During last July, the Rev. Professor John McIntyre, Professor of divinity in the Church of Scotland New College, Edinburgh, had three articles in The Scotsman on “Where Stands the Kirk.” It seems that the debates in the General Assembly this year and in recent years which revealed a certain amount of divergence of opinion on doctrine and morality, in the light of references to the Westminster Confession of Faith, gave rise to these articles. The first article dealt with “Preaching,” and we would make some observations upon several statements in this article.
The Professor admits that there is uneasiness “abroad in Scotland, both inside and outside the Church, concerning the way in which certain fundamentals of the faith are being handled, communicated and appropriated within the national Church.” Since many years now, we and others have had ample evidence to come to the above conclusion without being prejudicial or critical for criticism’s sake.
Clear and relevant criticism from within the Church of Scotland is quoted by the Professor himself as follows: “Recently, two of my closest friends, the one publicly and the other privately, maintained that the Gospel, the Word of God, was not being faithfully preached in the majority of our Churches. They affirmed that for the old Gospel of forgiveness of sins, in and through the redeeming death of Jesus Christ, there is being substituted, in many instances, moral exhortations and man-made doctrines and theorems about society and history.” Now although we are outwith the realm of the Church of Scotland we have sufficient information to guide us to agree wholeheartedly with the serious charge levelled at the state of affairs obtaining in the Church of Scotland as to preaching, by these two friends of Professor McIntyre. No sinner was ever converted and brought to live in the fear of God by the preaching of moral precepts alone. That, to all who have the least measure of spiritual understanding of the Gospel of Salvation and of the doctrine of the Word of God, is an obvious fact. And as to the charge that many are preaching man-made doctrines, the Professor’s friends could no doubt substantiate this from their own intimate knowledge of what other ministers are giving their congregations.
But in his article the Professor does not accept unreservedly the frank and honest and no doubt knowledgeable testimony of his friends, although in the mouth of two or three witnesses evidence may be established. It would be hardly wise on their part to aver that the old Gospel of forgiveness of sins, in and through the redeeming death of Jesus Christ, was generally being relegated to the background, if this in fact was not the case. Yet, Professor McIntyre’s rejoinder to begin is this: “For my part, I find it very difficult to substantiate a sweeping judgment of this sort . . . but even with all the information provided by mass-communication we are not able to take any adequate representative samples. We can only make the most random selections and form the widest generalisations, and these would be dangerous grounds upon which to base a mass-condemnation.” If the Professor is not out and out repudiating the charges made, he is nevertheless refusing to accept them as a true statement of the situation because of insufficient evidence in his view. In other words, he just does not know how matters are generally as to the content of the preaching throughout his Church in Scotland. We admit, the Church of Scotland is a large and widespread denomination, with many ministers; but surely some in the Church ought to know what the general nature of the teaching from her pulpits is. What does Professor McIntyre himself insist on, in his handling of divinity students as to what they are to accept in doctrine essential for the exercising of their pulpit and preaching duties?
A most unsatisfactory situation is brought to light by the Professor, in his explanations as to “the variety that now exists in the principles which preachers use for the interpretation of Scriptures (1) “That the Bible is literally and infallibly accurate in all of its statements.” And he adds to this with a not too commendable purpose, we think, the following words: “Whether they deal with the origin of the human species, the details of social custom, or the great central events of redemption.” Why does the Professor introduce into his statement of the orthodox view of Scripture the reference to “the origin of the human species?” Does he insinuate that the view of an infallible Bible cannot be maintained over against the evolution theory of the origin of man, in his opinion? Here the Professor barely enters upon the subject of man’s immediate creation by God and his Sin and Fall. The preacher with belief in an infallible Bible will undoubtedly preach to men as sinners “the forgiveness of sins through the redeeming death of Jesus Christ.”
And (2) “For others, the Bible is infallible in all matters relating to faith and morals, but reflects the different ages in which its parts were written when it speaks of certain types of miracles or biological phenomena or social structures.” Here we are told that some preachers derive the content of their preaching from a Bible which is the Word of God only in parts and relative to matters concerned with faith and morals only. Such preachers can play fast and loose with their view of the Bible as the Word of God. If they are permitted this view in the Church of Scotland as to their personal beliefs then no one can say exactly what is the source of their doctrine; and their doctrine will indeed be liable to be man-made.
And (3) The Professor further relates that others base their preaching upon the principle: “That the Bible is not itself the Word of God, the literal truth, the actual revelation, but becomes so when the Spirit of God uses it in order to speak to men’s hearts.” He does not mention the name of Karl Barth in his article, but the Professor here states the ingenious, erroneous and dangerous doctrine of Barth as to the Word of God. And men who take upon themselves to preach holding this evil view can not be expected to hold forth and teach the fundamental and saving doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as written down in Scripture by inspiration of God.
Following upon these three points, Professor McIntyre makes bold to say, “In fact three such different interpretative principles do not affect the actual preaching of the Word so extensively as one might at first expect: preachers, often unconsciously and sometimes even in contradiction of their own Biblical principle, make the necessary adjustment.” Here we have a peculiar piece of argumentation in which the Professor includes those who have the right and proper view of and belief in the Bible as the infallible Word of God—that they also with others who hold erroneous views of the Bible, do not allow their view of Scripture to affect the actual preaching of the Word by them “so extensively as one might at first expect,” etc. What a confused view of the holding of principle re Scripture, of preachers’ minds and of their actual preaching! There seems to be no place in the Professor’s article for the man who believes the Bible to be the inspired and infallible Word of God, who derives all his doctrine from such a blessed, authoritative source, and goes forth to preach that doctrine faithfully to his fellow sinners, that they might be favoured with God’s free forgiveness of all their sins, through the redeeming death of Jesus Christ. Such a man is not to be allowed to be the only true preacher of the Word of God in the Professor’s view. What a lack of unity with the mind of the Spirit in the Holy Scriptures as to the divine origin of the Word of God, and belief in that Word as an absolute essential to the preaching of the true and full Gospel of Jesus Christ!
Albeit, the Professor expresses the aforesaid views, he endeavours to qualify the whole by the following observations thus: “But there is sufficient basic difference of principle to introduce at many points in the preached Word a variety which is baffling to the listener . . . we need even more guidance on how the Bible is to be interpreted, in fact, a much more uniform doctrine of the Bible than the Church as a whole now presents to the world. Without such a doctrine inevitably the Church must speak with two or more voices over whole areas of the faith when the Word is preached.” Our brief answer to this is: return unreservedly to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Here is to be found all the fundamental doctrines of the faith in systematic form and as based solidly on the infallible Word of God. This confession is still the Subordinate Standard of the present Church of Scotland officially; but as is well known some of its doctrines are repudiated and others loosely held by ministers and office-bearers. When men abandon what is clearly consistent with the Holy Scriptures then every man begins to hold beliefs and views which he considers right in his own eyes and thus confusion and disunity ensue in the Church. This is given unchecked liberty throughout a Church where Church discipline is not operative with respect to the holding of doctrinal views contrary to the accepted views of that Church.