CHAPTER 23
CHAPTER 23
THE GROUNDWORK OF DOCTRINE
In Edwin Orr's doctorate theses mention is made of the basis of faith stated by the World's Evangelical Alliance in 1846, an association of Christians which foreshadowed the ecumenical developments taking shape a century later.
From this statement of faith, one might well summarize Orr's own convictions:
I The Divine Inspiration, the Authority and Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures, and the right and duty of private
_ judgement in their interpretation.
Il The Unity of the Godhead and the eee of Persons therein.
Ill The Utter Depravity of Human Nature in witty 153 of the Fall.
TV.
The Incarnation of the Son of God, and His Work of Atonement for sinners of mankind. and His mediatorial
Intercession and Reign.
V_ The Justification of the Sinner by Faith alone::
VI The Work of the Holy Spirit in the Conversion and the Sanctification of the sinner.
VII The Resurrection of the Body, the Judgement of the world by the Lord Jesus Christ, the Eternal Blessedness of the Righteous, and the Eternal Punishment of the Wicked.
These seven points taken from the Evangelical Alliance, supplementing the Apostles' Creed, best summarize the evangelical theology held by Orr.
One who has known Orr for more than thirty years—and _ one who has a keen sense of theology—Sidney W. Murray, a civil servant in Northern Ireland's Government, wrote to me thus :?
Orr's theological position is that of a conservative evangelical.
His fellowships are wider than his theology and he is generous in his estimates of others in the field of Christian work. Shaun
ish Weekly,® stressed. thas ons was x | an intellectual in the pata field, and this may suggest era why others may enjoy a more popular ministry.
Edwin Orr so abhorred the extremes of ultrafundamentalism that he personally qualified the term "conservative evangelical",
_ describing himself as a "progressive conservative evangelical''.
One could add that, while he was uncompromising in evangelicalme ism, he repudiated party spirit as one of the works of the flesh condemned in the Galatian Letter. His was a deep conviction
© both historical and scriptural.
The Evangelical Alliance basis of faith had begun with the Doctrine of Inspiration and moved to the Doctrine of God.
Orr's book of Apologetics began with the Doctrine of God, stressed the Deity of Christ, and used the Doctrine of Scripture to substantiate all other doctrines.
, In Coimbatore, Orr preached to us upon the doctrines of Theology, Cosmology, Christology, Anthropology and Soteri- | ology to student classes; and in his mass meetings for ordinary
— people he spoke on Sin, Conviction, Repentance, Decision, Forgiveness, Salvation, Regeneration, Assurance, Profession,
Backsliding and Judgement. I heard nearly all of these sain and of course I read all of his published works.
Some experts may find it disappointing that Orr proved! to be so ordinary in his theological convictions. He startled nobody with novel or strange views of Reincarnation or Universalism;
| he simply did not entertain non-evangelical ideas. At the same time, he refused to let any school of evangelicals do his thinking for him. Orr fought the kind of dispensationalism which denied a hope of Revival in our time. He preached upon the irrevocable judgement of God upon impenitent men but veered away from imaginative speculations on the nature of that judgement.
Whence came Orr's theology? He studied in Anglican, Baptist, Brethren, Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterian Graduate _ Schools of Theology; he even completed courses in a Jesuit
University. But in his teens in Ireland he had belonged to an Anglican Scout Crew, a Brethren Sunday School, a Baptist
Church, a Methodist Christian Endeavour Society, and a Presbyterian Bible Class, so his interdenominationalism was nothing
— new.
At tie: same 'sities Edwiti 'On. was a connie Baptist. He - -was most at ease with Baptist points of doctrine and practice — and he never hid Baptist convictions. He did not favour Baptist union with other denominations unless Baptist convictions — were recognized and adopted.
Orr's writings and utterances both expose his attitude toa great preoccupation of the Twentieth Century, Ecumenism.
Edwin Orr was clearly an ecumenical evangelical or evangelical ecumenist.* His two guiding lights: were the doctrines of the Authority of Scripture and the Unity of the Body of Christ. He told us in Coimbatore:
- "J want to have fellowship on earth with all those with whom I will have fellowship in heaven. I try to recognize as brethren all those whom the Holy Spirit acknowledges as children. I try to dissociate myself from heresy or scandal."
_ Edwin Orr was a member of the United States Military Chaplains' Association, which included Christian
Scientists, Hebrew Rabbis, Mormon Elders and Roman Priests as well as Protestant Ministers of evangelical and non-evangelical points of view. Membership in this association Orr regarded as professional, not ministerial. He often lectured as a team member with Roman Catholic priests and Jewish rabbis in university halls and military camps.°® Orr preached for Ministerial Associations that included clergy whose preaching he in turn would not have supported in preaching. His inner circle of fellowship—those for whom he preached and whose preaching he supported—was wholly evangelical.
His motto truly was an ancient one: "In all essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in everything, charity."
Orr's theory and practice affected his friends in their thinking.
Sidney W. Murray wrote me:
There is little doubt that his friendship with Dr. Billy Graham in the earlier years helped to influence the latter's work in a more ecumenical direction with a strong insistence on the widest possible measure of co-operation in evangelism.
One of my correspondents was requested by an organization whose fellowship was somewhat narrower than that of Graham or Orr to inform the latter that some of their number deplored his influence in this respect on Billy Graham. The passage of
years brought this 'outstanding. 'theologian closer to the : ay same Masiaens A fundamentalist of ine es right 'took eight cick u
: newspaper space in 1950 to announce a sermonic blast against _ Orr when he made preliminary arrangements for a city-wide _
Crusade for the Graham Team whose sponsoring committee (which included the Governor of the State and the Mayor of the City) was announced in Orr's final meeting in that metropolis.' oa
And in Brazil, Orr was accused of being a Jesuit!® Edwin Orr attended the Evanston Assembly of the World
Council of Churches as an accredited visitor. He encountered many evangelicals there.® The width of Orr's interdenominational support may be i gauged by the inclusion in his Council of Reference for his world tour of 1956-8 of Dr. (Archbishop) H. W. F. Mowill,
Dr. F. Townley Lord, Dr. Nathaniel Micklem, Dr. Erik Sundgren, Dr. W. E. Sangster, Dr. David DuPlessis, Dr. Benjamin Moraes,
Metropolitan Juhanon Mar Thoma, Major Allister Smith, and Dr. Billy Graham. All these were personal friends, and supported Orr as such; but respectively they had held office as Anglican Primate of Australia, President of the Baptist World
Alliance, President of the British Congregational Union, Bishop — of the (Lutheran) Church of Sweden, President of the Methodist
Conference of Britain, Secretary of the World Pentecostal Fellowship, Vice-President of the Presbyterian World Alliance and a President of the World Council of Churches, and the last
— but one an evangelist of the Salvation Army.?° , Orr's ministry in Brazil and New Zealand was endorsed by © their national Councils of Churches; his work in South Africa and Australia supported by Anglican Archbishops, Moderators of Reformed and Presbyterian Assemblies, Presidents of the Baptist, Congregational, Disciples, and Methodist denominations. He generally enjoyed Brethren and Pentecostal support.
Orr did not pretend that all his sponsors and referees agreed © with all his points of view or he with theirs, but he regarded
— them as brethren in Christ and welcomed their support.
Previous chapters have recorded the impact of Edwin Orr's preaching and teaching in churches and colleges, resulting in local revival of unusual power. In these instances, it seemed to
as One tnight call ita paste of anne Some years ago, when an archbishop criticized an evangelist's emphasis upon Decision, Orr was moved to search the Scriptures for the word and its synonyms. He found very little on the actual notion of decision, but a vast amount of reference to the idea of repentance, metanoia in the Greek, with its implication of a change of thinking, of behaving and of feeling. Orr began to preach the message of Repentance often, from the words of John the Baptist, of our Lord Jesus, the Twelve Disciples, the Apostle Peter and Apostle Paul, to the Jew, the Gentile and the Church. He soon found that some were violently opposed to the message, but on such mistaken grounds. More and more he
_ preached Repentance and more and more he saw results.
This was typical of Orr's preaching in the churches. Instead of taking a passage of Holy Scripture and expounding it verse by verse, he took a topic and followed it through Scripture.
Orr usually preached toward a definite end. If he found himself ministering to unconverted people, he marshalled all his forces and moved towards the crisis of conversion. If he found an audience of professing Christians, he preached for nothing less than reviving the congregation.
With the Archbishops' Commission, he held that Evangelism was so to present Jesus Christ in the power of the Spirit that men may come to put their trust in God as Saviour and to follow
Him as Lord in the fellowship of His Church and in the vocations of the common life. But he knew the weaknesses of popular evangelism.
An evangelist came from far away, conducted a campaign, won a number of converts, and then took his departure. On the credit side, there had been good attendances: the collections covered the expenses: some of the converts seemed to be making a good confession: the younger Christians had been stirred into activity. On the debit side, the minister, who preached two hundred times a year to the same folk, found that his preaching was being compared unfavourably with that of a score of wellproved, stock sermons; some who lived for excitement had gone to look for it somewhere else: some converts appeared to be very superficial: and some stirred-up Christians had lapsed into
gi 'The local. 'minister ae auedon: Was it all worth while? Are. special efforts profitable ? isp was ipravokedus to ask theo _ But, said Orr, this is discussing an evangelistic campaign, not a revival. And unless the Lord sends revival with the evangelistic campaign, it is at best only man's endeavour to do God's work.
Consider, by way of contrast, the known results of real revival.
There are crowded churches without advertisement; abundant offerings to God's work; sustained prayer meetings; perfect unity
— and love among Christians; church membership stirred and lifted to a higher plane: sinners being converted day after day.
Who has any objection to that? That is a revival.
Again, Orr affirmed, Revival is not convention ministry or preaching in conferences.4* One of the weaknesses of convention
— ministry is a temptation to sow good seed among thorns. The thorns keep springing up, and the good seed is choked thereby, despite the sower' good intention. The seed in a prepared ground requires only the action of the elements to produce its fruit in season. Seed sown by the wayside, or in stony places, or mii . the thorns, will have its prospects of life destroyed.
Orr knew of a church which had the "'cream of doctrine" given : within its walls, week in, week out. Judging from the quality of constructive ministry there, the church members should have lived on the highest heavenly plane. But they had had a church quarrel in which the bread and wine were spilled in a scuffle.
They obviously needed more than "'cream"'. Medicine was wanted badly.
Describing his experiences in the year 1937, Orr compared message and results in two places:
It was my happy experience once to speak at a great convention well known in England. It was arranged with the council members that if blessing came in the degree hoped for, I would be at liberty to continue for double the time.
Orr began with a ministry of rebuke which the Lord used to create deep conviction of heart. The place was thronged. Christians were stirred to confession and repentance, and many souls were saved. The meetings continued in a larger hall.28
| By contrast, I felt led to speak at another convention not far away on the shortcomings of believers and the need of getting right before, enjoying the good things of the feast. ii
t Daeg = Ae ha sotiep ted 'eetelod to ' doubt the 'worth of such ad method, and' their message seemed to be: "You are complete — in Christ, so don't worry about these trifles. God accepts you. in the Beloved." For days, there was a cross-current of message. I believed with all my heart in the truth of their message but thought that the time was unripe for its application.
Another speaker preached on the glorious and blessed promises of God meant for His obedient children, so Orr gave
-his final word:
"Having therefore these promises, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God."
There was no revival at Llandrindod Wells to compare with the movement in Liverpool in 1937. This lesson was noted as underlining Orr's idea that it is not sufficient to preach good doctrine in the hope of genuine revival or successful soul-winning.
The spokesman of God must preach the doctrines that are needed, and in the order they are needed. And how is one to know in what order to preach the great truths? Only the Holy
Spirit of God can tell, and the answer is reliance upon His guidance. Surely it is this that transforms sermons and lectures into prophetical utterance.
Many a time Orr's experience was limited to ordinary meetings, ordinary preaching, ordinary teaching, ordinary endeavour, but there were the other occasions when the Spirit of God seemed to fall upon the hearers of His word. At such times, he recalled, the ministry was both doctrinal and hortatory, both didache and kerygma.
This brings our consideration to another phase, the message of total commitment to Christ, of full surrender to the will of God and the enduement of power for believers.