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

Mike Leake

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

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

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

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

A Few Proposals

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

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

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

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

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

Why Did It Take So Long?

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

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

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

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

Now notice what he says in 1797:

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

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

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

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

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

—

Photo source: here

Why Justice Needs Proverbs

Mike Leake

photo-1603851887849-35b99ea8f7be

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

Photo source: here

Don’t Give Up On Your Bible Study So Quickly

Mike Leake

alex-boyd-sU_SS2BPvNw-unsplash

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

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

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

But the terrier still barks.

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

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

I appreciate this picture given to us by Esau McCaulley:

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

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

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

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

—

Photo source: here

Until Christ Be Sweet, Sin Will Not Be Bitter

Mike Leake

photo-1457139621581-298d1801c832The preacher catches wind that someone in his congregation is living in egregious sin. And this Sunday his text just so happens to be about that particular sin. That’s a bit unsettling, but he actually preaches verse-by-verse for moments such as this. Nobody can accuse him of cherry picking a verse just to uncourageously deal with sin behind a pulpit instead of face to face. Everybody knows that he’s preaching this text because that’s what is next in the sermon series.

So he ascends to the pulpit and preaches his heart. He preaches truth. He doesn’t compromise. He calls sin what it is, speaks of the odiousness of this particular sin, and calls for repentance.

It hits the target. The man living in that sin feels guilty, ashamed, and even a bit angry.

He leaves. Never comes back.

How We Soothe Our Pain of Their Departure

Some might hear a story like this and assume that the preacher should have coddled a bit more and not been quite so bold in naming sin. That’s not a conclusion, though, that most in my tribe will come to. They believe, I think rightly, that we must be truthful. Sin is sin. It kills. We cannot pretend it doesn’t. It is loving to address sin.

But I also think we can be guilty of coddling ourselves a bit too quickly. I think we can comfort ourselves with a gnat of truth but be blind to a camel of error. What we’ll do in these moments is reassure ourselves that we did our job by preaching the truth, and doing it so compellingly that the sinner was cut deeply but sadly they are choosing their sin over Christ. We were faithful. They are choosing sin.

Now, a position like this can be defended by the Bible. There are instances, like the Rich Young Ruler or Demas in love with the present world, where someone walks away from the kingdom because sin is too sweet.

Sadly, people do hear the message of the kingdom and choose the fleeting pleasure of sin over the treasure of Christ. But is it possible that the reason this person is “choosing their sin” is because they aren’t seeing the beauty of Jesus? Don’t misunderstand. God removes scales from eyes and allows us to see Jesus. But our job as hope-peddlers, as good-news bringers, is to strike the major note of the beauty of Jesus and His kingdom.

I do agree with Thomas Watson that until sin be bitter Christ will not be sweet. But I kind of wonder if he has that flipped a bit. What if we said, “Until Christ is sweet, sin will not be bitter”. That seems to me to be what happens in New Testament narratives when radical change takes place.

The Jesus Way

Consider Peter on a boat encountering the all-powerful Jesus telling him to cast out into the deep waters. What happens to Peter is similar to what happened to Isaiah the prophet. He catches a glimpse of glory and immediately his own sinfulness becomes apparent. You don’t really have to preach on sin when we truly encounter the holy. It’s so glaringly obvious that we’re undone and crying out for healing.

Yes, there are stories where people walk away. But the major note of the New Testament mission seems to be Jesus captivating people with his good-news bringing as he calls people to himself. For the most part He doesn’t start with “naming the sin” but captivating with love, hope, goodness, rescue, etc. If this is the major emphasis I believe it would do us well to ask the tough questions of our preaching. Am I preaching Christ as compellingly as I’m preaching sin? Am I being as clear about the good news as I am naming sin?

“They left church because they wanted their sin” doesn’t necessarily mean you’ve been a faithful gospel (good news) preacher. It might mean that you’ve actually not preached Christ as beautifully as He is, and so the sin still looks more precious. Not always, but maybe.

Let us be truthful about sin. But let us preach Christ so wonderfully and beautifully that the bitterness of sin becomes obvious held next to the radiance of His splendor.

—

Photo source: here