There are moments when this book reminds me of reading a spiritual classic. It is surprising for its emphasis on repentance, on prayer, on being committed to preaching and meditating on God’s word. It is quite a fervent book. There was a time in my life when I would not have given a book like this a second glance, mostly because it is a book about wanting more. That is no longer the case. I have been forced to read the literature written for pastors, after years of attending seminary, at last, because I find myself in a difficult pastoral situation. I still wish it were more challenging reading, but I understand better why they don’t want to make it very challenging: that literature is aimed at situations that are already challenging.
This book, from what I gather mostly indirectly, is a book with a reputation in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Its author used to be part of it, and moved away as he outgrew what he calls the ingrown church, and on top of that was quite successful; so one can see there would be feelings. I wonder also if this is the reason you see literature praising the ordinary, as another form of resistance.
The OPC, if I may point this out, preserves a peculiar, old disagreement. It was that which according to Darryl Hart originally split the few Presbyterians in the Colonies from 1741-1758. That is the controversy between the new side and those who resisted them, the old. The tension centered on the phenomenon of the Great Awakening, of which the new side were approving and the old side suspicious. One of the things that American Presbyterians achieved in 1729 was the Adopting Act, which was a settlement about confessional subscription and church polity. It regulated Presbyterian church life, providing a directory for worship, discipline and church government, achieving a new uniformity.
The Great Awakening in many ways was a change in decorum, and this discomfited some—and scholarly inquiry and reevaluation of all this interests me. The OPC has, it seems to me—though I’ve only been in it at the lowest level, as a member of two local congregations—preserved that suspicion of the Great Awakening (Darryl Hart would I think quite willingly raise his hand at this point, if asked). But it also has moderates, those who think the emphasis on order and the ordinary is a good servant but a bad master. From what I understand, these are quiet readers and admirers in many cases of this book.
There is a lot of Whitefield in this book. There is a surprising lot of Spurgeon. Those are seem to be the outsized influences: Experimental Calvinism, and not of a particularly Presbyterian variety. This book is actually experimental Calvinism from 1986, influenced by Edmund Clowney, and does not seem to be aware of the distinction that Iain Murray makes between the two Great Awakenings, between revival and revivalism. It has interesting anecdotes that describe altar calls, testimony times, and even a quite maudlin appeal from a pastor to a congregation that is an embarrassment to its argument. It is decidedly of the new side and even goes so far that in some of its citations and examples the New School emerges.
With the added corrective that Iain Murray elsewhere offered long after this book was published, however, I think the book would reflect a position amenable to most conservative, Calvinistic evangelicalis. The argument it makes is at heart an appeal to Scripture. I still wonder, because of my natural sympathy for the old side, whether it is a full enough appeal—but that is always going to be the concern of the more confessional edge of the spectrum. But it argues that evangelism doesn’t require programs and gimmicks; that it requires clarity about what the Gospel truly is, consistency in proclaiming it, faith in its power, prayer and earnest longing for its triumph, and hospitality and sacrifice for its spread. It is hard to object to that.
I suggest you read it. It will read like some of Tozer, it will read like parts of Spurgeon, it will read like Jonathan Edwards, William Law, and Thomas a Kempis. That is what I found remarkable about something written in 1986. And it will read like 1986 at times! Even if only to disagree with, and I am not suggesting that’s the only thing it is good for, but even if only to disagree with, it is worthwhile.