A Critique of Iain H. Murray's Evangelicalism Divided

In the aftermath of Friedrich Schleiermacher, bringing about the idea that “beliefs are not vital to a relationship with God” (p. 9), there was a battle, a battle between the Evangelicals and the rest of the world over defining what a Christian really is. Iain Murry gives his insights into the past fifty years of that battle in his book Evangelicalism Divided. The term “evangelicals” was first widely used in the eighteenth century, as a means to distinguish those pulpits that remained true to the gospel (p. 1). But Iain Murry picks up the story with Billy Graham. While at first Graham seems to hold to Biblical truth, as he gains popularity he quickly changes his tune in order to be appealing to the widest possible audience. Rather than keeping to his words that, “We do not condone nor have fellowship with any form of modernism”, he changed to, “We should be willing to work with all who were willing to work with us” (p. 29). The effects of Graham's changed views were apparent during his London crusade of 1966 when “converts” were referred to non-evangelical churches (p 55). Graham seemed to feel than everyone who was friendly toward him was a Christian, the likes included former Presidents Nixon and Clinton (p. 63). It led to Graham stating, “I think that everybody that loves or knows Christ, whether they are conscious of it or not, they are members of the body of Christ” (p. 73).

Around the same time the National Evangelical Anglican Congress met in Keel and there the previous evangelical beliefs were disowned. In a show of good will, the congress invited Archbishop Michael Ramsey to give the opening address, and with the ring of Schleiermacher he pointed out to his hearers that experience goes before theology (p. 42). There was a lone voice of reason, that of Martyn Lloyd-Jones, saying, “Here is the great divide. The ecumenical people put fellowship before doctrine. We are evangelicals; we put doctrine before fellowship” (pp. 45-46). But his words were largely misunderstood and rejected, for the front page report on the meeting in the periodical The Christian read, “EVANGELICALS – LEAVE YOUR DENOMINATIONS, Says Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones” (p. 47).

The next major step downhill was in 1994 when several prominent evangelical leaders signed a twenty-five page document entitled: Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium. The basis for the signing was this: “Those who love the Lord must stand together” (p. 223). Although J. I. Packer stated, “I am not and could not become a Roman Catholic” (p. 225) and claims that “the unity which concerns him is 'with individual Roman Catholics who for whatever reason do not self-consciously assent to the precise definitions of the Roman Catholic magisterium'” (pp. 225-226), he later defies his own words by signing a document that states partnership with those who “are conscientiously faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church” (p. 231). But even in this there were those who Murray claims were faithful former evangelical truth, including R. C. Sproul and John MacArthur.

Murray closes the book with some simple observations from the past fifty years of Evangelicalism, showing how easy it is for people to fall into extremes when fighting a foe, and how most of the issues that have led to evangelicalism as we know it to be divided stem from the question, “Who is a Christian?” (p. 299). Also, Murray notes that the “church cannot succeed in the same way in which political parties may succeed” (p. 303), for the church is wholly dependent on supernatural aid, not human wisdom.

Overall I was impressed with Murray's work. Right from the beginning I respected him as a writer because of the way he introduced his topic – looking historically at the reason “Evangelicalism” exists. If there was one thing I would fault him for, it would be on his defense of Martin Lloyd-Jones. Multiple times he tries to show that Dr. Lloyd-Jones was not calling for denominational splits, but even after Murray's explanations of what the Doctor said, I still was not exactly clear what had actually been said. Since so many misunderstood what Dr. Lloyd-Jones said, maybe it was because he was not clear. But, if there is anyone to shed some light on the matter, it would be Murray, being that he was closely associated with Dr. Lloyd-Jones.

Murray's criticisms of men like Graham and Packer are well founded, and well documented – I felt no coercion or bending of facts. The simple truth laid bare before my eyes caused my heart to be saddened. Such great men of the faith, and yet I would almost question their devotion to Christ, in that their understanding of the elementary things of the Gospel is seems to have been darkened. The road to heaven truly is narrow. Murray was very gracious in all his criticisms, doing his best to think the best of the men he criticized, especially when they were those who originally were in the camp of Evangelicalism. Murray is a very insightful author, and communicated well the reasons for the division among evangelicals. And so, “let us entreat the Lord to make us all lively stones fit for his building. Amen!” (p. 318).

Read More......

Book Review: The Baptism with the Holy Spirit and the Value of Speaking in Tongues Today by Oral Roberts

Oral Roberts was born in 1918 and is an American leader in the Charismatic movement. He is a televangelist and also started a university that bears his name in Tulsa, Oklahoma. His book The Baptism with the Holy Spirit is basically a defense and explanation of being baptized by the Holy Spirit with an emphasis on the outflowing gift of tongues.

Roberts' theological positions reflect the fact that he is a leader in the Charismatic movement as he tries to prove from the Bible that being baptized with the Holy Spirit takes place after salvation and is accompanied by the gift of speaking in tongues. Using Acts 1:8 he argues that the baptism of the Spirit took place, for the disciples, on the day of Pentecost and should be a normative experience for all believers. Looking into the Greek word dunamis, translated in English as “power”, Roberts claims the word means “dynamite” and proves that “This power of the Holy Ghost is more explosive than the power experienced in salvation” (pp. 6, 9). Because of his understanding of the baptism of the Holy Spirit being post salvation, being years in his own experience (p. 8), Roberts believes that only after a person has been filled with the Spirit through baptism with the spirit are they able to “walk in the Spirit” (Gal. 5:16; p. 45). As tongues was the natural evidence of baptism with the Holy Spirit, according to Roberts belief, he claims that the experience of speaking in tongues, “is one of the most revolutionary experiences that can happen to a believer” (p. 15) and is key for “experiencing a new aliveness in Christ” and for having a far more effective witness for Christ (p. 21). Roberts believes instructing believers who are unaware of how the baptism of the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues works is very beneficial and attempts to do so in his book, instructing believers who have never spoken in tongues with words such as these: “As the welling up comes again to you, open your mouth and submit your tongue to God” (p. 35).

Academically Roberts does a better job in the beginning of the book than at the end. He really seems to be trying to get his ideas from the Word and draw conclusions based on what is in the text. Although his reference to the Greek word dunamis and his claim that it means “dynamite” (pp. 6, 9) cuts negatively into his credibility, being that dynamite didn't exist at the time the New Testament was being written. Roberts' effort to come to his beliefs biblically is commendable, but he seems to contradict this effort at times. Speaking of the process by which he evaluated a certain idea he says, “I immediately began to examine it; first by God's Word, next by the experiences of myself and others” (p. 29). But he seems to ignore this process later when he goes on to build a major argument for how the receive the Holy Spirit by a claiming that Peter's sermon in Acts 2 was “probably an abbreviated form of Peter's sermon” (p. 33), and then goes on to add in details that he feels Peter would have spoken. Beyond this, in a section devoted to explaining what the “gift” that the Paul refers to in 2 Timothy 1:6 was, he has a series of “if” statements and then acts as though he proved his point (pp. 46-47). Logically, his argument does not prove to be very strong.

Personally I was impressed with some of Roberts' statements regarding the priority of the Bible and preaching (p. 20), but overall found most of his arguments hard to buy, being that they were mostly based on experience, not the Word of God. One of the most sobering piece of information Roberts gave this: “Every morning when I waken, the Holy Spirit and I begin the day by praying in tongues” (p. 43). He seems to almost to place himself on the same level of causal power as the Holy Spirit and made me think of the words of Moses, “shall we bring forth water for you out of this rock?” (Num. 20:10). Roberts seems to be genuine in his desire to know God and in his understanding of his need for a Savior, but it seems that he has let his experience cloud his mind and cause him to interpret the Scripture to fit his own fancies. People can be sincere, and sincerely wrong (a common phrase of Dr. Rosscup one of my professors at TMS).

Read More......

A Critique of David O. Beale's In Pursuit of Purity

David Beale wrote In Pursuit of Purity in order to provide an historical record of American Fundamentalism since the 1850's (p. xi), but in doing so, fails to see major problems within the movement and gives praise to a movement that in many ways does not deserve it. He defines the ideal Christian Fundamentalist as one who, “desires to reach out in love and compassion to people, believes and defends the whole Bible as the absolute, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God, and stands committed to the doctrine and practice of holiness” (p. 3). The roots of Fundamentalism, Beale claims, run deep, and among these roots are Moses and the prophets, along with Christ and the apostles and many of the early church fathers as well as more modern church leaders such as Wesley and Spurgeon (p. 3). All of these are claimed to have striven for “biblical purity” (p. 5).

Fundamentalism has never been a denomination but rather it “has always been interdenominational in character and fellowship” (p. 6). According to Beale, Fundamentalists are constantly either separating liberals from the church or separating from liberal churches, in order that they might pursue “their foremost concern” of ecclesiastical purity and therefore unite around “the whole counsel of God” (pp. 7-8). The birth of American Fundamentalism, Beale claims, came from the Prayer Meeting Revivals and the great revival in Ireland that occurred in the years around 1860 (p. 13). Conferences were key to the movement, and really were a major focal point of the movement since it was not connected with one local church or denomination. From the Old Niagara Bible Conference to the World's Christian Fundamentals Association, Fundamentalism saw itself to be a lifeline for the preservation of truth in a world of falsehood. They fought “militantly” for such doctrines as the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, the virgin birth of Jesus, the substitutionary death of Christ, and the premillennial return of Christ.

One of the main problems I had with Beale's book is that he basically goes so far as to claim the Bible to have Fundamentalist leanings, and Biblical characters and Church fathers to be Fundamentalists (p. 3). This “freedom” of association seems to characterize Beale's work and puts doubt into the reader's mind to whether or not Beale can really be believed. Claiming J. Gresham Machen for the Fundamentalists does not seem to be fair, especially since Machen greatly disliked the term (pp. 316-317). Basically, Beale is claiming that all “true” Christians are really Fundamentalists, and if that's true, then really there is no need for the extra-biblical term “Fundamentalist” rather, the word “Christian” would do just fine. Beale's over-reaching only does his work a disservice.

Also, because of Beale's obvious love for Fundamentalism, he fails to have a clear view to their faults. No movement is as pure as Beale makes Fundamentalism out to be, and while this truth is apparent from the content of his book, he fails to take a critical look into some of the problems that have occurred over the history of the movement. An example of this is in Beale's recounting of T. T. Shield's purchase of the Des Moines University (pp. 237-241). It seems from what Beale states that Shield had major problems. The first of which is that his church was known for its music not for its Bible teaching. He also seemed to have a fascination with the dangerous rise of modernism in the Northern Baptist Convention, and constantly reported it in his periodical The Gospel Witness. He established a seminary and led two organizations and when his church was kicked out of one organization, five days later he started a new one. Then when Shields organized the purchase of Des Moines University he left it in the hands of a woman because he was too busy with other things. And while Beale claims Shields attempted to reform the university from its liberal past, the only controversies that seemed to come up had to do with national background. It ended with the students revolting, not because they were having trouble being “Fundamentalists” but because Shields had created anti-Canadian sentiment on the campus by making fun of Americans. Beale's response to all of this is weak: “The Des Moines University debacle should not overshadow the positive contributions that T. T. Shields made to classical Fundamentalism...It could have happened to any number of great men” (p. 241). Maybe Shields should have paid more attention to his own church, so that rather than the music be praised, it would have been a place known for the accurate preaching of the Word of God.

Shields' seeming neglect of his church and militancy in regards to his own nationalistic tendencies brings me to a final critique of Beale's work. Rather than call this movement Fundamentalism as it has been in the past, I submit a new term, “Conferencism”. It seems that Fundamentalists were consumed with conferences and institutions and Beale even admits these to be the “most important” bases of Fundamentalism (p. 251). But that does not seem to bother Beale. Nothing is really ever said of the local churches in his work, and many of those involved in the Fundamentalist movement seemed to be more concerned about having a conference than taking care of and shepherding their own people. Beale says they were seeking ecclesiastical purity at conferences, but ecclesiology has nothing to do with conferences, rather it has to do with the church (p. 7).

Machen had it right, “the term fundamentalism is distasteful...It seems to suggest that we are adherents of some strange new sect, whereas in point of fact we are conscious simply of maintaining the historic Christian faith and of moving in the great central current of Christian life” (pp. 316-317). And while Beale claims Machen for his Fundamentalists – Machen was not a Fundamentalist, but rather, he was a Christian, pursuing Christ, not purity.

Read More......