Have you ever noticed something that preachers did regularly? They preach almost exclusively on those texts that are capable of giving a pro-denominational emphasis! These carefully chosen texts do not show up the denomination's weaknesses, failures, compromises, unfaithfulnesses, etc. You just do not hear those things, do you?
But you will hear those texts that reinforce the denomination's position on its distinctive beliefs. What can you call that? Sheer dishonesty with the text of Scripture.
What about this 'rightly dividing the word of truth' business? Why are we scared to expose our denomination, our church, to the search light of God's Word, to His awesomely and penetratingly holy gaze? Why are preachers so adept at using the Word to expose others, instead of turning it on their own excuse for spiritual life and devotion?
Then we wonder why our church members are so sectarian in their attitude, so comfortable in Zion, so confident that everything our church does pleases God, but what other churches do does not please Him. What a privilege we have to belong to this denomination, the perfect church! And what deprivation others experience who belong to those terrible imperfect churches and denominations!
Do preachers do, or not do, these things because they want to do well, be liked, get on, impress others, etc? Do they want to be congratulated for what they say, or do not say? Is the motivation of their preaching and their ministry to win the approval of men, or of God (Gal.1:10)? If it is to keep in with men, especially the men that count in the congregation and Presbytery, they need to re-visit their motives for entering the Christian ministry!
Is it because deep down inside, ministers love the veneer of church life, the cosmetics, the polish, the glitter, the prestige, the power, etc? But how the real situation beneath the veneer scares them! Do those of us who are ministers really want reality? No thanks. What I see pleases me, but what I do not see frightens me. "Man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart," on what is beneath the surface and away from public gaze.
Theology, especially of the orthodox variety, can provide the perfect cover for sin. We must then ask ourselves, "Is theology for us something that lures us into the presence of God to worship Him, or a religious technique that enables us to keep away from God and justify ourselves?
Is it an incipient idolatry that prevents us being honest in our dealings with Scripture, the Church, men's souls, ourselves? Have we made graven images that have now become substitutes for the real thing? Are we living in some kind of fantasy world? What is it that is colouring our view of things and preventing us seeing reality? What filters have we put in place that keep out what is uncomfortable, and allow through what is comfortable and easily lived with?
Gratitude nurtures fidelity. Is its absence in the Church and in our lives the reason for our infidelity to the Lord? Have we forgotten "all His benefits"? (Ps.103:2).
Remember, forgetting the Lord's benefits is tantamount to forgetting the Lord Himself. And when we forget the Lord, replacement takes place because spiritual nature cannot tolerate a spiritual vacuum. And the result? Idolatry - of the worst kind. Is this essentially our problem in today's church?
And when we forget the Lord's benefits, we have nothing for which to thank Him! Perhaps that's why our thanksgiving is so heartless! Just correct words! As I meditated on these things, I found myself deeply disturbed, and moving to confess my sins, and then to worship "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world."
Thanksgiving and thanks-living. This is about only doing those things that we know please the Lord, and show genuine gratitude. For example, when old Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, was brought before the Emperor in 155AD and demanded to recant, he replied, "For eighty and six years I served Him and He did me no harm. How then can I do this evil thing against Him?" (Paraphrase mine). Gratitude provides an excellent antidote to idolatry. We need to spend more time at the Cross.
Further, we need to beware that theology which leads us inexorably to the Lord Jesus Christ, does not become a substitute for Him in our lives and affections. It can happen so easily. Theology can cover sin in our lives, and the love of theology can become a respectable and unnoticed lid on our sin. But we so often spend more time in theology than we do with our blessed Lord, because theology covers our sin, but Christ exposes it. That's why we can concern ourselves more with theology than we do with the searching Christ. The thirst for orthodoxy can be idolatrous, and systems can effectively replace Christ in our affections.
Is that the real reason why we avoid those texts of Scripture that convict us and show both us and our denomination up for what they really are, rather than exposing ourselves to the searching and penetrating gaze of the all-seeing and all-knowing God? Worth thinking about, isn't it?
Tuesday, 17 February 2009
Sunday, 15 February 2009
Reformation and Revival - the Needs of the Hour!
The Presbyterian Church in Ireland is to be commended for remembering the great revival of evangelical religion in Ulster in 1859, when some 100,000 people were brought under the saving influences of the Holy Spirit, and joined the churches.
The desire to mark this important anniversary with a call to the entire denomination to prayer for another awakening of vital religion, is welcome, and is a call that every Christian ought to take with utmost seriousness. Both the Ulster and the Welsh revivals of 1859 were 'born in prayer,' and if ever we are to see the like again, and God's knows we need it, the people of God must become burdened to pray to the Almighty to grant us another visitation of His Spirit. It is "not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit," says the Lord, that this will be accomplished. The ingenuity of man will accomplish nothing, try as he may. He might try to manufacture revival by the creation of all sorts of 'spiritual' things, but all to no avail. He might try to inculcate spiritual feelings and emotions in church members, but it is not by this means that much needed revival will come to our desolate churches.
Denominations will call meetings of committees and establish commissions to debate what is wrong with the churches today; they will look at the image that the church presents to the world, and do a make-over of it through the good, and expensive, services of a PR guru; the church will try to rebrand itself and its associations in order to attract people into them; but all to no avail. Some of these initiatives will work, but they will 'cut no ice' when it comes to stopping the speedy drift away from the teaching of Scripture. The downgrade is progressing at break-neck speed, and few, it would seem, are spiritually alert enough to see what is happening.
Yet, the call to prayer, and the interest in prayer for revival amongst some evangelicals, is being sounded. This is good, and proper, and a wise response to the current ecclesiastical situation.
However, one looks in vain at PCI's new prayer diary for revival, and listens in vain to sermons on revival, to hear any recognition of the need for a thorough-going reformation of the church. All the promoters of this call to prayer want is for people to be converted to Christ, but the church allowed to continue on in its chosen way. The fruit of revival will make a good 'add-on' to the church's other ancillaries, and will also keep Presbyterian members minds off the serious business of thinking biblically about what goes on in God's house.
But reformation of the church is not something that is sought for, or even invited, for or by the church, and one must ask why this is the case! Would it be much too costly if ministers were to pursue the reform of the church according to the Word of God? Have otherwise good ministers been effectively 'neutered' by the fear that if they were to pursue reformation of congregational and denominational life, they might find themselves in trouble with the authorities, local or national?
There appears to be an almost willing blindness to the historical facts that when reformation comes to the church, there is a revival of vital religion that is co-terminus with it. Take the great Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century in Europe, for example. Was there ever a movement to even match the far-reaching benefits of the reformation throughout Western civilisation? None. We are living today with the marvellous fruits of that revival of biblical religion, and many are throwing these all away for nothing.
Small minds do not see the need for revival/reformation in the church. Indeed, revival is viewed by not a few, it would seem, as something that will solve the church's enormous problems. But they do not realise that with revival comes reformation of church life, and those who have been encouraged by evangelical ministers to clutter congregational life with 'all kinds of everything,' will find their pet innovations disappearing, or being removed from church life altogether.
But does the church NEED revival of true religion? Let me describe some church scenarios that will help you think through this important matter.
Observing contemporary church worship, it is obvious that God has not told the church how He is to be worshipped. If He had, then worship would be very different from what poses as worship today.
On the Radio Ulster Sunday morning service that came from one of PCI's large evangelical congregations in Belfast, the congregation was worshipping God using words sung to the signature tune of "The Flintstones." The words could not be heard, and the only thing left after the singing ended was the tune of "The Flintstones." And this is worship!
There was no prayer until near the end of the service, and the Bible was not read until well into the service. Indeed, the service was more like a current affairs programme on Radio Ulster, only not nearly as good. The sermon lasted only a few minutes, much of the time being taken up with interviews of church members.
Another church announced that it was starting a ministry for men, and the man making this announcement stressed that this would not take the form of a Bible Study - this may happen in two or three years time (but obviously there was no guarantee of this, either) - all in a bid to deceive men into coming to something that was to be an evangelistic tool in the hands of the congregation. At all costs, the Bible must be kept out of sight when it comes to evangelism and fellowship!
This is reminiscent of a similar attempt by PCI Youth almost 20 years ago to evangelise their Roman Catholic contemporaries by being careful not to disclose their denominational affiliation. Deception of the worst kind. Is this where the PMS people learned how to do business? And the congregation referred to is doing precisely that! Indeed, so ignorant are the organisers of this ministry for men that they talk about "having fellowship" with people who are not even Christians! Paul obviously got it all wrong in his second letter to the church at Corinth, for he teaches that such fellowship is impossible! Poor Paul! A man of his time, I guess!
Now, let me ask, "Does the church need revival?" It NEEDS revival, whether or not it really wants it. The life of the church is so perverted that anything short of a Holy Spirit revival will accomplish absolutely nothing. Has the church deliberately departed from the Bible? Has she forsaken her 'first Love'? Has she deserted her Husband? YES.
Before the church will know the acceptance of the church as His Bride, she will have to make radical changes. Reformation will have to take place within her ranks. The rubbish that has accumulated within her, will have to be removed. The wells that our fathers dug to get that living and life-giving water will have to be cleared out, for the Philistines within the church have blocked them up with rubbish and debris. But no one wishes to do this very thing. Why? Because no one really cares enough about the church to clean her out, and make her presentable and useful again to the Almighty.
May God have mercy of her; for only He can or will!
The desire to mark this important anniversary with a call to the entire denomination to prayer for another awakening of vital religion, is welcome, and is a call that every Christian ought to take with utmost seriousness. Both the Ulster and the Welsh revivals of 1859 were 'born in prayer,' and if ever we are to see the like again, and God's knows we need it, the people of God must become burdened to pray to the Almighty to grant us another visitation of His Spirit. It is "not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit," says the Lord, that this will be accomplished. The ingenuity of man will accomplish nothing, try as he may. He might try to manufacture revival by the creation of all sorts of 'spiritual' things, but all to no avail. He might try to inculcate spiritual feelings and emotions in church members, but it is not by this means that much needed revival will come to our desolate churches.
Denominations will call meetings of committees and establish commissions to debate what is wrong with the churches today; they will look at the image that the church presents to the world, and do a make-over of it through the good, and expensive, services of a PR guru; the church will try to rebrand itself and its associations in order to attract people into them; but all to no avail. Some of these initiatives will work, but they will 'cut no ice' when it comes to stopping the speedy drift away from the teaching of Scripture. The downgrade is progressing at break-neck speed, and few, it would seem, are spiritually alert enough to see what is happening.
Yet, the call to prayer, and the interest in prayer for revival amongst some evangelicals, is being sounded. This is good, and proper, and a wise response to the current ecclesiastical situation.
However, one looks in vain at PCI's new prayer diary for revival, and listens in vain to sermons on revival, to hear any recognition of the need for a thorough-going reformation of the church. All the promoters of this call to prayer want is for people to be converted to Christ, but the church allowed to continue on in its chosen way. The fruit of revival will make a good 'add-on' to the church's other ancillaries, and will also keep Presbyterian members minds off the serious business of thinking biblically about what goes on in God's house.
But reformation of the church is not something that is sought for, or even invited, for or by the church, and one must ask why this is the case! Would it be much too costly if ministers were to pursue the reform of the church according to the Word of God? Have otherwise good ministers been effectively 'neutered' by the fear that if they were to pursue reformation of congregational and denominational life, they might find themselves in trouble with the authorities, local or national?
There appears to be an almost willing blindness to the historical facts that when reformation comes to the church, there is a revival of vital religion that is co-terminus with it. Take the great Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century in Europe, for example. Was there ever a movement to even match the far-reaching benefits of the reformation throughout Western civilisation? None. We are living today with the marvellous fruits of that revival of biblical religion, and many are throwing these all away for nothing.
Small minds do not see the need for revival/reformation in the church. Indeed, revival is viewed by not a few, it would seem, as something that will solve the church's enormous problems. But they do not realise that with revival comes reformation of church life, and those who have been encouraged by evangelical ministers to clutter congregational life with 'all kinds of everything,' will find their pet innovations disappearing, or being removed from church life altogether.
But does the church NEED revival of true religion? Let me describe some church scenarios that will help you think through this important matter.
Observing contemporary church worship, it is obvious that God has not told the church how He is to be worshipped. If He had, then worship would be very different from what poses as worship today.
On the Radio Ulster Sunday morning service that came from one of PCI's large evangelical congregations in Belfast, the congregation was worshipping God using words sung to the signature tune of "The Flintstones." The words could not be heard, and the only thing left after the singing ended was the tune of "The Flintstones." And this is worship!
There was no prayer until near the end of the service, and the Bible was not read until well into the service. Indeed, the service was more like a current affairs programme on Radio Ulster, only not nearly as good. The sermon lasted only a few minutes, much of the time being taken up with interviews of church members.
Another church announced that it was starting a ministry for men, and the man making this announcement stressed that this would not take the form of a Bible Study - this may happen in two or three years time (but obviously there was no guarantee of this, either) - all in a bid to deceive men into coming to something that was to be an evangelistic tool in the hands of the congregation. At all costs, the Bible must be kept out of sight when it comes to evangelism and fellowship!
This is reminiscent of a similar attempt by PCI Youth almost 20 years ago to evangelise their Roman Catholic contemporaries by being careful not to disclose their denominational affiliation. Deception of the worst kind. Is this where the PMS people learned how to do business? And the congregation referred to is doing precisely that! Indeed, so ignorant are the organisers of this ministry for men that they talk about "having fellowship" with people who are not even Christians! Paul obviously got it all wrong in his second letter to the church at Corinth, for he teaches that such fellowship is impossible! Poor Paul! A man of his time, I guess!
Now, let me ask, "Does the church need revival?" It NEEDS revival, whether or not it really wants it. The life of the church is so perverted that anything short of a Holy Spirit revival will accomplish absolutely nothing. Has the church deliberately departed from the Bible? Has she forsaken her 'first Love'? Has she deserted her Husband? YES.
Before the church will know the acceptance of the church as His Bride, she will have to make radical changes. Reformation will have to take place within her ranks. The rubbish that has accumulated within her, will have to be removed. The wells that our fathers dug to get that living and life-giving water will have to be cleared out, for the Philistines within the church have blocked them up with rubbish and debris. But no one wishes to do this very thing. Why? Because no one really cares enough about the church to clean her out, and make her presentable and useful again to the Almighty.
May God have mercy of her; for only He can or will!
Friday, 13 February 2009
Christian Nurse Honoured and Re-instated at Work.
How pleasing it is to see that the Christian nurse, Miss Petrie, has been re-instated to her position after the controversy that was created when he asked a patient if she could pray with and for her!
Thank God for His graciousness in this situation, and for honouring her as she honoured Him.
Yet how sad it is that the Christian church has even less Christian grace than a national health service office, for it will not restore those servants of Christ who, in her eyes, transgressed against her. Isn't it a living rebuke to the church that a secular institution demonstrates Christian grace when it realised that it did wrong? The Christian Church is the one institution that ought to be setting the example in being gracious and generous to those who stepped out of line, yet she is so puffed up by her own self-importance that this becomes an impossibility for her. The kindness and generosity of spirit in those health service officials is delightful to see.
But, when the Christian church has the opportunity to demonstrate her allegiance to Jesus Christ, she fails and falters badly. When she is confronted with her abysmal failure to live Christ before a watching world, she reverts to self-defence and character assassination. And in defending herself, not only is she not following her Lord's example, she is doing what is essentially indefensible.
Thank God for His graciousness in this situation, and for honouring her as she honoured Him.
Yet how sad it is that the Christian church has even less Christian grace than a national health service office, for it will not restore those servants of Christ who, in her eyes, transgressed against her. Isn't it a living rebuke to the church that a secular institution demonstrates Christian grace when it realised that it did wrong? The Christian Church is the one institution that ought to be setting the example in being gracious and generous to those who stepped out of line, yet she is so puffed up by her own self-importance that this becomes an impossibility for her. The kindness and generosity of spirit in those health service officials is delightful to see.
But, when the Christian church has the opportunity to demonstrate her allegiance to Jesus Christ, she fails and falters badly. When she is confronted with her abysmal failure to live Christ before a watching world, she reverts to self-defence and character assassination. And in defending herself, not only is she not following her Lord's example, she is doing what is essentially indefensible.
Theological Preaching
My studies into DMLJ's theology of the atonement are most enlightening, and will cause many men in the reformed world to do to the Doctor what they did to Dr R. T. Kendall, once they really understand his doctrine of the atonement - treat him as a pariah. While DMLJ had his faults - his semi-baptistic stance, his rank independence, his refusal to confront John Stott in 1966 on the Puritan understanding of Anglicanism, his fraternising with charismaticism, et al, he still has much vital material to teach us on the nature and message of the Gospel. He knew the Gospel in a way that enabled him to preach it mightily and faithfully, and without having to do damage to the vocabulary of Scripture. He had discovered the only hermeneutic that I know of that allows a preacher to treat the Scripture as it stands and without having to squeeze it through some dogmatic screen. That hermeneutic is authentic Calvinism, or to use a theological swear word in ultra-reformed circles, Amyraldianism. Compare it with Owenism, and you'll find the preacher having to 're-write' the Scripture, or 'explain it away,' when it comes to dealing with the Gospel texts that are universalistic in their language.
I digress from my original purpose in writing to you, but writing to you stimulates my theological juices, knowing that you are a man who also wants to allow Scripture to speak its own saving, sanctifying and God-glorifying message.
By the way, if you have this - I know you have a wealth of good books - but if you have accounts of the conversion experience of Christians under John Owen's preaching, would you let me know. I would very much like to read the testimonies of his converts.
I digress from my original purpose in writing to you, but writing to you stimulates my theological juices, knowing that you are a man who also wants to allow Scripture to speak its own saving, sanctifying and God-glorifying message.
By the way, if you have this - I know you have a wealth of good books - but if you have accounts of the conversion experience of Christians under John Owen's preaching, would you let me know. I would very much like to read the testimonies of his converts.
Let us Worship God.
These are amongst the first words you should hear when you go to worship the sovereign God. This majestic 'call to worship' summons the congregation to do that which God demands of His creation (Ps.100:1), and especially of His people. It is God's call to all men to bow before the majesty of the great God. It is that which requires us to give God His rightful place in our worship and in our lives. It is surely the most solemn call that any man can hear.
When you think about it, the call to worship is the end goal for evangelism. David Brainard, that great missionary to the North American Indians about 250 years ago, said that what he aimed at in his evangelism was to get the people to "sing to God." The worship of God's pure and holy Name is the goal of evangelism.
Now it is strange, is it not, that in many evangelical, or should I say, evangelistic, churches, not only is there no clear summons to worship God, but even when it is implied, for the minister to then decide, on his own whims, to order half of the congregation NOT to worship God. You know how it goes; when you are singing your heart out to the great God of salvation and revival, the preacher interjects and says, "Men only for this verse," and then later, "Ladies only."
I must say that if I find this grossly insulting, how must not God feel about it. If we are gathered in God's house for the express purpose of worshipping His Name, what right has any man to stop half the congregation worshipping the Lord? What right has a minister to tell people on the basis of their gender that they are not to sing praise to God in this verse? Are they paving the way for the day when Christians will not be permitted to worship the Lord at any time? Do they know something that the rest of us do not know? Why are they doing this? What benefits ascend to God when this is practised?
Evangelicalism must surely take a long and serious look at what the Scriptures teach about how God is to be worshipped. IF He tells us in His word what he wants from us, who are we to change it? Who are we to decide what we will offer to God as worship? Remember how He rejected many contemporising practices in the OT, and described it as "offering strange fire to the Lord."
And we expect God to move amongst us in revival power and grace.
Let me mention another aberration of God's worship. When the minister says, "Let us worship God as we give to Him our tithes and our offerings." I don't know how these words are understood in your church, but in the churches that I know best, they are interpreted to mean, "Now is a great time to have a chat with the person sitting beside me." Have you noticed that? The minister calls us to worship God in this particular way (the offering), and we do the very opposite, while while putting our money on the plate. What the minister says is not really intended to be done - it a time to chat, or to check your mobile for messages, or to send a text to your friend sitting across the church from you, and so on. Worshipping God.
And we still think that we are on the way to revival! As I see it, the fact that we are prepared to play fast and loose with the worship of God is a sure sign, not that God is blessing us, but that the church needs revival urgently. If only we were to read the OT with open minds and hungry hearts, we would see just how far we have deserted the Lord's way regarding how He is to be worshipped.
My response? May the Lord have mercy on us, and bring us back again into the true paths, and may He restore to us that sense of His holy presence as we meet in His Kingly Name.
When you think about it, the call to worship is the end goal for evangelism. David Brainard, that great missionary to the North American Indians about 250 years ago, said that what he aimed at in his evangelism was to get the people to "sing to God." The worship of God's pure and holy Name is the goal of evangelism.
Now it is strange, is it not, that in many evangelical, or should I say, evangelistic, churches, not only is there no clear summons to worship God, but even when it is implied, for the minister to then decide, on his own whims, to order half of the congregation NOT to worship God. You know how it goes; when you are singing your heart out to the great God of salvation and revival, the preacher interjects and says, "Men only for this verse," and then later, "Ladies only."
I must say that if I find this grossly insulting, how must not God feel about it. If we are gathered in God's house for the express purpose of worshipping His Name, what right has any man to stop half the congregation worshipping the Lord? What right has a minister to tell people on the basis of their gender that they are not to sing praise to God in this verse? Are they paving the way for the day when Christians will not be permitted to worship the Lord at any time? Do they know something that the rest of us do not know? Why are they doing this? What benefits ascend to God when this is practised?
Evangelicalism must surely take a long and serious look at what the Scriptures teach about how God is to be worshipped. IF He tells us in His word what he wants from us, who are we to change it? Who are we to decide what we will offer to God as worship? Remember how He rejected many contemporising practices in the OT, and described it as "offering strange fire to the Lord."
And we expect God to move amongst us in revival power and grace.
Let me mention another aberration of God's worship. When the minister says, "Let us worship God as we give to Him our tithes and our offerings." I don't know how these words are understood in your church, but in the churches that I know best, they are interpreted to mean, "Now is a great time to have a chat with the person sitting beside me." Have you noticed that? The minister calls us to worship God in this particular way (the offering), and we do the very opposite, while while putting our money on the plate. What the minister says is not really intended to be done - it a time to chat, or to check your mobile for messages, or to send a text to your friend sitting across the church from you, and so on. Worshipping God.
And we still think that we are on the way to revival! As I see it, the fact that we are prepared to play fast and loose with the worship of God is a sure sign, not that God is blessing us, but that the church needs revival urgently. If only we were to read the OT with open minds and hungry hearts, we would see just how far we have deserted the Lord's way regarding how He is to be worshipped.
My response? May the Lord have mercy on us, and bring us back again into the true paths, and may He restore to us that sense of His holy presence as we meet in His Kingly Name.
Monday, 2 February 2009
God's Mighty Gospel
Last night, I had the immense privilege of preaching at the Christian Workers Union meeting in Magherafelt. It was a tremendous service, and we did not only assume that the Lord was present, we knew He was there. He was very gracious. While we "walk by faith, not by sight," we did not simply believe that He was really present by His Spirit, we felt His closeness, we sensed that nearness of God right throughout the meeting, the attention of the listeners was rapt, and the freedom in preaching was sweet. Yes, I had prepared well, and went armed with my notes, but very seldom referred to them. I preached for an hour, and no one felt the time passing. It was as if "heaven came down and glory filled the room." God was so good to us because God is so good.
Some of the members of my former congregations in Tobermore and Draperstown attended the service, and said it was like old times, commended me for the 'strong message' that I brought, and thanked me so warmly for what I had said. One friend said that that was the kind of preaching we should still be getting in church - the reference being to my being sacked by PCI for preaching the same kind of truthful, clear and passionate sermon, thus depriving them of my ministry.
The organisers said that they would have me back again to preach.
It was noteworthy that two elders (friends) from Union Road were also present, and one thanked me for being there, and the other said I had given him much to think about.
I was trying to address the question, Why, if "the Gospel of Christ ... is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes," was its power not being felt, and experienced in the numerous evangelistic services that are held throughout our country?
Answer: Preachers are preaching to people who do not feel their need of Christ; preachers have lost their confidence in the Gospel as "the power of God unto salvation...," therefore have resorted to using the many "obstacles" that have been built up around church life, and are presenting a message that is essentially parallel to Roman Catholicism's "faith+" message, only for evangelicals it is a "gospel+" message - Gospel + testimonies, Gospel + never-ending singing of often silly ditties, Gospel + jokes and frivolity and flippancy - to get people relaxed, Gospel + the active involvement of as many people as possible in the services, etc; the loss of dread at the thoughts of "the Gospel of God," "sin," "the wrath of God," "ungodliness," unrighteousness," and "suppressing of the truth in unrighteousness," (Rom.1:16-18). I confessed my own failure in this regard, and said that my lack of trembling at the very mention of these truths was evidence of the hardness of my heart.
One Church of Ireland vestry man and CWU committee member said that he thought that I had seen behind the scenes in his church, and confessed that he could identify with everything I had said.
When I got home, I collapsed into my chair, exhausted. I had given my best to the Lord in that service, and was reminded of Calvin's words: "I have given my heart as a sacrifice to God."
This had been so precious a time for us as a family, that I just wanted to tell you about the service and about God's gracious enabling of me, his most unworthy servant.
I have found my mind being filled with a growing number of sermon skeletons, which I have recorded for future use - what is God doing in me and with me?
Thank you for your prayers and your constant support and encouragement.
Some of the members of my former congregations in Tobermore and Draperstown attended the service, and said it was like old times, commended me for the 'strong message' that I brought, and thanked me so warmly for what I had said. One friend said that that was the kind of preaching we should still be getting in church - the reference being to my being sacked by PCI for preaching the same kind of truthful, clear and passionate sermon, thus depriving them of my ministry.
The organisers said that they would have me back again to preach.
It was noteworthy that two elders (friends) from Union Road were also present, and one thanked me for being there, and the other said I had given him much to think about.
I was trying to address the question, Why, if "the Gospel of Christ ... is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes," was its power not being felt, and experienced in the numerous evangelistic services that are held throughout our country?
Answer: Preachers are preaching to people who do not feel their need of Christ; preachers have lost their confidence in the Gospel as "the power of God unto salvation...," therefore have resorted to using the many "obstacles" that have been built up around church life, and are presenting a message that is essentially parallel to Roman Catholicism's "faith+" message, only for evangelicals it is a "gospel+" message - Gospel + testimonies, Gospel + never-ending singing of often silly ditties, Gospel + jokes and frivolity and flippancy - to get people relaxed, Gospel + the active involvement of as many people as possible in the services, etc; the loss of dread at the thoughts of "the Gospel of God," "sin," "the wrath of God," "ungodliness," unrighteousness," and "suppressing of the truth in unrighteousness," (Rom.1:16-18). I confessed my own failure in this regard, and said that my lack of trembling at the very mention of these truths was evidence of the hardness of my heart.
One Church of Ireland vestry man and CWU committee member said that he thought that I had seen behind the scenes in his church, and confessed that he could identify with everything I had said.
When I got home, I collapsed into my chair, exhausted. I had given my best to the Lord in that service, and was reminded of Calvin's words: "I have given my heart as a sacrifice to God."
This had been so precious a time for us as a family, that I just wanted to tell you about the service and about God's gracious enabling of me, his most unworthy servant.
I have found my mind being filled with a growing number of sermon skeletons, which I have recorded for future use - what is God doing in me and with me?
Thank you for your prayers and your constant support and encouragement.
Saturday, 31 January 2009
More Hurt for Victims of Terrorism by Church Leader
Sir, As one of the many victims of institutional abuse, I write to you as a suffering, perplexed, at times confused, and often angry victim. I am being put through continual suffering by people like your esteemed former archbishop, Lord Eames, who, in his current report, co-authored by Denis Bradley, makes me equal with those who murdered my youngest brother in 1977, aged 22.
I find it unacceptable that the former Anglican archbishop of Armagh, who conducted the funerals of many Northern Ireland Anglicans, who died at the hands of terrorist attacks, should now equate them with the vilest terrorist murderers in western Europe.
These 'men (and women) of the cloth' ought to hang their heads in shame at what they have now inflicted on the families of the innocent victims of terrorism. My church of Ireland friends are appalled at what Lord Eames has done, working as he was to the agenda of the NIO, his paymaster. They feel humiliated at what their former church leader has now inflicted upon them. Unbelief at what a minister of the church could do to them knowingly (by his own admission), in all their hurt, grips them, and anger fills many hearts. Lord Eames imagined that he was engaged in a process that would help victims put the past behind them, and thus facilitate their recovery. He, and his fellow-travellers, have done the very opposite.
The scenes at the Europa last Wednesday do not bode well for the future, although the spin that is being put on what happened is that this is a good thing, with more positive results to follow. Wrong! What he and his group have given us is 'more of the same.' The future looks very bleak indeed.
Because Lord Eames is an Anglican minister, his church obviously condones what he has said and done in this offensive report. There will be many Anglicans throughout the world who will be singing Robin's praises, believing that he has done a good thing. The entire Anglican communion will feel very proud of their colleague, not knowing that he has driven many innocent victims of his church and outside it to the very point of despair. They will praise him believing that he has helped bring closure to the many who were hurt in 'the conflict,' not realising that he has brought about further polarisation within the Northern Ireland community.
The very least the church of Ireland can now do is to apologise to every innocent victim of terrorism for the profound hurt that Dr Eames & Co have afflicted on them. I know that apologies by the church are poor substitutes, but when they are accompanied by a deliberate distancing of the church from what Robin has said, and a clear statement that they do not endorse his equating of victims and terrorists, but rather repudiate such an equation, they just might carry a little bit of weight with church members. Perhaps not!
In addition, the church of Ireland should now call Dr Eames in for questioning about the role he has played in the further re-victimisation of the innocent, and the re-traumatising of the victims, many of whom belong to his church. He should be questioned about his lack of judgement and his rank insensitivity towards those who never wanted to be victims in the first place - that decision was made by the terrorists.
Surely, there must be accountability for actions that have caused such deep hurt to people who have been trying to get over their past horrible experiences. Credit would have been accorded to Lord Eames had he stated that he does not share the definition of 'victim' that found its way, unopposed, into legislation, but rather that he found it morally offensive and objectionable; sadly, he did not do so.
Perhaps he has learned the lesson that any legislation that removes the distinction between right and wrong, between law breaker and law keeper, between terrorist who, by definition, always acts outside the law, and those who, by default, have acted within the law, is very poor legislation. Perhaps not! You decide.
I find it unacceptable that the former Anglican archbishop of Armagh, who conducted the funerals of many Northern Ireland Anglicans, who died at the hands of terrorist attacks, should now equate them with the vilest terrorist murderers in western Europe.
These 'men (and women) of the cloth' ought to hang their heads in shame at what they have now inflicted on the families of the innocent victims of terrorism. My church of Ireland friends are appalled at what Lord Eames has done, working as he was to the agenda of the NIO, his paymaster. They feel humiliated at what their former church leader has now inflicted upon them. Unbelief at what a minister of the church could do to them knowingly (by his own admission), in all their hurt, grips them, and anger fills many hearts. Lord Eames imagined that he was engaged in a process that would help victims put the past behind them, and thus facilitate their recovery. He, and his fellow-travellers, have done the very opposite.
The scenes at the Europa last Wednesday do not bode well for the future, although the spin that is being put on what happened is that this is a good thing, with more positive results to follow. Wrong! What he and his group have given us is 'more of the same.' The future looks very bleak indeed.
Because Lord Eames is an Anglican minister, his church obviously condones what he has said and done in this offensive report. There will be many Anglicans throughout the world who will be singing Robin's praises, believing that he has done a good thing. The entire Anglican communion will feel very proud of their colleague, not knowing that he has driven many innocent victims of his church and outside it to the very point of despair. They will praise him believing that he has helped bring closure to the many who were hurt in 'the conflict,' not realising that he has brought about further polarisation within the Northern Ireland community.
The very least the church of Ireland can now do is to apologise to every innocent victim of terrorism for the profound hurt that Dr Eames & Co have afflicted on them. I know that apologies by the church are poor substitutes, but when they are accompanied by a deliberate distancing of the church from what Robin has said, and a clear statement that they do not endorse his equating of victims and terrorists, but rather repudiate such an equation, they just might carry a little bit of weight with church members. Perhaps not!
In addition, the church of Ireland should now call Dr Eames in for questioning about the role he has played in the further re-victimisation of the innocent, and the re-traumatising of the victims, many of whom belong to his church. He should be questioned about his lack of judgement and his rank insensitivity towards those who never wanted to be victims in the first place - that decision was made by the terrorists.
Surely, there must be accountability for actions that have caused such deep hurt to people who have been trying to get over their past horrible experiences. Credit would have been accorded to Lord Eames had he stated that he does not share the definition of 'victim' that found its way, unopposed, into legislation, but rather that he found it morally offensive and objectionable; sadly, he did not do so.
Perhaps he has learned the lesson that any legislation that removes the distinction between right and wrong, between law breaker and law keeper, between terrorist who, by definition, always acts outside the law, and those who, by default, have acted within the law, is very poor legislation. Perhaps not! You decide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)