A lesson - THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAIL!
by Peter MastersFROM SWORD & TROWEL 2003 No
2
A tendency to veer away from biblical practices began in a small way
at the Tabernacle as early as the ministry of Pastor Thomas Spurgeon, who frequently
engaged in ‘soft and emotional’ preaching, with tear-jerking illustrations. These had
become widely fashionable in his day. His ready acceptance of decision-based missions also
marked a departure from his father’s ways, but by and large doctrinal teaching continued,
coupled with immensely reverent worship, and there was clear biblical order in the
operation of the church.
Archibald Brown rather surprisingly taught the Tabernacle to be even more
accommodating in its style of evangelism, preparing the congregation for the great ‘risk’ of
A C Dixon. This famous American preacher certainly championed the fundamentals of the
faith, but was all for decisionism, sensationalism and novelties as the source of energy in
the church. The sorry episode of his ministry was largely healed by Harry Tydeman
Chilvers, a preacher very close to C H Spurgeon in his views.
The beginning of the great decline truly rests with W Graham Scroggie, a
man of immense stature and charm; an eloquent preacher and a caring pastor. Despite
maintaining noble and reverent worship, he took a different route in both doctrine and
practice, being essentially Arminian, firmly ‘Keswick’ in his holiness teaching, and
vigorously dispensational. It was not surprising that many Tabernacle stalwarts drifted away
to other conservative churches with sounder expository preaching, including, for example, a
young deacon named Henry C Todd, who crossed the river to Westminster Chapel, and later
became church secretary to Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones. (In the 1970s Harry Todd, now with the
Lord, returned to the Tabernacle.)
The war reduced the congregation to a small core, but Dr Scroggie’s ministry
- while he had been very kind to the flock - left the ‘tastes’ of the congregation open to a
Baptist Union pastor who was not at all reformed and who further forged the post-war
progressive direction of the church. After a short intervening pastorate, E W Hayden
became minister, an ardent evangelical, but an enthusiast for decisionism, and for events
such as visiting student witness teams, twanging guitars and imitating the pop style of the
day.
Dennis Pascoe, who succeeded him, was more conservative in viewpoint, a
serious man and a truly caring pastor to the diminishing remnant of people. However, as we
have already noted, he felt sure the Tabernacle was heading for closure, and that care rather
than growth was the order of the day. By the time ill health brought forward his retirement,
the remaining handful of people consisted almost entirely of godly elderly ladies who were
of the old school, having been opposed to the rejoining of the Union in 1955, and being
most unhappy with the swing to Arminian methods. By 1969 closure seemed inevitable.
Our ranks had fallen to the point where we occupied only a few pews, but
then the Lord refreshed us and blessed our testimony giving rise to the full church and
galleries of today, without entertaining novelties.
What may be learned from the near demise of the Tabernacle? How did it
happen that in the twentieth century a strongly conservative, historic congregation
repeatedly called pastors who were straining to bring about a different ethos in the church?
These questions have far-reaching relevance, because they relate to the experience of
numerous, once-sound churches.
Our headline - The Devil is in the Detail! - provides the
answer. Doctrinal statements are not enough - not even long ones. What does a prospective
pastor really believe about methods? Come to that, what do potential elders and
deacons believe about specific contentious methods? Are the vital questions asked? What
do they believe about modern worship songs and music? Are they for or against? What of
cessationism? What of decisionism? (Were such questions asked at Westminster Chapel in
the 1970s prior to the call of a minister who took the Chapel into charismatic practices?)
The devil is undoubtedly in the practical details.
Pastorless independent churches in the UK nowadays often write to the
Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches, or to the regional Grace Churches
association for a list of potential pastors. We have been told by numerous people that most
of the men on these lists cannot answer detailed questions about practice in a way that is
acceptable, measured by the good old standards. This is bound to be the case, because these
constituencies of churches each have a majority of progressively-minded pastors and
leaders, who are all for the new ways. There are many faithful pastors and churches in these
groups whom we respect and frequently admire, but new and decadent ways are also
heavily represented.
The same is said to be true of the majority of men graduating from our UK
reformed Bible colleges. These colleges seem to sit firmly on the fence as far as crucial,
present-day battles are concerned. They give no warnings to the students, and, if anything,
they lean toward and accommodate the new, offensive ways.
The asking of crystal clear questions is absolutely vital today. Very many
people reflect with grief that their churches defected from biblical standards soon after the
calling of a new pastor, and yet they had expected so much from this man, fresh from a
‘reformed’ college. We can only urge church officers to add to their requirement of key
doctrinal assurances, the tabling of clear questions on practice. Disaster may
lie in the absence of detail.
As we have hinted, we should perhaps start with the very next nomination of
elders or deacons. What do these dear brethren really think? How deep are
their roots in the firm soil of biblical understanding?
Strange things are heard on the evangelical scene today. Every few months
that pass we hear of the defection to modern-idiom style worship with charismatic songs
and drums, of one or two more pastors who once claimed solidarity with the reformed
position. What were their real views all along, we wonder? What would they
have replied thirty years ago, had direct and practical questions been put to them?
We hear that the editors of Christian Hymns now plan a
revised edition including Graham Kendrick songs. Is this really a new opinion, or is it
possible that a precise question put years ago would have exposed shaky principles? These
days, precision is imperative for the preservation of true and vital church life. In the absence
of precise questions in the past, the Tabernacle made sad mistakes. It was by the mercy of
God that we did not lose this heritage.
See also complementary article ‘Pastors at the Tabernacle’
|
