THE MAGINOT LINE
For Churches Getting Together
by Peter MastersFROM SWORD & TROWEL 1999 No 4
I WOULD LIKE TO ADD to the feelings expressed by Geoff Thomas about yet
another association for evangelical ministers or churches, by commenting on the serious
weaknesses that existing fellowships have come to exhibit over the last forty or so years. Are we
learning?
Geoff Thomas has identified the only really useful fellowship as that which
advances ‘Puritanism’, namely reformed doctrine coupled with earnest spirituality, faith in God’s
ways and reverent worship.
I would like to highlight a complementary virtue - the guarding of this
position. If the present fellowships promote the standards of Puritanism to any degree, none will
actively defend them, as I shall be forced to show.
Anything that I say about these associations is not intended to reflect on the sizeable
minority of ministers and churches within these groups who still personally hold to the old
evangelical standards. I know many, and sincerely respect their integrity, convictions and labours.
Nevertheless, associations of churches (and most evangelical conferences) have seriously let down
such supporters as far as the defence of the old standards is concerned.
The major problem has been the abandonment of any ‘ministry of warning’, such as
the apostle Paul exercised, this being widely seen as negative and contentious. This abandonment
occurs when the drive to unite churches in close association and cooperation becomes more
important than the spiritual and doctrinal quality of the organisation formed.
To be fair, when organisations such as the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical
Churches and the British Evangelical Council were formed, the religious world was very different.
The key problem was identified as Modernism (theological unbelief) in the main denominations,
and it seemed a good idea to form a common front against it by joining all other evangelicals
together, regardless of whether they were Baptist or paedo-Baptist, reformed or Arminian. The
basis of union included a gentlemanly silence on all non-essentials. In other words, so long as one
held to basic vital doctrines, there would be no criticism between member churches. The policy
was - in any basis for union - stick to the doctrines essential to salvation.
However, this was before the avalanche of errors that swept over evangelicals from
the 1950s, none of which actually denied basic doctrines. All who held these errors were free to
enter the organisations, and gentlemanly silence had to prevail.
If churches with defective views wished to join, or if some already in membership
adopted wrong views, nothing could be done. The highest goal was to hold the group together. A
virtual vow of silence rested on those who wrote in the groups’ magazines or spoke on their
conference platforms. Anything which might divide had to remain unsaid.
What has been the result of the silencing of the ministry of warning over the last
forty years? The answer is that the charismatic movement has been admitted to the camp, along
with the new evangelicalism and new-style worship (developed by charismatics, and abetted by the
‘worldly-Christianity’ outlook of new evangelicals).
Such trends could never be assessed, debated or disapproved of because this would
have threatened the peace of the association or group. ‘Unity’ was maintained at the expense of
what is right.
The old (and well-meant) policy of uniting only on basic doctrines was depended on
for too long, having become the Maginot Line of evangelical unity. Sadly, movements formed to
defend the faith became movements to defend only their unity.
‘Essentially Evangelical’ marks a new ‘low’ in the process of putting unity before
sound practice. Other associations have become a mixture of viewpoints over time by accident or
decay. If the founders had known what the future would bring, they would doubtless have
reviewed the policy of uniting on the bare essentials only. The new organisation, however,
begins with the aim of mingling viewpoints. It intends to recognise as reasonable and
wholesome ideas which should be resisted at all cost.
A little history may be appropriate at this point. The writer was an accredited
minister of the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches in the 1960s. The FIEC remains
firmly evangelical today, and has many admirable ministers and churches within its ranks - but it
has nevertheless changed greatly. As evangelical standards have dropped, the Fellowship has
lacked the machinery to resist the tide. New churches have been admitted without discrimination,
regardless of whether they were charismatic or new evangelical. It was never the business of the
Fellowship to check these things, which were unknown to the founders.
So today the Fellowship has a large share of churches holding these views. The
mixed tastes of the group are to be seen in its large annual event at Caister. Good and bad practices
and messages rub shoulders, so that there is no hope of the older standards of
evangelicalism being defended, let alone Puritanism.
The writer wishes to stress again that some of the finest old-style evangelicals have
membership of the Fellowship, and he does not mean to imply any wrongdoing on their part. But
as a movement, the FIEC sadly can only get worse, because the ministry of warning is not
admissible, and wrong influences cannot be challenged.
If (like the example of the Southern Baptists mentioned by Geoff Thomas) the
infiltrating wrong practices denied fundamental Truth, then there could be a battle, and no doubt
there would be a battle. But while they stop short of doing this they have a perfect
right to permeate the lump.
The British Evangelical Council has precisely the same problem. Noble in purpose,
and unquestionably sound in fundamentals, it also makes fundamentals the sole basis of
membership. Like the FIEC it identifies a minimum set of essential doctrines, setting aside
anything considered ‘secondary’. Any differences on ‘secondary’ issues must be shrouded by
gentlemanly silence.
Forty years ago this may have been a most appropriate stance, but times have
changed. As we have noted we are now in the midst of an avalanche of wrong views and practices,
but all operating (just about) within the bounds of minimal orthodoxy. The formula of the BEC
means that no powerful voice can be raised to minister to these problems.
Not that the BEC is anything like as bad as the Evangelical Alliance, which has
turned its foundation statutes on their head to become totally ecumenical. (Founded to oppose
Rome, it now embraces churches who want union with Rome.)
The BEC, however, is never going to promote either Puritanism or the old
evangelicalism as ideal or exclusive manifestations of biblical Truth.
It cannot take a stand, for example, against new worship. It must reflect and respect
the views of its constituent members - as long as they remain evangelical and against ecumenism.
If the evangelical constituency declines in quality, so must the BEC. The fatal principle - no
division except over fundamentals - cannot sustain an organisation in times like these.
Nearly thirty years ago the BEC admitted a Pentecostal denomination. At the time
many of us who had strongly supported the organisation were amazed, but we should not have
been. The BEC leaders were right, for they acted consistently with their constitution. The
Pentecostal group believed the essentials and rejected ecumenism. They had every right to join,
and so have other charismatics and new evangelicals.
The terms of admission, composed in better times, are no longer enough. This
writer has been surprised at some of the speakers invited to stand on the annual platform of the
BEC, because they sympathised with decadent practices. But all this is inevitable with a wide-open
foundation. I salute many of the members and supporters, but cannot see any possibility of a
significant mark being made if there is no robust defence and promotion of authentic
evangelicalism, and particularly of Puritan standards.
One could say the same about other groupings. They have been overtaken by the
tide of errors and troubles, against which they are either not constituted to defend themselves or do
not wish to.
One specifically Calvinistic grouping (and theoretically the most hopeful for the
promotion of Puritanism) is the Grace constituency of churches, but even these churches have seen
the entry of worldly Christianity, new evangelicalism and new-style worship. Very many ministers
in the group sigh in anguish, but what can be done? They are now probably outnumbered. The
problems have been admitted, and now there is no way of getting them out.
Personally, I relate very closely to these disappointed brethren, indeed more closely
than they are able to relate to many within their own grouping.
Not a few preachers in this group reject a six-day creation (along with most other
denials of new-evangelical theology). They have rock-style bands or groups in their services, and
use charismatic songs.
We are paying the price of putting unity above quality. We are suffering the
consequences of limiting the basis of cooperation to a minimum of doctrines. We are reaping the
whirlwind for sowing a false premise - that we can only associate successfully if the ministry of
warning is silenced.
We entirely respect Geoff Thomas and others who fellowship with whoever they
can at events arranged by some of these evangelical organisations, striving as individuals to
promote the historic standards. If they had not been there, things would probably have grown
worse more quickly.
We also will fellowship as broadly as we can with all who stand in the old paths,
and also do our best to sympathetically persuade those who have missed the path. But we are
profoundly doubtful that the existing evangelical organisations will take any stand against the
advancing corruption of our churches.
One question may be emphasised to make the point. Will any of them be able to
resist the pressure of modern worship? This is becoming the most injurious force against the
Gospel in our time, and probably also the most divisive. Evangelical fellowships cannot speak. For
one thing, their organisations have already been heavily penetrated, and for another, they remain
impaled on an inadequate principle - that they must never disagree on any issue other than a denial
of the fundamentals.
To refer to the ‘Essentially Evangelical’ project, we agree with Geoff Thomas. It
begins with an even more inclusive, tolerant, comprehensive basis of association than most of the
existing groups. What hope is there of quality?
We predict that ministers and churches devoted to the old paths will relate less and
less to these fellowships during the next few years, as they find the compromises increasingly
distasteful. These ‘old paths’ men will also probably be regarded as awkward and unbrotherly.
They will not leave their associations overnight, but will simply become non-participants, as others
have already done.
Will we need another fellowship, this time to be based on a much
fuller statement of faith and practice? Not necessarily. Although human beings seem to possess a
constitutional desire to tie themselves into organisations, perhaps out of insecurity or a desire to
feel more influential, it is not spiritually necessary. We should never forget that the Lord Jesus
Christ instituted only the local church, and no other organisation beside this.
It ought therefore to be possible for churches and ministers to enjoy fellowship and
cooperation with one another as opportunity arises without forming another over-arching body to
organise them. The history of such bodies - even the very best - is dismal. All have eventually
become a hindrance in one way or another.
We have in this land a variety of conferences and periodicals which do not involve
subscribers signing on any dotted line of permanent solidarity. People may attend, or not; read, or
not, according to their assessment of the soundness and profitableness of each. Here is a
marvellously simple form of safety!
Today the devil appears to be content to ruin our cause without actually denying the
faith. Our minimal articles of association have been rendered powerless to protect us.
John Bunyan’s Holy War has come to pass - if we see the town of
Mansoul as equally representing our groupings of churches. When suing for terms of peace,
Diabolus, represented by Mr Loath-to-Stoop, seeks only a degree of influence in the town.
The latter says, ‘Suppose my master should yield to all that your Lordship hath said,
provided that his friends and kindred in Mansoul may have liberty to trade in the town, and to
enjoy their present dwellings; may not that be granted?’ ‘No!’ is the response.
Then he asks for some degree of old friendship to be maintained. ‘By no means,’ is
the reply, ‘forasmuch as any such fellowship, friendship, intimacy or acquaintance, in what way,
sort, or mode soever maintained, will tend to the corrupting of Mansoul, the alienating of their
affections from me, and the endangering of their peace with my Father.’
Minimal statements of faith have left the city gates open to new evangelicalism and
new worship, which are surely diabolonian in origin, however essentially orthodox and sincere
their advocates may be.
See also article "Essentially Evangelical" by Pastor Geoff Thomas, Sword & Trowel 1999 No. 4
|
