Book Review: The Reformed Pastor

Image

Richard Baxter’s work The Reformed Pastor was first published in 1656 and is commonly considered a classic. Many seminaries recommend the book, and most pastors with graduate training are aware of it. J.I. Packer penned the introduction for the Banner of Truth edition, and after studying the work one can appreciate why Packer was forced to acknowledge the following (10-11):

… Baxter was a poor performer in public life. Thought always respected for his godliness and pastoral prowess, and always seeking doctrinal and ecclesiastical peace, his combative, judgmental, pedagogic way of proceeding with his peers made failure a foregone conclusion every time … his lifelong inability to see that among equals a triumphalist manner is counter-productive was a strange blind spot.

Packer called it like a fortune-teller. Some guys know how to encourage pastors. Baxter knew how to take a tomahawk to your skull and tell you he was there to help.

Baxter’s text was to be delivered at a pastor’s meeting in December 1655, but he was “disabled from going thither” and fashioned his remarks into what became The Reformed Pastor (38). His aim was to encourage pastors to be more diligent by exposing “the sins of the ministry.” Baxter, anticipating angry howls from his peers, launched a defensive salvo by proclaiming “plain dealers will always be approved in the end; and the time is at hand when you will confess that they were your best friends,” (39). It is fair to assume Baxter did not have many Facebook friends.

Baxter’s burden was to demonstrate that pastors were generally lazy and undiligent and must become diligent. In short, he wished to consider how to stir pastors up to good works. He explained the book’s outline (52):

I wish to propose the following method:

First, To consider what it is to take heed to ourselves. Secondly, To show why we must take heed to ourselves. Thirdly, To inquire what it is to take heed to all the flock. Fourthly, To illustrate the manner in which we must take heed to all the flock. Fifthly, To state some motives why we should take heed to all the flock. Lastly, To make some application of the whole.

This list is deceptive, however, because this “application of the whole” takes up approximately 50% of the text (pp. 133-256) and is quite tedious. Like a pastor who re-preaches his sermon during the conclusion, Baxter circles the airport like a wounded 747 and never quite “lands” his plane.

Baxter says much that is good. Unfortunately, he lacked a good editor. The book is perhaps 50% too long. Guilt trips make up perhaps 80% of the book. They are very helpful for the first 20%. Then, they get annoying. Then, they make you feel worthless. Then, one begins to really dislike Baxter.

He explains Pastors must guard their own hearts (62):

If it be not your daily business to study your own hearts, and to subdue corruption, and to walk with God – if you will not make this a work to which you constantly attend, all will go wrong, and you will starve your hearers …

Baxter shows prophetic powers when he rails against hypocrisy. “What a difference was there between their pulpit speeches and their familiar discourse? They that were most impatient of barbarisms, solecisms, and paralogisms in a sermon, could easily tolerate them in their life and conversation,” (Ibid). He could be referring to social media!

Pastors must look after every member of the flock, even if means downsizing or securing assistance and taking a pay cut. “If you say, that is a hard measure, and that your wife and child cannot so live, I answer, Do not many families in your parish live on less?” (91-92).

He warns:

We must carry on our work with patience. We must bear from many abuses and injuries from those to whom we seek to do good. When we have studied for them, and prayed for them, and exhorted them, and beseeched them with all earnestness and condescension, and given them what we are able, and tended them as if they had been our children, we must look that many of them will requite is with scorn and hatred and contempt, and account us their enemies, because we ‘tell them the truth.’

In all, the first half of Baxter’s book is ponderous but helpful. It convicts. It exhorts. It helps. Here, in this paraphrase of Baxter’s outline for “motives to the oversight of the flock,” we see a representative sample of this qualified praise (124-132):

  1. Pastors are overseers of the flock
    • You must therefore take heed to the flock
    • You agreed to be a pastor, so suck it up and do your job (127)
    • You have the great honor to be an ambassador for the gospel, so go do it
    • Do not take the blessings of your pastoral position for granted
    • Be found faithful
  2. The Holy Spirit made you a pastor, so “take heed to it”
  3. How could you be unfaithful to the Church of God?
  4. Christ purchased the Church with His blood, so “shall we despise the blood of Christ?”

This cycle of (1) assertion of sin, then (2) exhortation to be faithful repeats over and over. But, by the time Baxter turns to “make some application of the whole,” the book is only halfway over. What new information does Baxter impart?

His focus is on catechizing. “I shall now proceed to exhort you to the faithful discharge of the great duty which you have undertaken, namely, personal catechizing and instructing every one in your parishes or congregations that will submit thereto,” (172). However, this emphasis is of little use to Baptist pastors who believe the New Covenant is only for regenerate believers. At once, the object of his exhortations have been rendered moot for Baptist ministers, who are forced to make general application only.

Baxter begins the application section by spending 39 pages trying to convince pastors to repent of their sloth (133-172) “What pains do we take to humble them, while we ourselves are unhumbled!” (133). In short, he beats a dying horse with gusto and drove this pastor to personal despair.

One is tempted to shout at the book, “Yes, I admit I’m not the best pastor ever! Leave me alone, Saint Baxter!” It is doubtful a sentient being has yet lived who would not melt under Baxter’s steely Puritan gaze. Again, a paraphrased outline makes the point:

  1. We have great pride (9 pages)
  2. We are lazy (4 pages):
    • “If we were duly devoted to our work, we should not be so negligent in our studies,” (146)
    • “If were heartily devoted to our work, it would be done more vigorously, and more seriously, than it is by most of us,” (147).
    • “If we are heartily devoted to the work of God, why do we not compassionate the poor unprovided congregations around us, and take care to help them find able ministers …?” (150).
  3. We are too worldly (6 pages):
    • We wed ourselves to whatever political party happens to be in power.
    • We do not speak the truth because it will harm our interests.
    • We hoard our money and are not charitable.
  4. We are sectarian (12 pages).
  5. We do not exercise church discipline (4 pages).

If this were not enough, after a brief discussion of how to catechize (172-194), Baxter circles the airport once again in his 747 with 17 pages of “motives from the necessity of this work” and “applications” thereof, in which he largely repeats himself. These pages are filled with exhortations that have grown annoying (and worse) by their incessant repetition:

And if you pity them, will you not do this much for their salvation? (198)

Oh what a dreadful thing it is to answer for the neglect of such a charge! and what sin more heinous than the betraying of souls? (199)

What cause have we to bleed before the Lord this day, that we have neglected so great and good a work for so long …? (200)

And now, brethren, what have we to do for the time to come, but to deny our lazy flesh, and rouse up ourselves to the work before us (202).

After continuing in this vein, Baxter summons a crescendo of 15 itemized “condemnation[s] that is like to befall negligent pastors,” (205-211). Baxter assures us that (among other things) our parents will condemn us, our training will condemn us, “all that Christ hath done and suffered for” will condemn us, all Scripture “will rise up and condemn us,” and all our sermons will condemn us.

Baxter is clearly a man with a burden. Unfortunately, (1) his burden for catechizing is not applicable for Baptist ministers, (2) his attempts at exhortation degenerate into guilt trips from overuse, and (3) his entire work has a superior, snobby sort of air to it. It cannot be described. It must be experienced. To this bi-vocational pastor, it largely increased feelings of inadequacy that were already present. I will not read it again and would never recommend it. As the learned archeologist Dr. Henry Jones often remarked in a different context, “it belongs in a museum.”

Discussion

It always strikes me that some full-time pastors complain about not having enough time to do everything they should do during the week, but spend an inordinate amount of time on social media and writing blog posts.

I don’t know if that is laziness or just misplaced priorities.

I find Baxter repetitive and overbearing, but I am clear on why Baptist cannot catechize. That would be an interesting assertion to see defended and debated.

Yes, Baptists can catechize, but Baxter is coming at this from a completely different angle. Baxter refers to a “parish” and considers everyone in his congregation to be a covenant member who needs to be instructed … because they have all been baptized. Baxter was a Presbyterian. He starts from a presupposition of:

  1. a person in my church who has been baptized is a covenant member,
  2. so the person needs instruction to live up to this covenant membership, and
  3. maybe the person isn’t really a Christian, but Baxter doesn’t begin there.

This is the fundamental divide between Baptists and other groups. However, I find dispensationalists often don’t think in Old Covenant vs. New Covenant categories, because dispensationalism clouds the issue.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Take the good and move on from the rest. Hey, he is talking about ministry in a culture we are 300+ years removed from.

Thanks, Tyler. I gave up on Baxter long before you did. I didn’t make it all the way through that.

But what does the Old and New Covenant or dispensationalism have to do with this? As a dispensational Baptist, I think in those categories quite frequently, but I have not thought of it in terms of catechism. What am I a missing here?

I have always understood catechism is typically a method of teaching doctrine, or teaching the basics of the Christian faith. I don’t think it assumes anything about whether one is saved or not. I teach my kids catechism and I still remember the catechism I learned growing up as (what I not know to be) a dispensational Baptist. I think it is helpful and I think most do not do it enough.

I believe that Baxter was a Puritan not a Presbyterian. He was a Church of England minister. He did not believe that all those in his parish were believers in Christ; and sought to meet with each one in order to teach them the Gospel. I would disagree with Baxter on many things; but his passion for the spiritual welfare of the people in his parish is so commendable.

It appears Baxter was at times a Church of England minister and a non-conformist. I now suspect he was a CoE guy when he wrote this, but really don’t care. The guy assumed sacralism, and this drove his desire to catechize his “parish.” Baptist presuppositions are different; we would EVANGELIZE the “parish.”

Baxter is a tiresome bore, and is not worth reading. Packer’s analysis of his faults is spot on.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Having had a few pastors with about the same disability as brother Baxter, perhaps we can read his work in light of the things that made him “less than effective” in his ministry? And we can contemplate, given that his work is a classic, the acceptance of Baxter’s work as a classic with its faults tells us something, perhaps, about the faults of those brothers who came before us.

It also strikes me that the “fix” for the faults of Baxter—I’m going to trust the testimony of others since I haven’t read his work personally—is to approach the subject of motivation. For example, it is certainly true that many pastors do indeed lack a passion for God’s Word. Now how can we induce them to develop this hunger? So we might infer that Baxter diagnoses the disease reasonably well, but the “guilt trips” he is alleged to make seem to be a weak medicine. How can we get something stronger?

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

I have disliked every “how to be a better pastor” book I’ve ever read. It may be because I’m bi-vocational and am aware of everything I should do but for which I don’t quite have time. So, I’m really not in the mood to be told I’m lazy and must repent. Consider that as I criticize Baxter! So, maybe he isn’t quite that bad, but I suspect he is.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

on my Logos version, and noticed on the title page the quote is Luke 12:47 “And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes.”

I guess that sums up what you don’t like about his book, Tyler.

Like any book, especially ones written 300+ years ago, there are good things and many bad things. The goal is to take the good and ignore the bad or irrelevant. Of course he had a different ecclesiology than you, Tyler. Even “baptist” of the time would be foreign to us. So what we do is learn what we can and appreciate the rest. That’s my view.

I didn’t like his book because Baxter was a ponderous, self-righteous bore, as the review intimated. If someone can get something out of it, then that is good. I found him unhelpful, self-righteous, and depressing. That may just be me, and I admit I do not like “how to be a better pastor” books in general, and find them extraordinarily depressing. Yet, even accounting for that, I believe Baxter’s tone and approach is unhelpful. My comment about Baxter’s tomahawk (in the article) is apt. I understand if folks disagree. Chew the meat and spit out the bones, as they say.

In Baxter’s case, I just don’t think there’s much meat.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Since Baxter’s been dead and buried for over 300 years, I don’t think there is any copyright issue with this.

Read it for yourself if you like. Make your own decisions. One thing to keep in mind here is that on page 19, Baxter hints at the biggest problem; that many pastors do not in fact know the Savior.

One of the key issues in Anglican pastoral roles, historically, is that too often, wealthy aristocrats saw the pastorate in the CofE as a good sinecure for their younger sons, many of whom had cultivated “Cadillac tastes” in their parents’ country homes and at Oxford and Cambridge, but who would have a “Chevrolet budget” because they could not legally inherit their parents’ estates.

Worse yet, living lives well described by Jane Austen in her novels, they also had a work ethic cultivated by the same—and that meant that they were not likely to achieve great things in the business world, either. They knew which tie to wear and how to tie it, which fork to use, how to dance, and their Latin—qualifying them for court life and the pastorate, nothing else. The pastorate was easier, because you had to be witty and poetic in court, and the results self-explanatory.

So we might infer that all of chapter 1—perhaps the entirety of the book—is in reality a tract calling the unregenerate to faith, and the unsanctified to sanctification. And as I read it in the light of unregenerate pastors preaching to many illiterate parishioners, it makes a lot of sense, and I see also a more benign reason why Baxter’s colleagues tended to reject him; they were unregenerate or unwilling to grow in Christ.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

You have to admit that if Tyler dislikes something he lets you know about it! Yes, Richard Baxter was a Puritan (most Puritans were Prebys btw) and a Nonconformist minister. He was not an Anglican save in his younger years. The original of The Reformed Pastor is 800 pages long. He, like most Puritans, could be long-winded, although times and reading habits have changed a lot. I do not share Tyler’s opinions on Baxter. Baxter was honored for his godliness, and he practiced most of what he preached. Doubtless Tyler would have many of the same thoughts about other Puritans too. They tended to follow the same programmatic outline as Baxter. John Owen, for example, is guilty of the same kinds of convolutions as Baxter, only he is more dense in his prose. But he is just as penetrating in his pressing upon us the sinfulness of sin.

Baxter is not my No 1, but his enormous Christian Directory is a prized possession. I have not read it all, but a fair bit of it, and always to great benefit. As for The Reformed Pastor, I liked it!

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

I understand. In a different season in my life, I might appreciate Baxter. I’m willing to admit that. I just don’t appreciate him right now! I generally don’t like Puritans. I do like Thomas Watson’s Body of Divinity, and think it’s just wonderful. The most helpful, concise systematic theology ever!

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

[Larry]

I find Baxter repetitive and overbearing, but I am clear on why Baptist cannot catechize. That would be an interesting assertion to see defended and debated.

? Keach’s Catechism is a solid baptist catechism that has stood the test of time. An Orthodox Catechism by Hercules Collins is another great one.