The Unresolved Controversy: Unity with Non-Evangelicals

Is dialogue betrayal?

THE UNRESOLVED CONTROVERSY
Unity with Non-Evangelicals
By Iain Murray
Banner of Truth. 30 pages. £1.25

This little booklet is the substance of an address given by the author at the invitation of Dr. John MacArthur and as such forms a useful summary of the main thesis of his major work, 'Evangelicalism Divided'.

The introduction is marked by a spirit of humility and sadness, quite rightly noting that those in prominent positions of leadership are exposed to peculiar dangers and that 'For those of us who have little exposure to such dangers, it is easy to imagine how much better we might have done. But the reality is that we could have done worse than those with whom we differ.' The main contention is that leading evangelicals such as Billy Graham and John Stott made a fundamental error in departing (as Murray sees it) from the earlier characteristic of classic evangelicalism which put evangelical commitment before denominational allegiance and the working alongside non-evangelicals in matters of evangelism and corporate witness. From this emerged the 'New Evangelicalism' taking 'advantage of the emerging ecumenical ethos to gain a new respect for Scripture.'(p.9). This approach found concrete expression in the increasing tendency for Billy Graham to have on his evangelistic platforms men of professed liberal theological persuasion, and also at the first National Evangelical Anglican Congress in Keele, who not only welcomed an Archbishop who told the delegates that 'experience comes before theology', but produced a statement which urged more dialogue between divided Christians 'at all levels and across all barriers'.

Those who warned against such trends were men like Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and Dr. Francis Schaeffer.

The famous address by Dr. Lloyd-Jones at the Evangelical Alliance meeting in 1966 is referred to and here Murray repeats the same assertion he made in his book that Dr. Lloyd-Jones's central point was that 'We should be asking: What is a Christian? How do we get forgiveness of our sins? And, What is the church?' (p.13) which, as Professor David Wright correctly pointed out in December's EN, is nowhere to be found in the text of that address. Is this simply Murray's gloss?

Weakening evangelicals

There follows an analysis of how evangelicalism has weakened in the intervening years. Much of what is said here is sadly true, especially in the case of those in mixed denominations, the term 'evangelical' is now almost devoid of any confessional element of substance which is translated into practice.

What is the positive alternative? Greater evangelical co-operation. And we are pointed to the example of the Wesleys and Whitefield in the 18th century revival.

The strengths and weaknesses of Murray's major work has been dealt with elsewhere (see for example my review in Churchman, Spring 2001, where I described it as the 'best half book ever written' on the subject). And the same lack of balance and even-handedness in handling the material is repeated in the booklet. Apart from the fact that there is plenty of evidence pointing in the other direction of a greater degree of co-operation between like-minded evangelicals than there has been for many years (witness the work of the Proclamation Trust, and now Essentially Evangelical) and that the weakening of evangelicalism has not simply taken place amongst those in mixed denominations - many free churches make sad viewing today, but a selective use of historical material does distort the true picture and oversimplifies the principles.

For example, Murray writes: 'If evangelical belief is, in essence, gospel belief, how can Christian fellowship exist independently of any common commitment to that belief?' But is it simply as 'black and white' as that? Surely, there would be a recognition that some beliefs are more essential to salvation than others? That there are different degrees of 'fellowship'? That one may meet with those of a different theological position in order to persuade them otherwise of the truth? Is it really such a 'sell out' for John Stott to accept an invitation to the World Council of Churches Fourth Assembly and respond in these words: 'I must retain the freedom to disagree with those who disagree with Scripture, indeed with all those who do not accept Scripture as the supreme and sufficient rule of faith. Such people I must view not as holding an equally valid or legitimate viewpoint, but as being actually in error. I conceive it to be my Christian duty to such to protest, and to witness to the truth as I see it.' (John Stott - a Global Ministry, p 124)?

Dialogue of death?

The approach of 'dialogue' is implicitly construed as almost a betrayal of the evangelical cause, or at least the first step down a slippery slope towards full-blooded ecumenism. But is this any different from what Dr. Lloyd-Jones did, as we find recorded in the second volume of Iain Murray's biography (pages 314ff), when over a period of four years he met and 'dialogued' with liberals (including Eric Tinker - no relation!). It is true that he concluded that this demonstrated that 'no co-operation was possible', and that is what many evangelicals have repeatedly found, but that is not to say there is no such merit in having such dialogue. It is not always an attempt to find the lowest common denominator.

There is also a certain irony in that Wesley and Whitefield and their times are upheld as some sort of model, as a positive alternative, since they did remain in a mixed denomination (in fact one more dire than the Church of England at present). Where the structures were not accommodating to Gospel work, they simply set about circumventing them as many Anglican evangelicals are doing today. They certainly saw that some of the clergy needed converting, as do some today, but that did not mean they withdrew to form a new evangelical denomination. What is more, there was even a parting of the ways between these great men in practice - church life has always been messy. Is it only because such men are separated from us in time that they receive our evangelical approval and we can point to them as positive models, when if they were alive today and behaved in the same manner they too might well be the subject of a book with the title 'Evangelicalism Divided' or 'The Unresolved Controversy'?

It is hoped that this booklet will spur evangelicals on to think through these issues more clearly and more openly. We do need each other. The country needs the gospel. We need to get it out there - together.

The Unresolved Controversy: Unity with Non-Evangelicals

Is dialogue betrayal?

Weakening evangelicals

Dialogue of death?

Melvin Tinker, Hull

Main Articles

Other articles