IAN H.MURRAY – ‘EVANGELICALISM DIVIDED’ [2]

TROWEL & SWORD

IAN H.MURRAY – ‘EVANGELICALISM DIVIDED’ [2]
‘A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950 to 2000’

by Rev. P van Dam

In the November issue of T&S Rev. Peter van Dam began his review and synopsis of this book, published by Banner of Truth. Peter believes that “the book is very relevant and constitutes a serious warning to those churches that still are committed to the faith in which they were renewed at the time of the Reformation.” We continue this month.

J.H.Leith observes that all the contemporary theologies have been more concerned with answering questions of the present than with articulating theological heritage. But they are theologies which are ineffective: they do not transmit the faith by which alone congregations can be changed be built up and society changed. We cannot be faithful and popular at the same time.

Chapter 9 speaks of the ‘Silent Partner’. G.Marsden wrote: ‘By the 1970s more and more evangelicals could be found trying to engage in the same kind of ‘me too’ motivation which had become so disastrous for liberalism in the 1960s. D.Tomlinson wrote that doctrinal correctness matters little to God…. honesty, openness and sincere searching for the truth matter a great deal. J.Stott approved of Anglican comprehensiveness in terms of the church holding to ‘the fundamentals of the faith’ while tolerating ‘different views on secondary issues’. D.Wells observed that the evangelical theological unity grew ever thinner and insubstantial. The sea that looked a mile wide was only an inch deep. Many evangelicals now define growth in terms of numbers.

Michael Saward, in reviewing the evangelical scene in the 1980s, is quoted as saying: ‘This is the disturbing legacy of the 1960s and 1970s. A generation brought up on guitars, choruses and home group discussions. Educated not to use words with precision, because the image is dominant and not the word. Equipped not to handle doctrine but rather to ‘share.’ A compassionate, caring generation, suspicious of definition and labels, uneasy at, and sometimes incapable of, being asked to wrestle with sustained didactic exposition of theology. Excellent when it comes to providing religious music, drama and art. Not so good when asked to preach and teach the Faith.’

J.D.Hunter says: ‘A dynamic would appear to be operating that strikes at the very heart of Evangelical self-identity.’ I.e. (Ian Murray:) the temptation to seek success in ways which the New Testament identifies as ‘worldliness’; which is the mind-set of the unregenerate. (see Gal 1.10).

The author adds: No Christian deliberately gives way to the spirit of the world, but we may all do so unwittingly. This can be seen in the way in which interests and priorities of contemporary culture have come to be mirrored in the church, such as the antipathy to authority and to discipline, the cry for entertainment by the visual image rather than by the words of Scripture, the appeal to the spectacular, the rise of feminism, the readiness to identify power with numbers; the unwillingness to make ‘beliefs’ a matter of controversy. These things – brought in by cultural innocence – give us comfort by the thought of ‘all the things God is doing – yet make us live in a fool’s paradise. Thus orthodoxy loses its character, if not its soul (D. Wells). With it comes a tendency of presenting pragmatic reasons for becoming a Christian (e.g. how it has worked for others). Taking things at face value – and with an open (uncritical...!) mind – is often considered a true Christian attitude. Christianity suffers the age-long hostility of men who can tolerate all forms of belief but not the truth. In this the reality of the demonic is today largely passed over. Yet, Satan’s power is greater than the will of men and from which Christ only can set us free.

In chapter 10. ‘Church’ and the unresolved Problem’, the author first counters the charge that evangelicals put the ‘invisible church’ before the ‘visible’. Essentially, however, he (a Presbyterian minister) explains that these two expressions are two aspects of the church; one may be in the church but not of the church.

The ecumenical call was not for truth and salt; it was supremely for oneness; the greater the unity ‘of the Church’ the stronger would be the impression made upon the world. And to attain that end the churches should be inclusive and tolerant. But such calls – for a human Jesus, its anti-credalism, secularism, its utter relativism were directly contrary to the exclusiveness and separateness which the Gospel requires. As a consequence, such an assimilated church would be an immensely superpower of the antichrist. Lloyd-Jones wrote: ‘Since when has the doctrine of the remnant become unpopular among evangelicals?’

The heading of chapter 11: ‘From the Quarries to the Temple’, is borrowed from 1 Kings 6.7 and used against the background of Ezra 4.1-4. Murray states that the fundamental issue in the conflict between Christianity and all other beliefs has been – and is – the question of: ‘Who is a Christian?’ Liberalism has confronted us with a new definition of Christian: ‘Christ is a wonderful person whose example we must follow.’ He did not confront us with doctrinal questions. In liberalism Christianity was harmonized with the moral aspirations of all men.

Co-operations with non-evangelicals and participation in the ecumenical movements were promoted in the genuine hope of wider gains for the gospel and for an evangelical renaissance (rebirth). However, the health of the church has always been in proportion to the extent to which, in her teaching, the difference between Christian and non-Christian has been kept sharp and clear. Lest there will be a move to co-operative doctrinal comprehensiveness. This will lead to a let-down of a clear view of Scripture (F.Schaeffer). Once the line is blurred spiritual decline is a certainty. The spiritual temperature lowers. H.Bonar is quoted as saying: ‘Fellowship between faith and unbelief must, sooner or later, be fatal to the former’.

In seeking to remedy an outlook which erred in unbiblical strictness, the new evangelicalism moved to an opposite danger. If a narrow sectarianism is contrary to Scripture, no less so is the inclusivism which would embrace all who adopt the Christian name. This occurs when the definition of ‘Christian’ is popularized; as with the ecumenical movement with its axiom that all church members are to be regarded as Christians.

The church cannot succeed in the same way in which political parties may succeed. Politics has to do with the art of the possible, and with such concessions and compromises as may give a party a maximum appeal and influence. It is the practice of liberalism in its commitment for progress (e.g. latest scholarship) and to be relevant to present needs, instead of timeless truth; making changes brought on by political or pragmatic thinking (i.e. if it works, do it!). It has all the marks of the false prophet. It promised great growth in light and in Christian influence, but eventually led to spiritual desolation.

On the subject of the improbability of the union of Protestant denominations, J.C.Ryle said: ‘I regard it as a beautiful castle in the air.’ But he was careful to add: ‘Keep the walls of separation as low as possible, and shake hands over them as often as you can.’ What should be clear to Christians is the inconsistency of affirming belief in the gospel and not in all of Scripture. No saving belief is possible without conviction concerning the underlying authority of Scripture as divine revelation.

The struggles and hopes of Christianity are not to be understood in terms of the present and the temporal. It is the certainty of what is future which is to govern the present.

All reports of problems and comments concerning this site: webmaster@trowelandsword.org.au

Privacy