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 Evangelical Climate Today

The evangelical climate today has been permeated by existentialism, and people seek experiences continually. When there is a mind-set that is experience-orientated, there is a necessary downgrading of anything propositional! The Bible is propositional, as is great preaching, says Dr Henry Drummond. Existentialism is one of the factors that have made the charismatic movement so successful, he says. All that many people want today when they come to worship is to have a spiritual experience.

The music that is used today is designed for this very purpose. It is chosen to have an affect on those who sing or hear it. It touches the emotions and has a conditioning effect on those who participate in such events. There is a tendency to be repetitive in which verses and choruses are sung over and over again.  Very often the theology in such 'worship songs' leaves a lot to be desired. At times it is misleading - but it has the desired effect on the worshippers. To top it all, sometimes the songs are virtually unsingable. An enjoyable atmosphere is created artificially that leaves those present open to all kinds of psychological suggestions, some of which can be very harmful to the spiritual life of the person who have been affected by it. This is true in so many evangelical churches and meetings.

Therefore the people do not come to church to be taught God's Word, but to feel good, and have their needs met. I said in an earlier post that Reformed preaching is often justifiably criticised for being too cerebral; this must be qualified by saying that there can be no Biblical preaching without a certain cerebral element. Drummond is surely correct when he says that both the Bible and preaching are propositional. In order for it to be presented to intelligent men, it has to be directed primarily to the intellect. But if all that many church members want today is to have a spiritual experiences of some sort, then propositional truth will be seriously discounted. They have forgotten that they are called to love God "with all their mind," (Mt.22:37). When Christians refuse to use their minds in their devotions, either public or private, it should not surprise us that this will have a destructive impact on preaching, thus rendering it impotent. God does not just want to inform men, but to transform them. He wants to move through the Word by His Spirit and grip their hearts so that they will never again be the same. God does not want to negotiate, but to nullify; not stimulate our minds, but rather strip us of our sin and self-righteousness; we do not need lectures about God, but we do need great preaching that will confront us with the revelation of the Living God of heaven.

Bethany and Westbank Children's Homes

In light of current news in Northern Ireland, the following post by Michael Copeland MLA has taken on a relevance that cannot be missed.  Please read this and then ask questions of the churches to which you belong, if they were involved in supporting such homes of abuse.

Michael Stewart Copeland updated his status: "We welcome moves to include Westbank Orphanage, Greystones, in inquiries into institutional abuse in Northern Ireland. Children from Westbank were trafficked illegally over the border and placed with unregistered foster carers. Children in the home and in fostering arrangements suffered physical, emotional and/or sexual abuse. The orphanage was unique in that children were hardly if ever adopted. Some 'children' remained in the home into their early thirties. The orphanage appears to have operated without proper supervision from the 1950s until it closed in 1998. In 2011 residential records were removed from the PACT counselling service by the Trustees of Westbank in Bray Gospel Hall. Children whose mothers were from Northern Ireland gave birth in Dublin's Bethany Home, Rathgar, before being transferred to Westbank Home. Bethany Home should, therefore, also be included in the NI process. 219 Bethany children are buried in unmarked graves in Mount Jerome Cemetery in Dublin, while many who survived suffered lifelong illnesses and/or were sent into dysfunctional and abusive situations (including Westbank). Derek Leinster is one of those children. The state sanctioned neglect and death in Bethany when the Deputy Chief Medical Adviser, who was investigating reported abuse, stated in his report, 'It is well known that illegitimate children are delicate and marasmic'. ('Marasmic' is another word for starving). Mothers of three of the undersigned had children born in the Bethany Home. Sydney in 1964 and Colm in 1967 were sent to Westbank. They were sent back and forth over the border, sometimes on fundraising trips to perform for church groups. Sydney's mother was from Northern Ireland. Three of her children were sent to Westbank, one of whom was born in Bethany. Colm's mother gave birth to two children in Bethany who were sent to Westbank. As it was policy in Westbank, children were not told their siblings were also there. A number of religious denominations large and small, from the Church of Ireland to Presbyterians, Methodists, Free Presbyterians, Baptists, Plymouth Brethren, gospel halls, and the Orange Order, were involved in directing unmarried mothers to, and/or raising funds for, Bethany and Westbank. This diffuse association makes it possible for churches to deny specific responsibility for what went on in institutions run by evangelical Christians. Leaders of the CofI, Presbyterian and Methodist congregations twice met privately to discuss Bethany, but did not issue a statement. The Minister for Justice, Alan Shatter, has given written commitments to TDs and MLAs from the Democratic Unionist Party, the Unionist Party, the Labour Party and from Sinn Fein, to do something, sometime, about demands of former Bethany children for official recognition and for justice. Bethany and Westbank operated in the Republic of Ireland. Perhaps an inquiry into their activities will begin in Belfast while Justice delays in Dublin."

Applying the Gospel to the Church

Why do ministers only apply the message of the Bible - if they even do that today - to outsiders and to unbelievers, but not to the church as church?  Why is the church excused from the application of the Gospel?  Does the Gospel have no message for the church?

That seems to be the case.  Presumably the reason why this is not done is because it is the church that pays a minister his salary and you don't want to lose that.  In any case, to do that would be to show yourself as not being 'a good churchman,' or a faithful and loyal "firm's man."  Churches have no place for any but "firm's men," so to risk your future ministry by applying the Gospel to everything the church does is to invite termination of your ministry.  Hence the silence from virtually every pulpit.

What has the Gospel to say to the church today?  Well, it asks if the Gospel is being preached faithfully and passionately in her and what effect the Gospel is having in the church?  It inquires whether those who hold office in the church are Gospel men?  Do church officers believe the Gospel and have they personally trusted the Gospel for their salvation?  Do church members actually believe the Gospel or is their profession simply 'from the lips out'?  Are there recognisable outward signs that their profession of faith in Christ is genuine?  Does the life of church members demonstrate that love for Christ and the Gospel are uppermost in their lives?  What has the Gospel to say about these situations?

Does the Gospel have anything to say about the shocking way churches treat their ministers?  Are there any guidelines in Scripture as to how this to be done?  Or is this merely an ecclesiastical legal matter?  Does the Gospel have anything to say about how Gospel ministers are ejected from their congregations on the whims of a few disgruntled professing Church elders who reject the Gospel and who are supported by inexperienced Presbyters?

What about church involvement in unbiblical ecumenism?  Has the Gospel a view point on this kind of thing? Is it right today for believers and unbelievers to be joined together, but not for Paul's in his day?

These are issues that are glaringly absent from many church sermons and actions.  The only explanation I can give is that many ministers are "firm's men" who will protect their establishment bodies come what may.  There are no Luthers or Calvins left in the church today.  Therefore the church is asleep, sleep-walking into perdition.

THE ANGLICAN BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER: ITS VIRTUES & VICES (Part 6)

THE ANGLICAN BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER:
ITS VIRTUES & VICES

OR

THE ALTERNATIVE WESTMINSTER DIRECTORY OF PUBLIC
WORSHIP (1645) CONSIDERED

Being the substance of a paper first presented to the
1989 Westminster Conference in London

by Dr Alan C. Clifford

PART 6

The Sacrament of Baptism
This brings us to the administration of the sacraments. Every member of the Westminster Assembly was committed to the Reformed doctrine of covenant baptism. Like all the sixteenth century Reformers, they did not consider that infant baptism was an unscriptural relic of Roman Catholicism. Unlike the BCP, but in harmony with the continental Reformed churches, the Directory places infant baptism in a covenant context when it declares:

That baptizing, or sprinkling and washing with water, signifieth the cleansing from sin by the blood and for the merit of Christ, together with the mortification of sin, and rising from sin to newness of life, by virtue of the death and resurrection of Christ: That the promise is made to believers and their seed; and that the seed and posterity of the faithful, born within the church, have, by their birth, interest in the covenant, and right to the seal of it, and to the outward privileges of the church, under the gospel, no less than the children of Abraham in the time of the Old Testament; the covenant of grace, for substance, being the same; and the grace of God, and the consolation of believers, more plentiful than before ...

Time forbids an in-depth discussion of the subject of baptism. Suffice it to say that the Westminster divines believed they had a strong biblical case for rejecting the Baptist position. The present lecturer, after man years of years of thought, is now inclined to think that the Waldensians, the Reformers, the Huguenots, the Pilgrim Fathers, the Puritans, and the Covenanters had it right after all! 

While seventeenth-century Baptists argued their case chiefly from a partial, New Testament view of the
evidence, they were naturally confirmed in their antipaedobaptism by the abuses of the Reformed. But the Westminster Assembly was no less concerned to root these out, while taking care not to throw out the covenant baby with the superstitious font-water. However, while the Assembly clearly rejected the Prayer Book's language of baptismal regeneration  the Directory states that 'the inward grace of baptism is not tied to that very moment of time wherein it is administered' a highly questionable statement is made: '...all who are baptized in the name of Christ, do renounce, and by their baptism are bound to fight against the devil, the world and the flesh: That they are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized'. Now does federal or covenant holiness necessarily imply actual grace? Is it not a red rag to a
Baptist bull to say 'they are Christians'? Surely the statement is neither true nor necessary. One notes that this unfortunate expression of the Directory finds no parallel in Calvin's form of administering baptism.38 Observing the circumcision analogy, even the Apostle Paul denied that someone was a (true) Jew in the sight of God without evidence of the circumcision of the heart (see Rom. 2: 28, 29). As surely as the prophets preached the necessity of heart circumcision to those circumcised in the flesh, so preachers must urge the necessity of the new birth upon the baptized children of believers. They are not to be told they are Christians without a credible, personal profession of faith. Let it also be said that the danger of nominalism no more invalidates the lawfulness of infant baptism than a similar state of affairs in the Old Testament invalidated divinely-commanded circumcision. Neither should Baptists give the impression that paedobaptists are the only ones plagued by hypocritical nominals. Both schools, in the absence of godly discipline, may be confronted by the same problem in church life. Indeed, are there not unregenerate members of Baptist churches? Comparing the current Rome-ward drift of the ecumenical Baptist Union with the traditionally faithful paedobaptist Free Church of Scotland suggests that Baptist ultra-Puritanism is no sure guarantee of doctrinal and ecclesiological purity. Is it not significant that if one drew up a list of faithful preachers and theologians from the last 450 years, Baptists would be a decided minority? While we cannot allow ourselves the luxury of dividing over baptism, these points must be made in the interests of truth. Equally it should be said that Presbyterians have not opposed believer's baptism as Baptists have opposed infant baptism. In a missionary context  such as the period of the Acts of the Apostles  Presbyterians would expect to baptize believers but not without their children. While the evidence is not entirely conclusive, the covenant view makes better sense of NT household baptisms than the individualist Baptist view does. The Directory's failure to provide for a missionary context reflects the general lack of missionary awareness during the Puritan
period. Interestingly, the 1662 BCP added a service of baptism for those of 'Riper Years' to meet the need caused by the neglect of the sacrament during the Commonwealth and by the beginnings of missionary work in the colonies.39

The divines were clearly opposed to an undisciplined, indiscriminate administration of infant baptism of the kind Anglicanism had encouraged. In other words, the sacrament made no sense unless at least one parent was a true believer; and in stressing the responsibility of the father, the Directory abolishes the idea of godparents. Furthermore, infant baptism is not to be 'administered in private places, or privately, but in the place of public worship, and in the face of the congregation, where the people may most conveniently see and hear; and not in the places where fonts, in the time of Popery, were unfitly and superstitiously placed'.

This raises the question of the mode of baptism. While the Prayer Book allows for 'dipping', and no absolute prejudice against immersion was entertained by Calvin40 and the other reformers, the Directory ruled in favour of 'pouring or sprinkling of the water on the face of the child, without adding any other ceremony'. The etymology of baptizo surely justifies this position. The 'baptism of the Spirit' was an 'outpouring' (Acts 1: 5; 2: 17) rather than an 'immersion'; Israel's 'baptism unto Moses' simply meant an identification of the people with their leader, when they were neither immersed nor sprinkled. Their baptism was entirely dry, for not a drop of water fell on them! (1 Cor. 10: 2); as for the alleged immersionism of Romans 6, the notion of a watery grave is more applicable to God's enemies than his friends if the flood and the drowning of the Egyptians are anything to go by. As one may be perfectly clean after a bath or a shower,' so ceremonial washing is adequately signified by sprinkling (see Numbers 8: 7). Indeed, the quantity of water is quite irrelevant. Even the Apostle Peter seems to warn against attaching too much importance to the sign of baptism (1 Pet. 3: 21), a danger which faces Roman Catholics and Baptists alike. The essential thing which must always unite Bible-believing Christians  especially at the Lord's Table  is the reality of regeneration and a living, obedient faith in Christ.

The Church and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

One thing that church history teaches us is that nothing remains static in the life of the church.  There is always change and development, and, as happens in nature and in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics, left to its own everything tends towards decay and degeneration.  The same happens within the life of the church.  Here we see the results of sin and the fall on mankind.  Sin is degenerative, so this is the tendency within the church's life.

Few see this, of course.  The many, on the other hand, believe that "every day and in every way we are getting better and better."  Because the churches have more 'evangelical' ministers today, things are on the up.  But right from NT times, the apostles had to warn the churches of heresies and false doctrine propagated by false prophets.  Paul warned about wolves coming in sheep's clothing.  He spoke about false prophets from among their own number coming in to lead the people away from Christ and the Gospel.  That warning still stands, but the churches do not listen or believe what Paul was saying.  They actually welcome and embrace and protect false prophets within their ranks.  There is pride in what is called a 'broad church.'

But, and here's the vital point, the changes introduced by the false prophets masquerading as 'evangelicals' are so subtle that none but the most alert recognise what is happening.  At one time, services of worship were conducted in a reverent and dignified way, and solemnity marked all that was done.  This was true even in non-christian congregations.  There was a gravitas about what was being done, and everybody accepted this as right and proper.

But today, evangelicals have been at the forefront of subtly introducing changes into church worship that no one dared to question it.  It was being done by evangelicals so it must be OK.  And church members and elders simply went along with it.  The message is still the same even though we have changed the method of presenting that message.  We still preach the Gospel, but our dependence is more on powerpoint than on God the Holy Spirit.  We still sing the old worship songs and hymns and psalms, but we prefer the new one with their heavy drum beat, loud pounding of the piano, and tunes that are all but impossible to sing.  That's not to mention the theology that is taught through these (often) terrible songs.  But we still preach the Gospel.

Then there is the almost endless singing that goes on - to such an extent that worshippers become intoxicated with singing that they are no longer able to hear the message - if there is one.  There is also the terrible practice in some evangelical churches of singing the Psalms at such a slow pace that it can take up to ten minutes to sing Ps.23.  It's terrible.  And I often wonder what the Lord thinks of such deadly singing, for it hardly brings any glory to Him.

Yes, we may have introduced drama as a means of presenting the Gospel, but the Gospel is still being preached.  And we like to hear personal stories, testimonies they're called, and these last about 25 minutes so that the time for preaching is reduced; but there has been no change in what we stand for - the Gospel.

The litany could go on much longer, but I think you get the point.  You might be asking where this approach to Christian things emanated from, and you'd be right to ask.  Within the last 150 years, we have seen subtle theological changes that have come in from Germany where matters deemed to be circumferential have been tampered with, thus introducing theological rot into theological thinking.  Scholars denied the historicity of OT narratives, but emphasised the importance of the message that they obtain.  It's the message that is crucial and as long as you have the message, it matters little if the story that contains the message is factual.

And men fell for that lie!  Theological students who were being trained for the Christian ministry were contaminated by this garbage, and then spread it through their congregations with the result that what was left of a faith was based, not on historical fact but on an educated man's opinions.  Slowly this trend continued, and those promoting it assured the church that they were evangelicals.  But alas, the results are clear to be seen.  The church was started on a slippery downward trend, and no one saw what was happening.  But we still preach the Gospel.

Things are happening within the church; but are they good things that are happening?  Are deeper Christians, more spiritual people, being produced by today's church?  Where are the truly godly men and women that we read about in books?  Where are the men and women of conviction who once shook the world?  Where are the men who despised the world for the sake of knowing Jesus?  Where are they?  The Tozers, Ryles, McCheynes, Lloyd-Jones, Edwards, Calamys, Davenants, Baxters, Calvins, Luthers, Latimer's, Ridleys, Cranmers.

The church has created the conditions in which such men cannot be produced. thing.  If God has withdrawn from the church, then the spiritual equivalent of the Second Law of Thermodynamics will work itself out, and the church will tend towards its own disintergration. 

And woe betide those who did that very evil thing!

God is Not Boring - John Piper

John Piper writes: Recently I spoke at Northwestern College as part of their year-long 100th anniversary celebration. The title of the message was "The Supremacy of God in the Life of the Mind." One capability of the mind that I focused on was the imagination. It applies to everybody who has a mind. Here's what I said: One of the great duties of the Christian mind is imagination. It is not the only thing the mind does. The mind observes. The mind analyzes and organizes. The mind memorizes. But imagination is different. It does not observe or analyze what's there; it imagines what is not seen but might be there and might explain what is there (as in the case of most scientific discoveries). Or it imagines a new way of saying what is there that no one has said before (as in the case of creative writing and music and art). I say that imagination is a Christian duty for two reasons. One is that you can't apply Jesus' golden rule without it. He said, "Whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them" (Matthew 7:12). We must imagine ourselves in their place and imagine what we would like done to us. Compassionate, sympathetic, helpful love hangs much on the imagination of the lover. The other reason I say that imagination is a Christian duty is that when a person speaks or writes or sings or paints about breathtaking truth in a boring way, it is probably a sin. The supremacy of God in the life of the mind is not honored when God and his amazing world are observed truly, analyzed duly, and communicated boringly. Imagination is the key to killing boredom. We must imagine ways to say truth for what it really is. And it is not boring. God's world - all of it - rings with wonders. The imagination calls up new words, new images, new analogies, new metaphors, new illustrations, new connections to say old, glorious truth. Imagination is the faculty of the mind that God has given us to make the communication of his beauty beautiful. Imagination may be the hardest work of the human mind. And perhaps the most God-like. It is the closest we get to creation out of nothing. When we speak of beautiful truth, we must think of a pattern of words, perhaps a poem. We must conceive something that has never existed before and does not now exist in any human mind. We must think of an analogy or metaphor or illustration which has no existence. The imagination must exert itself to see it in our mind, when it is not there. We must create word combinations and music that have never existed before. All of this we do, because we are like God and because he is infinitely worthy of ever-new words and songs. A college - or a church - committed to the supremacy of God in the life of the mind will cultivate many fertile, and a few great, imaginations. And O how the world needs God-besotted minds that can say the great things of God and sing the great things of God and play the great things of God in ways that have never been said or sung or played before. Imagination is like a muscle. It grows stronger when you flex it. And you must flex it. It does not usually put itself into action. It awaits the will. Imagination is also contagious. When you are around someone (alive or dead) who uses it a lot, you tend to catch it. So I suggest that you hang out with some people (mainly dead poets) who are full of imagination, and that you exert yourself to think up a new way to say an old truth. God is worthy. "Oh sing to the LORD a new song" - or picture, or poem, or figure of speech. By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: www.desiringGod.org. Email: mail@desiringGod.org. Toll Free: 1.888.346.4700. Listen to John Piper and Desiring God Online Broadcasts at OnePlace.com.

Unbiblical Ecumenism Is Working

The stirring words of Bishop Nicolas Ridley's, and his remarkable testimony, should serve as an urgent warning to all Christians every where, and not least at the present time, NEVER to drop our guard against the wiles of the devil that present themselves in the guise of Roman Catholic piety and ecumenism!

Whilst protesting against involvement with the Roman Catholic Church outside an ecumenical event some years ago, one of the senior leaders remarked to one of the protesters, "Oh, are you still fighting that old battle!?"  He was referring to the involvement of the Protestant churches in this ecumenical event, and he viewed that battle as having been finished centuries ago.  The Reformation was obviously a tragedy in his view, but the modern day churches, which have no sense of history or of true biblical religion, no sense of truth or error, see this as a non-event.  How utterly foolish they are!

It is true that the Protestant/Evangelical churches have largely capitulated in the battle and surrendered to Rome, whereas Rome has not surrendered one iota! She is still engaged in her 'charm offensive' with the protestant churches, and they do not even see what is happening.

As someone very wisely stated, "We must NEVER capitulate, Never give up the fight!  Proclaim the Gospel of Salvation by Faith through Grace!"  It must be a resolute and determined "No Surrender" to ecumenism in all its forms, and not least in the fight against unbiblical ecumenism as manifested in the modern ecumenical relations with that false religion that is called Romanism.

The mainline so-called "Protestant" churches in the UK must be awakened to their error which is being constantly buttressed by evangelicals of the reformed outlook.  These good brethren will defend their churches at all costs, even at the cost of denying the true Gospel.  They have become 'firm's men' and will not allow any criticism of the 'firm' from any quarter.  In so doing, of course, they are giving undying credibility to the false ecumenism that their churches are involved in.

Brethren AWAKE! AWAKE! before it is forever too late.  Get involved in costly church reform.  Preaching the everlastring Gospel is crucial in this battle; but to preach the Gospel without attempting to apply it to church practice and policies is a denial of that Gospel.  I hear nothing today of any such reform movement within or even outside the ecumenical churches; and these churches can only go down that road because they are at heart thoroughgoing liberal churches.  Kill the mother (theological liberalism) and the child (unbiblical ecumenism) will die a death.

Are you up for it?

HOW TO AVOID PERSECUTION ‘A COMFORTABLE ABCD’ - Dr Alan Clifford

(!!! - presented thus to make a point)

A. Be sure your faith is nominal and ‘low profile’. Keep it for Sundays only. Why be fanatical?

B. Compromise your faith whenever it is likely to be demanding. Why make trouble for yourself?

C. Never question the religious opinions of others: be open to their insights. Don’t be too sure of your own beliefs. Be as broad-minded as possible.

D. Maintain a good reputation with all and avoid costly commitment to Christ. Be as nice as possible.

Christ Wants His Church Back!

As a result of the Fall of mankind into sin (Gen.3), men have worked very hard to ruin, destroy and spoil Christ's church on earth, and make her their own.  You hear the cry from church Christians, "It's my church," or "It's our church."  When they say this very often they mean that they run and control it, and no one else.  Now Christ wants her back as His only Bride.

Sinners have reaped havoc on Christ's Bride, aided and abetted by Satan, the great adversary of the Church.  This unholy collaboration of man and Satan has left the church where she is today - loveless, unholy, powerless, unattractive, not useful or 'fit for purpose,' repellent, and almost dead spiritually.  Together man and Satan have made her into a disgraceful thing, a thing of reproach, and something God is ready to disown.  She has become self-willed, stubborn, rebellious, disobedient, and wayward.  She has committed spiritual adultery by running after other gods which are no gods, by cavorting with them and by submitting herself to them, and allowing them to do whatever they wanted to and with her.  She has no want of suiters and lovers.  She has gone after them shamelessly and has committed adultery with them in broad daylight.

Men like a church like that, do they not?  One they can control and run after for their own pleasure.  They have treated her as a man treats a prostitute - use her to get from her what fills their own lusts and inordinate desires.  But they do not love her as she deserves to be loved; nor do they cherish her or give themselves for her well-being.  They use her - for the baptism of children, to get their young people into full church membership and to come to the Lord's Table, to ensure that their children are married in church despite their having been living together for some time prior to the marriage, and have their deceased relatives given a proper burial.  So long as they get all these things and services, they are content.  They just use the church for their own ends.

But someone might object, "But Christ never lost His church!  She always belonged to Him.  Is that not what the word 'church' means - belonging to the Lord?" Fair point.  But what we must accept is that men, when they got their sinful hands on the church, wrested her from Him so far as the doing of His will is concerned.  Why have the churches of Asia Minor been put out of existence so soon after John wrote his letters to those seven churches?  Why is the true Christian church no longer visible and working in Rome, Ephesus, Corinth, Thessaloniki, Collossae, Phillippi, Galatia, etc?  Because men wrested her from her Lord and destroyed her.

What a warning this is to us today.  Oh, how careful we must be as to how we behave within the church of Jesus Christ.  How careful that we by our endeavours, push Christ off His rightful place within the church and replace Him with man-made institutions.

Christ wants His church back.  She does not belong to you.  She never belonged for you.  She belongs to Christ; He bought her with His own blood.  She is His prize possession.  Whatever possessed you to take her from Him?  He wants her back and He will get her back and woe betide the man who tries to hold on to what does not belong to him? 

Get Unction.

The issues that are relevant if we wish to see God move and bless His Work are godliness of life and  prayerfulness, and regardless of the theological camp a man belongs to, there is an absence of unction.  The evidence from Edwards and DMLJ is as clear as could be that these men experienced the divine unction on their ministries and numerous conversions followed.  Sadly, the same cannot be said of Owen, who had no known conversions, though, of course, that does not mean there were none.  He did say, mind you, that he would give all his learning to be able to preach like John Bunyan, the tinker and evangelist.  Wouldn't we all!

We are fooling ourselves when we convince ourselves that no conversions equate to faithfulness to the Gospel.  Spiritual pride and arrogance drives us when we think like that.  McCheyne used to preach and pray with his face buried in his hands and the tears running down his cheeks.  My biggest fault as a preacher is that I cannot preach in that attitude, for I am far too sinful.  Perhaps we need to read McCheyne's sermons and study them closely to see how to preach the Gospel with power sent down from heaven.  We need that sense of God in our services, and not "glorified Bible studies," as DMLJ so rightly described so many so-called sermons.  Orthodoxy is important, but if a preacher studies more to be orthodox than he does to know the Spirit's power upon him, he has no right to ascend any pulpit. 

How much we crave and pursue popularity with men, and neglect being in the special favour of God. Our hearts are so sinful and wicked.

I have said it often, there are far too many 'essay readers' in our pulpits today with the result that we are far more concerned to get something out of our heads rather than get something into the hearts and heads of our hearers.  Preaching is about communication, communication of the highest and most exalted order; yet it is here that we fail so lamentably.  How sorrowful I am when I think that I used to describe my ministry as "a Bible teaching ministry."  This is vitally important, but if that is all we are doing, then God be merciful to us.  My sinful heart was so full of pride of the worst kind that I blush to even say this.  My heart is pained to admit this travesty.

One thing I have been well aware of (and its something I have done more in the breach than in the observance) and that is "the barrenness of a busy life."  Satan works us so hard that we do not do the very spiritual exercises that we know are needed.  The church also plays into this because she does not want us to be "men of God" in any real and effective sense.  So, she puts us on all these committees and commissions with the very purpose of keeping us off our knees.  She invites us here and there, all to keep us from fellowship with the Lord.  And into the bargain, we become all puffed up with pride and entertain thoughts of how good/great we really are, when in reality we are no better than unprofitable servants. 

Satan will use anything and anyone to keep a man off his knees.  R. M. McCheyne said, "What a man is on his knees before God, that he is and no more."  We're not much, are we?  Someone also said, "If you want to humiliate a minister, ask him about his prayer life."  How truly devoted is he to Christ whom he preaches and offers to the lost?  How much does he love the Saviour (Jn.21)?  What are his real priorities in ministry? 

Perhaps we are much too full of our own importance for God to use us.  Perhaps self-righteousness has taken such a hold of us that we would not be prepared to admit it.  Perhaps we imagine that by 'performing' well in the pulpit, our own or someone else's, we are pleasing the Lord.  Are we?  Is ministry just about 'performance'?  How much do we really depend upon God's anointing when we preach, and how much on ourselves? 

We need to dedicate ourselves to doing serious business with God if we are see any move of His Spirit.  But we are not prepared to do what it takes to make this a reality.  We're too busy at other things.  We need to de-clutter our lives of all that does not allow us to do that very thing.

This is surely enough to be going on with for now.  We will continue this dialogue with a view to making the necessary changes in our lives so that we reflect more closely the pattern set out in Scripture.

Window-dressing.

One of the practices of dysfunctional people, families, communities, churches, nations, etc, is to engage in 'window dressing.'  It is the attempt to paint the best possible picture of a person or a situation.  It ignores the obvious wrongs in that person and situation, and uses all kinds of verbal gymnastics to re-frame the description that you wish to portray or promote.

Take the police as an example.  How they spare no efforts to sell a public service that is just a little bit short of being perfect so that the leadership can be applauded as worthy of honour.  How great are the police we adore!

Or take politics as another.  Politicians employ the best "spin doctors" aka communications directors to demonstrate the great successes their employers have had in the political realm.  The country never was better, the economy is growing, crime is down, young people are getting jobs, and look at our success in the Olympics.  How great are the politicians we adore!

Take a look at the churches too when you're at it.  Was they ever a time in recent history that churches were so pathetic, so apathetic, so unfaithful to the Lord and His saving Gospel!  Listen to church leaders when they give their annual reports - the church is in very good heart, they tell us.  The Gospel is being preached, prayer meetings are being held, new members are being welcomed into church membership, so many baptisms have been carried out, and so on.

But in all these situations, this is mere 'window dressing.'  And who is it that engages in such theatrics?  Dysfunctional people, organisations, societies and churches.  If your church does this kind of thing, then be assured that it is fundamentally dysfunctional.  It is certainly not what it appears to be or claims to be.

What is needed? First, for a deep humility that will lead to honest acknowledgement of sin and disobedience to the Lord's Word.  Without this, there will be no remedy.  In Nehemiah's day (Ch.9), the people, in humility, acknowledged their rebellion against the living God.  Second, true heartfelt confession of sin that brings guilt must follow.  Until we have acknowledged sin, there is nothing to confess.  Third, the church must identify the rubbish that has accumulated and get rid of it - all!  This could be in the form of worldliness masquerading as being contemporary; it might be the receiving into church membership notoriously godless individuals who make a credible profession of faith to elders who may or may not know them; it could even be attitude of mind and heart that our church is better than all the others; or it could be the "what's in it for me" mindset where members take everything they can get from the church and more, yet contribute nothing to it.  This must be removed because the channels for receiving blessing from the Lord are obviously being cluttered up.

Fourth, there must be deep heartfelt repentance that breaks every stubborn and wilful heart.  Repentance includes, at least, a turning away from that which has been acknowledged as wrong and sinful.  It is also a turning to the gracious Lord Who has been so patient with you.  The church, as church, is not above divine judgement, a fact that is often forgotten by the window dressing church leaders.  Churches that have compromised themselves with theological liberalism must also repent of this sin; but they must not stop short at repentance - that would be too easy and utterly ineffective.  They must then put into action those actions that are necessary to rid the churches of such a poison.  Also, they must remove from their congregations every semblance of commitment to unbiblical ecumenism.  Alas, this very kind of ecumenism is being actively promoted by evangelicals who are held in high esteem by the gullible.  The church must distance themselves from every hint of these and all other varieties of worldliness.

Then, fifthly, and finally, there must be renewed commitment to biblical, as opposed to merely confessional, Christianity; if there is to be confessional religion, that confession must reflect accurately the teaching of the Word of God.  Perhaps this might well call for a covenant renewal of dedication to the Lord and His work - which is by definition wider than commitment to any denominational work.  A new commitment to Christ and His Gospel will be in order.

But be assured of this.  Those churches that engage in window dressing will not do any of these things, because they that are righteous have no need of a physician.  Something to think about, eh?

Portstewart Convention 2012

The churches and para-church organisations such as New Horizon, Keswick at Portstewart and the Keswick Convention in the Lake District of England are all facing upheaval regarding what characterises Christian worship.
The big motivator towards the modernisation of worship is, not Scripture, but fear - fear of man.  This "fear of man" shows itself in a fear of youth culture, fear that it is contemporary youth culture that is driving young people both into the churches and out of the churches.  By being more like the world the churches draw worldly young people within its ambit; and by being less like the world, they fear they will lose young people.
This begs the obvious question: what it is it, then, that draws and keeps young people in the churches?  It is the good time they have, enjoying themselves?  If so, then that is all they receive - self-enjoyment instead of their enjoyment of God which is why they were made in the first place.  Is it the lively music and modern words?  If it is, then it is certainly not God Who draws and keeps them there.  They are having their own worldly needs met by the churches, but not their real needs.
So poorly taught are many within the youth church culture that they do not or cannot recognise the when God is really present in a meeting, or when it is just raw emotion being excited by emotive words and tunes.
These ill-taught young people are not just the leaders of the future; they are the real leaders in to churches today.  It is they who set the agenda for worship and praise, not the bible taught and bible-based minister.  They call the shots in most churches now.  They determine how God is to be praised and in what way this is to be done.   The Scriptures are not given a look-in! 
I never thought I would hear myself say this, but perhaps a return to a more liturgical worship service will cut out the nonsense that passes for worship today.  And a return to music that touches the emotions but that does not excite an emotional response to specifically designed music.
If this crisis in how God is to be praised is not resolved soon, then churches that are almost evangelical nite clubs will become full-blown nite clubs that are indistinguishable from what we have in our towns and cities.
That is something we do not want or need!

Perfect Ministers.

This is the plague of the church so far as it is believed to be the case within her.  Ministers who see themselves as being perfect, who never sin - at least not in the way some others sin - but walk righteously every day; who never offend anyone and who preach a cross of their own making that causes no offense; who are very keen to keep in with the church authorities at all costs; and who go to the church liberal and ecumenical authorities for guidance on church governance. 

These men only have other perfect ministers preach in their churches, because they cannot be seen as being less than perfect.

Very soon after I went to my first pastoral charge, I was met with unbelief when I confessed that we were all sinners.  "What, you a sinner like the rest of us?"  The minister is not a sinner, you see.  That's the view from the pew; but the view from the pulpit is identical.  This will not be admitted in personal conversation or in confessional public prayer; but it is believed nonetheless. 

Is it any wonder the church is in such a bad spiritual condition?  The church is supposed to be the community of the forgiven and of the forgivers.  But where is the evidence?  Words are woefully insufficient; they must be backed up with concrete practical actions that demonstrate the veracity of their words. 

Should I hold my breathe until this happens?  What do you think? 

Ungodly Church Leadership Protected.

I find it extremely disheartening and also extremely encouraging when I hear of Gospel ministers being vilified for their Gospel stance in their dead, liberal congregations.  Disheartened because in connexional churches where mutual support ought to be seen as clear as day, but isn't; yet encouraged because these men are taking the Gospel into congregations where it has not been preached with any clarity in the past.

Unbelievers have been allowed to remain unbelievers who are under God's heaven-revealed wrath simply because they are church members.  They have been allowed to remain in their sin yet serve as church elders; they can maintain their sinful lifestyles, yet hold their office.  And no one can say a word about it.

Very often, these are the very people who oppose the Gospel and do all they can to prevent the Gospel having definite influence within the congregation.  Elders can continue to live with their girlfriends, and retain their office.  Elders can blaspheme the Lord's precious Name, yet serve as spiritual leaders within their church.  Elders can use the foulest of language imaginable, yet be kept in office.  Notorious womanisers are allowed to hold church office because no one is to bring a charge against an elder without very good cause, and womanising is not a good cause to bring such an allegation.  Foul language and blasphemy is not a good reason to report elders to their line managers/supervisors because the moral tone within today's church accepts such a perversion. 

Do church elders, by whatever name, have licence to frequent prostitutes in England under the guise of business travel, and be kept on?  It seems so, because a distinction is drawn between one's public and one's private lives.  It's none of our business to tell a man how to live his life, they say.

The reason?  Once an elder, always an elder.  Such men cannot, even with the most charitable attitude possible, be regarded as regenerate men, can they?  These are ungodly men who love darkness rather than light, and whose motivation in life is to extinguish that light wherever it shines.

Given that Gospel ministers are expected to regard such rascals as godly and spiritual men, and work with them in the spiritual oversight of the congregation, is it any wonder that their Gospel preaching is opposed with all the might and main of these church apostates?  But because they are elders, regularly called and ordained, their opposition to the Gospel must be given as much weight as the minister's Gospel stand.

Is that ridiculous or what?  Does that please God?  Is the Lord who brought us honoured by such spiritual cowardice?  These church men might even be found praying for revival and reformation within the church; yet they are guaranteeing that such will be further away than ever, but is urgently needed, and God will send it despite their worst efforts at preventing it.  These churchmen are keeping and protecting ungodly church leadership within the very church they say they love.  These men would bring the great men of the past - the Calvinists of Europe, the Huguenots, the Covenanters, the Puritans, the Welsh and English Methodist Fathers of the eighteenth century, and their faithful successors - to shame and indescribable embarrassment were they to return to this time and see what is happening.

May God have mercy on us in these dreadful days of apostasy and corruption.

Mind Your Language - a Response.

The important contribution to my blog by Rev. Dr Alan C. Clifford is both urgent and timely. Within the churches today there is a clearly 'protected species' - the elders.  Whilst there is biblical warrant for such protection, this teaching has been frequently abused.  

For instance, I have heard some of the filthiest langauge that can proceed out of a man's mouth being spoken by a Presbyterian elder.  I have heard our precious Lord Jesus Christ being blasphemed by a Presbyterian elder, and some of the dirtiest stories belign related by a Presbyterian elder.  But these men kn ow they are protected by the church authorities.  One reason for this is that senior management within that church prefers non-Christian elders to Christian ones, because that makes their lives easier.  It allows all sorts of unfaithfulness to the Gospel to be supported by the elders, who always outnumber ministers in the various church courts.  Ministers will be persecuted where necessary by the church in a bid to keep the elders on board.

Further, church members who are clearly not Christians - they have made their profession of faith, and that means they are real Christians - are also protected by the church for precisely the same reasons.  They are needed to support the church's institutional infrastructure and keep the funds coming in.  Senior churchmen will bring as many into membershaip as they can irrespective of their spiritual condition because this increases the number of contributors to church funds and eases the drain on central funds.  These people can be the filthiest men in the country but because they keepm the show on thew road, they are protected.

Blaspheming, cursing, swearing elders and church members are common in Northern Ireland, sadly.  Their language is not the more sophisticated kind that Dr Clifford refers to, but the coarsest most vulgar language it is possible for a human being to use.

My challenge to ministers and to all who are concerned about this situation is to ask each elder face to face to confirm that he never uses bad language or blasphemes the holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ.  Record their answers and ask them to sign the truthfulness of what they say.  Then go and speak to people who know then well outside of church and in the work or social context and get their views.  Both they and the elders might have to be pressed for a response.  Record what they say.  Then compare the responses.


Next, take the elders in turn and discuss with them what your findings are.  Give them the opportunity to reply to whatever allegations are made.  Given that these are officers of the church, their verbal behaviour ought to be treated in exactly the same way as stealing or adultery - instant dismissal without appeal.  

The same procedure should be taken concerning the matter of womanising elders.  Oops!  This might mean that many churches will be left without any elders; but that might not be a bad thing really.


If this will not be done, then those ministers might feign concern for and support of the church, but that is all it is - mere lip-service.  Because they care nothing for the spiritual health of the church they display their hypocrisy when they refuse to take brotherly criticism of their church from others.

Life's Ironies.

Why is it that some of the worst rascals in the world have never been in trouble with the law?  How do the most vicious criminals the world knows have no police record?  Strange, but true.

Then some of the best people in the world have gained for themselves a police record, often through no fault of their own.

But in whose company would you rather be - the former or the latter?  And which of them would you want to rule in the church? 

Well, give me the latter any day.  Why?  Because knowing some of the worst rascals around to be utterly destructive of spiritual priorities and holding office within their local churches and denominations, they are very bad company who corrupt everything good.

The churches know that these people have no spiritual life in them that comes from Christ, given their utter opposition to the Gospel.  Yet they protect and retain them in office.  These people have mouths like cesspools, which express hearts like dunghills.  They hate Christ with a passion as measured by the blasphemous way they speak of Him.  They have rejected the Gospel continually and still do.  They are highly involved in their churches, even where an evangelical minister preaches.

But one must ask how it is that unregenerate officer-bearers within local churches can sit under preaching that makes no inroads to their souls?  Do ministers not carry out a spiritual audit of fellow-elders to ascertain their true spiritual standing?  A man may be a Christian and yet unfit to be an elder; but an unconverted man is clearly unfit to be an elder because he does not even satisfy the most basic qualification for eldership - being a Christian.  Therefore he is not fit to be a church member.

Here, a distinction must be made between a man being a church member and his being a Christain.  Church laws only require a man to be a church member, regardless of whether or not he is a Christain.  This view is held in defiance of the New Testament teaching.

For the church to be reformed, ministers must take spiritual issues much more seriously than they do.  It is way beyond time for a radical spiritual audit to be carried out into the spiritual standing of every member and office-bearer, including ministers, within the church.

QUIETNESS AT COMMUNION

One of the truly lovely things about the Lord’s Supper is that Christians can meet in the quietness of God’s house with His people to remember what He has done to take away the sin of the world, (Jn.1:29).  To sit quietly and pray as we take the elements of bread and wine is what makes it very special.  To recall what the Saviour did for us individually communicates grace to our hearts.  “How sweet the Name of Jesus sounds in a believer’s ear!”  How sweet indeed.  

What spoils it for me is when the musician starts up and plays music, thus disrupting the quietness of those moments.  It distracts when meditating on the Cross, because it forces us to think in terms of the words that are associated with the tunes.  We cannot think our own thoughts at such a time.  That spoils it for me, I must say.

And this practice is becoming prevalent in many evangelical churches today.  There seems to be an intolerance of silence, quietness.  Perhaps Christians today are unaccustomed to being in the quiet place with God.  They cannot cope with stillness.  They have used themselves to having music on in the home, the office and the car.  Go to the supermarket mall, and piped music is a common feature.  When out for a walk or a jog, we must not have quietness, stillness.

So when we come into God’s awesomely holy presence, we do not want to think the thoughts He plants in our hearts by His Spirit, for they may be much too disturbing.  What do we do?  We drown out God’s thoughts with music.

And if we don’t want God in all our thoughts, that makes us very like the ungodly man who is described in the Psalms.  Even that is not a comfortable thought, is it?  If we don’t want God, might He just be saying the same about us?

Church Members Bullied by Church Officials

Bullying in adult life is not as rare a reality as one might expect.  We hear about it in the workplaces of our country but much more seldom do we hear about it in church circles.  For further information on this phenomenon please click here.  

However, there are cases where ministers have been bullied by their congregations and also by their fellow-elders, and a growing number of ministers have been forced out of their calling to seek employment elsewhere. 

But yet another twist to this anti-social behaviour is emerging where church members are being harassed and bullied by the church's elders.  Professional men are being reduced to pathetic weaklings and are at a loss to know who to handle this situation.

Because they are not employed by the church, one could imagine that they are thereby spared the worst effects of such behaviour.  That is not the case, however.  For victims or targets of bullying, so much damage is done to them emotionally and psychologically that their career is adversely affected by this treatment. 

What compounds this is that they cannot feel free to go to their minister for spiritual support, for then, the minister would be seen to be siding with the victims of his elders' treatment.  So he has no one to whom he can turn to talk this matter over.

So while there are dangerous workplaces, there are also dangerous social and religious places where the same ill-treatment can be meted out to the unsuspecting.

If you are interested in understanding a bit more about this evil issue, then click here.

WHAT DO WE BELIEVE ABOUT GOD?

A stupid question if ever there was one.  We are Christians, are we not?  Therefore we believe what the Bible says about God.

But do we?  Someone very rightly said, and I paraphrase, “What we believe about God determines how we live.”  If we believe that God won’t hurt a fly, meaning that He does not take sin seriously, then we will live lax lives, and we’ll enjoy ourselves, temporarily at least. 

If we believe that God wants us to be in cliques, then we will make sure we form cliques within the church and protect their membership by not welcoming outsiders into our circle. 

If we believe that God is more interested in and committed to the 'upper-crust,' then we will want to behave as if we too are 'upper-crust.'

If our god is a snob, then we will want to be snobs, too.

If our god is worldly in outlook, fashion-conscious, driven by current trends, we too will become like him.

Do you see the pattern?  What we believe about God determines how we live and behave.   

Remember Jesus said, “The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.”  He told us that if we love the world and the things of the world, then the love of the Father is not in us.  Paul told us not to be conformed to this world but to be transformed by the renewing of our minds, (Rom.12:1,2).  He also told us that Christ came to deliver us from this present age (Gal.1:1-5).

Now is it really the case that we do not believe in the God of the Bible but in a god of our own making?  But that’s too hard a saying.  Why?  Because that makes us idolaters, and no idolater has any place in the Kingdom of God.

How does that strike you?