My attention was recently brought to the article about Elder Daniel Parker on Wikipedia. Last year I warned how that “Wikipedia” is now “Woke-ipedia” – propelled by political correctness to expel historical exactness. Nevertheless, the historian in me struggled to ignore and not call attention to this problem concerning Parker, and will hope it is corrected.
Under the section “Religious Leadership” in the Parker, at least two places need attention and correction. The article states:
“Parker believed that the non-white races who were the targets of foreign missions were people who were descended from the wicked seed of the serpent. He stated that since ‘God would save His own children, and since the children of Satan were predestined to eternal punishment, any kind of mission plan would seem ridiculous.’”
1. “Parker believed that the non-white races who were the targets of foreign missions were people who were descended from the wicked seed of the serpent.”
I am skeptical of this claim. It is unsourced. If it comes from a statement by Parker, it needs to be substantiated. Though it may appear that the footnote refers it back to Max Lee’s thesis “Daniel Parker’s Doctrine of the Two Seeds,” I found no such claim in Lee’s work. The practice of the Pilgrim Church belies such a doctrine. The church received non-whites into membership by experience & baptism, by relation, and by letter. The early minutes of the church, during Parker’s lifetime, are still accessible. Here are some examples from the minutes:
“Saturday, June 13th 1840. The Church met and in order proseded to business.
“1st. A Black man by the name of Thom. Presented a letter to the Church of recommendation from his master Mr. Wm. J. Hamblitt, and informed the Church, That he was receved in to a Baptist Church at Barefeet meeting House, and was Baptised by Elder Luster, in the State of Tennessee, which some of the members of the Church knew, That he took a letter from that Church, and joined a Church in the western district Called Spring Hill Church, from which he took a letter, but from some cause, left his letter, and some of his close behind, with an expectation of getting them, but as yet has failed, The Church being satisfied, Received him into Fellowship, as by Relation, yet claimes the right to his letter should it come to hand Ajorned”
“On Sunday, 23d [August 1840], Received a Black woman by the name of Hannah by Experience, and Baptised her.”
“Friday September 3d 1841...3d. Granted a letter of dismission to Sister Hannah a Black woman living in San Augusteen County”
These examples show the church receiving and dismissing black members, which seems unlikely if the Wiki-page claim is true.
2. “He stated that since ‘God would save His own children, and since the children of Satan were predestined to eternal punishment, any kind of mission plan would seem ridiculous.’”
This quote is in error. “God would save His own children, and since the children of Satan were predestined to eternal punishment, any kind of mission plan would seem ridiculous” is a quote from Max Lee’s thesis (p. 13). It is not a quote of a statement made by Parker. This is an assessment of what people said about Parker, or thought about what he believed – “it would seem according to the traditional understanding of Parker’s two-seed views that no mission plan whatsoever was needed.” Lee considered the “the traditional understanding of Parker’s two-seed views” to be deficient.
It is true and correct that Daniel Parker opposed the missionary system devised by the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions. However, he did not oppose the preaching of the gospel. In fact, if one reads the entire thesis without cherry picking, we find that Max Lee concludes that Parker’s views have been misunderstood (for several reasons, some of which were Parkers own fault).[i] On page 85 Lee writes, “Lest these non-elect have an excuse for their unbelief, Parker urged that the gospel be preached to men everywhere, including the non-elect.”
All told, my opinion is that Daniel Parker’s doctrine of the two-seeds is his attempt to explain the existence of evil without making its origin come from God.
Max Lee concludes that “an examination of Parker’s writings reveals, contrary to the traditional view, that Parker was not opposed to missions. Rather, he was opposed to any mission plan which was not under the government and direction of the churches, an example of which was the societal mission plan of the Triennial Convention. Parker’s opposition was against this plan of the Triennial Convention and not against missions proper.”
Where Pilgrim Church meets is a little over an hour’s drive from where I live. I have visited there several times. The church no longer holds the “two-seed” doctrine as taught by Daniel Parker, but identifies itself as and fellowships with Absolute Predestinarian Primitive Baptists.
[i] Lee proposes three factors contributing to the misunderstanding: (1) “Parker’s critics ordinarily attacked him instead of his doctrines. As a result, Parker was belittled, while his doctrines remained relatively unknown,” (2) “Parker contributed to his own misunderstanding by resorting to sarcasm and ridicule, particularly in the pages of the Church Advocate,” and (3) “the scarcity and unavailability of his writings, which has forced a reliance on men such as John Mason Peck and R. B. C. Howell, both of whom opposed Parker’s antimissionism.” He further reasons that “the descriptions of Parker and of his antimission motivation presented by Peck and Howell respectively have discouraged further investigation.”
No comments:
Post a Comment