Do Theological Seminaries and Colleges Destroy Preaching?

Dr Henry Drummond thinks that seminaries are doing an inadequate job in the training of preachers because, firstly, teachers have so given themselves to the historico-critical method that it has suddenly undermined the authority of the Word of God. Preachers now do not have confidence in the Scriptures, therefore they do not believe that the unfolding of the Word of God is where the power of preaching really is. Secondly, the homiletical departments of seminaries and colleges have generally failed to emphasise expository preaching. Since Fosdick, life-situation preaching has been emphasised. The climate in many congregations today is such that it dictates a low priority of preaching, where preaching is not seen as significant in ministry at all. So often, Christians prefer to sit in judgment on the preaching, and even say such things as this: "if a man cannot say what he has to say in15-20 minutes, he shouldn't be a preacher." Today, preaching must be ultra-brief and go over us and hit our neighbour. This anti-preaching climate has a destructive effect on the preacher himself, for his very call is under question, his raison d’tre is challenged. And if such a climate tends to destroy the preacher, then the congregation has little or no chance of surviving. What many congregations want today is, not a preacher of the Word of God, but an office manager, (Ravenhill).

The Cause Of The Downward Spiral In Preaching

Dr C. A. Criswell says, "Preaching is increasingly looked upon disparagingly; they

(ie, church members) just 'put up with it.' "What has caused this situation to develop?

Criswell thinks that the preacher himself has caused it.  Instead of preaching the Gospel, instead of expounding the Word, instead of saying, 'Thus saith the Lord,' the preacher began preaching psychology, and sociology, economic and civic amelioration. The time was when preachers proclaimed the Gospel; but now they preach sociological life situation sermons that have left the church anaemic. 

Criswell sees the training of preachers in modern seminaries as being at fault in this very thing. I fear that within evangelical circles, there has been a serious move away from the systematic exposition of whole chunks of the Bible, and preachers have adopted a method of textual preaching instead. Now I would be the last to deny that such methodology has been greatly used of God in the past. One just has to mention the name of C. H. Spurgeon to prove the point. Yet I think that the practice of Spurgeon has had a detrimental effect upon the pulpits of the Church, as men have tried to emulate the Prince of Preachers, and have failed. Textual preaching, coupled with the desire to draw the crowds, has enticed men to reduce to a respectable minimum the Biblical and doctrinal content of their sermons, and have compromised their whole ministries thereby. Thus preaching has been degraded by preachers!

It is true that textual sermons can and must be expository. But very often, all you have is a few pious thoughts on some of the words of the text instead of grappling with what the text in its context is actually saying. This has given the clear impression that preaching is something that anyone can do. That's why "anyones" are doing it! And the inevitable result? Preaching has been disparaged in the modern mind.

And worse; church attendees cannot now concentrate long enough to benefit from sustained expository preaching. So the preacher is timed to a 15 minutes sermon, and a 60 minute service. The whole thing has become devalued. 

Institutional Maintenance

The 'firm's men' are not interested in truth or in the Gospel; all they are interested in is "institutional maintenance," to use the unforgettable term used by Dr Jonathan Lamb at a convention in July 2013 in Northern Ireland. This is all they know and this is all they do. And anyone who stands in the way of "institutional maintenance," is to be removed by whatever means, moral or otherwise.

Do such men care about preaching the Gospel with conviction and passion? Do they want to see sinners saved and brought into the Kingdom of God? No. Do they want to see their church live on for many years? Of course they do. Do they want anything else? Yes. They want to see the money flowing in, for it is from the hard-earned money of church members that they hold their well-paid jobs. What else do they want? They want the removal of all those, whoever they might be, from the church because they might make their church an endangered species.

But there whole aim to "institutional maintenance." How pathetic! Why maintain an institution that is no longer (to use civil service speak) "fit for purpose"? If the churches today are not preaching the everlasting Gospel of redeeming grace, they are surplus to requirements. They are promoting the eternal damnation of those who sit and listen to them speaking utter irrelevancies. God is offended by their very existence. Remember what He said to and about Israel in Amos' day? “I hate, I despise your feast days, And I do not savor your sacred assemblies. Though you offer Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings, I will not accept them, Nor will I regard your fattened peace offerings." (Amos 5:21, 22). That is serious talk, is it not? For the Almighty God to utter such damning words is fearful.

Yet for the institutional maintainers, this is what the LORD is saying. May He have mercy on us for our unfaithfulness to Him.

The Firm's Men.

Why is it that the 'firm's men' within the churches do not want to face up to the challenge of reforming the church to which they belong? One answer: their church is so perfect that it does not need further reformation, or reforming. A perfect church does not need to be brought into line with Christ and His will for His people, because such a church is already there.

One question to ask the 'firm's men' within your denomination is this: what must be done to conform our church to the likeness of Christ? What changes does she need to make? Are they fundamental changes, or are they peripheral? Does your church base its activities, beliefs and practices around your preferences, or are they biblically based? If they are biblically-based, why do so many other sound evangelicals believe and practice differently?

Is your church the kind of church that you could, with confidence, bring an unsaved friend along to and be sure he would hear the Gospel being preached by the preacher? Does your man preach the Gospel clearly and with passion? Can you sense that he is heart and soul committed to what he is telling you? Or is it just a lecture, a 'glorified bible study,' as Dr Lloyd-Jones describes such performances? When you listen to him praying, reading the Scripture and preaching, do you get a sense of God, an awareness that God is in the midst?

These are the questions that Christians within the churches need to ask their leadership and address with urgency. Too many professing Christians seem content to be part of a denomination that opposes and rejects the Gospel and that has a clear alliance with theological liberalism. They don't mind evangelicals and liberals cooperating and exchanging pulpits and sharing 'fellowship.' They, by their actions (or inactions) are sending out a very clear message that liberalism is not wrong, that it has an understanding of the Gospel that differs from theirs, but it is not that bad at all because we believe that if God wants a sinner saved, He will do it anyway. Now thank God that He is sovereign in salvation as in all other matters; but how wicked a thing it is to use this precious doctrine to excuse the error and falsehood of liberalism and also to excuse their refusal to deal with this evil and to remove it from their midst!

Do evangelicals in theologically corrupt denominations not realise that liberalism is as different from Christianity as Islam and Hinduism and Buddhism are from Christianity? Now here's the irony: evangelicals in these denominations would be up in arms if they were to join with these other world religions, but seem to be blissfully ignorant of the strange bed-fellows they are sharing with right now. To accept error as just another and different way of understanding the Scriptures is to damn countless souls in hell and to love what God hates.

"Follow No Divisive Course"

To the ordinary person, this sounds like very good counsel. Within Christian circles, we are to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace," (Eph.4:3). We are to pursue "peace with all men,...." (Heb.12:14). The writers of these wise words knew full well that it is simply not possible to be in good terms with everyone because all do not hold to the historic Christian faith. So their own experiences and the experiences of fellow apostles and disciples of the Lord demonstrate that these words are not to be taken at their face value.

But some churches do just that! They counsel their ministers not to follow any divisive course. Now you know what that means in practice. They are never to take a decision that would tend to cause disharmony within the congregation even though the congregation is made up of the converted and the unconverted. They are to keep in with the unconverted members of the church, and do or say nothing that would cause them to be offended. As one former theological college principal told a young colleague, "Say what the people want you to say and do what they want you to do." This is what even the professedly purest reformed churches are doing in practice, the most theologically orthodox, the separatist churches.

When it comes to sacramental discipline, they are bound to accept as Christian members those covenant children and young people who are requesting church membership, provided their behaviour does not undermine their profession. The policy seems to be that if a potential church member's behaviour does not contradict their profession, the church presumes that they are regenerate, so admits them to full church membership. If it creates a mist on a mirror that is placed under its nostrils, and its parents are already members of the church, then baptise it - just to keep the peace. Whatever you do, do not ask about whether or not they are born again, or saved, or converted to Christ. Why? Because that is liable to cause division in the congregation.

But perhaps the worst manifestation of this is in the case where the Gospel is not preached with anything resembling clarity by the minister. Problems arise when the minister preaches a clear biblical Gospel. But problems ought to arise where the minister simply does not preach the Gospel clearly and biblically and to the consciences of the members. In fact, problems ought to be caused in any church that does not preach the Gospel. Elders have an awesome responsibility to God and to those who worship in the same church to ensure that the Gospel is preached with power and conviction, and that hearers are left in no doubt as to their spiritual condition and what God requires of them if they are to escape the wrath and curse of God due them for sin. How will they answer to the Lord when while on earth they knew the gospel is not being preached in their church, yet they took no decisive action to have this unacceptable situation rectified? Such elders have now come to accept that it is OK for the churches not to preach the everlasting Gospel. And what can be more divisive than a minister who does not preach the Gospel. What can be more spiritually dangerous than a man who claims and is accepted to be a Gospel minister in a 'Gospel' church refusing to preach the Gospel? That is massively divisive. But it is not deemed to be divisive because no one creates a stir about a non-Gospel preaching minister. And the church authorities are content to tolerate such a situation.

And all because their church requires of them not to follow a divisive course. What if Luther, who preached from the Bible as we are supposed to do, had have taken that approach to church life; would the reformation ever have taken place? Had Calvin been content to let things go on as they had done, would the reformation ever been organised? What if the Huguenots and Covenanters and Puritans had taken this advice and 'followed no divisive course,' where would the church have gone?

Ask yourself this: if every church member and elder was like me, how long would the Gospel survive in your church?

Church of Scotland's Moderatoress Laughs at Knox!

The Church of Scotland's Moderatoress, Mrs Lorna Hood, has taken a swipe at John Knox (1514-1572), the man attributed with having brought the Protestant reformation into the Church in Scotland.

Knox was a reformer by nature, and it was his Calvinistic convictions that drove him to seek the reformation of the church in Scotland.  Having studied in Geneva under Calvin (1509-1564), claiming that the academy there was "the most perfect school of Christ since the days of the apostles," he learned from Scripture the Presbyterian form of church government (not to be confused with what is being passed off as Presbyterian church government today), and brought his learning back to his native Scotland, successfully reforming the church of his day. He was quoted as referring to the "the monstrous regiment of women," the reference being directed primarily at Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth I.

Now, the church that he founded has a member of that "monstrous regiment" as Moderatoress, and she dismisses Knox's view on women in leadership with a smile. She knows he would not approve of this ecclesiastical move, but n entering the Assembly Hall she has to pass Knox's statue, and can see nothing but the funny irony of so doing.

Given the clear prohibitive teaching of Scripture on women's ordination to the Christian ministry, every church that blatantly defies biblical teaching and those who accept it have been swallowed up by theological liberalism. And in order to be swallowed up by theological liberalism, one has personally to swallow this religious lie. Sadly, many reformed evangelicals have done just that! And in accepting the rightness and legitimacy of liberalism as one interpretation of the Bible, they have quite easily moved on to embrace the Roman principle that "the church is always right." Luther was strongly advised to "Listen to the Church" just after he nailed his 95 theses to the chapel door at Wittenburg.

Any Christian who "listens to the church" and not to Scripture has already apostacised from the church of Jesus Christ because the has departed from God's Word to the church. Only apostate church's will defy God and ordain women and non-Christians to the Christian ministry. Only apostate churches will accept into church membership for life and on profession of faith without a mechanism to review such professions those whose faith proves to be false. And the wholesale acceptance of members on profession of faith results in non-Christians becoming ministers, and now in Scotland holds the position of Moderatoress. These are the churches that know better than the Lord of the Church who said that women are not to hold such office as elder - it is for men only.

But to get back to Hood and Knox, for anyone to speak well of Knox in the one breath and then to make him the subject of derisory humour is extremely serious. Where are the CoS's evangelicals? Why aren't they screaming from the rooftops at such irreverence? How can they remain within such a denomination, one that accepts the pagan religion called liberalism on a par with biblical truth? As J. Greshem Machen put it, Liberalism and Christianity are two very different religions. Yet in today's spineless and faithless churches, keeping in with the current fashion is more important that maintaining biblical truth. Spurgeon is right: those who marry today's fashion will be tomorrow's widow.

In Ireland. the CoS has a daughter church, namely, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (PCI). Has the Church of Scotland embraced theological liberalism? So has PCI. Therefore, has the CoS preached soul-damning liberalism. So has PCI. Has the CoS embraced same sex marriage? So has PCI - in principle, for she has at least one elder who publicly supports same-sex marriage, yet he still holds his office. Has the CoS persecuted evangelical ministers? So has PCI, and is still doing so.

Yet evangelical church ministers and elders and members are prepared to defend their church to the death against any criticism to the contrary, and continue to support such a religious aberration with their last pound. They hold Knox and his like high, yet they tolerate those who deny Knox's theology and evangelistic zeal. May the Lord show us His mercy.

Dr D Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Eph.5:25

Reflecting on what J. J. Murray and I. H. Murray affirmed, I searched the Doctor’s published sermons on Eph.4 where Paul deals with the doctrine of the church, especially her unity.  I was disappointed not to find any reference there to Christ dying for the church in that chapter.  I then read the entire letter of Paul to the Ephesians and there discovered that he dealt with the issue of the atonement within the context of Christian marriage.  The atonement was not his major focus in these expositions, however; his focus was on the Christian understanding of marriage.  This was positioned within the immediate context of the Christian’s responsibilities as a wife, husband, child and employee.[1]  Even when dealing with a subject as practical as marriage, Paul cannot exclude the consideration of doctrine, especially the doctrine of salvation.

Among the very first things he preaches on Eph.5:25-33 is his understanding of the love of God.  He sees it both in particularistic terms and in its universalistic sense.  He writes, “It is the same sort of love wherewith Christ loved the church; indeed, wherewith God loved the world.”[2]  He draws attention to the fact that this is the same Greek root that is used for God’s love (αγαπαω) both in Jn 3:16 and in Eph.5:25.  The love with which Christ loved the church is identical to the love with which God loved the world.  DML-J demonstrates particularism and universalism in his choice of words.  The love with which God loved the world is a love that loved the ugly, the vile, the ungodly, the sinful, the weak, the guilty and condemned.  It was a love that moved outward to another.  This is not a sentimental love, but a love that acted for the good of another/others; it was a love that gave. 

So to teach how husbands are to love their wives, Paul uses the illustration of how Christ loved the church – he gave and gave and gave again.  Christ’s love is a giving love, an outgoing love, a redemptive love.  His love has a particular object – the church.  Christ had already loved the church and had given Himself for her.  God loved the world and gave His only begotten Son for it, indicating that it was precisely the same love each time.  What He did for the world, He did also for the church, and vice versa.  Personalising what He did for the church by giving Himself for her salvation, DML-J proceeds to apply this to the individual, adding, “[Y]es but also ‘for me’, for every one of us as individuals.”[3]  “Every one of us as individuals” is included in Christ’s atoning work on Calvary. 

Bearing in mind that the context here is Christian marriage and the character and quality of the love that a husband ought to show to his wife, DML-J reiterates what he describes as “supreme doctrine ... no higher doctrine.”  A Christian husband is to love his wife sacrificially and without consideration for himself or his welfare.  His love for her is to be exclusive of all others, particular.  I remember hearing Dr John MacArthur[4] translating 1 Tim.3:2 on the qualifications of an elder, that he should be “a one woman man,” more familiarly, “the husband of one wife.”  The relationship is to be exclusive.  DML-J says, “- all that the Lord Jesus Christ did, he did for the church.”  There is no dispute here on either side of the soteriological debate, and DML-J is accurately reflecting what the great apostle Paul had written.  He continues, “He died for the church; He died for nobody else.”[5] 

These are clear and strong words from the Doctor, and, out of their context, they spell out an equally clear particularist understanding of the atonement.  But again his purpose in writing this is to demonstrate from the highest possible source the quality of love with which husbands ought to love their wives.  It is to be a particular love that is focused on their chosen spouses.  Christian men are to choose their love, and then to love their choice – exclusively.  That there is a particularity in God’s and Christ’s love is not disputed, and Paul brings this out here.  By extension, there is also to be a particular love of a husband for his wife.  Election undergirds what the apostle is writing, and election has to do with prior choice. 

It is important to note that when DML-J speaks about Christ dying for the church, he nowhere denies that Christ died only for the church, although the accompanying phrase, “nobody else,” in this sermon context has the potential to point in that direction.  Why, then, did he use this form of words here?  It was to teach these Ephesians, and therefore us, the exclusivity and particularity of marriage love. 

He uses this term in the sense that those whom Christ loved with this particular love and for whom He died effectually received incalculable benefits from that atoning death – they had their sins and guilt atoned for.  Wives also receive great benefits from being loved in that way by their husbands.   

This is not to deny that DML-J believed exclusively in an atonement that benefitted only the elect.  It is the quality of the divine love that is emphasised here.  Husbands are to show quality love to their wives – that’s the Doctor’s focus in these sermons.

But, and returning more directly to the atonement, DML-J had a great place in his evangelist’s heart those who made up the rest of mankind.  He goes on to teach that Christ also had a real, compassionate love for all men, and for these He died sufficiently and made atonement for their sins too.  To enter into the benefits of that atonement, they had to trust the Saviour.  For DML-J, Christ’s death was not a mere commercial transaction, a mere pecuniary act on His part; rather it was essentially forensic in character because it dealt with personal debt and guilt; pecuniary transaction dealt only with the impersonal.  In fact, in the same paragraph, DML-J uses the Lombardian paradigm to explain what he meant by these particularistic remarks.  Let him speak for himself.

His death, as Calvin and other expositors remind us, because it was eternal and because He is the Son of God, is sufficient for the whole world; but it is efficient only for the church. His purpose in dying was to redeem the church. He gave Himself for the church, for all who belong to her when she will be complete and perfect and entire. All was known to God from eternity, and the Son came, and gave Himself for the church.[6]

It was in this sense, and in this sense alone, that “He died for nobody else.”  Paul here safeguards the proper breadth of the Gospel, and DML-J does likewise.  Selective reading of the DML-J corpus is natural to dogma-driven theologians but it is essentially disingenuous and unjust for them to do so.  To infer from this that he believed about the atonement what Owen believed is quite erroneous, if not mischievous.  DML-J’s soteriology is balanced and gives due weight to the particular and universal emphases that are found in the actual text with which he is dealing.  This demonstrates his methodology when expounding the text of Scripture. He sticks to his text and says all it has to say.  And he does this with every text he handles, thus bringing out the due emphasis of that text in proper biblical balance.  It is interesting that J. J. Murray and I. H. Murray could only identify his exposition of two passages that they say indicate that DML-J taught limited atonement, and even this is open to question.  A careful reading of his sermons will demonstrate otherwise.  Great care must always be taken that we do not read into another man’s beliefs what we would wish was there, and isn’t.

It is unfortunate that DML-J went beyond what was written when he made this statement, “He died for nobody else,” a practice against which he constantly warned and a principle which at this point he contravened.  It is at least arguable that he allowed his mind to run off on a tangent, preaching as he did from the scantiest of notes; this does happen to preachers at times, especially those who speak in an extempore manner.  This is the only place that I know of where he has made such an extreme and uncharacteristic statement on the death of Christ, despite DML-J's ubiquitous universalism.[7]

As is well known, one or even two swallows do not make a summer, though the Murray's seem to think they do.  They have tried, unsuccessfully, to create an uncharacteristic DML-J position on the atonement in a way not dissimilar to what Pharaoh did to the Hebrews in Egypt where they were expected to make clay bricks without straw.[8]  The Murray's may have a little bit of clay, but they have no straw and they didn't end up with any bricks, either!

Further, it is of particular note that DML-J sees our salvation as something that God does for us and as something that actually happens to us.  It is experiential in character and is described in this sermon in terms of our being “rescued” and “redeemed.”[9]  Had it not been for the sufficiency of Christ’s death for all and its efficiency for the church, we would still be in our sins.  Once the sinner trusts in Christ’s finished work on Calvary, he experiences God’s gracious salvation.  Because election and predestination[10] are not experiential in nature, it is not these that bring the sinner into possession of the benefits of the redemption purchased by Christ; it is the requirement that God has for faith in Christ that does it.  DML-J believes that it was the “precious blood” of Christ that purchased redemption for the world, but it does not become the possession of the elect automatically.  The salvific benefits of Christ’s blood have to be applied by the Holy Spirit and appropriated by the sinner by faith, which is the conduit for receiving it. 

Given that the vast majority of DML-J material on the atonement points in the universalistic direction, this very rare statement in fact proves the thesis I am presenting, and is the exception that proves the rule.  

Dr Alan C. Clifford, who knew the Doctor quite well for no less than eighteen years, explained why he thought DML-J used this uncharacteristic language (“He died for nobody else.”) in his exposition of Eph.5:25 which was delivered in 1959/1960.  At this time the high orthodox Banner of Truth Trust was just being set up, and DML-J was most keen to avoid any rifts with this new Reformed movement.  In an email to me, Clifford suspects that such caution drove him at this juncture.  “Whatever he published on paper, it remains true that he was 'uncomfortable' with LA [limited atonement]. In short, he didn't really believe it.[11]

So, the two passages alleged by J. J. Murray and I. H. Murray to support the view that DML-J believed and preached limited atonement have been found to prove nothing of the sort.  Taken out of context, it could be argued that this is what he believes and teaches.  But kept firmly within the context of his preaching and of these sermons, it has been shown that there was a breadth and width in DML-J’s soteriology that neither of these men would embrace.  Hence, it is pushing language much too far to claim that they and DML-J are on the same side of this controversy.

---

[1]    Eph.5:22-6:9.

[2]    Selection #107.

[3]    1974:145.

[4]    The meeting was held in Belfast, Northern Ireland in the early 1990s.

[5]    Ibid.

[6]    1974:145, 146.

[7]    Dr Alan C. Clifford in an email dated 17 August 2013.

[8]    Ex.5:18.

[9]    1974:146.

[10]  These undergird and guarantee the success of the Gospel in the world.

[11]  Clifford, dated 27^th July 2013.

I'm No Second Fiddle!

John Jones Talsarn, the people's preacher of Wales in the eighteenth century, was a burning evangelist who provoked the ire of his more senior ministerial colleagues.  In a letter to a friend, he spoke about his concerns for the Gospel.  One of these was the emphasis on particular redemption, or limited Atonement, that the older men were preaching, and his second main concern, which he thinks is even more important than the first, was the desire in both parties to “love to have the pre-eminence.”[1]  In his opinion, there was a drive to occupy thrones, to be supreme, to be superior.  There is the practice of ministers gathering around them “yes” men who agree with every opinion expressed by the leader and who bow to their every demand.  This ties in well with what Jones wrote about the content of preaching by these older men.  If the preaching and message is sectarian, that is because those who do it are essentially sectarian in their outlook.  And sectarianism pursues its own paths in order to get what it wants, by whatever means and at whatever cost.  They wanted to remove those brethren who were being used by God because they did not dot their every ‘i’ and cross their every ‘t’ theologically.  

Today within the churches this same anti-christian attitude is to be seen, even in evangelical churches.  Ministers love to have the pre-eminence; they love then position and the power that attaches itself to position. Give them a title and they think they are God on earth. They will do whatever is necessary to get to the top, no matter who is trampled on in then process.

John wrote about such a man in his letters in 3 John 1:9. Diotrephes loved to have the pre-eminence and would not receive the apostle John.  This man was much too full of his own self-importance to be of any good tho the Gospel. Such men are a hindrance to the Gospel, but they are the men who are the best servants of the lukewarm 21st century church!

Yes, they are too many throne occupiers, too many kings, too many gigantic egos. How they love to be loved. How they gather around them those who will tell them how great they are. And they imagine, vainly, that by allowing the church to make its own godless decisions and abiding by them, that they are serving the church faithfully  for they are not.

Isn't it amazing just how far the church has plummeted into unfaithfulness and even apostacy!  Where are the men who see what is happening and are courageous enough to do something about it? Where are the Luthers and Calvins and Hus's?  Where are the men in whom the Spirit of God is? Where are the men who have compassion upon the church in her terminal illness? Sadly, they are few and far between, are they not? So long as they get their day out of it, they could not care less about what they are leaving for the next and future generations.

May the Lord have mercy upon us all.

---

[1]   Cited in Owen Thomas, The Atonement Controversy, Banner of Truth Trust, 1874/2002:352.

Preparation and Study

Preparation and study are necessary for the preacher, or as Leonard Ravenhill put it, "sweat, blood and tears." Paige Patterson counselled that five hours per day be spent in preparation for preaching. Draper said that time, a plan of study, a real walk with the Lord, and the sharpening of whatever tools you possess, are essential ingredients in powerful preaching. Dr Drummond said

(1) that there must be vital commitment to the power of the Word of God;

(2) the power of a holy life, and be on a quest for holiness;

(3) be Spirit-filled men, paying the price of a disciplined, dedicated devotional life;

(4) be men of faith and believe that God will use the Word mightily. 

The wise balance of head and heart preparation is set out. Both are essential to avoid "correct deadness" and "living heresy." As much time ought to be spent in preparing the heart as the head! Ravenhill said that in the Scottish church of a by gone age, the preacher was not available on a Thursday since he was preparing his message; and on a Saturday he prepared his heart to deliver that sermon. Detzler referred to this quest for power as being broken before the Lord. Ravenhill said on this, "It is easy to get a man to the cross, but it's difficult to get him on it." It is also hard to keep him there! (Dr John Greever). Brokenness before God is crucial to powerful preaching.

Churchmen and Terrorists

Churchmen are notorious for using softly softly tactics on republicans but seem to be totally unbalanced when it comes to their criticisms of their own flocks. These 'social gospellers' are the darlings of the establishment, and their analysis is taken almost without question.

However, the churches are not so quick to give support to the victims of terrorist violence, at least not at institutional level. Ministers 'on the ground' may play their part when their help is required. But social gospelling church establishments know on which side their bread is buttered and when they go 'cap in hand' to politicians who were either actively involved in terrorism and others who now support these terrorists and keep them in office, they have lost any voice they might otherwise have had.

Our country is in a very sad state because our churches have lost the plot altogether. Instead of pursuing Gospel matters, they prefer rather to persecute Gospel ministers. And when Gospel ministers are persecuted by their churches, may the Lord have mercy on us all, for we dare not ask Him for justice!

Preachers and the Judgment Seat of Christ

What preachers have lost sight of today is “the judgment seat of Christ,” says Dr Leonard Ravenhill. They have forgotten that one day they will give an account of their stewardship to their Master, as they stand before Him. What He has given to us we will give back to Him with or without interest.

What a difference it would make if we all had an eye on the judgment day! Rev Dick Lucas encouraged young preachers always to keep the "eschatological perspective" before their minds, as men who must give an account.  Martin Luther spoke of the two days in his life - THIS day and THAT Day.

Our service will be revealed on that day, and our work will be fully known. Nothing can bring greater seriousness to our preaching than that thought.

Expository Preachers

One of the essential qualifications of expository preachers whose preaching station is within a congregational setting is surely toughness of hide to take the persistent criticism of spending too much time in the study and not spending enough time with the congregation. His whole week seems to be taken up with study.

Now it is important that a proper balance is reached if the relevance of the message to the congregation is not to suffer. A minister who divorces himself from his congregation is liable to become so bookish that his preparation and sermon delivery is lost on those to whom he was called to minister. Whilst the Word had its own inbuilt relevance, the minister must come between the relevance of the Word and the people to whom that word comes.

But the preacher must be well-disciplined so that he can take such criticism graciously, and go on with the ministry to which God has called him. If Christians want good preaching, they must be prepared to give their minister time and freedom to study so that he can feed their hungry hearts. Only when the preacher himself receives from God can he give to his people. If he does not take the time to feed his own soul, he will have nothing worthwhile to give to others. If he does not labour to prepare a good meal for his guests on Sundays, he cannot complain if they have no appetite for what he has for them! A well-prepared dish is most appetising; but an ill-prepared one, even though it has all the necessary ingredients, will turn them off! Preachers must pay the price for their preaching. They must keep themselves fresh.

Preparation for preaching is the most laborious thing the minister will do, therefore, it is so important that both people and pastor have a right grasp of what preaching is all about. Only then will they be able to submit themselves to the rigorous demands of that preaching.

Man Without a Calling

William William of Pantycelyn, the great Welsh Calvinistic Methodist preacher and poet and hymn-writer, wrote the Welsh Christian classic Theomemphus, and towards the end of that very long poem (some 22 chapters), he penned these unforgettable and challenging lines:

But man without a calling, who is a wolf inside, 
Will take the shepherd's wages, but not the flock provide.

These deeply challenging words will repay deep and prolonged study and meditation. How many mere hirelings there are in the church of Christ! How many there are who use the Christina ministry, that most holy and highest of callings on earth, as a cover for promoting their own real interests! How many use it as cover for promoting of their own ambitions! How may use it as a means to promote their own business interests! Alas, how many use it as the means of feathering their own nests, while caring nothing for the flock over which Christ has made them overseers! Part-time ministers! Part-time under-shepherds! Yet, the sheep are left to their own devices. But, and here's the BUT,

But man without a calling, who is a wolf inside, 
Will take the shepherd's wages, but not the flock provide.

They take the salary each month, but use that pay to further their own selfish interests, not care for the flock.

Is it any wonder the church is in the state it's in just now? Ministers need urgently to review the reality of their calling before they take another penny from the church that called them.

God Not Welcome.

BY A 15 yr. OLD SCHOOL KID

who got an A+ for this entry

(TOTALLY AWESOME)!

Since the Pledge of Allegiance

And

The Lord's Prayer

Are not allowed in most

Public schools anymore

Because the word 'God' is mentioned.....

A kid in Arizona  wrote the attached

NEW School prayer:

"New Pledge of Allegiance"

-o0o0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0o0o-

Now I sit me down in school

Where praying is against the rule

For this great nation under God

Finds mention of Him very odd.

If scripture now the class recites,

It violates the Bill of Rights.

And anytime my head I bow

Becomes a Federal matter now.

Our hair can be purple, orange or green,

That's no offense; it's a freedom scene..

The law is specific, the law is precise.

Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.

For praying in a public hall

Might offend someone with no faith at all..

In silence alone we must meditate,

God's name is prohibited by the state.

We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,

And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks...

They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.

To quote the Good Book makes me liable.

We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,

And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.

It's 'inappropriate' to teach right from wrong,

We're taught that such 'judgments' do not belong..

We can get our condoms and birth controls,

Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles...

But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,

No word of God must reach this crowd.

It's scary here I must confess,

When chaos reigns the school's a mess.

So, Lord, this silent plea I make:

Should I be shot; My soul please take!

Amen

If you aren't ashamed to do this, Please pass this on..

Jesus said, 'If you are ashamed of me, I will be ashamed of you before my Father.'

~~~~~~~~~~~AWESOME~~~~~~~~~~

Not ashamed. Pass this on. 

It is a scandalous situation that we have got ourselves into in this world where its Creator and Sustainer has been banished from His own world. All over the western world, God is being driven out. His Name is not to be spoken because those who hold to a false religion might be offended. Reading of His Word in public places is fast becoming a criminal offense. 

This is what we can only expect the godless world to do, but where is the church while all this is going on? She is involved in spiritual adultery with the gods of this world - political correctness, immorality, lust, greed, moral laxity, sodomy legalised, same-sex marriages being accepted, etc, etc.

This world is clearly under divine wrath, because it is clear that God has given this world up to all kinds of iniquity. Because the churches are milking this with all their might, they have lost their ability to discern the times in which we live. Hence their deafening silence. Churches that once stood solidly for the Gospel are now persecuting those good men who preach the Gospel with power and passion; they preach it as men who give the clear impression that they actually believe what they preach.

Sadly, and predictably, the world is but following the example of the churches. May God have mercy on us as He pours out His deserved wrath upon us.

Where the Battle Rages...

The great reformer, Dr Martin Luther, said, “Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved.” How often this is observed in the breach rather than in the observance. How often Christ’s cause goes by default because ministers are afraid of annoying the church authorities. And as Christians who are already carrying heavy burdens of responsibility, it is painful to witness the churches’ attempts at destruction of Christ’s faithful servants. It is here for many that the spiritual battle rages; and it is here that Christ’s men prove their worth by staying with God’s persecuted servants. True shepherds stay with Christ’s true sheep; hirelings go with wolves dressed up to look like sheep (Jn.10:12, 13).

We must never forget that there is much more going on in our lives, more pressures to contend with, in addition to the actual presenting problem.  There are underlying issues and there are current issues that impinge on us in such a way that we have those matters to process in our minds and hearts as well as our personal challenges. There are Christ’s servants who are being hounded to death by ecclesiastical powers, men who need support; and there are Christians who have been disenfranchised from the church who need succour and direction. These are Christian responsibilities that the Lord has laid on us, because the church has failed lamentably to support its ministers who are being opposed and persecuted from within. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen.4:9). Yes, I am, and what an inestimable privilege it is to be so. This is a responsibility that we’d prefer not to have to carry at this time, but it is a Christian responsibility nonetheless which we are honoured to carry. When we needed support, none was at hand; we promised that we would not allow this to happen to other servants of Christ.

Set Up a New Reformed Evangelical Church

In an earlier post, I suggested that those evangelicals who are more loyal to the church than they are to the Gospel are prepared to stand idly by and watch fellow-evangelicals being slaughtered by the church and not lift a hand to help them.  Shame on them all!

I read recently of how this exact thing goes on within the Scottish Presbyterian churches. The writer echoed my viewpoint when he said that he watched in horror as evangelicals were being hung out to dry by their evangelical colleagues. At times they were instrumental in betraying evangelicals, and stood there watching what was happening but doing nothing about it.

He referred to a divinity student in the Presbytery of Glasgow whose views on women's ordination were reported to Presbytery. Not one evangelical supported him and he was forced to leave. Another evangelical in another Presbytery was accused of being a 'troublemaker' in relation to the same issue, and rather than being given the support of his fellow evangelicals, found himself ostracised and he too had to leave. A third situation involved a young minister who confronted a ruling elder about an inappropriate (sinful and unbiblical) relationship he was having. This came to Presbytery and neither the Presbytery nor the evangelical ministers in it supported him, and he too was told to keep quiet about this, or to leave the ministry. He left.

It seems that evangelicals in today's churches are rather more like evan-jelly-cals than Bible believing Christians; the emphasis here is on the jelly. Ministers within the established denominations have no reason to believe that when hardy comes to hardy, they can be sure of the support of fellow-evangelicals at Presbytery or Assembly levels. These evangelicals are first and foremost churchmen rather than Gospel-men; that means that you just cannot trust them to support biblical standards either in morals or in doctrine.

Where are soundly evangelical ministers to go to who want to minister the Word of God and preach the everlasting Gospel of redeeming grace? Answer? It is impossible to say. Presbyterianism, in all its shades and varieties, is painted in the same colours. Every minister's pre-occupation is to protect himself and secure his job. Ministers within the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, some of them, live in fear of getting on the wrong side of church authorities. This was the response I got when I asked why ministers will not support their brother evangelicals. They are living in fear of the church hierarchy, and they know that they have the power of life and death over their ministries. These men have taken real power into their own hands, and, my, they are prepared to use it - but only against evangelicals whose congregations do not want their preaching. They will not lift a hand to discipline or remove liberals and ecumenicals, and other time-servers, those who keep in with the authorities. 

Surely the time has now come for reformed evangelicals to come together and set up a new Christian church. The unfaithfulness of the current churches is depressing. When evangelical ministers are being abused by and within their congregations and then dismissed by their Presbyteries working in conjunction with the powerful Judicial Commission. This cannot go on indefinitely. "The people who know their God shall be strong, and carry out great exploits. (Dan.11:32). Now is the time for action. Think of Luther and Calvin, Cranmer and Latimer, men who knew their God and who did great things for Him. 

Wanted! Godly Sensitivity.

How much spiritual and emotional damage can be done by those who do not have pastoral hearts, whether ministers or not! When believers are undergoing the afflictions of this life, they need great tenderness from God’s professing people. Pious platitudes are worse than useless, even though they are true. Inexperience in pastoral matters can do great damage to souls. I am reminded of what Jesus said of Himself quoting Isa.42 that “a bruised reed He will not break, And smoking flax He will not quench” (Mt.12:20). Gentleness is needed when dealing with broken people.

Not all those who are called “pastor” are pastors at heart. They seem, rather, to use the pastoral office for self-promotion and self-gratification. Such ‘pastors’ become aloof from their people and when called in for help, are way out of their depth when it comes to providing it. Their approach is to squeeze this disruptive pastoral visit in as well as possible to fit their busy schedule because they have far more important matters to see to than caring for members who are in spiritual difficulties.

Sadly, the ministerial office is ready-made for self-gratification, etc.

But there are genuine pastors in churches and there are Christians who have a genuine pastoral heart, and they are gems. Thank God for them all, and pray for them.

But in the cancer scenario, ministers must exercise great care when it comes to implementing the American idea of testimony-giving in church services. This can also demonstrate the insensitivity of ministers in their zeal to promote the Gospel. These men seems to have a panel of testimony-givers they can call upon to tell their stories, and often no thought is given to those sitting in the congregation who are being torn to bits because of what they are going through in their own families. This is reckless, and ought not to be practised. Christians feel the need to get up and leave such services, and others made a conscious decision to turn off when such people were speaking.

All the end of the day, in cancer cases, and in testimonies, no two cases are exactly the same. Just because one Christian has experienced certain situations does not mean in the least that you will find the same. Testimonies are highly individual and subjective things, and as such can do extreme damage to tender hearts that might be present and listening. Also, many testimonies are more like life-stories rather than up-to-date witness statements about what the Lord has done and is doing in a person’s life.

Great care must be taken in church situations when dealing with broken hearts, and everything must be avoided that will further traumatise those who are seeking spiritual help.

Born Again Nosey Parkers.

We have discovered that there are Christian people who imagine that they have the gift of encouragement, and many do, and who believe that encouragement is given by throwing out pious platitudes by the score, and telling cancer sufferers and their families that everything will be fine, there’s no problem, “look at me how well I got over it,” etc.

How cruel this can be to those with cancer and whose minds and emotions are in deep turmoil. They mean well, but do not have the Christian grace or sensitivity for this type of ‘pastoral counselling.’ The lack of spiritual experience always shows itself when such people open their mouths. It’s like expecting a joiner to carry out brain surgery.

My advice? Stay away from such people, and don’t discuss anything personal with them, for as sure as anything, they will open their mouth and put their two big feet right into it. They just do not know how to handle such sensitive and deeply personal situations. No wonder a Christian woman who has just learned of cancer in her family had to walk out of church because all that the other worshippers wanted when they asked about the situation was news, and showed no genuine care.

I suggested to the young woman’s father that perhaps she needed pastoral support from her minister – this is a Christian family. On a future visit to our home, I asked him how the visit from her minister went, and he said, the minister was a nice man but he didn’t stop talking.

In my book, that is not what a pastor does; his primary role is to listen and the patient needs to be heard. In fact, the patient is crying out to be heard, for someone to listen to them empathetically, to give them the opportunity in a safe and caring environment to express the deep emotions that are dominating their minds and hearts. Such a minister is not a pastor, whatever else he might think himself to be. After listening to the patient, he can then sum up the situation in his own mind, and offer sensitive biblical counsel and intelligent and relevant prayer. But if he does not stop talking, he will not be able to hear what is going on in the patient’s life, so be unable to offer any real pastoral help.

But how wonderful it is when you find someone who can engage with cancer suffers and their families in a most sensitive and gracious and humble way. Such people are real gems, and can add considerable understanding to the situation and provide the support those people need. They are certainly not know-alls, for they know their limitations only too well. But they have Christian grace and experienced-based knowledge which is invaluable.

People in difficulties will know who to turn to in time of need. There will be someone they know well, a Christian, to whom they can turn for support at a very trying time in their lives. It is important for sufferers to avail of whatever help is available, and to see this as God’s provision for them at this time. Thank God for them.

A Powerful Personal Experience of Jesus - DML-J

Here is a powerful quotation from an early sermon of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones about the importance of having church life centred around a powerful personal experience of Jesus.  The sermon was preached on Heb.13:14.

“Our Christianity has the appearance of being an adjunct or an appendix to the rest of our lives instead of being the main theme and the moving force in our existence….We seem to have a real horror of being different. Hence all our attempts and endeavours to popularise the church and make it appeal to people. We seem to be trying to tell people that their joining a church will not make them so very different after all. ‘We are no longer Puritans,’ we say, ‘we believe that they over-did things and made Christianity too difficult for people. They frightened people with their strictness and their unnecessarily high standards. We are not so foolish as to do that,’ we say, and indeed we do not do so. Instead, however, we provide so called ‘sporting parsons’, men of whom the world can say that they are ‘good sports’ – whatever that may mean. And what it does so often mean is that they are men who believe that you can get men to come to chapel and church by playing football and other games with them. ‘I’ll fraternise with these men,’ says such a minister. ‘I’ll get them to like me and to see that I’m not so different from them after all, and then they’ll come to listen to my sermons.’ And he tries it, but thank God, he almost invariably fails, as he richly deserves. The man who only comes to church or chapel because he likes the minister as a man is of no value at all, and the minister who attempts to get men there by means of that subterfuge is for the time being guilty of lowering the standard of the truth which he claims to believe. For this gospel is the gospel of salvation propounded by the Son of God himself. We must not hawk it about in the world, or offer special inducements and attractions, as if we were shopkeepers announcing an exceptional bargain sale…. 

‘The world expects the Christian to be different and looks to him for something different, and therein it often shows an insight into life that regular church-goers often lack. The churches organise whist-drives, fetes, dramas, bazaars, and things of that sort, so as to attract people. We are becoming almost as wily as the devil himself, but we are really bad at it; all our attempts are hopeless failures and the world laughs at us….And the world today is laughing at the church, laughing at her attempts to be nice and to make people feel at home. My friends, if you feel at home in any church without believing in Christ as your personal Savior, then that church is no church at all, but a place of entertainment or a social club. For the truth of Christianity and the preaching of the gospel should make a church intolerable and uncomfortable to all except those who believe, and even then they should go away feeling chastened and humble.” 

(From Iain H. Murray, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The First Years 1899-1939, pp. 141-142)

The Baptist, The Saviour, and the Salvation

Before the immaculate conception of our Lord Jesus Christ, there was a miraculous birth — of a man who would prepare the way for our coming King.  His name was John, son of Zachariah and Elizabeth, who became the Baptiser.  

John was the forerunner of the Saviour, the one sent to prepare the way for Him.  It was he who said, "He (Christ) must increase but I must decrease" (Jn.3:30).  John was happy to play the one instrument in any orchestra that no else wants to play - second fiddle.  John was honoured to be chosen and called by God to fulfil this critically important role.  His self-effacing attitude reminds me of the Holy Spirit Whose role was to point people to Christ.  He paved the way for the world's Saviour.

In the run-up to Christmas, what are you doing to prepare the way for Christ to come and be born in some else's heart?  Is your life drawing attention to Christ, or to yourself?  Are you prepared to be a nobody so long as Christ was all in all?  

What are putting before the Saviour?  For if you are putting anything before the Saviour, you are not preparing the way for Him.  Is it yourself, your family, your house, your job, your religion, your church?  And if you are not preparing the way for the world's Saviour, then you have no role in Christ's Kingdom.

Make up your mind today to be a 'preparer' of the way for the Redeemer of the world to come.  Make sure you are placing no obstacles in the way to His coming.  For when He comes and is born in any sinner's heart, that's what Christmas is all about.