Welcome to a year of reading Richard Sibbes together! The reading plan for the entire year can be accessed here. I encourage you to stick with us, allow yourself time to read, and soak in the riches of this gifted and prolific Puritan preacher. You will be edified and encouraged!

If you have trouble with how Sibbes used words, check out the Lexicons of Early Modern English for definitions from the period.

Summary/Engagement

This week Mark Dever painted the picture of Richard Sibbes’ time in London as Minister of Gray’s Inn as a mean of diverse friendships as well as a man who was acquainted with the various disputes swirling around the Church of England. Dever notes that while Sibbes had friendships with like-minded men, he also maintained friendships with people who would not get along with each other. This points to his position as a cautious moderate rather than a strict conformist or radical non-conformist.

To be clear, Sibbes was a Calvinist with Puritan sympathies in a church that was becoming increasingly hostile to his beliefs. Far from St. John’s college at Cambridge where open theological discussions occurred regularly while he was a student, Sibbes now found himself in England under King Charles I, who married a Catholic, and kept the company of William Laud. Laud sought to enforce “high-chuch” Anglicanism with set ritual and practice, and to suppress the preaching of ministers. He instituted various practices, through King Charles I, including a Proclamation to cease all theological argumentation against other positions from the pulpit, as well as the curtailment of lectureships, and thus the influence of Calvinist ministers.

Sibbes was educated in an environment of debate and open discussion and then witnessed the ever tightening grip of ecclesiastical control as the years progressed and conformity was mandated. The church, while broken away from Rome and standing on its own, was far from settled in doctrine, faith, and practice.

Application / Further Discussion

Let’s not lose the historical context of when and where Richard Sibbes lived and ministered. The Puritans were non-conformists who sought reform of the church in England, and failing that, separation. They ended up either in Holland or in the colonies, (you know, America,) when they were kicked out of the church. Sibbes was a Calvinist, which meant as time went on many in the Church of England, with the blessing of the king, sought to silence or remove them from their pulpits and positions. Sibbes however felt that the “the system was best changed, if it needed to be changed at all, only slightly, and from within.” (70)

Yet, even with Sibbes moderation and caution he had strong convictions on standing for truth. He said:

“In a contentious age, it is a witty thing to be a Christian, and to know what to pitch their souls upon; it is an office of love here to take away the stones and to smooth the way to heaven, Therefore we must take heed that, under pretense of avoidance of disputes, we do not suffer an adverse party to get ground upon the truth; for thus may we easily betray both the truth of God and souls of men.” (71, quoted from Bruised Reed in Works, 1.54)

Indeed, in this contentious age that we live in, we must take care not to suffer an adverse party to get ground upon the truth. Yet this is not all truth. Sibbes says this truth that must be protected from an adverse party deals with the truth of God and the souls of men. In our present day interactions, both inside and outside the church, we are indeed a contentious people. Sibbes sought to live and breathe in an organization that he did not fully agree with for the betterment of the organization. Do we?

Our politics, faith, views of sexuality, and numerous other issues are all hailed as wedges that drive us inseparably apart as a nation. In the SBC, at least in the self-important blogosphere, we argue over Calvinism and those who are not. Whispers and even bold assertions abound of theological compromise or conspiratorial take overs of institutions. Christian brother squares off against Christian brother. Dividing lines are drawn where they need not be.

This should not be so.

I am not advocating that we do not contend for our convictions, but that we contend most strongly for that which truly matters; Jesus Christ. Sibbes sets a good example of someone who sought to conform to the Church of England, yet in his convictions he may well have been better suited among the Puritans. He did not compromise his beliefs, he sought to reform through patience and perseverance. He tried to cooperate in a denomination that was hostile and yet needed the influence of so godly a preacher. Consider that we are reading about him more than 400 years after his birth.

Ask yourself, are you contending for the gospel and the doctrines of orthodox Christian belief, or for a secondary or tertiary doctrine that you have elevated to a position it should not hold? Case in point; while soteriology is important, whether you are Arminian, Calvinist, Traditionalist (a new label in SBC circles), or some other orthodox viewpoint, can’t you affirm all who hold an orthodox view to be Christian? Can’t we lock arms with brothers and sisters who serve the same Lord yet have different conclusions of the Scriptures? (Still orthodox, mind you!)

Are we contending for biblical principles, or for personal preferences? Are we arguing and biting and devouring each other, much to the delight over our enemy, rather than proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ to a lost and dieing world?

This life is too short and eternity too long to spend our energy murdering our brothers and sisters in our hearts.

—

Last week, we covered chapters one and two in Mark Dever’s biography of Richard Sibbes.

Next week, we’ll cover chapters five and six.