by Angus Harley

Why is it that today William Barclay, the Scottish theologian (1907-1978), is still widely used as an ‘Evangelical’ commentary source? A few theologians and readers who have read Barclay more holistically, widely, note that he calls himself an ‘Evangelical Liberal’. To these fans of Barclay, he was consequently an enigma, for he seems to, at points, uphold the Gospel, only to then deny it. What a mysterious man, we are told, an enigma!

We will see that there was, and is, no enigma as to William Barclay, and at the end of the day, we might give ourselves any name or title we wish, including ‘Christian’, but it is beliefs and practices that in the end count. But let’s step back to our original question: why are Evangelical folks today enamored with Barclay and his commentaries?

The first reason is that modern Evangelicals think of Barclay as informative as far as his commentaries are concerned. Barclay says lots of things in his commentaries that are considered helpful and illuminating. There is a reason behind this (see ahead). To the online Evangelical, Barclay is online, free, and accessible. It is inconceivable to the modern, quick-access, mind that Barclay could actually be considered as being against the Gospel, for he says so many helpful things.

Another reason is that Evangelicals are completely unaware of his heretical theology. They are not aware, to take but one example, that his commentary on John 1:3 explicitly states that the Greek grammar does not convey Jesus was actually equated with God. He goes on to say that Jesus was the “very same same quality and character and essence and being as God”, however, John “was not saying Jesus was identical with God; he was saying Jesus was so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart and in being that in him we perfectly see what God is like.”1

Yet, this is bog-standard theological Liberalism, which is  perfectly content to use historical-theological terms such as “character”, “essence”, and “being” in regard to Jesus, only to fill them with a wholly unconventional and heretical meaning.

And so Barclay says the following about Jesus’ perceived divinity in his book A Spiritual Autobiography:

“So then for me the supreme truth of Christianity is that in Jesus I see God. When I see Jesus feeding the hungry, comforting the sorrowing, befriending men and women with whom no one else would have had anything else to do, I can say: ‘This is God.’

It is not that Jesus is God. Time and time again the Fourth Gospel speaks of God sending Jesus into the world. Time and time again we see Jesus praying to God. Time and time again we see Jesus unhesitatingly and unquestioningly and unconditionally accepting the will of God for himself. Nowhere does the New Testament identify Jesus as God. Jesus does not say: ‘He who has seen me has seen God.’ He said: ‘He who has seen me has seen the Father.’ There are attributes of God I do not see in Jesus. I do not see God’s omniscience in Jesus, for there are things that Jesus did not know. I do not see God’s omnipetence in Jesus for there are things which Jesus could not do. I do not see God’s omnipresence in Jesus, for in his days on earth Jesus could be in one place at any given time. But in Jesus, I see perfectly and completely and finally, and once and for all revealed and demonstrated, the attitude of God to men, the attitude of God to me. In Jesus, there is the full revelation of the mind and the heart of God. And what a difference to know that God is like that!”2 [Italics are Barclay’s]

I will not burden the reader with Barclay’s other heresies- the denial of Scripture as the very revelation of God; there was no Virgin Birth; he was a universalist (even though he did believe in a temporary hell); he rejected substitutionary atonement; and, considered the miracles to be symbols.

A third reason is that the vast majority of Evangelicals do not read Barclay’s works holistically. Who has the time to do a deep-dive into Barclay or any theologian for that matter? Isn’t that why others write about them, giving to us who don’t have time the essential info that we need? As a result, Barclay’s work is not read holistically by the vast majority. They usually defer to his commentaries, picking them up to use as needed, looking at a verse here and there. Yet, I’m not aware of anyone who has read Barclay’s full theological account who does not at the very least conclude that he was, as said in the introduction, an enigma- teaching both Liberalism and Evangelicalism.

A fourth reason is that Evangelicals are unaware of the nature of Barclay’s method of exegesis. This, to my mind, is where the real fault lies. Evangelicals are naive to Barclay’s methodology, thinking that what is on the page is Evangelicalism because Barclay says so! Let me unfold the problem for the reader’s benefit.

Lots of theological Liberalism was pouring out of Scotland in Barclay’s day, but that Liberalism was biblically ‘literate’, one might say. Arguably the most eminent OT scholar of Barclay’s day was James Barr, another Scotsman. Both men were Modernists and Liberals. They differed in some key respects to your old-school Liberals that entered in with the Enlightenment. These older Liberals utterly trashed the bible. Both Barclay and Barr had learned from the Neo-Orthodox movement, and other theological tributaries, to put a positive spin on the bible’s content. It was, to them, the book of faith for the Christian church, so it had to be lifted up as such. This newer, more modern, version of Liberalism allowed the bible to speak as a document of faith. It was not God’s word as Evangelicals understood it, but it contained the message of Jesus and had to be honored as such. So, Barclay, like Barr, was perfectly content to write about the content of any book of the bible, to let those details ‘speak for themselves’. And therein lies the exclusive reason why Barclay sounded so ‘Evangelical’ in his commentaries. That being said, Barclay, even on this textual level, could not stop his Liberal ideology from breaking out here and there, as we found in his comments on Jesus’ divinity. Yet, he carefully worded his Liberal perspectives so well that he was able to dupe thousands of the most conservative of Evangelicals for now going on 75 years!

Let me illustrate from Barclay’s own life this Modernist-Liberal double-standard for interpreting Scripture. Wayne Jackson records a discussion that two of his friends had with Barclay on the issue of the deity of Christ:

“…But when two friends of mine once visited with Barclay at his home in Glasgow, in the spring of 1970, the distinguished professor strongly denied that he believed that Jesus was divine. He insisted he never had endorsed that idea. He claimed that the Lord himself believed that he was divine, as did others. But personally, Barclay did not. When my friend cited the apostle Paul as evidence to the contrary, the professor snapped: “I don’t care what Paul said.””3

Personally, I’m not in the slightest taken back by Barclay’s nastiness. He was a rank Liberal, after all. Equally, I am not at all surprised by Jackson’s shock at it and his extreme naivete, as Evangelicals are prone to worship ‘spiritual’ and ‘theological’ gods (see ahead). It is indubitably true that, Barclay never once asserted the traditional doctrine of Jesus’ divinity. He played with words, conveying what the ‘verse’ said, what ‘Jesus thought’, what his ‘disciples taught’, even asserting what ‘church tradition teaches’. However, Barclay, never, ever, personally endorsed the traditional doctrine of Jesus’ divinity, and even openly taught against them. Remember, to Barclay, the bible was ‘the’ holy book of faith, so it would not do to ignore its teaching. Yet, that didn’t mean one had to accept its content as literal. Typical, bog-standard theological Liberalism, my friend!

Yet another reason is that theologians and readers are not aware that Barclay deceptively manipulated the value of Evangelical tradition. The Modernist form of Liberalism- not the old-school version- was well aware of the value of theological tradition, too, and not just the value, and the necessity, of biblical literacy. It was Karl Barth and his Neo-Orthodox model that recalled the ‘Christian’ back to the tradition of Calvin. Barth saw that the Calvinistic ‘church’ produced the Reformation and spread worldwide. What Barth created, however, was a truly monstrous Neo-Orthodox mutation of Calvin. Similarly, Barclay, a product of a decaying Church of Scotland, had seen the value of Evangelicalism in Scotland’s spiritual past. It was all around him! Barth employed biblical terminology in a non-biblical manner, and he did the same with Calvinistic theological terms and concepts. Barclay followed a similar route, but in regard to Evangelicalism, especially the Scottish-Reformation kind. As we saw previously, Barclay was quite content to use traditional theological language and terms, eviscerate them, and fill them with his own Modernist-Liberal heresy.

A fourth reason is that the modern Evangelical is, on the whole, against negative and critical assessments of other ‘Christians’, seeing this as being at best unwarranted, and oftentimes very divisive and completely lacking in love. We must be positive, uplifting, and supportive. I would like to ask these believers if there is such a thing as heresy. As a Liberal, Barclay was the strongest advocate against being doctrinally judgmental. He was a universalist, after all, an ecumenist, who wished for all ‘Christian’ denominations and groups to unite around his Modernist idea of Jesus. Does doctrine no longer matter, making lines in the sand, defending the faith? Is everyone a Christian who professes so? Is that the example upheld by our Lord and his apostles? Did he think Judas the Betrayer a ‘Christian’, or after Judas’ death reflect of him, ‘Maybe he was the Father’s, for only God knows the heart’? Are the multiple examples of godly hatred of heresy in the NT no longer applicable? Is it now a sin to mark out someone as a ‘heretic’? Since when did we become wiser than God?

Evangelical leaders have given to the likes of Barth, Bonhoeffer, and Barclay the status of ‘gods’, so that there is no true evaluation of these men. It is by this time ‘traditional’ in Evangelicalism to have the annual raising up of Saint Bonhoeffer and Saint Barclay. They are beyond criticism. These men, and other ‘saints’, are in the pantheon of Evangelical gods that are beyond reproach. The most negative comment we might hear from modern Evangelicals is that Barclay, or Bonhoeffer, or Barth, were ‘enigmatic’, seemingly against the faith, but, yet, somehow upholding it.

Yet, one would think that the sites that publish online Barclay’s works would provide some kind of evaluation or scrutiny of Barclay. After all, they are promoting the man’s theology. These sites are merely an expression of the above common mindset in Evangelicalism. Evangelicals have bought into Barclay as an Evangelical, so, it is commonplace within this Evangelical online-system to give Barclay a pass without any scrutiny.

Evangelicals have become lazy in regard to theology. Today, it is all about easy access, memes, sound bites, images, being reader-friendly. Barclay gives to the ordinary Christian little bites of truth in his commentaries. Yet, I can count on one hand the Christians who would appreciate a detailed theological critique of Barth, or Barclay, or Bonhoeffer, it being too long, critical, deep, and involved.

Evangelicals have forgotten Satan’s devices. Satan’s greatest skill was to cover his lies with the truth, and in doing so, to put the blame on God and on his people. It has been my experience that many Evangelicals would not thank you for pointing out the heresy in Barclay, and some have taken issue with doing so, ‘You’re being too hard’, ‘Your interpretation is too narrow’, ‘God only knows the heart’, are some of the criticisms over the years flung my way in pointing out heresy. I have yet to find any of these critics willing to engage in a meaningful discussion on what constitutes heresy and what ought to be done about it. Are we not in a spiritual war? There’s no in-between, folks. One is either committed to Christ’s army or to Satan’s. There’s no room in this warfare for a sliding scale of opinion. If someone claims the name of Christ but openly denies his deity, that ‘Christian’ is a heretic! Sorry, not sorry- it’s war!

1William Barclay, Commentary on John 1, StudyLight.org, accessed 4/3/2024, https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/dsb/john-1.html.

2 William Barclay, William Barclay: a Spiritual Autobiography (A. R. Mowbray & Co., Ltd., 1975), 49-50.

3Wayne Jackson, “The Enigmatic William Barclay”, The Christian Courier, accessed April 4, 2024, 

https://christiancourier.com/articles/the-enigmatic-william-barclay