Lloyd-Jones: The Christianity Today Interview (Part 1: On Evangelistic Campaigns)

In February, 1980, Christianity Today published an interview of D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, conducted by Carl F. H. Henry. Lloyd-Jones died a year later.

Although I've known of the interview for a while, today I tracked it down in the seminary library and read it. To the best of my knowledge, it's not available online, but I'd encourage you to make a note to yourself to find the issue next time you're around a seminary or church library with back issues. I think you'll appreciate the way his steel convictions just refuse to bend under Henry's questions that seem at times to well with incredulity.

I'm not going to reproduce the whole article. I would like to post some of the parts I found most significant in a brief series. I think you'll find some points of contact with the kinds of things we've been talking about here. On to part 1:

Q: You and I met in 1966, I believe, to discuss the prjected Berlin World Congress on Evangelism. You declined to be either a participant or observer. You were also, I think, the only minister of a major church in London that did not cooperate in the Graham crusades? What kept you on the sidelines?

A: This is a very vital and difficult matter. I have always believed that nothing but a revival—a visitation of the Holy Spirit, in distinction from an evangelistic campaign—can deal with the situation of the church and of the world. The Welsh Presbyterian Church had roots in the great eighteenth-century evangelical revival, when the power of the Spirit of God came upon preachers and churches, and large numbers were converted. I have never been happy about organized campaigns. In the 1820s a very subtle and unfortunate change took place, especially in the United States, from Azahel Nettleton's emphasis on revival to Charles G. Finney's on evangelism. There are two positions. When things were not going well, the old approach was for ministers and deacons to call a day of fasting and prayer and to plead with God to visit them with power. Today's alternative is an evangelistic campaign: ministers ask, "whom shall we get as evangelist?" Then they organize and ask God's blessing on this. I belong to the old school.

Q: What specific reservations to you have about modern evangelism as such?

A: I am unhappy about organized campaigns and even more about the invitation system of calling people forward. Mark you, I consider Billy Graham an utterly honest, sincere, and genuine man. He, in fact, asked me in 1963 to be chairman of the first Congress on Evangelism, then projected for Rome, not Berlin. I said I'd make a bargain: if he would stop the general sponsorship of his campaigns—stop having liberals and Roman Catholics on the platform—and drop the invitation system, I would wholeheartedly support him and chair the congress. We talked for about three hours, but he didn't accept these conditions.

I just can't subscribe to the idea that either congresses or campaigns really deal with the situation. The facts, I feel, substantiate my point of view: in spite of all that has been done in the last 20 or 25 years, the spiritual situation has deteriorated rather than improved. I am convinced that nothing can avail but churches and ministers on their knees in total dependence on God. As long as you go on organizing, people will not fall on their knees and implore God to come and heal them. It seems to me that the campaign approach trusts ultimately in techniques rather than in the power of the Spirit. Graham certainly preaches the gospel. I would never criticize him on that score. What I have criticized, for example, is that in the Glasgow campaign he had John Sutherland Bonnell address the ministers' meetings. I challenged that. Graham replied, "You know, I have more fellowship with John Sutherland Bonnell than with many evangelical ministers." I replied, "Now it may be that Bonnell is a nicer chap than Lloyd-Jones—I'll not argue that. But real fellowship is something else: I can genuinely fellowship only with someone who holds the same basic truths that I do."

"Church Discipline Is the Canary in the Coal Mine"

This BPNews article reports on a conference at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, where Greg Wills made the case that when church discipline goes, disaster in that church is not far behind. But as Mark Dever argued, although the absence of discipline is a clear indicator of a problem, reinstitution of discipline isn't the essence of the solution.

It wouldn't be difficult to survey the ecclesiastical landscape to find evidence that Wills' assertion is true. What is disturbing is the widespread indifference to biblical church discipline, even among fundamental churches. My sense is that the tide is turning, and folks with a broader awareness than I have said the same. But which is easier, reinstituting discipline or revitalizing a church's fundamental understanding of membership (which Dever argues is a precursor to discipline)?

HT: Founders

Let's Beat This Hermeneutical Discussion to Death

In two previous posts we've batted around the possibility that modern Bible-believing interpreters of Scripture have abandoned their professed conviction of the sufficiency of Scripture by using extra-biblical information (history, geography, culture, literary genre) to inform their understanding of the biblical text.

Another question crossed my mind over the weekend: For those of you who believe that it's appropriate, yea necessary, to interpret the Bible in light of extra-biblical information, why would you not also interpret the Bible in light of modern science?

Evangelicals and Fundamentalists Together

Greg Linscott (a.k.a. G-Harmony) reports on his trip to the Ockenga Institute. My one question: Is "warrior" a way of saying in code that someone "earnestly contends for the faith"?

Should Christians Fast from Politics?

I enjoyed listening to Al Mohler's thoughts on this question discussed on his radio program during a leisurely jog a couple nights ago. He discussed David Kuo's book on the Bush administration (recent related post here). Best of all, I think Mohler more or less says what I believe. We ought to vote, and it's reasonable to attempt to exert influence. But we shouldn't trust in politics to transform culture, and we certainly shouldn't let cultural and political involvement distract the Church in any way from its mission of evangelism and discipleship.

The most interesting part to me was his question, "Is it possible [as Kuo asserts] that this White House has duped and seduced American evangelical Christians?"

I can sum up his answer in two words: "Well, DUH!"

If you want more, here it is:

[A]ny Christian who would be so seduced either doesn't understand Christianity or doesn't understand the political process. . . . I'm not shocked by [the low priority moral issues sometimes get] because I expect that. I don't just assume that that means all of a sudden I should get cynical about either this administration or the political process. The only way you can be newly cynical about this is if you were horribly naive before, which, by the way, has to explain David Kuo. Either he was dishonest in this book or he was just extremely naive.

This part of the discussion starts around 15:00 in. Listen further for his discussion of the seduction of evangelical leaders.

On a related question, I'm wondering why folks associated with Reformed soteriology vary so widely on the role of the Church in politics and culture. People like MacArthur, Doran, and Mohler minimize the Church's role. People like Carl Henry, Tim Keller, and Paleo commenter "Keith" make politics and culture a much higher priority. My initial instinct is that it comes down to the premillennialism of the former versus the amillennialism or postmillennialism of the latter, but then there are scads of evangelicals who vehemently reject Reformed soteriology who are into politics and culture up to their eyeballs. I would genuinely appreciate a plausible explanation.

Phil Johnson Critiques Mark Driscoll

Read the post here. This is the heart of it:

I have appreciated his defense of the atonement and his willingness to confront the neo-liberalism of other Emerging leaders honestly. But I don't think his perpetually coarse language in the pulpit and his apparent preoccupation with off-color terms and ribald subject matter are merely minor flaws in an otherwise healthy ministry. It is a serious shortcoming.

On a related note, a friend made an observation to me today commenting on the similarities between Driscoll and a prominent deceased fundamentalist, as chronicled in a recent post by Tom Pryde. If Driscoll had said in a sermon, "That's just a bunch of bull stuff," would he get a pass? And should he?

Surely there are different levels of crass. There are different levels of intent. And there are different levels of repetitive behavior. Those comparisons are to some degree subjective. But I wonder whether we're really talking about apples vs. oranges or apples vs. (perhaps) bigger apples.

Quote Game Volume XVIILXV (or something like that)

No googling. TNIV on the prize table if anyone gets it without hints.

There may be a danger in getting too involved in partisan politics—there are many potential snares. I am somewhat concerned when we get specific political issues intertwined with the gospel . . . ; this confuses people about the essence of the gospel. It could also have the tendency to dilute the gospel. I think this was one of the errors I made in my early ministry, and it is one I am seeking to correct. I am trying desperately to stay out of partisan politics, although sometimes it is rather difficult. The whole matter, of course, is a complicated issue. Christians have always debated exactly how they should relate to secular and political issues, and there certainly are many social and political issues that have a moral dimension. We need great wisdom to know where our responsibilities are in this area.

Here's a Little More on That Hermeneutical Discussion

While reading in How to Read Genesis by Tremper Longman III, I encountered a perfect example (among many) of what I'm talking about. Here's a clipping (pp. 24-25):

Question 4. What can we learn about Genesis from comparable ancient Near Eastern literature?

The stories of Genesis have analogues from the other Near Eastern cultures. Israel was not the only people from this general area and time period to present an account of creation or even a devastating flood.

There are many dimensions to comparing ancient literature, but the main point that becomes obvious as soon as we become aware of literature written in other Semitic (e.g., Akkadian and Ugaritic) and non-Semitic languages (e.g., Egyptian, Sumerian and Hittite) of the Near East is that God did not create a unique form of literature any more than he created a unique language to communicate his truths.

However, we must tread carefully here. Too often the similarities have lured scholars and others into thinking that the Bible is just a superficial re-working of, say, Mesopotamian literature. They fail to see the significant differences between rival creation accounts—that is, between the biblical account and those from the ancient Near East. As we study ancient Near Eastern literature, we will remain attentive to both the similarities and the the differences. We will also inquire into the reasons for both. The important point that comes to the fore through theis kind of study is that the Bible is a literature of antiquity and not modernity. This truth will have a great impact on our study. For instance, we will come to realize that the biblical creation accounts were not written in order to counter Darwinism but rather the Enuma Elish and the other ancient ideas concerning who created creation.

Clearly, the author's belief is that extra-biblical literature sheds valuable light on the authorial intent of the biblical text. That doesn't mean I disagree with everything he says. For example, I agree that many Christians read Genesis 1-2 as little more than an apologetic against Darwin. Clearly, it is far more than that. But the conclusion simply seems inescapable to me that if we need to understand extra-biblical literature to understand Scripture, then the very foundation of our professed commitment to the sufficiency of Scripture crumbles.

Attraction: The Elephant in the Room

No one really likes to talk about the role of attraction as a foundational component of a marriage relationship or a relationship potentially leading to marriage. I think we all feel a little guilty that we're still human. I also think (let the pontification begin) that most of the people who say it doesn't matter are people to whom it mattered a great deal before they were married.

In any case, Scott Croft has done a great job of presenting a balanced view with biblical reasoning. I loved this anecdote:

I once counseled a Christian brother in his dating relationship with a great woman. She was godly, caring, and bright. She was attractive, but not a supermodel. For weeks I listened to this brother agonize over his refusal to commit and propose to this woman. He said they were able to talk well about a lot of things, but there were a few topics he was interested in that she couldn't really engage with, and sometimes the conversation "dragged."

He also said that, while he found her basically attractive, there was one feature of hers that he "just pictured differently" on the woman he would marry. I would ask about her godliness and character and faith, and he said all those things were stellar (and he was right). Finally, he said, "I guess I'm looking for a 'ten'."

I could hold back no longer. Without really thinking, I responded, "You're looking for a 'ten'? But, brother, look at yourself. You're like a 'six.' If you ever find the woman you're looking for, and she has your attitude, what makes you think she would have you?"

HT: Carolyn McCulley

Phil Johnson on PreTribbers and the Gospel

Phil Johnson's series on how he got drawn into the lordship debate is a fascinating narrative. Justin Taylor provides links to all eight parts of the series here.

He made a rather scathing comment in the final installment posted yesterday:

In short, it seems many leading dispensationalists are more concerned about the timing of the rapture than they are about the purity of the gospel message.

I'm a PreTribber myself, though I don't fit neatly into any of the stereotypical dispensationalist camps. Frankly, I couldn't possibly care less if that brings me scorn as an anti-intellectual. But I wholeheartedly, unequivocally agree with Johnson. This statement describes the vast majority of my experience with dispensationalism. It doesn't make dispensationalism wrong, but it speaks volumes about the dispensationalist movement.