Martyn Lloyd-Jones on “Unity”

MSJ 31/1 (Spring 2020) 43–57 MARTYN LLOYD-JONES ON “UNITY” Kevin D. Zuber Professor of Theology The Master’s Seminary This is Part One of a two-part article that surveys several of the Doctor’s messages on unity in order to gain a clear idea of his views on “unity.” In Part One the Doc- tor’s messages from his regular pulpit ministry in the early 1960s as well as an ex- tended article from 1962—The Basis of Christian Unity—will be analyzed to estab- lish ML-J’s view on unity prior to his watershed message in October of 1966. In Part Two particular attention will be paid to the message delivered at the meeting of the National Assembly of Evangelicals in October 1966—a message that by all accounts marked a watershed moment in twentieth-century British evangelicalism. Other of ML-J’s messages on unity after 1966 are also examined. This survey and examination will demonstrate that ML-J’s message on unity in 1966 was consistent with his views on unity before and after 1966. The article concludes with suggestions for why the Doctor’s teaching on unity has value and application for twenty-first-century evangelicalism. * * * * * Introduction The meeting of the National Assembly of Evangelicals in October 1966 was a watershed moment in British evangelicalism.1 In hindsight it was also a key event in the division of evangelicalism.2 It is not without irony that the subject of the message 1 See Carl. R. Truman, “J. I. Packer: An English Nonconformist Perspective,” in J. I. Packer and the Evangelical Future: The Impact of His Life and Thought, ed. by Timothy George (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009), 120. 2 See Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950 to 2000 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2000), 44. Murray notes, “The Lloyd-Jones address of 18 October 1966 has repeatedly been described as ‘dividing evangelicals’, but” he points out, “the division was already there.” See also, Iain H. Murray, The Unresolved Controversy: Unity with Non-evangelicals (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2001), 1, 2. 43 44 | Martyn Lloyd-Jones on “Unity” of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (hereafter ML-J)3 on that occasion was “unity.”4 In many ways, the subject, indeed, the doctrine of “unity” was a major theme of ML-J.5 The events and aftereffects of that 1966 message by Lloyd-Jones are still being referenced by some, and as then, there are divergent opinions regarding ML-J’s message.6 Historians and critics then and now have questioned his intentions and motives, 3 With the highest respect this article will follow others by abbreviating “Martyn Lloyd-Jones” to ML-J. 4 The message is recorded in D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, “Evangelical Unity: An Appeal,” in Knowing the Times: Addresses Delivered on Various Occasions (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1989), 246–57. This message will be considered in detail in Part Two of this article, in a forthcoming issue of The Master’s Seminary Journal. 5 “The late Doctor D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones was as concerned for the unity of churches which were committed to the Christian gospel as he was for the maintenance of the gospel itself.” Hywel Rees Jones, “The Doctor and the British Evangelical Council,” in Unity in Truth: Addresses given by Dr D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones at meetings under the auspices of the British Evangelical Council, ed. by Hywel R. Jones (Darlington, Co. Durham, England: Evangelical Press, 1991), 7. Iain Murray explains why the matter of unity was so important to ML-J. In the 1950s and 1960s the ecumenical movement, “by aiming to bring denominations together,” was seeking a unity which was “spiritual and church based.” In Iain H. Murray, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Fight of Faith, 1939–1981 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1990), 425. As ML- J understood it (see the following analysis), such a “unity” was not true unity, and unity on such terms would actually lead to a weakening of unity between evangelicals. As will be seen in the analysis to follow, ML-J was concerned to promote true unity between evangelicals on evangelical principles. Furthermore, “how the need for true unity was to be met was much more important to Dr. Lloyd-Jones than mere oppo- sition to the ecumenical movement.” Ibid., 427. 6 As just one example, see Alastair Roberts, “One Reason Why John Stott’s Stand Against Martyn Lloyd-Jones Mattered,” Alastair’s Adversaria, October 21, 2016, accessed February 14, 2020, https://alastairadversaria.com/2016/10/21/one-reason-why-john-stotts-stand-against-martyn-lloyd-jones- mattered/. In his blog post—defending John Stott and critical of ML-J—Roberts does give ML-J credit for identifying the “the many compromises, yet considerable ambition, of the ecumenical movements of his day.” But Roberts argues that “Lloyd-Jones’ overwhelming concern for doctrinal purity may well have meant that he wasn’t sufficiently able to perceive the importance of other dimensions of the Church’s life: its institutions, traditions, polity, and its many bonds to the identity of communities and the nation more generally.” Roberts continues, “The quest for a pure church can result from a failure adequately to reckon with the existence of the church as simul justus et peccator, and with the functioning of the church as a flawed human polity among other human polities.” The misapplication of simul justus et peccator aside, it seems Roberts has missed ML-J’s (biblically grounded) point that the church was never meant to be identified by “community” or “nation” or as a “human polity.” The church is to be the Body of Christ! (See ML-J’s analysis of Ephesians 4 below.) It is not ML-J’s ecclesiology that is flawed but Roberts’ and that of the now largely defunct ecumenical movement. The rest of the post lauds the influence that “An- glican institutions” have had on evangelicalism in Britain especially in producing “Protestant scholars.” Thus he asserts, “Pure ecclesiologies (sic) can be a deep threat to the development of a rigorous evangelical theological tradition.” The flaw in Roberts’ argument (which he virtually seems to admit in this comment: “Fifty years on, it seems fair to say that the evangelicals who remained within the Church of England have not escaped untouched by the wider doctrinal and ethical failures of their communion”) is that, while it is arguable that evangelicalism has benefited from the educational influence of Anglican educational intui- tions (the work of N. T. Wright being a case in point that the benefit or influence is anything but “un- mixed”), it is clear that the Anglican Church has deviated from a biblical ecclesiology (not to mention a biblical morality) and those evangelicals who remain are “not untouched by the wider doctrinal and ethical failures of their communion.” Furthermore, Roberts’ post fails to address what is the most serious deviance from evangelical principles and doctrines—namely the gospel itself (not to mention biblical fidelity)–– that negates the supposed benefit for evangelicalism in the area of scholarship. In short, following Stott’s “stay in” policy, evangelicalism as a whole is more fragmented and thus weaker and less influential in the areas outside of scholarship (such as public morality)—not to mention how the lack of true evangelical unity has contributed in significant ways to the diminished emphasis (in the church!) on the preaching of the gospel in favor of social welfare movements and political campaigns. The Master’s Seminary Journal | 45 even as they have debated about what exactly it was that he was calling for. But, since his stated topic was “unity,” it would appear that the best way to judge those opinions would be to seek to understand what ML-J believed about unity. If he was seeking to promote unity, his listeners, of every generation, should attempt to know what he meant by “unity.” Since “unity” was a major theme of ML-J’s life work, however, to fully address the question of ML-J’s understanding of unity would be a subject worthy of a master’s thesis, if not a doctoral dissertation. Therefore, in this article the objective is to discover some clear principles to provide a clearer view of ML-J’s beliefs on unity. The procedure will be to consider (to summarize, to analyze, to appraise, and to ap- preciate) several of the messages on unity by “the Doctor”—from before, after, and including his 1966 message to the National Assembly––to discern the broad outlines and key precepts of the biblical doctrines that formed his understanding of unity. In the end the objective is not so much to engage ML-J’s critics but to seek to discover and clarify his views. It is hoped, however, that an understanding of his views about unity will reveal at least a partial answer as to why he addressed the 1966 Assembly as he did. Furthermore, the need for of a biblically grounded doctrine of unity––true unity among biblically minded evangelicals––is still a very pressing need in the twenty-first century, and ML-J’s insights are still very much pertinent. As will be seen in the article, ML-J believed that true unity must be in truth, among genuine (gospel converted, gospel-focused) Christians, not in movements or social programs. It is highly doubtful that those advocating a program of social jus- tice, or ethnic reconciliation, or similar endeavors—either by cooperating with unbe- lievers or mixing those endeavors with the gospel of salvation by faith alone in Christ alone—would have ML-J as an ally.

Load more