Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950 to 2000 [Hardcover]

This book is about key events in the evangelical church in the UK and US in the period 1950-2000.

Murray argues that one of the most important backgrounds to C20th evangelicalism is the ecumenical movement - an ever increasing desire for structural unity of Christians (some sort of universal denomination) whatever their theological commitments. This was particularly evident in the Anglican and Methodist churches.

The origins of this movement, Murray argues, were the same as the origins of theological liberalism itself - the thought and teaching of Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834). Schleiermacher contended that Christianity is a matter of the feelings and is thus independent of creeds and tests. The Bible was simply "the original interpretation of Christian feeling." What is needed for salvation is pious and devout sentiments towards Christ. This opened the way, first in Germany and then throughout the English speaking world, for the idea that belief is no essential part of being a Christian - a massively common thought even today!

Until the 1950s evangelicals were a largely ignored and despised minority in denominational churches, especially Anglicanism. The key to changing this was, in many ways, the Billy Graham crusades of the mid 1950s. These were so visibly successful that all sorts of non-evangelical churches, desperate to stem the tide of emptying pews, joined in. No distinction was then made by the organisers of the crusades as to whether the churches people were being referred back to were evangelical or not.

This width continued to grow over the next years and Murray spends a considerable time talking about the increasing alignment between Billy Graham and Roman Catholics - something curiously paralleled by the Alpha movement today. He highlights the objections about this policy made by Lloyd-Jones and also by Schaeffer, who asked: "What is the use of evangelicalism seeming to get larger and larger if sufficient numbers of those under the name evangelical no longer hold to that which makes evangelicalism evangelical?"

Murray also looks at the shifting views of J I Packer on evangelical cooperation with ecumenical projects - especially with Anglo-Catholics and Roman Catholics. He is concerned to emphasise that the postmodern spirit in which discussions in the Church of England were constructed was always going to be fatal for evangelicals. If they refused to enter into dialogue they were marginalised and excluded - and therefore were in no position to reclaim the denomination. If they did enter into dialogue they were only permitted to do so on the basis that they affirmed all the other participants were Christian and that the evangelical perspective was just one amongst many - which undermined the very objective they were supposed to be achieving.

It was the failure to ask the basic question "what is a Christian?" before entering into discussion and cooperation with different groups that, Murray argues, Martin Lloyd-Jones was speaking against in his now infamous address at the Evangelical Alliance conference of 1966. He says that Lloyd-Jones was not calling on Anglican evangelicals to leave the Church of England but to recognise that their primary loyalty must lie with evangelicalism not the denomination and that there were some partnerships that would inevitably compromise this. Ecumenical people, Lloyd Jones said, put fellowship before doctrine. Evangelicals put doctrine before fellowship.

By contrast, Murray argues, in the 16th century reformation and the 18th century revivals the key leaders always asked the question "what is a Christian?" first and would only work in evangelism with those who gave the same answer that they believed the Scripture taught.

For Murray another key problem has been the determination of evangelicals to be intellectually respectable. This is particular important for those in mainstream denominations (especially Anglicanism) where progress in reaching positions of influence is often directly related to academic qualifications from "secular" universities. Murray is particularly critical of the approach of Mark Noll, Alister McGracth, F F Bruce and R T France which he felt, tended to set the human authorship of scripture over the divine authorship - so that these scholars reach conservative conclusions using "liberal" methods. This too is particularly relevant in our day as this approach is seen in the writings of N T Wright. His rejection of systematic theology as a category in favour of narrative theology only seems strongly related to taking the historical and cultural backgrounds of the human authors of scripture as a more significant interpretive tool than the verbal inspiration of the whole Bible by the Spirit of God.

I was slightly disappointed at the relatively narrow focus of the book as the title had led me to expect something broader that might have included, for example, the divisions that have centred around the charismatic movement both in the creation of house churches and within the larger denominations through things like New Wine. It was slightly frustrating too that the debate within the Church of England about women's ordination is referred to only in the context of the impact it had on relationships with the Roman Catholic church and not in its wider impact.

Overall though this is a fascinating and well researched history of one aspect of this period, although for a balanced view it should probably be read in conjunction with Tim Dudley-Smith's 2 volume biography of John Stott and Alister McGrath's biography of J I Packer.

I was given this book to study about a month ago by my pastor. At first, I really was not sure I'd get into it and very much doubted that I would finish it, especially so soon! But I have enjoyed the journey, though it's been very irritating at points. I feel that I have benefitted from reading it. This book has emphasised things I already knew and I am certainly more convinced of my views now.

What is is about? I have written in the front of my copy: 'A History of messing with Scripture and not taking the Bible seriously'. I think that sums up Murray's theme very appropriately. This is a book which documents, without restraint, how almost every major group involved in the Evangelical scene in Britain, between 1950 - 2000, has failed to give Holy Scripture it's truly authoritative place. Due to this loss of a real sense of the Bible's true authority, the Evangelical community has led itself into terrible consequences. A few pages in, I have written: 'This is a book which documents historical examples, which show that the sins of tolerance and compromise always lead to an overthrow of trusting in the authority of the gospel and Bible.' And that's what I saw time and time again: the same old sin of tolerance at the expense of biblical truth in areas of significant importance. Even for those who know that it's wrong to compromise Scripture and tolerate those who don't honour Scripture, historical illustrations are always very useful at driving the truth into our hearts even more deeply. But that's what happened during 1950-2000: all major sections of the Evangelical community compromised the authority of the Bible. Murray goes on to reveal that this was all in the name of 'unity'! But he goes on to show, both from Scripture and from the consequences revealed in the history, why it is that unity should never take the place of truth. Ultimately, as Spurgeon famously said, you cannot have any real unity unless you are united on what the truth is. Truth must always come first - or else there can be no true unity. In this way, Murray argues the way Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones did many years ago.

As for the details, you will have to read the book, or read a more detailed review on here. But more broadly, Murray focuses on the following. First, where it all began, emphasising Schleiermacher's influence on experience taking the priority over the external, revealed truth of the Scriptures. Second, Murray takes us to Billy Graham's influence. He shows us what happened amongst the leaders of the Church of England, what occurred in the realm of scholarship and finally what happened in relation to the Roman Catholic Church. It was all steadily leading somewhere: to ultimate peace and coalition with the Church of Rome. As you travel through the vast array of examples, you will see just how far too many men have given in to the fear of man, the desire for scholarly recognition and the temptation of pragmatism [doing what 'works']. I personally was left think: 'What on earth has happened to the great Reformation cry "Sola Scriptura" [Scripture Alone]?!'

This book is extremely well researched and Murray clearly has a varied and devoted experience with books. He is an excellent writer, with no shortage of scholarly ability himself. But he makes his scholarship and learning very accessible for us. I appreciate also that his own devotion to Scripture's lofty position is evident as you read. He always proves his own views from the Bible and for him the Bible has the first and the last word on any subject.

Iain Murray has written an important book from the view-point of Evangelicals. It is intended to have the impact upon Evangelicals which will make the reader affirm even more loudly: 'I don't want to tolerate those who claim to be my leaders or fellow believers if they don't believe the Scriptures! I don't want to compromise the ever blessed gospel!' I personally can now see more clearly that if we do anything, in the place of obeying Scripture, then it will not succeed. It may look like it is succeeding, or we may see progress for a time. But ultimately it will fail. Also, a wonderful application from reading this book was that it made me really want to know the Scriptures better! Unless we know Scripture well, how can we defend our faith and actions? The Reformers of old, the Waldensians, Wycliffe, Bunyan and the like, all knew their Bibles like it was second nature. They could spot error and heresy a mile off. We need to get more intimately acquainted with our Bibles. If we boil it down to just one thing, it's really our lack of true love and appreciation for the blessed Holy Scriptures which has led to this. Unless we know the Bible well and love it with all our hearts, we are bound to compromise it.

7/10

I don't live in the UK but have a great interest in the Christian scene in that country. It puzzled me for quite a while why it is that Anglicans today do not speak the same evangelical language as men like J.C. Ryle, whom I admire greatly and with whom I am in agreement over many things. This fine book by Mr. Murray is a wonderful insight into the seismic changes that took place in the Anglican church in the 1960s when her leading evangelicals like John Stott and Jim Packer took the decision to ditch the old evangelicalism of Ryle (which defined Christianity through the gospel) and took up a new position of defining Christianity through the church: baptism was the key issue for them.

This new position enabled evangelicals in the Anglican church to be a recognised group and opened up ecclesiastical offices for them. However, on the other hand it meant that the gospel was completely diluted and basically anyone who was baptised was a Christian. Evangelical Anglicans on the outside looked healthy and strong and growing when actually their roots were diseased and evangelicalism within Anglicanism was dying.

I hope someone (maybe Mr. Murray himself) will write a follow up to this book to trace what has happened in Anglicanism in the last ten years; how things have developed since these changes. It would also be interesting to read of what happened to those men within Anglicanism who did not follow Stott and Packer but remained entrenched in the old evangelicalism.