Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950 to 2000

by Iain H. Murray

A penetrating review of fifty years of crucial change in evangelical attitudes and alignments, 1950–2000. Murray leads the reader back to the most basic question of all, 'What is a Christian?'

Genres: Church History, History, Theology, Christian, Religion, Church, Christian History

342 pages, Hardcover

First published December 1, 2000

About the author

Iain Hamish Murray is a British pastor and author. He was educated in the Isle of Man and at the University of Durham before entering ministry in 1955. He served as assistant to Martyn Lloyd-Jones at Westminster Chapel (1956–59) and subsequently at Grove Chapel, London (1961–69) and St. Giles Presbyterian Church, Sydney, Australia, (1981–84). In 1957 he and Jack Cullum founded the Reformed publishing house, the Banner of Truth Trust, of which he continues to serve as a trustee.

Reviews

[Kyle Nieber · Rating 5 out of 5]

Easily one of the most important reads to fully understand the current state of evangelicalism. This was the final book we read as pastoral interns at Capitol Hill Baptist Church and it will easily go down as my top 3 of the internship.

[Brenton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent! Must read!

[Daniel Kleven · Rating 5 out of 5]

In which Murray covers Schleiermacher (!), the ecumenism of the Billy Graham crusades, Fuller Theological Seminary, evangelical Anglicans, the Lloyd-Jones/Packer/Stott kerfluffle, the Keele Conference of 1967 (of which I had known nothing before this book), and J.I. Packer’s involvement in Evangelicals and Catholics Together. Throughout, Murray is fair and even-handed, refraining from surmising and motive-judging, and sticking to published material. When he does speculate about motives, he seems to always project a positive supposition on those he disagrees with, i.e. a model of charity. Nevertheless, he thinks something went terribly wrong during the last half of the 20th century in evangelicalism, and I think he’s right.

One critique. Murray—a cessationist—lumps “the charismatics” in with the rest of his critiques. In one single paragraph (p. 304), he lists “Liberalism…non-evangelicals…Anglo-Catholics…the charismatic movement…Roman Catholicism” in a summary of “what went wrong.” Huh. It seems to me that “one of these things is not like the others.”

That aside, this is a great book. Sign me up as a “Lloyd-Jones man.”

[Andrew Gates · Rating 5 out of 5]

Piper likes to say "Books don't change people, paragraphs do - sometimes sentences." This book did that for me a few years ago (especially 33, 38) and was helpful reading again.

This book chronicles the historical and theological development of Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism from 1950-2000. Through tracing different key figures and events, Murray shines light on different errors and strengths of both parties. Though the two have similar doctrinal statements, their posture towards culture, etc. are quite different (31). Both sides would be helped by really answering the question "What is a Christian?"

This book helped me to understand the Fundamentalism I grew up with...what exactly it was and what is wrong with it. However, as Murray notes, we ought not use this knowledge as a weapon against others because some of these sinful attitudes are still in each of us.

Though this book is very helpful, readers should be aware that it contains a lot of historical information that can be a lot to wade through. But, it's worth it and some things can be skimmed over.


(Shoutout to Seth for choosing this book for me to read when I really needed it)

[Tim Michiemo · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.9 Stars - Top Read of 2021

“Evangelicalism Divided” by Iain Murray is a remarkable book covering the history of Evangelicalism in America and Britain between the period of 1950 to 2000. Murray’s book is not a traditional history book, but more of a historical evaluation. Murray surveys much of the events and personalities that were involved in the progress of evangelicalism in the second half of this century and offers theological insight and critique that is tremendously profound! Murray’s main argument is that worldliness, pragmatism, and politics are what caused evangelicalism to decline over the past 50 years. Trust in the influence and power of the world has caused evangelicalism to suffer rather than experience the revival that has occurred multiple times in the history of the Christian faith.

There is so much good historical content in this book it’s hard to not share it all. Murray begins his book by overviewing some of the backgrounds to evangelicalism, which includes the teachings of Schleiermacher, fundamentalists and their response to Schleiermacher’s liberalism, and the development of neo-evangelicalism with institutions such as Christianity Today and Fuller Theological Seminary. Murray explains that neo-evangelism began with good motives, which was a desire to engage culture like liberals but hold fast to the truths of the Christian faith like fundamentalisms. But Murray shows how this desire led to evangelicals making many compromises; compromises that eventually sabotaged the very faith that they were confessing. Many of these compromises included de-emphasizing doctrinal truth in the name of “Christian unity” as argued by the ecumenical movement. A compromise of belief in the authority, infallibility, and sufficiency of Scripture. And a lack of conviction on the differences between Christians and non-Christians.

Murray ends his book with lessons learned from the last half-century that is incredibly important for every evangelical Christian to know. Murray’s book offers important lessons so that the current evangelicals would not make the same mistakes. Murray's main call is for Christians to reject the lure of success and pragmatism that is the spirit of this age and pursue true Biblical preaching. The Christian faith is a confessional faith, based upon Christ’s Word communicated to the world so that sinners would believe by faith. Thus, Christianity is not a pragmatic religion – we don’t live by what simply ‘works”. We live and die by the truth, and Murray’s historic lesson has been captured in this book as a rebuke and warning to evangelicalism.

In sum, I have not read a book that better explains the current evangelical dilemma and at the same time offers a proper solution - which is faithfulness to Christ through holding fast to His Word. I cannot recommend this book more highly; I think it’s a must-read for any and every evangelical!

[Michael Abraham · Rating 5 out of 5]

Iain Murray's Evangelicalism Divided provocatively reviews fifty years (1950-2000) of change in the evangelical world. This time period was one where lack of suspicion was held up as a Christian virtue, a stark contrast to Paul's exhortations (1 Cor. 14:20).

During this time Martyn Lloyd-Jones argued that we should be asking, "'What is a Christian?' How can we get forgiveness of sins?' and 'What is a church?'" Yet the answers found in evangelicalism at the time, or lack thereof, proved to be a gauge on the spiritual climate. Murray isn't afraid to name names. Popular names like Billy Graham, J.I. Packer, and John Stott are seen to compromise vital doctrine for the sake of the ecumenical movement.

The most impactful section for me was in the chapter, The Silent Participant. Murray argues that Satan does not work principally through forces of materialism, secular philosophy, or even pagan religions. No, in the New Testament, the greatest danger comes from temptations within the church, particularly false teaching (2 Thess. 2:3-9).

I could not help but see the many parallels to current day evangelicalism. In many ways, we are reliving the past and making the same grave mistakes. This book made me ask myself the question, "is it really virtuous to be vague where the Bible speaks so clearly?" I will definitely read this book again.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great.

[Bradley Fayonsky · Rating 5 out of 5]

Through a fascinating history of 20th century Christianity, Evangelicalism Divided brought my understanding of what it means to be an evangelical to an entirely different level. More importantly, it reminded me of the beauty, power, and centrality of the gospel in my life and the life of Christ’s church.

[Sam · Rating 5 out of 5]

Last 100 pages = gold

[Reagan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was assigned reading, but I couldn’t have found a more thrilling subject matter if I had tried. Iain Murray has given his assessment of the church from 1950-2000 and it is remarkable. He is charitable to the arguments of those he disagrees with but gives honest rebuttals paired with Scripture. This work is essential to understanding the flow of church history. As many of the people I look up to have been influenced during this period of the church, I can see clearly where they fall in the spectrum of belief and allegiance. I am grateful for Iain Murray’s dedicated, thorough, intentionally biblical assessment of this subject. I pray that we would see more historians as well rounded and Christ honoring as him.

[Matt Veilleux · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting read. The analysis of Bill Graham's ministry was particularly helpful along with the takeaways at the end.

[Parker Bentley · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a super interesting book covering historical events and topics that were pretty unknown to me previously. The focus on this book is clear from the title - Iain Murray is reviewing some of the division in evangelicalism over the second half of the 20th century. Some topics covered include: Billy Graham and the crusades and his association (BGEA), the ecumenical movement desiring unity between the Church of England and Rome, the intellectual push to challenge the inerrancy of scripture, and the influences of many figures of the day (D. Martyn Lloyd Jones, JI Packer, John MacArthur to name a few). This work covers a lot of ground given the changes that took place throughout the 50 year period. I gathered from the book that one of the main problems was a lack of clarity around what an evangelical is, and furthermore, what a Christian is. A push for tolerance blurred lines and challenged orthodoxy, and was ultimately harmful for true evangelicalism.

I found the work to be an insightful, historical summary of 1950-2000 in Christendom. I think a survey of “modern” church history helps shed light on issues still prevalent today. I would recommend this work (as I do most Iain Murray books) as a good resource to understand these issues and to recalibrate the minds of Christians on the topics discussed (unity, doctrine, the authority of scripture, conversion, importance of the local church, among others).

[Salvador Blanco · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well-researched and insightful book on some major shifts in Evangelicalism (though biased toward Lloyd-Jones). His concluding thoughts are relevant for today's Evangelicals.

"It was good that evangelicals forty years ago gave new attention to the subject of Christian unity, but, if the thesis of this book is true, there was failure to look sufficiently at the broader religious scene in which gospel truth, not unity, was the first need. Thus a grave situation in the churches still remains to be addressed. We can be sure that it will not be addressed effectively until there is a renewed anointing of power upon those whose only authority is the Word of God" (314).

Favorite quote: "The only alternatives are an acceptance of the truthfulness of all Scripture or a questioning of the whole" (201).

[Aaron · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good synopsis of recent church history and a powerful reminder that we need the utmost clarity on these questions:

1. What is the gospel?
2. What is the church?
3. How are men saved?

"How can a boundary be drawn between who needs the gospel and who does not unless there is agreement about what the gospel is and what a Christian is?"

May God renew in our generation a passion for Him and a passion for His church.

[Bennett Cox · Rating 5 out of 5]

Doctrine matters............................

[Timothy Dehne · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good.

[Xavier Tan · Rating 2 out of 5]

I must admit I was a little disappointed given that the blurb promised that "Murray's account is not simply a black and white narrative." It is very clear who are wearing black hats and who is wearing a white one in Murray's narrative when, apart from outlining the historical events he aims to survey, he opines on who is making a mistake and who are the ones staying true to the gospel – the latter conveniently sharing his opinions on who should be granted the label 'Christian' and/or 'evangelical'. But I suppose everyone writes from somewhere.

On to the content of the book. Murray's thesis is that evangelicals should be wary of seeking outward unity with non-evangelicals who compromise on the fundamentals of the faith and of granting them the label 'Christian' rather than calling them to repentance. He begins by outlining the history of how Christians in the USA reacted to Billy Graham's crusades and his willingness to work with those Murray deems as 'non-evangelical', which led to Graham's "new evangelicalism" "los[ing] its way" (p 51). He then moves across the Atlantic, surveying how figures in the Church of England like John Stott and J. I. Packer cozied up to "liberals" in the Anglican Church, over and against Martyn Lloyd-Jones' warnings, which eventually led to Stott and other evangelicals (allegedly) compromising on evangelical teaching (pp 107, 141-142). Murray then laments evangelicals who entered academia and dialogue and partnerships with Rome, and as a result (allegedly) watered down their evangelical beliefs (even evangelicals like FF Bruce (p 180-181) and Nicky Gumbel were not spared (p 244)).

First, the positives. Where Murray is outlining history, it makes for a concise, fairly accurate account of the events that happened in the material time he is covering. He covers the relevant figures, how they interacted with each other, and the conferences/partnerships they attended. If this book had been almost entirely this (as the book's blurb promised), I would have given this book a 5/5 rating – we evangelicals truly need a better understanding of history to better appreciate where we stand today.

Where his opining is concerned, I found interesting that Murray presents Lloyd-Jones as not calling evangelicals to leave mainline denominations per se, but rather, as calling evangelicals to avoid "ecumenical thinking" (p 283) and be concerned with external unity when "the very foundations of the Christian faith had been undermined" (p 285). Personally, I find it odd that, if this is really what Lloyd-Jones was saying, how so many of his peers and hearers could have misinterpreted him and all heard him calling them to leave their mainline denominations or avoid partnerships with non-evangelicals, effectively forming a 'pure' denomination/church. But this is an interesting spin on Lloyd-Jones that I have not read or heard before, so I thank Murray for this perspective.

However, I think Murray's book suffers from two main points: Begging the question when drawing the boundaries of evangelicalism, and special pleading when handling the Reformers.

Firstly (somewhat curiously, given the subject of the book), Murray does not define what he means by "evangelical". He opens the book by stating that preachers who preached the gospel were termed "evangelicals", but that begs the question since one of the central issues which underlie the period this book covers is precisely the question – what are the essentials of the gospel. Murray makes no attempt to define it. The term "evangelical" is mostly defined by negation throughout the book – evangelicals are those who are not liberal, or ecclesiastical/Anglo-Catholic, or Roman Catholic. It is also interesting how, at some places, he seeks to paint with a broad brush (labelling "liberal" or denying the term "evangelical") people from different groups – some who deny the Virgin birth and/or resurrection (p 119), others who seek a more holistic theory of the atonement beyond penal substitution (pp 41, 66, 121), and others who hold to a high view of baptism (p 102). Surely one of these, being an article of the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, is not like the others. Perhaps Murray will benefit from making his theological triaging clearer to the reader.

Murray's handling of the Reformers is also curious. He appeals to the Reformers (without citing them directly, no less) when trying to make the point that a broad umbrella where evangelicals and non-evangelicals coexist is precisely what the Reformers were opposing and required "ignoring" their view of baptism, but (rather ironically) he ignores the fact that the magisterial Reformers disagree with him on a whole host of issues Murray holds as 'deal-breakers' when it comes to labelling one as an 'evangelical'. For example, a high view of baptism. The Reformers believed infants should be baptised, and that baptism confers real grace upon the infant – doctrines that Murray and Lloyd-Jones (to whom he served as assistant to) reject. Luther's doctrine of baptism and his constant appeal to his baptism as proof that he was a Christian when the devil confronted him seems to fly in the face of Murray's denial of the term "evangelical" to those who hold that baptism is the sign of the covenant community because it was allegedly not what the Reformers taught, but what they were protesting against (p 103). The Reformers were also clear that they think that the church of Christ extends into Rome (as they have the sacraments) (for example, Luther opined that "There is much that is Christian and good under the papacy. ... In the papal church there are the true holy Scriptures, true baptism, the true sacrament of the altar, the true keys to the forgiveness of sins, the true office of the ministry, the true catechism in the form of the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the articles of the creed.") But Murray also seems to disagree with that, denying the term 'evangelical' to and criticising anyone who even seems to be cozying up to Roman Catholics (see, eg, pp 59-60, 76, 106-107, 236-242). It seems to me that the Reformers are to Murray ‘Schrodinger's Reformer’ – they are the standard for evangelicalism when they champion doctrines which Murray holds dear (like justification by faith alone); but they fade into the background (or their work is deemed not "perfect[ed]" (p 103)) when they champion doctrines to which Murray disagrees. Murray also does this with other figures he (selectively) cites – for example, he critiques Graham for (allegedly) not following the warning of Schaeffer when he expanded his tent of who he was willing to partner with for ministry, but Schaeffer himself acknowledged that evangelicals can work with those who disagree with them on some issues such as Roman Catholics (they may be "co-belligerents", even if not "allies") – so Schaeffer actually disagrees with Murray on the larger point he is citing him for!

Overall, I think it is a pity that this book deviated from being an account of history to a polemic piece where Murray argues for his position, while his argument suffers from the defects pointed out above. Cards on the table, I am an evangelical who worshipped at an evangelical church when I was in London, so I actually agree with most of Murray's beliefs. I just do not think that Murray's narrowing of the evangelical tent does us much good, especially not when his reasoning used to narrow the tent will also exclude most of our forefathers that came before us in church history. To anyone looking in at this debate, I would recommend you look at the writings and work of the people Murray criticises in this book (eg. Stott, Packer, McGrath) and decide for yourselves if they have really watered down their evangelical beliefs because of their commitment to dialogue and striving towards partnerships, and unity.

[Matt Tyler · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow. A phenomenally insightful book regarding the changes that took place within evangelicalism from 1950-2000. Iain Murray's Evangelicalism Divided explains quite a bit about current day Christianity.

Murray focuses on changes that took place among Billy Graham, JI Packer, John Stott, and the founders of Fuller Seminary. These men desired "cooperation without compromise" with the hope of bringing about an "evangelical renaissance." Unfortunately, this new policy began to seriously weaken biblical Christianity in the US and England, primarily because these men forgot the most fundamental question: What is a Christian?

I knew several of the basic "facts" recounted in this book: Billy Graham's transition into partnership with Roman Catholics, the rift between Martyn Lloyd-Jones and JI Packer, John Stott's interesting theological positions, and Fuller Seminary's gradual compromises. However, I had no idea how these things were connected or what they were revealing about evangelicalism. In their desire to remain in the ecumenical conversations, what it means to be a Christian was (unintentionally?) redefined.

Lloyd-Jones (who warned Packer, Stott and others about the consequences of their compromise) summarized the debate well, "The ecumenical people put fellowship before doctrine. We are evangelicals; we put doctrine before fellowship." For Lloyd-Jones, the issue was not primarily about church unity: "We should be asking, 'What is a Christian? How can we get forgiveness of sins?' and 'What is a Church?'"

This book is eye opening and revealing. I highly recommend it.

[Jimmy]

Reading this book by Iain Murray made me have to put the book down at times because I got angry. I actually got angry reading this book, to read of the comprimise of the Evangelical faith that is documented in the book. Particularly, the part about Billy Graham was by itself to upset anyone reader who respect him yet also have a high view of Biblical doctrines and the Evangelical faith.

This book has also been reviewed by someone here

This book is largely a narrative of the how Evangelicals have become wishy washy, particuarly in English circles. It was sad to read Murray’s documentation of what Alister McGrath, Mark Noll and J. I. Packer has to say. By time the book started talking about the Ecumenical movement, I was furious at how Evangelicals could be so naive at best and wolves in sheep’s clothings at it’s worst.

It is a reminder as I read this of how much it is important to walk in His Word and define what is a Christian not according to what others would want to hear but WHAT THE BIBLE says.

For those that do have a place in their heart for Evangelicals in England, this book is an essential read of one man’s perspective of the last fifty years.

I just wished the book went over more about Martin Lloyd-Jones.

[James Hogan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Surely one of the best books I've read this year. I wish you all could read it, even if one isn't as interested in church history as I am! This book's subtitle is "A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950 to 2000" and that is indeed a good description of this book. This book can at times be a bit dense, and if you aren't a huge fan of reading church history, reading this may be a struggle at times. But I am most grateful I read this book.

Murray is one of my very favourite authors and this book definitely doesn't change that. How can I describe this book? Well, Murray is writing about a change in the wider evangelical church in the past fifty/sixty years. I am struggling to adequately describe this book mostly because again - I want to tell you to read it, not my words! But surely there has been a change in Christian thought in the past few hundred years. First with the advent of modernism and higher criticism, beginning with German intellectualism in the 19th century and the application of modernist thought to the study of theology and the Christian life. Surely that last sentence made things clearer, right? Well, evangelicalism could be said to be a response to the liberalism in the mainline Protestant denominations, also known as "fundamentalism" in the United States. One of the central tenets of the evangelical movement was the assertion that the Word of God is truly inerrant, containing all that is necessary to come to faith in Christ. But as Murray states...in the past half century, things have changed. Prominent evangelical leaders made the decision that they could do more good by working with various Christian churches and organizations, even if there were some disagreements in certain areas of doctrinal thought. The motives of these leaders were often pure, but discernment and wisdom were sorely lacking. So while ecumenicism can seem to be a good thing in certain circles...when it comes to the defense of the true faith that we have been given in the Word of God, the quicksand of compromise quickly imperils the witness of the church. And so even a great teacher like J.I. Packer(whose book Knowing God I plan on reading next!) can think it is a good idea to dialogue and work closely with the Roman Catholic Church(ECT in the mid-90s...something I was excited to read about, because this was something I actually remember being a big deal, Mom and Dad talking about it, the critical comments of MacArthur about it, etc! History that I've lived through, I'm now reading about. A bit strange). So a rapprochement with the "wider church" may seem to be a glorious, praiseworthy objective! Yet, in actuality, we are flirting with false teachers who serve the father of lies. Oh woe is us for our arrogance. So in one way, this book is a sad read. It is about the slow slide of the evangelical movement into liberalism and plastic orthodoxy, the specter of apostasy hovering close. But also...this is history and this is important to read because as sad as some of the events chronicled are, knowing that God is sovereign and that He yet works even amidst the chaos is a glorious thought indeed. Murray writes with force, vigor and clear-sighted passion. He understands that Christian unity is essential, but also that unity not based on the foundation of the true gospel is worse than useless. It imperils our witness to the world, weakens our faith, and retards our growth as sons and daughters of God. One of the most important questions that needs to be asked and understood by the leaders of our churches is this: What is a Christian? The answer to that question is what should drive and determine church policy. The lures of pragmatism and church growth theory are flickering candles compared to the bonfire of the true preaching of the gospel as given to us by the inspired and inerrant Word of God.

So I really did write a bit more than I meant to, and obviously my writing is much less clear and stimulating than Murray's! But one more quick thought before I close. Where shall we go from here? Understanding the drift of the evangelical church, what should be our response? What should we pray for? We pray that God works and brings revival. We cry out for God to send His Spirit to work in us. We pray for the preaching of the true gospel amidst the churches of this land. We pray that the leaders of our churches proclaim with power and might, empowered from on high by the Holy Spirit to preach the Word, in season and out of season. We pray that God has mercy upon us and forgives us our weakness and slackness in obeying and following Him in all things. We pray that God fills us with His love and charity as we yet hold firm to the truth in His Word. We pray that God keep us humble before Him, never thinking we know all things, but always having faith in the One who does know all things. And what is this faith in? Again, what is a Christian?

In the words of Murray, page 299:

"There are two ways in which Scripture identifies a true disciple of Christ. The first is by the evidence of a person's faith in Christ, and the second by the insistence that the accompaniment of true faith is always a new life. On the first evidence enough has already been said in these pages. Faith in Christ, according to the New Testament, is the same as receiving the truth; not, that is, all truth, but certainly the truth of salvation from the guilt and power of sin through Christ alone. The Christian knows that he is a sinner, that Christ is the divine Saviour, and that his salvation comes entirely from what Jesus has suffered for him and in his place. Every such person has 'the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ' (2 Cor. 4:6). The content of that knowledge admits of unending progress, but where it does not exist at all there can be no salvation. All true Christian faith rests on the same foundation."

Praise God for the encouragement and wisdom granted me in reading this book. All glory to Him.

[Michael Jones · Rating 3 out of 5]

much good historical information. Not sure how the fragments will be put back together-- or if Murray's suggestions are the way to go.

[Ben Robin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Probably the best, most important book I’ve read in my pastoral internship.

[Cliff Dailey · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is for those who want to read about the culture's influence on the Church from the 1950s to 2000.

Murray writes a book that is well organized and well researched. With a lot to ponder, the brief thesis is that many prominent leaders had forgotten faithful teaching of Christ's gospel evident in their hunt for external unity with each denomination. A couple questions need be answered: 1) Can there be unity in belief between denominations that split over fundamental belief in what the gospel is? 2) How does this unfaithful teaching and application of God's gospel effect the Church, today? Also, the appendices at the end (one hymn on Holy Scripture and a couple testimonies from some Christians in more recent Church history) are good for reflection. Murray helps make clear that faith in God is truly resting in His power and not the wisdom of man.

This Holy Scripture is what I'll hold to more after this read (1 Corinthians 2:1–5):

"[1] And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. [2] For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. [3] And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, [4] and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, [5] so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God." (ESV)

[Gary · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was exposed to this author while reading Martyn Lloyd-Jones book and am so glad I stumbled upon this book. It started out as a church history book of sorts. The interesting and enlightening negative influence of Billy Graham and other mass crusades on the integrity of Biblical doctrine and reasons for orthodoxy was of great value to me. The push for unity over doctrine has changed the church but in my belief has simply exposed those who were "not of us" to begin with else they would not have departed. But then in support of correct doctrine the book, using quotes from multiple Godly men and pure Scripture, opens up such a defense for pure doctrine and the Gospel that I was overwhelmed. This book is a MUST read for every pastor and elder and church member. I cannot stress the importance of this mighty work enough! The last chapter, From the Quarries to the Temple, kept up this message of doctrinal purity while explaining why we mere Christians struggled so with theological differences but I saw no mention of quarries, which intrigued me. Until the last page. Then that glorious, lengthy quote from Felix Neff (1826) on the messy work in the quarries versus the silence and perfection of the Temple made it all so clear. Oh, dear reader, this life of imperfections, arguments, disagreements in theology is not without purpose and will end with that glorious reunion in Heaven for those who believe and live the True Gospel. Let it ever be preached!

[Kenneth · Rating 3 out of 5]

Murray gives a thorough summary of the events in a movement toward ecumenicalism from the 1950s to the 2000s that resulted in abandoning the core doctrines of Christianity for the sake of fellowship between nominal Christians. He charitably quotes people he believes made the wrong choices in this movement, responding only to published work while completely avoiding ad hominem attacks. I am honestly amazed at how Murray traces historical movements in Christendom across decades and continents.

I found the book mostly lacking in communicating its main point, which is that the question, 'What/Who is a Christian?' must take precedence over Christian unity. In other words, answer the questions 'What is a church?' and 'Who is in it?' before you ask the question of how to unite all institutions that call themselves 'churches.' Christianity has always had a creed. There is no need to unite with those who deny the core tenets and doctrine of the Christian faith. As we have seen, doing so has resulted only in error and confusion.

[Stephen Angliss · Rating 4 out of 5]

This should be assigned reading for all Christians—especially pastors. It’s easy to assume that the churches and denominations in which we serve exist in a vacuum, when really they are the product of one of two streams of thought which divided in the early twentieth century—old evangelicalism (sometimes called fundamentalism) and new evangelicalism (sometimes called liberalism).

The role of Billy Graham in the ecumenical movement as well as John Stott and JI Packer’s attempt at inter-denominational unity was eye-opening although disappointing. If anything, this book gives a clearer understanding of “who’s who” and how various people, publications, and programs fit into a larger ideological framework.

The book is equal parts history and pastoral exhortation. Murray is not the easiest author to read but his use of the Puritans and his biblical convictions are superb and much needed in these days.

[Andrew Mattison · Rating 4 out of 5]

A slow read because it is a history book, but Iain Murray is a great writer who does a fantastic job of analyzing and helping Christian’s learn from history. In the final chapters he draws excellent conclusions and applications from the history he has covered. He regularly reminds us that a significant cause of the decline of the western church in the 20th century was a failure to clearly answer the question “What is a Christian?” A recovery of and bold proclamation of the biblical to this question is greatly needed today.

Great quotes:
“The visible church is glorious to the extent to which she corresponds with the invisible.”

“The health of the church has always been in proportion to the extent to which, in her teaching, the difference between Christian and Non-Christian has been kept sharp and clear.”

[Mark Evans · Rating 4 out of 5]

The last chapter was very good in detailing the broad themes of the book and the main issues with the evangelical movement in the 20th century.

It would have been helpful if he spoke more to his relationship with Lloyd-Jones so that we could help understand his personal involvement. He exonerates Lloyd-Jones at every turn - and that is all well and good but it would help the reader if the author were more open about his connection with “the doctor.”

A very good book - it helps to show how pragmatic impulses took root in evangelicalism on both sides of the Atlantic. Also shows how an overreaction to the narrowness of fundamentalism opened to door to broad acceptance of liberalism under the guise of of unity and cordiality.

[Nick Lees · Rating 5 out of 5]

Every Christian should read this book at some point, especially those in the west. It explains so much of what we're experiencing in our day due to the compromises of these years. As I continue to delve into church history, I find myself understanding more and more why the modern church is so spiritually weak. Or perhaps I should clarify and say those who claim to be the church. So many churches and denominations have forsaken the truth in an effort to grow numerically or to promote a false unity - pragmatism reigns instead of God's truth. It is lamentable, but books like this one help us see a little more clearly so we can return to the Lord and His Word.

[Vance Christiaanse · Rating 3 out of 5]

A sequel in some sense to Murray's _Revival & Revivalism_, which I did read first. I found this book, which covers the second half of the twentieth century, more difficult to follow than his book about earlier history. I think it's because Murray assumes his readers are already intimately familiar with everything that was happening at the leadership levels of Evangelicalism before starting this book, most specifically the parts that involved him personally. I got a lot of dirt on Billy Graham but there was a lot of other gossip that went over my head.