What a real joy and privilege it is to hear the Gospel of God soundly and passionately preached! To hear it being offered to sinners and to the lost and ungodly is the greatest sound under heaven. For Christ and His saving work to be heralded as the only remedy for human sin, is what the world needs to hear. And to be told that the only escape from the fierce wrath of an angry God is to hide in Christ Jesus is the most urgent of messages that the world needs to hear today.
Yet how sad it is that some preachers feel themselves restrained, not by the clear teaching of Scripture, but by a man-made system of theology that is foisted upon the Gospel, is most concerning and distressing. For a minister of the Gospel to be restrained by what men have said, rather than liberated by what God says in His Word, is tragic.
Let me explain. When John the Baptist proclaims, "Behold! The Lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the world!" what are many 'reformed' preachers to make of this statement? Many simply ignore it! Why? Because it does not fit in with the scholastic approach to biblical interpretation found most notably in the theologising of John Owen. Sadly, this approach has been followed almost without criticism by Westminster theologians, as demonstrated in their Confession of Faith.
Others try to explain it away! The 'world' does not mean the 'world' at all, these smart men tell us! The Bible writers got it all wrong! So Owen, following the logic of Aristotle, has made the Scripture say what the original writers did not intend it to say, otherwise they would have said it clearly.
For Owen, 'world' means the 'world of the elect.' How he arrives at this position he does not tell his readers. We are left to deduct from his other writings that because Christ, in his view, died only for the elect, the term, 'world,' can only mean the 'world of the elect.'
Thus human philosophical reasoning has to supplement the incomplete testimony of Scripture in order to get the whole truth out of it. What a pity the Biblical writers did not have the knowledge that Owen had! Or, what a pity Owen had not lived when the inspired apostles lived and wrote the Scriptures under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Sadly, not a few reformed ministers have allowed themselves to be taken down a road that is not faithful to the teaching of Scripture. Yet how faithful our God is! Seeing the situation in which the church found herself, through centuries of ongoing and unchallenged unfaithfulness, He raised up a man called John Calvin, a man who knew the Scriptures, and who preached them many times each week to the citizens of Geneva. Calvin got the balance of Scripture just right, when he gave due place and emphasis to the particular and universalistic texts, and did not try to squeeze them into some man-made mould.
Then God raised up the sons of Calvin, men who were accounted worthy to promote the Gospel as rediscovered at the Reformation, and expounded by men like Calvin. Possibly the most faithful interpreters of Calvin in Europe were the Huguenots, those faithful and courageous ministers of the Gospel of saving grace.
Among these was the godly genius, Moise Amyraut (1596-1664), Professor of Theology at the Reformed Academy located in the French town of Saumur. Amyraut understood the teaching of Calvin as being true to the Bible, and his name was given to a system that arises from his distinctive theological stance.
Amyraut was convinced that orthodox Calvinism had distorted the original Bible-based teaching of John Calvin, his criticisms arousing intense hostility. Tried for heresy on at least three occasions (in 1637 at the Synod of Alencon - three years after he published his Traite de la predestination, in 1644 at the Synod of Charenton, and again in 1659 at the Synod of Loudun, where the charges faired no better), and was acquitted each time.
The reason why the French churches could not condemn Amyraut for heresy was that his teaching had drawn massively from the teaching of the great Genevan Reformed, John Calvin. Hence, to have condemned Amyraut was to condemn Calvin, which very thing they did not want to do. Within Reformed and Presbyterian circles, the theology known as "Amyraldianism" has aroused strong dissent ever since. The university of Saumur became the university of French Protestantism.
Now, why this brief history of the Reformed work in France in the seventeenth century? Because those who condemn Amyraldianism today, are, by definition, condemning the greatest reformer of all time, Calvin. Sadly, so few who condemn Amyraldianism have never even read Amyraut's works, and unwittingly in their theological and historical blindness, condemn that man to whom they give such honour and prominence.
Were the church to re-visit the history of the Huguenots, and also to study the writings of men like Calvin, Cameron, Amyraut, Quick, Daille, Baxter, Edwards, McCheyne, Ryle, Chalmers, and the greatest preacher of the last century, Dr D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (especially on his understanding of the gospel and the atonement), they would be exposed to authentic Calvinism, and would receive a much-needed corrective to their assymetrical theology.
These men knew that when they offered Christ to sinners as they preached the mighty Gospel of Christ, they had something real to offer to them - the remedy for their wrong relationship with God because of their sinfulness. They were not offering perishing sinners a mere fig leaf! Not at all. They were offering a real salvation to all who would take it by faith. These great men had a message for the entire world, and a salvation that was big enough to redeem a thousand worlds. They could tell lost sinners that they only had to see themselves as being of the world to be warranted to come to Christ alone for salvation, not see themselves as belonging to the elect.
Oh, how sad it is that so many reformed preachers refuse to tell the world that Christ died for it! How sad that when they know that Christ died for sinners, their logic does not lead them to see that the entire world is a world of sinners. When they say that Christ gave His life for the lost, their narrow system does not permit them to say to all and sundry, "That includes you!" When they preach that 'Christ died for the ungodly,' they do not seem to believe that all without Christ are in an ungodly condition, the entire race, therefore Christ died for all mankind.
These good men have imposed on the text of Scripture a spiritually dangerous man-made restriction to the Gospel, and feel themselves unable to offer a whole Christ to a whole humanity - as Calvin was well able to do, and Amyraut, and Cameron, and Edwards, and Ryle, and Chalmers, and Lloyd-Jones.
The conclusion? The theology of John Calvin liberates the reformed preacher and gives him a real Gospel remedy for all mankind; but the theology of John Owen, including Westminster theology, enslaves the evangelistic preacher to such an extent that he cannot uninhibitedly offer the remedy of the Gospel to all his hearers. His fear is that one of the non-elect might be saved if he believed the Gospel.
With a lost and perishing world around us, it is time that we returned to the authentic Gospel as expounded by that great evangelist and reformed of a former era, John Calvin, and set before dying mankind that good news that Christ died for the sins of the world. And the benefits of the redemption purchased by Christ can become theirs by trusting the Saviour.
May God grant that that day will come very soon.
Saturday, 28 February 2009
Sunday, 22 February 2009
Reverent Worship
This morning, my family were privileged to attend a service of worship in a church that is not our normal place of worship, to find a quite different atmosphere than that to which we are accustomed. There was reverence from the outset, an awareness that this is the House of the Living God. The worshippers presented themselves in a most appropriate manner, and conducted themselves accordingly.
The congregation was duly called to the worship of God at the very commencement of the service, and we sang Ps.23 - again a rare experience in the Presbyterian church that we attend. The prayer directed our hearts primarily to God, not ourselves, to His greatness, not our petty needs, and to His glory. The children's address was part of the minister's ongoing teaching of Old Testament history and dealt with the Israelites leaving Egypt and facing the impossible situation of the Red Sea before them and the blood-thirsty army of Pharaoh behind them, the lesson being that with God nothing is impossible. The children remained in their family pew while the minister spoke to them.
There was an appropriate mix of old and new hymns, all of which were theologically sound, uplifting and challenging.
The sermon was based on Matt.4:12-17. Here, the preacher employed a teaching style and brought out the context of the passage and applied it ably to the context of the congregation. He preached as if he meant what he was saying - always an essential element in any preaching.
Because of the overall approach of the service, the impression was conveyed that the minister had a reforming spirit. This was a most encouraging service and form of worship for me; I just wish that more evangelical ministers were to adopt the same attitude.
The congregation was duly called to the worship of God at the very commencement of the service, and we sang Ps.23 - again a rare experience in the Presbyterian church that we attend. The prayer directed our hearts primarily to God, not ourselves, to His greatness, not our petty needs, and to His glory. The children's address was part of the minister's ongoing teaching of Old Testament history and dealt with the Israelites leaving Egypt and facing the impossible situation of the Red Sea before them and the blood-thirsty army of Pharaoh behind them, the lesson being that with God nothing is impossible. The children remained in their family pew while the minister spoke to them.
There was an appropriate mix of old and new hymns, all of which were theologically sound, uplifting and challenging.
The sermon was based on Matt.4:12-17. Here, the preacher employed a teaching style and brought out the context of the passage and applied it ably to the context of the congregation. He preached as if he meant what he was saying - always an essential element in any preaching.
Because of the overall approach of the service, the impression was conveyed that the minister had a reforming spirit. This was a most encouraging service and form of worship for me; I just wish that more evangelical ministers were to adopt the same attitude.
Ministerial Malignancy
Just this week, I purchased a second hand copy of Arther Fawcett's book on the Cambuslang Revival (Edinburgh, 1971), which the author signed. In relating this little known work of God's Spirit in Scotland in the early to mid eighteen hundreds, he came across The Patron's A>B>C> This 'catechism for clergymen' was published in Glasgow in 1771 (page 198).
Question 5 asks: What is the chief end of a modern clergyman? The answer it gives is: A modern clergyman's chief end is, to serve the Patron, and his friends, that he may in due time be found worthy to receive and enjoy a benefice, or be advanced to a better place through his favour.
The first thing that struck me about this answer was the absence of any accountability to God for the way in which he exercised his ministry. His first duty was to the man who appointed him to his pastoral care. This was obviously an important man in society, and with clout, a man well connected in high places, and a man who could do you either great good or great harm. A clergyman's preferment within the church would be decided by the Patron, who had the power to accelerate a clergyman's promotion to high office within the church, or to prevent it.
Now those of us who are non-conformists can recognise that this was a particular trait within Anglicanism; but it would be wrong to assume that non-conformity does not face a very similar and destructive danger. The modern minister is expected, by the congregation AND by the church authorities, to make sure that he keeps the people with him at all times, or at least as many of them as he can. He must keep his eye fixed on "the people that count" within the congregation and denomination, and ensure that he pleases them. As one theological college Principal in Northern Ireland taught a younger colleague a few years ago, "Do what the people want you to say, and do what they want you to do!" In other words, keep in with the people who pay your salary, and who could make it difficult for you to remain. This Principal recognised the Patronic system within Presbyterianism in Ireland, and encouraged his young colleague to bear that always in mind.
Now if a minister has had a particularly difficult time in a previous church, because of the activities of the Patron, he will know the power of "the people who count," and will be keen to do whatever the local leaders or the ordinary church member want. This kind of 'benign dictatorship' becomes much less benign as the minister begins to reform the congregation according to the Word of God, which very thing most elders do not want!
Question 6 asks: What is a Patron? The answer is: A Patron is a Protestant Pope, Christ's vicar, and supreme head of his body the church of England and Scotland; infallible, absolute, uncontroulable; of wisdom, which none dare call in question, of power, which none can resist; of holiness, such as becomes the eldest son of the Pope of Rome; of justice, goodness and truth, just as self-interest, or the sollicitation of friends happen at the time to preponderate.
This is a most enlightening answer to a vitally relevant question, for Patrons are not the exclusive domain of the Anglicans - non-conformity also has them in kind, though not in name. The principle here is the over-riding power and authority under which ministers exercise their ministry. Where this power views itself as being "Christ's vicar," then what it says and does, Christ says and does. The church authorities become identical with Christ Himself, so obeying these equals obeying Christ, and vice versa.
The non-conformists' Patron must be obeyed at all costs and in all circumstances. Essentially he is the 'Word of Christ' in the flesh! No matter how unreasonable the Protestant Pope of non-conformity is in his words and actions, he must be obeyed! If a minister is to get a 'plum' charge, the favour of the Patron must be courted, and his support secured.
Now its not that the Patron will show himself to be a real 'prate;' it's more about the unconscionable exercise of ecclesiastical power that is the problem. Because he is regarded as "Christ's vicar" within the visible church, his rite runs. These are often unpredictable scions so far as obedience to the Word of God is concerned, but eminently predictable when it comes to behaving as ecclesiastical politicians is concerned. These clerics are so important in their own eyes that what they say and do is what must be carried out. Why? Because they hold in their hands the power of life and death over ministers! They are infallible - and one such church politician told me as much! - their word is absolute, and they are uncontrollable. No one dare call into question what these operators do, and seldom is that done because "turkeys don't vote for Christmas!" To question the rightness of their decisions is tantamount to disobedience to the courts of the church.
Now these are not a rare breed. They are found throughout non-conformity, often clad in Genevan gowns, but frequently without them. They operate under the noble names/titles of eldership, Presbytery, General Synod or Assembly, or whatever.
Popes rule in virtually all churches, despite the mantra of some of them, 'No Pope Here!' It is this very mantra that enables them to act as Popes, thus deceiving the uneducated and undiscerning as they hide behind what the people already believe.
Non-conformity need not try to excuse itself from ecclesiastical popery, nor need it convince itself that such popery does not exist within its ranks, for it does. We need to acknowledge that this exists, repent of the sin of tolerating what is unscriptural, seek the mercy of Almighty God, and embark on a purge of the church to remove every last semblance of the Patronic system.
Unless and until this is done, the church stands in very great danger of being sucked into the world, thus becoming even more ineffective than she already is.
Question 5 asks: What is the chief end of a modern clergyman? The answer it gives is: A modern clergyman's chief end is, to serve the Patron, and his friends, that he may in due time be found worthy to receive and enjoy a benefice, or be advanced to a better place through his favour.
The first thing that struck me about this answer was the absence of any accountability to God for the way in which he exercised his ministry. His first duty was to the man who appointed him to his pastoral care. This was obviously an important man in society, and with clout, a man well connected in high places, and a man who could do you either great good or great harm. A clergyman's preferment within the church would be decided by the Patron, who had the power to accelerate a clergyman's promotion to high office within the church, or to prevent it.
Now those of us who are non-conformists can recognise that this was a particular trait within Anglicanism; but it would be wrong to assume that non-conformity does not face a very similar and destructive danger. The modern minister is expected, by the congregation AND by the church authorities, to make sure that he keeps the people with him at all times, or at least as many of them as he can. He must keep his eye fixed on "the people that count" within the congregation and denomination, and ensure that he pleases them. As one theological college Principal in Northern Ireland taught a younger colleague a few years ago, "Do what the people want you to say, and do what they want you to do!" In other words, keep in with the people who pay your salary, and who could make it difficult for you to remain. This Principal recognised the Patronic system within Presbyterianism in Ireland, and encouraged his young colleague to bear that always in mind.
Now if a minister has had a particularly difficult time in a previous church, because of the activities of the Patron, he will know the power of "the people who count," and will be keen to do whatever the local leaders or the ordinary church member want. This kind of 'benign dictatorship' becomes much less benign as the minister begins to reform the congregation according to the Word of God, which very thing most elders do not want!
Question 6 asks: What is a Patron? The answer is: A Patron is a Protestant Pope, Christ's vicar, and supreme head of his body the church of England and Scotland; infallible, absolute, uncontroulable; of wisdom, which none dare call in question, of power, which none can resist; of holiness, such as becomes the eldest son of the Pope of Rome; of justice, goodness and truth, just as self-interest, or the sollicitation of friends happen at the time to preponderate.
This is a most enlightening answer to a vitally relevant question, for Patrons are not the exclusive domain of the Anglicans - non-conformity also has them in kind, though not in name. The principle here is the over-riding power and authority under which ministers exercise their ministry. Where this power views itself as being "Christ's vicar," then what it says and does, Christ says and does. The church authorities become identical with Christ Himself, so obeying these equals obeying Christ, and vice versa.
The non-conformists' Patron must be obeyed at all costs and in all circumstances. Essentially he is the 'Word of Christ' in the flesh! No matter how unreasonable the Protestant Pope of non-conformity is in his words and actions, he must be obeyed! If a minister is to get a 'plum' charge, the favour of the Patron must be courted, and his support secured.
Now its not that the Patron will show himself to be a real 'prate;' it's more about the unconscionable exercise of ecclesiastical power that is the problem. Because he is regarded as "Christ's vicar" within the visible church, his rite runs. These are often unpredictable scions so far as obedience to the Word of God is concerned, but eminently predictable when it comes to behaving as ecclesiastical politicians is concerned. These clerics are so important in their own eyes that what they say and do is what must be carried out. Why? Because they hold in their hands the power of life and death over ministers! They are infallible - and one such church politician told me as much! - their word is absolute, and they are uncontrollable. No one dare call into question what these operators do, and seldom is that done because "turkeys don't vote for Christmas!" To question the rightness of their decisions is tantamount to disobedience to the courts of the church.
Now these are not a rare breed. They are found throughout non-conformity, often clad in Genevan gowns, but frequently without them. They operate under the noble names/titles of eldership, Presbytery, General Synod or Assembly, or whatever.
Popes rule in virtually all churches, despite the mantra of some of them, 'No Pope Here!' It is this very mantra that enables them to act as Popes, thus deceiving the uneducated and undiscerning as they hide behind what the people already believe.
Non-conformity need not try to excuse itself from ecclesiastical popery, nor need it convince itself that such popery does not exist within its ranks, for it does. We need to acknowledge that this exists, repent of the sin of tolerating what is unscriptural, seek the mercy of Almighty God, and embark on a purge of the church to remove every last semblance of the Patronic system.
Unless and until this is done, the church stands in very great danger of being sucked into the world, thus becoming even more ineffective than she already is.
Tuesday, 17 February 2009
Dishonesty in the Church? Never.
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?
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?
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)