|
Reviewing my ReviewersLast year Iain Murray's book, Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950 to 2000 was published by the Banner of Truth. This book shows how evangelicalism, once clear on such vital matters as what makes a Christian, the person and work of Christ, and the inerrancy of Scripture, has now become confused and diffuse as it has pursued the quest for Christian unity and winning the world in ways which tend to compromise essential truths. It has met with very different reactions from people within the evangelical camp. Here Iain looks at some of the views expressed about his book and gives his reaction. Had this book of mine fallen on the market without producing any stir or discussion, it might well have shown that its theme was more imaginary than real. But discussion, and some controversy, has not been lacking among reviewers. It is interesting that criticism has not always come from the more predictable sources. On the contrary, an early review in The Church of England Newspaper (October 6 2000) was favourable and even offered the opinion, 'It is possible that some leaders may even believe it is necessary to repent of errors that have been made.' Similarly, Mark R. Talbot, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Wheaton College, supported the book's main thesis (Modern Reformation, May/June 2001), and emphasised that the subject has to do with principles, not personalities. The review in Evangelism (September 2000) called for more discussion and continued: 'Some may even desire to sweep what he says under the carpet. That would be a mistake for if this is accurate history (it is well documented and many of those mentioned are still alive and able to respond), with correct conclusions, then the clarity he brings to the issues, will give understanding which is necessary to heal divisions in a way that honours the Lord.' Where there has been criticism it has centred on two main points. Incomplete history?First, Evangelicalism Divided is said to have given a very incomplete history of evangelicalism over the last 50 years. Roger Nicole was concerned lest its pages give the impression of nothing but 'a massive defection of evangelicalism' (The Founders Journal, Fall 2000). He believed that it left too much that is positive unsaid. David Searle (Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology) spoke of 'the astonishing selectivity the author chooses to exercise'. The Anglican reviewer in New Directions, Serving Evangelicals and Catholics (April 2001) elaborated the same point: 'He says almost nothing about liturgy, youth work, music and the arts, rural involvement, urban initiatives... where is Reform or the Proclamation Trust, Tearfund, CARE, or Newcastle's Christian Institute, Oak Hill or Moore College, Kuala Lumpur or Crosslinks?' Tom Wells was not intending to reply to observations of this kind when he noted in a review article on the book in Reformation Today (July/August 2001): 'It is not, of course, a history of evangelicalism but a record of its divisions.' It was clear to Wells, at least, that my book never set out to be a history of evangelicalism: that is the reason why those who played no part in the division -such as the leaders of the Proclamation Trust-are not included. However, when even a sympathetic reviewer in Evangelical Magazine of Wales (April/May 2001) also thinks that there were 'significant omissions' it may well be that I should have made it clearer what I was not writing. Just churchmanship?A second and more serious criticism concerns the question whether the division was not, after all, more to do with churchmanship than with any real defection from evangelical belief. Referring to men whose policy was criticised in the book, Nicole writes: 'Their churchmanship may not have been totally impeccable... Let him whose churchmanship is impeccable cast the first stone.' The big argument here has to do with the grounds on which Lloyd-Jones urged the importance of the church issue in his Evangelical Alliance address of 1966, which marked the division of evangelicalism in England. Was he simply urging severance from one denominational position for the adoption of another? That is to say, a move from the mainline denominations to 'separatism'? This was not his position. Rather his case was that evangelical leaders in the mainline denominations were adopting a policy which conceded the contemporary quest for a broader unity of churches without first facing two key questions. These were the questions which he put in his 1966 address at the start of the public controversy. They were: 'Are evangelicals content to be nothing but an evangelical wing of a church?' and 'What is a church?'1 On the latter, he asserted, the church is a gathering of people who believe the gospel, for doctrine is essential to salvation. How important is belief?It is true that the policy Lloyd-Jones was opposing (formulated in the UK chiefly by evangelical Anglicans) did not call for any diminution of evangelical belief. But it favoured co-operation with ecumenism even though that movement's definition of Christian was far broader than evangelical belief. What he asked fellow evangelicals to consider was how evangelical belief could remain important if, in practice, they treated it as unnecessary for Christian unity; and further, he asked, if they did not face this question now, did they envisage remaining as an evangelical wing in a reunion 'that will eventually include the Roman Catholic church'? For asking such an 'alarmist' question in 1966, Lloyd-Jones was regarded by the other side as imagining the impossible. But time has proved that he was not dreaming. We now have professed evangelicals advocating reunion with Rome2, others advocating joint evangelical witness with Roman Catholics and agreeing with Billy Graham when he says, 'I don't think the differences are important as far as personal salvation is concerned.'3 How then can the statement of Richard John Neuhaus, the key Catholic negotiator in 'Evangelicals and Catholics Together' - 'If at the end of the 20th century, separation for the sake of the gospel is not necessary, it is not justified'4 - be answered? Ryle and his canonsDavid Searle, in his review already mentioned, in speaking of the Lloyd-Jones 1966 address, believes it 'impossible to accept Iain Murray's interpretation of Lloyd-Jones's meaning', and goes on to defend those ministers who, like himself, are 'in a denomination with many "liberal" ministers'. He challenges the correctness of the allegation that Anglican evangelicals who have endorsed the wider unity have departed from the position of J.C. Ryle. He writes: 'What is not mentioned is the fact that, in the interests of fairness, Ryle followed the practice of appointing not only evangelical canons in his diocese but more than a balancing number of canons of very different theological views. Murray unfortunately does not understand this kind of co-operation.' As evidence Searle gives a reference in Eric Russell's biography of Ryle. The reference, however, does not substantiate what Searle claims. Russell says nothing of 'fairness' and writes that Ryle, as Bishop of Liverpool, 'appointed a number of honorary canons in order of seniority, which included High, Broad and evangelical churchmen, but not Anglo-Catholics'5. What was meant by these terms Ryle makes clear in many other places. Clergy need not necessarily belong to 'the evangelical party'; he would accept 'churchmen of other schools of thought' on such things as 'the effect of the sacraments, or about ritual, or about the precise nature of inspiration' provided they adhered to 'our Church's doctrinal Evangelicalism, - our Church's Protestantism'6. Russell himself makes this clear enough elsewhere: Ryle would 'work amicably with men of High, Low and Broad traditions, who were faithful members of the Church of England and loyal to her formularies'7. This was Ryle's consistent position. He could think men mistaken in some things, 'But I do not want to unchurch them, so long as they honestly and ex amino subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles. Papists, Socinians, and infidels are certainly in the wrong place in the Church of England and I cannot tolerate them.'8 He deplored the 'spurious liberality' which allowed both Anglo-Catholic and liberal teaching. It would 'sooner or later ruin the Church of England'. 'It is amazing to me that the advocates of this notable policy of universal toleration do not see that it would infallibly end in our Church being broken in pieces'.9 'The Church which regards Deism, Socinianism, Romanism, and Protestantism with equal favour or equal indifference, is a mere Babel, a 'city of confusion', and not the city of God.'10 How serious he was in this can be judged by the fact he took the step of ending his own son's position as his Examining Chaplain in Liverpool on account of the latter's liberal beliefs.11 Denial of the inspiration of the Scriptures was not to be tolerated. Revealing and devastatingSearle missed the point why Ryle was introduced into Evangelicalism Divided at all. It was to document that the type of evangelical co-operation introduced in the 1960s-which claimed no deviation from former evangelical principles-was in fact a major deviation. At the end of the day, evaluations of the book are all going to depend on whether that change in evangelical policy was the right or the wrong way to meet the prevailing religious situation. That the change led to such developments as 'Evangelicals and Catholics Together' cannot be doubted. What is in dispute is whether or not the new broader consensus favoured by so many is an improvement or a calamity. In the States the argument has become more focused than has yet happened in the United Kingdom. Those who have contributed to the change, and such organs as Christianity Today, have no sympathy for my book. Those who stand opposed to what has happened speak differently. R.C. Sproul writes: 'Murray's critique is as kind and gracious as it is revealing and devastating. The icons of modern evangelicalism are shown as falling into egregious errors, strategic errors that have weakened the evangelical faith at its very core' (Table Talk, January 2001). Similarly, John MacArthur: 'It is one of the best and most eye-opening books I have read in years.' Who is right in these assessments is no small matter. The questions raised by Dr. Lloyd-Jones in 1966 are still more pertinent than they were then. Notes © Evangelicals Now - October 2001 |