Evangelism: A Reformed Debate by John Kennedy and Horatius Bonar
Published by The James Begg Society. Paperback, 144 pages, £2.20. Available from the Free Presbyterian Bookroom, 133 Woodlands Road, Glasgow, G3 6LE
HERE, published together for the first time, are Kennedy’s Hyper-Evangelism, subtitled, Another Gospel, Though A Mighty Power. A Review of the Recent Religious Movement in Scotland; with Bonar’s reply, The Old Gospel, with the subtitle, Not Another Gospel, but the Power of God Unto Salvation; and finally Kennedy’s A Reply to Dr Bonar’s Defence of Hyper-Evangelism. The “recent religious movement” which came under Kennedy’s scrutiny was the evangelistic campaign which the American evangelist Dwight L Moody conducted in Scotland in 1873-74, supported by soloist Ira D Sankey. Kennedy produced a devastating analysis.
Kennedy had two main objections to this evangelistic campaign: (1) he believed Moody’s was “another gospel, though a mighty influence . . . because it is just an extreme application of some truths, to the neglect of others which are equally important”, (2) because of the unscriptural practices which were used; he lists “singing the gospel” in uninspired hymns; the use of instrumental music; open prayer meetings; and the “inquiry room”, where inquirers were unwisely dealt with (Kennedy would have preferred them to be sent home to seek the Lord in their own closets rather than be given brief instruction and premature encouragement within earshot of everyone else). Kennedy had listened repeatedly to Moody and he pointed to the great defect in what he had heard: “It ignores the supreme end of the gospel, which is the manifestation of the Divine glory; and misrepresents it as merely unfolding a scheme of salvation adapted to man’s convenience.” With this in mind he went on to list four main objections to Moody’s teaching:
(1) “No pains are taken to present the character and claims of God as Lawgiver and Judge, and no indication given of a desire to bring souls to self-condemnation, to accept the punishment of their iniquity.” But, he pointed out, “it should be an aim of preaching . . . to bring sinners . . . to feel themselves in excuseless guilt, shut up to the sovereign mercy of Him against whom they have sinned”. He also indicated his concern that faith was being presented merely as belief – omitting the crucial aspect of trust – and comments, “This is but to place it on the same footing with works. Faith, as mere belief, is considered to be something within the power of all.”
(2) “It ignores the sovereignty and power of God in the dispensation of His grace.” Kennedy explains the reasoning behind this omission when he represents Moody as arguing thus: “If men are to be told that salvation is entirely at the disposal of God’s sovereign will, and that sinners are so utterly lost that only the working of God’s power can move them either to will or to do what is required by the claims of the gospel, then the result will be that some will be offended and go away, others will fold their hands and sleep, and others will sink down in despair.” But, asks Kennedy, “Am I therefore to refrain from proclaiming Jehovah as King? . . . In no other sphere does He appear more gloriously kingly than this. Did not the Divine preacher make the sovereignty of God the theme of His very first sermon, though His hearers were thereby so incensed that only by a miracle could He preserve His life from their fury?” At this stage Kennedy calls attention to two specific errors in Moody’s teaching: that regeneration is the result of faith, and that “God would not call men to believe unless they had the power to do so”.
(3) “No care is taken to show, in the light of the doctrine of the cross, how God is glorified in the salvation of the sinner.” There was nothing in Moody’s preaching that would raise the question, How can God be just in justifying the ungodly? He points out that, while the work of Christ as the sinner’s substitute received attention, sinners were not pointed to the dignity of His person as what gave merit to the work which He accomplished.
(4) “No precaution is offered against a tendency to antinomianism in those who profess to have believed.” Kennedy explains, “The man who is disposed to think of his sin as a great calamity, rather than as a heinous crime, is not likely either to reverence God or to respect His law. To his view, salvation is something which it would not be fair to withhold from him, rather than a gracious gift which a sovereign God is glorified in bestowing. . . . He thinks of an easy reign of mercy, under which he can be as imperious as if his own will were law.”
It might have been better had this reprint extended no further than Kennedy’s first booklet. Bonar’s reply is much longer, he often misses the point, and is generally unhelpful. He assumes that Kennedy was attacking all those who supported Moody rather than, in fact, concentrating on the American evangelist’s unscriptural statements and methods. Kennedy makes clear in his reply that he did not have Bonar in mind when he first wrote and that he regarded him as a brother in the ministry. He does, however, find it necessary to comment adversely on many of Bonar’s statements. But he also states, “The views which I have referred to, though found in Dr Bonar’s writings, are not his standing opinions. They are only his temporary aberrations from the line of orthodoxy. They indicate the shape which his teaching assumed under pressure from without.” The pity is that Bonar did not maintain a more consistent line and keep a safe distance from the newer methods which were then being brought in by those who believed that personal dealing with souls is more effective than the preaching of a pure gospel – in spite of Paul’s statement: “It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe,” 1 Corinthians 1:21.
One assumes that the publishers included Bonar’s The Old Gospel so that they could also include Kennedy’s second booklet, A Reply to Dr Bonar’s Defence of Hyper-Evangelism. However, A Reply… is largely taken up in answering Bonar’s detailed responses to Kennedy’s Hyper-Evangelism. It contains useful material and successfully rebuts Bonar’s charges, but the whole effect, 120 years after the conflict, is to muddy waters which were remarkably clear when Kennedy first laid down his pen.
We can look back over those 120 years and state without any qualification whatever that Kennedy had much the better of the argument. History, quite simply, has proved him right. The quality of evangelism since 1874 has gone from bad to worse, and vast multitudes who clearly were never converted have been brought to public profession in the Church by evangelistic campaigns. There will undoubtedly be false professions under the best of preaching, but when men try to convert sinners by using methods which are the product of man’s wisdom – and encourage others in that direction – they have a solemn responsibility for the consequences.
(Rev.) K. D. Macleod