Television and an Idiot Culture

I recently read Os Guinness’ book Fit Bodies, Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals Don’t Think and What To Do About It. It is a very brief, yet thought-provoking study on the history of evangelicalism and Christianity and culture. In it, he argues how the majority of American evangelicals have come to reject intellectual, theological, doctrinal, and knowledgeable Christianity. One argument he makes is that Christianity is being heavily influenced by secular American culture, particularly through television.

He makes a very convincing argument as to how television is encouraging a culture of entertainment and especially a non-thinking, idiot culture. I thought I would share part of what he says in this post:

“First, television discourse has a bias against understanding. With its rapid images, its simplistic thought, and its intense emotions, television is devoid of the context needed for true understanding. Its superficiality amounts to a form of disinformation. ‘Disinformation does not mean false information. It means misleading information – misplaced, irrelevant, fragmented, or superficial information – information that creates the illusion of knowing something, but which in fact leads one away from knowing.’

“Second, television discourse has a bias against responsibility. The same rapidity, variety, and intensity of images that provides the viewer no context for true understanding also prevents the viewer from engaging with the consequences of what is experienced. The abrupt – sometimes absurd – discontinuities between programming and advertising particularly makes this so. ‘There is no murder so brutal, no earthquake so devastating, no political burden so costly . . . that it cannot be erased from our minds by a newscaster saying, ‘Now . . . this.'”

“Third, television discourage has a bias against memory and history. Its very pace and style creates a nonstop preoccupation with the present. Incoherent perhaps, irresponsible certainly, the ceaseless, breathless flow of the Now renders viewers incapable of remembering. As television superjournalist Bill Moyers laments, ‘We Americans seem to know everything about the last twenty-four hours but very little of the past sixty centuries or the last sixty years.’

“Fourth, television discourse has a bias against rationality. With rare exceptions, television so disdains ‘talking heads’ that the very act of thinking becomes unthinkable on television. A thinker questioned might pause to reflect, ‘Now let me see . . . What do you mean?’ But on television, such thinking is too slow, too uncertain, too boring. As any aficionado of such shows as ‘The McLaughlin Group’ knows, television answering is performing, not pondering. It is theatre rather than thinking, entertaining drama rather than edifying debate. To criticize such shows as if they were anything else is to miss the fun, they would say.

“Fifth, television discourse has a bias against truth and accuracy. Credibility was once linked to veracity – someone or something was believable because of being true or not true. Today, however, credibility serves as a synonym for plausibility – whether someone or something seems to be true. Credibility in the television age has little to do with principle and all to do with plausibility and performance. ‘Is it true?’ is overshadowed by ‘Was it compelling/sincere/entertaining/charismatics?’ The smile and the assured answer now carry the day.”



PRC (9): Experiential Preaching Resources

In connection with what I posted earlier, these lectures by Joel Beeke on Experiential Preaching are really beneficial and I would highly recommend them. He defines the issues well and really distinguishes how a sermon can be good expositionally, but be lacking experientially.

If you have a concern for good Reformed, experiential preaching in your church, I would strongly encourage you to take a listen!

PRC (8): The Need for Experiential Preaching

A disadvantage to writing a series of posts and publishing each individual post as you write it is that after you have argued something, you later find a better way to express it. Indeed, thinking about it, I could summarize my concerns with PR preaching as being a lack of experiential preaching.

This post will quite heavily quote from Joel Beeke who really seems to be the strongest advocate for a return to Reformed Experiential preaching in the church world today.

What is Experiential Preaching?

Experiential preaching is preaching that explains, “how a Christian experiences biblical truth in daily living.”[1] It is preaching that “stresses to know by experience the truths of the Word of God. Experimental preaching seeks to explain in terms of biblical truth how matters ought to go and how they do go in the Christian life. It aims to apply divine truth to all of the believer’s experience in his walk with God as well as his relationship with family, the church, and the world around him.”[2] Experiential preaching is then heavily applicatory and preaching that causes one to search the heart.

Experiential preaching is also preaching that has Jesus Christ as the pre-eminence.[3] It is preaching that is filled with the doctrine of Jesus Christ, that has Jesus Christ weaved in and throughout the entire sermon. Beeke writes,

  • Experiential preaching, then, teaches that the Christian faith must be experienced, tasted, and lived through the saving power of the Holy Spirit. It stresses the knowledge of scriptural truth that is able “to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15). Specifically, such preaching teaches that Christ, who is the living Word (John 1:1) and the very embodiment of the truth, must be experientially known and embraced. It proclaims the need for sinners to experience who God is in His Son. As John 17:3says, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” The word know in this text, as well as in other biblical usages, does not indicate casual acquaintance, but a deep, abiding relationship. For example, Genesis 4:1a uses the word know to suggest marital intimacy: “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain.” Experiential preaching stresses the intimate, personal knowledge of God in Christ
  • . . . . experiential preaching not only addresses the believer’s conscience, but also his relationship with others in the church and the world. If experiential preaching led me only to examine my experiences and my relationship with God, it would fall short of affecting my interaction with family, church members, and society. It would remain self-centered. True experiential preaching brings a believer into the realm of vital Christian experience, prompting a love for God and His glory as well as a burning passion to declare and display that love to others around him. A believer so instructed cannot help but be evangelistic, since vital experience and a heart for missions are inseparable.[4]

Experiential preaching, in many ways, goes hand in hand with expository preaching, though expository preaching can be such that it is not experiential. Experiential preaching is preaching that desires to explain the word of God to the congregation in such a way that it speaks to the Christian experiences of sin, repentance, forgiveness, mercy, judgement, conversion, regeneration, blessedness, joy, etc. I will not deny that I’ve heard a lot of good expositional sermons in the PRC, but it was rare to find a good experiential sermon in the PRC. The believer needs both to be fully fed.

Why is Experiential preaching important?

Joel Beeke:

  • For one thing, when experiential preaching is lacking, the cutting edge of the gospel becomes less sharp and is dulled. Where the experiential element of preaching is missing, sermons tend to become homilies or lectures, abstract Biblical explanations and lessons rather than “the lively [and life-giving] preaching of the word.” More serious, however, where there is no experiential preaching, automatic faith becomes a real danger. Lack of experiential preaching, i.e., preaching that insists on the gospel being experienced in coming to faith and growing in faith, promotes a form of godliness that denies the power thereof (2 Tim.3: 5). The neglect and failure of experiential preaching can lead to “a generation made up of people like Nicodemus!” (Wielenga, cited in Acta Synode, CGK 1937, p. 158)
  • Experiential preaching is urgently required for the spiritual health of the church of every age and the continuation of the Christian church through the ages. Without experiential preaching the preciousness of the covenant of grace and being a member thereof is soon lost. Of course, experiential preaching does not preserve the covenant of grace but it constantly points to the Mediator of that covenant in Whom and through Whom the covenant of grace is extended from generation to generation.[5]

How does the PRC lack Experiential Preaching?

The PRC lacks experiential preaching in the ways that I have already argued in other posts: lack of discriminatory preaching, an unbalanced emphasis in preaching to covenant children, and a lack of preaching the law and gospel in such a way that it cuts directly to the heart.

Experiential preaching has also never been an emphasis in the PRC. Indeed, I never grew up hearing the term. Rev. Kortering would seem to agree with me in his Standard Bearer article “Experiential Preaching” (May 1990):

  • The term, experiential preaching (sometimes also called experimental), is not commonly used among us. It is more commonplace in the English and Puritan tradition—which has some connotations (a mystical tendency) which we would not endorse. As I listen to some criticism, read articles, enjoy discussions on how to evaluate the preaching in a given church or our churches in common, it seems to me that we are grappling for words. The old doctrinal-practical dichotomy for describing sermons just does not fit. Every now and then we hear a criticism that the sermon is just too doctrinal, that we need practical preaching. Most of us do not know what is meant by “practical” preaching. More helpful is the term “applied” preaching. This is helpful because the entire Word of God, whether the passage is of a more doctrinal nature or whether it deals with the daily life of the saints, must be applied to the church which has gathered in worship. The preacher fails in his task to expound the Word of God if he does not carefully and with much diligence tell the congregation how this affects their lives and how they are to respond to such truth.[6] (I also encourage you to read this article on Experiential Preaching in its entirety. Rev. Kortering raises some very good and practical points regarding preaching:

To be clear, I do not think the lack of experiential preaching in the PRC is an issue of semantics. I believe it is an issue of emphasis in the preaching. PR preaching has a very strong emphasis on explaining and defending doctrine from passages of Scripture. The preacher can often get so busy doing this that he fails to apply what he has just preached. And yes, application may be there, but the question always is: is it good application? The preacher must preach in such a way that the applications strike the heart of those in the congregation. He must preach the applications in such a way that the heart is dug into. Just because there is application in a sermon, does not necessarily mean that the application itself was applied in a discerning, thought provoking, soul searching manner.

I believe that part of the culprit here is the way that the Heidelberg Catechism is preached. Often the preaching of the catechism becomes an exposition of the catechism and not an exposition of Scripture itself. If one is going to preach from the catechism, there is not necessarily a problem with taking a theme from the catechism and preaching on that topic. But that theme must first be taken from the Scripture and then that theme must be preached expositionally and experientially from the text. There is the tendency when preaching from the Catechism to give a lecture on a doctrinal truth with a bit of application. The result is a lecture on PR doctrine with proof-texting and thus a lack of good expositional and experiential preaching.


There is a need in the PRC to return to the good Reformed practice of experiential preaching. There is a need for the PRC to modify the way they preach the Heidelberg Catechism, so that it becomes more Biblically expositional and experiential. There is a need for them to have preaching that speaks to the heart and not just to the head.


[1] Beeke, A Puritan Theology, 700

[2] Beeke, A Puritan Theology, 700

[3] Beeke, A Puritan Theology, 700




Thomas Brooks on Assurance, Arminians, and Roman Catholics

I’m currently reading through Thomas Brooks book Heaven on Earth as discussed in my last post on the PRC: “PRC (7); Puritans, Assurance, and Preaching” and came across this pertinent quote on the issue of Arminians and assurance. Can the Puritan doctrine of assurance be likened to Arminianism? This quote would imply a definite no!

“By these ten arguments it doth evidently appear, that believers may in this life attain unto a well-grounded assurance of their everlasting happiness and blessedness. I shall apply this a little, and then close up this chapter.

“Use. This precious truth thus proved, looks sourly and wishly [with eager desire] upon all those that affirm that believers cannot in this life attain unto a certain well-grounded assurance of their everlasting happiness and blessedness, – as papists and Arminians: all know that know their writings and teachings, that they are in arms against this Christ-exalting, and soul-cheering doctrine of assurance. ‘I know no such thing as assurance of heaven in this life,’ saith Grevinchovius the Arminian. Assurance is a pearl that they trample under feet; it is a beam of heaven that hath so much light, brightness, and shining glory in it, that their blear-eyes cannot behold it. Assurance is glory in the bud, it is the suburbs of paradise, it is a cluster of the land of promise, it is a spark of God, it is the joy and crown of a Christian; the greater is their impiety and folly that deny assurance, that cry down assurance under any names or notions whatsoever. They are rather tormentors than comforters that say, poor souls may know that there is a crown of righteousness, but they must not presume to know that they shall have the honour to wear that crown; and that makes God like King Xerxes, who crowned his steersman in the morning, and beheaded him in the evening of the same day.

“Arminians are not ashamed to say, that God may crown a man one hour, and uncrown him in the next; they blush not to say that a man may be happy and miserable, under love and under wrath, an heir of heaven and firebrand of hell, a child of light and a child of darkness, and all in an hour. Oh what miserable comforters are these? What is this but to torment the weary soul? to dispirit the wounded spirit, and to make them most sad whom God would have most glad? Ah! how sad it is for men to affirm, that wounded spirits may know ‘that the Sun of righteousness hath healing in his wings,’ Mal. iv. 2; but they cannot be assured that they shall be healed. The hungry soul may know that there is bread enough in his Father’s house, but cannot know that he shall taste of that bread, Luke xv. 17. The naked soul may know that Christ hath robes of righteousness to cover all spots, sores, defects, and deformities of it, but may not presume to know that Christ will put these royal robes upon it, Rev. iii. 18. The impoverished soul may know that there be unsearchable riches in Christ, but cannot be assured that ever it shall partake of those riches, Eph. iii. 8. All that these men allow poor souls, is guesses and conjectures that it may be well with them. They will not allow souls to say with Thomas, ‘My Lord, and my God,’ John xx. 18; nor with Job to say, ‘My Redeemer lives,’ Job xix. 25; nor with the church, ‘I am my beloved’s, and his desire is towards me,’ Cant. vii. 10. And so they leave souls in a cloudy, questioning, doubting, hovering conditions, hanging, like Mahoment’s tomb at Mecca, between two loadstones; or like Erasmus, as the papists paint him, hanging betwixt heaven and hell. They make the poor soul a Magor-missabib, a terror to itself.

“What more comfortable doctrine than this? What more soul-disquieting, and soul-unsettling doctrine than this? Thou art this moment in a state of life, thou mayest the next moment be in a state of death; thou are now gracious, thou mayest the next hour be graceless; thou art now in the promised land, yet thou mayest die in the wilderness; thou art to-day a habitation for God, thou may to-morrow be a synagogue of Satan; thou hast to-day received the white stone of absolution, thou mayest to-morrow receive the black stone of condemnation; thou art now in thy Saviour’s arms, thou mayest to-morrow be in Satan’s paws; thou art now Christ’s freeman, thou mayest to-morrow be Satan’s bondman; thou art now a vessel of honour, thou mayest suddenly become a vessel of wrath; thou art now greatly beloved, thou mayest soon be as greatly loathed; this day thy name is fairly written in the book of life, to-morrow the book may be crossed, and thy name blotted out for ever. This is the Arminians’ doctrine, and if this be not to keep souls in a doubting and trembling, and shivering conditions, what is it? Well, Christians, remember this is your happiness and blessedness, that ‘none can pluck you out of your Father’s hand,’ John x. 29; that you are ‘kept,’ as in a garrison, or as with a guard, ‘by the power of God through faith unto salvation,’ I Peter i. 5. ‘That the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but the kindness of the Lord shall not depart from you, neither shall the covenant of peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on you,’ Isa. liv. 10. ‘That Christ ever lives to make intercession for you,’ Heb. iii. 25; and that men and devils are as able, and shall as soon, make a world, dethrone God, pluck the sun out of the firmament, and Christ out of the bosom of the Father, as they shall pluck a believer out of the everlasting arms of Christ, or rob him of one of his precious jewels, Deut. xxxiii. 26, 27. I shall close up this chapter with an excellent saying of Luther: ‘The whole Scripture,’ saith he, ‘doth principally aim at this thing, that we should not doubt, but that we should hope, that we should trust, that we should believe, that God is a merciful, a bountiful, a gracious, and a patient God to his people.’

Thomas Brooks, Heaven on Earth, in the Works of Thomas Brooks, Vol. II, 328 – 330


Father Chiniquy and Reverend Chiniquy

Charles Chiniquy is one of those individual characters in the history of the Christian church that allows historians to understand two aspects of the church: Protestantism and Catholicism. 19th Century French Canadian, Father Chiniquy of the Roman Catholic Church, would eventually become Reverend Chiniquy of the Presbyterian Church of Canada. Chiniquy, in his one person, allows the historian to get a picture of both Anti-Protestantism and Anti-Catholicism. In at attempt to better understand Charles Chiniquy, this paper will seek to narrate his life surrounding four major events. First, it will examine his Anti-Protestantism. Second, it will explore his support of the Temperance Movement. Third, it will analyze the validity of his conversion to Protestantism. Finally, it will discuss his Anti-Catholicism.

Temperance Movement

Charles Chiniquy was born on July 30, 1809 in Kamouraska, Lower Canada. His father died at an early age and Chiniquy was put in the care of his uncle, Amable Dionne. Under the watchful eye of his uncle, Chiniquy studied at the Séminaire de Nicolet. His training here would eventually lead him to pursue ordination in the Roman Catholic Church for he was regarded as a very gifted and pious public speaker.[1]

Chiniquy was ordained in Quebec City in 1833 by Bishop Signay.[2] He was now Father Chiniquy. After being bounced around several parishes he eventually was able to settle down in the St. Roch parish where he served from 1834 – 1838. It was his time here, specifically his labours in the Quebec Marine Hospital, that encouraged him to take up the Temperance Movement.  A Protestant physician by the name of Dr. James Douglas laboured at this hospital and he gave Chiniquy numerous pamphlets on the subject of temperance.[3] Chiniquy eventually became convinced that “many of the ills he saw at the hospital could be traced to drink.”[4]

It is here that something quite surprising occurred. Jan Noel writes,

  • Between 1848 and 1851 thousands of French-speaking Catholics in the Province of Canada came forward in their parish churches to take the temperance pledge. . . . For several decades evangelical Protestants had laboured long and hard to eradicate drunkenness; and now a Catholic priest was securing more converts in a single day than these earlier works had won with years of steady efforts.[5]

Part of the reason that this radical change started happening in French Canada was due to the eloquence of Chiniquy. As already mentioned, he was regarded as exceptionally gifted speaker. Yet, as Jan Noel points out, this is not something that is just due to the charisma of Chiniquy.[6] Rather, during this time in French Canadian history there is a dramatic return on the part of the parishioners back to traditionalism and submission to the authority of the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church. This, of course, is the result of the ultramontane movement lead by Bishop Bourget.[7] The growing image of the Church as an institute of both social reform and social authority[8] gave its charismatic leaders (in this case, Chiniquy) much authority and persuasion. Chiniquy also reinforced this ultramontane nationalist spirit by preaching that temperance was the only way that French Canadians could retain their national identity[9] in the face of a rise of Irish immigrants in Quebec and a growing number of French Canadians moving to the United States.[10] His success and popularity is evidenced by some 200,000 adherents to temperance.[11]


Chiniquy, in his early years, was a strongly committed Catholic. This is evidenced by the multiple opportunities (which he seemingly gladly took up) to engage in Anti-Protestantism. This fiery preacher of reform engaged with a group of Protestant radicals who published a newspaper called the L’Avenir. In his letters to this newspaper “he defended the church, the papacy, and the clergy’s right to intervene in public affairs, condemned annexation to the United States, and examined the question of emigration to that country.”[12] These letters prompted a growth in anti-clerical violence and at Montreal he strongly preached against the French Protestants who were known as “The Swiss.”[13] With his fiery rhetoric he “incited laity to minor violence against his opponents.”[14]

This rather violent Anti-Protestantism was a result of Charles Chiniquy’s firm beliefs. He wrote in his autobiography that,

  • ‘Out of the Church of the Church of Rome there is no salvation,’ [and that it] is one of the doctrines which the priests of Rome have to believe and teach to the people. That dogma, once accepted, caused me to devote all my energies to the conversion of Protestants.[15]

It seems that Bishop Bourget tacitly supported Chiniquy’s behaviour, for there is no evidence that he condemned it.[16] However, Chiniquy was running into trouble due to other issues. In 1851 he was suspended from his clerical office due to a charge of sexual harassment.[17] The validity of the charge is difficult to establish. Chiniquy himself denied any guilt and would later argue that the woman made up the allegation.[18] However, it appears that Chiniquy was involved in other scandals than just this one. In 1846 he was “admitted by the Oblates at the request of the archbishop of Quebec to atone there for a transgression”[19]committed during his time at Saint-Pascal. He also needed to be cleared of a claim by a woman in Kamouraska in 1848.[20]

This suspension and the Chiniquy’s questionable reputation prompted Bishop Bourget to ask him to leave his diocese. Chiniquy, desirous to preserve the faith of the French Canadian community in Illinois requested appointment there from Bourget. Roby writes that this enabled Bourget to offer “Chiniquy the opportunity for a fresh start.”[21] Bourget also regarded as a solution to a difficult problem: that of finding somebody suitable to minister to the French Canadians in Illinois. Chiniquy was in many ways the right person for the job because he “was familiar with the problems of the Canadians who had emigrated to the United States, since his temperance crusade had taken him among them.”[22]

Thus, in 1851 Chiniquy moved to St. Anne, Illinois as a colonizing priest.[23] It was in Illinois that Chiniquy began to run into administration and doctrinal issues with the Roman Catholic Church. This is primarily due to his American, Irish and even French clerical colleagues becoming jealous of his massive success among the French Canadian emigrants.[24] They “censured him, and spoke ill of him to the bishops of Lower Canada and Chicago.”[25] The Bishop of Chicago eventually got involved and blamed Chiniquy for all the dissension and disunity that was being stirred among the clergy and even among the laity. Chiniquy, not one who took criticism lightly, went on the defensive and start criticizing and making accusations himself.

Yet amidst an almost constant string of argument and lawsuits, Chiniquy maintained his anti-Protestantism, again supporting armed resistance against Protestants. He wrote in an American Catholic newspaper,

  • The morning after, two corpses of well-known Orangemen were found lying on the broken columns [of the Catholic church, which they had been desecrating]. I do not [have] to tell you that since that day the Catholics of Kingston have been left in peace. I will then say bravo![26]

Chiniquy was eventually sued by a land speculator named Peter Spink for slander. Chiniquy had accused Spink of lying to his clients regarding land sales (even though Chiniquy had often bought land from Spink for use by the church). In this famous set of trials in which Abraham Lincoln defended Chiniquy, Chiniquy accused Bishop Anthony O’Regan of financial corruption.[27] Due both to this accusation and the fact that Chiniquy would not move away from the St. Anne parish after the Bishop ordered him to, he was once again suspended from the priesthood. Chiniquy, in his typical rebellious fashion, refused to move stating that “the bishop wanted to seize his church and appoint an Irish priest (prompting many of his parishioners to support him).”[28] This open rebellion and the fact that Chiniquy had “wickedly presumed to exercise the functions of the sacred ministry, to preach, administer sacraments and say mass”[29] prompted his excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church on September 3, 1856.

Conversion to Protestantism

Chiniquy ignored the excommunication in much the same way he ignored the suspension. Many of his parishioners reacted in much the same way. They remained loyal to him even though that loyalty meant that they too would be excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church.[30]

Gradually Chiniquy’s church began to look different, giving the Roman Catholics all the more support for their excommunication of him. Lougheed writes that

  • among the gradual transformations were the disappearance of articular confession, statues, holy water, Latin masses, fast days and vestments. No longer did they believe in purgatory, indulgences, mediation of the saints including Mary, and papal infallibility. Bible studies became prominent in many worship gatherings. . . . Already in 1852 the precedents were present in St. Anne for group Bible study and critique.[31]

This all resulted in Chiniquy and 2,000 other converts joining the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America (PCUSA) in 1860[32] In February of that same year, Chiniquy was made a Presbyterian minister. He was now the Reverend Chiniquy.

As an unsurprising result of his conversion, Catholics distrusted and even hated him. They

  • could not endure the blasphemy and sacrilege of the apostate priest . . . . All Catholics were required to treat any contact with him or his productions as loathsome because of the abomination of his acts and words. His very name invoked the dreadful memories of an unparalleled rebellion against God.[33]

At first, some Protestants were not very impressed with him either. At the very least they were skeptical regarding whether or not he was a true Protestant and lamented the fact that the “ex-priest’s theological views were not clear and that the whole affair was about the trivial question of property.”[34] However, a lot of these concerns seemed to have went away when he joined the PCUSA. He preached a sermon in September of 1860 in which he directly affirmed Protestant doctrine. He stated,

  • I was surrounded by a light . . . and through that light I saw the way of salvation. Then for the first time I understood the mystery of the Cross of Christ . . . I felt that Christ had answered my prayer, that the mountains of my iniquity were gone, and I gave myself entirely and exclusively to Christ.[35]


His whole-hearted acceptance of the doctrine of justification by faith alone was enough to convince many Protestants of the sincerity of his conversion. Many more would rally behind him when they began to witness the fruits of his conversion: his bold anti-Catholicism. This anti-Catholicism prompted many to compare him to that of the Biblical Saul who once persecuted Christians.[36] He was given the title, “The Luther of Canada”[37] and he certainly lived up to that title. He began powerful speaking tours which “consisted of unrestrained attacks on the Catholic Church, its dogmas, sacraments, moral doctrine, and devotional practices. He made outrageous remarks about the pope, bishops, and priests.”[38] He went across Canada, the US, England, Scotland, and even Australia on his speaking trips.[39] The passionate anti-Protestant speaker, was now a very successful and powerful anti-Catholic preacher.

He was also a very provocative preacher. Lougheed tells the story that once Chiniquy “consecrated a wafer, using the Catholic liturgy and the irreversible power that, according to the Catholic Church, all those once-ordained still retained. After this he pierced the wafer with a knife, crumpled it and ground it under foot.”[40] He became such a controversial figure that the police failed to protect him, so the Orange Order offered him protection services.[41] These threats on his life helped him to gain more Protestant support and he was “honoured with a Doctor of Divinity degree from Presbyterian College in Montreal” in 1893.[42] In the end, it was not violent Catholics that killed Chiniquy, but rather he became deathly ill with bronchitis and died on January 17, 1899.[43]


As has been shown, all his life Chiniquy was a very controversial figure on both sides of the Christian camp. He was either hated by Protestants or hated by Catholics and sometimes even distrusted by both. However, his Protestant influence upon French Canada cannot be overlooked. Although the number is probably a bit high, Chiniquy claimed some 7000 converts to Protestantism after only four years in Montreal.[44] His autobiography was translated into many languages and by 1898 had gone through seventy editions.[45] Some 10,000 mourners, Protestant and Catholic, came to his funeral.[46] Paul Laverdure aptly points out that his enormous role in the Catholic-Protestant debates, was illustrated by a comment that one newspaper obituary states: “The thought that he never was even once killed in a religious riot must have embittered his last hours.”[47] Indeed, it must be remarked that one cannot understand the Protestant-Catholic divide in French Canada today apart from some understanding of Chiniquy. Nor can one be a Protestant or Catholic member of the clergy in Canada without understanding something of the role of Chiniquy in the history of religious controversy.


Carey, Patrick. “The Confessional and Ex-Catholic Priests in Nineteenth-Century Protestant America.” in U.S. Catholic Historian. 1 – 25

Chiniquy, Charles. Fifty Years in the Church of Rome. Toronto: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1886.

Laverdure, Paul. “Charles Chiniquy: The Making of an Anti-Catholic Crusader.” in Historical Studies, 54 (1987): 39 – 59

Lougheed, Richard. The Controversial Conversion of Charles Chiniquy. Toronto: Clements Academy, 2008.

MacRaild, Donald. “Transnationalising ‘Anti-Popery’: Militant Protestant Preachers in the Nineteenth-Century Anglo-World.” in Journal of Religious History Vol. 39, No. 2 (June 2015): 224 – 243.

Noel, Jan. “Dry Patriotism: The Chiniquy Crusade” in Canadian Historical Review, LXXI, 2, (1990): 189 – 207

Noll, Mark. A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada. Michigan: William Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992.

Roby, Yves. “Chiniquy, Charles.” in Dictionary of Canadian Biography Vol. 12, University of Toronto/Université Laval (2003).­_charles_12E.html (Accessed March 1, 2017).

Wade, Mason. The French Canadians: Volume I: 1760 – 1911. Toronto: Macmillian Company of Canada, 1968.

[1] Yves Roby, “Chiniquy, Charles” in Dictionary of Canadian Biography Vol. 12, University of Toronto/Université Laval (2003).­_charles_12E.html (Accessed March 1, 2017)

[2] Richard Lougheed, The Controversial Conversion of Charles Chiniquy. (Toronto: Clements Academy, 2008), 34

[3] Jan Noel, “Dry Patriotism: The Chiniquy Crusade” in Canadian Historical Review, LXXI, 2, (1990), 196

[4] Ibid

[5] Ibid, 189

[6] Ibid

[7] Ibid, 193

[8] Mark Noll, A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada. (Michigan: William Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992), 253

[9] Noel, “Dry Patriotism”, 200

[10] Ibid, 197

[11] Lougheed, Controversial Conversion, 46

[12] Roby, “Chiniquy, Charles”

[13] Ibid

[14] Lougheed, Controversial Conversion, 51

[15] Charles Chiniquy, Fifty Years in the Church of Rome. (Toronto: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1886), 283

[16] Lougheed, Controversial Conversion, 51

[17] Ibid, 53

[18] Ibid, 53

[19] Roby, “Chiniquy, Charles”

[20] Lougheed, Controversial Conversion, 53

[21] Roby, “Chiniquy, Charles”

[22] Ibid

[23] Lougheed, Controversial Conversion, 57

[24] Roby, “Chiniquy, Charles”

[25] Ibid

[26] Lougheed, Controversial Conversion, 70

[27] Ibid, 75

[28] Roby, “Chiniquy, Charles”

[29] Pastoral Letter of Bp. Anthony O’Regan, in Lougheed, Controversial Conversion, 81

[30] Ibid, 109

[31] Ibid, 112

[32] Chiniquy, Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, 820

[33] Lougheed, Controversial Conversion, 182

[34] Ibid, 228

[35] Quoted in ibid, 230

[36] Ibid, 185

[37] Ibid, 186

[38] Roby, “Chiniquy, Charles”

[39] Donald MacRaild, “Transnationalising ‘Anti-Popery’: Militant Protestant Preachers in the Nineteenth-Century Anglo-World.” in Journal of Religious History Vol. 39, No. 2 (June 2015), 225

[40] Lougheed, Controversial Conversion, 158

[41] Ibid, 160

[42] Ibid, 173

[43] Ibid, 176

[44] Chiniquy, Fifty Years, 822

[45] Roby, “Chiniquy, Charles”

[46] Lougheed, Controversial Conversion, 177

[47] Quoted in Paul Laverdure, “Charles Chiniquy: The Making of an Anti-Catholic Crusader” in Historical Studies, 54 (1987), 56