Our recent comments on the life and achievement of Dr. Martyn Lloyd–Jones have provoked less adverse reaction than we feared. However, several correspondents have written asking for clarification of one point: What did we mean by saying that in his attitude to evangelical Anglicans and to church unity the Doctor was quite simply wrong?

The two problems are closely related. So far as evangelical Anglicans are concerned , Dr. Lloyd–Jones regarded them as hopelessly compromised by their involvement in a “mixed denomination.” As a result, he refused in his later years to cooperate or be associated with men like John Stott or Jim Packer. He renamed the Puritan Conference the Westminster Conference and decided there should be no more Anglican speakers.

The inevitable consequence was the fragmentation of evangelicalism. Two independent streams developed, going their separate ways in total disregard of one another and to the impoverishment of both.

The Doctor also argued that all evangelicals should immediately secede from theologically compromised denominations, including not only the Church of England but also such bodies as the Presbyterian Church of Wales, the Church of Scotland and the Baptist Union. This gives rise to two questions.

First, whether secession is really the primary duty of evanglicals. Surely the urgent need, in the first instance, is to seek reformation and pray for revival within existing structures. Those who pursue such a policy with biblical aggressiveness may , sooner or later, find themselves ejected. This is what happened to Luther, to the Free Church minority in 1900 and to the heroic J. Gresham Machen in 1935. Premature secession is an easy option. Too many have left the main-stream denominations without a struggle. The results of stickability are clearly seen today in the extent of evangelical influence in, for example, the Presbyterian Church of Ireland and the Presbyterian Church of Australia. There is no telling what might have happened in the Church of England and the Presbyterian Church of Wales if the hundreds who seceded in the last 30 years had stayed and fought.

The second question is whether the spectacle of so many individuals seceding in dribs and drabs is an edifying one. We think it is not. Withdrawal from a historic denomination is a solemn business, demanding careful organization and cooperation. This has been totally lacking and hundreds of brethren have seceded, often unreflectingly, into Independency.

There are many brave and godly men who hesitate to secede into the ecclesiastical chaos which such a situation represents. On a pragmatic level, they find the fragmentation and incoherence distressing. On a theological level , many are episcopalians and presbyterians (and paedo-baptists!) by conviction. To such men, questions of church order are as important as questions of biblical authority. Independency might give them instant dissociation from theological error. But it would also mean an atomistic Christian existence totally at variance with the biblical view of the Church as the body of Christ.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones himself was fully conscious of the practical impossibility of consistent independency. This was reflected in the creation of the Westminster Fraternal where isolated ministers found counsel and fellowship to compensate in some measure for the loss of presbyteries and diocesan councils. It was also reflected in his support of the British Evangelical Council. As it stands, however , the B.E.C. is tailored to suit the needs (and accommodate the prejudices) of Independency. Any thought of organic unity (a denomination!) would be anathema. There is room only for a deliberative—or at best an inspirational—body, hopelessly fettered by an extreme sensitiveness on local autonomy. Local pastors are too accustomed to the exercise of authority to contemplate merging it in a collegiate leadership. As a result, there is absolutely no room for a united initiative on matters of urgent practical importance—notably, theological education and nationwide missionary strategy.

Secession must be evaluated against this background. The B.E.C. is the only place to go to and for many it is simply not good enough. The proper alternative to mixed or compromised denominations is not “no denominations” (a fallacy anyway) but reformed denominations expressing the organic unity of the Church of Christ: a Reformed Baptist Union, a Reformed Episcopal Church, a Reformed Presbyterian Church of Wales. To secure these, men must realize that secession is not an individual decision for the pastor. It is a decision for churches: and one to be taken in consultation with other churches so that one secedes not into limbo but into a meaningful ecclesiastical association more dynamic and more effective than one has known before. There is no sense in a secession of which the net effect is to cripple the church.

The Free Church is, of course, a member of the British Evangelical Council and we have no quarrel with that. All ecumenical contact is valuable. But few of us know what this particular one involves. Our access is limited to a half-page statement in Reports to the General Assembly. We must tackle our ecumenical future much more dynamically by way of organic union with other churches of the Confessional tradition.

Reprinted from the January 1984 Monthly Record of the Free Church of Scotland. The February Outlook summarized Editor Macleod’s earlier comments on “The Lloyd-Jones Legacy.” This sequel is printed in its entirety.