This week I want to do a review of a review. Once again I turn to the writings of Iain Murray this time on a subject of far greater importance than his recent anti-Free Church diatribe. Our friend has written a very interesting book entitled Evangelicalism Divided (Banner of Truth). Some have given it rave reviews (see for example the current edition of The Witness). Others however have not been so convinced. One of these is David Searle, the warden of Rutherford House in Edinburgh who has written an excellent review in the Spring 2001 edition of the Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology.

Although Searle expresses appreciation for Murray’s careful documentation and his writing style and indeed for much of the contents, he also has some scathing comments. “Such a basic apparent inaccuracy does raise serious questions about the objectivity of the author’s elsewhere in this book”. “A further disappointment for some readers will be the astonishing selectivity the author chooses to exercise”. Searle also has other criticisms to make. He accuses Murray of misinterpreting the Dr Lloyd Jones controversy, of failing to empathise with evangelicals in mainline denominations, of ignoring the work of Anglican evangelicals such as John Stott and Dick Lucas and the Crieff Fellowship within the Church of Scotland and of completely ignoring the question of evangelism.

Iain Murray’s book is important. So are Searle’s comments. They both represent a divided evangelicalism and in a sense both seem to hold a position which demands that one must choose one or the other. I want to suggest that this is a false dichotomy and one which is at the heart of the reformed church today. There is a Third Way.

But firstly to Searle’s critical comments. One has to agree with them. This is not the first time that Iain Murray has been accused of selectivity and inaccuracy- it has almost become a hallmark of his otherwise excellent writing. It is also painfully true that churches and groups of churches which are preoccupied with doctrine and disciplinary procedures can be in Searle’s words “almost entirely barren in evangelism”. We hang our heads in shame.

However Searle goes beyond these criticisms to justify the broad church approach. He argues against an ‘exclusive’ view of church membership and for an ‘inclusive’ (nothing like weighted words to influence the debate! After all who wants to be branded ‘exclusive’?). He cites Ryle as appointing non-evangelical canons in his diocese and commends this ‘fair’ approach. He argues that in his long experience in a mixed denomination he has known few ‘liberals’ who would ‘actually deny Paul’s gospel’. So it’s quite simple really. You are either a select exclusive narrow minded, doctrinally sound and ineffective minister in a ‘pure’ denomination, or you are an open, evangelistically effective, doctrinally sound, fair minister in a mixed denomination within which one can build up the ecclesiola in ecclesia.

Much as I admire the work of Rutherford House and in particular that of David Searle I believe that this is a very dangerous approach which is leading the Church in Scotland in a direction which I fear will lead to its extinction. This is a crucial issue and I would suggest that the following areas are areas where we would must part company with the broad churchmanship espoused by the warden of Rutherford House.

1) Searle speaks of those who have served a lifetime in mainline denominations ‘without let or hindrance by liberal colleagues’. I find this a disturbing statement. Is this some kind of ecclesiastical truce - a quid pro quo whereby evangelicals and non-evangelicals agree to live together without ‘hindering one another’? Does that mean that Paul was wrong to argue so vehemently against heresy and error within the Church? (O foolish Galatians who has bewitched you…As for these agitators I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves..). Is Searle saying that those who are liberal in theology (for example denying the resurrection) are to be accepted as Christian leaders within the Church? Should we accept their authority? If not what is the point of swearing an oath promising submission to your brethren (and sisters) in the courts of the Church if you do not accept that they are brethren? This is much wider than the question of particular denominations – it also affects evangelical co-operation across the board. I know of one instance where a Free Church man was asked to take part with his congregation in an interdenominational evangelistic Easter service. He agreed and was willing to accept basically anything provided that ‘the gospel was preached’. To his astonishment the local Church of Scotland minister who himself is a fine evangelical preacher was unable to give that guarantee as he felt that he would have to invite another C of S minister to preach – even though he knew that this man was not an evangelical. Sadly the Free Church man felt he had to withdraw because he could not participate in a service where people were being invited to hear the gospel, and yet it could not be guaranteed that the gospel would be preached. Is it not one of the major weaknesses in the mainline denominations that the evangelicals in Britain have not had the nerve to take on those who would deny the gospel? Is it not the case that there are many who seem to practically be ‘church men’ first before they consider those who are really their brothers in the Lord?

2) Are evangelicals just people who happen to put a ‘different spin’ on Paul’s gospel? Is it really the case that there are few liberals who would ‘actually deny Paul’s gospel’? Surely Searle is not suggesting that liberals accept the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the inerrancy of the Scriptures, the deity of Christ, the necessity of regeneration? If he means that they do not actually preach against it – so what? If a man does not preach the gospel he is denying it. And worse still he is denying those who listen to him the opportunity to be saved. For evangelicals to suggest that this is ok because they do not actually oppose us would be shameful. We do not matter. Christ matters. The people for whom Christ died matter. Compromising with those who would deny any of the fundamentals of the gospel may be the ecclesiastical politically correct thing to do, but it is killing the church and it is compromising the gospel. The Church is after all meant to be the pillar and ground of the truth.

3) I cannot comment on the effectiveness of the various evangelical movements within the Church of England. Certainly I agree with Searle that Murray’s neglect of the work of the Proclamation Trust and the writings of John Stott is shameful. The Christian Church in this country owes many such Anglican evangelicals an enormous debt. Likewise with the work of the Crieff Fellowship and the ‘Stillites’ within the Church of Scotland. It would be churlish and myopic to deny that there have been many men within the Church of Scotland who have had and continue to have effective and powerful ministries, changing churches and impacting communities. And yet I get the feeling that Searle is not seeing the wood for the trees. The fact is that whilst there are now some 400 evangelical ministries within the Church of Scotland (one third of the ministries) there are no-where near 400 evangelical congregations. Indeed a case could be put that whilst the number of evangelicals has increased their effectiveness has decreased. Content to do a job and to be the ‘church within the church’, ecclesiology has gone out the window, church discipline has disappeared and any concept of reformation has long been forgotten. The Church of Scotland continues to lose 20,000 members per year. Society continues to be secularised and the bureaucracy of the Church continues to push a liberal agenda. You will not be thrown out of the Church if you deny the deity of Christ but you will if you deny that women should be ministers. Is it not time for evangelicals to wake up and smell the coffee?

4) Furthermore we need more evidence for Searle’s assertion that those who hold to an ‘inclusive’ view of church membership (does this mean that anyone can join? Only Christians? Or something in between?) have been ‘singularly fruitful in reaching the unsaved for Christ’? I know of many men within the broader denominations who have been fruitful in outreach but I am reluctant to make that a general rule. Firstly there are those who hold to what Searle calls an ‘exclusive’ membership who have seen great fruit in outreach. Secondly there is a danger in equating people coming to church and becoming members in the church (basically synonymous within the broad church constituency) with people coming to Christ. It is sometimes true that a biblical ministry in a congregation where there has not been one before leads to a significant number of nominal Christians becoming believers. It also leads sometimes to significant opposition. Furthermore the argument that the Church of Scotland is a good boat to fish IN, is one that is become increasingly irrelevant as the boat becomes smaller. Never mind the basic question as to whether the Church should be a boat to fish IN at all. Should it not rather be a boat to fish FROM? And how effective is fishing from a boat which is full of holes and leaks?

In summary whilst I in no way want to deny the significance of the ministry of men like David Searle I do question his analysis of the Church situation in Scotland. There may be more evangelical groups, organisations and ministers now than there were 50 years ago, yet I would contend that on the whole the gospel cause in Scotland is significantly weaker. Broad churchmanship (whether it is Calvinistic or not) does not work and will not work because it is not radical enough and because it is an old fashioned answer to an old fashioned problem. In other words it is an irrelevant as well as unbiblical solution which contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction.

If we do not accept the broad church Calvinism of David Searle does that then mean that we are left only with the separatist Calvinism of Iain Murray? No. That cannot be. The narrow, sometimes legalistic, sometimes censorious separatism which has often been a temptation of those of us who belong to denominations which practice church discipline, is anathema to the gospel and as destructive as the broad churchmanship outlined above. There must be a Third Way. There is a Third Way.

Contemporary Calvinism

Some time ago I spoke at the Free Church strategy conference of the need to avoid both the broad evangelical path and the separatist way. I argued for what I termed being ‘openly reformed’. David Meredith picked up on this at the 2001 General Assembly and gave an excellent speech on the need for what he termed ‘contemporary Calvinism’. What do we mean by this? What does it involve? If the Free Church was to go this Third Way what would we look like?

1) We would have a commitment to the historic biblical doctrines of the Reformation and a commitment to proclaim them to the 21st century in a way that is relevant to the people of this century. We would emphasise the importance of the teaching of God’s Word seeking to bring and apply the Word in different ways whilst always recognising the primacy of preaching.

2) We would hold to the biblical and reformed doctrine of the church where the preaching of the Word, the administration of the sacraments, loving biblical church discipline, evangelism and social concern go hand in hand.

3) We would have a desire for the gospel to impact upon all areas of human life – home, church, culture, politics etc. We would be a Church which is concerned with worshipping God in the way that he wants not the way that our society would want, or our church tradition demands. Simple, Spiritual and Scriptural worship.

4) We would be an ‘inclusive’ church where people of every race, gender, social and religious background are welcome. A Church which includes every believer in its membership and invites those outside to believe. But we can never be a church which encourages people to belong before they believe. We would exclude from membership those who deny the gospel and who do not accept Christ nor seek to live a life worthy of the gospel.

5) We would be a church where we encourage our people not to be ashamed of the gospel, a church where they can be fed, loved and sent out into the world to bear witness to the glory, goodness, love and joy of Jesus Christ.

6) We would be a Church which seeks unity without uniformity. We would reject independency and congregationalism but we would also reject a bureaucratic and authoritarian Presbyterianism. Instead we would seek to support and submit to one another. The small congregation will be seen as being as important as the ‘mega-church’. Rural and urban, poor and rich would work together. We would recognise that whilst there is a basic unity and a common commitment to the doctrine, discipline, government and worship of the church this does not mean that all our churches are to be uniformly the same. We would be a denomination which gives individual congregations the right and opportunity to develop their church life in accordance with the local circumstances and needs, always keeping within the boundaries and principles set by Scripture.

7) We would be a Church which recognises and is not afraid of the fact that God works through other people as well as ourselves. For example we may not agree with John Stott’s ecclesiology but we recognise him as a brother and as a man who has done enormous good for the Christian Church – a man from whom we can learn. We would seek to encourage our brothers and sisters in mixed denominations rather than snipe at them from the sidelines (we would also hope that they would have the grace to allow us to differ from them in ecclesiology without classing us as irrelevant and legalistic).

8) We would be a Church not bound by religious or denominational tradition but one which is free to follow Christ as its head and to work for the common good of his people.

9) We would have a commitment to evangelise Scotland – having confidence that the gospel really is the answer that so many people need. We would recognise that post-modernism and the collapse of the modernist certainties gives us new opportunities in the market place and we would take those opportunities in creative, energetic and prayerful ways, seeking always to remain faithful to the Scriptures. In particular we would encourage the planting of new churches throughout Scotland so that every person within Scotland would be within reasonable distance of a contemporary Calvinistic Church.

10) We would recognise the international dimension of the Church seeking to work in partnership with like minded churches throughout the world and to help plant new churches which would relate this contemporary Calvinism to the cultures the Lord has placed them in.

These are some random thoughts. This is a dream. But it is not a fanciful dream. I refuse to give into the cynicism and despair that is so prevalent. I cannot accept the triumphalism of so many of our charismatic brothers but I cannot believe that the Lord does not want us to have a biblical church. I believe in the Church.

Anyone else want to join me and my mate, Dave, for a fresh bout of contemporary Calvinism?

back