“If you build it, they will come.” Or . . . will they? Smith said yes; Chalmers said absolutely not. The following is an academic article I wrote for the Historical Journal of the Scottish Reformation Societythat explains how Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847) argued for religious church establishments as mission agencies againstAdam Smith’s regrettable misapplication of laissez faire to matters of religion.
I also gave a somewhat abbreviated lecture last year at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary. You can listen to that here:
Someday I hope to be free to return to further academic research on Chalmers’ territorial or ‘parish’ missiology, if not to get back into a Ph.D. program. All God willing!
In this public lecture of the Scottish Reformation Society, I will be discussing Thomas Chalmers’ (1780-1847) defense of church establishments over against Adam Smith’s critique. Chalmers championed such an establishment as a “Great Home Mission.”‘ Yet is this a merely an academic question? Does Chalmers have something to offer is in modern, pluralistic America? You might be surprised. Join us Friday, October 18 at 2:30 p.m. Eastern-U.S. / 7:30 p.m. U.K. Watch throughFacebook Live. More information below:
If you would truly profit by ordinances, after you have a fixed pastor, I think it is of moment to forget, as much as possible, the persons of men, and confider them as no more than instruments in the hand of God, for your daily instruction and comfort. The more you remember the appointment of God, and wait upon his ordinances, in the faith of his presence, and the expectation of his blessing, the more you are likely to receive both sensible and lasting benefit. I must therefore take the liberty to observe, that we have amongst us a set of wandering unsettled hearers, who run about from one congregation to another, and even from one profession to another, and are scarcely ever to be seen a whole day in one place. If they be but deliberating where to fix, we may fay of them, that they are ever learning, and never come to the knowledge of the truth. But the probability is, that they have itching and curious ears, and go about not to serve God but to hear men. If I am able at all to judge, either by reflection or observation, those are most likely to profit, who having deliberately made their choice, sit habitually and regularly under one minister. By this means they enter into his views; and as he will naturally endeavour, if any thing was wanting at one time, to complete his scheme by supplying it at another, they will thereby have a more comprehensive view of the whole counsel of God. At the fame time, not having the charm of novelty to enchant them, they will have nothing to do but to reap instruction. On the other hand, by hearing separate, detached, and independent discourses, men may please their fancy more, but they will improve their understanding less. It is also plain, that as every minister will endeavour, not only to follow an order in his discourses on one subject, but to have a respect to the connection, and relation of the subjects themselves, the more accurate and exact he is, in suiting one part to the, illustration of another, the less he will be understood by these desultory hearers, who take only a single branch, without being able to perceive its subserviency to the general design. I have many times known exceptions taken at ministers, for some parts of a discourse by such persons, when, if they had heard the whole upon the fame or corresponding subjects, they would have perceived there was no place for their objections. The great purpose, my brethren, of a serious and judicious people, in attending on ordinances, should neither be to please themselves, nor to criticise their teachers; but to hear the word of God, that they may do it. On this account it is, that humble and regular Christians are getting real advantage to their fouls, while some are only watching the opinions, or others only passing judgment on the ability, perhaps no more than the style and outward manner of the speaker.