Methodism: 'an alien place for conservative evangelicals'

As a boy I used to attend the local Wesleyan Methodist Chapel Sunday School. I believe the work has since closed, but when I was a kid a good number of children used to attend 'Aunty Betty's' Sunday School meetings. I can't recall much of what we were taught, but the lessons were Scripture-focussed. Bible stories mainly, rather than clear presentations of the gospel. I have no lingering impression of the Way of Salvation ever being explained to the children. The Christmas Nativity Play was an annual highlight, as parents would also attend. I have a vague recollection of being a shepherd; decked out in a dressing gown and with a tea towel on my head that was kept in place by one of those snake-buckle belts that were all the rage in the 1970s. 

So much for my youthful brush with Methodism. Todays' Methodist Church is a far cry from anything 'Aunty Betty' would have recognised, let alone John Wesley. Yesterday The Times newspaper reported Methodists to allow same-sex weddings. Members of the Methodist Conference voted on a motion that marriage could be defined as a union between "two people", rather than only between "one man and one woman". The vote to redefine marriage passed with 254 in favour to only 46 against. Methodists leaders expressed concern that a significant minority of 'traditionalists' might leave the grouping over this matter. Opponents of same-sex marriage were assured that there were safeguards in place that would allow them to opt out of performing same-sex weddings.  

One evangelical minister responded, "There's a real sense that the Church has become an increasingly alien place to be a conservative evangelical, and there is a sense that the Church is on a direction of travel which many over the course of this next year or two will probably feel unable to sustain". (See this report in Christian Today). A request that evangelicals be allowed to leave Methodism with their church buildings and assets was quite predictably rejected. Evangelicals are none the less weighing up their options.

Methodism was born of the 18th century Evangelical Revival. Methodism had two main branches, those who followed the Calvinistic teaching of George Whitefield and others who came under the influence of the Arminian John Wesley. The Methodist Church of today had its genesis in Wesleyan Methodism.  Whitefield and Wesley had their doctrinal disagreements, but they were united in the basic elements of evangelical belief. The historian David Bebbington has identified four defining characteristics of evangelicalism: 

• Conversionism: the belief that lives need to be transformed through a “born-again” experience and a life long process of following Jesus
• Activism: the expression and demonstration of the gospel in missionary and social reform efforts
• Biblicism: a high regard for and obedience to the Bible as the ultimate authority
• Crucicentrism: a stress on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as making possible the redemption of humanity

The vote of the Methodist Conference to allow same-sex weddings didn't come from nowhere. In his Wesley and Men Who Followed (2003, Banner of Truth Trust), Iain H. Murray tells the story of how Methodism gradually drifted away from its evangelical origins. Certainly 'Biblicism' as defined by Bebbington is no longer the default position of the Methodist Church.  John Wesley was ready to be called a 'Bible bigot'. Many of today's Methodists would probably run a mile to get away from any such label. But that is nothing new. In 1965 Donald Soper was president of the Methodist Conference. Far from being a 'Man of One Book', he held that the Scriptures 'represent an incubus' and proposed a one-year ban on Bible reading. 

Around the same time Leslie Weatherhead argued that, 'William Temple was just bas inspired as Paul and T. S. Eliot more inspired than the Song of Solomon'. Weatherhead was especially opposed to the deity of Christ and his substitutionary atonement. Commenting on the text, 'Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins' (Hebrews 9:22), the Methodist leader countered, 'In our modern view this is simply not true.' Old fashioned Methodists were left asking, 'Was John Wesley deceived? have our hymnwriters been deceived in their immortal songs? Was Saul of Tarsus deceived? Have we all been deceived?' (See Wesley and Men Who Followed, p. 257-258). 

In his 1966 address, Evangelical Unity: An Appeal. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones asked, 'Are we content, as evangelicals, to go on being nothing but an evangelical wing of a church?' At least since the 1960's evangelicals have been a minority group within the Methodism. Liberal thinking that is happy to accommodate itself to contemporary opinion has prevailed. The overwhelming vote in favour of redefining marriage is merely a symptom of a deeper doctrinal and spiritual malaise. The leadership of the Methodist Church has long sold the pass when it comes to the authority of Scripture and basic gospel truths such as the deity of Christ and his penal substitutionary death. How can evangelicals continue stand shoulder to shoulder with leaders who have departed from the gospel? 

Yes, 'traditionalists' within Methodism may be granted an 'opt out' when it comes to performing same-sex weddings. At least for now. But wouldn't it be better for people who are committed to the gospel to opt out altogether from a church grouping that takes its lead from the spirit of the age, rather than the authority of the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures? Separation will be costly, but separation need not mean isolation for evangelical Methodists. The call is for them to come out and come together with other gospel churches who stand for the truth in these days of compromise and confusion.  

Confessional Christianity, an antidote to evangelical biblicism

 

In his review of Canon, Covenant and Christology: Rethinking Jesus and the Scriptures of Israel by Matthew Barrett, Robert Strivens stated, "as evangelicals, we must cease to be mere biblicists and become faithful exponents of Scripture deeply rooted in a well-rounded dogmatic theology." I very much agree and think this is one of the pressing issues of our time. 

I'm sure that a naive biblicism that is uniformed by the theological heritage of the church is one of the reasons why evangelicals have got themselves into such a mess with the doctrine of God. Some advocates of the eternal submission of the Son make 'will' a property of the persons of the Trinity, rather than the divine being. But hang on a minute. If 'will' is a property of persons, rather than being, and the incarnate Son has two wills, is he therefore two persons, divine and human? According to classic Christology, the incarnate Son is one person with two natures, with a will appropriate to each nature, divine and human.

One of the reasons for subscribing to an elaborate confession of faith such as the Second London Baptist Confession is that our forebears were self-consciously Reformed Catholics. Their confessions bear the imprint of the great creedal heritage of the church. Subscribe to them and you subscribe to Nicaea and Chalcedon and identify with an Augustinian account of salvation by sovereign grace. 

But they didn't stop there. They were Reformed Catholics, who sought to reform church doctrine and life in the light of our supreme authority, which is the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures. Hence the Particular Baptists set out their own distinctive views on the covenants, the church and baptism, while holding to the Catholic creeds and the solas of the Reformation. 

Many contemporary evangelical doctrinal statements adopt a minimalist approach that fails sufficiently to root the church in the Great Tradition of theological orthodoxy. Neither do they set out why Independent Evangelical or Baptist churches operate as they do in the light of clear biblical principles. 

The older confessions provide us with a dogmatic framework in which the key teachings of Scripture are set out in a coherent and systematic way. They are an aid to interpreting the Bible in the light of theological reflection of the church over many centuries. Familiarity with the historic creeds and confessions of faith  can help save us from many a doctrinal blunder. 

That is not to say that the confessions are to be regarded as infallible, or unimprovable. The Westminster Confession was revised by the Independents in their Savoy Declaration and again by Particular Baptists in the Second London Baptist Confession. But we should think long and hard before adopting an interpretation of Scripture that is out of synch with the confession of faith we have pledged to uphold. 

That is especially the case when it comes to what they have to say on doctrines of first importance, like the doctrine of God and of Christ the Mediator. According to the 1689 God's will is a property of his being (Chapter 2:1), not the three persons (Chapter 2:3), see here. With that in mind, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not distinguished in terms of one person submitting their will to that of another, but "by several peculiar, relative properties, and personal relations". 

In other words that "the Father is of none neither begotten nor proceeding, the Son is Eternally begotten of the Father, the holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son". There is an order in the Trinity, but no hierarchy of will. How could that be when will is a property of the divine being, which is wholly shared by the three persons? 

Making 'will' a property of persons plays havoc with the doctrine of Christ. As pointed out earlier, we confess that the Lord Jesus has two wills. The incarnate Son is not two persons, however. That would be Nestorianism. The confession rightly affirms that the incarnate Son is a divine person with a human nature, Chapter 8:2. 

Prominent Evangelicals in the US and UK have strayed from this historic teaching, holding that the Son eternally submitted his will to that of the Father. They have often done so using naively biblicist arguments in which the relationship of the incarnate Son to the Father in the economy of redemption is read back univocally into the ontological Trinity. It is enough to say that the missions of the Trinity reflect the eternal relations, without positing a plurality of wills in God. 

A more rigorous confessionalism would have helped prevent the theological confusion that is apparent in evangelical circles. Elders (pastors among them) and deacons should be expected to subscribe to a confession like the 1689. A more basic doctrinal statement such as the FIEC Doctrinal Basis may be required of church members, but the officers should ensure that church teaching and life is in line with a more wide-ranging and detailed confession of faith.

The biggest divide in evangelicalism is not between those who adopt traditional or progressive worship styles, or lockdown defiers and lockdown compliers; it is between confessional Reformed Catholics and doctrinal minimalists. We see further when we stand on the shoulders of giants. Time-honoured terms such as 'person', 'relations', 'being' and 'will' have meanings that were carefully defined in response to doctrinal error. Heretics could also quote the Bible. A simplistic biblicism was not sufficient to combat heresy. The teaching of Scripture needed to be explained and defended using non-biblical terminology. Hence the precise and exact language found in the creeds and confessions of old. 

When we step off the shoulders of the theological giants we become short sighted. Those who ignore or redefine key theological terms cannot always see the consequences of their doctrinal missteps. Making 'will' a property of the persons rather than the divine being makes for a subordinationist Trinity and an incoherent Christology. This is just one example of why we should strive to become "faithful exponents of Scripture who are rooted in a well-rounded dogmatic theology." Let us 'hold fast our confession, faithful to the end'. 

Awakening the Evangelical Mind by Owen Strachan

Awakening the Evangelical Mind: 

An Intellectual History of the Neo-Evangelical Movement,

by Owen Strachan, Zondervan, 2015. Kindle edition

On my study bookshelves I have at least one commentary on each book of the Bible. More again if you count Kindle and Logos editions. Most are scholarly works by Evangelical writers. Then there are countless theological titles dealing with a wide variety of subjects from the atonement to apologetics, historical works, and so on. Many have been published in the last 30 or 40 years by notable Evangelical scholars. These writers are in turn the product of world class Evangelical theological schools and seminaries.This abundance of literary riches would have amazed postwar Evangelicals. Today we tend to take it for granted. 

I finished reading this a while back, yet never got round to writing up a review until now. Must have slipped my mind. It was a 'fits and starts' read, anyway. Not that it wasn't any good, but I bought it cheap, a Kindle special offer and tended only to look at it occasionally. Like when I found myself hanging around for some reason or other, and wanted something to read to redeem what otherwise would have been wasted time.

In the 1930s and 40s theological academia was dominated by Liberal scholarship. Evangelicals working in the field were few and far between. Fundamentalists tended to view scholarly pursuits with some suspicion. They stuck to the Bible, stuck it to the Liberals, and that was about it. The trouble with that anti-intellectual approach was that it left Evangelical students bereft of the tools they needed to give a cogent defense of their beliefs in the academic world. Thankfully, the same cannot be said now. 

In this title Owen Strachan tells the story of how the founders Neo-Evangelicalism helped to reawaken the Evangelical mind. With the support of Billy Graham, Harold John Ockenga and Carl F. H. Henry led the way. Between them they founded institutions such as the National Association of Evangelicals, Fuller Seminary and the magazine, Christianity Today. Scholars such as Edward John Carnell, Kenneth Kantzer, John H. Gerstner, and George Eldon Ladd added their weight to the movement. They had big plans to capture the commanding heights of academia for the gospel. New books were published and older writers like Jonathan Edwards were rediscovered. The 'Neos' were self-consciously different to the 'Fundies' in their approach. Henry's The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism attacked the truncated world view of the Fundamentalists. 

Not all of the Neo-Evangelicals ambitions were realised, and today's Evangelicalism is not without its challenges in the academic world. Holding to the authority Scripture, substitutionary atonement and the new birth is never going to be fashionable in any generation. But that is where we stand. Carl Henry was a revered figure at London Seminary where I trained for the ministry (1988-90). His books were warmly recommended by the faculty. The Evangelical elder statesman visited the seminary when I was there and gave a talk on the doctrine of Scripture.

In a conclusion Strachan draws some helpful lessons from his study that are worth pondering. We owe a debt of gratitude to the likes of Henry and Ockenga, without whom pastors' bookshelves would be less well stocked than they are today. May this account of their efforts serve to inspire contemporary Evangelicals to rise to the intellectual challenges of our post-modern, pluralistic and secular age, 2 Corinthians 10:5. 

Evangelical 'Momentum' within the Church of England

D. M. Lloyd-Jones, 1966

In an article in the Church Times, Angela Tilby issued a wake-up call to the Church of England. Apparently, 'Momentum' is infiltrating Anglicanism. Not that kind of 'Momentum'. She wasn't worried that the good old CofE was going to be taken over by an influx of Marxtist-Lenninists brandishing the Morning Star and singing 'Oh, Jeremy Corbyn', rather than 'All Things Bright and Beautiful'. Maybe she wouldn't have minded that too much. 

No, the worrying thing is that people who actually believe the Bible and possibly even a good chunk of the 39 Articles of Religion are in danger of  imposing themselves upon the Church of England. Whatever next? As Tilby says, "It just seems wrong to insist that only those who claim to have a personal relationship with Jesus are real Christians, and that their priority should be about converting others." Crazy, like. You wouldn't find the great theologians of the Church spouting such nonsense; Athanasius, Augustine, and such. Let alone John Calvin and the Reformer Bishops of the Church of England; Latimer and Ridley. Pesky Evangelicals. 

It may even be that, "what was once a well-tolerated but distinctive ideology of faith has become the accepted norm." It was no doubt very kind of non-Evangelicals to be so tolerant towards people who preach the gospel, but heaven forfend that their 'ideology' should become the norm. Evangelicals should know their place and content themselves with being a 'wing' of the Church alongside the other wings, rather than trying to take the place over. It's not as if the other 'wings' would ever try and do that. 

The thought of an Evangelical 'Momentum' sweeping through the CofE, making it do evangelism and stuff, is giving Angela Tilby an anxiety attack. Her response illustrates rather perfectly the problem that faces Evangelical Anglicans. They must stay in their Evangelical box, keep paying into the coffers and stop trying to remake the Church in their own image. But can Evangelicals content themselves with being a well tolerated 'wing' of a Church that has more 'wings' than KFC has of the chicken variety? The Liberal 'wing', Anglo-Catholic, Nondescript Mainstream, LGBT+ inclusive, and so on. 

The thing that puts the Evangel into Evangelicals is the gospel of salvation by faith alone, through grace alone in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone. The preaching of this message is what constitutes the church as "a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance"  (Article XIX). Those who do not preach this message or sit under its proclamation are not the church in any meaningful sense of the word. Evangelicals who remain in theologically mixed denominations like the CofE must therefore either work to reform them, or leave. 

Angela Tilby laments, "Nowhere in today’s report is there any theological reflection on the nature of the current church decline." But any theological reflection must begin with God, take his self-revelation in Holy Scripture seriously and deal with the questions, 'What is a Christian?' and 'What is the Church?'. Michael Sadgrove Tweeted an appreciation of Tilby's article in which he said, '@churchofengland⁩ is not a network of gathered evangelising churches.' But that's exactly the problem. The church of the New Testament was a network of gathered evangelising churches. Read Acts.

Tilby casts the aspersion that Evangelicals are only interested in 'saving souls', and have little time for social justice. Who does she think led the campaign to abolish slavery, or agitated for better working conditions for ordinary men and women? The tradition of William Wilberforce and Lord Shaftesbury lives on among contemporary Evangelicals who work in disadvantaged communities. They run debt counselling services, organise food banks, serve as school governors, and help in countless other ways.

That said, Evangelicals might have something to learn from the Tilby's piece. At least in her perception they are theological lightweights and ecclesiological pragmatists. They talk in business-speak, “envision, equip, and enable . . .”. This is unfortunate. Evangelical Anglicanism has produced some very fine theologians such as J. I Packer and John Stott. Packer and Stott sought to root Evangelicalism in the great theological tradition of Puritanism, the Reformers and the Church Fathers. Alpha Course Evangelicals would do well to return to the 'Old Paths' to add theological weight to the movement. Yet even here, Packer and Stott were more comfortable than they should have been with Evangelicalism being regarded as a  'well-tolerated ideology' within the broader Anglican set-up. 

Serious questions need to be faced by Evangelicals within the theologically mixed denominations, 

Are we content, as evangelicals, to go on being nothing but an evangelical wing, making our protests, exerting our influence, hoping that we can gradually infiltrate so that others may come to see the wrongness of their ideas and the correctness of ours? Are we content to go on doing that? (Knowing the Times, D. M. Lloyd-Jones, Banner of Truth Trust, 1989, p. 251). 

Martyn Lloyd-Jones issued that challenge in 1966 in his address under the auspices of the Evangelical Alliance, Evangelical Unity: An Appeal. What the preacher said still resonates today. If the gospel defines what it means to be a Christian and what it means to be the church, the church must be evangelical, or it is no church at all. On that basis, we cannot be content with being an 'evangelical wing'. Why remain in alliance with people who deny that being a Christian means having a personal relationship with Jesus? 

Angela Tilby clearly believes that Evangelicals are the problem in the CofE. This depite the fact that Evangelical churches tend to be the ones that are growing in a context of general decline. She in effect says to them (echoing the words of king Ahab to the prophet Elijah), "Is it you, troubler of Israel?" To which Elijah famously replied, "I have not troubled Israel, but you...because you have abandoned the commandments of the Lord." (1 Kings 18:17-18). Quite. 

Lloyd-Jones called upon Evangelicals to come together to bear united witness to the gospel. It is clear that their presence in the CofE is not welcome by Angela Tilby and other leading figures in the CofE. To them you are little better than what 'Momentum' ideological extremists are to the Labour Party. Why stay where you are not welcome? Come out and come together with all who proclaim the gospel of Jesus. 

The Great Evangelical Identity Crisis continued...

My article, The Great Evangelical Identity Crisis (1980-2010) was published in this month's The Gospel Truth Magazine. I posted the first part of the piece on the blog back in September, here. This is how it continues,

Evangelicalism contested

With the redefinition of Evangelicalism has come a loss of theological coherence in the Evangelical movement. Doctrines that could once be taken for granted as hallmarks of Evangelical teaching have been disputed by those who claim to belong to the Evangelical camp. Steve Chalke caused a furore of controversy when he likened penal substitutionary atonement to “cosmic child abuse”. John Stott questioned the traditional Evangelical teaching on the eternal, conscious punishment of the wicked . J. I. Packer has been at the forefront of Evangelicals and Catholics together, a movement that aims at rapprochement between Evangelicals and Rome. Andrew McGowan recently argued that we should reject biblical inerrancy in favour of a reworked concept of infallibility. Others are looking longingly in the direction of Karl Barth for theological inspiration that is Reformed, but not as we know it . The so-called Emerging Church, associated with Brian McLaren, has regrettably sacrificed faithfulness to the truth in the name of engaging postmodern culture. If certain sectors of Evangelicalism are no longer centred on the biblical evangel, and others are busily picking away at Evangelical distinctives, then it is no surprise that the movement is beginning to lose its identity.

Reformed recovery

But the story of Evangelicalism in the last thirty years is not all bad news. One of the encouraging features of the Evangelical scene in the UK has been the recovery of the Reformed faith. Amongst other factors, the resurgence was heralded by the writings of A. W. Pink, the preaching of D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, the theological teaching of John Murray, and publications of the Banner of Truth Trust .

We are now well into a second generation of Reformed preachers and churches who did not come under the direct influence of the likes of Lloyd-Jones. There are presently literally hundreds if not thousands of Reformed preachers and congregations in the UK, not to mention the widespread recovery of the doctrines of grace in the States. Reformed Christianity is now a well established part of the Christian landscape in Great Britain, with many conferences, publishers and movements seeking to strengthen the cause.

For the first generation engaged in the recovery of Reformed theology there was the excitement and joy of new discovery. Now we are seeing men and women who have been involved in Reformed churches for the whole of their Christian lives. The present generation needs to appreciate afresh the sheer wonder and grandeur of the Reformed vision of the Triune God of sovereign grace. But theological recovery is not enough. Calvinistic doctrine is of little use if it does not lead to its proponents living vibrant godly Christian lives that adorn the truth as it is in Jesus.

It is often suggested that Calvinism has a stultifying effect on the evangelistic effort of the churches. But out of love for the lost and zeal for the glory of God in the salvation of the sinners, many Reformed churches are giving fresh emphasis to evangelism, and church planting. As well as traditional means of outreach like door-to-door work, literature distribution, open air preaching, and special evangelistic services, in recent years, many churches have run courses like Christianity Explored. We need to pray that the Lord will make these activities effective in the salvation of many in our day.

Both in the UK and the USA, the resurgence of the Reformed faith has crossed the dividing line between traditional Calvinistic churches and the Charismatic movement. This has had an impact on the worship style adopted at Together for the Gospel and other big conferences. We can see something similar happening in the UK at New Word Alive. New Frontiers Charismatics gather with Free Church and Anglican Evangelicals to hear the likes of Don Carson against the backdrop of Charismatic style worship. It is a good thing that Charismatics are being drawn to the doctrines of grace. But there are still some differences between the traditional Reformed Churches and our Reformed Charismatic brethren. The use of noisy music groups, song leaders and other accouterments of Charismatic worship is one of them, not to mention the issue of the continuation or not of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. I'm not saying that fellowship with Calvinistic Charismatics should be curtailed, but real differences should not be swept under the carpet.

Rather worryingly, there is a danger of traditional Reformed churches in the UK fragmenting over issues that are important, but not of the essence Calvinism such as Bible translations and the singing of recently composed hymns. Progressives need to be reminded of the value of being grounded in the theological and spiritual heritage of the Reformed faith. Friends with a more retrospective mindset need to heed the challenge of bringing the gospel to the contemporary world. The needs of the age are too urgent for us to be wasting energy on in-fighting, when we should be pooling our resources for the cause of the gospel in our land.

Evangelical future

We have reflected on the recent history of Evangelicalism. Does Evangelicalism have a future? Only in so far as it holds to the evangel revealed in Holy Scripture that was recovered at the Reformation. The triune God of the Gospel is still mighty to save sinners and revive his work in our time. Ultimately the future of Evangelicalism is in God's hands. "Revive your work, O Lord in the midst of the years!"

The Great Evangelical Identity Crisis

The very idea of what it means to be an Evangelical has been subject to revision and redefinition in the last couple of decades. In 1989 D. W. Bebbington published his seminal Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: a history from the 1730’s to the 1980’s (Unwin Hayman). I read it while studying for the ministry at the London Theological Seminary (1988-90). The historian acknowledged Evangelicalism had its origins in the Reformation and Puritan movements of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. But, he argued, Evangelicalism as such was largely a new, distinctly eighteenth century phenomenon, shaped by various spiritual and social factors peculiar to that time. Bebbington proposed four defining characteristics of Evangelical religion,

conversionism, the belief that lives need to be changed; activism, the expression of the gospel in effort; biblicism, a particular regards for the Bible; and what might be called crucicentrsim, a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Together they form a quadrilateral of priorities that is the basis of Evangelicalism. (p. 3).

Bebbington’s “quadrilateral” is often taken as a starting point for the discussion of Evangelical identity. But while few would wish to deny that his four characteristics are indeed hallmarks of Evangelical Christianity, they are not fit for purpose when it comes to defining Evangelicalism. Part of the problem is that Bebbington has minimized the extent to which Evangelicalism was indebted to the theological heritage of the Reformation and Puritan periods. Chris Sinksinson attempts to redress the balance,

If we take the Reformation as our starting point then evangelicalism is born out of a theological rediscovery. Of course there is a breadth to the Reformation but the breadth is held together by a shift in the location of authority from church councils and traditions to the Bible. Ultimately, to be evangelical is to be biblical in our approach to the knowledge of God and life.

As a movement stemming from the Reformation, evangelicalism is essentially creedal. Not only that, there are clear doctrinal commitments that make up the creed. (Table Talk, Issue 14. Summer 2005, Published by Affinity)

The trouble is that if we make eighteenth century Evangelicalism definitive for the movement as it developed from that point, then we suffer an instant loss of theological coherence. Eighteenth century Evangelicalism was divided between Calvinists like George Whitefield and Daniel Rowlands and the Arminian Wesley brothers. From the standpoint of Reformation theology, Arminianism was an aberration, condemned at the Synod of Dort in 1618. But, according to Bebbington, if Calvinists and Arminians shared his four-fold identity markers, then both groupings were to be regarded as equally Evangelical.

I am not casting doubt on whether the Wesley brothers and their followers preached the gospel. They most certainly did, at least in a truncated form. But I am arguing that it is a mistake to make eighteenth century Evangelicalism the defining period for the subsequent Evangelical movement. The redefinition of Evangelicalism along such lines is a recipe for theological confusion and anarchy.

Evangelicalism in its best and most consistent form is an expression of the Reformed faith. And it is worth stressing that the Reformers had no wish to reject the theological heritage of the church and start again from scratch. They saw themselves as defenders of the Catholic tradition that had been corrupted by the Roman Catholic Church of their day. The Reformers held to the ancient Trinitarian creeds and the teachings of the church fathers, especially Augustine, with his emphasis on the sovereignty of grace. Of course, they taught that the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture is the supreme authority, but they were Catholic in outlook, holding to the faith confessed by the church throughout the ages.

Contrary to Bebbington and other recent revisionists, Evangelicalism is not the theologically amorphous product of the Evangelical Revival of eighteenth century. Properly understood and defined, it is biblical Christianity, Catholic and Reformed; the faith once delivered to the saints in contemporary expression. Bebbington’s widely adopted definition of Evangelicalism weakens the confessional integrity of the Evangelical movement. Evangelicalism needs the rich resources of biblically faithful Reformed theology if it is to respond to the challenges of the present hour.

* An excerpt from an article written by me for The Gospel Truth, edited by Mike Grimshaw entitled The Great Evangelical Identity Crisis 1980-2010.

Catholicism: East of Eden by Richard Bennett

Catholicism: East of Eden, Insights into Catholicism for the 21st Century,
by Richard Bennett, Berean Beacon Press, 2005, 339pp

I bought the wrong book. With its subtitle, Insights into Catholicism for the 21st Century, I thought that this volume offered a calm and reasoned assessment of post Vatican II Roman Catholicism. That isn't quite it. Catholicism: East of Eden is a passionately written and deeply personal account of the author's disillusionment with the Rome as it dawned on him that the Church he had served as a priest did not stand up to biblical scrutiny. By passionate I don't mean that this is a ranty "hot-Prot" diatribe. As a former insider Bennett gives a fair and accurate account of Roman Catholicism, carefully referencing teachings he criticizes in the light of Scripture. But what we have here is an urgent tract rather than a detached scholarly treatise.

Bennett tells the story of his conversion from Roman Catholicism to salvation in Christ. Along the way he includes some detailed discussion of the distinctive doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. Chapters are devoted to the authority of Scripture, the Papacy, Confession, the Mass, Marian teachings and so on. A chapter entirely devoted to justification by faith alone would have been welcome. The author certainly shows that Rome's teaching on this matter is not in accord with the Bible. But it would have been helpful to have had a more in-depth treatment of the differences between Rome and Evangelical Protestantism on great doctrine that lay at the heart of the Protestant Reformation.

Too often it is assumed that the differences between Rome and Evangelical Protestantism are of little magnitude. "Sure we disagree" it is said, "but what's a few differences between Christian friends of equal standing?" From his experiences as a practicing Catholic and armed with the teaching of God's Word, Bennett knows that such a laidback attitude is misplaced. Eternal issues are at stake. The controversy with Rome is nothing less than a battle for the gospel of saving grace. Evangelicals need to wake up to this and realise that Rome only engages in ecumenical discussions such as Evangelicals and Catholics Together with one objective in mind. That is to encourage Evangelicals to renege on the gospel and return to the Roman fold. If that sounds to you like a typical Protestant "Jesuits under the bed" conspiracy theory, then take a look at Chapter 15 of this book where Bennett exposes the Roman Catholic ecumenical agenda.

On the question of ecuminism, the author rightly stresses that a shared commitment the gospel rather than outward institutional uniformity is the basis of Christian unity. True enough. But this gospel unity is to be made manifest in the life of the local church and in the way Bible believing churches relate to each other. It is regrettable that Protestants have tended to divide on issues not essential to the gospel or the well being of the church. We seem to have forgotten that our Lord prayed that the evident unity of his people would bring the world to believe that the Father sent him (John 17:21).

Bennett highlights the way in which Roman Catholicism tends to emphasize the importance of the Church to such an extent that Christ is relegated to the sidelines. That is a fair point. But we also need to bear in mind what the New Testament says concerning the role of the church in bearing witness to the gospel and nurturing believers in the faith. Put in rather simplistic terms, if Rome is all "church" and no gospel, Protestants should not give the impression that for us it is virtually all gospel and no church.

To conclude, Catholicism: East of Eden serves as a reminder that the Reformation is far from over. The big doctrinal issues that separate Evangelical Protestantism from Rome have yet to be resolved. It is a mistake to try and play down the serious theological differences that remain. Such an approach does no service to Romans Catholics who are beginning to realise as did Richard Bennett that their church preaches "another gospel" (Galatians 1:6-7). We need to be absolutely clear that according to the witness of Scripture alone, salvation is through grace alone, by faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone.

With its autobiographical style the book is a useful counterpart to Francis Beckwith's Return to Rome, where the former President of the Evangelical Theological Society explains why he returned to the Roman Catholic Church (see my review here).

The Manhattan Declaration: what price co-belligerency?

The declaration

On November 20th a coalition of 150 leading representatives of Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Evangelical traditions released a joint-statement, ‘The Manhattan Declaration’. Amongst the Evangelical signatories were several high-profile names, Chuck Colson, Tim Keller, Albert Mohler, and Joni Eareckson Tada. The declaration is the expression of concern over the secularisation of American society. Evangelical Christians on this side of the Atlantic will readily share that sense of concern in the case of the United Kingdom.

Here is an official summary of the 4,700 word document,

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

1.the sanctity of human life
2.the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3.the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defence, and to commit ourselves to honouring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

The main body of the Manhattan Declaration is taken up with developing the three key points listed above; the sanctity of life, the unique dignity of heterosexual marriage and freedom of religion. It cannot be doubted that these are some of the most pressing moral and social issues facing Christians today. The culture may be increasingly hostile to what we have to say on these matters, but it is for us as Evangelical Christians to bear witness to biblical principles in public life.

The declaration garnered a fair bit of coverage in the American media, both secular and Christian. In the UK, The Guardian somewhat predictably dismissed the document as a “declaration of hypocrisy” as it makes no mention of the Iraq war, while the Christian Concern for our Nation website asks hopefully, “The Manhattan Declaration: An historic call to Christian Truths. Is the UK next?”

Controversy

However, not all Evangelicals have welcomed the declaration. Some well known leaders have refused to sign up, among them, Alistair Begg, R. C. Sproul and John MacArthur. What’s the problem? Clearly all Bible believing Christians will identify themselves with the three key points at the heart of the declaration. It is good that representatives from Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Evangelical traditions can speak with one voice on life issues, marriage and religious freedom. The problem is the Manhattan Declaration seems to go further than that to suggest that the three groupings proclaim the same gospel. Church-level differences are acknowledged, but it is assumed that all involved parties are “Christians” and “fellow believers” who share a common vision of the gospel,

We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defence of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty.

For Evangelicals involved in the Evangelicals and Catholics Together movement such as Chuck Colson, this approach is not at all problematic. ECT proceeds on the basis that, Evangelicals and Roman Catholics as those who "accept Christ as Lord and Saviour are brothers and sisters in Christ." (Reaffirmed in the most recent ECT joint-statement on Mary). However, so long as Evangelical Protestants hold that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone in accordance with the witness of Scripture alone, we have to say that the Roman Catholic Church does not preach the biblical gospel of salvation. The same goes for Orthodoxy.

Al Mohler has written to explain that his signature on the Manhattan Declaration does not involve acceptance of the ECT position. For him the declaration is all about the three key issues mentioned above and entails no subversion of confessional integrity. But as already pointed out, the document seems to imply that all signatories are Christians who proclaim the same gospel. Listen here for a revealing interview with Ligon Duncan, where he explains why although an opponent of ECT, he signed the declaration, HT Dan Phillips.

Co-belligerence and gospel faithfulness

The declaration and its fall-out raises the question of co-belligerence and gospel faithfulness. We owe the phrase “co-belligerence” to Francis Schaeffer. He argued that it is right for Evangelicals to make common cause with other interested parties on matters of moral and social concern. On that basis we may stand with Roman Catholics against abortion and in favour of heterosexual marriage without suggesting that we are in agreement on gospel essentials. Just recently Evangelicals via Christian Institute campaigned alongside Roman Catholics and the atheist Rowan Atkinson in the name of free speech - see here. Similarly William Wilberforce assembled a broad coalition in support of the abolition of the slave trade and other good causes. He worked with people whose beliefs were quite different from his own without compromising his Evangelical convictions.

If the Manhattan Declaration had simply stated that as representatives of the Judeo-Christian tradition, leading members of Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Evangelical groupings had spoken out on some of the key moral issues of the day, there would be no problem. Indeed the declaration is a welcome clarion call for Christians not bend the knee to Caesar if the State should demand that we compromise our beliefs and values. Jesus Christ is Lord and it is to him we owe our ultimate allegiance. But regrettably, in the Manhattan Declaration co-belligerence appears to have trumped gospel faithfulness.

See Co-belligerence and common grace: Can the enemy of my enemy be my friend? by Daniel Strange for some helpful theological reflections on co-belligerence gospel faithfulness.

*An edited version of this post is scheduled to appear in a forthcoming edition of Evangelical Times.

Evangelicals and Catholics Together: On the Blessed Virgin Mary in Christian Faith and Life

Evangelicals and Catholics Together have produced a joint-statement, Do Whatever He Tells You: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Christian Faith and Life. ECT continues on the assumption that Evangelicals and Roman Catholics as those who "accept Christ as Lord and Savior are brothers and sisters in Christ". We wish that this were the case, but there has to be real concern that the Roman Catholic negation of justification by faith alone tends to detract from the gospel of grace and obscure the way of salvation.

Now to the statement itself. The opening section attempts to set out the common ground between Evangelicals and Catholics on Mary. Then unresolved differences are spelt out under the headings of, A Catholic Word to Evangelicals and, An Evangelical Word to Catholics. On the whole disagreements are faced honestly rather than fudged. The Evangelicals explain on the basis of Scripture why they do not accept Roman Catholic dogmas such as the Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception, Bodily Assumption and Invocation of Mary. However, the Evangelical signatories seem open to further special revelation on Marian teaching saying,

"As a safeguard against the temptation to idolatry and because this pattern of piety is not found in the New Testament, most Evangelicals today do not include prayers to Mary and the saints in their worship and personal devotions. At the same time, we acknowledge that the sovereign Lord may choose to reveal himself in extraordinary ways whenever and however he wills." [Emphasis added].

What is the last sentence in that quote supposed to mean in the light of Evangelical commitment to sola Scriptura? Yes, we are open to the Spirit giving us more light from the Word, but that does not entail the revelation of new doctrines like the 'Bodily Assumption of Mary' which are not found in the Bible. The Westminster Confession of Faith speaks for all Evangelicals when it says,

"The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture." (WCF I:X).

On this issue the Evangelical signatories have conceded too much in the direction of Roman Catholic thinking. That quibble aside, and it is a serious quibble, there is much that is helpful in what the Evangelicals have to say on Mary and her role in redemptive history. Overreacting against the extravagance of Roman Catholic Marian teaching Evangelicals have sometimes failed to give due consideration to Mary. She is indeed 'blessed among women' as the mother of our Lord. We should admire and imitate her faith and love. All Christians need to give careful heed to her admonition concerning her Son, "Whatever he says to you, do it." (John 2:5). The Evangelicals note that the Reformers seemed to have a much 'higher' view of Mary than their theological heirs and successors.

Surprising as it may seem, this document is able to highlight a considerable amount of common understanding between Bible believing Evangelicals and traditional Catholics on Mary. But even as this joint-statement demonstrates, with all the best ecumenical will in the world, serious disagreements remain. In a sense, the big issue is sola Scriptura. Shall we view Mary in the light of the witness of Scripture alone, or will we supplement what the Bible says with the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church? On that point, Evangelicals and Catholics are not together.

I believe that dialogue between Evangelicals and Roman Catholics is a worthwhile exercise. But the Evangelicals often seem to be the ones conceding ground. As ever Rome wants unity on its own terms. Writing in The Guardian, Roman Catholic theologian Hans Kung despairs of this tendency, exposing the Vatican's ecumenical skulduggery. Evangelicals should take note.

Return to Rome by Francis J. Beckwith - A Protestant response: part 3

In the previous two parts of this review series I gave attention to the key issues that led to Beckwith deciding to return to the Roman Catholic Church, namely sola scriptura (here) and justification by faith alone (here). In this final post I will reflect on whether its is meaningful, given his rejection of key Evangelical teachings for Beckwith to designate himself an 'Evangelical Catholic'. Of course, in a sense, the writer is free to call himself what he wishes. My only concern is whether his self-designation is meaningful.

Evangelical and Catholic?

It is in the last chapter of the book that Beckwith addresses the issue of his identity as an 'Evangelical Catholic'. Quite rightly he points out that 'Evangelical' has its origins in the biblical word, Evangel meaning 'Gospel' or 'Good News' (p. 128). But does Beckwith as a Roman Catholic still hold to the biblical Gospel? Now, there is a huge amount of common ground between Evangelical Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church. Both groups hold to the doctrine of the Trinity as set out in the historic creeds, we agree that Jesus is a divine person with a human nature in accordance with the definition of Chalcedon, we confess together that Jesus was born of a virgin, died for our sins, and rose again from the dead and so on. But there are important differences between Evangelical Protestants and their Roman Catholic counterparts.

The crucial difference is over the issue of whether we are saved through grace alone, by faith alone, in Christ alone to the glory of God alone. For all that Roman Catholics may say about the good works of the saints being grace-enabled, any talk of human "merit" tends to undermine the gracious character of salvation. According to the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, "no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification...". However, the Catechism goes on to say that, "Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life (see here)." Note, "we can merit for ourselves and for others...the attainment of eternal life". Should the faithful fail to merit the attainment of eternal life, then after death they will have to spend time in purgatory, where they will purified from remaining sin before entering heaven. Time in purgatory can be shortened through the meritorious works of others such as prayers for the dead, penance, and the Eucharistic sacrifice (see here).

The Roman Catholic doctrine of "merit" suggests Christ's obedience and blood are not sufficient to save his people from sin. While salvation is initiated by grace, the full reward of everlasting life is dependent on the meritorious good works of the believer. Any such idea is contradicted by countless Scriptures, Ephesians 2:8-10, 2 Timothy 1:8-10, Hebrews 9:13-15. The Gospel is good news because God justifies the ungodly freely by his grace, Romans 1:16-17, 3:24-26, 4:5. Good works are the believer's grace-enabled response to the transforming power of grace. They do not help to "merit" everlasting life. We are saved by grace alone in Christ alone. Christians will certainly be judged by Christ according to their works (2 Corinthians 5:10). The Lord will hold his people to account for their actions. But the believer will stand before God clothed in the righteousness of Christ (Romans 8:31-34). It is because they are justified by faith in Christ alone that they will be welcomed into the eternal inheritance of the saints.

I submit that because official Roman Catholic teaching undermines the Gospel of salvation revealed in Holy Scripture that it is not meaningful for Beckwith and other Roman Catholics to label themselves "Evangelical Catholics". In the words of Paul, the gospel of Roman Catholicism is a "different gospel" (Galatians 1:6-7). Indeed the Council of Trent explicitly anathematises justification by faith alone, a doctrine that lies at the heart of Evangelical theology (see here). In terms of church history the designation "Evangelical Catholic" is hard to swallow. Evangelicalism as a movement has its roots in the Protestant Reformation. In church-historical terms, Beckwith may as well call himself a "Protestant Catholic".

Beckwith left the Roman Catholic Church in his teenage years and became an Evangelical Christian because Rome could not satisfy his spiritual longings at that time. Despite his being elevated to the position of President of the Evangelical Theological Society, he returned to Rome for basically the same reason. It is pretty sad that Evangelicalism apparently failed to offer sufficient theological vision and spiritual depth to feed his soul. I submit that the wider Evangelical world needs to return to the deep riches of the historic Reformed faith. Perhaps there are some encouraging signs of this happening in the States (see Colin Hansen's Young, Restless, Reformed here and also have a look at Hansen's piece on Evangelical and Catholics in Christianity Today here). I am grateful to Francis Beckwith for entering into a friendly dialogue with me (here, here and here) as he picked up on my reviews.

An interview with Timothy Ward

I speak to Tim about his new book, Words of Life: Scripture as the living and active word of God and we reflect on some of the challenges facing evangelicals today.

GD: Hello Timothy Ward and welcome to Exiled Preacher. Please tell us a little about yourself.

TW: I'm married, we have a young son, and I'm Vicar of Holy Trinity church in Hinckley, which is a mid-sized town between Coventry and Leicester.

GD: Your book, 'Words of Life' was recently published by IVP. What is the main thesis of the book?

TW: That the Bible is the Word of God (a fact which most readers of this blog already probably know). I try to demonstrate and articulate biblically, theologically, doctrinally and practically that to encounter the words of Scripture is to encounter God-in-action - or (the other way round), that Scripture is the means by which God presents himself to us as the faithful covenant-making God.

GD: Kevin Vanhoozer was your doctoral supervisor and his influence can be clearly seen in your work. What was the subject of your doctoral studies?

TW: It was on the sufficiency of Scripture, examined particularly from a philosophical and hermeneutical viewpoint. It was published a few years ago as Word and Supplement: Speech Acts, Biblical Texts, and the Sufficiency of Scripture. My new book, 'Words of Life' represents an attempt to put some of the insights in that book to work in a broader outline of the doctrine of Scripture. (Reading that back makes it sounds rather dull, which I trust it isn't!).

GD: Why do you think that speech-act theory is so valuable when it comes to formulating a doctrine of Scripture?

TW: Speech-act theory asserts that to speak is to act, and that language-use is a variety of interpersonal action. That model of language accords remarkably well with what Scripture has to say about language and about itself, when spoken either by God or by us. The particular cutting edge of this is that many understandings of the nature of Scripture, whether liberal or evangelical, have gone astray in forgetting this basic point. Classic examples would be when we are expected to choose between revelation as either propositional or effective/active, or when the question of biblical inerrancy becomes the thing that excites us most about Scripture.

GD: John Webster and others have criticised the oft used analogy between Christ as the living Word of God and Scripture as the written Word of God (see here). How do you see the relationship between Jesus and the Bible?

TW: Scripture itself gives the same label, 'word', to both Jesus and the proclamation of the gospel (and by extension to itself). That points us to the closest possible relation between the two. Jesus' instructions to the disciples in Matthew 10 reveal that for someone to reject the message of Christ delivered to them verbally simply is the same as rejecting Christ personally (v.40). The word that lurks in the criticism of Webster et al is 'bibliolatry', but strictly speaking that is not something which orthodox believers have been guilty of. Where orthodox doctrine of Scripture has gone astray it has tended more to lead people into obsessiveness about micro-interpretations of Scripture, while being relatively careless about the virtues of love, justice, hospitality, etc. The solution to that problem is not to drive a theological wedge between Christ and Scripture, but instead to insist all the more radically that, if we want to be faithful to Christ, we will be faithful to the whole of his word.

GD: Andrew McGowan has argued that evangelicals should abandon biblical inerrancy in favour of infallibility (see here). Do you agree with him?

TW: No. However I do agree with him that it is never helpful to sound (either to ourselves or to others) as if we thought that the ultimate bedrock of the authority of Scirpture is its errorlessness. As I read his much-discussed book it seemed to me that that was his primary point; his focus was on the use of inerrancy, although he did make some (possibly infelicitous) 'errantist' assertions along the way.

GD: What have you found helpful when it comes to your own personal Bible reading?

TW: No one should imagine that possessing a reasonable level of knowledge of the doctrine of Scripture is automatically evidence of high degree of faithfulness in personal Bible reading. I struggle with discipline in this area as much as anyone in my church family. And that's the key word - discipline... along with regularly asking: "What is the Lord wanting to do to me and in me (not just 'teach' me) through this Scripture?"

GD: Give us three key works on the doctrine of Scripture.

TW: Warfield, 'The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible'
Bavinck, the relevant section in 'Reformed Dogmatics'
Packer, ''Fundamentalism' and the Word of God'

GD: Please tell us how you felt called to the Ministry of the Word.

TW: A few people I trusted said that some Bible-talks I did while still at university weren't too bad. And a conviction grew that if I did anything else I would be running away from what I ought to be doing. And (if this isn't too flippant), I'd get to be doing full-time what I'd probably be doing in my spare time anyway!

GD: How did your theological training help to prepare you for the work of the Ministry?

TW: How long have you got?! In some ways well (preaching, New Testament), in others not so well. I wish I'd had more formal training in solid historic Reformed theology.

GD: What is the best piece of advice that you have received on preaching?

TW: Early on: just tell them what God says in the Bible. More recently: passion is good.

GD: What is the relationship between Word and Spirit in preaching?

TW: He breathed out the word I'm preaching; he's alive to illumine it for me; I must open myself as preacher for him to work through the word in me as a believer in my preparation; and unless he 's choosing to be at work in the hearts and minds of my hearers then they're just powerless sounds in the air.

GD: There has been something of a resurgence of evangelicalism in the Church of England over the last few decades. What factors under God have been used to stimulate this resurgence?

TW: That's an interesting perspective. Some (within the CofE) would say that, although undoubtedly a higher proportion of Anglicans would now own the label 'evangelical' than 60 years ago, it's far from certain that there are more real evangelicals than there used to be - witness the emergence of the sub-group usually known as 'open evangelicals', some of whom are evangelical, and some of whom would simply have been called 'liberals' previously.
What there has probably been a resurgence of is thoroughly confident, more properly theologically educated evangelicals in the CofE. There are two key factors in that, I think:
(1) the influence of Sydney Anglicans and Moore College, especially on Oak Hill (giving confidence and good theology, even though sometimes pretending that they weren't intellectuals). And in all this the long-term influence of Dick Lucas and the ministries he oversaw is certainly very significant.
(2) the emergence of a generation of ministers in their forties who had no first-hand knowledge of Keele or the Stott / Lloyd-Jones debates in the 60s, and so who are less bothered than the previous generation to spend time trying to prove to the Anglican established that they are kosher Anglicans.

GD: How do you see the relationship between evangelical Anglicans and the Church of England as a whole?

TW: I think that as an evangelical I'm a real Anglican, and that liberals and Catholics are more out of place in the CofE than I am. However as regards what happens in the future, I am quite uncertain. A fracturing of worldwide Anglicanism is beginning to happen (see the post-Gafcon launch of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans.)

GD: What do you think that evangelical Anglicans and their Free Church brethren have to learn from each other?

TW: evangelical Anglicans have to learn:
- compromise isn't always healthy
- preaching can/should be impassioned to be really faithful to Scripture
- not every new cultural and theological trend needs to be ridden
- to keep repenting of their (often unacknowledged) feelings of cultural superiority towards Free Church people
- to wear posh clothes less often (see previous point)

Free Church people have to learn... I don't think I have any right to say this, but since you ask:
- compromise is sometimes necessary in gospel ministry (I can't enact every consequence of all my principles all the time)
- to leave behind their feelings of spiritual superiority towards evangelical Anglicans ("we're the ones who held the line through time tough times - so where do you bunch of jonny-come-latelies spring from?")

GD: Well, I did ask. Now, if time travel were possible, which figure from post-biblical church history would you like to meet and why?

TW: John Calvin - who else? (and wish him a happy 500th birthday).

GD: What is the most helpful theological book that you have read in the last twelve months. It is a must read because...

TW: Herman Bavinck, 'Reformed Dogmatics'. Large and hard-core, I know - and I had the privilege of a sabbatical (i.e. long holiday) to read it. But it's broad in learning, deep in insight, warm in spirit, praise-inducing and prayer-provoking to a degree that surpasses anything else I know. And for someone whose own training in ministry was lightest in the area of systematics and historical theology, and who's had to play catch-up ever since, I felt like I was reading it 15 years too late.

GD: I second that choice. Care to name your top three songs or pieces of music?

TW: Anything by Bob Dylan will do fine - or Leonard Cohen, if I'm feeling especially cheery.

GD: What is the biggest challenge facing evangelicalism today and how should we respond?

TW: The biggest? No idea. I tend to think mostly about how to keep myself and my church faithful to Christ and his word, and how to hold out the word of life to the people of my town. The temptations that face us here are the same which face evangelicals everywhere, I think: those who are tempted to down-play the crucial inherited biblical doctrines need to hold their nerve and not sell their birthright for a mess of mythical cultural credibility. And those who are tempted to batten down the hatches and declare themselves the faithful remnant need to look up and out and be ready to venture much more in order that the Lord may save some.

Thinking particularly of England, I do think that there is now the opening for a profound rapprochement of evangelicals from free and denominational backgrounds. I hope we explore properly the possibilities of that, but I'm not confident that we will have the largeness of heart to make it work.

GD: I wonder if the increasing hostility that evangelical Christians are facing in the UK will help us to put our differences into perspective. But that just about wraps things up for now. Thanks for dropping by for this chat, Tim. See here for my review of 'Words of Life'.

Jonathan & Sarah Edwards: An Uncommon Union (Part 4)

An eternal union of love

The tomb of Jonathan & Sarah Edwards

The family removed to the frontier town of Stockbridge, where Jonathan served as a missionary to the Native Americans. He wrote some of his most important theological works in the wilderness of Stockbridge, including The Freedom of the Will and Original Sin. Sarah was kept busy in the home and was active in the community. The town was affected by the Indian wars. Stockbridge was a dangerous place to be. Yet many refugees fled there for shelter. Sarah put in a claim for providing 800 meals for needy displaced people.

If ever a marriage was ‘made in heaven’ it was that of Jonathan and Sarah Edwards. Sarah’s practical and caring disposition and wise management of family affairs allowed Jonathan to concentrate on his preaching and theological work. When Scottish friends dispatched some supplies and provisions to the Edwards, they sent them to Sarah, knowing that she would make more profitable use of the goods than her otherworldly husband. She was a living embodiment of the wise and godly woman described in Proverbs 31.

If anything, Sarah’s reputation for godliness exceeded that of her husband. Once Jonathan Edwards as booked to preach at the ordination of one Job Strong in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. But a local man Samuel Moody had been asked act as substitute should Edwards have been delayed on the long journey. Much to the disappointment of the packed church, Edwards failed to arrive at the time when service was due to start. Moody began to lead the service and in the prayer before the sermon he lamented that ‘the eminent servant of God, the Rev. Mr. Edwards of Northampton’ was not with them. He began to extol Edwards’ virtues – his ‘uncommon piety, great excellence as a preacher’ and so on. Unknown to the poor preacher, Edwards had unobtrusively entered the church as Moody began to pray. He quietly made his way into the pulpit and as Moody finished praying and opened his eyes, there was the eminent Mr. Edwards standing next to him!

Recovering quickly from his shock, Moody shook the eminent preacher by the hand and greeted him with the words,

"Brother Edwards, we are all of us much rejoiced to see you here today, and nobody, probably as much as myself; but I wish that you might have got in a little sooner, or a little later, or else that I might have heard you when you came in, and known you were here. I didn’t intend to flatter you to your face; but there’s one thing I’ll tell you: They say that your wife is a-going to heaven by a shorter road than yourself."

But Jonathan Edwards was to arrive in heaven before his wife. He was called from the backwater of Stockbridge to become Principal of the newly formed Princeton College. An outbreak of smallpox hit the town and fatalities were high. Jonathan had himself inoculated, but the jab was botched. Tragically Edwards died shortly after taking office. The dying Principal sent a message to his wife via Lucy, their youngest daughter,

"Dear Lucy, it seems to me to be the will of God, that I must shortly leave you; therefore give my kindest regards to my dear wife, and tell her, that the uncommon union, which has so long subsisted between us, has been of such a nature, as trust is spiritual, and therefore will continue for ever. And I hope she will be supported under so great a trial and submit cheerfully to the will of God. And as to my children, you are now like to be fatherless, which I hope will be an inducement to you all, to seek a Father who will never fail you."

Shortly after this Edwards looked about and said, "Now where is Jesus of Nazareth, my true and never-failing Friend?" Then, on March 22 1758, he went to be with the God of his salvation. Sarah responded to this heavy and unexpected blow with great grace,

"What shall I say? A holy and good God has covered us with a dark cloud. O that we may kiss the rod, and lay our hands upon our mouths! The Lord has done it. He has made me adore his goodness, that we had him so long. But my God lives; and he has my heart. O what a legacy my husband, and your father, has left us! We are all given to God; and there I am, and love to be."

Sarah was soon to join her Jonathan in glory. She died of dysentery on October 2nd 1758 and was buried in her husband’s grave in Princeton. Theirs was indeed an “an uncommon union”. Michael Haykin puts his finger on what made the Edwards’ marriage such a happy one,

"Their benevolent love for God and his world – truly uncommon in this selfish, sinful world – had bonded them together during their married lives. It was a ‘spiritual’ love. As McClendon puts it, they were ‘two who have breathed together the breath of the same Spirit.’ And as such, it was eternal for it joined them to the triune God."

In the concluding point of his expositions of 1 Corinthians 13, Charity and its Fruits, Jonathan Edwards said,

"If you would be in the way to the world of love, see that you live a life of love - of love to God and love to men. All of us hope to have a part in the world of love hereafter, and therefore we should cherish the spirit of love, and live a life of holy love here on earth. This is the way to be like the inhabitants of heaven, who are now confirmed in love for ever... Thus also, you may have a sense of the glory of heavenly things, as of God, and Christ, and holiness; and your heart be disposed and opened by holy love to God, and by the spirit of peace and love to men, to a sense of the excellence and sweetness of all that is to be found in heaven."

Bibliography

Memoir of Jonathan Edwards by Sereneo E. Dwight, Chapter XI. See online version here - from p. 106 of pdf document.

Jonathan Edwards: A New Biography, by Iain Murray, Banner of Truth Trust. Especially see chapter entitled 'Personal Portraits'.

Jonathan Edwards, The Holy Spirit in revival, by Michael Haykin, Evangelical Press. Chapter 7, 'The Comforter is come: Sarah Edwards and the vision of God'. Reviewed here.

George Whitefield: The life and times of the great evangelist of the 18th century, Volume 1, by Arnold Dallimore, Banner of Truth. Chapter 32, 'The Fall Tour - New England', especially p. 537-538.

* Notes of a talk given at our Penknap Ladies' Meeting.