I had been waiting with some anticipation for a few years to
view the Lloyd-Jones film Logic on Fire
and after viewing it I must say I was quite disappointed.
More a tribute than a documentary, the film did an
exceedingly poor job in providing even a basic biographical outline. The film
not only chose to omit many key and important aspects of his life and work, at
times it could be accused of misrepresenting him.
For example the film presents an Anglican minister who made a
point of saying that Lloyd-Jones encouraged him to remain in his Church of
England ministry and what a surprising thing it was given his reputation.
What reputation? The documentary never explained, never
addressed his controversies with Stott, Packer, Graham or his struggles with
the larger ecumenical and Evangelical movement. It was all ignored.
Instead the film provided an endless and frankly quite
exhausting series of interviews with persons unrelated to Lloyd-Jones and his
theology. From Reformed Baptists, to American Presbyterians and even New
Calvinists the film is overwhelmed by clips of people that in many cases didn't
know Lloyd-Jones but nevertheless waxed eloquent with regard to their
impressions of him. It was a tiresome exercise especially as I took exception
to many of their statements and in other cases was left somewhat baffled by
their selection for the film.
In more than a few instances these men represent ideas,
theologies, worship practices, ecclesiologies and evangelistic styles that are
actually quite at odds with Lloyd-Jones and the things he stood for. The notion
that men who pastor what are basically mega-church facilities, with grand
orchestras or bands, men who rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars a year
have anything in common with Lloyd-Jones or have something to teach us about
him was frankly offensive. They're Calvinists some might say. So what?
Lloyd-Jones loved the Reformed heritage but he wasn't a slave to it and despite
some commonality in terms of predestination I find it hard to imagine he would
find a great deal in common with some of these men... some of whom are hardly
in line with historic Calvinist thought themselves. In his Puritan lectures and
the additional talks compiled in 'Knowing the Times' Lloyd-Jones reveals an
intellect and understanding that is not uncritical of the Reformed heritage and
takes exception to it at points. He castigates the 'Christendom' project of the
Reformers and Puritans and Christian politicking of every stripe. If
Lloyd-Jones had hope in changing society it was through the old concept of
revival... a mass outpouring of the Spirit leading to conversions. This is
quite different from modern Evangelicalism's programme of dominionist cultural
transformation and its focus on legislation, culture war and the like.
It therefore also struck me as absurd that others who are
part of Dominionist-style 'ministries' would somehow represent themselves as 'connected'
to the man who in the 1960's preached the sermons published in 'The Kingdom of
God'. The Kingdom doctrine taught by Lloyd-Jones in those sermons represents a
repudiation of their ideas, goals and methods.
To be honest, the only redeeming thing about the film was the
reminiscences of his daughters and grandchildren and some of the home video
footage and photographs connected to his life.
As one who has long admired Lloyd-Jones I very much wanted to
enjoy the film but was left disappointed and felt like everything worthwhile
could have been condensed down to about fifteen or twenty minutes. I see the DVD has some extra features
including a 14 minute segment on the 1966 Evangelical Controversy. I watched
the film via Amazon and thus the 'extra' feature was not available to me and
I'm certainly not going to spend $30-40 to purchase the disc. I cannot afford
that, neither am I inclined to purchase something I would not bother to view
more than once.
But again, given the choice of commentators and interviewees
I cannot imagine the segment will provide a great deal of help. Indeed, many
who are praising Lloyd-Jones in the film have all but embraced the paths that
he conscientiously rejected over fifty years ago in that very controversy. In
this sense I believe the film to be somewhat misleading. For these and other
reasons, I would not actually recommend the film to anyone.
My younger son has been reading Lloyd-Jones for more than a
year and we've spent hours discussing him and in particular his views and the
issues that come up in The Puritans:
Their Origins and Successors and Knowing
the Times: Addresses Delivered on Various Occasions 1942-1977. When the
credits rolled I said "On a scale of one to ten..." and we both said
"Three" at the same time. That
about sums it up.
Finally I would make two brief anecdotal points that struck
me.
One, his wife though trained as a medical doctor understood
that upon marriage she would necessarily resign that path and be a pastor's
wife and tend the house. This was once (and even not that long ago) the common
understanding of Christian marriage and motherhood. How foreign indeed it must
sound to today's ears. Lloyd-Jones' daughter acknowledged as much. How strange
indeed it must be to the many men who were interviewed for the film as not a
few have embraced a very different understanding and shall we say gender
dynamic. Modern Complementarianism (so-called) is looking more like
Egalitarianism every day.
Of course there are others who have fraudulently used their
'ministries' to provide their wives employment, paying them (and other family
members) inordinate salaries even while pretending their wives aren't career
women, or worse, paying them token salaries for work output that wouldn't pay
even a fraction of that outside their non-profit 'ministerial' world. Either way
their avaricious actions are a travesty and foreign to the ethics of an older
generation and men like Lloyd-Jones.
Secondly, Lloyd-Jones was to be commended for abandoning the
medical profession for the higher calling of gospel ministry. How foreign this
notion must be to some of the contributors and interviewees in the film. They
would teach otherwise and condemn anyone who posits the path represented by
Lloyd-Jones and his wife. Their view of the Kingdom would be that medical
service is as much a Kingdom task as the preaching of the Word or Gospel
ministry. In fact dominionist thought would erroneously equate the two as forms
of Gospel ministry. Obviously Lloyd-Jones did not hold this view. This is not
to say that medicine is of no value or that a Christian man couldn't serve the
Lord while being a doctor. But the Gospel ministry is a higher calling.
Medicine like most careers is perfectly valid (in theory) but focused primarily
on the temporal. A Christian can certainly bring his faith to bear in such work
and use it as segue and witness to eternal things. But this is not the same as
one who handles the Word and the mysteries of God, one who proclaims the Gospel
and wields the keys as it were. Dominionism's monistic tendencies won't allow
for such nuances in thought as it seeks to eliminate all hint of duality...
even while the Scriptures are full of such examples.
And these same men would actively encourage many a young man
(and woman) to pursue medicine as opposed to being a gospel preacher or (in the
case of a woman) to stay home, keep house and raise the children even if such
New Testament obedience results in poverty in our techno-industrial age.
Lloyd-Jones knew better and his testimony condemns them.
See also:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.