Martyn Lloyd-Jones and the Apparently Orthodox Christian Zombies

Was I right to say, in a previous blog, that the question of whether there is such a thing as ‘revival’ should not divide Christians who are experiencing the ‘extraordinary ordinariness’ of the Spirit’s presence and power? I hope that the rest of that blog, my expressed hesitancy, and sympathy for those who have sincere reservations, as well as my personal belief in revival, were enough to show that I intended that statement to be qualified. Let’s explore it a bit more.

The strong, clear undercurrent in Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ (MLJ) exposition of the work of the Holy Spirit, was a concern to maintain the Reformed doctrine of regeneration as the only solution to the problem of sin and the state of fallen humanity as completely dead in trespasses and sins. When MLJ speaks about revival he assumes Calvinistic doctrines about the continual presence of the Holy Spirit in the church, and the Spirit’s work in overseeing the preaching of the gospel in terms of both general and effectual calls, effecting regeneration, bringing to conversion, and so on. He self-consciously places his understanding of ‘baptism of the Holy Spirit’ in the stream of Puritan discussion regarding the nature of assurance, not in the sphere of pentecostal/charismatic theology or ‘Holiness movement’ second blessing teaching. What MLJ means by revival can only be understood in this Reformed theological context.

Whether there is such a thing as revival depends on what you understand by revival. The word has been used in many ways to mean many different things. It is little surprise that some evangelicals are suspicious of revival as a concept because the ‘semantic range’ - all the possible meanings that the word could carry - includes phenomena which run quite contrary to Biblical teaching. Indeed, it is no longer even a specifically Christian term. The resurgence of Buddhism in China after the crushing religious restrictions of the Cultural Revolution has been called a ‘Buddhist revival’. Within the sphere of ‘Christianity’ in its broadest sense, the word is sometimes associated with teaching that is quite heretical. The great pastor-theologian Jonathan Edwards wrote a defence of revival because even at that time of great religious fervour, many doubtful things had been mixed in with the real and substantial. There is no fire without smoke.

MLJ speaks of revival in a specific sense. Really what I am suggesting is that if we want to talk about spiritual experience with MLJ as our conversation partner we have to recognise that it will be an ‘in-house’ discussion between Reformed evangelicals who have a shared, prior commitment to the basic doctrine of the Holy Spirit which he held. You can debate his understanding of these basic, fundamental teachings if you want to - but then we would no longer be talking about revival.

That was the sense of my comment. There is a world of difference between a discussion of revival between two Christians who are committed to and experiencing the outworking of those foundational Reformed doctrines of the Spirit, and a discussion between such a Christian and a person who denies those doctrines. The first is a worshipful activity marked by the fear of God: it asks adoringly whether the Spirit who is already known in tremendous grace and power might work in even greater grace and power, measures of grace and power that would make us tremble with delight, anticipation and hope. The second will never be much more than an intellectual exercise, a sort of scholastic discussion of hypothetical scenarios, leaving people entrenched and completely untouched by the Spirit they have been talking about. For any theological discussion of revival to be fruitful we must start by standing in that position of faith and worship which only the Holy Spirit himself can give. Hence “If you and I are both experiencing this ‘extraordinary ordinariness’ of the Spirit’s presence and power, we have too much in common to allow the question of ‘more’ to divide us.”

Why am I labouring this point? Because I believe the notion of Christian experience of the Holy Spirit and of revival is often framed in opposition to theology rather than as complementary to theology and an outworking of theology. The impression can sometimes be given by those who talk about revival that too much theology might inhibit subjective experience of the Holy Spirit. It has a sort of anti-intellectual thrust such as leaves people more concerned about having a vague mystical experience than about studying and understanding the revealed Word of God. In the worst case it can lead to that anabaptistic, Quaker-like concept of spirituality which both MLJ and contemporary theologians have warned against.

To clarify this point, take the term ‘dead orthodoxy’. You have probably heard it. The idea is that someone might be completely orthodox in their theology but essentially lifeless in terms of the power which the Holy Spirit exercises. So the thinking goes, surely it is better to have life than orthodoxy? Surely it is better to have the emotion and experience associated with Methodism than a cold, dead Calvinism?

MLJ discusses this relationship of Calvinism to Methodism in the chapter on William Williams in his The Puritans - Their Origins and Successors. Speaking about an extremely intellectual, rationalistic, scholastic form of Christianity he says, “I had almost said that Calvinism without Methodism tends to produce ‘dead Calvinism’”. (‘Methodism’ here used in the Welsh sense as relating to the experiential aspect of Christianity, not in reference to the denomination or theology associated with John Wesley). Why does he stop short of employing the term ‘dead Calvinism’? 

“Because I regard the term ‘dead Calvinism’ as a contradiction in terms. I say that a dead Calvinism is impossible, and that if your Calvinism appears to be dead it is not Calvinism, it is a philosophy. It is a philosophy using Calvinistic terms, it is an intellectualism, and it is not real Calvinism.”

Dead Calvinism is an illusion; it only appears to be Calvinism. Orthodox faith is a lively, quickening thing.

So what is in the background of MLJ’s thought here? Are the cross-hairs aimed at evangelicals who use their intellectual gifts to study and take doctrine seriously? Not at all. For a man with such a huge intellect, and such an appetite for reading theology and history, to fire at thoughtful, doctrinal-minded evangelicals would have been to shoot himself in the foot. No, he actually has in mind a specific, historical doctrinal error. At the beginning of the chapter on Williams, MLJ explains that he had meant to give this conference lecture at the previous annual gathering but had intentionally delayed because it was logically necessary to address another topic first. The topic was the erroneous understanding of faith propagated by Robert Sandeman.

Sandeman and his associates held that saving faith involved nothing more than intellectual assent. This teaching originated in Scotland in the 1720’s where it was opposed by the Reformed evangelical ministers within the Church of Scotland. It’s influence extended into England and Wales where it impinged on William Williams and other church leaders like Christmas Evans. One time principal of the Free Church College in Edinburgh, John Macleod describes it like this:

“It is pretty obvious that such a type of teaching is fitted to put a premium upon what is held to be orthodox doctrine, and less stress than is called for on the reaction of the emotional nature to the truth of the Gospel and on the activity of the will as that goes out in the trust of the heart and its attendant obedience in the life... with its view of faith Sandemanianism tended to be very orthodox in regard to the certainty with which the purpose of God in grace will work itself out in the salvation of His chosen people, while it held itself coldly aloof from any display of feeling in the exercises of a religious life”.

In other words, Christianity was located almost entirely in the mind, to the total exclusion of the emotions and will. This is zombie Christianity: it claims to be alive but ultimately proves to be both dead, and deadening to anyone it touches. It is a form of Christianity that looks orthodox on one level but stands in complete contrast to MLJ’s Reformed understanding of regeneration as an immediate action of the Holy Spirit on the heart, the very centre of the personality, which must therefore have its outworking in the whole person - intellect, yes, but also will, affections, conscience and so on. 

Whilst appearing to be orthodox with regards certain doctrines without making any supernatural change to a person’s heart, this form of Christianity excluded “all endeavours, and prayers, and religious exercises, and appeals that come to us, and so on”. Under the influence of this teaching the great baptist preacher Christmas Evans nearly shipwrecked his Christian profession and his ministry and, through breaking free of its shackles, became a channel of intercession and effective gospel proclamation in North Wales. In William Williams’ words “it sets naked faith as the chief thing, believing without power, making little of conviction and of a broken heart”. To add anything to this ‘naked’ intellectual belief was, they thought, to reintroduce works. 

Now note how important this was to MLJ, speaking in 1967:

“If I understand the condition of the church today - and indeed, during the last fifty years or so - I would say that its greatest trouble has been that it has fallen into this particular error”.

The issue at stake is not theology versus experience. Nor is it preaching the gospel with power versus preaching the gospel without power. The issue is preaching the powerful gospel versus preaching something which is powerless because it is not the gospel. It is not living Calvinism versus dead Calvinism. There is no such thing as dead Calvinism. This is about living orthodoxy versus dead heterodoxy.