“Humility is not a remarkable characteristic of the church of the present day.”
From time to time, I come across things written in the past that have incredible relevance for today. As I was working through my articles from a year ago, I found this article and was compelled to update it and post it again. This short piece from the 1830s needs to be read and heard by Christians everywhere, especially those who believe they are standing for truth. The essay was written by a pastor who was grieved by the attitudes he saw in the churches of his day. Among those who were “contending for the faith,” he saw too much pride and very little love. As he looked at the churches, he saw few of the childlike qualities that Jesus had insisted upon. Our writer asks, “If the Apostle John were alive today, would he even think of addressing his readers as ‘my little children’?”
Please read this article prayerfully. It should be read by every father, every church member, and every pastor. The principles apply within the home and within the church. At the end of the article I’ve included a short account of the author and of the context in which he wrote these words.
Practical Thought #15: The Conversion of the Church
We hear a great deal now-a-days about the conversion of the world. It is in almost every Christian's mouth; and we cannot be too familiar with the phrase — we cannot be too diligent to promote the thing. It ought to have our daily thoughts, prayers, and efforts. It deserves our hearts. It is the great object of Christianity. But there is another community besides the world, which I think needs to undergo a measure of the same process that the world so much needs. It is the church. While the conversion of the world is made so prominent, I think we ought not to overlook the conversion of the church, especially since this comes first in order.
Every thing, we know, begins at the house of God, both in judgment and mercy (1 Peter 4:17). But what do I mean by the conversion of the church? Is not the church converted already? Suppose I admit that; may she not need a new conversion? Regeneration is but once, but conversion may be many times. Peter had been converted when Christ said to him, “and when you are converted, strengthen your brethren.” There is no doubt the church might be converted again, and that without any injury to her.
But why do I think the church needs conversion? I might give several reasons, but I will assign only one. It is founded on Matthew 18:3: “Except you be converted, and become as little children.” Here we see the effect of conversion is to make the subjects of it as little children, and hence St. John addresses the early Christians as little children. Now my reason for thinking the church needs conversion is, that there does not seem to be much of the little child about the church of the present day. There is a great deal more of “the old man” about it, I am afraid. I think if John were living now, he would not be apt to address the members of the church generally as “little children.” No indeed. I question whether, if he were even addressing an assembly of the ministers and officers of many of our churches, he would not be apt to apply other terms than “little children" as a preface to his exhortation “love one another," which I am sure he would not forget.
Little children are humble, but humility is not a remarkable characteristic of the church of the present day. I don't think the scholars of either of the schools have got the lesson of lowliness very perfectly from their Master. I fear, if the Master were to come in upon us now, he would be likely to chide many in both the schools. Why two schools? There is but one Master.
How confiding little children are, and how ready to believe on the bare word of one in whom they have reason to feel confidence, and especially if he be a father! But not so the church. “Thus saith the Lord” does not satisfy her sons now. They must have better reasons for believing than that. They must hear first what he has to say, and then see if they can get a confirmation of it from any quarter before they will believe it. How unceremoniously many of these children treat some of the things which their Father very clearly says, because they do not strike them as in accordance with reason, justice, or common sense!
How docile the little child is! Mary, who “sat at Jesus' feet and heard his word,” was such a child. Never a why or a how asked she of him. I cannot say so much for the church of our day. Simplicity also characterizes little children. How open and artless they are — how free from guile. Such was Nathanael (John 1:47). Whether this trait of character be conspicuous in the church now, let the reader say.
Little children are moreover characterized by love, and their charity “thinks no evil.” How unsuspicious they are! But too much of the charity of the present day, so far from thinking no evil, thinks no good. It suspects every body. It “hopes” nothing. Indeed love, and her sister peace, which used to lead the graces, are become as wall-flowers with many; into such neglect they have fallen. They seem to be quite out of the question with many. Some good men appear to think that contending for the faith is the end of the commandment and the fulfilling of the law. But it is not. It is a duty, an important duty — one too little regarded by many — one never to be sneered at as by some it is. I acknowledge some treat it as if it were nothing. I only say it is not everything. There is walking in love, and following peace, which, as well as contending for the faith, are unrepealed laws of Christ's house. I believe they can all be done, and that each is best done when the others are not neglected. I am sure truth never lost any thing by being spoken in love. I am of opinion that a principal reason why we are not more of one mind, is that we are not more of one heart. How soon they who feel heart to heart, begin to see eye to eye! The way to think alike is first to feel alike; and if the feeling be love, the thought will be truth. I wish, therefore, for the sake of sound doctrine, that the brethren could love one another. What if we see error in each other to condemn, can we not find any thing amiable to love? I would the experiment might be made. Let us not cease to contend for the faith — not merely for its own sake, but for love’s sake, because “faith works by love.” But, in the conflict, let us be careful to shield love. It is a victory for truth scarcely worth gaining, if charity be left bleeding on the field of battle.
You see why I think the church needs converting. It is to bring her back to humility, and simplicity, and love. I wish she would attend to this matter. She need not relax her efforts for the world. She has time enough to turn a few reflex acts on herself. The object of the church is to make the world like herself. But let her in the meantime make herself more like what the world ought to be. It is scarcely desirable that the world should be as the church in general now is. Let her become a better model for the world's imitation. Her voice is heard for Christ; but let her “hold forth the word of life” in her conduct, as well as by her voice. Let her light shine. Let her good works be manifest. Let her heaven-breathed spirit breathe abroad the same spirit.
The work of the conversion of the world goes on slowly; but it makes as much progress as the work of the conversion of the church does. No more sinners are converted, because no more Christians are converted. The world will continue to lie in wickedness, while “the ways of Zion mourn” as they do. Does any one wonder that iniquity abounds, when the love of so many has waxed cold? We are sending the light of truth abroad, when we have but little of the warmth of love at home.
We are often asked what we are doing for the conversion of the world. We ought to be doing a great deal — all we can. But I would ask, what are we doing for the conversion of the church? What to promote holiness nearer home, among our fellow Christians and in our own hearts? Let us not forget the world, but at the same time let us remember Zion.
An introduction to “The Conversion of the Church,” an essay by William Nevins. Published in Practical Thoughts by the American Tract Society, 1836.
The life and ministry of William Nevins
William Nevins was born in Connecticut in 1797, the 12th and youngest child. He did not have any meaningful Christian upbringing, but was converted during a spiritual revival at Yale while he was a student there. After Yale, he attended the newly-formed Princeton Seminary, where he studied under the small faculty of Archibald Alexander and Samuel Miller. One of his fellow students was Charles Hodge, who later became a well known theologian and Bible commentator.
Following Princeton, he became the pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Baltimore at the age of 23. Miller, his former professor, preached the installation sermon, and the occasion sparked a friendship that lasted until Nevins died fifteen years later. His ministry would prove to be short, but it was highly-regarded and touched countless lives. God sent revival to his church early in his ministry, and one of its fruits was extensive evangelism—his took the gospel to the streets of Baltimore, which led to the founding of another church. Nevins endured many trials in his short life, including the loss of at least one child and the death of his wife ten months before his own. She went for a walk on a Friday evening, felt unwell after returning, and died in less than 24 hours from cholera, a miserable intestinal disease.
Nevins rarely had good health as an adult, and in his last year had to leave his motherless children in Baltimore as he traveled to find relief. When he could no longer preach, he began writing spiritual essays for publication. He died at the age of 38 in September 1835, and many in Baltimore grieved his loss. Letters commending his life and ministry were sent to his church, including one from Samuel Miller, who said that he considered Nevins, during the last few years of his life, to be “among the very best preachers in the United States.”
His congregation asked George Musgrave, pastor of Baltimore's Third Presbyterian Church, to preach the funeral sermon. No record of the sermon exists, but some time later Musgrave made a list of praiseworthy character qualities that he had seen in Nevins. His comments help modern readers to appreciate the significance of Nevins' essay “The Conversion of the Church.” A few of those comments are as follows:
Musgrave said that no one could listen to Nevins without thinking, “There is a man who believes what he says!” He said that he was “sound in doctrine and in practice, with no sympathy with the idle speculations and innovations of the age.” At the same time, he was opposed to the extreme measures and “vindictive spirit” of others who professed to be contending for the truth. He was never known to pursue anyone with “personal and vulgar abuse.”
Nevins was talented and popular. He could easily have had a larger ministry, but he was committed to his local church and did not want to involve himself in things that would interfere with his primary calling. For years he had wanted to write, but always feared he would do it from a wrong motive. Were it not for his failing health, we would probably have nothing that he wrote. Were it not for his early death, we would probably not even have the few details of his life that we do. Before he died, he told his friends that he did not want his biography written, so all that we know about him comes from an extended introduction to a collection of his essays. I pray that the words of this humble and gifted pastor will be for the modern church words that wound in order to heal, and words that convict in order to bring greater conformity to the One who died in order to present to himself a glorious church.
The historical context of the essay
Tension and division within the church are nothing new. If Paul had to withstand Peter to his face, and if even Barnabas and Paul reached a point where they could not work together, we should expect similar tensions to erupt throughout the history of the church. And they have. In Nevins' day, there was controversy between the Old School and New School Presbyterians. While those names do not say everything about the issues that divided them, they do hint at the conservatism and progressivism that underlay the conflict. Nevins held dearly to the truth but also knew that contending for truth was not all that God required from the church. Truth without love or humility is a caricature of the church and a distortion of the truth. This is the burden of “The Conversion of the Church,” and it is one that the church must reconsider in our own contentious day.
