Dead Orthodoxy
Sometimes a minister or a congregation is
criticized as a victim of dead orthodoxy. Their
doctrine, it is said, is completely satisfactory,
they believe the whole Bible, but they have
no spiritual life. Then the critic intimates that
belief is not enough, perhaps it is not too important, for people with less belief enjoy a
greater blessing from the Lord; and that therefore something different is needed.
The mental quirks of men are numerous and
sometimes amazing. The deceptions of sin are
also unpredictable. Hypocrisy takes on subtle
faces. And yet the diagnosis of dead orthodoxy
may be wrong. If indeed there is danger of
such a disease, it would seem that the danger
is overestimated.
Eighteenth century England was noted for
its gross immorality and its great religious awakening. Hogarth's pictures well show the depravity of that age. Historical investigation
of the state of the Church itself bears out the
indictment. Most fortunately there appeared
at this time, not only great evangelists like
Whitefield and Wesley, but also a number of
lesser men, regular ministers who in the power
of God's Spirit called multitudes to salvation.
If today the minister and the elders and a
few of the congregation should read the biographies of these saints, what church could hardly
fail to be stimulated to new heights of Christian
endeavor? From many points of view a knowledge of the work of these men would prove
profitable.
But there is one point that has especial interest with respect to the idea of dead orthodoxy.
William Grimshaw, Daniel Rowlands, Samuel
Walker, and James Hervey were great men
of God, and in their churches the conversions
' were numerous. Grimshaw preached to thousands; Hervey in a short time had eight hundred inquirers.
Yet each of these men entered the ministry
I with unworthy motives and without a knowledge of the gospel. In each case they were
fine, respectable young men. They had escaped
the profligacy of the times. And when they were ordained and placed as curates, they gave some serious attention to their parishioners.
Other ministers would spend their time gambling, hunting, and having a good time. These
men attended to their professional duties, even
catechizing the children.
If any persons could be accused of dead orthodoxy, these would be the men. Outwardly
they commanded respect and esteem. They
preached moral lessons from the Bible, and earnestly desired the improvement of their people. Yet, it seems to me that dead orthodoxy is the wrong diagnosis.
Of Grimshaw, J. C. Ryle says, "He seems
to have taken on him this solemn office without any spiritual feeling, and in utter ignorance of the duties of a minister of Christ's
gospel. Like too many young clergymen, he appears to have been ordained without knowing anything aright either about his own soul,
or about the way to do good to the souls of
others."
Hervey's Biographer, John Brown of Whitburn, says of him, "It is evident that he was
seeking salvation; but he sought it, as it were,
by the works of the law. . . . From this unavoidably followed a disesteem of imputed
righteousness, a conceit of personal qualifications, a spirit of legal bondage, and a tincture
of Pharisaical pride. He conceived faith to be
no more than a mere believing of promises if
he did well, and of threatenings if he did ill . . ."
Eventually all of these men came to a knowledge of evangelical religion, though some needed more time and went through greater mental
struggles than others. They all became great
men of God and their ministries were singularly
blessed.
It does not seem correct, however, to describe
their earlier ministerial life as one of dead
orthodoxy. They were not orthodox at all.
Some of them did not even know what the
doctrines of grace were; others knew the doctrine as given in the creeds, but did not believe
them. They did not start out with orthodox
doctrine and then discover that something was
missing; on the contrary, their spiritual ministrations began as they came to an orthodox
faith.
In this twentieth century there are great
temptations to minimize the importance of orthodox doctrine. But faith, true faith, comes
by hearing the word of God; it is a gift of God
that God bestows by means of the word. And
the faith is an evidence of a newly implanted
life. Is it possible to have a dead orthodoxy?
Or rather, is not that which is called dead
orthodoxy, no orthodoxy at all?
— G.H.C
No comments:
Post a Comment