Spurgeon would not name names was because he did not want to make this fight about himself. The encroaching downgrade and modernist theologies were not an offense against Spurgeon personally. Rather, they were an offense against God. Spurgeon was “extremely anxious to avoid personalities,” because he had no desire to make the controversy about himself, as if he had taken personal offense against anyone in particular. 

In early 1887, C. H. Spurgeon published a paper in The Sword and the Trowel that, unbeknownst to him, would kindle a flame in the Baptist Union. This flame grew into the fiery debate, known as the Downgrade Controversy, that engulfed Baptists for the coming years. The altercation sent Spurgeon and the Baptist Union careening towards a dramatic outcome: separation. Spurgeon refused to continue to exist in association with ministers and churches that had left biblical truth for the “New Theology” of theological liberalism.

In response to these charges, the leaders of the Baptist Union insisted that Spurgeon should produce evidence of this theological drift by naming names. Who were these unorthodox ministers with whom Spurgeon refused to associate? Until he produced evidence of his claims, the Union refused to acknowledge his claims that theological liberalism had begun to infect the Baptists. All this put Spurgeon in a difficult position. He refused to name names. At the same time, he stood by his claims and his decision to secede from the Union. Many pastors and churches joined him and also left the Union, even as many more denounced Spurgeon’s condemnation.

The Downgrade Controversy inflicted deep wounds among Spurgeon, his contemporaries, and the Baptist Union. Anyone studying this controversy might ask the same question that many asked in Spurgeon’s day: Why didn’t he name names, thereby vindicating himself and possibly purifying the Baptist Union? If there were false teachers among the ranks of the Baptist Union, it would be logical that Spurgeon should produce evidence so that they could be removed. But it was not so simple. He never provided the names of these teachers for at least three reasons.

The main problem of theological downgrade.

The first was that Spurgeon was mainly concerned with the issue of theological downgrade and the dangers that it posed. The original articles never sought to implicate the Baptist Union specifically. From the outset, Spurgeon’s intent was never to attack any one person or denomination but to warn all evangelicals of the growing danger of heterodoxy. After the publication of the articles, people asked if he was issuing his warning for any particular denomination. Spurgeon responded, “It is not intended to be an attack on any one, but to be a warning to all.”

Some wondered if this was an attack on Arminian denominations, like the Methodists. Spurgeon responded, “[Our] warfare is with men who are giving up the atoning sacrifice, denying the inspiration of Holy Scripture, and casting slurs upon justification by faith. The present struggle is not a debate upon the question of Calvinism or Arminianism, but of the truth of God versus the inventions of men.” This was a trend that Spurgeon was beginning to see even in the Baptist Union. Some called for unity even with those who were departing from these core evangelical truths. To this notion of unity, Spurgeon responded, “That union which is not based upon the truth of God is rather a conspiracy than a communion.”

It is clear from the inaugural article that Spurgeon’s intent was not to single out individuals or any one denomination but to warn all believers against the looming specter of unbelief. Therefore, he refused to name names because this was not just a problem facing a few individuals but a growing spirit of theological decline affecting all evangelicals.

Read More