A Response to Kirk M. Wellum’s Principal’s Office Newsletter, October 2022
Dear students, alumni, teachers, Christians, and churches associated with Toronto Baptist Seminary,
We recently received public correspondence from TBS (see below) which we would, in turn, like to publicly address.
We want to preface the following remarks by stating that for many years we have personally benefited both from Kirk Wellum’s individual ministry, as well as Toronto Baptist Seminary as a whole. Not only have we attended classes ourselves but we have demonstrated our trust, admiration, and respect in sending a number of young men and women from our church in their direction. We say this only to convey that we are not third-party “troublemakers” that have shown up to sling some mud, but grateful alumni and pastors whose concerns have only grown as we have witnessed the response of Toronto Baptist Seminary over the past two years. The cause of our concerns have been summarily restated in the recent principal’s letter.
Our hope and prayer is that these concerns will be received in the spirit in which they were sent; sadness, concern, and respect. We are confident that our history of partnership in the gospel will ensure this. We are also hopeful that this letter will serve as the impetus for sincere, rigorous, and personal conversation. By God’s grace, it is never too late to change course, and even estranged parties can be reconciled.
Though there is much more that could be said, we will confine our response here to three areas in particular:
First, we are concerned by the overall tactics employed by Mr. Wellum in his public letter and object to the series of false dichotomies and straw men which are repeated throughout. Whatever one’s position, surely such tactics are unbecoming of Christians and teachers. These do not serve to bring clarity to the truth, but rather obscure it. For example, in one instance we are presented with Christians who “engage in the struggle for sanctification.” Presumably these are the faithful Christians who closed their churches. On the other hand are those who “frighten the timid,” “blow their own horns,” and “get involved in noisy protests and political activism in the name of Christ.”
The assumed subtext of these “sides” — and indeed, of the whole letter — seems to be that Christians, and churches, who resisted closures and mandates are in the same boat as those with “ungodly appetite[s] for controversy.” Mr. Wellum gives the impression that those who presume limits to the absolute authority of the state are manifesting an anarchistic disposition which provokes division in the church and is a poor witness to the world.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact, the suggestion that a failure to comply with state authority on particular matters is de facto evidence of a rebellious spirit is, in itself, an authoritarian assertion. Insisting on God-ordained limits to authority (and submission) whether in the home, the church, or the state, is a matter of Christian obedience. Indeed, to ascribe unlimited authority to any human or human institution is rank idolatry. To see these authoritarian assumptions manifest amongst the theological heirs of nonconformists and dissenters is both alarming and concerning.
In case everyone has forgotten, several months of shuttered churches were not a good thing for Christians. And as the concession of zoom “church” evolved into the norm of zoom “church,” we witnessed the rise of marital strife, abuse, backsliding, fear, anger, despair, resentment, and suspicions. This is to be expected, as neglecting the fellowship of the saints and means of God’s grace is a breeding ground for the deceitfulness of sin (Heb 13:3). It was precisely because we cared about “the struggle for sanctification” that we resolved to reopen our churches when we did.
Insinuating that those who remained committed to gathering the saints for corporate worship and all its benefits are somehow opposed to sanctification is both disingenuous and wrong.
In reality, we affirm both the validity and the limitations of state authority — and every other God-ordained authority, for that matter. (Romans 13:4, Acts 4:19). We also affirm that, where an authority attempts to operate beyond its proper bounds, it must be resisted. Here we agree with Francis Schaeffer:
God has ordained the state as a delegated authority; it is not autonomous. The state is to be an agent of justice, to restrain evil by punishing the wrongdoer, and to protect the good in society. When it does the reverse, it has no proper authority. It is then a usurped authority and as such it becomes lawless and is tyranny.
For example, when civil authorities attempted to bar Christ’s sheep from the green pastures by which they are sanctified (i.e. the encouragement of “gathering together”), we say “This far, and no further.” It wasn’t a case of the church veering into politics, but of politics veering into the church. When politicians forbid what God commands, we must say with the disciples, “We must obey God rather than man.” (Acts 5:29).
Pastors and churches who refused to address the many issues facing their congregants in the name of “avoiding politics” weren’t being politically neutral. They were letting politics govern the church. There is no such thing as some spiritual and holy band of ministers who somehow obeyed Christ “in spirit” even as they padlocked churches, railroaded conscience, and forbade the unvaccinated from worship. In all their many concessions to politicians and officials — whether acknowledged or not — they were not acting as Christ’s ambassadors, but Leviathans’.
Second, we object to the pervasive compartmentalism which has crippled the vigour of so many Christians in our day. This “pietism’” is both a distortion of, and danger to, true biblical piety.
There has been an unfortunate increase in a so-called “Gospel-centrism” which is not, in fact, Gospel-centered at all, but man-centred. It is man centred in that it relegates the renovating work of God’s kingdom to the thoughts, feelings, and inner battles of man. Though it boasts great things, it functionally confines Christian obedience to a small array of “spiritual” exercises: “Denying ourselves, walking in humility, quietly enduring persecution for righteousness’ sake.”
The assumption here is that the “activists” — having abandoned the gospel, and being too busy parading through the town square — have failed to practice such holiness in their own lives.
But hold on a second.
Wasn’t it the “activists” who bore the brunt of condemnation from their communities? Wasn’t it the “activists” who humbly acknowledged their failure in closing their churches and who subsequently resolved to walk forward in obedience? Wasn’t it the “activists” who happily endured slander, persevered through weeks of jail time, and faced millions of dollars of fines? While we are left wondering whether Christians who acquiesced to the state really did act in obedience, as far as the test of “testifying to the truth in word in deed” goes, the activists need only point to their works.
We are convinced that it is precisely this narrow, unbiblical definition of obedience that has rendered Christians so hopeless and helpless over the past two years. It is telling that the same leaders who spent their time convincing everyone it was right to close their church didn’t really have anything to say about the limits of state, the duties of a pastor, the nature of the church, the importance of the body, the duty of dominion, and the responsibilities of the Christian.
We are convinced that the church’s ongoing disarray is due to a large segment of Christians who perceive themselves to be in the right, yet who have consistently refused to entertain the least scrutiny of their views. This, apparently, is the “unity” we must rally around. A unity not founded on sincere, rigorous debate or exegesis, but a pietistic facade propped up by fear and self-preservation; a spirituality which manifests in creeds, confessions, and great preachers of the past, but only rarely in present obedience. This is not the unity our Saviour prayed for, which ought to be centered around the truth (cf. John 17).
We seem to forget, conveniently, that the reason Christians of today are able to enjoy the benefits of law, order, education, medicine, and culture is because the Christians of yesterday brought their biblicism to bear on a far wider scope than the sanctuary or dinner table. To pray and hope for “quiet lives of godliness” while doing nothing in the way of preserving them isn’t faith, but presumption. What would have happened to the slave trade had men like William Wilberforce adopted the “Titanic” narrative? What would have happened to the communist regime had not Soviet Christians insisted on telling the truth? What would have happened to the reformation had not Martin Luther addressed the clerical/civil errors of his own day?
This isn’t revival or politics. Or even revival through politics. But the rule of Christ, and the authority of the Scriptures, extended to all areas of life. To be frank, the groups of Christians huddling in sanctuaries singing “This world is not my home, I’m just a’ passing through” are the reason we are in this mess in the first place. It is this prevailing reductionism which has rendered us a passive, fearful, ineffective body, with an over developed sixth sense that instinctively knows when things are getting “too political.”
Praise God, Christ is not captive to our compartmentalized thought. Rather, “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5).
A compartmentalized, privatized faith is not a biblical faith.
Third, we object to the divisive accusations made by Mr. Wellum. In one of the final paragraph’s of his letter, Wellum makes a none-too-subtle remark directed at Pastor Jacob Reaume, one of many pastors to be featured in an upcoming documentary, Antichrist and His Ruin. The main accusation here seems to be that Reaume’s involvement in such a project is an entirely self-serving exercise. He is numbered among one of “Satan’s distractions” — a “self-congratulatory pastoral hero” who “makes documentaries hoping to secure their place in history.”
Now Wellum is free to dismiss, critique, or discredit this documentary to his heart’s content. However, what he, and what no Christian is free to do, is falsely accuse someone of motives and designs they can’t possibly ascertain without sitting down to discuss the issues at hand — a conversation which never took place. This tactic is not only unfair, but actually slanderous and certainly unbefitting of a principal of a theological institution. Most seriously, it represents an hypocritical refusal to walk in the “humble righteousness” he commends to others.
We would fail in our love for our Lord and our brother if we did not publicly testify against these false, malicious accusations. We can speak for ourselves and many others when we say that Pastor Jacob’s humble and courageous commitment to Jesus Christ, in the face of overwhelming opposition, has strengthened our love and devotion for our Lord. Because of his perseverance in the faith, many sinners are now saints, saved through the preaching of the word. Countless saints have been preserved through the ministry of the word. We can testify, having spoken with him, that his desire for the documentary is that Christ would be glorified and the Church would be sanctified.
Shouldn’t we all be able to share these noble aims?
In conclusion, we arrive at a series of questions which aren’t convenient, but which also cannot be avoided. How can an institution that has actively undermined the local church for the past two years claim to be the same one who will train future ministers to “contend for the faith”? How can an institution which so swiftly accommodated the dictates of unelected officials — with barely a whisper of opposition — claim to be the one who will train pastors to lay down their lives for the sheep? How can an institution that ignored conscientious objections graduate pastors who will go on to protect the consciences of their flocks?
If our response to these questions is, “It cannot,” then we are faced with an elephant in the room that cannot just be shuffled out the back door. What is at stake isn’t just a minor disagreement between a church and a theological institution, but the fate of future churches, who will be presided over by its graduates.
We do indeed find ourselves in a cloud of settling dust. Strangely, it isn’t those who opened their churches that are now surveying the ruins.
We are grieved, deeply, by the missed opportunity for our Lord. In a time of crisis and confusion, those “pillars of truth” ought to have spoken clearly. There ought to have been charity, patience, and rigour in our debate. As Baptists, we should have been prepared for this hour — ready to articulate biblical doctrines such as the separation of church and state, the freedom of conscience, and the nature of the new covenant community. Instead, we retreated to our positions, protecting ourselves at the expense of those we are called to serve.
By God’s grace, even treachery and hypocrisy can be forgiven, and leaders restored (cf. Gal 2:11). The need of the hour is not defensive, divisive, and resentful diatribes, nor shallow dichotomies masquerading as theological reflection. What is needed is humility, contrition, and a serious approach to God’s word (Isaiah 66:2).
We all stumble in many ways (James 3:2), but there is an unending abundance of grace for those who acknowledge their error. Our sincere hope and prayer is that TBS would change course from the trajectory they have been on. Great harm has been done and an opportunity to speak the truth has been missed. However, the response ought not to be entrenchment and bitterness.
Though Peter failed to stand when he was called, he yet became a rock in the church. The Lord is both patient and kind, and we are confident the same opportunity for repentance is extended to us as well. With God’s help, even our greatest regrets can lead to our finest hour (Acts 2:14).
Your brothers in Christ,
The Elders of Hill City Baptist Church