Professor Macleod's Theology
Professor Donald Macleod is widely regarded as one of Scotland's leading theologians. Indeed, some in the press have described him as the greatest theological thinker in our land today. Many of us remember sitting at his feet twenty and more years ago and listening to him with great delight as he preached on the atonement, the priesthood of Christ, etc. We enjoyed his writings expounding the Reformed Faith. He was our great champion of Confessional orthodoxy. He argued powerfully for all the truths we held dear. In the Free Church, we gave to him the most prominent Chair in our Divinity College, that of Professor of Systematic Theology. He has a pivotal role in training young men for our ministry. It is surely right, therefore, to enquire as to what his distinctive theology really is.
Radical Changes
In a remarkably frank interview with the Rev. Ian M. Mackenzie, broadcast by BBC Radio Scotland on 30/6/96, he reveals his thinking to us. In it he said: "I suspect that if you compare my pronouncements now with my opinions as expressed say twenty years ago, you would find them to be virtually incompatible with each other, in terms of my earlier emphasis on intellect and on the importance of orthodoxy".
Some of us had noticed a change in the tone and content of Professor Macleod's thinking and writing. We had wondered if it was our listening that had changed. However, he here assures us that it is he himself who has changed. To say that his teaching now, is "virtually incompatible" with what it was twenty years ago means that there has been a revolution in his thinking. It means that his present teaching is almost opposite to and practically in conflict with his previous pronouncements. At one time he laid great stress on the intellect and the importance of orthodoxy. It seems this has now changed.
Jesus v Paul?
Nothing, from one perspective, is more important to the Christian faith than the doctrine of Scripture. If our theology is based on the teaching of the Bible then our understanding of God's revelation in His Word is fundamental. It is therefore worrying to hear Professor Macleod state: "My concern now is to go back to Jesus. I even feel uncomfortable saying going back to St. Paul. I think the Church has lost contact with Galilee to a very large extent. The instinct I want to develop is to ask, 'What would Jesus do in the circumstances?'" There are two problems here. Firstly, setting Jesus against Paul undermines our doctrine of revelation. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2Tim.3:16). It is all God-breathed. What Paul writes in his Epistle to the Romans is just as authoritative as the teaching of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. The Apostle wrote as he was "moved by the Holy Ghost" (2Pet.1:21). Similarly, Jesus was anointed with the Spirit to preach (Lk.4:18-21). Old-fashioned Liberalism contrasted Paul unfavourably with Jesus, and tried to drive a wedge between the two. Secondly, the question, "What would Jesus do in the circumstances?" is subjective and speculative. The Shorter Catechism says that the Scriptures clearly teach what we are to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of us. The Bible is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him, not man's subjective speculations.
Pluralism
What is Professor Macleod's attitude to the followers of other religions? He says: "A lot of folk who are not orthodox are good people....And you may know that John Hick, for example, in his emphasis on pluralism [the idea that all religions lead to God] raises the spectre for us and did this for me at a very important point in my life, two or three years ago, when he argues that the Christian faith cannot be the only way to God because it does not produce more saints per capita than any other religion". Hick is famous as the editor of the book The Myth of God Incarnate. He has written against the uniqueness of Christ, and argued for the unconditional universal salvation of everyone. Hick also proclaims that all the great religious systems alike provide a way to God.
Can anything be more plain than the teaching of Jesus when He says: "I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me" (Jn.14:6)? Peter makes the same point when he says: "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). With regard to "good people" the Bible says: "There is none that doeth good, no, not one" (Rom.3:12). Jesus plainly declares: "None is good, save one, that is, God" (Lk.18:19). The only saints which the New Testament knows are those who are "in Christ Jesus" (Phil.1:1), and have become such through the sanctification of the Spirit (1Pet.1:2). Everyone else is "dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph.2:1).
A Suffering God?
Another area of concern is presented by Professor Macleod when he states in the same interview: "One of the platforms of my theology in fact is the doctrine of divine passibility derived from the experience of pain that God has gone through in Christ. That is an intellectual or dogmatic theological belief but it is one which I find very, very emotive, very, very powerful in my own experience, and I want others also to know the force of the divine compassion". This "suffering God" has recently become one of Professor Macleod's distinctive teachings. Modern theologians such as Jurgen Moltmann have expressed similar ideas.
In the past, Free Church folk, following the Westminster Confession have believed that God is "without body, parts, or passions..." (WCF 2.1). This means that God is impassible, and that He cannot therefore suffer. Paul contrasts himself and Barnabas with God when he declares to the people of Lystra, "We also are men of like passions with you" (Acts 14:15). How different God is! His joy is infinite and permanent. Sin and misery always go together. Heaven is a place where there is no sin and, therefore, no pain. God's home is paradise. The only way He can suffer is by becoming man and entering this fallen world. In His Godhead He is "blessed for ever" (Rom.1:25), and thus eternally happy.
The verse usually quoted in favour of this "divine passibility" is Romans 8:32: "He that spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all". It is argued that this "sparing not" was very painful to the Father. However, this verse simply speaks of God's great kindness in not holding back His "unspeakable gift" from us. Indeed Scripture makes plain that it involved great joy for the Father to hand over the Son to glorify Him by suffering in human nature. When the Second Person makes Himself of no reputation by taking our sin upon Himself, the Father declares with holy delight: "Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased" (Lk.3:22). Indeed, Isaiah reveals the amazing truth: "It pleased the Lord to bruise him" (Is.53:10).
Murray to Hick
In the early days Professor Macleod drew his distinctive theology from Professor John Murray who stood solidly in the rich Princeton theological tradition. Now he seems to be far more influenced by modern Liberal theologians such as John Hick.
An Important Letter
Subsequent to the writing of the previous article the minutes of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland Synod of 1997 have appeared, in which there is an unusual letter addressed to the Free Church of Scotland Assembly. The Reformed Presbyterian Church, also known as the Covenanters, is very similar to the Free Church. They subscribe to the same Westminster Confession of Faith as we do. Like us, in public worship, they only sing Psalms and do not use musical instruments. Over the years the fellowship between our two denominations has been increasing, with Free Church ministers preaching in their pulpits and they in ours. We are both members of the I.C.R.C. (International Conference of Reformed Churches).
To have such a denomination writing officially to the Free Church out of concern that the honour of Christ and the welfare and witness of the Free Church is in danger, should make us pause and reflect. The letter is addressed to the General Assembly which, of course, does not plan to meet till next May. We print it in full below so that members of the Free Church are made fully aware of the fears of our fellow Christians across the Irish Sea.
Dear Brethren,
The Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland, met on 11th June 1997, send greetings in Christ Jesus to their brethren of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland and desire to state the following:
1. In view of the fact that we enjoy fraternal relations between our respective churches, it is a matter of brotherly love that we raise with you the matter of the doctrinal views of Professor Donald Macleod of the Free Church College, Edinburgh.
2. We have become aware of the following statements attributed to Professor Macleod, and have confined ourselves to statements coming directly from Professor Macleod's pen and voice rather than to statements reported by others in the press. The comments which have caused us most concern are as follows:
"My concern is to go back to Jesus. I even feel uncomfortable going back to St.Paul. I think the church has lost contact with Galilee to a very large extent. The instinct I want to develop is to ask "what would Jesus do in the circumstances?" And so much discussion in the Church for the last 2000 years has been, in my view, quite unconnected with Jesus. We don't ask His type of questions and if we were to ask Him our questions He would just smile benignly I think and shake His head in disbelief at what interests us"
(From an interview on BBC Radio Scotland on 30th June 1996). |
Here Professor Macleod draws a distinction between the teachings of our Lord as recorded in the gospels and the writings of the Apostle Paul, which appears to place the two on different levels of importance and authority. On the basis of scripture we believe that both have equal authority and importance when they are recorded in the inspired scriptures. 1 Corinthians 11:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 3:16.
Such a disjunction appears to give reverence to the person of our Lord, but is in fact the position of much nineteenth century liberalism, which led to the widespread denial of many of our Lord's teachings.
"I was probably overbalanced or unbalanced in the sense of attaching too much importance to intellect and orthodoxy. I have now come to terms with the fact that a lot of folk who are not orthodox are good people, and I'm not quite sure how I'm going to fit that into my intellectual overview because that, in fact, has raised an intellectual challenge. And you may know that John Hick, for example, in his emphasis on pluralism raises the spectre for us and did this for me at a very important point in my life, two or three years ago, when he argues that the Christian faith cannot be the only way to God because it does not produce more saints per capita than any other religion"
(From an interview on BBC Radio Scotland on 30th June 1996). |
It is clear from these words that Professor Macleod is wrestling with challenges to the Christian faith presented by pluralism. However, Professor Macleod concedes too much to those who deny the uniqueness of Christianity as the only way of reconciliation between God and man and his concessions threaten the integrity of the gospel.
The viewpoint which Professor Macleod is addressing calls for the following Biblical assertions:
a. Scripture clearly teaches that faith in the Lord Jesus Christ revealed in the Scriptures is the only way of salvation and reconciliation to God. John 14:6; Acts 4:12. And especially 1Timothy 2:5, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus".
b. Scripture is the basis of our faith. While we may know individuals by the fruit of their lives, an assessment of which doctrines are true or false can be made only on the basis of what God says in Scripture.
c. Good works, by which saintliness is to be seen, are not defined simply by actions that are pleasing to us. "Good works are only such as God hath commanded in His holy word, and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men out of blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intention....Works done by unregenerate men, although, for the matter of them, they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others; yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith; nor are done in the right manner according to the word; nor to a right end, the glory of God; they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God or make a man meet to receive grace from God" (WCF 16.1 and 16.7).
"The other thing that is so impressive is the risk that Jesus took: the risk that the Cross would be the End and that He would never come back"
(West Highland Free Press 29th December 1995). |
We reject the idea that our Lord took a risk when He offered Himself as a sacrifice for our sins on the cross. This is contrary to the teaching of scripture and the Confession of Faith. Our Lord died to make the salvation of the elect certain.
He went to the cross on the basis of God's eternal decree. "God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass" (WCF 3.1). As the Son of God He knew what would come to pass, because it had already been decreed, and He knew that God's decrees, rather than change, govern the universe.
He went to the cross on the basis of a covenant of redemption within the Trinity. Although our Lord took the nature of a man so that He knew human fears and limitations, He was also Very God of Very God and in the unity of His person as the God-man He knew the certainty that God the Father would accept His sacrifice for His people and redeem Him from the grave. "It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man; the Prophet, Priest and King; the Head and Saviour of His Church; the Heir of all things; and Judge of the world: unto whom He did from all eternity give a people to be His seed, and to be by Him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified and glorified" (WCF 8.1). On the basis of this covenant our Lord became a surety for His people. This would have been impossible if He had come to take a risk.
3. We regard these statements as at variance with the Word of God and the Westminster Standards to which office-bearers subscribe at Ordination in both our Churches. These statements certainly require investigation.
4. We, therefore, in a spirit of meekness, exhort our brethren in the Free Church General Assembly urgently to investigate these statements and act accordingly. Our concern is for the honour of Christ, the welfare and witness of the Free Church and for Professor Macleod himself.
Be assured of the prayers of your brethren in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland. "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Stewart (Convener).
A Response
Aware of the injunction of Matthew 18:15 to consult privately with one's brother where one feels there may be a fault, the first section of this article was sent to Professor Donald Macleod some months ago. Writing in the West Highland Free Press, 18th July 1997, Professor Macleod gave what appeared to be his reply to one of the points raised in both the article and the letter of the Reformed Presbyterian Church.
Welcome Rejection
Referring to his quotation from John Hick, he states quite plainly: "Hick is a pluralist: he believes that all religions are the same, leading equally to God. I think that's a nonsense". We welcome Professor Macleod's rejection of pluralism. If he had stopped there the matter could be dropped, but sadly that is not the case. He also declares: "There is no way in the world that the organisers of the Dorcas Fund are superior as human beings to Sorley Maclean, Brian Wilson, Iain Crichton Smith, Finlay Macleod, John Hick, Muhammad Ali or Mahatma Gandhi". But Jesus warns us: "Judge not, that ye be not judged" (Matt.7:1). Paul says: "Judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts" (1 Cor.4:5). There is a judgment day coming when this matter will be decided. The books will be opened and we will all be judged out of those things which are written in the books, according to our works (Rev.20:12). On that day God's people will be openly acknowledged and acquitted and it will be seen clearly who are the superior and inferior human beings.
Criminals or Christians?
A word must be said here about those "wicked" people, ministers and members of the Free Church, who were contributors to the Dorcas Fund. What was their great crime? They heard of a certain girl who had been a professing member of the Free Church, now residing in Australia, and who was regarded by all as living a life consistent with her Christian profession. She had gone to the police and alleged that a certain minister had sexually assaulted her. The Procurator Fiscal was prepared to bring her case to court but doubted if the Crown could meet the fare to take her from Australia for a Sheriff Court case. The woman, herself, was not wealthy and would not be able to pay the fare. Is justice merely for the wealthy or for those whose devoted followers will raise the £60,000 or whatever it requires to hire the strongest legal team available to defend them? The Dorcas Fund contributors felt that a woman who alleged she had been wronged should at least be given a hearing. Is the raising of £1,500 for her fare an unforgivable sin or is it not rather the action that all Christians who love the poor and care for the oppressed and abused should take?
True Saints
Professor Macleod proceeds: "At the moment Christianity in the Highlands has made itself virtually unelectable, precisely for the reason indicated by Hick. It is not identified with sainthood....Until we distance ourselves from such a monstrous perversion of Christianity, we have no future". The Professor still maintains that there is a grain of truth in what Hick says. But what is a saint in Biblical terms? Surely all who have been born again are saints. "If any man be in Christ he is a new creature" (2 Cor.5:17). When writing to the Church at Ephesus, Paul addresses them as the "saints" and "faithful" (Eph.1:1), not referring to two different classes but to the one group who have believed in Christ and therefore are justified and although they see themselves as the chief of sinners and are regarded by the world as abhorrent cranks, yet God sees them as spotless saints. Professor Macleod contrasts those whom he calls "puritanical reformers" with Jesus who is meek and lowly in spirit, and infinitely patient with flawed humanity, but is this a totally balanced picture? I see a Reformer chasing the merchants out of the temple and I hear Him say: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword" (Mat.10:34).
Good Works
A further problem is with his whole concept of good works. Are pagans and atheists able to perform good works? Scripture makes perfectly plain, "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Rom.14:23). This implies that the unbeliever cannot begin to be a saint. The Westminster Confession provides us with an excellent statement on this subject: "Works done by unregenerate men, although, for the matter of them, they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others; yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to the word; nor to a right end, the glory of God; they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, or make man meet to receive grace from God. And yet their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God" (WCF 16.7). In the men Professor Macleod regards as "saints" we can no doubt see common grace producing some pleasing traits, yet, if they do not believe in Jesus, they are guilty sinners in the eyes of God. "Without faith it is impossible to please him" (Heb.11:6).
Unevangelised and Unsaved
One other paragraph in Professor Donald Macleod's article requires notice. He writes: "We know that God's grace reaches to those who die in infancy and to those with learning difficulties. But none of us has a clear answer to the problem of those who never hear the Gospel". With regard to those who die in infancy our Confession states that elect infants will be saved (WCF 10.3). Whether election includes all infants we cannot say with certainty. Several prominent Christians have believed this, but Scripture is silent on the matter. What is more alarming is his uncertainty with regard to the fate of those who have not heard the gospel. Our Confession states clearly that those "not professing the Christian religion [cannot] be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do profess; and to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested" (WCF 10.4). Surely the whole point and urgency of missionary work is that people need to hear the gospel in order to be saved. "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?" (Rom.10:13-14).
[FCDA needed][You must be born again][A word to ministers]
[Promises, Promises][Skye alive?][Worshipping God as a family]
[Back to Reformed Christian Pages][Back to Free Church Foundations]