THE SQUANDERED LEGACY

AN APPRAISAL OF THE STATE OF THE CHURCH IN THE UNITED KINGDOM TODAY

However did we get into this mess?

It was Henry Ford who foolishly proclaimed the death of history, saying “History is bunk!” Ford’s remark has become the watchword of the ‘modernisers’, both the political and the religious. A denial of the past is an exercise in self-deception. It assumes that what we are today is so fixedly determined by our past that if we get rid of it we are rid too of our present woes. We need to experience some kind of spiritual regression therapy, to re-enter the womb and make a new start. It is blaming the past for the faults of the present. The ‘moderniser’s’* perspective also assumes that change is irresistible and wholly necessary, that a self-sustaining historical process always carries us forward to better things. Evangelicals and fundamentalists of all colours in trying to ‘drag the Gospel into the 21^st century’, in trying to make it ‘relevant’, have forgotten that the sin of man is the same as it ever was and the Gospel provides the same answer as it ever did. What is really happening under the cloak of such slogans is that the message of the Gospel is being manipulated, its emphasis moved, its fundamentals modified. The Greeks believed that no one steps into the same river twice. We do not live in a world governed by an inherent evolutionary process of change. Change does not rule in the world, God does, and nothing bypasses His throne. All things were made by Him, all things are presently sustained by Him. To be cut off from the past is to be cut off from that which was laid out before the foundation of the world; it is to be cut off from the Gospel itself. In the name of communicating the Gospel to our age, in swimming with the spirit of the age, the need of man, his sin and guilt, is being redefined by deception.

(*By 'modernisers' we mean not the 'modernist/rationalist' theologians of the 19th century, but those evangelicals and others in our present day who are attempting to 'bring the Gospel up-to-date' and in the process are thereby modifying and changing it in various ways)

It is a good and Scriptural thing to rehearse all that God has done for our people. We should be mindful of His past blessings and providence, and of our own obstinacy and sin. God was good to His ancient people, Israel. God has been good to Britain. We have known the widespread preaching of the Gospel, we have known wealth when many other nations have languished in poverty, we have possessed possibly the most extensive and powerful empire ever seen on earth. Yet we have despised it all, as did Israel. God delivered Israel to her enemies. It is 1066 since invading armies ever set foot on English soil. God graciously delivered us in two horrendous world wars. Despite this, we are not convinced of His goodness towards us. In time of war and immediately thereafter, there were some who sought the face of God. God preserved our people. By the time ration books, gas masks, and air raids were almost forgotten and the danger was gone, caution was once more thrown to the winds.

Prophets slain and persecuted

In the past there have been men in our land, powerful preachers, raised up of God to call our people to repentance and faith. The catalogue of names reads almost like Hebrews 11. What did we do? We burned them at the stake, hounded them from house and home, hung them, chased them through the streets, threw rocks at their heads, murdered them, flung them into prison. Has the wicked heart of men changed in all these years? Not a bit! We know that we face a fearful looking for of judgement and fiery indignation. This should have the effect of causing those who truly know God to cry out to Him, but also to do all within our power to persuade our fellow-countrymen to forsake their sin and turn to God through His Son, to seek cleansing in His shed blood and the forgiveness of sins.

There can hardly be a spot on the face of the earth since our Lord returned to heaven that has been so blessed of God than Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Down through the centuries we have known one awakening after another. To whom have been sent so many men of God to preach the Word of God? There can hardly be a place anywhere else in the world that has not been touched at some time by the spiritual life flowing from these islands. From here have gone out men who carried the Gospel to the four corners of the earth, William Carey, William Chalmers Burns, Hudson Taylor, and so many, many more. It is also to this land that the English-speaking world, under God, owes the origin of the King James Bible.

Yet, what privileged nation today has done more to call down upon itself the righteous wrath of an offended God? Having risen so high, how can it be that this same land should now sink to the spiritual depths it has today? Britain has become a world-leader in depravity and all kinds of godlessness. The words of Stephen can almost certainly be applied to our own nation.

“Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not you fathers persecuted? and they have slain them...” Acts 7:51-52

One only has to think of the persecution and murder of William Tyndale, translator of the Word of God into English. Chased out of England, he was eventually captured and cast into prison. Whilst in prison, he led his jailer, the jailer’s daughter and many others in his household to a knowledge of the Lord. He was condemned to death. At the stake he was strangled by the hangman then consumed with fire in Vilvorden, this was all in 1536. As the flames consumed his body he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord! Open the king of England’s eyes.” His prayer was heard. Henry VIII had forbidden the reading of the Bible by the common people in 1531, but a year after Tyndale’s death with the agreement of the king, Coverdale’s Bible (1535), the first complete Bible in English, was ordered to be placed in the choir of each Church “for the study and spiritual edification of everyone who desired to read the word of God.”

Then came the bloodletting that characterised the reign of Mary. We are not supposed these days these days to be reminded of these atrocities, but rather to doff our caps at Rome. We recognise in Thomas Cranmer a man of like passions as we are, who denied the faith under unbearable pressure, and then in terrible grief of soul, bearing valiant witness to His Lord, thrust his right hand first into the fire that was to consume his body, repeating over and over again the words, “This unworthy right hand!” He died with the words of Stephen on his lips, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!” How can we remain unmoved? It was an archbishop of Canterbury who in an abundance of tears withdrawing his denial of the truth, said of the Pope of Rome, “As for the Pope, I refuse him, as Christ’s enemy and antichrist, with all his false doctrine.” What a contrast to the man who held that same office so recently, Dr Runcie, who welcomed the current Pope to England with open arms! Is it any wonder that England lies in spiritual degradation and poverty?

We must be mindful that many ordinary folk who refused to bow to a popish biscuit and call it God followed Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley, to the fiery stake. Latimer’s words to Ridley at the stake proved to be prophetic: “Be of good cheer, Master Ridley, we shall this day light such a candle, by God’s grace, in England as I trust shall never be put out.” It is a most reprehensible and despicable sin of arrogance and pride on the part of modern trendy clerics, neo-evangelicals and their cohorts, to tread these pearls underfoot. How dare they! Let us not be deluded, Rome has not changed since the days of Mary Tudor and in appropriate circumstances would let loose her anger against believers. The Reformation a mistake indeed! The words should stick in their craw!

In keeping with his Puritan and Independent convictions, under Cromwell, England enjoyed a large measure of religious toleration. This did not extend to Anglicans or Roman Catholics, who were denied the right of public worship as they were seen as a threat to the stability of the State. They were sometimes permitted private worship. The restoration of the monarchy in 1660 saw Charles II come to the throne. He counted his reign from the date of his father’s execution in 1649, which has stigmatised the period of Cromwell’s Commonwealth in the eyes of monarchists as an illegal usurpation from that day to this. During the time of Cromwell, theatres had been closed down, as was all cock fighting, bear baiting, horseracing, country dancing was also prohibited, and even the celebration of Christ-mass was abolished! Alehouses were regulated and drunkenness was subject to the severest punishment. The Lord’s Day was a day of rest and worship. At the Restoration of the monarchy all the resentment of ungodly men that had built up during the Puritan era burst forth, so that all kinds amusements flourished once more and the moral tone of the nation sank again to its lowest for many long years.

Charles’ ‘Cavalier Parliament’ was fanatically Anglican and sought to exact vengeance upon the Puritans for the treatment of their Church during the Commonwealth period. Four Acts of Parliament known as the ‘Clarendon Code’ were passed. The Corporation Act (1661) prevented all but those willing to take a passive oath of obedience to the King and who were regular Communicants of the Church of England from taking office in municipal or parliamentary government. The Act of Uniformity (1662) required all clergymen to ‘consent and assent’ to the Prayer Book of the Church of England, which now contained any number of anti-Puritan alterations. Around 2000 godly clergymen were ejected from their Churches. To prevent these men and any others from continuing to meet together, the Conventicle Act of 1664 laid down severe penalties where more than five persons met together other than under the auspices of the Church of England. During the Great Plague of London, when most others who were able fled the city, many non-conformist preachers had returned to the capital to minister to their flocks. The Five Mile Act (1665) prevented these godly preachers of the Gospel from coming within five miles of any town or place where they had previously ministered. Although religious freedom was granted in 1689, no one but a member of the Church of England was allowed to attend university or to hold public office in England until the 19^th century.

Many who refused to be bound by these Acts left for North America, others languished in prison and some died there. The fearless Baptist preacher, John Bunyan, author of Pilgrim’s Progress, was imprisoned. Bunyan sat for twelve years in Bedford Gaol, released only, it is said, when the Puritan theologian, John Owen, interceded with the king on his behalf for his release. Thousands came to hear this despised tinker preach. On occasions in London, twelve hundred people or more would gather at seven o’clock on a dark winter’s morning on a working day to hear Bunyan preach the Word of God. Among the crowds would be found the learned John Owen. Owen is said to have told the king, “Could I possess the tinker’s abilities for preaching, I would willingly relinquish all my learning.”

One of those thrown out of his Church in 1662 was Richard Baxter. He was someone who, by his own confession, preached as “a dying man to dying men.” By all contemporary accounts he was the outstanding preacher of the day. So powerful was Baxter’s preaching that on one occasion men sent to spy on him came under such conviction of sin that they fled his Church in fear. He ministered first in Bridgnorth in Shropshire. The place was so godless, so unreceptive to the Gospel, that Baxter is said to have walked out onto the bridge over the river Severn and symbolically shaken the dust from off his feet. He moved a few miles down-river to Kidderminster, where he ministered to a flock of over 800 families and few remained untouched by the Gospel. Despite much sickness and personal suffering, he pastored and preached to them, he prayed with them, and he pleaded with them in the deepest love and concern to turn from sin and to trust Christ. He reduced himself to poverty in order to provide them with Bibles and books on which to feed their souls. As a result of his fearless preaching, he came to be regarded as a threat to the stability of the State and was brought to trial in front of the notorious drunken and debauched Judge Jeffreys, who called him “an old rogue who poisons the world with his Kidderminster doctrine; ...a conceited, stubborn, fanatical dog” and but for the intervention of people in high places would have had the 70-year-old, sick and ailing man whipped through the streets of London. Such were the men of God who preached the Gospel in days gone by, “of whom the world was not worthy” (Hebrews 11:38).

The Restoration of the monarchy had driven all morality and spirituality from the nation. These days were followed by a time of deep spiritual decline. Presbyterianism slid largely into Unitarianism, as also did the Independents, now known as Congregationalists. All were treading the same pathway. Despite this, there were still those who swam against the tide. There was Isaac Watts (1674-1748), whose hymns are still loved and sung down to this day. Matthew Henry (1662-1714) is remembered for his commentary on the whole Bible. We think too of Philip Doddridge (1702-1751), of John Newton  (1725-1807) and Amazing Grace – and there were others.

It was the poet, William Cowper, who wrote at that time

                    “When a nation is to perish in its sins, ’Tis in the church the leprosy begins.”

Christianity was giving place to scepticism and with it came the inevitable immorality, men glorying in their shame. Of the conditions prevailing at the time Silvester Horne in his Popular History of the Free Churches writes:

“The pages of Mr Lecky abound in almost incredible stories of vice and crime, open and rampant in the streets of the big towns and cities. Robbers and murderers abounded. Gangs of drunken ruffians paraded the streets and subjected women to nameless outrages and defenceless men to abominable tortures. The constables shared the drunken habits of the time; and in this condition committed cruelties so monstrous that it is impossible to read them even today in cold blood. It seemed as if the whole population were given over to an orgy of drunkenness, which made the very name of Englishmen stink in the nostrils of other nations. The consumption of ardent spirits increased appallingly owing to the law which permitted anyone, on payment of a small duty, to start a distillery of his own. Keepers of gin-shops were known to hang out signs that a customer might get drunk for a penny, and dead-drunk for twopence, and have straw for nothing. It is little wonder that crimes of violence multiplied on every hand.” (pp.260-1)

This sounds all rather familiar - not much seems to have changed in England since the 18^th century!

It was into this world that the brothers Wesley and their Methodist friends came, men like John Fletcher of Madeley. Alongside them was the Calvinistic wing of Methodism, George Whitefield, Howell Harris, Daniel Rowland, John Elias and many, many others. Whatever we may feel about parts of the theology of some of these men, they all without exception preached Gospel truth, man’s lost condition through sin, regeneration, cleansing in the blood of Christ. They preached it in the face of much ecclesiastical opposition and were often in mortal danger. For over fifty years John Wesley covered around 250,000 miles, largely on the back of a horse, preaching the Gospel the length and breadth of Britain. Although clearly Arminian in theology, he was loved by many Calvinists because he preached the Gospel with such effect and power. Whitefield, a Calvinist, also preached to huge gatherings of up to 20,000 strong – and this was not unusual for many of these men. He writes of one occasion in his Journal when a huge crowd made up largely of miners gathered one bleak March morning.

“Having no righteousness of their own, they were glad to hear of a Jesus Who came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. The first discovery of their being affected was to see the white gutters made by the tears which fell down their black cheeks. Hundreds were brought under deep convictions, which, as the event proved, ended in a sound conversion.”

What days they were! There were indeed giants of the faith about. Today we still have the godlessness, we still have the same Gospel, the Lord’s arm is not shortened that it cannot save. What we do not have now are the same preachers!

Blessings spread around the world

Open any English school atlas published before, or just after, World War II and it would have doubtless contained a two-page map of the world with all the parts of the British Empire printed in pink. Britain looks tiny, yet this only serves to underline the tremendous influence that has gone out from these islands. Alongside commercial and political interests, the Gospel was carried to the far corners of the Empire and beyond, even to the heart of China. All this was undertaken, more often than not, despite strong opposition from politicians at home and commercial companies abroad, who saw their interests as being threatened by the intellectual and spiritual enlightenment of the ‘natives’ brought about by the work of missionaries. These days are long gone, even although the legacy remains in these lands.

Although he was by no means the first missionary, with some justification William Carey has been called the ‘father of modern missions’. The story of the Baptist Missionary Society, inaugurated in 1792, is well-known. Carey was a man of extraordinary linguistic ability, despite his humble origins. He had very wide interests ranging from geography and map-making through to botany and classical literature. Nevertheless, the great passion of his life was to see the Gospel carried to the heathen. He was ably assisted in his work at home by Andrew Fuller. As a result of Fuller’s widespread preaching ministry, an interest in missions was developed far beyond the Baptists.

Most of the missionary societies before the 19^th century had been established on a denominational basis. These societies did magnificent work in places like Sierra Leone, India, Jamaica, South Africa, and later on in South America. The next hundred years saw the growth of interdenominational ‘faith’ missions, whose work flourished around the globe until their gradual demise in the early 1960s. The China Inland Mission, founded in 1866 by Hudson Taylor, is an example of a work singularly blessed of God. Today, the main denominational missionary societies have, almost without exception, fallen to the modernism and neo-orthodoxy that now characterises their parent bodies. The inter-denominational missions remaining are virtually all neo-evangelical or shot-through with apostate charismatic influences. They need to be so in order to survive financially.

A century of growth and decline

The 19^th century in Great Britain saw a spiritual vitality in many Churches and an acceptance of the Gospel call by masses of people. This was an era of great and godly theologians, of preachers who drew thousands to their Churches to hear uncompromising Gospel messages and Bible exposition. Few will not know of the Baptist preacher of the time, Charles Haddon Spurgeon. The Church of England was blessed with bishops like J. C. Ryle in Liverpool. In Scotland the brothers Bonar and Robert Murray M’Cheyne exercised extraordinary ministries. All this went on despite the continual growth of rationalism and scepticism inside and outside the Church. After World I, there were few such men left.

In 1873 Dwight L. Moody and Ira D. Sankey came to Britain and held their meetings up and down the land with surprising results. Moody’s presentation of the Gospel was devoid of sensationalism, yet it affected men and women from all classes of society, both rich and poor alike. Large numbers made a profession of faith in Christ. Moody’s work was consolidated by the preaching to the young converts of the veteran George Müller, a man who quite genuinely loved all who loved Christ.

At about the same time the Keswick movement was born. The first gathering was held in 1875 under the guidance of Canon Harford-Battersby, vicar of the small town in the English Lake District. Over the years it has enjoyed the support of many well-known figures in the evangelical world, people like Bishop Handley Moule, F. B. Meyer, Francis Ridley Havergal and her father. Its purpose was the deepening of the spiritual life and quickening of God’s people. Whatever reservations we may hold with respect to some aspects of its distinctive theology, its motto “All one in Christ Jesus” was certainly reflected in the broad appeal it had across denominational divisions and its influence has been worldwide. During the 1950s the meetings were carried by landline each evening to almost every large town in the land. The main denominations, Methodist, Baptist, Congregationalist, Presbyterian, and Church of England, having fallen increasingly to liberal and neo-orthodox theology, the Keswick Convention, along with the annual and regional gatherings of inter-denominational faith missionary societies such as the China Inland Mission, also Bible and Prophetic Conferences, became places of refuge where true believers still within these denominations could meet each other.

It should be noted that whilst there were still some good and sound local Churches, few had seen any necessity to break their ties with denominations that were becoming increasingly apostate. There were, ofcourse, also some groups, such as the Open Brethren assemblies, with no such ties and who were still largely Gospel orientated. This continued into the early 1960s when two developments overtook the evangelical world which were to divide it and send everyone scurrying into their own camp, rendering such gatherings virtually impossible after that time.

In the second half of the 19^th century the desire to ‘get rich quickly’ and amass possessions of every kind engendered a very materialistic outlook on life. Britain was at the height of her commercial and political power, there was an increase in material wealth, progress seemed unstoppable. She had indeed become the ‘workshop of the nations’. At the Great Exhibition of 1851 homage was paid to Great Britain at the shrine of industrial might. As is always the case in such circumstances, for many, spiritual matters began to take second place also the new scientific theories seemed to conflict with the Bible. The rampant optimism of the times foundered only when the reality of the senseless slaughter of the Flanders fields in World War I began to penetrate the consciousness of the nation. Progress was shipwrecked on the rocks of human wickedness.

The century was marked not only by awakenings and wider material prosperity, but also by a growth in sceptical rationalism hostile to the Gospel. Strauss and Bauer sought to explain away everything supernatural in the Bible. Then there was the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species by Natural Selection, a book that owed its success more to catching the popular spirit of the day than to any credible science. The application of rationalistic critical methods to the Bible had begun in earnest on the Continent in the previous century with men like Astruc and Eichorn, but most ministers of the Gospel had ignored the trends. By the end of the 19^th century such indifference became impossible. The Graf-Wellhausen higher-criticism theories sought to give Old Testament books more recent dates in order to make the claim that the writers were dealing with history rather than prophecy. Like much critical work, higher or textual, it was based on subjective speculation. Westcott & Hort produced their revision of the Greek text, guided by little more than speculative whim, a cobbled-together, pasted-up text – what they could have achieved with modern ‘cut and paste’ techniques! They relied extensively on the discredited manuscripts of doubtful Alexandrian scholars. The resulting Revised Version was received with some scepticism by many, but a significant start had been made on casting doubt on the reliability of the textus receptus and the Authorised Version and its replacement with something less than God’s Word. This tendency has now seen the publication of a plethora of ‘re-written’ Scriptures such as the Good News Bible, the various editions of the New International Version, and many unreliable versions such as the New King James Bible.

A fundamental and lost opportunity 

It could be argued, with some grounds, that the reaction of Bible-believing Christians to rationalistic theology came somewhat belatedly. When it did come, at least as far as the UK was concerned, whilst robust, the roots of this opposition were shallow. Resistance came largely from valiant and capable individuals within various Churches, especially in the Scottish Churches and theologians in the Church of England, but not exclusively so. Names that come to mind are those of Sir Robert Anderson, Griffith Thomas, Thomas Whitelaw, H. W. Webb-Peploe, H. C. G. Moule, among others.

The fight against modernist or liberal theology that subsequently took place in North America did not materialise in the quite same way here in the UK. In Great Britain the name ‘fundamentalist’ was, and still is, used as a pejorative by the enemies of the Gospel against anyone confessing anything approaching a belief in the verbal inspiration of the Bible, or atonement through the shed blood of Christ. In his book Fundamentalism and the Word of God (1958), J. I. Packer claims, quite accurately, “the title is one which most British Evangelicals have always declined... and sometimes they have explicitly rejected it.” The very simple reason for this is that they never were ‘fundamentalists’ in the North American sense of the word.

Different historians will give different explanations of the origins of the fundamentalist movement, which we cannot consider here, but it can certainly be traced back in North America to at least 1909 with the publication of the twelve volumes of The Fundamentals (which, incidentally, contain some very fine and scholarly articles). The movement had become more formalised by 1920 when the Baptist Watchman Examiner was using the name for “those who mean to do battle royal for the fundamentals.”

Opposition to modernist or liberal theology in Britain was largely undertaken by individuals or groups of individuals who took a stand for the ‘fundamentals’ from within mainstream denominations that were already sliding headlong into apostasy. There was a lack of any formal, recognisable, separated, anti-liberal movement. This left the way open for later compromise, and in the case of some, for a comprehensive abandonment of the truth. There was little or no understanding that 2 Corinthians 6 could have any reference to their own position within these evidently ‘mixed’ historical denominations.

“Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part that he that believeth with an infidel? ...Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing.” (vv.14-15, 17)

Few saw this as an imperative. There was a failure to discipline those who taught error, or where this was not possible, to separate from the apostasy in the denominations. Ministers did not leave their Churches nor did they lead their congregations out of fellowship with apostasy. This was to have grave consequences.

The rise and spread of neo-evangelicalism

The 1920s saw the beginnings of neo-orthodoxy with the theology of Karl Barth. The main statement of its tenets are to be found in his Kirchliche Dogmatik. Whilst all this was unfolding in Europe, in America neo-evangelicalism was beginning to appear as an alternative to fundamentalism. It was fathered by Dr Harold Ockenga, pastor of Park Street Presbyterian Church, Boston, and the first President of Fuller Theological Seminary. Dr Ockenga himself in 1957 described the movement as “the latest dress of orthodoxy, as neo-orthodoxy is the latest expression of theological liberalism.” One of the distinctives of fundamentalism is its separation from all apostate religion on the basis of 2 Corinthians 6. Ockenga exchanged this for ‘infiltration’ – which in practice meant co-operation with every apostate in sight. On the other hand, those seeking to stand firm on Scripture, the atonement, and the coming of Christ, were, and still are branded as ‘right-wing extremists’, ‘apostles of hate’ and more. They are held up to ridicule as having an out-of-date, ignorant and contentious approach to the Gospel.

The claim that neo-evangelicalism remains true to the fundamental teachings of the faith is quickly dispelled by reading the writings of its leading gurus. In 1962 one such, Dr Edward Carnell said, “If extremist fundamentalists think I am going to join their ‘holy war’ against Barth they are sadly mistaken.” Carnell is known for his unsound views of Scripture, compromises with godless science, a toadying to godless theologians, and endless bitter tirades against fundamentalists. Speaking to students in 1957, Dr Donald Grey Barnhouse, another of their number, proceeded to ridicule the great leaders of the Reformation one by one, to howls of laughter from students all over America. He denounced the Reformation as a mistake. He engaged in such vindictive rhetoric against fundamentalists that even Moody Bible Institute radio station took him off the air. So much for ‘nasty’ fundamentalists!

It was the popular face of neo-evangelicalism that did most to plant the new movement on British soil: Youth for Christ, the Billy Graham crusades, and then some time later Bill Bright’s Campus Crusades. British evangelicalism was ready for it, and soaked up the new movement like an old dried-up sponge takes up water. Woe betides anyone foolish enough to object to the Graham crusades! Those who saw through the whole charade from the start and said so were few in number, and they were heavily criticised as lacking Christian love. Eventually, there was hardly a corner of Christian life in Britain that it had not enclosed in a firm embrace. At the heart of British neo-evangelicalism were men such as the widely-respected theologian from the Christian Brethren, Dr F. F. Bruce, whose views have proved to be anything but doctrinally sound. Both he and Rev. John Stott, the one-time popular Anglican preacher of All Souls Church, Langham Place, London, replaced the Bible teaching of the eternal suffering of the damned in the fires of hell with the heathen abomination of annihilation. J. I. Packer, Calvinist Anglican theologian and professing Puritan ‘enthusiast’, never accepted any form of separation, and chooses rather to cosy-up to priests of Rome! The history of Gospel testimony in Britain throughout the 20^th century, with one or two notable exceptions, has been one of steady decline. Neo-evangelicalism had little to challenge it when it arrived on these shores. Apart from one or two individuals, it faced no united body that would resist it. There was lacking a distinctive, separatist testimony to the Gospel.

The unseen, unbreakable, promise

There is a history of the Church that is hidden, that does not appear in any written histories. Hidden from men, it is known only to God. It can be said that true Church history has never ever been written, nor can it be. God in His wisdom has ordained that this should be so. The early history of Baptists has largely been gleaned from the writings of their enemies, for they wrote little about themselves. English Baptist histories often begin with the Anabaptists, taking a leap then to John Smyth (d.1612) with little indication of anything in between. Despite the earliest indications of the existence of groups of Baptist believers in England being shrouded by the mists of time, there is some evidence of Churches seeking to follow Scriptural practices already in the reign of Edward VI, composed largely of French, Dutch, and Italian believers. English Churches of this type are known to have existed before Smyth. There are records of ‘congregations’ of believers in England in 1555 and without doubt Baptist Churches were to be found during the reign of Queen Elizabeth.

The building of the Church is in the hands of our Saviour Himself, who said, “...I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). Where is this Church, and where has it been since the days of the New Testament? It will not have been in the apostate Church of Rome, so she cannot have come out of Rome. Yet because we cannot see her, this cannot mean she did not exist. In other words, because of our Saviour’s promise, there will always have been true believers seeking to follow Him according to His Word. Those around them have called them ‘baptists’ or ‘ana-baptists’ (re-baptisers) because of their practice of baptising only believers, but these people have always been there.

We would not diminish the insights of the Reformers, nor their testimony to God’s grace. It would also not be historically true to say that there were not those who left Rome or the Reformed Churches to gather together according to Scripture as they will “till he come.” They do but join others who have done the same since New Testament days. These words of C. H. Spurgeon express a general truth that is supported by what we read in the New Testament.

“We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves.”   (The New Park Street Pulpit, vol. VII)

Here we find one group that has never raised the sword either in its own defence or to defeat its opponents, nor has ever seen any need to do so.

Training in unbelief

At this time there was also a failure to separate from the halls of godless learning in the state-run universities in the training of men for the Christian ministry and Christian service. Evangelical seminaries and Bible schools were often compromised by the need for students to obtain funds for their training. State monies were available at that time if the curriculum of College was governed by state examinations. Although the training had a distinctively evangelical slant, students would prepare for external degrees of the University of London. The result was often of a little leaven leavening the whole lump. Many whose profession of faith was evangelical acquired a theological mind-set that was basically rationalist. Although student grants have now all but dried up, evangelical theological institutions generally still link their studies to the demands of secular universities, but now for reasons of academic respectability. Always the only exceptions to such Colleges were a few of the missionary training institutes, few of whom provided men for the pastorate at home.

In the late 1960s and 70s when men still felt obliged to leave the ministry in mainstream denominations to pastor ‘independent’ Churches, whilst they were often men with exceptional academic credentials, most of them had been trained in the liberal or neo-orthodox denominational colleges and state universities. They knew much about Barth, Brunner, and Tillich, but were often quite bereft of any substantial knowledge of the basic doctrines of the Bible. What little they did know had been picked up along the way.

The Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (FIEC) was founded to promote evangelical unity among independent Churches and a commitment to evangelical beliefs. In many respects it has always drawn its net too widely and this has made it vulnerable. The training being received today by the younger pastoral candidates has many questionable aspects. Many of their current pastors entered directly into the pastorate from some other profession. It is not that a lack of such training in and of itself need necessarily prove a great hindrance, - Bunyan, Carey, and Spurgeon were all ‘self-taught’ when viewed from an academic standpoint - but many of these modern pastors, even some of the more well-known among them, seem to lack any significant understanding of Bible doctrine. Many also show little real ability to preach or teach. Those more recently entering the ministry have frequently been trained in institutions in the USA where there has been doctrinal compromise and other shifts away from the truth have taken place.

‘Valiant-for-Truth’ stands alone

In 1971 Rev. Michael Taylor addressed the annual assembly of the Baptist Union in England with these words:

“I am not troubled or surprised that he [Jesus] doesn’t know everything or sometimes makes a mistake, or gets angry, or doesn’t have all the gifts, or betrays himself as a child of his time. However remarkable his life, I think I must stop short of saying categorically: Jesus is God. So first, Jesus is a man like you and me, and second God is present and active in Jesus as he is present and active in us all.”

This was the inevitable end of a long road. In order to understand how this situation came about we must go back to C. H. Spurgeon and what is generally called the ‘down grade’ controversy. He stood largely alone among the ‘great and the good’ of Baptists. It seems he alone had the foresight to see what was coming, and that separation from the Baptist Union was the only course open to those who would maintain the faith. He said that he was willing to be eaten of dogs for the next fifty years, but the more distant future would vindicate him. It has done so and with a vengeance. How ever did we get to this point?

The down grade controversy took place against the background of a steady slide into theological apostasy. From the middle of the 19^th century non-conformists were being called upon to yield the doctrine of eternal punishment. The collateral false teaching of the ultimate salvation of all men was being propagated by the Nottingham Baptist minister, Samuel Cox. From the outset Spurgeon countered with a stout and uncompromising defence of the teaching of the Bible in his magazine The Sword and Trowel. It was not long before the propitiatory and substitutionary atonement was also being marked down as immoral and unnecessary. Preaching before the Baptist Union Assembly in Leeds on 6^th October, 1878, Spurgeon took as his text “We preach Christ crucified” and warned against what he called ‘modern thought’.

The Baptist Union was founded in 1813, its doctrinal basis was reduced by 1832 to an agreement ‘in the sentiments usually denominated evangelical’, but by 1873 even this was gone. It was felt that baptism by immersion was a stronger doctrinal basis than evangelical sentiments! Spurgeon objected, but was overruled. From that moment on it had no real doctrinal basis. The door was now open to every kind of apostasy and heresy. By 1883 Spurgeon was sufficiently uneasy about the direction being taken as to decline all further invitations to speak for the Baptist Union or the Baptist Missionary Society in order to avoid compromise.

C. H. Spurgeon was a moderate Calvinist in the mould of John Bunyan and William Carey, yet by his own admission the real issue was not one of Calvinism versus Arminianism. Writing in The Sword and Trowel for March 1887, he states:

“The present struggle is not a debate upon the question of Calvinism or Arminianism, but of the truth of God versus the inventions of men. All who believe the gospel should unite against that ‘modern thought’ which is its deadly enemy.”

The August edition of his magazine shows Spurgeon to have been a separatist and no inclusivist with respect to matters of doctrine.

“It now becomes a serious question how far those who abide by the faith once delivered to the saints should fraternise with those who have turned aside to another gospel. Christian love has its claims, and divisions are to be shunned as grievous evils; but how far are we justified in being in confederacy with those who are departing from the truth.”

By October of that same year, he had concluded that there was little more to be done by way of persuasion. We ask, was C. H. Spurgeon a proto-fundamentalist? Hardly so historically speaking, but in that he defended the ‘fundamental points’, perhaps in some sense it is true. This is what he wrote in an article entitled The Case Proved in the October edition of his magazine:

“One thing is clear to us – we cannot be expected to meet in any union which comprehends those whose teaching is, upon fundamental points, exactly the reverse of that which we hold dear....With deep regret we abstain from assembling with those whom we dearly love and heartily respect, since it would involve us in a confederacy with those with whom we have no communion in the Lord.” (emphasis ours)

Spurgeon rather expected his charges to have been discussed at the autumn meetings of the Baptist Union held in Sheffield that year. Instead, the matter was studiously ignored. On the 28^th October, 1887 he withdrew from the Baptist Union and on 11th April of the following year from the London Baptist Association he had helped to found in 1865. Spurgeon found it unacceptable to unite only on believers’ baptism by immersion without the acceptance of a doctrinal statement outlining the fundamental truths of the Bible to which all would be obliged to subscribe. It is understandable that hackles were raised within the Baptist Union, which he described as being “like Noah’s ark, affording shelter both for the clean and unclean, for creeping things and winged fowls?” He argued for a union of Churches with biblical doctrine at its heart. He was unable to carry many who sympathised with his doctrine with him, Calvinist or Arminian, not even his own brother James, they all chose a false ‘peace’. He attacked those who had reduced the atonement and abandoned the doctrine of eternal punishment. The inspiration of Scripture and bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus were also being questioned, although they did not feature centrally in this controversy.

Spurgeon had refused to name those he suspected of holding heterodox teachings. The reason he gave was that without a doctrinal statement they could not be disciplined. On the 18^th January, 1888, the Council of the Baptist Union passed a vote of censure on him. Spurgeon and his friends were understandably both hurt and outraged. Clearly, those who had most to lose voted with the censure motion - men like John Clifford, Alexander Maclaren, and Charles Williams, all of whom rejected the inerrancy of the Scriptures. To this day a man may deny the deity of Christ and still remain within the Baptist Union. Nothing has changed since Spurgeon’s day. The sad thing is that many protested their evangelical beliefs as they do today, but they still refused Spurgeon their support. Denominational unity was more important than doctrinal unity. Doctrinal purity and separation were judged to be divisive. The significance of the down grade controversy is wider than is often admitted. Here is at least one occasion where the opportunity for the formation of a formal, identifiable body standing against liberal theology was lost.

The bitter harvest 

By 1941 Britain, with a devastating war behind her, was on her knees. She had been beaten in Belgium, massacred in Malaya, and was saved only because the enemy forgot he was supposed to cross the English Channel! Perhaps, we should look at another possibility, that God did not deliver us into the hands of our enemy. The austerity and deprivation of the war years and those immediately following contrasted starkly with the increasing prosperity of the 1960s. There were things to buy, places to go. The constraints imposed by the war were gone, there was a desire to question everything, change everything, improve everything. The war was forgotten, remembered only in the mythology of the cinema screen. The questioning of authority grew to rebellion and the 60s were well and truly with us.

Children born in the war and growing up in the 50s, were saying, “Let’s have a party, let’s now do what we like, everything and anything is possible.” Soon the spirit of the world had invaded the Church. Older and wiser pastors and elders, men who knew and lived according to the Scriptures, were now going to their reward and the generation who had fought in the war, the parents of the new generation had joined in stoking the fires rather than attempting to extinguish them. The words of Andrew Bonar applied, “I looked for the Church and I found it in the world; I looked for the world, and alas, I found it in the Church.”  

Now, apart from a few notable exceptions, neo-evangelicalism characterised much that went on among Christian believers. Billy Graham had held huge crusades in Harringay (London), Glasgow, Wembley (London), Manchester. It was the day of mass evangelism, smart evangelists in smart suits with shiny Bibles and an entourage of ‘born again’ film stars, pop singers and sundry celebrities. Graham had many imitators, of which there are some very sad and tragic examples. There were monthly Youth for Christ rallies, summer holidays at Christian Conference Centres. Those ready to make a decision were wooed by the gentle sounds of a Hammond organ, many only to disappear after a short time, never to be seen again. Billy Graham’s crusade of 1966 in Earl’s Court, London, when so much was expected and so little materialised, proved to be the last of its kind held by him in England. It would not be possible for him to do the same again. By this time, scepticism and disillusionment were setting in. Some were now questioning the kind of people Graham was inviting to join him on the platform of these crusades, others had expected a spiritual awakening to revive Churches in a low state, but all had come to nothing.

Mesmerised by music

Music has always played an important role in the worship of God alongside the teaching and preaching of the Word, one much wider than the singing of Psalms alone. We are told,

“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.”  (Colossians 3:16)

It has been said with some justification that the hymnbook a Church uses is a good indicator of what kind of a place it is. The denominations all had their own book, one of the best was The Methodist Hymnbook. Many denominational hymnbooks were revised at this time, and generally not for the better.

Perhaps more significant are some of the changes that took place in the early 60s among the more specifically evangelical groups such as the Open Brethren and ‘free evangelical’ Churches and Mission Halls. It is quite clear that there were hymns in books such as Sankey’s Sacred Songs and Solos that had outlived their useful life and there were others that could be usefully improved upon. This is not disputed. What is so disconcerting is that these hymns were now openly despised and scorned by many. It is less the criticism of the hymns that is objectionable, but the mockery to which they were subjected. New hymnbooks were introduced, in and of themselves hardly objectionable and in some respects they introduced improvements. Of significance was what was missing more than what they contained. A comparison between hymn books shows, among other things, that hymns with direct references to eternal damnation were largely gone, gone too were the concerns about where loved ones would spend eternity, visions of heaven were now blurred, the second coming was no longer an event eagerly awaited. A changed fashion spelt out a changed emphasis and a changed theology.

Musical instruments have not always found a place in all non-conformist Churches. Sankey was accused by newspapers of the time of only coming to Britain with the purpose of selling American harmonium organs! It was only when Sankey agreed to sing “Hold the fort!”, a favourite with the renowned preacher, that C. H. Spurgeon permitted the use of such an organ in the Metropolitan Tabernacle, for without one Sankey would not sing. What days they were, indeed! The electric Hammond organ, the ‘rally pianist’, followed hard in the wake of the early Graham crusades. In the desire to entice teenagers in to hear the Gospel, it was thought that they must be brought into an environment in which they would not feel strange. Often what was being pandered to were the frustrated worldly musical aspirations of youngsters from Christian homes who would still at that time not have been permitted to attend pop concerts – how times have changed! Worldly singers had guitars, ‘Christian’ crooners needed them too. Worldly musicians strummed electric guitars, they had drums, and soon the Gospel ‘pop’ world was born. We needed ‘snazzy’ songs, not dated Gospel mush! This was all given added impetus and status by the ‘born again’ pop idols - such as Cliff Richard in the UK, who appeared on the rostrum at Graham’s Earl’s Court crusade meetings – and who continued in their former profession without so much as batting an eyelid. The rest, as they say, is history.

Not only were the old hymns no longer accepted, but the ‘old black Bibles with their Victorian print’ were gradually removed and stacked in the cupboards. Few evangelicals would use the RSV, a number would have used The Amplified Bible and other ‘safe’ versions for personal study. When, however, the New International Version and later the New King James Version appeared, the days of reading the trusted King James Bible, especially in public worship, were surely numbered (not if we can help it they are not!) Whilst the arguments surrounding the AV do involve discussions about manuscripts and translation methodology, what interests us in this present context is the reason why it was booted out! This had little to do with scholarship. It had everything to do with being the remnant of a past with which there was now to be a break. Out with the old Gospel, in with the new one!

New music, new bibles, new ambitions and a new Gospel! The testimony of godly believers such as missionaries who brought tales from foreign parts was now no longer sufficient to pull in the crowds. Instead, besides the obligatory pop star, or someone who knew someone who knew a pop star, there were business tycoons, high fliers from every walk of life. Success was the name of the game. To be a Christian was to be a success in this world and at the same time to be assured of a place in the next. It was the businessman who could be relied upon to open up his chequebook who was invited onto the boards of the missions and evangelistic associations. It was a cosy arrangement that also allowed the donor to exact his pound of flesh.

The effect of this on youngsters in the Churches was to fill them with worldly ambition and to neglect the source of true spiritual wealth. No one was warning:

“Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.” (James 4:4)

This type of thinking had long since gone out of the window. Important was what men thought of you, less of your standing with God.

Let us be very clear in what we are saying. The new methodology was evidence of an emerging new Gospel, a shift sideways had ushered in what was in reality a new message. The Lord Jesus was now a Saviour from everything except sin and the fires of hell. Few spoke of these things any longer, until eventually they were redefined then denied. Salvation was there for us, to make us happy and put a smile on our face, and without making any demands on us afterwards for a changed way of life. We sang like the world, we dressed like the world, we behaved like the world - in all but its worst excesses.

‘Worldliness’ disappeared from the evangelical dictionary of approved words. The Christian faith was now something that could be clamped onto a worldly life style. There was no need to ‘give up anything’ we were told. We could just carry on as before, except that now all our problems were solved, we were happier than everyone else – whom are you trying to kid? Cinemas, theatres, all once taboo, were now frequented by those who at one time would never have dreamed of being seen there. Those objecting were made to feel as out-of-date as elastic-sided boots! When television entered every home, the slide downwards accelerated. That which had begun as a gentle slide now turned into a spiritual nosedive.

Once the need for separation from all that previously was deemed ‘worldly’ hardly seemed to matter any more, separation from apostate Christianity was seen also as superfluous. Indeed, hob-nobbing with blaspheming bishops, one who mocked the resurrection as ‘a conjuring trick with bones’, and with ‘Mary-worshipping’ Monsignors soon became all the rage.

Charismatic capers and pentecostal pandemonium

Even in the early 60s two movements had begun to make an appearance in the UK, one large, one less so. By the middle of the decade they were in full bloom. The first of these was a new interest in pentecostal ‘gifts’, an interest that was to grow into the modern charismatic movement. ‘Healers’ such as T. L. Osborne had held massive crusades in the UK. Oral Roberts, Kathryn Kuhlman, and one or two more, had also become well known. Well into the 50s the Pentecostal movement had been treated, and rightly so, with some suspicion by the rest of the evangelical world. Indeed, movements such as Youth for Christ in England then dispensed with the services of at least two of its evangelists who were professing a ‘baptism in the spirit’ and were ‘speaking in tongues’.

When the pentecostal movement began to appear at the beginning of the 20^th century, men like Dr Campbell Morgan of Westminster Chapel were horrified. He is said to have called it ‘the last vomit of the devil’. Dr. Graham Scroggie was pastor of several Baptist Churches, including Charlotte Baptist Chapel, Edinburgh where the University conferred the Honorary degree of Doctor of Divinity, and also  of Spurgeon's Tabernacle in London. Despite being forced to retire through ill-health in 1944, he will long be remembered for his series of Bible readings at the Keswick Convention given until 1954. He was later to publish a booklet expounding a biblical understanding of the 'baptism of the Spirit' and denouncing speaking in ‘tongues’ which he believed, quite rightly, had "brought great dishonour upon the name of the Lord". He continued, "..there are not a few authenticated instances of the up-breaking of home, and of mental unbalance, not to speak of fanatical displays, and of impropriety in public, which have been directly associated with the unscriptural  claims of which we have been writing. Surely no work which is genuinely Divine could permit, far less be productive of such things as these." His views, generally speaking, were those of most in the evangelical world at the time. He would today have been a formidable opponent of all things charismatic. Before this point, pentecostalism was viewed as something of a 'cult', but the movement was now gaining some respectability and the booklet, at the insistence of an increasingly militant and vocal minority, was taken from the shelves of many Christian bookstores as being offensive, and even today it is virtually impossible to obtain.* Were they all pulped, who knows? In the mid 60s the Fountain Trust did much to propagate the pernicious charismatic error. This role was soon taken over by others in the UK by Watson, Pawson, Wibmer. Fake healing, claims of raising people from the dead, ‘deliverance’ ministries, not to mention horrendous dog barking and chicken noises in their gatherings, then there is the inane laughter of the Toronto blasphemy are all part of this movement. It is scandalous that evidences of demonic possession are proclaimed as the work of the Spirit of God.

(*With some difficulty, I recently managed to obtain a copy of this excellent booklet from which the above quotations are taken and more accurate biographical details were obtained.)

Even worse, we are told by lily-livered bystanders that it is ‘wicked’ to speak out against this blasphemy! If these people do not believe the charismatic catastrophe to be a blasphemous movement with its origins in the pit, but rather that it is from God, then ought they not to join it! Those who do not oppose it are surely part of it. Such has been the change in a hundred years, such the confusion between darkness and light! Rather than being contained in one denomination, the appalling fact is that these apostate teachings and practices have gained acceptance in almost all quarters of evangelical life in the United Kingdom, from the loosest Arminian Methodist to the tightest reformed Calvinist. Church of England vicars flail on the floor, Baptists ‘sing in the spirit’, or stutter in ‘tongues’, people fall over backwards at the healer’s touch in almost any Church in the land, ‘gold’ falls from the sky or suddenly changes into teeth in their mouths. If it were not blasphemous and demonic, we would say these people were barmy and candidates for the funny farm. All this parades as Christianity while the mass of our people marches down the road to hell fire – a devilish diversion, if ever there was one!

Crusading Calvinism

The second movement was much smaller and in some ways more benign and must certainly be enclosed within the broad spectrum of orthodox belief, despite the theological differences we may have with some of these people. It has been called ‘crusading Calvinism’ by one Church historian. Reformed or Calvinistic teachings have long been a part of the Church scene in Britain. In Scotland, Presbyterianism is the State religion, even although it has split into ever-smaller groupings. There have been many illustrious names associated with the Scottish Presbyterian Church, Murray M’Cheyne, the Bonars, and others. The Church of Scotland is now largely liberal; the other groups vary from moderate Calvinism to extreme forms of hyper-Calvinism. The same is largely true of the Scotch-Irish protestants in Northern Ireland. In England Calvinism prospered in the past among the Baptists; the Baptist Union, and the Baptist Missionary Society as founded by Carey and Fuller were ‘particular Baptist’, i.e. Calvinistic associations.

A renewed interest in ‘reformed’ or ‘Calvinistic’ teachings grew up also in the early 60s. There were several reasons for this, but a central figure in its growth was Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones, successor to Campbell Morgan at Westminster Chapel in London. There was also fresh interest in the writings of the English Puritans. There have been some positive aspects to all this. It has turned some into ‘Berean’ Christians, “who received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). Without necessarily turning everyone into Calvinists, it has been the cause of some searching the Scriptures for themselves and becoming more established in the fundamentals of the faith. In view of the shallowness and lack of doctrinal teaching in the past, this must be seen as a good thing. This has not been widespread.

Through the efforts of publishers such as the Banner of Truth, many helpful books, previously long out-of-print and difficult to obtain, have become once more available. In the early days they re-published many of volumes of C. H. Spurgeon’s sermons and other works. Since then, there has been a more entrenched Presbyterian perspective in their publishing programme with the consequence that their list is less valuable than it once was. At the time of writing, only one volume of Spurgeon’s sermons is still published by them.

Also, particularly as a result of the ministry of Dr Lloyd-Jones, there has been a new emphasis on preaching from Scripture. The great pity is that it has produced few preachers of note, but sadly has encouraged many with little preaching gift to try their hand at it.

In England there are a few independent ‘reformed’ Baptists. For the most part, ‘reformed’ Baptists are to be found among the FIEC and the Strict Baptist Churches. Strict Baptists divide into two, Gospel Standard Baptists who are hyper-Calvinistic, denying that faith is the duty of the non-elect; and ‘Grace’, or particular Baptists. Before going on further, it is important to note that in all these groups there are some very fine individual believers with whom one may have some fellowship on occasions, even whilst not sharing all their beliefs and insights. Generally speaking, Strict Baptists Churches are in decline and have been for some years, many have now closed their doors. This is very sad, because among them were places that in the past had borne testimony to the saving grace of Christ in their area.

There are many things that are disturbing about this new emergence of Calvinism. Proponents of these teachings in the main tend to define the Gospel in quite narrow sectarian terms. The preoccupation with the minutiae of the finer points of their theology often expresses itself in an argumentative and quarrelsome spirit, a haughty attitude towards those ‘unfortunate’ enough not to share their beliefs. Often lacking is the magnanimity shown by greater men such as Bunyan and Spurgeon towards their brethren in Christ outside the ‘reformed’ camp. Perhaps this is characteristic of those whose cause is in decline.

There are also those among them, thankfully few in number, who are intent on re-opening old wounds in the mistaken belief they are defending the faith. One of their heroes is Augustus Toplady, author of Rock of Ages, cleft for me. It is difficult to equate this same man with his article An Old Fox Tarred and Feathered, which amounts to a scurrilous attack on the theology and person of John Wesley. It is said that Toplady rose from his deathbed like a ghost to occupy his pulpit for the last time only to reiterate his extreme Calvinistic theology and give voice to disgraceful denunciations of Wesley. Sadly, like many of his modern imitators, his writings and his character contradict each other – or do they? This obnoxious, self-opinionated approach has also developed a litigious spirit. Such people are also only too ready to rush to the secular courts for redress against often supposed wrongs, even against fellow-believers, and in complete disregard of the warning in 1 Corinthians 6. It is to be doubted whether many in these groups ought to be called Calvinists at all in any historic sense. Their expositions of predestination and election are hardly biblical and often amount to little more than fatalism. Even a cursory glance at his Institutes will show that much of what they say is contradicted by what Calvin himself wrote. They are at best a pseudo-Calvinistic sect.

The closet pentecostals

There is a link with some in the ‘reformed’ camp to the charismatic movement. The link-person in this is once more Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones, whom some see as having been a ‘closet pentecostal’, more so as he grew older and perhaps became a touch disillusioned. The teaching of some Puritans, and certainly some of the Welsh Calvinistic Methodist revivalist preachers, with respect to the ‘sealing of the Spirit’ (Ephesians 1:13) and assurance of salvation would seem to approximate a pentecostal view of the so-called ‘baptism of the spirit’. It is not clear whether Lloyd-Jones himself was a ‘tongue-speaker’ as are some of his sycophantic followers of the present day, but certainly he is known to have barred any from his Westminster pastors’ fraternal meetings who were bold enough to equate the current charismatic movement with the great delusion of the last days – and thankfully there were some such! Many ‘reformed’ groups are fatally contaminated with charismatic practices and influences. All very sad indeed in view of the tremendous gift of preaching with which Lloyd-Jones was endowed. What his predecessor, Campbell Morgan, would have made of it all is difficult to imagine.

It would be unfair to blame Lloyd-Jones for events at Westminster Chapel after he retired, still less after he had gone to be with the Lord. Charismatic phenomena proper began in the Chapel in 1986 and culminated with a visit of Rodney Howard-Browne in October 1995 and the manifestation of the so-called 'Toronto Blessing'. According to R. T. Kendall, minister at the time, people fell to the floor laughing and one usually very  conservative banker "literally rolled back and forth on the floor behind the pulpit laughing his head off." One can only regret such a disgraceful spectacle. This was indeed a wile of Satan. Nevertheless, it must be asked to what extent the erroneous teaching of Martyn Lloyd-Jones with respect to the work of the Holy Spirit did not prepare the ground for such a sad end. At its height the ministry of Martyn Lloyd-Jones drew around a thousand to services. This diminished under Kendall to no more than 300 in the morning an around 100 in the evening. One could weep.

Further decline

The ‘open’ Brethren movement began in the 19^th Century with the labours of godly men such as George Müller and Anthony Norris Groves. The ‘exclusive’ wing represents the views of J. N. Darby, but has largely disappeared in the UK as a result of a cult-like tyranny that developed in the 1960s. There also remains a small group continuing in the tradition of William Kelly. The ‘open’ Brethren, often known as ‘Christian Brethren’, still continue, but very much reduced to what they were in the 50s and 60s. Many Gospel ‘meetings’ that would have drawn 200 or more then, are hard-pressed now to find a dozen or so. Many have closed down altogether. Many of those who remain are at the centre of all that is worst about modern neo-evangelicalism. It is all very sad indeed. Their demise is due to many factors, but substantially they fell to the compromises of the 1960s and lost many to other Churches, especially to charismatic ones.

What happened in the Brethren assemblies in the 60s is now taking place among the ‘Grace’ Baptists, as even a brief perusal of their magazine Grace will show, and FIEC Churches have already travelled even further down that road. The Authorised Version is rapidly disappearing and has almost gone; there is a fundamental change in the kind of hymn being sung. The neo-evangelical Gospel with a ‘reformed’ coat of icing is rapidly gaining ground and there is little taste for separation from the world. Leaders of these two groups seem to be intent on steering their Churches with blinkered determination onto the rocks. Dancing, cinema-going, an incessant diet of television is commonplace. A stand against this trend is viewed as narrow-mindedness and is often openly mocked in print. Few read the Bible with any intensity and will often know more about TV soap operas than the Bible. There is a widespread ignorance of fundamental Bible truth, even among many pastors. There is a willingness to compromise to attract the young. Most have a sympathetic stance towards the charismatic movement and the pentecostal ‘gifts’, many practice them. The verbal inspiration of Scripture is regularly denied, although not always openly. A belief in a literal seven-day creation, and a universal flood is under fire. Quite a few people, probably still a minority, in FIEC Churches take an ‘evolutionist’ view of some aspects of science. It is amazing that Churches in decline often seem to imagine that by travelling further along the road of the compromise that first led to the rot, they will recover the lost ground. Startling is the fact that the FIEC seems now to be forsaking its original separatist stance making overtures to Churches in mixed denominations. The signs are anything but good. Would Wesley recognise the Methodist church of today or Luther the church that bears his name? What can we say of the Baptist Union, of Congregationalism, or any other of the mainstream denominations virtually all of whom are as far from the Word of God as east is from west. Evangelicalism as many of us have known it is now dead, killed off by spiritual wreckers.

All is not lost

The Church built by the Lord Himself, where He adds daily such as should be saved, that Church can never be a failure. We have this on the authority of the Lord Jesus Himself. “I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). There are still many genuine believers in these Churches, and there are still some Churches here and there remaining true to the Gospel. They love the Lord and His pure Word and seek to please Him in what they do. This we must not underestimate when looking at overall trends. Many individual believers are feeling increasingly uneasy in their Church fellowships. Some have left and others have been squeezed out, very often on the issue of the nature of the ‘worship’ engaged in or because a modern version of the Bible is being forcibly imposed upon them. There are many, many people now on their own with little or no fellowship. Some meet together in small groups at home. There is, then, soil in which the seeds of Gospel truth and testimony can germinate, take root, and flourish.

return to: home page    more articles