Engaging with Martyn Lloyd-Jones – A Review by Graham Harrison

Engaging with Martyn Lloyd-Jones: the life and legacy of ‘the Doctor’
Edited by Andrew Atherstone and David Ceri Jones
Nottingham: IVP/Apollos, 2011
376 pages, paperback, £16.99
ISBN: 978 1 84474 553 1

The book has emerged from a conference held at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, in December 2010 on ‘Martyn Lloyd-Jones: life and legacy’.

Some papers from the conference were omitted, many recast, but the overall aim remains to provide an assessment of this towering figure of 20th century theology. To the reviewer’s mind the question remains as to whether academia can produce a fair account of a man who had such a sceptical view of its theological and spiritual credentials. It is significant that none of the main papers were given to or delivered by men with predominantly pastoral experience. One wonders whether this was intended as something of a pre-emptive strike against Lloyd-Jones’ well-known attitude towards ‘experts’. The overall impression that the book gives of him is that ‘He was a great man, but . . . very much a flawed genius who went increasingly haywire towards the end’. It comes close to being an attempt in effect to damn him by faint praise while making the point that on all basic issues Lloyd-Jones was wrong.

There is a somewhat surprising exception to this in Atherstone’s paper which does give a much more balanced and non-judgmental account of pre-and post-1966 – not least in its treatment of Anglicanism.

The obvious advocates of Lloyd-Jones’ position were either given inconsequential papers (that is, compared with most others in the book) or else had their contributions omitted. Thus although Philip Eveson, Ben Bailey and Robert Strivens deal with important issues, they are not, in my opinion, really central. The contributions given at the conference of Eryl Davies and E. Wyn James are not included. That is also true of the paper given at the conference by Densil Morgan on ‘Martyn Lloyd-Jones and Calvinism’, but in the latter case the omission has not detracted from the volume.

What is lacking is firstly a full-blooded advocacy of Lloyd-Jones’ position; secondly, a realistic attempt to set him in the context of 20th-century evangelicalism; and thirdly, in the light of these some assessment of whether his views have been vindicated.

Thus, for example, were his views on the English temperament, the Church of England, and the fairly rigid social structure of evangelicalism, determined by a nationalistic bias that prevented him from judging things objectively, or was there at least a modicum of truth in them? That he was opinionated and dogmatic is undeniable. But these features were usually the outcome of acute observation, carefully considered thought, coupled with fearless statement of his convictions. To say this is not to assume his infallibility, nor in a servile way to go along with every opinion he advocated. But it is still possible to believe that he was right on most matters and that the subsequent history of evangelicalism has justified his views.

Although mention is made of the details of his moves from Cardiff to Llangeitho, to London, to Port Talbot and back to London, little attempt is made in the volume to trace the trajectory of his life and thought. It could and should have been noted that his varying backgrounds brought him into contact with a surprising variety of people and cultures, both intellectually and socially. Similarly, his intellectual brilliance and political awareness ensured that his views could be articulated rationally and forcefully.

In the same way the great decisions of his ‘career’ were not arrived at superficially or with little thought. Whether it was to leave medicine with its glittering prospects and go to industrial and poverty-stricken South Wales, or later to move back to the Metropolis and eventually to the pulpit at Westminster – these were moves determined by conscientious conviction. It is difficult to think of any individual in the national and religious life of the 20th century in whom they are replicated. His was a truly unique experience that brought him into contact with the highest and the lowest in society and that enabled him to practice his Christian convictions at all levels.

One other thing is lacking overtly from the book. It is the dimension of the effect he provoked on the part of those to whom his presence and the powerful expression of his views constituted something of an alien intrusion. That he was not English was a fact that soon became apparent. Nor did he come from Scotland which in a peculiar way (despite Gordon Brown) is still somewhat fashionable in London! He could not abide snobbery in any shape or form – whether or not it was expressed religiously, politically or merely socially. Many will have said – although Lloyd-Jones would no doubt have disagreed most strongly with them – that he was a self-made man who came from a remarkable family. Undoubtedly he possessed a boldness in advocating his opinions and something of a temperamental inability to be intimidated by persons or views contrary to his own. There can be little doubt that he was viewed as something of an irritant to the settled equanimity of the circles into which his gifts thrust him. It could not be gainsaid that he was intellectually brilliant, well able to hold his own in any company; he was a Christian of Calvinistic convictions and a preacher of remarkable power. But he was Welsh and unafraid to say so; he was not an Anglican but a dissenter and a nonconformist; furthermore, swimming against the tide was something that rarely seemed to bother him – particularly as usually and eventually he seemed to do it so well. Some find this hard to take – and, dare we say it, still do! Signs are not wanting in this volume that this attitude is still there, lurking, as it were, under the surface. Perhaps an open, full-blooded expression of such criticism would have been useful, if only to clear the air!

One other omission needs to be noted. There is nothing directly on Lloyd-Jones’ ecclesiological views. Apart, that is, from passing reference to Carl Trueman’s somewhat dismissive opinion that unlike Packer and Trueman, Lloyd-Jones had no ecclesiology. Such an attitude totally fails to account for his move from the Presbyterianism in which he had been brought up to the Independency which he clearly, although not unequivocally advocated in his latter years. Did John Owen and Thomas Goodwin have no ecclesiology? Theirs was neither Prelacy nor Presbyterianism, but it was distinctively and clearly held on allegedly biblical grounds.

It is now 31 years since Martyn Lloyd-Jones died. As Dr J. I. Packer says in his introduction to the volume, ‘Thirty to fifty years usually proves to be the first really adequate viewing distance for looking at persons and events of the recent past . . .’ The cause for which he stood and in favour of which he so tirelessly argued – the supremacy and uniqueness of the gospel coupled with the fact that in no way must it be compromised – seems largely to be downplayed today. His distinctive – some might say, his exclusive and excluding – position tends to be dismissed as the misguided bigotry of an undoubtedly great man who, tragically, had feet of clay.

Perhaps a personal observation might be included at this point from one whose ecclesiological and denominational views have admittedly been largely influenced by those of Lloyd-Jones. Having emerged from a typical ‘mixed’ denominational background in the mid-50s and eventually sensing a ‘call’ of God to the Christian ministry my views were deeply influenced by involvement in the Inter-Varsity Fellowship (IVF as it then was). It stood for a clearly defined position on biblical basics and was conscious that it stood for something more important than historical tradition, the Christian gospel. It was understood that while bigotry and pride were to be avoided criticism, even ridicule, were to be expected. This was thinking that at one time, if no longer, had animated the various Protestant churches. That might no longer be the case in most of those same churches which were under the de facto control of those who at best might throw an occasional sop in our direction while continuing their rigid domination of the ecclesiastical structures. To many of us it became clear that we were engaged in a battle that would involve us in standing for the truth, and in seeking to persuade by biblical arguments those who were the denominational ‘powers that be’. Being realistic, we understood that our convictions eventually would lead either to victory for us or else to defeat that would result in exclusion or secession from the denomination. We had no doubt that from the point of view of the creed and confessions of faith our case historically was unanswerable. But equally we were under no misapprehension as to the enormity of our task. For many of us, participation in the life and activities of the CU’s and the IVF simply confirmed us in our convictions and indicated the likely reception the advocacy of our views would receive. As some of us moved on into theological training it became increasingly evident that the positions of influence were held by men many of whose fundamental convictions were opposed to the biblical gospel. We became used to being pilloried as intellectual morons who were living in a bygone age and fighting battles of long ago. We needed, so we were told in effect, to ‘get real’. But in contrast to all that, our souls were fed by attendance at IVF conferences where men who were so clearly gripped by biblical Christianity taught us clearly what we rarely heard elsewhere. It was not that a secessionist mindset was being formed. Rather that our convictions about the gospel were confirmed and, in many cases, our hearts were ‘strangely warmed’ in the process.

I well remember the acute distress I felt, driving home from a theological conference in Tyndale House, Cambridge, where for the first time I was brought to realise that in many of these evangelical men there was a total disconnection intellectually between biblical conviction on the one hand and the implementation of that conviction ecclesiologically on the other. You may put it down to theological naivety on my part, but it has left an indelible impression not only of sadness but amazement. Men who seemingly were prepared to be criticised, even vilified, for their distinctive evangelical views were apparently unwilling to make those same views the basis of denominational division.

At which point let me return to a consideration of the contents of this important book. Appropriately it begins with an introductory chapter by the joint editors on ‘Lloyd-Jones and his biographers’. This touches on the growing number of men who have ventured into this realm. Beginning with Iain Murray’s two-volume effort (subsequently labelled ‘hagiography’), it passes on to the more critical appreciations first by the Doctor’s grandson, Christopher Catherwood, then via Alister McGrath (albeit obliquely through his biographical work on J. I. Packer) to the more hostile treatments in Gaius Davies, John Brencher, Donald Macleod and Carl Trueman, together with occasional comments on these from Densil Morgan, Stephen Clark and Geoffrey Thomas. Overall the chapter is a fair statement of the essence of the sometimes divergent views expressed by these individuals as it endeavours to set the scene for the remainder of the book.

As Atherstone and Ceri Jones point out in the final paragraph, ‘The team of historians brought together in this book represents a generational shift in Lloyd-Jones studies’ (p.37). As they go on to tell us, ‘half the contributors were still young children when he died . . .’ Perhaps herein lies both the strengths and weaknesses of the volume. But Lloyd-Jones was notoriously critical of ‘experts’, be they of the historical variety or any other. But surely it would have helped to have had the benefit of someone possibly with more direct acquaintance with the Doctor, and clearly in sympathy with his views, to have counterbalanced the opinions of these esteemed historians who back up their views with innumerable footnotes – as is their wont!

It is tempting to comment on the views expressed by these various biographers, but, all in all, sufficient subsidiary rejoinders made by a variety of critics are noted to render such an exercise unnecessary.

That brings us to the chapter entitled ‘Lloyd-Jones and Wales’, written by Dr David Ceri Jones, one of the book’s editors and, we suspect, probably its instigator. It is an important chapter and in some respects perceptive. Interestingly enough, it is written by a man ecclesiastically on the move. His parents were at one time members of Lloyd-Jones’ old Church, Sandfields. He himself has moved via Alfred Place Baptist (Aberystwyth) and the Church of Wales, St Michael’s, (Aberystwyth), to Borth – again Church of Wales – where he is a non-stipendiary curate. That means that although his grasp of Welsh equips him to understand the background of the chapter, it cannot be denied that his personal ecclesiastical trajectory could hardly be described as being in sympathy with that of Lloyd-Jones.

Wales, as Ceri Jones rightly points out, remained of vital importance to Lloyd-Jones to the end of his life. If anything, he under-estimates the degree of influence executed by the Doctor even over secular opinion in the country. Some have suggested that it was two men – Nye Bevan and Martyn Lloyd-Jones – who probably kept Wales from turning Communist between the wars! Interestingly enough I remember speaking to a Trade Union Convener informing him of the forthcoming visit of Lloyd-Jones to the Church of which I was Minister, to be greeted in response by ‘He’s the best since Nye Bevan’. The Convener came to the meeting and brought with him six Shop Stewards – which was just as well as their Union was the ETU (the Electrical Trades Union) and all the lights fused at 7:15 pm. Needless to say they had them on in a flash, so to speak!

Yes, there was a degree of romanticism attaching to the brilliant young Harley Street physician abandoning his glittering career to come to industrial and depressed South Wales. But the undoubted power of God on his nationwide ministry was what counted. Incidentally the experience left him with a deep-seated conviction that social reform was of necessity a by-product of the blessing of God on the gospel – not a precursor to it. This was a conviction that he had adhered to strongly throughout his life. Unlike some of the dilettante evangelicals who engaged in theoretical and unhistorical fantasies from the lives of Wilberforce and the Clapham sect, he knew by experience that only the gospel can change men and society.

Also, I well remember him telling me that for his first vacation at Sandfields he took with him the two volumes of Y Tadau Methodistaidd) and that they had a profound influence on him.

In the concluding section of the chapter, ‘Lloyd-Jones’ Welsh legacy’, Ceri Jones raises by innuendo rather than proof the old canard of young ministers imitating Lloyd-Jones’ homiletic style. He also blithely quotes Brencher to the effect that Westminster Chapel had become Lloyd-Jones’ ‘personal fiefdom’ (p.87) and that this was to become the pattern of church leadership followed by ‘many evangelical ministers in Wales’. He also argues that second-degree separation has also become common, encouraging a contentious spirit with multiple successive splits repeatedly taking place. In supposed contrast to the now ‘inward looking’ and blinkered Evangelical Movement of Wales (p.87), the picture is given of a resurgent Church in Wales, influenced by John Stott, and also a revitalised Evangelical Alliance Wales. In other words, Lloyd-Jones’ current impact on what might be regarded as his home constituency is rated as virtually nil. What is one to make of that? In a real sense, sad as it might seem, the description is true. Only a constantly diminishing number of (now) older ministers remember him and still fewer seem convincingly committed to the principles that were dear to him. But one must not rush to falsely drawn statistical conclusions about this. Rather, it is further evidence of the dire state of the land spiritually. As recently as a quarter of a century ago the present writer would have rated Wales as being ahead of England both in statistical attendance at public worship and with regard to what loosely might be described as the religious ethos of the nation. That is no longer the case. Apart from a few very rare instances, well-attended churches and chapels are the exception in the country. No longer can the once traditional picture of Wales that was sombre, largely chapel-going, sober and Sabbath-keeping be held to be even remotely recognisable as a description of contemporary society. Rather it is secular, anti-religious, contemptuous of its spiritual past and, if the truth be told, even antagonistic toward any semblance of heartfelt and life-changing religion. The worm has certainly turned – and with a vengeance. The glory days of our history which issued from and were preceded by what even secular historians used to recognise as religious revivals are long since passed and gone. This was evident in a recent fascinating four-part series on ‘The Story of Wales’ hosted by the well-known BBC newsreader, Huw Edwards. When it came to a survey of the 18th-century they managed to take a hop, skip and a jump over the Methodist Revival as though it had been non-existent. How what purported to be a responsible programme could have managed to ignore the transformation that turned the country from being a backward rural one into one of the most literate nations in the world, amongst other things, can only be understood in terms of the complete reversal of the caricature of Welsh life and culture that seems to go unchallenged in allegedly intellectual circles today.

The next chapter in the book is by Ian Randall of Spurgeon’s College, London, and the International Baptist Theological Seminary, Prague, and is entitled ‘Lloyd-Jones and Revival’. Incidentally it is worth noting that neither the subject nor the speaker was present at the original Oxford Conference – in which case it is a deficit in the latter that has been well remedied. Not only was the subject one which was close to Lloyd-Jones’ heart, it would be even more accurate to say that it was one that gripped him and gave impetus and meaning to the whole of his ministry. I remember him telling me on one occasion that he believed that one reason why God had raised him from his sick bed following his illness and subsequent resignation in 1968 from his ministry at Westminster Chapel was to enable him to go around the country preaching the need for revival. The present sad condition of Wales, not to mention that of Britain at large, would simply confirm him in his view. At one of the Bala Ministers’ Conferences in the 1970s someone raised the question as to why, if revival was so necessary, the alleged one of 1904-5 had not been more lasting in its results. It really was part of a suggestion that the ’04 was not all that some cracked it up to be. In other words, Was it really a revival at all? Lloyd-Jones’ response was simple and emphatic. Bad as things were (this was about 40 years ago) they would have been a thousand times worse had it not been for what God did in the land in those years. Many of the members of the Westminster Fellowship may remember him saying that on only two occasions had he experienced revival in his ministry. On both occasions he woke up and realised that he had been dreaming! This is interesting in view of the fact that there must have been thousands whose conversion could be traced to his ministries at Sandfields, Westminster and nationwide. But in his opinion he had never experienced revival.

But there can be no doubt about the depth of his conviction, indeed the passion, with which he preached the urgent necessity of revival as the only answer to the plight of the nation. This attitude is well captured by Randall in this chapter. He clearly demonstrates that this was a conviction with Lloyd-Jones throughout his ministry and it explains why, above everything else, he was ‘an 18th-century man’. No doubt some would rank this conviction as an obsession, even one that bordered on escapism; but for him it was the increasingly urgent need and the only thing that could turn the situation around. That he could hold such a position without descending into pessimism and discouragement was because of his strong biblical persuasion of the over-arching sovereignty of God.

Ever one to seize on anniversaries and turn them into occasions for contemporary profit, in 1959 he preached a series of sermons in commemoration of the 1859 Revival and in many ways, these sermons, together with his several addresses on characters involved in revivals, provide Randall with the basis for what undoubtedly is a chapter that fairly and accurately sets forth Lloyd-Jones’ views on the subject. It is interesting in view of the fact that some have sought to rule out the possibility of there being a revival before the Day of Pentecost, that all but two of the texts that Lloyd-Jones preached on in that memorable series were from the Old Testament. Given his admiration for Jonathan Edwards who, commenting on Genesis 4:26, ‘…then began men to call upon the name of the Lord’, said that, ‘…the way in which the greatest things have been done towards carrying on this work, always has been by remarkable pourings out of the Spirit at special seasons of mercy…’, this was hardly surprising. Lloyd-Jones was profoundly convinced not only of the need for revival but of the possibility of God sending one. If and when he did so, it would result in the phenomenal turn round both in the religious experience of those who were already Christians and in the turning to him of the most unlikely and hardened cases. That Lloyd-Jones saw something of this in Sandfields in the 1930s confirmed him in such a conviction.

Emphatically this was not a type of romantic escapism. His reading of, and explanation for, Christian history all pointed him to this conclusion. Of course, he realised that there could be what some might call ‘non-theological factors’ at work here. One instance of this would be the contemporary dismissal of the emphasis on revival on the basis that it is ‘Welsh’ – something of a national hangover that prevents its adherents from getting up and doing anything practical in church terms about the present situation. To some extent this may account for the steady downplaying of this note in many assessments of the Doctor, despite the fact that the 18th century work was manifestly wider than Wales. The fact that he had the temerity, not to say the audacity, to suggest that possibly there was something in the typical make up of the average down-to-earth and pragmatic Englishman that predisposed him in this direction caused (and still causes) some hackles to rise! But before such an opinion is dismissed as the predictable ravings of a nationalistic inhabitant of the land west of Offa’s Dyke it may be worthwhile remembering that this admittedly fervent Welshman spent the vast majority of his life living and working amongst Englishmen and that he was well capable of making adverse comments regarding his own kith and kin! Indeed from some of the latter he received severe criticism!

Of course, a basic part of his doctrine of revival related it to the baptism of the Spirit. This is something that Randall both acknowledges and also recognises as the potential grounds for the rejection of his position at least for some (p.113). Certainly more work needs to be done on the fact that many of those whose testimonies Lloyd-Jones happily used in support of his connecting revival with his understanding of the baptism of the Spirit would have disagreed with him at least in terminology.

This fact possibly provides a suitable point at which to move on to the next chapter ‘Lloyd-Jones and the Charismatic Controversy’. Originally given in the conference by William Kay under the title ‘Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ influence on Pentecostalism and neo-Pentecostalism’, there is no doubt that this revised and much altered paper, now rewritten under the names of three co-authors, Atherstone, Ceri Jones and Kay, is much improved in the process.

What it does is to outline the connections that Lloyd-Jones had, particularly from the 1960s onwards, with the growing number of men, some of them (mostly young) Anglicans who to a greater or lesser extent were to become connected with the emerging charismatic movement. This is quite a crucial area and has been variously seized upon by critics and supporters alike as stripping away the outer shell and showing what the real man was like. The former would view this as proof of Lloyd-Jones’ inherent Pentecostal tendencies, whereas the latter probably regard it as evidence of his willingness to rise above social and denominational barriers. By way of preliminary comment it is probably worthwhile noting that from the earliest days of his ministry in Aberavon, and even before that, he was well aware of men who had been deeply affected by the 1904 Revival. For example, Evan Roberts himself was known to Mrs Lloyd-Jones from her childhood on – in fact he attended their wedding in 1927. Furthermore, there were many ministers who had been touched by the Revival who came to him for help over 20 years after the Revival had ceased. Moreover, he was well acquainted with many of the adherents of the Gospel Halls that proliferated in the years following the Revival and who recognised in him and in the message he preached a kindred spirit, even if he did not dot all their i’s and cross all their t’s.

These mainly young Anglican curates who came to him for an assessment of what was happening to them were at an extreme end of the academic and social spectrum. Most of them were ex-public schoolboys educated at Oxford or Cambridge, ‘Bash-campers’ into the bargain. But they came to him probably for one main reason as far as they were concerned. The Doctor probably saw this as evidence of a long-held and deeply rooted conviction – he was looking for signs anywhere that would constitute evidence of the moving of the Spirit, be it in Cwmtwrch or in the more upper-class Home Counties.

Men such as David Watson, J. T. C. B. Collins, Michael Harper and David MacInnes were among those who came to see him. In his opinion, at least according to their recollections, the experiences they had had tallied with his own experience of ‘the glory’. This he had known first in a Bristol nursing home and then in rural North Wales back in 1949. He believed them to have been baptised with the Holy Spirit. But if this was felt to presage a coming together of two hitherto divergent streams of evangelicalism it was not to be. Generally speaking, the young clergymen involved moved in a more overtly charismatic direction, and in the case of Harper eventually to be received into the Greek Orthodox Church. Clearly this group was different in important respects from the older and more classic Pentecostals who had appreciated his ministry from his Sandfields days onwards. In later years, typical of these was W. T. H. (Billy) Richards of Slough. He was a member of the Westminster Fellowship and Lloyd-Jones preached for him on several occasions and actually delivered a tribute at his funeral in 1974.

Connections such as these together with the eventual publication of Lloyd-Jones’ sermons on Ephesians 1, Romans 8 and particularly two volumes, Joy Unspeakable and Prove All Things were the final proof, if any were really needed, as far as some critics were concerned that all the while he had been a closet Pentecostal. All this is duly documented in this chapter as are the criticisms that were made, sometimes very trenchantly, of the Doctor. The suggestion made by some was that these traits were marks of doctrinal declension, even of theological senility – although I doubt whether the latter suggestion was ever made to his face. It would have been easily refuted in that the Ephesian 1 sermons on the Sealing of the Spirit were preached in the winter of 1954-5, so that if he was showing signs of senility at least they were consistently betrayed from that time onwards.

In reality what was being brought to the surface in this dispute was something that went back to his fascination with the 18th century revival and its leaders. Whether or not they recognise the description, the Doctor affirmed that they had all been baptised with the Holy Spirit. This he affirmed to have been true of the Welsh Methodist Fathers, Whitefield and the Wesleys, together with a multitude of lesser-known men. Nothing else could account for the phenomenal effects on both sides of the Atlantic that were experienced in the Great Awakening or the Methodist Revival. This, as far as he was concerned, was part of the heritage of Calvinistic Methodism – the denomination in which he had been brought up, although by that time it had sadly strayed far from its moorings.

From Sydney (Australia), to Scotland, to sedate Sussex, evangelical critics were not slow to raise their objections. Amongst these were Erroll Hulse, who gathered a considerable number of Baptists of one sort behind him, and, possibly more cruelly, by Dr Masters of Spurgeon’s Tabernacle, who apparently refused to sell any of the Doctor’s books in consequence.

When, as the chapter goes on to state, the pastorate at Westminster Chapel was filled by Dr R. T. Kendall who seems to have become increasingly bizarre in his methods and techniques, and who subsequently claimed that all this was agreed, at least in principle with Lloyd-Jones, inasmuch as allegedly during the Doctor’s later years Kendall’s sermons – according to Kendall – were vetted by Lloyd-Jones, the proof was conclusive of Lloyd-Jones’ theological dubiety if not his heresy. The matter was not helped by the way in which Lloyd-Jones’ sermons on John 1:16-34 were issued. They came out in two volumes, months apart. Christopher Catherwood, their editor, subsequently claimed that this was because of the economic constraints imposed by the publishers. If so, from the point of view of Lloyd-Jones’ theological reputation it was a tragic blunder, even if the decision was at the insistence of a charismatic publishing house. Lloyd-Jones was nothing if not methodical in his preaching, and so to extract after the first 8 sermons of Joy Unspeakable the very sermons that put forth all the checks and balances that he had deliberately preached, and then delay their publication until the next year was not only asking for trouble, it was playing into the hands of those who were waiting to pounce. One can only assume that had Lloyd-Jones still been alive at the time of publication it would never have happened. Shortly afterwards I was preaching in Southeast Asia and came across some Christian bookshops that would sell Joy Unspeakable but that would not touch Prove All Things with the proverbial barge-pole and vice versa. The one lot were Charismatic, the other Reformed. Thankfully the two volumes are now printed together and in the right order and in a single volume so that people can make a balanced judgement on the whole argument. I remember speaking to the Doctor some years before he died and saying that he really ought to print his mature views on the baptism of the Holy Spirit. His reply was that he must do so, and that when he did it would be the two dozen or so sermons that he had preached in his series on John.

As the chapter concludes Lloyd-Jones became ‘a posthumous battleground for rival interpreters . . . He had become the totemic, and yet contested, icon in the struggle for doctrinal dominance in the contemporary church.'(p.155).

There follow two chapters, one by a Southern Baptist researcher,