Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones Comments on his Life By Sir Fredrick Catherwood

Thank you, Chairman. I'm speaking first not because the male has priority over the female,
but because the hors d'oeuvre comes in front of the main course.
Shortly after I started coming to Westminster Chapel with my parents and my sisters in 1948,
my father took it into his head to ask Dr and Mrs Lloyd-Jones for a holiday in the West of Ireland.
And I remember lecturing him at Sun's Zoo and saying, two thousand people come to this church
and thousands more come to hear him preach elsewhere. Why do they, why do you think they
would want to accept your invitation? And thus do twenty three year old sons no better than their
parents. I couldn't imagine the great doctor of this pulpit on the golf links or playing tennis
or fishing or any of the things we did. But I was wrong. They came and they played golf.
Not admittedly with skill, but with enormous enthusiasm.
And for the first time I saw the other side of the most powerful Christian preacher and peter.
It was his teaching that had drawn our family here first. In 1947 we began to come first of
all to the Friday night discussions that filled the institute hall, to hear him make the audience
work out the Christian attitudes, the questions that they themselves had raised. He knew how to
teach, not only so that you didn't forget, but so that in future you knew how to begin on any
problems that came up in your own experience. And it was always scripturally based. You think that
Paul may have said something about it. Paul wrote a number of letters. Which one was it in? And so
you had to think very hard about that. And finally you might drop on the right one. Ephesians. Very
well then. There were four chapters in Ephesians. Which chapter was it? And you may have got the
third chapter. And then he said, and there are so many verses in the third chapter and which verse
was it? Until finally you put your finger on the exact quotation. And then it was put in its
context. And then it was prepared with other parts of the bible on the same subject. Until finally we
were all clear to begin with what the bible was saying. Not because he had told us, but because he
had made it made us work it through for ourselves. And then we had to apply it. And here he would try
to make us separate our well-worn prejudices from the balance of biblical teaching. Yes indeed I
understand that point of view Mr. Cantwell. And holding that as you do, you would also logically
hold the following. Would you not? And you would cautiously assent. And that being so. And as he
took you down another step on your road of error. You would begin to see where you were going and
would hesitate. Come, come Mr. Cathwood. Do you not agree that that is the logic of your position?
You do, do you not? And having seen at last where your logic took you. You would be forced back to
the beginning. And having recanted in full public view of your error. You would never make that
mistake again. He once apologized for pressing me so hard. He said, you can take it, but there are
others who hold the views you're putting who could not take it. And really I'm teaching them through
you. I felt better about it after that. The answers are not actually easy to lead. In a talk, or in a
sermon, you map out your own logical route. And you don't have to prepare for all the objections
and diversions. Because you're on the platform and they're down there. They're not asking you
any questions. They may think about it, but they haven't an opportunity of putting them.
But in leading a discussion, anything may arise. And if you've not got the whole framework within
which your doctrinal theme sits. Then you're lost. If the line of thought is irrelevant.
Then you have to persuade the contributor very gently that it really is another subject. Of
course sometimes it was so relevant, that the doctor simply used to say, yes Mr. Smith, very
very interesting. Now has anyone else got any voice on that? And you would know that Mr. Smith
was not really on the ball. And you have to know where and how it fits, if it is relevant.
So that the contributor can be led with the class to the connection. And that that facet
of the truth can be pitted in. Where it belongs and properly illuminated. But of course that
requires a wide knowledge of the subject that you're discussing. And all the arguments that
have been put theologically on that subject. And that needs not only a well-stocked mind.
But of course the ability to assess arguments as they come up. Against the framework of doctrine.
What you know and what you've read. And also the spiritual sensitivity to detect
in those arguments, however well put, a tendency to truth or a tendency to error.
And the doctor's vast reading not only gave him a knowledge of the arguments. But his supreme
medical skills as a diagnostician, gave him a superbly analytical and logical mind. You could
see him as the discussion went on. Separating out the strands of the argument. Dividing the
faults from the truth. Showing why certain strands were really dangerous and would not hold. Which
strands were true and could be relied on? And were they needed strengthening with others before they
could be put to the test. And he showed our generation clearly. That the strand of pietistic
evangelicalism. The muscular christianity of the varsity and public school camps. Which was all
the vogue then. The devotional piety of the brethren in which I was brought up. The emotional
dedication of the great conventions. The revivalism of the big interdenominational mission.
None of these were enough. He almost alone stopped the retreat in the face of liberal humanism.
Which the church had not dared to meet head on. He led the evangelical wing of the church
back into the center of theological argument. Not by conceding a thing. But by going back to
its foundations in the reformation. And he almost alone to begin with. Wove in again the strong
central strand of reformed theology to evangelical peaching. A strand which had almost been snapped
off in the late 19th century. When Spurgeon seemed to lose to the rising tide of liberalism in the
downgrade controversy. The reformed theology which illuminated the immense logical sweep of
the christian gospel. Seemed to me to be like the great mutually supporting arches of a majestic
cathedral. And it came as a revelation to those of us brought up on a diet of blessed thoughts
and texts for the day. And having read through Calvin and the Westminster Confessions. Through
Hodge and Birkhoff. Having seen that the reformed doctrine of the sovereignty of God the creator.
Transformed the natural sciences and indeed the whole of society. Having seen evolution as no more
than speculative metaphysics and religion liberalism and higher criticism for old-fashioned
heresies. We then being so struck with all of this. Tended to forget that the majestic vaulted roof
of Christian doctrine was to cover and to protect the human relationships of a living church. But
Dr Lloyd-Jones did not forget that. All the doctrine was dead without the strand of love.
A passionate love for God. Which as he kept on saying from this pulpit. God would return
flooding us with an overwhelming sense of his presence. And a love for each other by which
all men would know that we were God's children. And as he set out these two strands. Both Calvinists
and Charismatics claimed him for themselves alone. But that was totally to misunderstand
his teaching. That both strands were absolutely essential parts of Christian belief. That the one
called for the other. And that in the Christian life they had to be woven strongly together
in the same person. Strength and warmth. Warmth and strength. Never one without the other.
Of course in pulpit appearance he looked the Calvinist rather than the Charismatic.
In his austere Geneva gown. His lack of any personal reference. In his feeling that the
awe of the gospel forbade jokes. That the power of the message itself produced emotion enough.
In his hatred of artificial bonome or brazenness. And in the sheer weight of the authority with
which he preached. He was about as far from ecstasy or dance drama as you can get.
And yet and yet he was the most human of men. I remember one late autumn Sunday evening in the
early 50s. Sitting up at the back of the gallery there. Through an hour's thundering sermon from
this pulpit. Quaking at the thought that at the end I was to go to see him to ask for his elder
daughter's hand in marriage. I had rehearsed my lines most carefully.
But when at last I crossed the threshold of the vestry. His welcome was so warm.
That as far as I remember I never had a chance to say a thing.
And for the next 28 years until he died. That warmth and that affection never diminished.
Not only in the family where he was deeply devoted to each and every one. But in the
wider family of church and ministers. He was the most warm-hearted of men. I have a constant
picture of him sitting in his red armchair. Engaged in long telephone conversations with
ministers or others with problems. We would get a wave and a smile as we came.
Grandchildren would rush in in pajamas to get a kiss on their way to bed. And the call would go on
as he quietly and gently untangled the mental knots into which someone at the other end had
tied themselves. Or sympathized with someone in distress. Or encouraged some minister faced with
opposition. And I know how it felt because he did the same with us. And when he talked to you
about your problems. He was thinking of you entirely. Never remotely about himself. You
not only had his undivided attention. But his total commitment until the problem had been
sorted out to his satisfaction and to yours. There were of course exceptions. His eldest
grandson aged eight. At a quiet Tate or Tate lunch. Where both were quietly reading. Looked
at him suddenly and said. What do you think about sex? And history does not relate the answer to
that particular query from that eight-year-old grandson. And he had in dealing with personal
problems. Both a vast range of knowledge. Secular and spiritual. And also inspired common sense.
There was a nurse in bed at her parents house being looked after with a fellow nurse.
She had a soaring temperature. Which came down to normal every time. Every evening by the time
the GP called round. And no one could make any sense of the symptoms. So Dr Lloyd-Jones was
called in. And he looked at the nurse and heard about everything. And then he got everyone out
of the sick room. And he asked the nurse. Why did the hospital dismiss you? And she hadn't dared
tell her parents. And had come home with a feigned illness. And the other partner in trouble to
report the high temperature when the doctor wasn't there. And of course it always came down just
before he arrived. And they maintained her desperate cover. And he had simply looked at the
patient. And not at the temperature chart. And he knew with a doctor's eye that she wasn't ill.
My recollection is that he prescribed to her in private a speedy recovery followed by a dose of
moral courage. And of course he was very much in demand for problems on the frontiers of medicine
and the Christian faith. A friend of mine was a depressive. And his whole life was completely
transformed when doctor was able to show him the sure foundation of faith on which he could build.
And from which he could fight the depressive doubts by which he had been continuously
attacked. He was a new man from then on. He was not only generous with his time to people who
had trouble and who came to him. He was generous with his money. Of course like all Cardiganshire
Welsh he was very careful with his money. But he hardly ever used it for himself. However small his
ministerial salary he always gave regularly and generously. And whenever he found that he had more
than he needed. Whether from an inheritance or latterly from book royalties. He at once started
to ask who needed it. Or who in the family needed it. Who somewhere else needed it. I thought
actually I'd married a poor minister's daughter without expectations. But that was where we got
our first loan to buy our first house. Though the thought that he might spend any money on himself.
It just never seemed to occur to him. And he was just as generous with his grandchildren.
And why of course I've always regarded his views as our generation did with the greatest
respect. Not so his grandchildren. To them he was only the key. Which is the Welsh for granddad.
And whatever views he held were there to be disputed. Together with the views of the rest
of their elders. He was simply one of the elders. And he was there to be argued with. And when this
went on. And it went on pretty vigorously. He was really like an old lion. With young cubs.
Which darted in and out where no one else would dare to go. And occasionally a great poor would
descend upon them. And he tolerated from them. What he wouldn't have tolerated no doubt from
anyone else. And within the family debate. Where he didn't have to worry about misrepresentation.
He would set them off with the most outrageous statements. And they came spluttering back.
But you can't possibly say that. And then he would defend this absurd position with all his
forensic skills. We used to have tremendous discussions in the family about politics.
And although he had throughout his public life attacked the idea of a social gospel. The idea
that there is some salvation through politics. And as the kind of overrun from that tended to
the view that there was no Christian attitude to politics. He was nevertheless fascinated by the
whole political process. He used to watch political debate on television with enormous zest.
And report to us on the programs that we had missed. He always wanted to know about the
politicians we had met. And he met quite a number himself. He and Mrs Lloyd-Jones had a wedding
present from Lloyd George. Whom Doctor used to admire greatly. And who indeed came to hear
him speak at least once in Westminster Chapel. He had spoken here I think also on a platform
with Stafford Cripps at an outside meeting. Ernest Marples once gave him a very right-wing
political book which he passed on to me. And of course he knew many of the Welsh
politicians particularly well. Cledwyn Hughes, George Thomas the present Speaker of the House
of Commons. Who had a great admiration for him. And almost certainly it was George Thomas who
recommended him for a high public honour. Which as a Christian minister he felt bound to refuse.
And not only in Wales. I met Lord Mackey, the Lord Advocate of Scotland 10 days ago. And he
said that he'd seen we were to have this meeting here tonight. So there was a wide interest in
political circles in what he did. And he had a wide interest in political circles.
I think what interested him in politics really was the clash of personality. For him politics was
people. He didn't believe that there was a particularly Christian view of politics. It
was more to him a matter of the capacity to make the right judgment. Lloyd George's private life
didn't override his capacity to make better political judgment than others who didn't have
his political genius. And what he did object to was the hypocrisy of politicians disregarding
their marriage vows. And then taking a high moral tone about the sanctity of contracts.
It was his capacity to be interested in everything that was going on that gave him
such a breadth of mind. He read the newspapers right till the end of his long illness. Then one
Thursday he told Pam Harris to cancel the Times after Saturday and he died on Sunday. And he kept
up his medical reading too. And his capacity for diagnosis, as we well learned in our family,
was as sharp as ever. Something the specialists would overlook he would be onto. But perhaps his
greatest attribute was his visionary prophetic capacity. He saw for instance very early on the
potential of student work. And all through the war he was president and the inspiration of the
Intervarsity Fellowship, working in a superb partnership with Dr. Douglas Johnson. Together
they steered that movement away from muscular Christianity, the high-hearty and shallow
evangelicalism of the day. And they based it firmly on the rock of Christian truth and Christian
doctrine. Douglas Johnson's successor Dr. Oliver Berkeley attended Westminster in the
50s. And Dr. Robin Wells, the present General Secretary, was a member when he lived in London
in the 60s. So he kept that connection with the movement in Britain, with the student movement in
Britain. And immediately after the war he was one of the founders of the International Fellowship
of Evangelical Students. And Stacey Woods was also, who was the founder General Secretary of that,
was also founder General Secretary of the American movement. IFES now has member movements
from that beginning in 1946 in 75 countries. And is a very flourishing and rapidly expanding
movement. So that his vision of what could be done through student movements in the world's
universities, getting to the leaders in those countries, the leaders politically, the leaders
in thought, so that they evangelised their own country. His inspiration there has now
come to pass. And he kept in touch with the IFES as well as the British movement.
The last quadrennial General Committee of the IFES he attended was in Austria in 1971 where he
gave a most magnificent address, which is one of the most memorable that he ever gave. He was there
with another co-founder of IFES, John Bolton, a German-born American who had given us the old
castle at Mittesil for student conferences, which we have. And John Bolton was the sort of
character that the doctor liked and got on with. He was the first treasurer of IFES.
He was a tremendous character. He'd been a First World War officer in the Bavarian Army,
and after the war felt with other Bavarian officers that the army had been let down by
communists and socialists at home, that the Versailles Treaty had to be revised.
And they felt they needed a popular politician to put this, because they were army officers and
didn't know how to put it over to the public. So they went out and found a good rabble-rousing
politician calling himself Adolf Hitler. It wasn't long before they wanted to drop him.
And then they discovered he was not the sort of person who took to being dropped.
And John Bolton, after discovering his family on one of the first of Hitler's hit lists,
emigrated to America. He became a Christian, a fine Christian, and incidentally made a fortune.
And Martin Lloyd-Jones, John Bolton, Stacey Woods, the Australian,
Rene Pash, the Swiss, all of these were tremendous characters with others. They were lifelong friends
who respected, trusted, encouraged, criticized each other. A group of pioneers who separately
and together did great things for God through the international student movement. And though
less well known than his work in Britain, I'm not so sure that this international work
may well be far more reaching in the end than anything he's actually done here.
When he retired, he had 13 busy years in writing, in preaching, and after much urging, television.
He'd been very dismissive of television. I used to do a lot of television at the time,
and he never thought much of it. He was arguing that it was in one ear and out the other.
And that the real media of communication was still preaching and writing. But eventually
he succumbed. He was persuaded. First in Wales. I think it was because it was in Wales he was
persuaded. And then occasionally on nationally networked programs. He did one series on
Whitfield, taking his TV camera team around the country with him, and he took to it just like
a professional. And he had no fear of famous TV interviewers. Joan Bakewell, known as the
intelligent man's pinup, was enormously impressed by his complete indifference to trendy thinking,
to which most clerics that she interviewed seemed to want to bow. She said he was the
person to tell her frankly that she wasn't a Christian. She knew perfectly well she wasn't
a Christian. She kept on telling them she wasn't a Christian. But all these TV clergymen had
insisted to her fury that she was really. But what she said was that she couldn't understand
how in this day and age he got anyone to listen to such an idea, as much as she respected him
for holding them. Tell me, replied the doctor, of any politician who in this day and age can still
fill the free trade hall in Manchester. And to that there was no answer. He could and they
couldn't. If there is any one quality by which I remember him, it is his gentleness. He was
a strong character. He had strong views and he could put them most powerfully. He had a formidable
personality and the capacity, if he wished it, to crush opponents. Yet to all in need,
all who wanted him, certainly to all in the family circle, he was the gentlest of people.
All was helpful. Most anxious not to be in out in the way or to put anyone out.
Sitting peacefully in the armchair of our old housing, correcting manuscripts, reading a book
while TV was on, while everyone flew in and out, talking their heads off. And nothing disturbed him.
Then last thing at night he would have prayers. We would have prayers. Someone would fetch his Bible.
Everyone would stop what they were doing. They would come in. They would start chanting.
This would go on for maybe a full half hour or more and he would join in while the Bible lay on
his lap. And then he would read a passage and then he would pray to the Heavenly Father,
he knew so well, he trusted so completely and he loved so dearly. And that is how I today like to remember him.