|
RenewingMinds
|
Gary E. Gilley and Southern View Chapel
Gary E. Gilley is the Senior Pastor of Southern View Chapel (SVC), Springfield, Illinois. The "chapel", an independent Bible church (see building), is located on 10 acres of land on the edge of the city and has an auditorium capable of seating 700. Pastor Gilley is a graduate of Moody Bible Institute. The school was founded by 19th century Arminian Dwight L. Moody and its first superintendent was R. A. Torrey. Dr. Torrey became President in 1899, following Moody's death earlier that year. For awhile, William R. Newell served as assistant superintendent to Torrey and was highly recognized as a "superb preacher," a fact not publicly recognized by the inter-denominational school. Torrey was succeeded by James M. Gray, who was one of eight consulting editors of the early Scofield Reference Bible. Both SVC and Pastor Gilley are members of the once-sound Independent Fundamental Churches of America (IFCA) and the church's doctrinal statement largely adheres to the troubled Scofieldian dispensational framework. Pastor Gilley is honorably an outspoken critic of the "market-driven" church movement and has written an exceptional 5-part series on the subject of Mysticism.
Miles & Cornelia Stanford attended IFCA churches as non-members for several decades. During that time, he expressed concern, both verbally and in writing, regarding the association's doctrinal downgrade. A problematic issue arose in the '80s when the IFCA refused to revoke membership of the wildly popular John F. MacArthur on account of his drift from historic dispensationalism into the errors of a Reformed/Puritan doctrinal emphasis and toward covenant pretribulationalism. Sadly, many IFCA leaders did not then nor do they today see a problem. Miles Stanford wrote nearly two dozen polemic papers setting forth various doctrinal errors in which John F. MacArthur was involved. These were bound and published as MacARTHURISM. John MacArthur subsequently issued a single formal retraction of his serious error regarding the eternal sonship of Christ(1). It is highly likely that Pastor Gilley was well aware or possibly involved in these doctrinal controversies.
It is from this context, that Gary Gilley, a prolific reader, wrote a book review of The Green Letters. This was superseded by a slightly-expanded review of The Complete Green Letters (TCGL), but which contains the same core criticisms as the earlier work. Mr. Gilley's current review consists of five paragraphs, the first and last being generally positive, with "three major concerns" sandwiched in between. He states that his "concerns must be taken seriously." So, let's take a close look at each of these concerns.
1) Gilley writes, "Stanford is a strong supporter of the Keswick Convention teachings." "...the teaching evolved into a 'Let Go and Let God' mentality. Stanford (in personal correspondence with me) denies that this is his view, but I fail to see otherwise in many places in The Complete Green Letters." This is simply an overly-broad and misleading statement by one whose knowledge of the subject is less than adequate and who is also unfamiliar with the breadth (fuller ministry) of Miles Stanford's writings and comments. Granted, Miles Stanford referenced the Keswick (silent "w") "deeper life" movement in TCGL (Chapters: 9, 59, 60, 64, 65), but these comments are best understood together with his more extensive analysis in Position to Person (see Identification History) and other Position Papers. In contrast to "Let Go and Let God," Stanford asserts a robust exercise of faith and progressive growth in truth for Christian living. See representative teaching in TCGL Chapter 1 on Faith, Chapter 15 on Rest, and Chapter 39, entitled Summation, which deals with the all important nature of our union with Christ.
Historically, Miles Stanford served as the premier American proponent for the identification truths contained in Paul's epistles. In his writings, he simply acknowledged Keswick's role in bringing the central theme of these truths to the wider audience of 19th and 20th century believers. As an ardent student of theological history, Miles clearly saw that Keswick was 1) complex, 2) many things to many people, and 3) "suffered from two debilitating weaknesses--one chronic, the other progressive" when it came to communicating identification teachings. Stanford's meticulous, underlined copy of Keswick's Authentic Voice (Stevenson), together with critical comments in the margins, sits on my library shelf. Many contemporary critics (mostly Reformed/Covenant) of Keswick simply parrot, in broad-brush style, the criticisms contained in B. B. Warfield's 1958 book entitled Perfectionism. In that work, Warfield saw Keswick as heir of the errors of Arminianism, Wesleyanism, Finneyism, and even Quietism--albeit a charge not entirely without substance. Nevertheless, Mr. Warfield's Puritan/Reformed orientation (with its emphasis upon 'law as a rule of life') prevented him from seeing identification truth as well as anything positive with Keswick.
2) Regarding his second concern he writes, "...as we reckon on the identification truths we will cease from our struggles with sin and life and find rest and ease. The Christian life becomes easy -- our conflicts are gone, we have found the spiritual secret." Again, Mr. Gilley's view is skewed and thus misleading. Much of what Miles Stanford wrote is set within the backdrop of the historically-pervasive, non-dispensational Puritan emphasis upon rigorous "spiritual disciplines" and adherence to "law as a rule of life" for Christian living. As an example of this emphasis, Stanford quotes Puritan J.C. Ryle from his book, Holiness, p. 27: “Genuine sanctification will show itself in habitual respect for God’s law, and habitual effort to live in obedience to it as a rule of life. There is no greater mistake than to suppose that a Christian has nothing to do with the law and the Ten Commandments, because he cannot be justified by keeping them. The same Holy Spirit who convinces the believer of sin by the law, and leads him to Christ for justification, will always lead him to a spiritual use of the law in the pursuit of sanctification." (TCGL, p. 263). However, Mr. Gilley's own review endorses both Ryle and Holiness. Gilley writes, "I highly encourage it be on the menu of those wanting a closer walk with Christ." Clearly, Pastor Gilley doesn't yet grasp the truth that the believer has passed out of the realm of Law, as succinctly presented in Chapters 32 & 33 of TCGL.
Puritan/Reformed teachings mandate Romans 7:14-20 as the status-quo for the "normal" Christian life, which in turn results in lack of assurance of salvation and serious confusion. Its inability to clearly grasp spiritual growth via identification guarantees this outcome. At the local church level, resulting sin and hypocrisy is often excused or rationalized. See The Tragedy of Romans 5:12. Nowhere does Stanford suggest that reckoning (exercising faith in identification truth) will bring about "ease" and that life's struggles will cease, as Mr. Gilley asserts. Rather, Miles Stanford progressively prepares the believer to "walk in the Spirit, and...not fulfill the lust of the flesh," thus also preparing us mentally and psychologically for the "life out of death" experience (genuine sanctification) mentioned in the Apostle Paul's epistles. Here is the Pauline standard Miles Stanford sets forth throughout his publications.
But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us. [We are] hard pressed on every side, yet not crushed; [we are] perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed--always carrying about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body. For we who live are always delivered to death for Jesus' sake, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. So then death is working in us, but life in you. 2 Cor. 4:7-12 (NKJV)
To infer that this amounts to "cheap grace" or "easy-believism" is simply wrong and contrary to the NT.
3) Lastly, Mr. Gilley is bothered by "the mentality that these truths are reserved for the few, the elite. Mr. Stanford teaches that while the knowledge of these things is available to all, only a few, and only over a long period of time, and only as the Holy Spirit chooses, will anyone ever discover these things." [italic emphasis mine.] He then pejoratively suggests that Mr. Stanford's writings are "akin to Gnosticism." Again, this is another sad distortion.
Miles Stanford never references believers, who have been awakened to the pernicious nature of sin and sins, and who under the effectual leading of the Holy Spirit come to see and act upon the doctrinal truth of deliverance, as being elitist. Unconditionally elect--yes, but "elite"--no. Mr. Stanford simply acknowledged the fundamental truth contained in Christ's words, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick." The Holy Spirit progressively leads believers into truth, truth that we hunger to find and often yearn to obtain--a genuine mark of the Holy Spirit's ministry in the life of the individual believer. By contrast, Mr. Gilley believes "...the truth of God's word is available to all of God's people." In personal correspondence to me, he enhanced his view by adding, "...to all who will study the Word enabled by the power of the Holy Spirit."
Miles Stanford's ministry was built upon the established fact that the Holy Spirit cultivates (progressively illuminates) the growing believer to comprehend the growth truths, and thus these truths should be shared in a highly personalized and discriminate way; a method that takes into account the mental and spiritual condition of the each growing believer-- i.e., sowing seed in "good soil" (Matthew 13).
In the ministration of the growth truths, the one who shares must have a spiritual parent-heart of love and understanding. Such leadership has the Spirit-fostered yearning of Paul, "My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you" (Gal. 4:19) MJS
Correspondingly, Paul in Titus 3:10 would have believers turn away from those who are intransigent in their moral or doctrinal error. Miles often quoted the early Plymouth Brethren writer J. B. Stoney who said,
There are two things that have to be taken into account when communicating truth. Not merely should there be certainty that it is the truth from God, but it must also be suited truth to those whom you address. They might need it all, but they may not be in condition to receive it [Parable of the Sower?]; and the more precious the truth, the greater the injury, in a certain sense, if it is presented to those who are not in a state to profit by it”. [Bracket additions mine.]
Thus in Chapter 65 of TCGL, entitled Identification Leadership, Miles Stanford has much wisdom to share and advice for those in formal ministry.
Pastors are like all others when it comes to spiritual development, since our Father is no respecter of persons. There has to be preparation of heart by the Holy Spirit prior to any realistic apprehension of the Christ-life.
There are other factors to be considered in connection with the deeper truths and the church ministry, some of which the pastor soon discovers when he is awakened to the realm of identification.
The pastor has been highly trained in the Word, which he loves and memorizes; he also depends on the Spirit of truth in his study and use of it. Yet the entire subject of the Cross in the life of the believer is closed to him until the spirit has prepared his heart.
No matter what means the Spirit uses to reveal these truths to him, the revelation always comes as a wonderful surprise. "Why didn't I see long ago what is now so obvious?"
When it comes to sharing the deeper truths, there are two important factors that must be taken into account. First, it is imperative to know the doctrines scripturally and to some extent experientially. Second, it is every bit as necessary to know how to share them. It takes time for the Spirit to impart a clear understanding of identification, and it takes time for Him to teach the intricacies of sharing effectively.
When the pastor's presentation is premature, there is the tendency to preach instead of to share. He may resort to exhortation and [Arminian] pressure to compensate for his failure to prepare hearts.
Maybe our dear brother, who is recognized as "Pastor-Teacher" at Southern View Chapel, took umbrage at Brother Stanford's observations. Or maybe his knowledge of the truth of God's sovereign election and the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit in action has not yet worked their way through to practical application. Whatever the case, growing believers need to move beyond evangelical revivalist methods rooted in Arminianism, beyond those who see no further moral in the Parable of the Sower than a simple explanation of what happens when seed (God's Word) is mechanically and indiscriminately scattered.
As one might expect, Pastor Gilley is often laudatory toward John MacArthur and others of a Puritan/Reformed perspective. His Southern View Chapel website contains endorsing links to Grace to You, Grace Community Church, The Master's Seminary, and The Spurgeon Archive. The featured speaker at SVC's October 19-21, 2007 Bible Conference is none other than Reformed Baptist Phil Johnson.
Gilley writes the following flattering comment:
One thing I appreciate about MacArthur and his staff is their willingness to strongly declare their views. Whether I always agree with them or not, at least I know where they stand. I also appreciate their willingness to tackle the hard issues that confront us today and to name names where needed. I find far too many in evangelical circles who know a great deal of what happened in church history but don’t have a clue about what is going on today. And there are plenty who don’t have a clue about church history who are perpetuating the same errors as our fathers. Still others know the issues but are afraid to step up and take a stand. Not so MacArthur and company. Even if I come down on a different side of some subjects, at least I have been presented with a good argument. Review of Fool's Gold.
However, in a recent review of MacArthur's Hard To Believe (2003, Thomas Nelson), Gilley is less sure on just where MacArthur and company really stand.
Hard to Believe is a follow-up on MacArthur’s earlier books, The Gospel According to Jesus and Faith Works(2). Both best sellers invoked a great deal of criticism and launched the “Lordship Salvation” wars. Critics of MacArthur accuse him of teaching a form of works salvation and of being almost in Rome’s camp on sanctification. These critics can point to a number of statements in both volumes that seem to support their concern. Others, such as myself, point to other statements showing that MacArthur teaches salvation through faith alone, and sanctification as a process(3) that follows. Hard to Believe was MacArthur’s opportunity to clear the waters and demonstrate to his critics that they have misunderstood him. In this regard he more than fails—he actually fuels the fire. He does exactly what he has done in the previous books—makes bewildering statements.
He further gives four legitimate examples regarding the doctrine of assurance from the book and follows with this astonishing statement:
Everyone of those statements sound suspiciously like works-salvation. Salvation is the fruit of saving faith, not the result of our obedience. Believing, as I do, that MacArthur does not teach works-salvation I cannot understand why he makes such comments, and why they are not edited to reflect his theology before publication.
Do you find this statement a bit odd? I would hope that Mr. Gilley isn't suggesting that he know MacArthur's mind and beliefs better than MacArthur himself; but rather MacArthur's ghost writers or publisher may be 'taking liberties' and MacArthur doesn't proof-read what winds up on the shelf.
Gilley then summarizes as follows:
I was left confused with MacArthur’s true position. I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt because of my exposure to his fuller ministry. But if this was my first encounter I would not know what to think—and his critics will not let him off as easily. I would like to see MacArthur go back and write a clear, non-contradictory, definitive statement of his position as I had hoped Hard to Believe would be.
My advice is not to hold out hope for any "clear, non-contradictory, definitive statement." MacArthur's doctrinal mentors have been unsuccessful and they've been working on it for nearly 500 years. Going forward, I hope Brother Gilley will be more objective by gaining an exposure to the "fuller ministry" of MJS and thus equally extend his gracious "benefit of the doubt" toward the late Miles J. Stanford.
(1) "I want to state publicly that I have abandoned the doctrine of 'incarnational sonship.' Careful study and reflection have brought me to understand that Scripture does indeed present the relationship between God the Father and Christ the Son as an eternal Father-Son relationship. I no longer regard Christ's sonship as a role He assumed in His incarnation."
(2) Read Miles Stanford's reviews of The Gospel According to Jesus and Faith Works.
(3) "Sanctification as a process" has never been at issue. Rather, it is the nature of the process where Stanford and the MacArthur/Reformed tradition are light-years apart.
Dan,
Thank you for posting the email of 3/2.1/2007 in your Journal. What a great joy to see another set free from self and sin. His story, as you already know through my previous emails, is much like my own. Heart preparation by the Holy Spirit is the key. It was 30 years for me, enshrouded in the cloud of Covenant Theology, which almost destroyed my life! I'm just so thankful that you and Miles were there when I was at my lowest point. Emails such as the one posted have become an important source of encouragement to me. Again, I thank you for all you and Miles have done for me over the last 8 years.Continuing to pray for your ministry,[signed]
Mail this page to a friend- SEATED
- ASCENDED
- RAISED
- BURIED
- CRUCIFIED
