Did AC Dixon jump or was he pushed?

Amzi Clarence Dixon (1854-1925) was a mighty man of God, and much used by God in the salvation of souls.

I have mentioned AC Dixon in previous posts, and discovered a considerable discrepancy in how his tenure at the Metropolitan Tabernacle (1911-1919) has been viewed.I must emphasise from the beginning - this post isn't about insulting AC Dixon (brief bio here). However, the facts must be faced, and it seems to me that there is a great deal of ignorance about the tradition the Metropolitan Tabernacle stands in. It is a Calvinist Particular Baptist Church - not a General Baptist church. It has in essence always been so, despite the views of one or two of its Pastors - one of whom was AC Dixon.

It seems that the same people who don't understand these things, don't understand CH Spurgeon either. Everyone loves to claim Spurgeon for their 'side', but abundant evidence is at hand to show his true theological colours. People who love all their theology in little neat boxes have a nightmare with some of his pronouncements - but all he ever did was faithfully present the scriptures. For the waverers, here is Spurgeon's Defence of Calvinism. There endeth that lesson!

Back on topic, the divergence of views is strongest when we consider the resignation of AC Dixon. There is, by the way, no disputing the fact that AC Dixon resigned. He was not deposed - but, as we all know, there is such a thing as 'constructive dismissal'.

Here is what I noted when reading through 'Spurgeon and Son' by Craig Skinner:
Skinner claims that AC Dixon resigned, and was not 'dismissed'. That puts him in direct conflict with the published views of the current pastor of the Tabernacle, Dr Peter Masters. I will get to the bottom of this one. It may take a while, but I'll dig the dirt, I promise.
Skinner says nothing of the pastor who succeeded AC Dixon, Harry Tydeman Chilvers - an entirely different man - a Calvinist to the core. I wonder why?

Before I go further, let me clarify a couple of points. Dr Masters, of course, concedes that Dixon did resign. He just views the whole situation as a constructive dismissal. Also, some of my recollections about what is in Sword and Trowel were actually from seminary lectures.

And one other thing - my second comment, I believe, is a key to the whole matter.

Jeff, a theological student from the USA, asked me for some more information, which I tried to give in the comments section below a previous post - but I said I would investigate the matter a little more.

What does Craig Skinner claim in 'Spurgeon and Son' ?
Here are his claims from the text of page 198 with some comments from his footnotes under each one:
1. 'His [Dixon's] resignation in 1919 took the officers by suprise and led to a petition for reconsideration'...'The minutes indicate this quite clearly'
2. 'The church operated in a spiritual condition of unrivaled blessing'
3. 'No record exists of the tension which some have imagined'...'Murray's claim that Dixon was the subject of great dissention cannot be supported from the Tabernacle minutes'...'In my discussion with some in present Tabernacle membership, I found it a common misunderstanding that Dixon was forced to resign because of American excesses'

On Saturday, I discussed this matter - and this book - with the current Pastor, Dr Peter Masters, who met Craig Skinner when he was researching the book (c 1984).

To look at his points one by one:1. He offers no proof beyond a bald assertion. His one, small quote from the minutes is, to be frank, simply a polite 'Victorian' summary of only the very strong points of Dixon's ministry by the treasurer of the Church. How were things really going for AC Dixon? What do the minutes really show?They actually show a Pastor who could not carry a motion through the church meeting for some time before he resigned - a Pastor who was clearly NOT supported by his people, and whose innovations were being rejected.They actually show a considerable coolness towards Dixon from the church officers.
Assertions? Maybe, but the assertions of a man who can take the minutes down off the shelf and read them.
2. Other assessments of Dixon's ministry can be found, Dr Masters himself notes that Dixon 'hived off' the ministries of the church - the Orphanages (which eventually became the Spurgeons charity of today) and the Seminary (which has become... well, judge for yourself.)
AC Dixon practiced in his ministry certain things that CH Spurgeon tolerated, but not things which he himself would have practiced - indeed, did not practice. To assert that Spurgeon had 'altar calls' is just nonsense and unsupported. Indeed, Dr Masters himself notes that when AT Pierson preached at the Tabernacle some years after he had moved on, he tried an 'invitation' and everyone stood up - they clearly had no idea what he was doing.

Arnold Dallimore writes this about Dixon's ministry:
At the suggestion of Dr. Pierson the Tabernacle then called another American, Dr. A.C. Dixon. Dr. Dixon's methods were quite different from those of Spurgeon. He installed a piano and formed a choir, and under his rather sensational type of ministry there were numerous professions of faith, but the church showed a decline in attendance and zeal. Moreover, it was while he was at the Tabernacle that the First World War took place, taking many men into the services and disturbing the work of the church. In 1919 Dixon left the Tabernacle, and it was a very different church from what it had been under C.H. Spurgeon.
Quoted from "Spurgeon a new Biography" By Arnold Dallimore. (Page 242).'Unrivaled blessing' ? Sounds just a touch exaggerated to me.

3. Here Skinner scores a hit. He is quite right to criticise Iain Murray's views in 'The Forgotten Spurgeon', and to point out the over-emphasis Mr Murray places upon the carpings of a few vocal members - notably Charles Nobel. Dr Masters would only say that Nobel was a 'noted eccentric'. There was no great squabble or 'Tabernacle Tempest' - the church knew very clearly who it was, and what it believed, in my opinion. No great strife can be proven from the minutes of the church - and at this point I must mention that at least Mr Skinner actually read the minutes - unlike Mr Murray, who was invited to do so.... but then Mr Skinner misses completely...What he fails to take account of is that in the 1970s, there were living members who were there when it happened. Members who spoke to Dr Masters and others before they went home to the King. How can he say that the members of the Tabernacle 'misunderstand' their own church history when they themselves are a part of it ? This seems like a rather lofty statement from a condescending academic pen.

The Tabernacle has a lively 'oral tradition' - there were even members in the early 1970s with vague childhood recollections of CH Spurgeon himself! The 'faithful few' - those very elderly saints who never let go their hope that one day the Tabernacle would be restored - they knew what had happened with AC Dixon - and they knew just why his successor was appointed...Harry Tydeman Chilvers

In the words of Arnold Dallimore:
Dixon was followed by H. Tydeman Chilvers. Mr Chilvers was a more Spurgeonic type of man, and although under his ministry an organ was installed in the church, he endeavored to bring the work back to the simplicity and the calvinistic doctrine of former days. He also took a strong stand against liberalism and worldliness, and under his ministry, which lasted till 1935, the attendance was increased, and the church became generally strengthened.

Out goes AC Dixon - and who replaces him? A staunch, calvinist, particular baptist Pastor from East Anglia who 'turned the clock back'!

How obvious does it have to be? I believe that Skinner ignores Tydeman Chilvers because the coming of this man undermines his hagiography of Dixon. Had the Tabernacle really forgotten the faith of its former pastors, Keach, Gill, Rippon, Spurgeon? No. It had certainly made the mistake of looking for a 'big name' to follow other 'big names' - and from a distance it had chosen a man of stature and published import - an man who defended the inspiration and authority of scriptures - a man with an enormous passion for souls...But a 'Spurgeonic' man? - In passion for souls, no doubt.

But in doctrine and in practice?I think not.

Did he jump or was he pushed? In simple terms, he jumped. But his doctrines and practices were not supported by his people, as much as they might have loved him personally, and neither were his doctrines and practices missed in the happy years from 1920-1935.

A short history of the Met Tab

Fellow Baptist blogger Terry Lange wrote this to me:

Don't stop now.... A lot of us do not know much about the Tabernacle after Spurgeon died and Masters become pastor. There is a lot of history there that some of us (me and others) would like to hear about...Especially the history of the building itself. I have been told that the front is the original but the building itself is not the original building but the second or third rebuild and that the seating capacity is much less than that of Spurgeon's day! So, carry on and indulge us !

Only too glad to do so, Terry! One point though in answer to your statement in bold – Peter Masters hasn’t been Pastor since Spurgeon died in 1893. He is aged, but not quite that old! (I know you know that but it was too funny to pass up!)What I would say is that most of the detail in the list below comes straight from Sword and Trowel 2003 no 2. This is just a very brief précis of a few things which I reproduce for common interest with some more modern details to finish.

Here is the list of Pastors of the Tabernacle (obviously meeting in different buildings before Spurgeon). I have place those Pastors who cannot be considered ‘in line’ with the Calvinistic Baptist heritage of the church in green.

William Rider c1653-c1665 (12 yrs) – may have died in the Plague. Believers met in houses.

Benjamin Keach 1668-1704 (36 yrs). Was persecuted, built first chapel. Guiding participant in production of the 1689 confession.

Benjamin Stinton 1704-1718 (14 yrs)

Dr John Gill 1720-1771 (51 yrs). A well-known scholar (said by many to be a hyper-calvinist but was a great supporter of Whitefield’s preachings in the area) Built Carter Lane chapel, nr Tower Bridge, in 1757.

Dr John Rippon 1773-1836 (63 years). Carter Lane chapel demolished in 1830, New Park Street Chapel built to replace it, just south of Southwark Bridge. This had 1,200 seats.Dr

Joseph Angus 1837-1839 (2 yrs). Went on to lead the main Baptist College of the day for 40 yrs.

James Smith 1841-1850 (8 ½ yrs). From Cheltenham he came, and to Cheltenham he returned. I hope to post about his work in Cheltenham (where I live) another time. Author of the well known Daily Remembrancer.

William Walters 1851-1853 (2 yrs)

Charles Haddon Spurgeon 1854-1892 (38 yrs). We all know about him! Metropolitan Tabernacle opened in 1861 and congregations exceeded 5,500 with 2,500 children in the Sunday Schools, not including missions.

Thomas Spurgeon 1893-1908 (15 yrs) Quote: ‘A stalwart for the faith, but rather open to the shallower methods coming in’.

Archibald G Brown 1908-1911 (3 yrs) Quote: ‘had stood with Spurgeon in the Downgrade Controversy, but who had become surprisingly open to shallow methods’.

Dr Amzi Clarence Dixon 1911-1919 (8 years) Quote: ‘ who effected a pronounced shift from the past, causing great unhappiness in the congregation’. Dr Dixon is identified by the article as a man whose theology was markedly different from the Calvinistic and Particular Baptist tradition.

Harry Tydeman Chilvers 1919-1935 (15 ½ yrs) Quote: ‘A Strict Baptist Pastor from Ipswich, called to restore the theological distinctives of the church…congregations of around 1,500…nearly 2,000 children in all Sunday Schools’

Dr W Graham Scroggie 1938-1943 (5 yrs) Cared for the church through the war, and bombed out three times personally, including once being buried in rubble. Most men went to fight and all Sunday School children evacuated. Quote ‘A most gracious evangelical pastor, but not at all in our theological tradition’.

WG Channon 1944-1949 (5 yrs) Quote: ‘A Baptist Union evangelical, weak doctrinally and in method’. About 3-400 people returned to the church after the war – a marked fall-off in numbers when you look at the 1,500 in 1935.

Gerald B Griffiths 1951-1954 identified as a man of ‘ideal views’, but ‘called elsewhere’.At the end of 1955 under the influence of a moderator the Tabernacle sadly rejoined the Baptist Union.

Eric W Hayden 1956-1962 (6 yrs) Quote: ‘Baptist Union evangelical, but way off track (at the time) in theology and method’

Dennis Pascoe 1963-1969 (6 yrs) Quote: ‘older Baptist Union evangelical; a conspicuously kindly spiritual shepherd, but felt he was bound to be the sympathetic helmsman of an ageing and shrinking congregation bound for inevitable closure’

Dr Peter Masters 1970-date. The congregation left the Baptist Union again in 1971. The Sword and Trowel claims ‘now entirely aligned with the position of Spurgeon, except that we keep an organ (the first being introduced in 1930).’

So, there is the list of Pastors. Dr Masters makes some interesting comments about the history of the church, especially from the Second World War onwards. Many ‘stalwarts’ who returned after the war found the church very different – Dr Scroggie being quite Arminian and strong on Keswick ‘holiness’ teaching. Many of these believers left and went to other places where there was sound expository preaching. One such place was Westminster Chapel, under the ministry of Dr D Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Indeed, a young Tabernacle deacon, named Henry C Todd, crossed the river to sit under Dr Lloyd-Jones, and later became his church secretary. At the end of his life, in the 1970s, Henry Todd returned to the Tabernacle as the pendulum swung the other way again. The sad decline of Westminster Chapel into the charismatic extremes of today was begun even then. (See the Rev Iain Murray’s comments upon RT Kendall’s ministry here).

Anyway, enough plagiarising. What happened since 1970? The church returned to being what Spurgeon had made it – a working church. A church where everyone had something to do for the Lord - a church where outreach became the practice rather than the special event. Changes were made – like having a specific evangelistic service each Sunday night. The Sunday School, so large under Spurgeon, was relaunched. On Sunday 13th November 2005, the Tabernacle opened its fourth Sunday School, in Nunhead, south east London. These days the children turn up in their hundreds in many minibuses and private cars. There is so much going on at the church it is worth just visiting the website to read up on it – no point me rehearsing it all.

On to the more practical questions posed by Terry. What of the original building?In the entrance vestibule of the church are two stones set in the wall which record the physical history of the church building.

The original Tabernacle was opened in 1861 and accommodated over 5,500 people somehow. I think building regulations were a little more lax in those days – but even then it was considered a very safe modern structure, especially after the Surrey Gardens Music Hall disaster.

In 1898 the Tabernacle was burned out due to a fire in a kitchen flue when 400 ministers were attending a conference. The second Tabernacle was opened in 1900, with a capacity of 3,800 – it was a similar model to the original one.In May 1941 our dear friends the Luftwaffe dropped an incendiary bomb on the building. Eyewitnesses said it was like a ‘big birthday cake’ – once again the Tabernacle burned to the ground.

Both times, however, two things remained – one was the front Portico (hence the birthday cake effect!), and the other, to a large extent, the layout and stonework of the basement.Now we come to the 'interesting' modern bit. Built mostly from War Compensation money, the third Tabernacle was opened in 1957. The architect had tried to build what he called ‘A Baptist Cathedral’. Say what? He clearly had no concept of, and nor was he enlightened about, non-conformist places of worship!

Anyway, his odd vision gave rise to what we have today, albeit heavily modified. (One visitor to a wedding asked me if it was an ex-synagogue!) I don’t know of any interior pictures of the post 1957 Tab online, but only in books. One strikingly unusual feature for a nonconformist ‘pewed’ church was that the third Tabernacle had, and still has, a central aisle. These were never found in nonconformist churches – two side aisles being preferred as distinctive from the ceremonial processional central aisles of conformist tradition.

Other interesting features were choir stalls (maybe more common in the USA today, but again, in context, almost unheard of), and a choir vestry. The whole point of the building was to be a huge meeting place – there were about 2,000 seats with pews packed in tightly, and a gallery all around except along the front wall. Apparently the building was full for the re-opening service, but virtually never again apart from one or two international fundamental Baptist congresses in the 60s/70s (unsure exactly when). As the congregation rapidly shrank, the building must have been the most incredibly huge, forbidding shell.

At the front, behind the pulpit and way above it on the front wall, was a glass-sided baptistry with stairs on either side. My Father was baptised in it in 1971 (he was an Anglican before he went to the Tabernacle) and I can only imagine what that was like! The architect had thoughtfully built in huge post-baptism changing rooms with sloping floors for water drainage.

Also on the front wall was a huge dove, dive-bombing down towards the pulpit. I don’t think that lasted long post-1970! Today, the Tabernacle has been extensively amended, and is continuously updated. A few years ago the front was restored by stonemasons to resemble its original colour when first built. The local council has also installed some external lighting free of charge as part of its local regeneration plans.

Internally, a wall was built in 1979/80 which divided the main sanctuary almost in half, and cut the seating capacity to about 900 at a squeeze, with the pews being more spaced out, and a platform with conventional pulpit and baptistery being installed in it. Behind this wall, today, there is a bookshop on the main church floor level, and above that, offices, book storage and Sunday School classrooms – which have sprung up all around the church building – in unused corridors, large rooms being split in two, etc. In fact, someone with a memory of the church building 20 years ago would find it confusing how so many rooms have been remodulated and shifted around!

Being built in the 1950s didn’t really do the church building many favours. Some parts are just plain ugly, but much has been restyled and softened over the years. My favourite update of Spurgeon’s Tabernacle? The air conditioning system!

Joking aside, the Tabernacle today, with is many ministries and large attendance, is testimony to God's goodness. In 1971 when my parents first walked in as a young courting couple, they sat amongst about 30 people, average age 70 or so (imagine that in a 2000 seat building!). When they asked about other young people, they were pointed to one young man who was in his early 20s. That was 35 years ago - and yet I still read things on American websites about how the Tabernacle is dead and buried based upon someone's visit in the 1960s or 70s. Not so. Let the message go out loud and clear - the candlestick remains.You can see a sort of virtual tour of the modern day Tabernacle here.