Max Weremchuk liegt es am Herzen, einige Missverständnisse aufzuklären, die durch ein YouTube-Interview über sein jüngstes Buch entstanden sind. Ich veröffentliche seinen Text auch hier im Blog.

Since Shawn Willson’s interview with Brian Reynolds regarding my book Becoming “J.N.D” on his “Rev Reads” site on YouTube has generated some comments which are misleading and incorrect in their claims, I’d like to clarify a point or two.

Actually I am a Canadian and not German. I am not Reformed in any stereotype sense of the term, and I definitely do not have a “high regard for the Puritans Divines and their law-centric systems,” but rather a high regard for any who honor the Word of God and endeavor to make it accessible to people and effective in their lives.

Since the interview I was able to correspond with Brian and clear up some misunderstan‍dings. For example, his statement that the book contained nothing new to him referred to Darby’s teaching, and he wrote to me: “My statement had to do with the doctrinal development 1827–29.” I was definitely not attempting to reveal any new “disco‍veries” in this regard, though I am sure that more than a few readers were not aware of the fact that Darby held to the “day = year” theory for a very long time (i.e. into the 1830s) or of his initial negative attitude towards pre-tribulational premillennialism. (See James Fazio’s excellent paper “John Nelson Darby’s Early Resistance to Pre-Tribulational Premillennialism As Expressed at the 1831 Powerscourt Prophecy Conference”.) My book does contain much new historical/background material never published in this way before.

As for a “thesis” on my part, while admitting that a writer cannot avoid being subjective to a certain degree, it was my honest endeavor to be as objective as possible. I was not at‍tempting to paint a certain picture of Darby that I had formed of him in my mind and wanted to convince my readers of. For example, my contradiction of his claims regarding an oath proposed by Archbishop Magee or the number of weekly converts was the result of very thorough research in these areas and not because I wanted to refute him in any way. In fact, I originally undertook intensive research in these areas to verify his claims and dis‍covered that the facts proved the opposite.

What became clear to me through my research was that Darby often claimed to be the cause or origin of something that he ultimately was not. I was not trying to prove this from the start and had not set this up as a thesis for myself that I wanted to demonstrate or have confirmed. It was simply an undeniable fact that kept turning up and could not with any honesty be ignored or sidestepped. Darby may have felt or thought he was the originator – I am not accusing him of willful/conscious dishonesty –, but that was often (not always) a very subjective impression on his part. He was involved, at times prominently so, but not necessarily the originator.

In the example of Joseph C. Philpot’s conversion, it was Philpot’s son who attributed his father’s conversion to Anne Pennefather’s influence, and the pain and despair caused by their not being allowed to come together, and not a fanciful idea of mine to contradict Darby’s claim in the matter.

Donald Akenson may be too harsh in his criticism of Darby at times, but we can fall off the other side of the horse by attempting to excuse and justify everything. Someone has com‍mented, “Puritanism dominated the evangelical Protestant world up to JND’s ‘reco‍very’ of Pauline truths.” That is obviously an honest conviction, but one that is not ne‍cessarily correct because it is expressed with conviction and in all sincerity. Darby is not the “recoverer” of Pauline truths for all sincere Christian believers. He is for some, and that must be respected, and exchanges over differences of opinion regarding the same must be conducted in a spirit of true Christian charity and not as attacks and counter-attacks.

I hope that those who accuse me of following a particular “thesis” in my book are ready to acknowledge that they are also influenced by the “thesis” that Darby was the “recoverer” of Pauline truths and feel that anything which seems to contradict that conviction must be opposed and discredited.

Darby definitely made a “contribution,” but he was not alone. The so-called Brethren Move­ment may not have become what it became without him, but he could not have be‍come who he was without it, i.e. without the contribution of so many others who today can be described as “unsung heroes”. In order to properly honor and value Darby’s contri‍butions, we must be fair and honest in our evaluations, and even if in the end we don’t always agree with each other, simple Christian courtesy must be maintained, other‍wise we are damaging the testimony of Christ in this world.