of those who are passionate about seeing righteousness, justice, and equity lived out, I would strongly encourage a daily walk with the Proverbs.

I read the chapter of Proverbs that corresponds with today’s date. And it never fails that these give wisdom in how to interact and how to fight for biblical justice. Yes, justice needs Proverbs.

—

Photo source: here

Don’t Give Up On Your Bible Study So Quickly

Mike Leake

alex-boyd-sU_SS2BPvNw-unsplash

“Doubt acts as a sparring partner both to truth and error. It keeps faith trim and helps to shed the paunchiness of false ideas. Like a terrier, doubt worries at weak ideas until they escape reinvigorated or collapse exhausted. It is the nature of doubt always to be questioning, challenging, inquiring, cross-examining”. (Guinness, 48)

A relentless terrier. I think that’s a pretty apt description of doubt. Terriers aren’t exactly the breed of dog you’d employ to fend of intruders, but they’ll do the job in sounding the alarm that danger is afoot. Doubt is like that—it’s a horrible thing to use as the sole means of protecting your house, but there is a way in which doubt can actually alert us to false ideas and lead us into a more robust and lively faith.

Yet, I think far too many Christians have opted to just shoot the dog and not deal with the doubt. We’ve been told that to doubt the Scriptures is to launch yourself onto a slippery slope of unbelief. We get afraid when we start to ask questions. We’re afraid that if we put our faith through the fire it might not stand. When we come to a passage of Scripture which unsettles us we rebuke those feelings, try to ignore them, and move on to things which make us feel a bit more certain.

But the terrier still barks.

You can muzzle the terrier, but you’ll remain stuck at that place. You’ll now possess a “faith which was once vital but has become so taken for granted that it is no longer authentic.” Because to keep yourself shielded from the barking dog you have to either ignore places of Scripture, or shelve the entire enterprise. The dog will be silent but your faith will wither into nothingness.

There is another option. Listen to the dog. Truth is never scared of a microscope. If something is true then it’s true down to it’s very core. You don’t have to be afraid to ask difficult questions.

I appreciate this picture given to us by Esau McCaulley:

I propose instead that we adopt the posture of Jacob and refuse to let go of the text until it blesses us. Stated differently, we adopt a hermeneutic of trust in which we are patient with the text in the belief that when interpreted properly it will bring a blessing and not a curse. (McCaulley, 20)

When something in God’s Word unsettles us we should not be quick to leave it for the more comfortable places. Yes, there may be times when we have to table some of our concerns and pick them up at a time when we’re in a healthier place. But we should as McCaulley so aptly put it, “be patient with the text”. God aims to bless us through His Word. We should believe that.

This is why we wrestle with the text. We believe that if keep doing that eventually we’re going to be blessed. That terrier can be our friend. He’s pointing out that something isn’t consistent. It could be that we need to change our worldview and lifestyle. Or it could be that we’re not seeing the Scriptures, or the God of the Scriptures, consistently. And so we wrestle. We plead with God to bless us from His Word—to sort out the questions and help us see Him shine.

When you get unsettled by something you read in your Bible, don’t give up on your Bible reading too quickly. I’d also say that if you’re never uncomfortable with God’s Word, you’ve probably already shot your terrier and are deeply within the process of making a god of your own making.

—

Photo source: here