Review of Iain Murray's "Evangelicalism Divided" by Rev. Dr. Robert Sanders

An interesting and sage review of Iain Murray's Evangelicalism Divided by Rev. Dr. Robert Sanders. We are impressed.

http://www.rsanders.org/Evangelicalism%20Divided.htm

Evangelicalism Divided
by
Iain H. Murray(1)

This book documents how evangelicalism allowed itself to be compromised by the ecumenical movement and the desire for academic respectability. Its focus is evangelicalism in England and the United States, especially the Church of England.

The author is an evangelical. I was raised in an evangelical church and have a direct knowledge of the evangelical approach to Christian truth. In recent years, I have begun to investigate evangelicalism in greater detail. I cannot vouch for all the author's conclusions, but his claims ring true.

In regard to the fundamental theological divide within Protestantism, Murray rightly begins with Schleiermacher's liberal theology. He describes this theology and notes its powerful effect on the church. Even as early as 1857, a leading evangelical, Charles Hodge, thought that some two thirds of Germany and about same for England were under the sway of Schleiermacher's liberalism. Hodge defined the difference between liberalism and evangelicalism as follows.

The idea that Christianity is a form of feeling, a life, and not a system of doctrine, is contrary to the faith of all Christians. Christianity has always had a creed. A man who believes certain doctrines is a Christian.(2)

In 1924, Fosdick, a leading liberal, gave a similar description of the difference between liberalism and evangelicalism.

To day there are two parties in the churches. They are active in controversy now, and ever day their consciousness of difference becomes more sharp and clear. The crux of their conflict lies at this point: one party thinks that the essence of Christianity is its original mental frameworks; the other party is convinced that the essence of Christianity is its abiding experiences.(3)

In response to liberalism, evangelicals banded together to promote their vision of Christian truth. As heirs of the Reformation, they rejected the liberal heresy and refused to cooperate with liberals in various Christian endeavors such as conferences, evangelical campaigns, and ecumenical discussions. Most for the most part, however, very few evangelicals left the Church of England. They stayed because they recognized that the church still maintained its Reformation formularies (the Articles of Religion), and these documents were sufficient to uphold the integrity of the church.

In the 1950s, this began to change. Murray reports a number of developments. First, there was a shift in attitude toward non evangelicals. John Stott, speaking as chair at an important evangelical conference in 1967, put it this way.

It is a tragic thing, however, that Evangelicals have a very poor image in the Church as a whole. We have acquired a reputation for narrow partisanship and obstructionism. We have to acknowledge this, and for the most part we have no one but ourselves to blame. We need to repent and change.(4)

At this same conference Archbishop Ramsey was given the honor of the opening address. Ramsey was a liberal anglo-catholic, and he reminded his listeners that experience goes before theology. This is Schleiermacher. The conference proceeded to set forth basic evangelical doctrine, but at the same time it proclaimed a new approach to ecumenical dialogue. It was that as "long as anyone confessed Jesus Christ as `God and Saviour' there must be an acceptance of their Christian standing."(5)

It must be said at this point, however, that the liberal heresy does not deny Jesus Christ as "God and Saviour." It simply reinterprets the essentials of the faith in terms of a category that gives then a completely new meaning. I have described this elsewhere. Among others, the evangelical John Stott may not fully grasp the gravity of the situation. He claims, for example, that if "the Church were to deny one of the central truths of the creed, like the incarnation, the atonement or the resurrection, it would cease to be a church. It would be apostate. Then we would be obliged to leave it. But thank God that lamentable situation has not arrived."(6) This statement doesn't get to the heart of the matter. The liberal faith does not deny central truths of the faith. It reinterprets them along radically new lines.

Secondly, Billy Graham, one of evangelicalism's leading figures, began to develop ideas that softened if not abandoned certain critical evangelical beliefs. Originally, Graham did not include liberal churches and their leaders in his evangelistic campaigns. Eventually, however, Graham began to work with virtually all denominations except for churches such as the Unitarians. Some liberal clergy had reservations about Graham. Others had reservations, but they felt that conversion and subsequent church attendance were a good thing. Billy Graham could help them with that, and so they encouraged their members to attend his crusades and even participated themselves. It needs to be said here that liberals have no real theological problem with this approach. For them, the enthusiasm of a Graham crusade, the altar call, the exclusive claims of Christ, may not be their cup of tea. But they recognize that piety varies from person to person, that faith is a good thing, and that religion needs to be expressed according to each person's religious inclination and temperament. Therefore, many were willing to work with Billy. As a result of Billy Graham's crusades in England, evangelicals found themselves in increasing contact with non evangelicals. The resultant personal contact diluted the significance of doctrine and strengthened the sense that Christianity is more a matter of the heart than doctrine.

Murray gives several reasons for Graham's shift in attitude. To begin with, American evangelicalism is essentially pragmatic. Its goal is saving souls. Theological formulation is normally secondary. Further, Billy Graham and John Stott became good friends as did Graham and the liberal anglo catholic Ramsey. These contacts led to a weakening of Graham's "exclusive" view of the faith. Finally, for my part, I doubt that Graham or those around him had ever been exposed to the substance of the liberal heresy. They doubtless knew that something was wrong. But Graham, if he is like many Americans, tended to see people as human beings first, and only later as persons of a particular theological stripe. This cultural factor doubtless play a role in his becoming comfortable with those of contrary theological convictions.

Subsequent history was to show that a lack of apprehension of danger, a determination only to be charitable, and an increasing commitment to ecumenism, were to corrode the convictions which had initially been part of Graham's leadership.(7)

From all this it is clear that, while Graham has professed no change in his doctrinal beliefs, he had come to accept the primary idea of ecumenism that there is a shared experience of salvation in Christ which makes all differences of belief a very secondary matter.(8)

Finally, Graham, in a 1997 interview with Dr. Robert Schuler, made the statement that even those who did not overtly know Jesus Christ Moslems, Buddhists, atheists are members of the body of Christ. "They may not know the name Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something they do not have, and they turn to the only light they have, and I think that they are saved and they are going to be with us in heaven."(9) Schuler was ecstatic.

Along with Stott, there were a number of other important evangelicals who gradually began to assume a "wider" vision of the Church. Murray lists such men as Colin Buchanan, David Watson, and Michael Saward. Under their leadership the idea emerged that the ground of unity among Christians was baptism. In 1977, an evangelical conference was held in Nottingham. Among its proceedings, the section on "The Church and Its Identity," contained the following as its leading idea: "The church on earth is marked out by Baptism, which is the complete sacramental initiation into Christ and his body."(10) This allowed evangelicals to enjoy fraternal relations with all baptized members of the church. In Murray's view, this was a denial of evangelicalism's Reformation heritage.

In protest against such as assumption the Reformation asserted a gospel which had at its heart the justification of the believing, repentant sinner by Christ alone, and this message they held to be so paramount that, without it, the church and sacraments are all of no avail for salvation.(11)
There were further developments. In 1975, the Church of England abolished allegiance to the thirty nine articles and the majority of the evangelical clergy did not fight this decision. "The plain fact was that assent to the Thirty Nine Articles was ended because liberals opposed the scriptural nature of the doctrine while Anglo Catholics resented the rejection of Roman Catholic belief. Yet this was never openly admitted."(12) Further, evangelicals historically had called for the disciplining of clergy who were not faithful to Scripture. This went by the board as well. As one so called evangelical leader put it, "In an avowedly (though perhaps inadvertently) comprehensive Church, to find someone guilty of heresy and thus deprived of his or her post is in fact to flout the toleration factor in the life of the Church."(13) In Murray's view: "The approval of doctrinal `diversity' has become the hallmark of one time evangelicals who have risen to high positions in the Church and left definite convictions behind them."(14) Finally, Murray introduces another development with these words,

I now turn to another feature which has marked evangelicalism in the English speaking world since the 1950s, namely, a transference of leadership from preachers and pastors to evangelical intellectuals teaching in the academic world.(15) Instead of the old practice of clergy teaching clergy it began to become common for bright students to go straight into teaching posts.(16)

"The new generation of younger evangelical leaders," wrote Capon in 1977, "are primarily academics ... and their contributions at Nottingham showed they were beginning to grapple seriously with issues previously almost beyond evangelical reach." They were engaged, he believed in "a continuing quest for a `respectable theology'."(17)

According to Murray, the drift of intellectual leadership into the hands of academics had its greatest impact in the area of Scripture. Instead of a Scripture being a book that spoke the Word of God, it became a ancient text whose meaning was tied to a medley of historical reconstructions. This had three primary effects. First, Scripture was taken out of the hands of "ordinary" Christian men and women. As such, its interpretation became the purview of scholars whose focus was the latest historical construction lying behind any given text. Secondly, since the focus was the human world behind the text, Christian belief in Scripture was reduced to the uncertainties of historical constructions in which a broad toleration of opinion was allowed. And thirdly,

Finally, it follows that a denial of the full inspiration of Scripture leads to theological teaching and education which is destructive and futile rather than enriching and upbuilding in the faith. Instead of certainties, worthy to be preached and taught, students are introduced to what their lecturers trust are the latest results of biblical scholarship.(18)

Finally, Murray ends his book with a recognition that, from a New Testament point of view, the danger to the church is not materialism, or paganism, or any external danger. The real danger to the church, from the beginning to the end, is false teachers who corrupt the flock.
The idea that Christianity stands chiefly in danger from the forces of materialism, or from secular philosophy, or from pagan religions, is not the teaching of the New Testament. The greatest danger comes rather from temptations within and from those who, using the name of Christ, are instruments of Satan to lead men to believe a lie and to worship what in reality belongs to the demonic (2 Thess. 2:3 9; Rev. 13:11).(19)

What should the church do about this?

Wrong belief is as dangerous as unbelief. To deny the deity and the work of Christ will shut men out of heaven as certainly as will the sin of murder. (John 8:24; I John 2:22 23). To preach "another gospel" is to be "accursed (Gal. 1:6 9). Those who support heresies "will not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal. 5:20 21). This means that a large part of the preservation and defence of the church lies in resolute resistance to falsehood and in forthright teaching of the truth. Such warnings as "beware of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees" (Matt. 23:13), run right through the Ne Testament. "Tax collectors and prostitutes" would enter the king of God before such false teacher (Matt. 21:31). The apostles, filled with the Spirit of Christ, suffered no toleration of error. They opposed it wherever it arose and required the same spirit of all Christians.(20)

A Few Additional Comments

To my mind, this text raises a fundamental question: "Who is a Christian?" One could ask, for example, whether doctrine defines who is a Christian? But that question is dependent upon a more fundamental question: "Who is Jesus Christ, and how is he known?" If Jesus Christ is given in his words and deeds, and if these last forever, then doctrine, the intelligibility of what he said and did, belongs to the essence of the Church and defines a Christian. This has been the position of the church from the beginning. If, however, as the revisionists assert, Jesus Christ is known beyond his words and deeds, if his words merely "point to" the mystical and ineffable Christ, then doctrine does not define the Christian.

Or, if being a believer in Jesus Christ is merely a matter of an external rite, such a baptism, then anyone can be a Christian who has had water poured over them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Scripture agrees that water baptism is important. One must be born of water and the Spirit. (Jn. 3:5) Theologically, baptism in water corresponds to what happened in Jesus Christ. It is immersion into his death and resurrection. Unless, however, this objective, external sacrificial death and resurrection becomes real in a person's life, unless one receives, believes, follows Jesus Christ, and is born anew from above, the fact that a person is baptized does not mean they are Christians. It is the Spirit that enables a person to appropriate what is given externally and objectively in Jesus Christ. Apart from the work of the Spirit, a person is still dead in their sins. One doesn't receive forgiveness without repentance. The triune name given in baptism, Father, Son, and Spirit, means that a person is originally created by the Father, redeemed by the Son, and made new by the Spirit who effects in believers through faith what was given them in the Son who reveals the Father. This seems obvious, and its is hard to believe that the any Christian church would simply define Christians by baptism. Unfortunately I have heard the same here in the States on numerous occasions.

Archbishop Ramsey's claim that experience comes before theology may be true in some trivial sense. Everything we know has some basis in experience. The question for theology is, "What sort of experience is an experience of the true God, the Father of Jesus Christ?" Theology helps identify the true God. The doctrines of the trinity and christology help distinguish the true God from false ones. The claim, "experience before theology," is misleading. At one level, it is virtually a truism. At another level, as actually used, it means an experience of something for which doctrine has no relevance. A "something" for which doctrines is meaningless is not the Christian God. The Christian God was and is defined by a Word, the Word Jesus Christ, and his words and deeds have intelligible content.

Further, in my view, one of the reasons evangelicals are led astray is that evangelicals really haven't done their homework. The revisionists really do raise some significant issues and they must be addressed. It is not unusual for evangelicals to live in a ghetto, and when they get out, they discover that their presumed theological enemies are not such bad people after all. And many are not. Then they discover that their liberal friends have some ideas that they, the evangelicals, haven't really examined. Lacking theological or biblical substance, evangelicals can find themselves giving in to the new doctrine or returning to the ghetto. I've seen it often, especially in seminary.

Much more could be said about this text. It is worth reading. I would ask the reader to get the text, read it, and examine the literature it documents. But for now, enough of these unhappy matters. "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." (Mt. 6:34b)

Endnotes

1. Murray, Iain H. Evangelicalism Divided, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2000.
2. Murray, p. 15.
3. Murray, p. 15.
4. Murray, p. 42.
5. Murray, p. 43.
6. See the essay by Stott on the AAC website.
7. Murray, p. 66.
8. Murray, p. 69.
9. Murray, p. 74.
10. Murray, p. 101.
11. Murray, pp. 102 3.
12. Murray, p. 265.
13. Murray, pp. 141 2.
14. Murray, p. 142.
15. Murray, p. 173.
16. Murray, p. 174.
17. Murray, p. 175.
18. Murray, p. 204.
19. Murray, pp. 259.
20. Murray, p. 259. As references, Murray gives: Phil 1:27; Col 2:8; 2 Thess 3:14; 1 Tim 1:3 7, 6:3 5; 2 Tim 2:14 19; Titus 3:9 11; 2 Pet 2:1; 1 Jn 4:1 3; 2 Jn 7; and Jude.

The Rev. Robert J. Sanders, Ph.D.
June, 2002.

home