None of this is to defend the cruelties associated with slavery. It is simply to say that Brown’s response was the wrong one, and that we should neither approve it nor celebrate him. Brown was celebrated for his militancy, and he seems to have regarded such militancy as the proper fruit of the Christian faith.

In 1860 a newspaper called The Christian Watchman and Reflector published a series of letters from Charles Spurgeon, in one of which he denied rumors that the American publishers of his works excised material that might be offensive to slaveholders. Highly perturbed at the suggestion, Spurgeon said, amongst other things, that “any slaveholder who should show himself in our neighborhood would get a mark which he would carry to his grave, if it did not carry him there.” He finished the letter in view by saying that “John Brown is immortal in the memories of the good in England, and in my heart he lives.” Here we have a minister of the gospel with a high reputation and wide influence expressing his opinion with such fervor as to descend into talk of his neighbors possibly murdering foreign citizens and praising an insurrectionist.
This is of interest because the statement in view is cited as proof that many evangelicals condemned slavery at the same time that many southern Protestants were defending it. It is certainly proof of that sober truth, though there are plenty of other sources that make the same point that lack the regrettable character of Mr. Spurgeon’s statement here. To be sure, he did not say that he would approve such lawless violence, much less that he would participate; and it is conceivable that Victorian era Englishmen were not quite as prone to waylaying foreigners as Mr. Spurgeon suggests. It could be that he was so caught up in a fit of high dudgeon that he wrote more boldly than was warranted, and that the talk of lawless violence was idle banter.
Whatever the case, it was not in accord with the duty of his office to speak in such a manner, and it is a point of curiosity that contemporary critics of 1800s southern evangelical attitudes about slavery so readily latch upon examples such as this. Such critics are quick to point at the perceived hypocrisy of claiming Christ while at the same time defending a civil institution that oppressed its participants and was often attended by great physical cruelty. And so in finding grounds to condemn the violence and hypocrisy of slaveholding they . . . . latch upon examples of evangelicals mentioning violence approvingly.
This is a strange method, surely, and it goes far to undermine the critics’ own moral authority. Why, pray tell, do we consider slavery wrong? Is it not because it does violence to the dignity of its unwilling participants, holding them in bondage and subjecting them, in many cases, to harsh punishments for flight or disobedience? Is it not because of the chain and the lash, the separation of families and the prohibition of literacy, and because of all the other things that denied equal protection and rights under the law and reduced slaves to being a permanent under caste? Is it not because the whole institution denied them their rights as human beings whose nature is no different from that of people of other classes and ethnicities? Why then would it be any less evil to do similar things to other people, including slaveholders or people who are citizens or public officials of places where slavery was legal? Mistreatment is wrong regardless of who does it or why, and our Lord forbids vengeance (Lev. 19:18; Deut. 32:35; Rom. 12:19; Heb. 10:30) and prohibits former victims of oppression oppressing others in turn (Ex. 22:21; comp. Deut. 23:7).
It is here that John Brown enters the question. Many people in his day regarded him as a hero with few equals, and after his death he was hailed as a martyr and prophet, Henry David Thoreau saying that he had become “an angel of light” and a popular camp tune saying that he was “John the Baptist of the Christ we are to see.” That enthusiasm has not dimmed, it seems, for Christianity Today has published an article urging the glad acceptance of Brown as an evangelical hero.
John Brown was hanged for treason and murder for leading the seizure of the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia (now West Virginia) as part of a scheme to forcibly abolish slavery in the southern states. Brown’s plan was to use his action to incite slaves in the surrounding areas to flee their masters and join his forces, after which they would march southward, collecting men and materiel as they went. Ostensibly his forces would fight only in self-defense if accosted.
That last bit makes for a large claim to swallow when we remember that Brown had already attained national notoriety for organizing private militants in the Bleeding Kansas crisis earlier in the 1850s. Brown had presided over the Pottawatomie Massacre, in which five men had been hacked to death in what can only be considered cold-blooded murder. The other facts are also against interpreting his plan and actions as a scheme of fomenting an armed-but-purely-defensive insurrection, such as that two of the five men his band killed at Harpers Ferry were unarmed. One was the mayor, the other a free black man who was the first victim and who was shot in the back. If these killings were against Brown’s intentions, as has been suggested, they nonetheless suggest that he had poor control over his force that he had trained for his occupation of the arsenal; and it is hard to imagine that he would have had any better control over the multitudes of strangers whom he expected to rally to his standard.
It is likely that arming large numbers of escaped slaves, whatever Brown’s ostensible intention, would have led to aggression and even the wanton taking of vengeance on their part. Virginia’s earlier slave revolt 28 years before (Nat Turner’s) had been attended by the killing of civilians, including women and children. It is simply not human nature for spontaneous mobs to act only in self-defense and to eschew all criminal and vengeful tendencies. And notwithstanding that Brown attempted to give legitimacy to his efforts by establishing a ‘provisional government’ replete with offices and constitution, what Brown actually attempted, whether he realized it or not, was to foment an enormous mob, probably the largest in the history of the country. Had he succeeded he would have been culpable for any excesses that such a mob committed, but as it was he gained very little support.
There is another fault with such an argument, which is that it is generally a principle of law that one cannot provoke resistance by threats or assault and then use force to repel the violence that ensues: the initial provocation makes one the aggressor, so that every subsequent action is a furtherance of the aggression and cannot be justified as defensive. Brown was the aggressor in the Harpers Ferry affair, for he started it by seizing the arsenal, and then continued it by taking hostages and preventing the lawful authorities from repossessing it or rescuing them. When it was then claimed that his subsequent fighting with state and federal forces was in self-defense (as his defense attempted at his trial), the claim is null – and more than a little brazen and absurd.
One cannot break into someone’s house and take him captive, and then say that he acted in self-defense by firing at the police when they surrounded the house. All notion of self-defense goes out the window when one first commences his criminal venture. And yet that is essentially what Brown did, except that he acted not merely against a single private individual and domicile, but against an entire commonwealth and its populace.
I have no desire to impugn the faith or integrity of those who have lionized Brown through the decades. Indeed, anyone who would allow that Spurgeon remark above to dissuade him from reading Spurgeon appreciatively would be doing himself an enormous disservice, for flights of indignation notwithstanding, Spurgeon was greatly used by God and is well worth reading. Remarks like that above are drowned out by the enormous quantities of edifying material he produced: it is as a flake of chaff in an ocean of grace.
But I do think that such people, be they past or present, are sorely mistaken on this point. There is nothing in the New Testament that justifies fomenting armed rebellion. Romans 13 says, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities” and “whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” Granting the institution of southern slavery was evil, it does not follow that it should have been countered by violent force. “Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all” (Rom. 12:17). Evil must be opposed righteously; and fomenting rebellion that was likely to lead to widespread bloodshed cannot be deemed righteous. It is in direct contradiction of the commands to “live peaceably with all” and “overcome evil with good” (12:18, 21).
And in the outcome of Brown’s misadventure at Harpers Ferry we see the wisdom of our Lord’s instructions on this point. Brown’s insurrection failed utterly. He gained only a handful of supporters among the local slave population; succeeded in getting himself, many of his men, and several citizens killed; and further aggravated the already tense relations between North and South, ultimately playing an important role in provoking secession and the subsequent war that killed more than 620,000 men.
Over against all this we must remember that Christ’s kingdom is not of this world, and that he did not come to establish it by means of force (Jn. 18:36). When someone mentioned an example of Pilate’s cruelty toward the Jews (including sacrilegious murder), Christ declined to cry aloud for temporal justice and instead urged his hearers to take heed for their souls and repent while they had time (Lk. 13:1-3). His way is not the way of social revolution, but of patient long-suffering (Matt. 5:39) and of repaying evil with good (Lk. 6:28; Rom. 12:14, 20; 1 Pet. 3:9). Those who, like Brown, attempt to find in Christ’s message a justification for armed revolution contradict the essence of that message, and many of its particulars (2 Tim. 2:24; Tit. 3:1-2; Heb. 12:14; Jas. 3:17).
None of this is to defend the cruelties associated with slavery. It is simply to say that Brown’s response was the wrong one, and that we should neither approve it nor celebrate him. Brown was celebrated for his militancy, and he seems to have regarded such militancy as the proper fruit of the Christian faith. In his speech at his conviction he appealed to Scripture as justifying his actions:
Court acknowledges, too, as I suppose, the validity of the law of God. I see a book kissed, which I suppose to be the Bible, or at least the New Testament, which teaches me that all things whatsoever I would that men should do to me, I should do even so to them. It teaches me further to remember them that are in bonds as bound with them. I endeavored to act up to that instruction.
When someone celebrates Brown he is therefore celebrating a man who contradicted the teaching of Scripture under the guise of fulfilling it. Against this, consider these words and ponder whether John Brown’s behavior accords with them: “Whoever says he abides in him [Christ] ought to walk in the same way in which he walked” (1 Jn. 2:6). Christ walked in the way of works of mercy and witness, and his death redeemed the souls of many. Brown walked in the way of the sword and came to the end which Christ predicted of those who do so (Matt. 26:52), and his death brought not peace but division and strife and a war that consumed multitudes. It is no part of our faith to honor such a man, and the scriptural data abundantly point the other way.
Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church, Five Forks (Simpsonville), SC. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not of necessity reflect those of his church or its leadership or other members. He welcomes comments at the email address provided with his name. He is also author of Reflections on the Word: Essays in Protestant Scriptural Contemplation. 
Related Posts:

Wokism has become a giant bulldozer seeking to crush everything in its path.  It has captured the civil government, educational institutions, the military, corporations, banks, media, and even has made major inroads into the church.  It comes like a cancer (posing as a medicinal cure) eating away everything that sustains life and peace.  In some churches, it is considered a legitimate tool to help us understand sin, but it only creates hatred and destruction.

Wokism is a word that should no longer need a definition. It has become part of our every-day language.  Wokism is the application of a new religion which I call Neo-Marxism (some call it Cultural Marxism).  Equity, Racism, Social Justice, ESG, LGBTQ, Oppressor, Oppressed—these are all part of the definition. If you need someone to define it for you, then you are way behind the curve. See my book Critical Race Theory and the Church – A Concise Analysis.
I call Neo-Marxism a religion because it is a belief in ultimate values that are diametrically opposed to the Christian Faith. It is more than just a political theory or a political movement.  Like Roman Catholicism of the Reformation, or like Mormonism in the early 19th century, it is a threat to the very essence of the Christian Faith. It may not use the Bible as a reference point, but that makes it even more dangerous.  It may not refer to some supreme being outside of our experience, but it is nonetheless a religion.  Any philosophy with ultimate values apart from Christ is a religion.
Wokism has become a giant bulldozer seeking to crush everything in its path.  It has captured the civil government, educational institutions, the military, corporations, banks, media, and even has made major inroads into the church.  It comes like a cancer (posing as a medicinal cure) eating away everything that sustains life and peace.  In some churches, it is considered a legitimate tool to help us understand sin, but it only creates hatred and destruction. Either become a cheerleader for this new religion or be cancelled. Those are becoming your two choices. Maybe you can remain silent for now, but that may soon come to an end.
And if your church has not bought into this new religion, then probably it is choosing to remain quiet.  There is no warning coming from America’s pulpits. As the watchman on the wall in the Book of Ezekiel, the enemy is just outside the gates, but the watchman gives no warning.
Modern America reminds me of Germany during the rise and reign of Adolph Hitler.  Tyranny does not rise overnight. It eats away slowly.  Few German Christian leaders (mainly Lutherans) stood up to Hitler.  They re-interpreted his beliefs as consistent with the Christian Faith.  They accommodated his new religion out of fear.  They accepted whatever came down from the top, no matter how heavy-handed.
However, like Nazism, Neo-Marxism is slowly eating away at our culture and taking advantage of (or creating) very angry people—all in the name of restoring justice and equity.  Death is slowly moving into our culture and our Christian leaders are silent. A fire is raging outside the front door of our house, and we are inside trying to decide what color to paint the living room. We still teach with precision on the major cults of the past, but alarmingly we avoid the beast that is a threat to our people every day of their lives.  Neo-Marxism is the new elephant in the room.
We take pride in all the programs of the church, and we listen to expository sermons every week, but if we do not educate our people (especially our young people) about wokism, and if we do not give them the tools to fight against it, then we are like the watchman on the wall who has not fallen asleep, but is just too busy playing games on his iphone.  It is time for preachers in America to shout from the rooftops that the enemy is outside the gates.
I listen to a lot of sermons, but I have yet to hear a sermon on the threat of wokism to the Christian Faith and to the Church. I hear about it from conservative news outlets and from scholars like Victor Davis Hanson, but never from the pulpit.  That makes me very sad. Very sad indeed!
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.
Related Posts:

Dr. Halvorson is the 6th president of the college and has served for 11 years, the third longest serving president in the history of the college. Through his leadership, the college successfully navigated a global pandemic and other external challenges many schools are experiencing in the world of higher education.

Dr. J. Derek Halvorson ‘93, president of Covenant College, has announced his intention to end his tenure as president on June 30th, 2023. The announcement was made to faculty and staff on Tuesday, January 31st, 2023, and was previously shared with the Board of Trustees a few weeks prior. The Cabinet of vice presidents will continue to provide leadership as the Board of Trustees launches a national search for the next president, in collaboration with faculty, staff, students, and alumni.
In a letter to the community (linked below), Dr. Halvorson said, “I believe that every institution benefits from periodic renewals of leadership. As I look to the college’s future, it is my sense that the time has come for fresh energy and vision that can lead the college into its next phase of growth and development…I am confident the Board is well-equipped and well-prepared to oversee the transition and find the next person God is calling to serve as the president of Covenant College.”
Dr. Halvorson is the 6th president of the college and has served for 11 years, the third longest serving president in the history of the college. Through his leadership, the college successfully navigated a global pandemic and other external challenges many schools are experiencing in the world of higher education.
Looking back on his time as president, Dr. Halvorson shared “Serving Covenant College as its president is one of the greatest honors and privileges of my life. After Jesus Christ and his church, my family, and my closest friends (whom I met at Covenant), I could not love any person or institution more. I am extremely grateful for the people who make up the Covenant College community. My family and I have been blessed in numerous ways by members of this community, both on and off the mountain. We are especially thankful for the support provided by faculty and staff, the enthusiasm for learning and service that students have demonstrated, and the encouragement provided by alumni and other friends of the college. It has been our joy to be loved by you all.”
Read More
President Derek Halvorson’s Letter to the Covenant CommunityCraig Wood, Chairman, Covenant College of the Board of Trustees Letter to the Covenant Community
Related Posts: