Who is misrepresenting Lloyd-Jones? - The second part of Iain Murray's defence

An issue raised briefly in my previous article requires fuller comment. It is commonly agreed that Dr. Lloyd-Jones's 1966 address for the Evangelical Alliance (EA) became the occasion of a division among evangelicals; the disagreement concerns what caused that division.

David F. Wright (Professor at New College, Edinburgh, and elder in the Church of Scotland) believes that my presentation of the Lloyd-Jones 1966 address in Evangelicalism Divided 'patently misreads' it (Reformation and Revival, vol. 10, Spring 2001, p.129).

I wrote that the headline subsequently given to the address by a critical press, 'Evangelicals - leave your denominations', was calculated to mislead, and that 'he said no such thing' (p.48). Dr. Wright 'cannot understand' how I could make such an assertion.

It would be foolish now to discuss who is rightly interpreting an address of more than 30 years ago were it not that the matter remains very much an issue at the present time. Wright and myself are by no means the first to disagree on the subject. Christianity Today, in February 1990, claimed that Lloyd-Jones had been invited to speak at the EA on unity and he spoke instead on separation. Akin to this is the remark heard from an evangelist in 1969 that Lloyd-Jones was the devil's instrument because he was dividing evangelicals; on which Lloyd-Jones commented: 'I am a little perplexed about the mentality of an evangelist who charges a man with dividing evangelicals simply because that man appealed for evangelical unity' (Unity in Truth, ed. H.R. Jones, Evangelical Press, 1991, p.66).

1st EA National Assembly

If the main point of the 1966 address was not 'leave your denominations' (as I have argued) what was it? To answer that question the occasion needs to be put in context: it was the second National Assembly of Evangelicals, organised by EA. At the first, held in 1965, Lloyd-Jones had not been present and indeed he was somewhat critical of those who had supported it. His reason was this: the EA was committed to a policy of 'benevolent neutrality' on the issue of the hour, namely, how evangelicals should relate to the ecumenical movement. For the EA neutrality was necessary because its supporters were divided on the issue. A majority of the leadership (heartened by the apparent success of Billy Graham's policy of broad co-operation) were for involvement in the hope of restoring influence for biblical Christianity; a minority took a contrary view. In an effort to defuse tension, EA in 1965 set up a Commission 'to study radically the various attitudes of evangelicals to the ecumenical movement, denominationalism and a possible United (Evangelical) Church.'

2nd EA National Assembly

By the time of the Second Assembly, October 1966, the Commission's Report had found 'no widespread demand for a united evangelical church on denominational lines'. Some apparently thought that Lloyd-Jones supported such a 'demand' and (as an evidence of the EA's tolerance) he was given the opportunity to state his case in his address at this Second Assembly.

Now the unedited transcript of his address (printed in Knowing the Times, D.M. Lloyd-Jones, Banner of Truth, 1989, pp.246-57) contains not one word about leaving denominations to join such a United Church; neither did he say a word to support the forming of such a Church the next day when the Report was debated on the second day of the Assembly. For him organisational issues were secondary to something far more fundamental. When a situation exists where there is common agreement on what a Christian is, and how one becomes a Christian, it would be in order to proceed to a discussion on Christian unity. In 1966 - the high noon of ecumenism - no such consensus on the gospel existed. The general assumption was 'we are all Christians' and, on that basis, denominations that had long tolerated massive defection from the Christian faith were enthusiastic for reunion.

Sole basis for unity

The main point of the disputed 1966 address was to argue that church unity only exists among people who have believed and known the power of the truths of the gospel. Lloyd-Jones's concern was that evangelicals, faced with the ecumenical situation, were not basing their new policy of wider involvement on this biblical premise (well expressed in Article 19 of the 39 Articles). Rather, they supposed they could both hold evangelical convictions and join in the ecumenical quest. He disagreed and believed the time had come for those who put the gospel first to recognise the primary need for evangelical unity in the face of widespread unbelief - unity not simply in societies, as traditionally the case, but in a 'fellowship or an association of evangelical churches'. The need for this was his subject, not how or when it might come about, nor how many would have to leave their denominations. From other addresses we know that he did not envisage any new denominational structure ('If I had wanted to start a denomination I would not have left it till now', he said shortly after). Certainly he saw the situation as far more complex than any simplistic 'Evangelicals leave your denominations'. So, my argument is that the main point of his address (which I am said to misrepresent) was his challenge to the policy of 'evangelical and ecumenical'.

The definition of Christian unity in the 1966 address was classic evangelical belief. Why, then, the strength of the opposition to it? And why the caricature of his case as a simplistic formula for a new 'church'? The motive was the fear that even to discuss his main principle would be to end effective influence in the mainline denominations where a new 'openness' for evangelicals looked so promising.

Undermining

The crux of Lloyd-Jones's point to these friends (they were often, and remained, friends) on the other side was this: 'If you can profess to be fellow-Christians with those who deny evangelical belief then evangelical belief must lose the uniqueness which you still want to attribute to it.' His conviction was that the broader co-operation, however well intentioned, was bound to undermine the evangelical position. And this is what has happened. Liberals, Anglo-Catholics, and Roman Catholics, have all come to be regarded as Christians; any differences on the way of salvation are now commonly treated as minimal and of no serious consequence. Even John Stott is on record as believing that persons (bishops) who deny the bodily resurrection of Christ do not 'forfeit the right to be called Christians' (Essentials: A Liberal Evangelical Dialogue, Hodder, 1988, p.228). How this differs from believing that virtually no beliefs are necessary for salvation is by no means clear. Paul's fear of 'another gospel' (Galatians 1.7) has disappeared. Instead of evangelicalism winning ecumenism, the doctrinal indifferentism of the latter has become endemic in our midst.

Dr. Wright says: 'It is passing strange how Murray can comment that, for Lloyd-Jones at this time, "The big issue ... was not about church unity at all."' But if my sentence is read in full it looks rather different. I wrote: 'The big issue, as he had kept saying, was not about church unity at all: "We should be asking, 'What is a Christian? How can we get forgiveness of sins?' and 'What is a church?'."'

After seeking to demonstrate that 'the big issue' was secession, David Wright deals with the question 'Who is a Christian?' in a few brief sentences. He says: 'The word "Christian" occurs only three times in the New Testament and never in a context admitting of a "definition". In its marked individualism, it is also a peculiarly modern question ... the New Testament writings mostly address churches, not individuals.' So, any fuss about that question was needless. Christopher Idle concludes his review of Evangelism Divided on the same note: 'The word "Christian", which is made to carry so much weight [in my book], comes three times in the Scripture, mainly as a label giving no indication of the spiritual condition of those so called. Bible words have Bible meanings! There is more about disciples, believers, saints or brethren, but these too are observed in action, not defined by proposition. Love has a lot to do with it' (Directions, April 2001, p.27). If this statement isn't the same as the ecumenical position that we must not define Christian in terms of propositions and doctrinal beliefs, it looks very like it.

I accept that, in part, Lloyd-Jones's assessment of the situation in Britain in 1966 was based on an understanding of the spiritual situation in the country as he saw it. Dr. Wright tells us that he cannot take seriously the Lloyd-Jones conviction that the churches were at 'one of the great turning-points of history'. He evidently supports the view that pulling their weight in the mainline denominations remains the best hope for evangelicals. Lloyd-Jones believed that the main cause of the moral and social collapse in the nation was the unbelief prevalent in mainline denominations, and that the situation could not be turned round unless Christian leaders came to oppose error in a manner which the prevailing ethos would by no means allow. He had no denominational alternative to propose, but he believed the times called for a new evangelical unity on the basis of a definite gospel. Denominations were, in fact, to belong to the British Evangelical Council which he came to support.