In early 1887, C. H. Spurgeon published a paper in The Sword and the Trowel that, unbeknownst to him, would kindle a flame in the Baptist Union. This flame grew into the fiery debate, known as the Downgrade Controversy, that engulfed Baptists for the coming years. The altercation sent Spurgeon and the Baptist Union careening towards a dramatic outcome: separation. Spurgeon refused to continue to exist in association with ministers and churches that had left biblical truth for the “New Theology” of theological liberalism.
In response to these charges, the leaders of the Baptist Union insisted that Spurgeon should produce evidence of this theological drift by naming names. Who were these unorthodox ministers with whom Spurgeon refused to associate? Until he produced evidence of his claims, the Union refused to acknowledge his claims that theological liberalism had begun to infect the Baptists. All this put Spurgeon in a difficult position. He refused to name names. At the same time, he stood by his claims and his decision to secede from the Union. Many pastors and churches joined him and also left the Union, even as many more denounced Spurgeon’s condemnation.
The Downgrade Controversy inflicted deep wounds among Spurgeon, his contemporaries, and the Baptist Union. Anyone studying this controversy might ask the same question that many asked in Spurgeon’s day: Why didn’t he name names, thereby vindicating himself and possibly purifying the Baptist Union? If there were false teachers among the ranks of the Baptist Union, it would be logical that Spurgeon should produce evidence so that they could be removed. But it was not so simple. He never provided the names of these teachers for at least three reasons.
The main problem of theological downgrade
The first was that Spurgeon was mainly concerned with the issue of theological downgrade and the dangers that it posed. The original articles never sought to implicate the Baptist Union specifically. From the outset, Spurgeon’s intent was never to attack any one person or denomination but to warn all evangelicals of the growing danger of heterodoxy. After the publication of the articles, people asked if he was issuing his warning for any particular denomination. Spurgeon responded, “It is not intended to be an attack on any one, but to be a warning to all.”
Some wondered if this was an attack on Arminian denominations, like the Methodists. Spurgeon responded, “[Our] warfare is with men who are giving up the atoning sacrifice, denying the inspiration of Holy Scripture, and casting slurs upon justification by faith. The present struggle is not a debate upon the question of Calvinism or Arminianism, but of the truth of God versus the inventions of men.” This was a trend that Spurgeon was beginning to see even in the Baptist Union. Some called for unity even with those who were departing from these core evangelical truths. To this notion of unity, Spurgeon responded, “That union which is not based upon the truth of God is rather a conspiracy than a communion.”
It is clear from the inaugural article that Spurgeon’s intent was not to single out individuals or any one denomination but to warn all believers against the looming specter of unbelief. Therefore, he refused to name names because this was not just a problem facing a few individuals but a growing spirit of theological decline affecting all evangelicals.
There was no doctrinal accountability
The second reason Spurgeon would not name names was practical: there was no doctrinal standard that members of the Baptist Union had to adhere to other than believer’s baptism. If Spurgeon had given the Council names of ministers who departed from the orthodox faith, by what standard could the Council have held them accountable? A hallmark of theological liberalism is the loose definition of terms. Spurgeon knew this. Those who embraced the New Theology would use the language of Christianity, but they would import different meanings to those terms. Some people accused Spurgeon of trying to promote his own unique theology, but Spurgeon understood that his understanding of inspiration, sin, atonement, resurrection, and eternal punishment was in line with historic Christianity. Writing to The Baptist, Spurgeon claimed,
I believe these doctrines, so far as I know, in the common and usual sense attached to them by the general usage of Christendom. Theological terms ought to be understood and used only in their general and usual meaning. If I have any crotchets, or attach exaggerated meanings to these terms, I do not desire any living soul to be bound by my eccentricities. It is not Spurgeon’s sense, or John Smith’s sense, but the common and accepted meaning, which should be understood by doctrinal expressions.
Whatever the Council does, let it above all things avoid the use of language which could legitimately have two meanings contrary to each other. Let us be plain and outspoken. There are grave differences—let them be avowed honestly. Why should any man be ashamed to do so?
Without a clear Statement of Faith to counter this new modern theology, Spurgeon knew that these ministers would be able to double-speak their way into an agreement with the Council’s questioning. And even if the Council was successful in removing some who departed from the truth, there was nothing to keep it from happening again. This would result in conservative evangelicals needing to become a sort of Baptist Inquisition, spending their time separating the wheat from tares rather than promoting true unity in Christ and tending to their churches. Spurgeon had no desire to do this. Rather, he believed these issues could be alleviated by simply adopting an evangelical Statement of Faith that would hold the Union’s members accountable. This, the Union would not do. In the spring of 1888, they passed a statement of their historical beliefs. But these were merely historical beliefs. It did not hold its members accountable to it.
He did not want to make it about himself
The third and likely most important reason Spurgeon would not name names was because he did not want to make this fight about himself. The encroaching downgrade and modernist theologies were not an offense against Spurgeon personally. Rather, they were an offense against God. Spurgeon was “extremely anxious to avoid personalities,” because he had no desire to make the controversy about himself, as if he had taken personal offense against anyone in particular. In February of 1888, Spurgeon said in his article on the censure imposed on him by the Baptist Union,
Let no man imagine that I shall cease from my protests against false doctrine, or lay down the sword of which I have thrown away the scabbard. However much invited to do so, I shall not commence personalities, nor disclose the wretched facts in all their details; but with confirmatory evidence perpetually pouring in upon me, and a solemn conviction that the dark conspiracy to overthrow the truth must be dragged to light, I shall not cease to expose doctrinal declension wherever I see it.
To Spurgeon, this was not an issue of personal offense over differing tertiary doctrinal opinions. Rather, he was calling out the degradation of core Christian doctrines. What was passing as acceptable faith among the Baptist Union had no communion with the Word of God. To name names would have been an easy way to vindicate himself. But Spurgeon continued in the fight for the sake of the truth, not his own reputation.
Susannah Spurgeon wrote at the end of her husband’s autobiography, “The ultimate results of the whole matter must be left in the hands of Him who never makes a mistake, and who will, in His own right way, vindicate His obedient and faithful servant from the ‘censure’ so unjustly passed upon him.” Throughout the turmoil of controversy, Spurgeon did not name names because he understood that he did not need to vindicate himself. He was attacked because of his stand for God’s Word. Therefore, the Lord would vindicate Him in the end.
Conclusion
Charles Spurgeon was a great warrior for the truth of God. He planted his flag on the hill of truth, drew his sword, threw away the scabbard, and through the power of God, he valiantly defended orthodoxy. He refused to name individuals because his primary concern was to combat the unbelief that constantly seeks to ravage the Christian church. Most importantly, Spurgeon understood that the battle he was engaged in was not his. He was fighting for the all-powerful King who will vindicate Himself in the end, thereby vindicating all his faithful soldiers who can do no other than stand for the truth of God’s Word.