Author Archives: Clarke Morledge

About Clarke Morledge

Unknown's avatar
Clarke Morledge -- Computer Network Engineer, College of William and Mary... I hiked the Mount of the Holy Cross, one of the famous Colorado Fourteeners, with some friends in July, 2012. My buddy, Mike Scott, snapped this photo of me on the summit.

The Trial of Anne Hutchinson

Anne Hutchinson was a Puritan. She and her husband, William, left England in the 1630s, to follow their pastor, John Cotton, to New England, to help establish what Governor John Winthrop called “a city upon a hill.”

The visionaries of the Massachusetts Bay Colony were hoping to build a Christian community, an embodiment of the true church, that would call the Church of England, back in their homeland, to return to the pattern as revealed and described in the pages of the New Testament. New England would become a beacon of light, living out a biblically grounded establishment of Christendom, that all the world could see. Through the combined efforts of both church and state, God would be glorified, as his people sought to be obedient. But by admitting Anne Hutchinson into their midst, the Puritan fathers of New England faced a severe challenge, more than what they bargained for.

Anne Hutchinson on Trial

Mrs. Hutchinson, a midwife, who herself bore 15 children, became well-known in the Massachusetts Puritan community, offering assistance particularly with her skills in handling pregnancy and parenting. But she became dismayed by some of the preaching in the Boston churches.

Anne Hutchinson formed a meeting in her home, designed to help other women in the colony process what was preached about the previous Sunday. Her command of Scripture was impressive, as she had vigorously studied and memorized Scripture, since she was a young girl. Her father, yet another Puritan clergyman back in England, had been put on trial for heresy, for criticizing his Anglican superiors, for their overly Roman Catholic-like, traditionalist errors. Anne Hutchinson shared her father’s disdain for the lax practices of the Church of England, and sought to ground her theology with  a comprehensive knowledge of the Bible.

Word soon got out that Anne Hutchinson disproved of what she thought was a covenant of works, being taught by some of Boston’s preachers. Like most Puritans, Anne Hutchinson believed that Adam was under a covenant of works, whereby Adam was required to satisfy the demands of divine law and human order. But she also believed that after Adam’s sin, a new covenant of grace was promised by God, and given to humans by faith, through the finished work of Jesus Christ’s death on the Cross.

According to Ephesians 2:8-10, the works performed by a Christian were to be considered as a fruit, or byproduct, of God’s free act of grace, given to the believer. But whereas most Puritan preachers insisted that such works were merely a means of giving evidence of God’s grace at work, of giving assurance that one is indeed a member of God’s elect, Anne Hutchinson was not convinced that Boston’s preachers understood this correctly. The colony’s rules, enforced by the magistrate of the state, requiring everyone to attend church every week, only reinforced her view that Massachusetts had fallen into legalism. She was convinced that Boston’s preaching establishment had lapsed back into Roman Catholic-like thinking, sneaking human works back in, as a condition of one’s salvation.

Curious men began to appear at the Bible studies in Anne Hutchinson’s home, and the civil authorities became alarmed by the dissension caused by her teachings. Her sharpest critics accused her of “antinomianism,” of teaching against God’s purpose for the law and morality. Charges were drafted by Governor John Winthrop and other governing authorities, and Mrs. Hutchinson was brought up for trial.

When challenged by her accusers, Anne Hutchinson responded back, inquiring why the biblical model for dealing with such cases, according to Matthew 18:15-18, had not been followed. Why had she not been confronted in private, before being brought before a public trial?

When charged with violating 1 Timothy 2:12, that a woman was forbidden from teaching or exercising authority over a man, and thus requiring that woman to remain quiet, Anne Hutchinson shot back by quoting from Titus 2:3-5, that the older women were encouraged by Paul to teach the younger women. Her meetings were designed for women, and not for men. The men that came to Anne Hutchinson’s meetings came of their own free will, and not by any encouragement made by her.

The Puritan fathers of Massachusetts had met their match in Anne Hutchinson, and the authorities feared a breakdown in church conformity, perceiving a threat to the unity of the colony. But when pressed further by the authorities, as to why she felt she was confident that her understanding was correct, as opposed to the majority of Boston’s ministers, Anne Hutchinson stepped on a theological landmine.

She replied with a question to her accusers: “How did Abraham know that it was God that bid him offer his son, being a breach of the Sixth Commandment?” When her interlocutors answered by admitting that Abraham had heard “an immediate voice,” she too claimed that God had given her “an immediate revelation.”

A direct revelation from God? Was this what Anne Hutchinson was claiming? Did this not go beyond the authority of Sacred Scripture? Would this not threaten to undo the social cohesion of the “city upon a hill?”

Anne Hutchinson was now trapped, by her own theological rigor. Even John Cotton, her beloved pastor, whom she adored, and followed to New England, turned against her. She was forced to recant and repent of her theological errors. But the Massachusetts authorities were not convinced that Anne Hutchinson had truly repented, believing that she was lying. As a result, Anne Hutchinson was banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

Anne Hutchinson and her husband were forced to flee from Boston. After a stay for several years in Rhode Island, her husband died. The remaining Hutchinson family then settled in New York. A few years later, a wave of anti-colonist fervor arose from among nearby Native Americans. Anne Hutchinson pledged to put her trust in God, and refused to leave. Tragically, a massacre by these Indians led to her death. Five of her children were scalped to death, along with Anne Hutchinson. Then her home was burned down. Back in Boston, critics of Anne Hutchinson looked upon her death, and the others in her family, as a sign of judgment by God, against her heretical opinions.

Though often thought of today in secular history as a prototypical “feminist,” and even a type of free-thinker, Anne Hutchinson was far from being an egalitarian of any sort, and surely not a radical. She firmly remained committed to affirming the principle of men, and men only, serving in the position of being elders and/or overseers in the local church. But such spiritual authority would only be respected if such leaders were truly submitted to the teachings of God’s Word.

Though much of the 17th century’s, Puritan theological context remains unfamiliar to many Christians now, it might be fair to say that Anne Hutchinson’s theology aligns well with the contemporary “Free Grace Movement,” that rejects the so-called concept of “Lordship Salvation.” Advocates of “Lordship Salvation” contend that you can not accept Jesus as your Savior, without also accepting Jesus as your Lord. In other words, you either accept Jesus as both Lord and Savior, or you have failed to accept the true Gospel. Reminiscent of Anne Hutchinson, advocates of “Free Grace” today believe that “Lordship Salvation” is somehow smuggling a salvation by works theology into salvation. However, “Lordship Salvation” critics of the “Free Grace Movement” maintain that this approach diminishes the Gospel, by failing to call others to repentance from their sins.

So, did Anne Hutchinson truly fall within this theological error? No matter how one answers this question, the testimony of history shows that such theological disputes can be very difficult to resolve amicably, when the interests of the church become deeply intertwined with the interests of the state.

This blog post was inspired by reading John M. Barry’s, Roger Williams and the Creation of the American Soul, chapter 21 (p. 243ff), where Barry discusses the story of Anne Hutchinson, a key figure during the early American Puritan era.

 

 


Tenacity: John C. Whitcomb

John C. Whitcomb Jr., one of the early pioneers of the contemporary Young Earth Creationist movement, died on February 4th.

John C. Whitcomb, Jr. 1924-2020

In 1961, John Whitcomb teamed up with a hydraulic engineer, Henry M. Morris, to write The Genesis Flood, the foundational book that launched today’s Young Earth Creationist movement. Whitcomb was a theologian at Grace Theological Seminary, and he sought out Morris, who was then the chair of the civil engineering program, at Virginia Tech, in Blacksburg, Virginia. Combining Whitcomb’s knowledge of the Bible and Morris’ knowledge of science, the two collaborated in articulating the now, well-known thesis, that a global flood, as described by a traditional interpretation of the Book of Genesis, could sufficiently explain the existence of the fossil record, in an attempt to show that science could be synchronized with a traditional understanding of the Bible.

Other leading evangelical thinkers, such as Edward John Carnell, the president of Fuller Theological Seminary, were determined to persuade Whitcomb and Morris, that their project was ill-advised, and at one point, the preferred publisher, Moody Press, refused to publish the book. But Whitcomb and Morris persisted with tenacity, and so the idea that the earth was only 6,000 years old, and not 4.34 billion years old, as maintained by the scientific consensus, took off in the imagination of thousands of Bible believing Christians.

In subsequent years, organizations such as Ken Ham’s Answers In Genesis would expand on the themes articulated by the Whitcomb/Morris “flood geology” thesis, proposing that dinosaurs lived together with humans, in recent earth history, before the great flood. Such ideas have stood to be contrary to the reigning contemporary scientific consensus, that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, long before the appearance of humans on planet earth.

Despite the fact that The Genesis Flood has had virtually no impact on the modern scientific enterprise, as taught by a plethora of public schools, universities, and Smithsonian museums, Whitcomb and Morris’ thesis has continued to generate controversy in evangelical churches across America. Dr. Whitcomb was also known for his defense of a classic 6th century B.C.E. date and traditional authorship of the Book of Daniel.

The Genesis Flood. The 1961 classic text that upset well over a century of sophisticated evangelical views supporting “millions of years” of earth’s history in favor of a radical concept of “flood geology,” in attempt to bring back an appeal to a literal, 24-hour day view of a Young Earth Creation.

I first made an attempt to read The Genesis Flood during my years as a mathematics major in college, while studying other scientific disciplines as electives. While I was attracted to Whitcomb’s appeal to the Bible’s authority, I remained unconvinced by his thesis. It was not until 20 years later that I actually began a written correspondence with Dr. Whitcomb. In his letters, between the two of us, over several months, I was impressed by his earnest appeal, and even more impressed by his gentle piety, in commending his ideas towards me. In particular, Dr. Whitcomb was clearly tenacious in holding his interpretation of the Bible, despite my attempts to encourage him to consider other alternatives.

“Agreeing to disagree,” on non-essential matters of the Christian faith, can lead to having some difficult conversations. But in my interactions with Dr. Whitcomb, I came to treasure his candor and gentle demeanor when engaging in controversial subjects. God used that time of correspondence with Dr. Whitcomb in my life, to help me to have a greater love for others, and encourage an interest in building bridges with other believers, even when agreement in sensitive matters, is not always easy to be had.

While I am open to the possibility of Dr. Whitcomb’s thesis, I am still not convinced that his understanding of Scripture, nor his understanding of the science, is correct. Nevertheless, I consider Dr. Whitcomb as a dear brother in the Lord, who genuinely desired that others may come to know and love the Creator of the universe, and so I grieve his death, yet knowing that he is surely with the Lord Jesus now. One day, I hope to be able to have a conversation with Dr. Whitcomb, where we will both surely learn the exact extent of what the flood really was, and exactly how old the earth really is.

The Baptist Bulletin has published a generous remembrance of Dr. Whitcomb’s life. Ken Ham, at Answers In Genesis, also wrote a remembrance of Dr. Whitcomb.


How Does Divine Foreknowledge Precede Predestination?

Predestination. This is one of those really thorny topics that can send any small group Bible study into a spiraling, out-of-control tailspin.

Many people reject the concept of predestination completely out-of-hand, but this is difficult to do, as there are direct statements in the Bible that affirm the principle. Romans 8:28-30 is a classic text:

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” (ESV)

On the positive side, the idea of predestination, for believers in Christ, tells us that God has the deck stacked in our favor, so to speak. As we are unable to save ourselves, God steps in to make sure that we finish the race, that God has set before us, so that we might live forever, with Him.

But some are concerned that if God predestines some to salvation, what becomes of everyone else? Nowhere in the Bible is the concept of predestination ever used to describe the eternal destiny of those who are separated from God. Yet some are concerned that a number of Christians believe in a so-called doctrine of double predestination, whereby some are elected to glory, and the others are elected to be damned into hell forever. For many, this does not seem fair.

What is a Christian, who believes in the authority of Scripture, to think?

First, and foremost, one must recognize that various Christians, in good faith, differ on this point of doctrine. A measure of humility is required when discussing predestination.

Secondly, the key to understanding predestination comes from understanding what is means to say that God foreknows those whom he predestines, when it comes to interpreting Romans 8:28-30. One school of thought, championed by many Calvinists, suggests that to foreknow means to know someone out of love. We see this sense of “foreknowing” in Romans 11:2, as in “God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew.” (ESV). God’s divine foreknowledge is therefore the first part of a “Golden Chain of Redemption,” as the New England Puritans would say, that leads to predestination, and ultimately towards glorification.

Another predominate school of thought, championed by a number of Arminians, suggests that divine foreknowledge is not so much about knowing someone personally, but more in the sense of knowing what someone will do in the future. In other words, God foreknows what a person will do, and therefore, on that basis, God then predestines that person towards their eternal destiny.

There are other possibilities of understanding divine foreknowledge, but the main point here is that Christians have been divided over the question of predestination for centuries. Churches have split over these things. Whole denominations have been founded championing one idea over and against another. I am under no illusion that this current blog post will decide the matter, once and for all.

Might it not be a good idea for Christians, with different views, to be able to sit down together, and share their different viewpoints, with an attitude of love and respect, in hopes of possibly learning something new from the other?

A third point is in order. It might help to actually spend some time, digging into God’s Word, verse-by-verse, to get at the answer, praying all the while that the Holy Spirit might teach us.

The following are two videos, roughly 11-12 minutes each that explore the interpretation of Romans 8:28-30 in detail, from different viewpoints, in hopes of helping us all to learn more about what God is saying in His Word. The first is by John Piper, a well-known Calvinist Bible teacher. The second is by Leighton Flowers, an Arminian Bible teacher. I hope you might find these videos edifying:

 

 

 


Sarah Osborn’s World #2

In this second blog post reviewing Catherine A. Brekus study of the life and writings of Sarah Osborn, an early American who experienced the revivals of the 18th century Great Awakening, we dig a little more deeply into the life of this remarkable woman. Sarah Osborn tells us not just about herself, in the 18th century, but she also shows us a lot about what it means to be a Christian in America in the 21st century.

Sarah Osborn grew up exposed to Christian teaching, but she admitted that a rebellious attitude sought to dull her spiritual sensitivities. At times, Sarah would have experiences that would lead her to seriously consider growing in her faith, but these moments were often followed by extended times where her thoughts were redirected elsewhere. She enjoyed frivolous activities with friends, such as “card playing” and “dancing,” but these were often frowned upon by Puritan preaching. Nevertheless, her personal struggles also brought back times of sobriety where she was able to reconsider what it meant to have faith in God. Continue reading


Pocahontas and the English Boys: A Brief Review

In early 17th century Jamestown, both the English and Native Americans used children to try to improve inter-cultural relations between the two groups. Young people were able to pick up new languages more quickly than adults, and such young people proved to be a useful means of acquiring information about the other side. But often, they had divided loyalties, which could put them in difficult situations.

In Pocahontas and the English Boys: Caught between Cultures in Early Virginia, Historian Karen Ordahl Kupperman tells the story of four such young people, three of them English boys who lived among the Native Americans, and Pocahontas, the prized daughter of Powhatan, who became fascinated with the English, and lived among them.

Portrait of Pocahontas by Simon van de Passe, in 1616, when she made her journey to England. This was within about a year, prior to her death.

Continue reading