Читать книгу One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, Tome 1 - John Williamson Nevin - Страница 10

Nevin wrote The Anxious Bench in response to a well-documented event. The Reverend William Ramsey of Philadelphia was an ordained Presbyterian who, after returning from service as a missionary in China, traveled throughout the United States as an evangelist. In 1842 Ramsey broke from his evangelistic endeavors to candidate as a pastor for the vacant German Reformed congregation in Mercersburg. Ramsey had been recommended to the consistory by Nevin who knew him as a student at Princeton Seminary. While in Mercersburg, Ramsey “made a favorable impression, preached impressive sermons, and it was not long before he felt that he was master of the situation,” so states Theodore Appel. 85

One Sunday evening during the candidacy process, Ramsey, “without consulting any one in particular, apparently on the spur on the moment, with a densely crowded house before him, brought out the ‘Anxious Bench,’ and invited all who desired the prayers of the Church to present themselves before the altar.” A number of people came forward, including a handful of elderly women known for their faithfulness. Nevin sat in the chancel and observed. Toward the close of the meeting he was asked to address the congregation. Nevin proceeded to describe the differences between a true and a counterfeit revival,86 then “warned them earnestly against all self-deception.” In spite of Nevin’s remarks, the congregation chose to call Ramsey as their pastor. Nevin responded with a personal correspondence informing Ramsey “that he was anxious he should accept the call tendered him, but candidly telling him that it would be necessary, if he came to Mercersburg, to dispense with his new measures and adopt the catechetical system.” Ramsey declined the call, offering Nevin’s letter as the reason. “Nevin’s letter was read by all who wished to do so. Some enjoyed it and others were saddened by it.”

In time Nevin realized that he had raised a big issue and felt inclined to define for his congregation his views on revivals. In the spring of 1843 Nevin published a pamphlet under the title The Anxious Bench—A Tract for the Times.87 In the second edition of the Anxious Bench, written in January 1844, Nevin added a chapter in which he compared the system of the catechism with the methods of the bench. The Anxious Bench received mixed reviews. The Messenger, the publication of the German Reformed Church, endorsed it. The Christian Intelligencer, of the Dutch Reformed Church, endorsed it. As did the Princeton Review. In contrast, Jacob Helfenstein of the German Reformed Church came out in support of the revival system and one member of the Reformed Synod of Ohio, with reference to The Anxious Bench, vowed that he would not “touch the wicked little thing with a ten-foot pole.”88 In addition, Lutheran Observer devoted considerable energy to criticizing both Nevin and The Anxious Bench.89

The conflict between Ramsey and Nevin was not unexpected as it reflected a broader discussion within the German churches in America, both Lutheran and Reformed. This discussion took place in the wake of the Second Great Awakening and against the backdrop of the classic gospel question, “What must I do to be saved.” In response, as noted in the introduction to this volume, German Reformed congregations “walked a difficult tightrope” by “affirming the necessity of the individual spiritual rebirth found in revivalism” and by “upholding the centrality of the church and its sacraments as the primary setting where faith is nurtured.”90 For Nevin, this meant leading those seeking salvation through union with Christ to the life and ministry of the local church, rather than casting “people on fallible resources under false premises amid collective coercion.”91

George Richards provides more context for the aforementioned discussion among the German Reformed churches through his commentary on the 1843 Synod report of the denomination. This report affirms the presence of revivals among German Reformed congregations. Richards specifies, however, that while some may have referred to the revivals as “seasons of refreshing” or “outpourings of the Holy Spirit,” the “agencies by which the evidences of revival were produced were the Word of God, the Sacraments, the teachings of the Catechism, social prayers and religious discussion, which did not contradict Reformed traditions.”92 He adds, “It is evident that the ministry and the congregations were in danger of being swept into the current of revivalism of the emotional type,” but

the only measures so far employed were: (1) the faithful and prayerful use of the regularly established means of grace by pastors and people; (2) the truth—simply and forcibly presented by the pastors, not only from the pulpit but in the Bible Class, the Sabbath School, the private family circle, and frequent meetings for social prayer—was the great instrument in the hands of the Spirit to bring about these glorious results; and (3) the study and teaching of the Heidelberg Catechism. 93

In Richards’ estimation, “revivals brought about by such means may be relied on as genuine. Mere excitement, produced by the agency of men, will soon pass away like the morning cloud and the early dew; but the Word of God is always deep and abiding.”94

85. Theodore Appel provides a detailed account of this event in Life and Work of John Williamson Nevin, 157–160, the source of quoted material in this summary.

86. For more on this distinction, see Nichols, Romanticism in American Theology, 25–26; David Layman, general introduction to Born of Water and the Spirit, 13–14.

87. Chambersburg, Pa.: Printed at the Office of the “Weekly Messenger,” 1843; available at Google Books.

88. Richards, History of the Theological Seminary, 281.

89. On November 10, 1843, the Lutheran Observer (presumably Benjamin Kurtz) began a series entitled “Notes On ‘The Anxious Bench, by Rev. J. W. Nevin, D. D. . . . ’,” (vol. 11, no. 10, 2–3). (There are no page numbers in Observer, but each number consists of four pages, two outside and two inside.) The Observer’s attack went on for ten installments. January 26 and February 2 provided extracts from another critique on Nevin, by James M. Davis, A Plea for “New Measures” (which Nevin cites in the second edition). To be fair to Kurtz, Nevin initiated the controversy in the first edition: see below , 36n2. For more on Kurtz and Lutheran Observer, see David Bauslin, “The Genesis of the ‘New Measures’ Movement,” 360–91.

90. Hambrick-Stowe, Colonial and National Beginnings, 17.

91. Bratt, ed., Antirevivalism in Antebellum America, 122.

92. Richards, History of the Theological Seminary, 219.

93. Ibid. There are several reasons for questioning Richard’s anti-revivalistic reading of renewal in the German Reformed Church prior to 1843. There is James I. Good’s extensive description of revivals (Good, History of the Reformed Church, 130–34). Furthermore, Linden DeBie’s discussion of the role of the Heidelberg Catechism in “First Signs of Contention” implies that it was not yet a regular source of renewal in the church. Ironically, John Winebrenner—an adversary of Nevin in this debate—used “an abridged English translation” for catechesis in the early 1820s, but was eventually separated from the German Reformed Church for his use of “new measures” (Gossard, “John Winebrenner”).

94. Richards, History of the Theological Seminary, 219.