Before the commencement of the conference, there were three ministers in the Surrey area who were disturbed by the fact of Leslie Davison as a speaker—Michael Pusey, Harold Owen and Fred Pride.261 They felt uncomfortable with Davison’s liberal
theological preference for two reasons. This first was his book published in 1969,
259
Fountain Trust, Conference Brochure: Welcome to Westminster, Fountain Trust International Conference, 28 July-2August 1975, p. 2.
260
Michael Harper’s personal note for the author, 22 July 2005, p. 1. 261
Michael Pusey was a pastor of the Farnborough Baptist Church, Harold Owen, a minister of the Woking Baptist Church and Fred Pride the leader of Abinger Fellowship which held regular conferences in Abinger Hammer. (Michael Harper’s personal note for the author, 22 July 2005, p. 1.)
176 entitled Sender and Sent: A Study of Mission, which was commented as containing some “modernistic views.”262 The second was his speech at a Trust’s Public Relations
meeting held on 14 October 1970 which was intended to inform the local ministers of Surrey about the Guildford conference.263 Pusey could not accept his statement at the
meeting that “the Ecumenical, Liturgical & Protest Movements with the Charismatic movement are all ‘of the Holy Spirit.’” He believed that it might have an adverse effect on new believers, and so he thought that Davison should not be a speaker at the conference.264 Owen, who regarded himself as a former Baptist liberal who understood
liberal ways of thinking, criticised Davison for rejecting the “substitutionary doctrine of atonement” in his recent publication. He also was “appalled” by Davison’s talk at the meeting which convinced him that he was unacceptable as a conference speaker. Moreover, he worried that if the opponents of Pentecostals and the charismatic renewal knew that the conference had speakers dishonouring the atonement, they would make “mincemeat of us once again.” Therefore, he blamed Harper for creating a difficult situation for people in the renewal circle.265 Pride made a similar criticism
about Harper by saying, “I am personally persuaded that you are doing a grave disservice not only to the charismatic movement in this country but to the cause of Christ.” He also mentioned that the advisors of the Bible week of the Abinger Fellowship, which would be held a few weeks before the conference in Abinger Hammer, “were profoundly disturbed” by the fact that a man “whose credentials have
262
Letter from Arthur Wallis to Michael Harper, 13 November 1970; Letter from Michael Pusey to Michael Harper, 22 December 1970;
Leslie Davison, Sender and Sent: A Study of Mission (London: Epworth Press, 1969). 263
Notes-Guildford (3 July 1970), p. 1. 264
Letter from Michael Pusey to Michael Harper, 16 October 1970, p. 1. 265
177 not yet been proved as to their basic and fundamental doctrines” was invited to speak publicly.266
On the other hand, there was also suspicion regarding Roman Catholic involvement in the conference. Owen was sceptical about the Roman Catholics as he thought that they held some “wrong views”. He was even more confused after reading the book, Catholic Pentecostals, and found it worrying that its author was allowed to speak on a Fountain Trust’s platform, as he believed that he would not “honour the Blood of Christ…nor the Word of Truth.” 267 He also disagreed with the Trust’s sharing the
ministry of the conference with a Roman Catholic, by whom he meant Bob Balkam.268
Harper responded carefully and patiently to all these doubts. He defended Davison firmly by pleading those who complained to be fair in their judgment. Harper suggested to Pusey that while generally the ecumenical and liturgical movement were accepted as “of the Holy Spirit”, he was not sure what Davison meant by the “Protest Movement.” Nevertheless, he thought that Davison should not be judged negatively simply because that part of his statement was unclear.269
To reply Owen’s letter, Harper made a careful assessment of pages 117, 128 and 205 of Davison’s book, and corrected Owen’s misunderstanding of Davison’s statement about the substitutionary doctrine of atonement. In these pages, Harper said that he could not see that Davison was rejecting the doctrine but, rather, was commenting on other people’s points of view regarding the doctrine. And he continued to argue that even though Davison did
266
Letter from Fred Pride to Michael Harper, 4 January 1971, pp. 1-2. 267
Letter from Harold G. Owen to Michael Harper, 29 December 1970, p. 2;
Kevin & Dorothy Ranagan, Catholic Pentecostals (New York: Paulist Press, 1969). 268
Letter from Harold G. Owen to Michael Harper, 28 August 1970, p. 1; Letter from Harold G. Owen to Michael Harper, 29 December 1970, p. 2. 269
178 reject the doctrine, he could still be invited to speak at the conference to talk about something other than the atonement.270 Responding to Pride’s letter, Harper affirmed
his invitation to Davison as he recognised the Holy Spirit’s work not only among the evangelicals but also among liberals, and he believed that they were also being used by the Spirit to make contributions. He reminded Pride that they should avoid the Pentecostals’ mistake of consciously or unconsciously regarding themselves as having “the monopoly of the Holy Spirit.”271
Although he had justified his choices of those two controversial speakers, Harper also raised the issue at the Advisory Council Meeting. He explained his choice of Kevin Ranaghan as a speaker by saying that the Holy Spirit’s work was very apparent among the Roman Catholics and he had seen that when he met with some of them in the US. As for Davison, Harper knew him personally and was pleased about his experience in the Spirit.272 The Council agreed to the Trust’s invitation to Davison and
Ranaghan as speakers for the conference and Harper wrote a private and confidential memorandum to Pusey, Owen and Pride to explain their decision.273 Pusey’s attitude
towards Davison was eventually changed completely and he came to regard him as a leader of the renewal,274 however some of them still insisted on their objections after
reading the memorandum. Nevertheless, Davison and Ranaghan were still invited by the Trust to speak at the conference.
270
Letter from Michael Harper to Harold G. Owen, 2 January 1971, pp. 1-2. 271
Letter from Michael Harper to Fred Pride, 10 January 1971, p. 2. 272
Minutes-FTACM (20 November 1970). 273
Michael Harper, Memorandum Sent to David Pawson, Harold Owen, Fred Pride, Michael Pusey, 18 December 1970.
274
179 At the conference, there was still criticism about the choice of speaker. David Pawson praised Davison’s first two lectures as “brilliant”, “stimulating” and the historical research was “superb”, but he felt uncomfortable in the last one, primarily because some of Davison’s theological statements were made without sufficient support from his own personal experience.275 He discovered after the lecture that some people had
also been surprised that Davison’s experience in the Spirit was not as deep as they had thought. In addition, he mentioned that some people were perplexed by Davison’s stress on his liberal leanings being maintained by the renewal. Hence, Pawson asserted that Davison should seek for a deeper experience in the Spirit so that his theology would be transformed. He regarded Davison as “the odd man out on the team” “trying to identify with the movement without getting too involved.”276
However, he did not have difficulty with the Roman Catholics. In fact, he also rejoiced about their experience in the Spirit and their transformed understandings of scriptures, commenting “The exciting thing about the RC’s at the conference was that they could hardly have been more fundamentalist in their addresses!”277