Physician, Heal Thyself!

Some thoughts prompted by ‘Genius, Grief and Grace,’ by Dr Gaius Davies, (Christian Focus Publications; 2001; £8.99) written by Stephen Clark in the ‘Evangelical Magazine’ of September 2003, and January 2004 and reprinted by permission.

Dr Gaius Davies is a Christian psychiatrist, whose involvement with the Evangelical Movement of Wales goes right back to the very early days. He was involved for some time in the editing of the Evangelical Movement’s Welsh language magazine. The Christian world is heavily indebted to him for his excellent book, ‘Stress: the Challenge to Christian Caring.’ In that book Dr Davies set out (and succeeded!) to ‘demystify’ various aspects of mental health, in order to deliver Christians from sincere but misguided views on the subject. All-in-all a five star item.

‘Genius, Grief and Grace’ is quite a different book. First published in 1992 as Genius and Grace, this 2001 edition contains two new chapters, one on Frances Ridley Havergal, the other on Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones. The book is an exploration of the psychological makeup of eleven well known Christians, including Luther, Bunyan, Cowper, and C.S. Lewis. Dr Davies introduces his book by saying that it is about suffering and success and about how adversity may lead to achievement.

PHYSICIAN, PREACHER AND POLITICIAN

This review will only consider the chapter on Dr Lloyd-Jones. Why? Two reasons. First, since it is, apart from the two new chapters, substantially a reprint, the book has already been extensively reviewed. Secondly, the chapter on Dr Lloyd-Jones, like some other recent publications, treats some very important issues as matters of personality rather than dealing accurately with the issues of principle which were involved. Since these matters are of continuing relevance (if they were not, then why are certain writers and preachers constantly going back to them all the time?); and since a false impression is thereby being conveyed to a new generation of Christians, it is important to put the record straight lest this false account come to be believed simply by being regularly repeated.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with Dr Davies’s attempt to explore the psychological makeup of any Christian, Dr Lloyd-Jones included. Two caveats, however, are in order. First, one trivializes serious theological controversy by explaining it in terms of the psychological makeup of a protagonist. (Did not Vivian Green, the eminent Oxford historian, attribute Luther’s part in the Reformation to the fact that he
suffered from constipation? Others have sought to dismiss Spurgeon’s part in ‘the Downgrade controversy’ in terms of his gout and depression.) Secondly, we all have a psychological makeup, Dr Davies included. Might it be that that fact, coupled with some of his own life events, has influenced what he writes here of Dr Lloyd-Jones? I think it possible. What follows will demonstrate why.

NOTHING IF NOT CONSISTENT

Dr Davies raises a query as to the influence of ill-health upon Dr Lloyd-Jones with respect to decisions about the time of his retirement in 1968 (p.365). He goes on to speak of his ‘scurvy treatment’ (p.366) of Dr Packer in shutting down the Puritan Conference and of his treatment thereafter of Dr Packer which ‘was shabby in the extreme (p.367). Well what were the facts? Dr Packer, as Dr Davies points out, had been heavily involved in the Puritan Conference since its inception. But in 1970 a book entitled ‘Growing into Union’ was published, authored jointly by two evangelicals, Jim Packer and Colin (now Bishop) Buchanan, and two Anglo Catholics, Eric Mascall and Bishop Graham Leonard. The evangelicals were at pains to stress that they were committed to everything that was written in the book. But there were many Anglo Catholic sentiments expressed in it which were quite at variance with evangelical doctrine. Nothing could be more incongruous than publicly committing oneself on the printed page with Anglo Catholics to sentiments inimical to evangelicalism and then seeking to promote, at conference level, Reformation and Puritan theology and principles, which, on any reckoning, were inimical to Catholicism of all sorts.

Contrary to what Dr Davies suggests or implies, disagreement with Dr Packer’s position was not the result of Dr Lloyd-Jones’s ill health nor was it to be accounted for in terms of an anti-Anglican, secessionist streak in him that simply could not understand the Anglican mentality. The following facts give the lie to this. First, the Evangelical Magazine, (not this magazine, but a ‘sister publication’ in England) with which Packer had been involved, carried a critical review of ‘Growing into Union’ in November 1970. The review was by an Anglican, David Samuel. The reviewer heard Philip Jensen, from the Anglican diocese of Sydney, speak at an EMA meeting in the 1990s. (The EMA is organized by the Proclamation Trust, hardly an anti-Anglican secessionist body.) Jensen referred to Anglo Catholicism as ‘paganism’ and asked what was wrong with so many evangelicals in the Church of England that they could not see this. Secondly, although Lloyd-Jones did not agree with Packer’s approach to church matters, Packer continued to be involved in the Puritan Conference after the celebrated clash between Stott and Lloyd-Jones in 1966 (not 67, as Dr Davies says) and after the Keele Conference of 1967. Thirdly, for years Lloyd-Jones had been contending for the position that adherence to evangelicalism necessitated a policy of non-involvement with religious activities which were at variance with the evangelical faith. In 1952 his ‘Maintaining the Evangelical Faith Today’ argued this with respect to the IVF. The booklet was a model of sensitivity and of how to speak the truth in love. In 1966 Lloyd-Jones was applying the principles laid down in that booklet and published by IVP to the church scene. He was nothing if not consistent. His position was essentially that of Spurgeon. In 1968 Klaas Runia, a Dutch Presbyterian in Australia, wrote ‘Reformation Today.’ Lloyd-Jones wrote the foreword to this scrupulously fair book, which argued the same case as Lloyd-Jones.

A STEP TOO FAR

The point is surely this: Dr Packer had committed himself in writing to a position which endorsed, at points, Anglo Catholic theology. He was, of course, quite free to do so. But then, as Spurgeon pointed out during ‘the Downgrade’, others must also be allowed liberty. ‘Growing Into Union’ contained statements which left Lloyd-Jones and others feeling that there would be confusion, not to say compromise, if they were to be publicly identified with Dr Packer. The idea that Packer was treated in a ‘scurvy’ and ‘shabby’ way by a bunch of bigots who could not withstand Lloyd-Jones’s tyranny is a terrible misrepresentation of the facts. I recall going in the mid 70s, together with others, to take Dr Packer for a meal before a CU meeting at which he was to preach. He preached a memorable sermon from James 2. The next day I enthused about it to the late S.M. Houghton. (He edited many of Lloyd-Jones’s volumes on Romans. While having great respect for Lloyd-Jones, he certainly was a man who did his own thinking and did not agree with ‘the Doctor’ on a number of points.) I remember him expressing the sadness which he felt at the fact that he and others could no more be identified with Dr Packer in certain Bible Witness Rallies in which they had both been involved. He spoke very warmly of Dr Packer but felt, with great sadness, that ‘Growing into Union’ was a step too far.

Perhaps the following analogy may make clear the point which so many seem to have missed. There are certain people who claim to believe everything which evangelicals have historically believed, except one thing: they think that the church has misinterpreted the biblical teaching on homosexuality. Now let us suppose that an evangelical who has been unequivocal on the Bible’s teaching on this matter and who has been a regular speaker at, let us say, the Proclamation Trust’s EMA gets to know some of these people and learns to respect various things about them. With another evangelical he then co-authors a book with two of them, in which there are statements to the effect that a committed homosexual relationship is a valid option for a Bible believing Christian. Would it be ‘scurvy’ or ‘shabby’ to inform him that he could no longer speak
at EMA? Were it to be a conference in which he had been heavily involved in the planning, would it be scurvy if the conference were then to be closed down by the others involved in the planning? Neither his previous stance nor his subsequent writings and sermons could negate what he would have co-authored. For that to happen, he would have to repudiate it publicly.

FAITHFUL TO SCRIPTURE

It may be objected that my analogy is unfair and a bit ‘over the top’. But such an objection would be tantamount to saying that departures from biblical behaviour are important but departures from biblical belief on issues as fundamental as authority and justification by faith are not as important. But that was precisely Lloyd-Jones’s concern and it was a theological and pastoral concern. Dr Davies seems unable to grasp this point. Of course, Lloyd-Jones may have had camp followers who were harsh and unloving. But there were many others, such as Runia, who had done their own thinking and reached a similar position. And there were – and are – certainly those who were deeply and genuinely pained but who felt, not out of loyalty to Lloyd-Jones but out of faithfulness to Scripture, that the stand that Lloyd-Jones took was right. One should not impute motives; but since Dr Davies evidently thinks that Lloyd-Jones’s psychology lies at the root of this issue, we might be forgiven for posing the question as to whether Dr Davies’s long standing acquaintance with Dr Packer may be influencing his judgment here and might there be need to take into account his psychological makeup? ‘Physician, heal thyself’!

A MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION?

Dr Gaius Davies also suggests that Dr Lloyd-Jones was obsessional in some areas of life and that he was obsessional in his emphasis on revival. It is a charge that is sometimes made against some who are identified with The Evangelical Movement of Wales, especially those who were heavily influenced by ‘the Doctor’. The impression is thereby given that an emphasis on revival is a peculiarly Welsh phenomenon. I intend to use Dr Davies’s thesis as a peg upon which to hang a discussion concerning the emphasis which should be put upon the whole subject of revival.

A consideration of the titles of Lloyd-Jones’s books would certainly not indicate that he was obsessional with respect to this subject. Indeed the striking thing about his books is the sheer range of material that he covered. His addresses to the Christian Medical Fellowship indicate that he clearly kept up his medical interests and reading and was concerned to relate biblical teaching to ethical and professional matters. Likewise his historical lectures cover a vast range of ground. Most of his books, of course, consist of sermons. These range from evangelistic sermons to in-depth expositions of various parts of Scripture. Of all this material only one book is specifically on revival. If this be obsessional, then it is the queerest kind of obsession I have ever encountered.

The point may be made, of course, that revival is frequently alluded to in these sermons, as well as in the historical lectures and in the addresses given to the British Evangelical Council. Furthermore, it is no secret that this was something to which the Doctor returned each year at the Ministers’ Conference of The Evangelical Movement of Wales. Presumably, this is the basis of the ‘diagnosis’ of obsessionalism. Is the case proven? Certainly not, and I shall try to demonstrate why.

To begin with, Lloyd-Jones belonged to a theological tradition that was to be found in England, Scotland, Ireland, and America. George Smeaton was a godly Scottish Presbyterian of the nineteenth century who wrote an excellent book on the work of the Holy Spirit (Banner of Truth). He urges in this book the need for the church to pray for copious showers of the Holy Spirit so that the gospel might spread. He was typical of that generation of Scottish evangelical leaders who had been influenced by the godly Thomas Chalmers. A reading of Ryle’s ‘Evangelical Leaders of the Eighteenth Century’ (Banner of Truth) soon demonstrates that eighteenth-century evangelical leaders in the Church of England had very similar emphases to Lloyd-Jones with respect to experimental religion and revival, while a study of Spurgeon’s works will show that the nineteenth-century Baptist also suffered from this obsession! The same could be said for the Americans Jonathan Edwards, Archibald Alexander, and William Sprague. Elsewhere in this magazine reference is made to Korean brethren who met at 4.30 a.m. to petition God for revival. So much for it being a Celtic phenomenon!

A MISSING EMPHASIS.

What happened was surely this. Much of Dr Lloyd-Jones’s ministry was conducted at a time when in mainline evangelicalism in the UK this emphasis on revival was missing. A number of factors accounted for this, factors which we need not go into at this time. The effect of this, however, was to make Lloyd-Jones and anyone who agreed with him appear to be the odd ones out; whereas, of course, from the standpoint of historic evangelicalism, it was the evangelical ‘mainstream’ that was the oddity and that had lost touch with its evangelical heritage. Hence, given the under-emphasis on revival and certain aspects of the ministry of the Holy Spirit, it was essential for Lloyd-Jones to redress this balance. Of course, he was not alone. There were others who said the same thing, but they were very much in a minority.

When the charge is made that some in The Evangelical Movement of Wales have an unhealthy emphasis on revival, what is meant, I believe, is that it is a ‘quietist’ approach, an approach that emphasises revival instead of evangelism. We are to ‘wait’ for revival; should it come, all our problems may be solved. No doubt there are people in the world who believe such things but I have not met many of them. But I have noticed a very curious phenomenon, and it is this: some of the largest evangelical churches in Wales, churches which have been very evangelistic and been blessed over the years with a not inconsiderable number of conversions are the very churches which have maintained an emphasis on revival. Some of these churches have been hives of evangelistic activity but have still felt that there is tremendous need of heaven-sent revival. I once heard the pastor of one of these churches say, ‘Get involved in evangelism and it will drive you to cry to God for revival.’

SELF OBSESSION

Our problem is surely the exact opposite: I mean that there is so little genuine burden for revival. By ‘burden for revival’ I do not mean a nostalgia for the past, nor am I referring to those who love to talk of ‘the good old days’ but who do little to see the gospel spread today. I am referring to ministers being as concerned to meet together to petition God for His blessing as we are to meet together in day conferences. I am referring to a longing that means that when we meet on the Lord’s Day we have spent time beforehand pleading with God that today – yes, today – the Word of God will humble everyone, leading to brokenness of heart, true repentance and faith in Christ. I am thinking of Christians who cannot meet to praise God unless they have first been reconciled to brothers or sisters from whom they are estranged; who spend more time in prayer than in front of the TV; who are more captivated by the Word of God than by the words of men. Is this the norm in our land? Surely not! Then away with the old canard that we are obsessed with revival! Sadly, we are far too often obsessed with ourselves and our pleasures.

Was Lloyd-Jones obsessional with respect to revival? Well, not in the sense that Dr Davies means it: that is, that there was an imbalance in him. I do not think that Edwards, Sprague, Spurgeon, etc. would say so. But yes, if we mean that he was filled with a longing for God’s glory and for spiritual blessing in the lives of many. And ought not that to be true of us all? ‘He being dead yet speaks.’

STEPHEN CLARK

Pastor of Free School Court Evangelical Church, Bridgend, South Wales.