Ryan Denton

Christian in Name Only: Missing the Heart of True Faith

In John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, we meet a man named “Formalist.” As Bunyan describes elsewhere,

Formalist . . . is a man that has lost all but the shell of religion. He is hot, indeed, for his form; and no marvel, for that is his all to contend for. But his form being without the power and spirit of godliness, it will leave him in his sins; nay, he stands now in them in the sight of God (2 Timothy 3:5), and is one of the many that “will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.” (The Strait Gate, 85)

Bunyan assumes this man is unregenerate, and there is reason enough to think so. Notice: this man is not without some fervency, but the object of his heat is merely forms, traditions, and rituals. He is passionate about the husk or scaffolding of religion, but not about God himself. If one has the correct forms or doctrine, it is enough. If one’s church attendance is consistent, he is good to go. So he thinks.

Formalism in the Old Testament

Formalists believe that a right show of religion merits favor in the eyes of God. They are deceived into thinking that God is impressed with the externals even when there is no heart of worship within — an error that many prophets in the Old Testament denounced. In Hosea, God tells the people, “I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings” (Hosea 6:6). The problem is even more pronounced in Isaiah:

What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices?     says the Lord;I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams     and the fat of well-fed beasts;I do not delight in the blood of bulls,     or of lambs, or of goats.When you come to appear before me,     who has required of you     this trampling of my courts?Bring no more vain offerings;     incense is an abomination to me.New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations —     I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly.Your new moons and your appointed feasts     my soul hates;they have become a burden to me;     I am weary of bearing them. (Isaiah 1:11–17)

Such language may seem severe, and it is. God is speaking to a very formally religious people. They consistently bring their offerings. They appear before God on a regular basis. They observe the Sabbath, convocations, new moons, and feasts. But something has gone terribly wrong. They are doing the right activities, but God is outraged.

Why? Their religion is just a shell. It is what Jesus calls a whitewashed tomb (Matthew 23:27). The outside looks ritzy, but inside are bones and cobwebs. There is no life, no desire for God. They are walking in dead orthodoxy.

Formalism in the New Testament

Formalists worshiped freely in the temple during the days of Christ. The temple was one of the wonders of the world. Its exterior was made of marble and gold. The Middle Eastern sun radiated off its walls, causing it to shine for miles around. At one time, as many as eighty thousand people worked on the temple complex day and night. When complete (after decades of construction), the full grounds spanned the length of about eight football fields. Inside the temple was the treasury, holding the equivalent in our day of more than two billion dollars.

The temple was magnificent. It was flashy. It was religious. Sacrifices were performed around the clock. Josephus estimates that, during Passover week alone, there would be 250,000 lambs sacrificed. It was regularly thronged with pilgrims. It was dotted with priests, scribes, and religious teachers at all hours of the day.

“How often do people go through the motions in their Christian lives, including on Sundays?”

But how did Jesus react to it all? “Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down” (Mark 13:2). In AD 70, this is exactly what happened. The Roman army burned the city to the ground, including the temple, and put an end to the priesthood and sacrifices. It was all gone. Jesus explains that the judgment resulted from this exceedingly religious people rejecting their Messiah. They had a form of godliness, clearly. They burned with zeal concerning the law and its performances. They grew exacting in their rituals. But their religion was dead. It was a shell. So God ended it.

Formalism Today

What of our forms, traditions, and religion today? How often do people go through the motions in their Christian lives, including on Sundays? The practices of the Christian faith are not bad in themselves, of course, but if they do not stir up our affections for Christ, they become not only bad but damnable.

J.C. Ryle described formalism as “when a man is a Christian in name only, and not in reality — in outward things only, and not in his inward feelings — in profession only, and not in practice — when his Christianity, in short, is a mere matter of form, or fashion, or custom, without any influence on his heart or life.”

In The Pilgrim’s Progress, what surprises Christian most about Formalist is not his disdain for the gospel in preference to custom and tradition, but that he refuses to accept Christian’s counsel about his soul. Formalist tells Christian to “look to himself.” Don’t trouble your head about it, he tells him. Like so many, the formalist doesn’t like to be corrected. His doctrine is precise; his church attendance impeccable. Who are you to tell him he doesn’t have the real thing?

I am not encouraging us to call out every person who is not as warm or zealous as they should be. I am encouraging us to examine our own hearts and to consider the counsel we have received regarding our own souls. We pastors might also consider our own churches. Both individuals and churches can both get to a place where — because we have correct doctrine, an order of worship regulated by the Scriptures, God-exalting music, and expository preaching — we think we have everything we need. But without the Spirit of God, the best outward forms are only a husk.

How many churches today are looking to pageantry, liturgy, pragmatism, and other outward forms of religion to juice up their congregations and fill the spiritual void in their worship? Others lean upon traditions and rituals. But it would be better to have a church that sings out of tune from the heart than one that sings in tune for the sake of self-glory. The same is true of sermons or prayers or any other practice in the church. When it comes to the Christian religion, externals are not everything — not even close.

Form and Power

Every Christian experiences drought and deadness from time to time. I’m not speaking of that common grief. Formalism is more deep-seated, more insidious. Are there any readers who go to church, read their Bible, catechize their children, know plenty of doctrine, are exact in their duties, but have never been born again? Some do these activities simply because they were raised to do so, or because they want to stay out of hell.

Do you know your confessions and creeds but refuse to forgive your enemies or spend time in secret prayer? Are you an expert in theology but a stranger to what Paul means when he says, “God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us” (Romans 5:5)? We’re told in Psalm 34:8 to “taste and see that the Lord is good!” Have you tasted this?

The person and work of Jesus is the only way we are made right with God. He is the only road that leads to life. In The Pilgrim’s Progress, before Formalist goes off to his destruction, Christian warns him, “You come in by yourselves, without his direction; and shall go out by yourselves, without his mercy.”

Has Christ shown you what real, living, experiential Christianity is? If not, ask him to take out your stony heart and give you a heart of flesh, one alive and sensitive to the things of God, sin, and your neighbor. He is the one who gives sight to the blind. He is the friend of sinners. He is the one who came to seek and to save those who are lost. Go to him today. Call on him now, without waiting. Jesus says, “If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Luke 11:13). Jesus has been saving formalists for centuries, and for those who turn to him in faith, today is no exception!

9 Helps for a Successful Prayer Meeting

The most important thing is that we are gathering regularly as God’s people to seek His face, ask His blessing, and thank Him for the manifold gifts He has given to us as a church. A right view of God assisted by the Holy Spirit will lead to warm, joyful, and vibrant practice, which includes regular evangelism, a commitment to world and domestic missions, church planting, and vibrant prayer meetings.

As Reformed and Presbyterian Christians, we believe in prayer. We may not be as good at it as we want to be, but every true believer will yearn to spend time with the Lord. This is true of private prayer, but it it’s also true of corporate prayer.
The early church is a good example of this. On the day of Pentecost, we see the church “with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers” (Acts 1:14-15). Later on, we see them praying again, this time in the face of persecution: “And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness” (Acts 4:31). Thus, we are not surprised to find out that corporate prayer was one of the distinctives of the early disciples: “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42).
Although corporate prayer has always been an important element of the church, it is no secret that many of our prayer meetings are boring, dry, and slow. It is also no secret that they are typically very poorly attended. We can’t help the latter, but we can certainly do something about the former. And who knows, maybe implementing a few tips or rules just might help the attendance factor.
Below are nine helps that have guided our prayer meetings for the last several years, with more or less “success.” I use the word success loosely, knowing that ultimately the Holy Spirit must bless our meetings with His presence if we are to truly call it a success. After all, we aren’t just lobbing up words into the void in order to check a box. The purpose of corporate prayer is to meet with God as His people. However, that doesn’t mean we can’t use a little sanctified common sense when approaching such meetings. If you find these helps useful, great. Use them as you wish. If they’re not helpful, that’s okay too. There is no hard and fast rule when it comes to such meetings, so long as we are doing it. But these pointers have come from both experience (good and bad) and my personal study of the subject.
Read More
Related Posts:

Theology Without a Heart: Four Signs of Dead Orthodoxy

In 1959, Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899–1981) preached a series of messages on the topic of revival, including one called “Revival Sermon: Dead Orthodoxy.” In the sermon, Lloyd-Jones argues that “dead orthodoxy” is the greatest threat to revival, to the church at large, and to all individual Christians.

Such an observation merits careful inquiry. What is dead orthodoxy — and how might we discern its presence in our own souls and churches?

Dead Orthodoxy

To help us get at the substance of dead orthodoxy, consider some questions:

What happens when we love the creeds and confessions of the church, but they have failed to make us more like Jesus?
What happens when right doctrine makes us haughty, gruff, impatient, and hard?
What happens when we are experts in theology but perpetual delinquents when it comes to the prayer closet?
What happens when we love doctrines more than the God whom the doctrines are about?

The answer is dead orthodoxy. Dead orthodoxy is a form of godliness, but without the attending power (2 Timothy 3:5). It is a case not of zeal without knowledge, but of knowledge without proper zeal (Romans 10:2). Paul tells Timothy to “avoid such people” (2 Timothy 3:5) — that is how serious dead orthodoxy is.

In one sense, of course, the word orthodoxy presupposes right belief, and right belief assumes warmth and vitality, producing a genuine growth in Christlikeness and love for God and man. As God’s truth works in us, a transformation takes place. This leads to more and more life, not deadness.

And yet, the phrase dead orthodoxy recognizes that it is entirely possible to have correct doctrine without a regenerate heart or a saving trust in the person of Christ. Think of the demons in the Bible. They knew the truth about Jesus and assented to Jesus’s gospel being true. But they refused to trust him. They didn’t love him. The devils believe God is one (James 2:19) — and so do many hypocrites.

Additionally, it is entirely possible to be a genuine Christian but have an inconsistent outworking of that faith in one’s life. This inconsistency can be seen in all of us to a degree. Isn’t all sin inconsistent with faith and the love of God? But sometimes a Christian’s inconsistency becomes so deep and habitual that his faith, though orthodox, looks more dead than alive. He desperately needs reviving.

Four Signs of Dead Orthodoxy

The following four signs of dead orthodoxy are not meant to help us point fingers at others’ deadness in contrast to our own liveliness. To do so would be to fall into the error that some of these signs address.

“What can you do in the boneyard of dead orthodoxy? Call upon God to revive you, to bring you back to life.”

We must first point the finger at ourselves. Where have we exhibited tendencies to deadness — to coldness, to hardness, to formalism, to theological tribalism or elitism? In what areas do we need to seek Christ’s face afresh? Dead orthodoxy certainly describes some churches, denominations, and people, but the seeds of it undoubtedly find a home in our own heart as well. In the words of Nathan the prophet, “You are the man” (2 Samuel 12:7).

Let repentance from dead orthodoxy work tenderness and warmth in our own souls first.

1. Smug Contentment

I believe the truth, I know I believe the truth, and few are as smart as I am about the truth. This smug contentment leads to an attitude that is excessively polemical, where much of my time is spent criticizing theological opponents, especially on minutia and tertiary issues. I begin to nitpick anything or anyone not in line with my views. This smugness also produces tribalism, since only my camp is right, and so I refuse to work or fellowship with other Christians — or if I do, I look down upon them.

2. Dislike of Enthusiasm

This sign appears when the cold, proper, and intellectual is preferred to the fervent, excited, and exuberant. Dry academic lectures become preferable to preaching that is searching, close, or (as the Puritans described it) “painful.” Lloyd-Jones goes so far as to say that “dislike of enthusiasm is to quench the Spirit,” and that “this charge of enthusiasm is the one that has always been brought against people who have been most active in a period of revival” (Revival, 72–73).

Along with this dislike comes an inordinate fear of disorder. Those with this dislike can easily become rigid and inflexible, even in matters not limited by the Scriptures. Because of wild revivalists of the past, too much talk of revival or Spirit-led spontaneity is frowned upon as sheer emotionalism, animal excitement, or mass hysteria. Lloyd-Jones comments, “There are churches that are orthodox, but absolutely dead, because they are so afraid of false excitement, and the excesses of certain spiritual movements, that they quench and hinder the Spirit and deny the true” (78).

3. Pining for Social Acceptance

Someone overly concerned with social acceptance cannot stand to be considered a radical, an enthusiast, a fanatic, or a fundamentalist, and so he becomes overly proper. This concern often focuses on moralism and not rocking the social boat. It is dignified and prim, but it knows little about the cross as “folly to those who are perishing” (1 Corinthians 1:18). Such moved J.C. Ryle to comment,

There is a generation that loathes everything like zeal in religion. There are never wanting men of a cautious, cold-blooded, Erasmus-like temper, who pass through the world doing no good, because they are so dreadfully afraid of doing harm. I do not expect such men to admire Whitefield, or allow he did any good. I fear, if they had lived eighteen hundred years ago, they would have had no sympathy with St. Paul. (A Sketch of the Life and Labors of George Whitefield, 34)

This attitude may even treat evangelism as distasteful because it offends people and causes trouble. Shouldn’t we mind our own business? Shouldn’t we stay quiet about the gospel since it stirs up anger and hostility?

4. Denial of the Miraculous

Some may think, God can still work in history, but let’s not expect anything too extreme. God stopped doing that a long time ago. This attitude is symptomatic of our secular age and society. Christians in the West are in regular danger of acting like deists or mere rationalists. We don’t typically deal with problems of animism and voodoo — we deal with atheism, scientism, Darwinian evolution, and secular humanism. We deal with materialism and the ramifications of Enlightenment thought.

Such views so dominate our society that their influence can find a home in our hearts and in our churches. Syncretism is not just a blending of animistic and pagan religions with Christianity. Syncretism can also blend the Western religions of evolution, humanism, and scientism with the Christian faith. This blending leads to a distrust of the supernatural.

Cure for Dead Orthodoxy

If you see any of these tendencies in yourself, how should you respond? Ultimately, hope is only found outside of ourselves. Only Jesus can rescue us from such peril. We must keep turning back to him, who is the perfect example of right affection, right practice, and right belief fused together.

Perhaps your deadness is so deep that you fear you are not yet alive in Christ. Seek the Lord while he may be found. He can take out your stony heart and give you a heart of flesh, one alive and sensitive to the things of God. He gives sight to the blind. He is the friend of sinners. He came to seek and to save the lost.

Or maybe you have had seasons of sweet communion in the past, but now you feel dry and busy. Your faith has become nominal. Like the church in Sardis, you may have had a reputation of being alive, but now you find yourself dead (Revelation 3:1). Jesus tells this church to “wake up!” (Revelation 3:2). What can you do in the boneyard of dead orthodoxy? Call upon God to revive you, to bring you back to life.

Wherever you are, go to him today. Call on him now, without waiting. Jesus says, “If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Luke 11:13).

Into the Highways and Hedges: A Primer for Open-Air Preaching

A few years ago, I was discussing open-air preaching with a veteran pastor in Missouri. He told me, “Thirty years ago, you’d maybe see five or six open-air preachers in the whole country. Today there are at least twenty in every city.”

The renewed interest in open-air preaching is not just happening in charismatic circles, either. It is taking place in pockets typically considered more reserved and evangelistically challenged. Confessional Presbyterians and Baptists now have men across America and the UK who regularly preach in the open air. Reformation Heritage Books even published a book about Reformed open-air preaching (with a foreword by Joel Beeke).

But questions remain for many: Is it effective in the twenty-first century? Is there biblical warrant for this type of ministry? What should a person do who is interested in open-air preaching? I would like to give some brief answers to these questions.

Open-Air Preaching Today?

When people ask whether open-air preaching is effective in today’s context, I find it helpful to consider what the Bible says about humans. Are people in the twenty-first century really that different from the people in Jeremiah’s or Paul’s day? The Bible answers with a resounding no.

People in ancient times felt the same natural aversion to the gospel as the people in our own day do — hence why Jeremiah was thrown into a well and why Paul was stoned and beaten with rods. Since the fall of Adam, man is born in sin, which means we have a nature hostile to God until we are “born from above” (John 3:3 NET). This is why the Bible says, “No one understands; no one seeks for God” (Romans 3:11). Thus, for man to be saved, God has commissioned us to go and seek them (Matthew 28:18–20).

But what methods do we use to seek such people? Many give their answers: seeker-friendly church services, Easter-egg drops, free lunches, feel-good sermons, car-wash outreaches, and so on. While some of these efforts can bear fruit, Scripture gives us a simpler way: share the gospel with them. Expose them to the message of Christ. “Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Romans 10:17). “How are they to hear without someone preaching?” (Romans 10:14). “The gospel . . . is the power of God for salvation” (Romans 1:16).

Enter open-air preaching. Although many other ways to evangelize exist, open-air preaching is especially useful in the rush of a busy marketplace, on the hustle of a college campus, outside a sporting event, or at a local abortion clinic. Moreover, open-air preaching was a preferred method of Jonah, Jeremiah, the apostle Paul, and many others. They went to the people and preached God’s word. It is really that simple. Even Jesus went into the boat or up on the mountainside to preach the good news. Open-air preaching is a form of evangelism that communicates the gospel to a crowd of people at once.

Preachers Beyond Church Walls

Aside from the many examples we have of open-air preaching in the Bible, church history also lends its testimony. Charles Spurgeon points out, “It would be very easy to prove revivals of religion have usually been accompanied, if not caused, by a considerable amount of preaching out of doors” (Lectures to My Students, 275). Michael Green notes that the first two centuries of the church witnessed a plethora of open-air preaching, including that of Irenaeus and Cyprian at the local marketplaces (Evangelism in the Early Church, 304).

In the Middle Ages, Bernard of Clairvaux, Arnold of Brescia, and even Francis of Assisi were open-air preachers. In the Reformation days, John Wycliffe, John Knox, several English Puritans, William Farel, and others could be seen preaching in the open air. George Whitefield, John Wesley, Charles Spurgeon, Robert Murray M’Cheyne, and John Bunyan also add to the list. In recent decades, Paul Washer, Leonard Ravenhill, and Westminster Theological Seminary professor Cornelius Van Til have regularly preached in the open air.

Through the centuries, God has used open-air preaching to bring the gospel to the lost. When done correctly, such preaching heralds the gospel to all who have ears to hear.

Who Should Street Preach?

Just as preaching the gospel is different from sharing the gospel, so preaching in the open air is different from evangelizing in private. As with church office, there is a public dimension to the work that makes it wise for an open-air preacher to be approved and sent out by his church. This process will look different for each person and church, but open-air preachers do well to be under some kind of accountability and oversight.

At the same time, churches might consider actively examining and preparing men to preach in public. Oftentimes, such a ministry will be new to churches, so the aspiring open-air preacher should exercise patience and understanding when broaching the topic with his leaders. At the same time, church leaders should be willing to evaluate biblical data and church history to see the justification for such a ministry. Ideally, the two sides will work together to decide how to best approach open-air preaching in their context, eagerly training men for it.

Also, since there is a difference between public preaching and privately sharing the gospel, only men are called to preach in the open air (1 Timothy 2:12). Churches would be wise to evaluate such men according to the qualifications of an elder (as laid out in 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and Titus 1:6–9), even if the preacher is not an elder. These passages describe a mature follower of Christ, and the open-air preacher will need such maturity to maintain a good witness when exposed to intense spiritual warfare, obscenities, lewdness, and theological challenges.

Preacher’s Training Ground

Open-air preaching is especially ideal for men who are training for the ministry. Formal preaching opportunities may be difficult to come by, but there is always a nearby college campus, street corner, abortion clinic, or sports event. Open-air preaching will help train the budding minister to crucify his flesh and reason with the lost in his community. It will help him learn to preach extemporaneously. It will remind him of how impossible it is to save people dead in their trespasses and sins. And thus, it will teach him our great need for God to move in the hearts of our hearers.

Assuming you have the backing of your church, the next step is to identify a good place to preach. Then go do it. Bring your Bible, some gospel tracts, and an amplification device (if permitted). As far as what to preach, the answer is the same as in pulpit ministry: text-driven, even expository, and directed toward an evangelistic call to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. It should certainly be Christ-centered.

Before you preach, however, you will want to spend ample time in prayer. We need a demeanor sweetened by the Holy Spirit. The society we live in is hostile to the gospel, so expect rejection and scoffing. Responding to your enemies in a humble, patient manner is critical, and we cannot accomplish this without the softening influence of the Holy Spirit. As with any ministry, you will grow more comfortable with open-air preaching the more you do it. The butterflies will grow more faint. Responding to hecklers will become easier.

What About Fruit?

Will you see conversions? Will you see fruit? Yes and no. Every time you preach the gospel in the open air, you are leading people to Christ; whether God saves them or not is up to him. That said, testimonies abound of people being converted, strengthened, and convicted by open-air preaching. I’ll end with two examples.

In 2021, I was preaching weekly at a college in east Texas. A young man would come out and heckle me every time, shouting blasphemies and causing quite a stir among the student body. After eight straight weeks of this, I noticed the tone of his mocking began to change. His questions were becoming more sincere. Eventually, he came up and asked me for a Bible. Instead of mocking and challenging, he would now quietly listen. By the end of the semester, he had called upon the name of the Lord and was baptized. Recently he married a godly Christian woman and continues to walk with Jesus.

Another time, I received an email from a young man in Glasgow, Scotland. He said I probably would not remember him, but he had been heckling us when we were open-air preaching on Buchanan Street two years prior. He wrote to tell me that what we had been preaching had stuck with him ever since, and he recently started going to church and reading his Bible.

We live in trying times. Spiritually, things can seem bleak, depending on where we are looking. But God still has sheep who will hear his voice and be saved through the preaching of the gospel, including in the open air. Our job is to preach Christ, the name above all names, knowing that God is glorified when we do, regardless of whether we see conversions.

The Arrival of American Presbyterianism: We’ve Been Dating It All Wrong

Presbyterians were founding congregations in the New World as early as the 1630s.  Denton himself had established “a Presbyterian church” in Hempstead, Long Island in 1641 even though he was preaching “to a Presbyterian congregation from the first arrival, in 1630.”

Pre-1700s Presbyterianism in America is shrouded in mystique. Some would say it didn’t exist since, true enough, there was no formal Presbytery established until 1706. Too often it is made to appear that Presbyterianism suddenly dropped into the colonies out of nowhere, starting with Francis Makemie (1658-1708). Books and lectures on the history of American Presbyterianism rarely detail what the landscape was like before the 1700s, while at the same time—sometimes—admitting there was movement and church planting going on. This is a major disservice to the pre-Makemie Presbyterians as well as to those wanting a depiction of early Presbyterianism in America.
To correct this problem it will be helpful to consider the earliest and most active Presbyterian in the New World’s infancy.[1] The Reverend Richard Denton (1603-1662) was a dwarfish, one-eyed Cambridge Puritan whom Cotton Mather boasted “could sway a congregation like he was nine feet tall.”[2] Historian Alfred Nevin says, “In the history of early Presbyterianism in this country the name of Richard Denton should have a permanent and prominent place.”[3] Unfortunately, this has not been so. One would be hard-pressed to find any mention of Denton in the more recent treatments of American Presbyterianism, despite the Presbyterian Church of America claiming he was “the first Presbyterian on this continent,”[4] which is the same conclusion drawn by Nevin.[5] In Denton’s day, he was well-known enough to be included in Cotton Mather’s Magnalia Christi Americana, where he is described as follows:
Among these clouds was our Pious and Learned Mr. Richard Denton, a Yorkshire Man, who having watered Halifax in England, with his fruitful Ministry, was a Tempest then hurried into New-England, where first at Weathersfield, and then at Stamford, his Doctrine dropt as the Rain, his Speech distilled as the Dew, as the small Rain upon the tender Herb, and as the Show’rs upon the Grass.[6]
Earlier in the Magnalia, Mather describes Denton as “a highly religious man with strong Presbyterian beliefs…His well-accomplished mind, in his lesser body, was an Illiad in a nutshell. I think he was blind of an eye, yet he was not the least of the seers of Israel; he saw a very considerable portion of those things which eye hath not seen. He was far from cloudy in his conceptions and principles of divinity.”[7]
Who Was Richard Denton?
Richard Denton was born in England in 1603. Upon graduating from Cambridge in 1623 he ministered at Coley Chapel, near Coley Hall, in a small town north of Manchester.[8] “Here he remained seven years, when, finding the times hard, the bishops at their height, and the Book of Sports on the Sabbath-day insupportable, he immigrated with a numerous family to New England.”[9] The Memoirs of the Rev. Oliver Heywood provide us with a fuller description of Denton’s decision to leave England for the New World:
He was a good minister of Jesus Christ, affluent in his worldly circumstances, and had several children. He continued here about seven years; times were sharp, the bishops being in their height. In his time came out the book for sports on the Sabbath days. He saw he could not do what was required, feared further persecution, and therefore took the opportunity of going into New England.[10]
Even though “the chapel at Coley was enlarged” under Denton, the vexations of impure worship finally drove him off the continent.
Presbyterians were founding congregations in the New World as early as the 1630s.[11] Denton himself had established “a Presbyterian church” in Hempstead, Long Island in 1641 even though he was preaching “to a Presbyterian congregation from the first arrival, in 1630.”[12] He is also found preaching “from time to time to a small group of Puritans” in New York City.[13] Once upon American soil, Denton proved not everyone’s cup of tea (pun intended). The “strong Presbyterian beliefs” spoken of by Mather seem to have riled the Independents and Anglicans on more than one occasion. After migrating to the New World with John Winthrop and Sir Richard Saltonstall, Denton had tried to settle down in Watertown, Massachusetts: “but the firmness of his convictions—his Presbyterian opposition to the oligarchic rule of the New England Divines—again led him to depart to Hempstead.”[14]
Dutch ministers John Megapolensis and Drisnis mentioned in a letter to the Classis of Amsterdam, dated August 5, 1657, that “when he began to baptize the children of parents who are not members of the church, they rushed out of the church.”[15] Ten years prior, while at Hempstead, a conflict over Presbyterian polity “caused some twenty-five families, led by Mr. Denton, to make another move.”[16] They didn’t travel far, however, stopping within the Colony of New Haven in a place called Stamford. In Stamford, “He followed Presbyterian forms, but not without protests.”[17] Among other things, “Mr. Denton’s uncompromising democracy, or Presbyterianism, came in conflict with the New Haven rules that none but church members should vote in town meetings.”[18]
That Denton was Presbyterian is hardly debatable. In the same 1657 letter to the Classis of Amsterdam mentioned above, it is stated that “at Hempstead, about seven Dutch miles from here, there are some Independents; also many of our persuasion and Presbyterians. They have also a Presbyterian preacher, named Richard Denton, an honest, pious and learned man.”[19] The History and Vital Records of Christ’s First Presbyterian Church of Hempstead, Long Island, New York tells us “Denton had been educated in Cambridge University, where the principles of Presbyterianism had been instilled into his mind firmly and aggressively.”[20] We saw above that Mather painted him as “a highly religious man with strong Presbyterian beliefs.” In Long Island, Denton went to work building up both the colony and congregation of Hempstead. Nevin states a whole colony of Presbyterians came with him from “the old country, and followed him till their final settlement on Long Island.”[21]
Nevin reports there was an entire “Presbyterian tree planted by the hand of Richard Denton”[22] in Long Island, going so far as to call Long Island “a Presbyterian colony” under Denton’s leadership, a fact also preserved by colonial records.[23] Two of Denton’s sons, Nathanael and Daniel, “with a number of their Presbyterian brethren,” not only formed a colony in the village of Jamaica in 1656 but “as might be expected, they immediately established religious worship.”[24] A memorial of the inhabitants of Jamaica, signed by Nathanael Denton, states: “This town of Jamaica, in the year 1656, was purchased from the Indian natives by divers persons, Protestants, dissenters, in the manner of worship, from the forms used in the Church of England, who have called a minister of our own profession to officiate among them.”[25] Thus religious services were taking place since at least 1656, but more importantly for the history of American Presbyterianism, it can be demonstrated these religious services were Presbyterian. On March 24, 1663, Rev. Zachariah Walker was assigned to the parsonage built the year before, and
from this date to the present day there is a clear record of every minister who has served the church, together with the time of their service. George McNish, the eighth pastor, was one of the original members of the Mother Presbytery of Philadelphia. That this church has always been a Presbyterian church there seems no room for doubt. It is so denominated in all the records where it is named. It has had a bunch of ruling elders from time immemorial.
Historian Leonard J. Trinterud states that although the Presbyterian beginnings under Richard Denton “failed to develop into churches of Presbyterian order, the Hempstead church did contribute to the founding, at Jamaica, Long Island, of what was probably the first permanent Presbyterian church in the new world.”[26]
The latest major book written on American Presbyterianism confirms that “an organized Presbyterian congregation was established on Long Island by 1662 (Jamaica Church), and there were other Presbyterians throughout New York.”[27] The governor of New York reported in 1678 that of all the religious groups on the Island, “Presbyterians and Independents [are] most numerous and substantiall.” On November 25th, 1700, John Hobbert was “ordained according to ye Rule & way of the Presbyterian way, & it is the unanimous mind of the towne that he be ordained accordingly.” In 1702 there were more than a hundred families at the church. It was “the mother church of other churches in the vicinity” and contributed families to the First Presbyterian Church in New York City and Hopewell, New Jersey. Thus, Nevin concludes that “Richard Denton was one of the very first Presbyterian ministers in the country, and the Church of Jamaica, Queen’s County, New York, is the oldest existent Presbyterian Church in the United States.”[28] Such historical records leave no doubt regarding the prowess of Presbyterianism in pre-1706 America, and specifically as it flourished through the labors of Richard Denton.
Denton’s Death and Legacy
Another letter from the Rev.’s John Megapolensis and Drisnis dated October 22, 1657 claims, “Mr. Richard Denton, who is sound in faith, of a friendly disposition, and beloved by all, cannot be induced by us to remain, although we have earnestly tried to do this in various ways.” They mention Denton going to Virginia “to seek a situation, complaining of salary, and that he was getting in debt,” but he had since returned. Eventually Denton would return to England “because of his wife who is sickly will not go without him, and there is need of their going there on account of a legacy of four hundred pounds sterling lately left by a deceased friend.”
Denton arrived back in England in 1659, although he left behind a quiver of children who would in turn have big families. “The men were active in the local militias fighting the Indians and they developed excellent military experience that prepared them for officer commissions when they moved to the Virginia frontier.”[29] Upon his death in 1660, Denton’s tombstone in Yorkshire would bear the following inscription: “Here lies the dust of Richard Denton. O’er his low peaceful grave bends the perennial cypress, fit emblem of his unfading flame. On earth his bright example, religious light, shown forth o’er multitudes. In heaven his pure rob’d spirit shines like an effulgent flame.”
Denton’s unyielding stance for Presbyterian polity and his unswerving zeal to see it implemented in the New World calls for a reiteration of our initial point: the history of the Presbyterian church in America begins in the wilderness of the 1630s, not Philadelphia in 1706. For those who would dissent, the following must be weighed: without the pioneering efforts of early Presbyterian ministers like Denton, would there have been a presbytery in 1706? The data above has given us the answer.
Ryan Denton is the Pastor of Lubbock Reformed Church in Lubbock, TX.

[1] Walter C. Krumm, “Who Was the Reverend Richard Denton,” New York Genealogical and Biological Record, Vol. 117 (New York, NY: New York and Geneological and Biographical Society, 1986), 163-166.
[2] Cotton Mather, Magnalia Christi Americana : or, The ecclesiastical history of New-England, from its first planting in the year 1620. unto the year of Our Lord, 1698. In seven books … by Mather, Cotton. 1663-1728, Vol. 1 (Hartford, 1853), 398.
[3] Nevin, Encyclopedia of the Presbyterian church in the United States of America: including the Northern and Southern Assemblies (Philadelphia: Presbyterian encyclopedia publishing co., 1884), 182.
[4] Krumm, “Who Was the Reverend Richard Denton?”, 163-166.
[5] Nevin, Encyclopedia of the Presbyterian Church, 182: “Richard Denton was one of the very first Presbyterian ministers in the country, and the Church of Jamaica, Queen’s County, New York, is the oldest existent Presbyterian Church in the United States.”
[6] Mather, Magnalia Christi Americana, vol. 1., 182.
[7] Mather, Magnalia Christi Americana, vol. 1., 182.
[8] In those days the chapel was commonly called “St. John of Jerusalem.”
[9] “Richard Denton,” Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900, Ed. Robert Harrison, Vol. 14 (https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_National_Biography,_1885-1900/Denton,_Richard ), last accessed: April 21, 2023.
[10] Memoirs of the Rev. Oliver Heywood, B.A. (Rev. Richard Slate, 1827), 20.
[11] David Koch, “Long Island Presbyterians: Our Puritan Beginnings” (pcusa.org).
[12] Nevin, Encyclopedia, 182.
[13] Leonard J. Trinterud, The Forming of an American Tradition: A Re-examination of Colonial Presbyterianism (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1949), 23.
[14] http://longislandgenealogy.com/firstPresHempstead/July1922.htm
[15] J. Franklin Jameson, “Narratives of New Netherland, 1609-1664” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1909).
[16] Ed. John Dean Fish, “History and Vital Records of Christ’s First Presbyterian Church of Hempstead, Long Island, New York” (longislandgeneology.com), last accessed: April 21, 2023.
[17] Leonard J. Trinterud, The Forming of an American Tradition, 23.
[18] Ed. Fish, “History and Vital Records…Hempstead, Long Island.”
[19] Jameson, “Narratives of New Netherland, 1609-1664.”
[20] “History of Our Church,” Christ’s First Presbyterian Church, Hempstead, NY (www.Cfpcny.com/history), last accessed: April 21, 2023.
[21] Nevin, Encyclopedia, 183.
[22] Nevin, Encyclopedia, 183.
[23] Nevin, Encyclopedia, 183.
[24] Nevin, Encyclopedia, 183.
[25] Nevin, Encyclopedia, 183.
[26] Leonard J. Trinterud, The Forming of an American Tradition, 22.
[27] Nathan P. Feldmeth, S. Donald Fortson III, Garth M. Rosell, and Kenneth J. Stewart, Reformed and Evangelical across Four Centuries: The Presbyterian Story in America (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2022), 145.
[28] Not only does Nevin claim to have “verified by personal examination of the authentic sources here mentioned,” but he also lists the following sources: Thompson’s History of Long Island; Woodbridge’s Historical Discourse; Onderdonk’s History of Queen’s County; McDonald’s Church History; New York State Documents History; Moore’s Early History of Hempstead; Jamaica Town Records. Such accounts show us that there is a Presbyterian “history” in America already underway long before 1706.
[29] Josephine C Frost, ed., Records of the Town of Jamaica, Long Island, New York: 1656-1751 (Brooklyn, NY: The Long Island Historical Society, 1914), 1:20.
Related Posts:

The Duty of Evangelism

Duty is a loaded word with many implications. It implies an obligation of action despite obstacles or trials that stand in the way. Duty assumes resistance. It assumes doing something regardless how I may feel on any given day.

In a way, duty is the antidote to pragmatism or a superficial happiness. It is the attitude that says no matter what the outcome, I will do this or that, because it is my duty. No matter how I feel, no matter what the results are, I will do it anyways because it is my duty to do so.

Now, assuming our specific duty is biblical, we have no reason to fear this word. On the contrary, we have every reason to lean into it. It is a good word. No—it is a necessary word. There is a reason why the writings of the Reformers and Puritans are saturated with the word. They realized that regardless of all odds, obstacles, or feelings, they had a responsibility before God to carry out the tasks and behavior which He had assigned to them: whether in the sphere of family, work, church, finances, or even diet and recreation. There is not a realm that exists in which God has not laid before us certain duties. Not so that we can be saved, but because in Christ we have already been saved and there are now expectations of us as His people when it comes to living our lives as “new creations.” An obvious and helpful example of one of these Christian duties comes in the form of evangelism.

Duty as a Compelling Motive

“Duty” as a motive for evangelism may come across as coarse or even legalistic. We typically like to think of other motives when it comes to evangelism, such as seeing people saved or growing our churches. These are noble and biblical motives, sure enough, but they aren’t the only motives. They aren’t even the best motives. There are times when such motives won’t be enough.

For instance, some days we are not euphorically bursting with love for the lost, especially when they have rejected our efforts in hostile or demeaning ways. Our love for the lost is important, but love is a feeling that is prone to fade in and out depending on our circumstances. Also, because we are people who still struggle with sin, including selfishness, evangelizing merely because we love the lost would be a flimsy and even irresponsible foundation upon which to build. We need something else. Likewise, when it comes to the motive of seeing our churches grow through our evangelism. This is something we all desire. But to what ends? What if plain and simple gospel proclamation isn’t “working”? What if our churches aren’t growing despite our consistent evangelism efforts? The temptation will be to either throw in the towel and quit, or to water things down to make the gospel more palatable to the masses. This is where the word “duty” comes in as a protective measure against such temptations.

Duty as an Emboldening Motive

The very nature of evangelism requires such a word as duty. This is because in several respects, evangelism is different from any other Christian practice. It entails intentionally speaking to a lost person about Jesus and sin, even though at present, as far as we can tell, the person has no love for Christ or hatred for sin. And despite our modern assumptions about man, biblically speaking, unless they are being drawn by God, we are sharing Jesus with someone who doesn’t want to hear about Jesus. Evangelism is sharing the good news of Christ with a lost person, and then calling that person to repent and believe the message—not exactly the most pleasant circumstance, at least from the world’s perspective. What other Christian duty is like this? Evangelism is confrontational, uncomfortable, and a catalyst for awkward tension, regardless of how respectfully and gently we do it.  

The uniqueness of evangelism can be seen when we compare it to worship services, another Christian duty. If the government were to tell us we can no longer maintain corporate worship of the Lord, that does not terminate our duty of corporate worship. So it is with evangelism. Even if it were illegal, we would still be obligated to do it. In both scenarios, the way we worship or the way we evangelize may be different from how we would ordinarily do things, but we would still do it, hopefully. But there is one remarkable difference about evangelism that can’t be said about regular worship with the saints. I point this out in my book, 10 Modern Evangelism Myths (RHB, 2021):

How would Christians in the West respond if it suddenly became illegal to meet together for church or study the Scriptures or attend prayer meetings? Would we do it anyway? Yes! This scenario is not exactly hypothetical. Such an attempt is likely on the horizon in the West, as demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic. But when it comes to evangelism, things are much different. It is possible to meet in secret when it comes to worship and Bible studies, without society knowing it. But evangelism necessarily involves the unbelieving community knowing what we believe, including the offensive parts, since it is the unbelieving persons of society we are called to evangelize.

Even when evangelism is seen as offensive, distasteful, politically incorrect or illegal, we are still called to do it. This will expose us to harassment and danger, which is why the word “duty” is so essential. It implies doing something despite the difficulty which that thing will cause. And isn’t that what makes evangelism so difficult? It necessarily brings about conflict. This is not to say we must intentionally seek conflict when evangelizing. We shouldn’t be rude or obnoxious. On the contrary, we should be respectful and aware of the contexts in which we are evangelizing. But even if the person we evangelize gets converted, there will be conflict between the new believer and his old way of life, including his relationships. And if he doesn’t get converted, there will now be conflict between himself and us, whether it is open hostility or something more subdued. When it comes to the gospel, there is no neutrality. And hence, when it comes to sharing the gospel, it will cause a response, whether unto salvation or further condemnation, and all because we opened our mouths about Jesus.

Isn’t this why we get nervous before we evangelize? Perhaps nervous is too soft of a word. This is why we get downright terrified. This is why we all have difficulty evangelizing. The flesh doesn’t want the conflict. We recoil from pushback or looking foolish. We’re afraid we won’t have answers to their possible objections. And yet, despite our flesh or the conflict of evangelism, we must do it anyways. Why? Because we are commanded to do so by our Lord. It is His method for saving souls. “Faith comes by hearing.”

Not only do we see this example of obedient evangelism in the Acts of the Apostles, but throughout the early church as well. They too likely withered at the thought of conflict, especially knowing it would likely result in their death, torment, or loss of property. But time and again, in spite of intense and present threats, we see them evangelizing. What was their secret? Yes, the Holy Spirit. Yes, prayer. Yes, a supernatural devotion to Christ. All of these things are critical. But it was also their sense of duty. Speaking of the early church’s evangelism, one historian comments, “The conflict was inevitable, the direct result of the genius of Christianity. A Christianity which had ceased to be aggressive would speedily have ceased to exist. Christ came not to send peace on earth but a sword; against the restless and resistless force of the new religion the gates of hell should not prevail. But polytheism could not be dethroned without a struggle; nor mankind regenerated without a baptism of blood. Persecution, in fact, is the other side of aggression, the inevitable outcome of a truly missionary spirit; the two are linked together as action and reaction.”[i]  

What was the result of such evangelism? Yes, scores of martyred Christians. Yes, many tense and awkward conversations. But also scores of new converts. The growth of the early church came mostly through ordinary Christians sharing the gospel in their everyday environments, despite the conflict it would bring: “Where, then, could believers make contact with unbelievers to win them over? Surely the answer must somehow lie where the Christians themselves direct our attention…in quiet obscure settings of every day.”[ii] Or again, “Being excluded from the normal social gatherings, their points of contact with non-Christians lay quite inevitably at street corners or at places of employment, or in the working quarters of dwellings.”[iii] “Evangelizing in private settings” was one of the most influential contexts for bringing about conversions to the Christian religion “en masse.”[iv] Kenneth S. Latourette confirms that “the chief agents in the expansion of Christianity appear not to have been those who made it a profession…but men and women who carried on their livelihood in some purely secular manner and spoke of their faith to those they met in this natural fashion.”[v]

Duty as a Universal Motive

Hence, we see that the duty to evangelize is not only for ministers, but it is for all who name the name of Christ. We also see how important every Christian is to the work of evangelism, whether they are ordained ministers or not, and how God uses His people in every walk of life to add to His church. Believers are called to profess the name of Christ to the lost. Backlash against such a message has always been the norm, but so are conversions. We must not be silent about our Lord. We may lose friends or look silly because of it. But we must not be ashamed of the gospel. This is one way to understand Christ’s promise that “everyone who acknowledges me before men I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 10:32-33). Christ is here speaking of people who deny their Lord as an attempt to protect themselves from harm. Even in a climate where we are not actively being killed for our faith, we are still persecuted through societal isolation, loss of job, friends, or even family whenever we take seriously the command to evangelize the lost. The next verse promises that Jesus did not come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword (Matt. 10:34).

To know that every Christian should be evangelizing can cause disturbance and shame for many Christians. Most of us feel inadequate when it comes sharing the gospel. But consider the demoniac, who was told right after his conversion to go and tell all about what Jesus had done for him (Mark 5:19). He knew enough of the gospel to share it with others. His sense of duty to Christ drove him on to do it. His feelings or emotions wanted to go with Christ across the lake. His allegiance to Christ’s command helped him overcome such feelings and catapulted him into what must have been an awkward and challenging mission field. These people had just demanded Christ leave their region. They had seen this man naked and crazed. They had lost property on account of his demons being exorcised. This was no easy task that Jesus put him up to. Yet there he goes, telling everyone what great things Jesus had done for him. Why? Because Christ had told him to do it. It was his duty to do it. So, he does it.

Duty as Pure Motive 

Evangelizing without a sense of duty can also lead to pragmatism. When we are governed more by emotions or even “success,” we make the cross less offensive, our churches more worldly, and our evangelism less gospel-centered. In the West today, Christians often have the mindset that if we are going to be relevant in the culture, we must keep quiet outside our homes and churches about the gospel, or at the very least, come up with ways and methods that will allow evangelism to be inoffensive. Christians today are often so plagued by the fear of what outsiders think of us that we assume evangelism is not done properly if it creates any kind of scandal or outrage from the unbelieving world. This would be a mark of woeful ineffectiveness. Again, this is not to say we should be rude or intentionally brash or scandalous. Not at all. Rather, it is assuming that the truth is offensive in a culture that despises truth. It assumes that the perishing still thinks the cross is foolish. But in attempting to accommodate our evangelism to the culture, we have lost the appeal of being a savor of death to the dying (2 Cor. 2:16). 

Christians who want to accommodate evangelism to the culture disregard the fact that this was never Christ’s approach, nor was it the way of the early Christians. George Whitefield, John Wesley, David Brainerd, Jonathan Edwards and even William Carey were all considered scandalous renegades by the church their community for their refusal to compromise with current evangelism practices. They were seen as “zealots.” They were see as radicals. But they were men compelled to evangelize by a sense of duty. They were willing to be fools for Christ’s sake, even when the church was embarrassed by them. Consider John Ryland’s response to the criticism of William Carey by other clergymen in their day: “I am almost worn out with grief at these foolish cavils against some of the best of my brethren, men of God, who are only hated because of their zeal.”[vi] Michael A.G. Haykin notes that one of the hurdles William Carey had to overcome was “the lack of support by fellow Christians in England.”[vii]

Reproach and scoffing are the responses we should expect when it comes to biblical evangelism. In some contexts, so are arrests, confiscation of property, or loss of life. In fact, why would we assume any other response? The world’s eyes are veiled to the gospel (2 Cor. 4:3). There are none who seek God (Rom. 3:11). But a church culture that sees salvific success as the most important reason to evangelize will also claim that any approach that brings conflict or polarization must necessarily be jettisoned—especially if there is no “one” who is saved. The underlying motive behind such an approach, whether or not it is acknowledged, is a fear of man and fear of conflict. Such fear is normal, but it doesn’t mean it is correct. What must drive us onward to evangelize is our duty to Christ, even when afraid of man or conflict. 

It is one thing for the world to hate the Christian, especially for his bold evangelism. Christ Himself told us we should expect it. But why do Christians shy away from confrontation? The answer is easy. We are still in the flesh. We are prone to want to protect ourself from looking dumb or losing friends, even if this means to not evangelize. The flesh is still very powerful. Therefore, duty is essential. Consider examples from the Scriptures. R. C. Sproul notes that “Jesus’ life was a storm of controversy. The apostles, like the prophets before them, could hardly go a day without controversy. Paul said that he debated daily in the marketplace. To avoid controversy is to avoid Christ.”[viii] Do we think that Paul, the prophets, or even Christ delighted in being harassed, maligned, and eventually killed for what they believed? Surely it wasn’t an enjoyable situation to be in much of the time, if ever. So what drove them to keep pressing on, regardless of ill health, prison or loss of life? Duty. What must drive us on to evangelize, even when we don’t feel like it? Duty. Even when it might cause outrage or social inconveniences? You got it. Duty. 

Duty as a Transcendent Motive

There are many biblical motives for doing evangelism: our love of Christ, our love for our neighbors, our desire to see our churches grow, our passion to see God’s kingdom advance on earth. But notice these all have to do with some type of emotion: love, desire, passion, etc. Emotion is not a bad thing. God has wired us to be creatures who experience and are influenced by emotions. But emotions can be fickle and unreliable. Other times, especially when it comes to evangelism, emotions such as fear can drive out more proper emotions such as love for our neighbor. Fear is a powerful force that can utterly quench any drive to do evangelism. And in such moments, it is duty which must carry the day. We evangelize because our Master tells us to do so, regardless of our feelings about it or the pushback it may lead to. Even if we feel unequipped or inadequate—and we always are—we must evangelize because it’s our duty to do so, trusting God will use our weak and fallible attempts to do great things for His name.

The power of Christianity has always been its bold, uncompromising gospel proclamation. It has proclaimed the gospel directly into the teeth of the fiercest, most ruthless societies ever known to man. And despite the persecutions such action brings upon the church, Christians have always dug in and preached even harder. The early Christians were considered aggressive and imprudent by the surrounding culture, even while other religions were taking steps to avoid persecution. There has always been a relentless zeal for gospel proclamation among God’s people. Some periods of church history demonstrate this more brightly than others, but it has been there, somewhere, even in the darkest ages. But it wasn’t boldness for the sake of being bold that drove them on. It wasn’t recklessness for the sake of recklessness. It was because the Master had told them to do it, regardless of how they felt or what would be the outcome. We must have the same mindset.

Evangelism is a duty we have to Christ. As society in the West becomes more and more like ancient Rome, it is important we are equipped with not only a passion for evangelism, a love for the lost, and a desire to see God’s kingdom advance on earth—it is also necessary we are equipped with the time-honored weapon of remembering that evangelism is a duty, no matter the consequences, and no matter how we feel.  

[I] Herbert B. Workman, Persecution in the Early Church (Bloomington, IL: Clearnote Press, 2014), 39.  

[ii] Ramsay MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire (New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1984), 37. 

[iii] MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire, 40. 

[iv] MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire, 29. 

[v] Kenneth S. Latourette, A History of the Expansion of Christianity (New York: Harper, 1944), 1:230. 

[vi] Cited in A. de M. Chesterman, “The Journals of Daniel Brainerd and of William Carey,” The Baptist Quarterly 19 (1961-62): 151-52. 

[vii] Michael H.G. Haykin, The Missionary Fellowship of William Carey (Sanford, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2018), 5. 

[viii] R. C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1992), xv.  

Scroll to top