In Defense of Robert Murray M'Cheyne

New year (re?)newed disciplines. That’s my current Sunday school series at church. You can imagine how many other pastors and churches the new year’s new energies to urge our people once more toward spiritual disciplines. In fact, you need not imagine; you may read one such example from Jon Gemmell on the Bible reading plan from Robert Murray M’Cheyne here on substack.

Now, I should state up front the enormity of my own bias in examining M’Cheyne. I am currently working on a ThM thesis on the preaching methodology of M’Cheyne, and I am a committed and multi-year subscriber to the M’Cheyne reading plan (and no, I don’t think that has yet gained me any awestruck gasps!). Most importantly, my father-in-law, the man whom I most admire in this world, and whose love for the Scriptures I most seek to emulate, is the one who recommended the reading plan to me. So I have both an academic and personal interest in mounting a defense.

Let me also briefly say that I appreciate much of what Jon has written in his piece. In one place, he even appeals to M’Cheyne himself, proposing that he might have even agreed were he alive today to see the current state of the church, and I think he may just be right! So while I use the term “defense,” I hope you dear readers and my brother Jon understand it in a playful sense. Jon wants to see people reading their Bibles, and to that M’Cheyne (and I!) would give a hearty, “Amen!”

What is the M’Cheyne Plan?

Before looking specifically at Jon’s argument, it’s worth examining the M’Cheyne plan itself. M’Cheyne titled the plan “Daily Bread: Being a Calendar for Reading Through the Word of God in a Year,” and created the plan for his congregation in Dundee. In presenting it, he wrote a letter to introduce and explain the plan to them:

MY DEAR FLOCK,—The approach of another year stirs up within me new desires for your salvation, and for the growth of those of you who are saved. “God is my record how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ.” What the coming year is to bring forth, who can tell? There is plainly a weight lying on the spirits of all good men, and a looking for some strange work of judgment coming upon this land. There is need now to ask that solemn question: “If in the land of peace, wherein thou trustedst, they wearied thee, then how wilt thou do in the swelling of Jordan?”

Those believers will stand firmest who have no dependence upon self or upon creatures, but upon Jehovah our Righteousness. We must be driven more to our Bibles, and to the mercy-seat, if we are to stand in the evil day. Then we shall be able to say, like David, “The proud have had me greatly in derision, yet have I not declined from thy law.” “Princes have persecuted me without a cause, but my heart standeth in awe of thy word.”

It has long been in my mind to prepare a scheme of Scripture reading, in which as many as were made willing by God might agree, so that the whole Bible might be read once by you in the year, and all might be feeding in the same portion of the green pasture at the same time.

Robert Murray McCheyne and Andrew A. Bonar, Memoir and Remains of the Rev. Robert Murray McCheyne (Edinburgh; London: Oliphant Anderson & Ferrier, 1894), 560–561; henceforth, MAR.

Here you see M’Cheyne’s intention with the plan was to pastorally unify the reading of the congregation in Dundee. This would aid his own ministry to them, as his awareness of their recent reading would inform cross-references and applications in his sermons (as he notes in the plan’s benefits; see below). Indeed, they all might be “feeding in the same portion of the green pasture at the same time.” The plan shines brightest when employed with others.

In considering how his congregation would be best served to read their Bibles, he chose a scheme of four readings: two family readings and two private readings. These family readings highlight his emphasis upon family worship, and how the plan was to aid the whole of one’s house, rather than consolidating Bible reading for oneself alone. The private readings balanced this emphasis, as he firmly believed that one must read the Bible for oneself before doing so to aid others. In a letter to William Chalmers Burns (the man who filled the pulpit in Dundee during M’Cheyne’s trip to Palestine), he exhorted him to “read the Bible for your own growth first, then for your people” (MAR, 180).

The plan itself will take a reader through the entire Bible in a year, including twice through the Psalms and twice through the New Testament. Notably, it is not intended to be “completed.” Many newcomers to the M’Cheyne plan find it intriguing that he begins the year in Ezra and Acts; but for those who spent the previous year in M’Cheyne’s plan, they simply continue on from December 31st’s readings of 2 Chronicles and John’s Gospel.

Was M’Cheyne Wrong?

Back to Jon, who provocatively (if not cheekily) asserts M’Cheyne was wrong. He asks:

[W]as Robert Murray McCheyne right? Is he not just setting people on a trajectory towards guilt-laden defeat? Is reading 4 chapters at break-neck speed doing anything for you except encouraging you to legalistically skim the surface? This cannot be the optimal way to engage with the Bible, can it? Isn’t it time someone just torpedoed this age old practice that has failed more people than it has helped?

After reading this, I sat up straight. I’ll admit even to being urged by temptation toward offense.

I have benefited immensely from M’Cheyne’s plan, never feeling guilt from using it.

Break-neck speed? It takes less than 20 minutes of my day to read (if you don’t believe me, look at the Kristyn Getty recording Crossway releases as a podcast; January 14th’s reading was a mere 16 minutes).

Legalistically skimming the surface? I…

At this point, I messaged the friend who sent it to me and asked, “Why did you do this to me?” I thought it was a joke! Turns out, it’s not.

You see, Jon hasn’t seen the success of the M’Cheyne plan that I have. I don’t mean that personally; rather, I cannot think of a single person I’ve recommended the plan to who hasn’t gushed over how much they love it to me later. Jon’s experience, it appears, has been different. So I was intrigued, and beginning to feel my mid-30’s back begin to ache from my taut spinal erectors.

They didn’t let up. Neither did Jon.

I think McCheyne was wrong. Not about the authority of Scripture. Not about the necessity of reading God’s word. But about the method. The mysticism that good Christians read their Bible cover to cover each year is an unhelpful myth that burdens people unnecessarily, defeats them repeatedly, and puts far too much pressure on January.

I actually appreciate Jon having the courage to write this down and publish it for us to read. Our heroes are not above criticism, and I applaud the reminder that treating them as untouchable verges on the idolatrous.

I also happen to think he has missed M’Cheyne’s point entirely. But hey… C’est la vie…?

M’Cheyne the Prophet?

Seriously, Jon raises more than a few objections to M’Cheyne’s method—though, as you can tell, it really seems like his beef is with reading plans generally. Nevertheless, these are worth considering, especially as he’s not alone. Yes, someone else beat Jon to these punches. Who?

M’Cheyne himself.

Jon begins his… constructive criticism, shall we say, with suggesting that since M’Cheyne, “his plan became less a helpful tool and more a spiritual metric, a way of measuring devotion, a badge of serious Christianity.”

Now, I could point out that our abuse of the plan doesn’t make M’Cheyne wrong. I could also point out that we don’t have to view it this way. And I could wax eloquent on how most people I know actually stare at me with blank expressions, not even knowing the name of one of the greatest Presbyterian preachers of history, and repeat it back to me mistakenly, at which point I have to tell them, “no, not Mick Cheney, like some vice president’s cooler, rock star brother,” after which they begin awkwardly scooting toward the door.

But I won’t. Instead, I’ll let M’Cheyne handle it.

I am quite aware that such a plan is accompanied with many

DANGERS

(1.) Formality.—We are such weak creatures that any regularly returning duty is apt to degenerate into a lifeless form. The tendency of reading the word by a fixed rule may, in same minds, be to create this skeleton religion. This is to be the peculiar sin of the last days: “Having the form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.” Guard against this. Let the calendar perish rather than this rust eat up your souls (MAR, 561).

It appears M’Cheyne agrees. Indeed, the danger of formality is a recurring theme in M’Cheyne’s preaching! And he was not blind to the fact that anything we create is like the bronze serpent: used until abused then refused. But if M’Cheyne saw this danger and would rather they—and we—toss the plan, why create it in the first place? Mercifully, he gave an answer:

Let us weigh

THE ADVANTAGES

(1.) The whole Bible will be read through in an orderly manner in the course of a year.—The Old Testament once, the New Testament and Psalms twice. I fear many of you never read the whole Bible; and yet it is all equally divine: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect.” If we pass over some parts of Scripture, we shall be incomplete Christians (MAR, 561–562).

Here is the genius of the M’Cheyne plan—and I believe the proper rejoinder to Jon’s fair concern against formality. M’Cheyne trusts the Word as the means to reprove and correct our lifeless formalism. Indeed, Christ purifies the Church “by the washing of water with the word” (Eph 5:26).

Would reading Philippians on repeat benefit many Christians? Absolutely. But I suggest it also would be susceptible to a different formalism, a formalism I fear Jon has not realized he now seems to be espousing. Call it a skepticism of those of us who read the M’Cheyne plan as doing no more than “legalistically skim[ming] the surface.” But this new formalism doesn’t stop there. No, it processes past “M’Cheyne was wrong” to “You’re wrong to use his plan.”

At this point, I wouldn’t blame you for thinking I’ve finally gotten to the part of my reply where I overreact and unfairly caricature my “opponent.” But I wouldn’t agree with you either. Jon himself sets this up. He says,

The problem is not laziness. The problem is not lack of devotion. The problem is that the Bible does not yield its treasure to hasty enquiry, to rapid coverage, to the kind of superficial engagement that treating it like a checklist inevitably produces [emphasis added].

Again, set aside that intrusive thought that he’s arguing against all reading plans and stay with me. The inevitable outcome to M’Cheyne’s method is “superficial engagement.” I confess, I am skeptical myself of Jon’s claim of inevitability.

If we M’Cheyne plan-ers weren’t feeling guilty before, should we now? This is a serious question. Should I, specifically, feel guilty for recommending it to many who have come to love it? Have I failed the members of my Church by dooming their first quarter of 2026? Is the antidote for me to message them all to pivot to a repeated reading of Matthew 11?

Instead, I think we should turn back to M’Cheyne and another danger he highlights to heed his wisdom against weariness.

Careless reading.—Few tremble at the word of God. Few, in reading it, hear the voice of Jehovah, which is full of majesty. Some, by having so large a portion, may be tempted to weary of it, as Israel did of the daily manna, saying, “Our soul loatheth this light bread!” and to read it in a slight and careless manner. This would be fearfully provoking to God. Take heed lest that word be true of you: “Ye said also, Behold, what a weariness is it! and ye have snuffed at it, saith the Lord of Hosts” (MAR, 561).

Again, I would urge us to consider that the problem is not the plan. Certainly, M’Cheyne made provision for us to throw it out should it not benefit us. Clearly it has not benefited Jon. I don’t blame him for throwing it out!

But the fact that M’Cheyne could wield a sharper scalpel against his own plan than what we find now nearly two centuries later reveals the real issue is something else. Something M’Cheyne knew intimately well, and strove with so much might to reveal to those around him. A sort of one-trick pony.

The Real Problem with M’Cheyne’s Plan

The problem with reading the Bible systematically, methodically, and annually isn’t a pastor from a bygone era. The problem is the reader.

We simply don’t desire to read the Bible in ourselves—whether it be a perpetual re-reading of Philippians or M’Cheyne’s plan. And this is why I think Jon, not M’Cheyne, is wrong; not because anything he says isn’t true in some or even the majority of cases. But because he focuses on the Bible reading, not the Bible reader.

After all, don’t we call Bible reading of whatever variety a spiritual discipline? We assume Bible reading is difficult. Jon himself admits this! Making the overarching form of the reading less time consuming does nothing to fan the flame of desire for God’s Word. In fact, making our disciplines easier to accomplish makes them easier to abandon later on.

The real problem with M’Cheyne’s plan, then, isn’t that it encourages more Bible reading, a faster pace, a more serious diligence, nor that it comes with a checklist. The real problem is that the reader lacks in himself a passion for the Saviour he meets in the text.

I suggest, then, that we trust God’s Word to accomplish the work for which he sent it out. I suggest we spend a few less minutes of our day looking at our phones (or even writing substacks!), and learn to deny the flesh through discipline.

I suggest M’Cheyne was more than right—he was wise. And we benefit from heeding his hard earned wisdom by pursuing Christ as he did.