Going with the flow - a sign of maturity.

Just go with the flow! That's what makes a good minister! It is also a sign of ministerial and spiritual maturity, and something that only comes with age. This is the way a river flows, following the path of least resistance. It is a sure-fire way of avoiding rows in the congregation, and keeps everyone on board, regardless of whether they are Christians or not. It raises the minister in the church popularity stakes, and ensures that he is well looked after by the congregation. If he were to enter the popular Saturday evening entertainment show, X-factor, he would be sure to win.

It's a pity that I was not given the pastoral advice that a former colleague of mine was given by a theological professor: "do what the people want you to do, and say what they want you to say." Be "all things to all men" in this sense.

Maybe this is how the politicians persuaded voters in Northern Ireland to support the Belfast Agreement of 1998 - say enough to please everyone, even those who hold fundamentally different views. They worded the agreement in such a way that everyone got something out of it. The unionists were assured that the union was copper-fastened, and republicans were also sure that it was a transition to their desired united Ireland. 72% of the people were kept happy, and on side.

The 'go with the flow' ministerial philosophy is exactly the same. It tells ministers to use words so carefully that both Christians and Gospel-rejecters alike are kept happy, and cause them to believe that the minister is agreeing with them, regardless of what they believe personally. If they want their young people to become full communicant church members, accept them so long as they say they are Christians; and if they want their babies baptised, or christened (in their language), do it, and so long as you ask them the orthodox questions and they answer appropriately, go with it. Ask no deeply personal questions. Don't worry about the well-being of their souls, or of the church of Jesus Christ.

Such ministers get on very well with their congregations, but what is unbelievably distressing is that those who hold this viewpoint care nothing about the souls of those who listen to them on a weekly basis. They are happy for their members to go to hell without Christ. Their defense is that all that God requires of ministers is for them to be faithful. He does not want them to win souls to Christ. He does not want them to annoy or disturb their members. He wants them to enjoy peace - such as is found in a cemetery. He calls them to lull them to sleep spiritually, so that they can remain "at ease in Zion." He does not want church members to come under conviction of sin - a reality that no longer exists, or if it does, is not that serious a thing. Nor do these modern ministers want the Holy Spirit to start working in the lives of church members - that would never do! Think of the trouble that would cause and the contradictions such a situation would create! The elders had already accepted them as Christians, and now they are talking about wanting to become Christians! How embarrassing! How unPresbyterian!

It is very sad to read this kind of material. But what makes it even more disillusioning is the fact that this kind of viewpoint is held by evangelical Christians. This is the attitude that desires peace at any price, or more accurately, peace at no price whatever.

The need for solid, ongoing and systematic teaching of the message of the Scriptures, the historical context of the theological controversies surrounding these issues, is apparent. And, the equal need for church discipline, properly administered, must go alongside the true proclamation of the Word/Gospel. These are the marks of a true church.

But where the 'go with the flow' philosophy rules in any congregation or is the controlling principle of any ministry, there you can be sure that no true church of Christ exists. While this attitude wins friends and influences people in your favour, it falls far short of the true calling of the minister of the Gospel.

Surely someone must be raised up by God to re-call the church to her God-given responsibility to form true churches of Christ, not cheap replicas of the real thing. But this is very, very costly. No self-respecting congregation will tolerate any minister who wants to do what God had called him to do! Yet, this is precisely the type of minister most congregations need, and need urgently. But churches do not want men whose aim in their ministry is to please God. They want a minister who will please them!

May God have mercy on His church which He purchased with the blood of His Son.

When God answers prayer!

Ecclesiastical democracy is a most wonderful thing - more wonderful, indeed, than Northern Ireland's pretended democracy! Especially when that democracy is "bathed in prayer." Discovering God's will in a complex situation within a mixed congregation is not that easy, not if you have already made up your mind what God's will is in any given situation.

Then when God answers your prayer in a way that you did not expect, where does that leave you? More importantly, where does that leave your discernment, and your faith? Is strong spiritual conviction really a sanctified term for fleshly stubbornness? Or, is it nothing but selfish ambition, a worldly desire to 'keep up with the Jones's,' wanting to have as nice a place as someone else? Is it a form of thinly disguised pride?

But what about God answering prayer? Is answered prayer that which agrees with the pray-er's asking? Is prayer not answered when it goes against my asking? What do we make of it all?

I think the lesson here is that God's ways are not our ways, and we are very foolish when we think that we can demand from Him what we want! Christians must learn to say, "Let God be true, and every man a liar." God is sovereign in Himself and in everything He does, or does not do. We might try to restrict Him and the outworking of His sovereign purposes. But we cannot. He will crush our desires to dust, if we persist in our stubbornness. God is God, and we are but mere men, and sinful men at that.

But when a church leader gives the impression that he knows God's will or has had a secret, private and personal revelation of what He intends to do, and calls the people of God to prayer, and it still does not work out the way he wants, where does that leave his leadership? He has some very deep thinking and reflecting to do - not least about his own spiritual maturity.

Truth is that church leaders often do get it all wrong at times. And when they get it wrong, it can and often does have a fundamental effect on the unity of the congregation. Divisions are created, and disharmony becomes visible. Those who were once fellowship partners can be driven apart. Disunity becomes the norm, and when that occurs, the spirit of prayer is seriously damaged. The result is that that leader's ministry may be damaged beyond repair in that congregation. It may be time for a move.

But if he goes, he will then be accused of running away from a situation which might well be of his own making. Either way, the minister cannot win.

However, in some minds, there will be devastation and disappointment, while in others, glee and the semblance of spiritual pride. God answered our prayers, but He didn't answer yours! While that might be factually true, the end result is a worse situation than before. One section of the congregation feels humiliated and the other is full of pride. Not a good situation for any evangelical church to be in! Maybe that's why God does not give us as many answers to prayer as we would like! Perhaps there are lessons that we need to learn here too!

Majoring on Minors

I had the privilege of preaching at the Tenth Anniversary Thanksgiving Service for the decade of service to the innocent victims of terrorism held on 22nd November 2009 when more than 200 worshippers attended the service on what was a very wet autumnal Sabbath.

But the single most important Person to be present at the service was the risen Lord Jesus Christ. His presence with us was evident from the rapt attention that was paid to the Gospel. The stillness and hush throughout the service were real, and the closeness of eternity was apparent to all.

The theme of the service and sermon was "Reconciliation." This was developed from Rom.5:10, 11, and the teaching of the Apostle Paul was developed and also contrasted with the perverted understanding that abounds within the 'peace and reconciliation industry' that has been created for the civil servants in Northern Ireland. The entire message had an evangelistic thrust, and the congregation was urged to be reconciled to God, thus demonstrating true biblical reconciliation.

Given the presence of the risen Lord Jesus Christ at the service, I am sure that readers will be amazed to learn that the comments from professing Christians were strange - to say the least. "You looked well, you did well, your voice kept up, there was a good attendance, the church building looked beautiful, it was very warm in the church, it was too long;" then the more 'spiritual' commented very negatively on that fact I wore my Geneva gowns, and used of both Psalms and hymns in the service.

The former comments were easily enough taken when expressed by non-Christians; but when Christians, from the reformed churches, criticised the wearing of the Geneva gown in a service of reformed worship, one was left wondering what historical awareness these people possessed. The critic did not seem to know that the Reformers, Huguenots, Puritans, Covenanters and other reformed ministers all wore their Geneva gowns, thus distinguishing them from 'preachers' from Roman-type churches.

The criticism of non-exclusive Psalm-singing was also a bit rich, especially when these criticisms were accompanied by the authoritative historical statement that hymns were only about 100 years old! Amazing! Even Calvin, whom the reformed churches revere, is believed to have written the hymn, "We greet Thee who my great Redeemer art." He also used the Lord's Prayer and the Apostles' Creed which were put into verse and set to music. Hymns stretch back to that time, as a quick and cursory glance through any good church hymn book will reveal. It is very sad that those who purport to promote a certain type of reformed worship do not even know the facts of the matter, and use historical inaccuracies to promote, what in their view, is biblical truth!

These criticisms were the only things that these people could say about the service, and the 'sectarian' nature of the comments is nauseating. It appears that they do not have any deep spiritual discernment when these were the only things they could say about that God-honouring service. When minor issues become the dominant issues, and take on major importance, there is a serious problem within the churches, and the need for reformation is a crying and increasingly necessity.

Psalms in Worship - a 'no-go' area

As I visit different churches of various denominations, I discover a variety of worship types, as if all these churches were reading different Bibles. Most, if not all, have adopted the practice of conditioning the worshippers before the service with either live music, or by the use of piped music. Most, if not all, now use modern worship songs. Most, if not all, no longer sing the Psalms, nor do they sing the Paraphrases with any degree of regularity.

But what is perhaps most perplexing is the cessation in many 'reformed' congregations of Psalm singing. Indeed, some 'reformed' churches do not even know the Psalms, and find singing them a real challenge. Some elders within these 'reformed' churches hardly recognise the Psalms as part of God's Word.

What a move away from the rich reformation tradition that these churches once embraced in their better days! I am not advocating exclusive Psalmody, since this practice has neither biblical nor historical warrant. But I am advocating the singing of Psalms as an integral part of the diet of weekly worship. As Calvin himself preached, there is nothing better than the Psalms in the worship of God - not meaning that there is nothing but the Psalms to be used in the worship of Almighty God.

Congregations in the reformed, or biblical, tradition are being weaned away from a solid theological understanding of worship, and are being subjected to modernism gone wild. Yes, there are some excellent modern hymns that we can use in the reverent worship of the Lord; but there is much spiritual gush and slush that is being introduced, why? To attract the young people.

Yet, and here's the interesting bit, I have heard young Christians who belong to a church that I know, and whom I would have said were into this modern stuff, complaining that they get nothing out of the services. The preaching is excellent, but the context in which that preaching is done is counter-productive. We hear the Cross of Jesus Christ preached in the context of virtual rock rhythm, accompanied by a heavy drum beat and African drums.

We need to get back to basics again - for the glory of God and the good of future generations. We need hymns that are biblically faithful and that teach sound doctrine. What we don't need is endlessly repeating verses of choruses, and all that stuff that goes with it.

May God teach the church before it is too late that reverence adorns His House!

More Romanising Trends Within Mainstream Evangelicalism

It's sad, but true! Evangelicals within the mainstream denominations are leading the way to Rome! Not only is this trend seen in the way 'reformed' ministers, in administering the sacrament of baptism to covenant infants, actually take these infants away from the father into his own arms, thus sending out the message that it is the church that is ultimately responsible for the child's salvation, and is essentially a priestly action, it is also seen in another sphere.

Now, the other New Testament sacrament, the Lord's Supper, is being treated in the same Romanising manner. Just recently, I witnessed this with my own eyes. Not that many, or any, others noticed this, but I certainly did. At the normal Sunday services, you will see elders coming to the worship of Almighty God dressed like 'tramps,' the evangelical type, of course, in denim jeans, open necked shirts, trainers, sportsy dress; but when it comes to the observance of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, my, they present themselves appropriately - their good suits on, shirt and tie, and every bit the Christian leader. Indeed, they would never dream of presenting at school in such a tawdry fashion. These professionals obviously have a higher respect for their employers and professions than they do for God and His house!

Now why do they do this sort of thing? True, its not what is on the outside, but what's in the heart, that matters. That point is willingly granted. But what does it say about the elevated position these men give to the Lord's Supper? It says that they believe that Sacrament Sunday is different from the other Sundays because the Lord's Supper is being taken. In their minds, there is an elevation of this sacrament above the preaching of the Gospel which is the focus of every other service. It might even be the Presbyterian's way of "elevating the host" as is done within Romanism in all its forms. But thankfully not all Presbyterians do this - they are much better taught than that!

It is high time for the reformed church in this decadent age, to take a long hard look at what it is doing. In fact, it must take a long hard look through the lens of Scripture, at what the Church of Jesus Christ really is, for that knowledge has long since been lost within the churches. Because she does not know accurately what she is, anything goes. Because her true nature is misunderstood, her practice follows as does the night the day. What is believed by the church about the church cannot be divorced from how the church conducts her affairs. If she is viewed as a fun-fair, then she will run her entire life trying her best to attract the world into her midst using worldly means. If she sees herself as a museum, then nothing will be changed over the rolling centuries. But if she sees herself as the Body of Christ in this world, then everything about her will reflect this exalted position. If she orders her life according to the teaching of the Scriptures, then she will be transformed, becoming what God intended her to be, and very different from what she has become in the 21st century.

There are lessons to be learned, and learned urgently, if she is to hear that "Well done, good and faithful servant," from the Lord she professes to serve.

The Church and Mission.

Evangelical churches are supposed to be the most missionary-minded of all churches. They give well to missionary endeavour, send out workers to work in the harvest field of the world, pray for missionaries and support their work.

But charity begins at home – at least that’s what we have been told! Why is it then that evangelical churches prefer the foreign mission work to the mission field that is right on their doorsteps? Is it because there is more kudos, more romance, more spiritual brownie points, with the overseas work than there is with more locally-based mission?

Let me give an example of what I mean. Suppose there are two really thriving evangelical congregations with an admirable missionary interest and track record that are located beside two small struggling congregations within the same denomination. Imagine the prestige associated with the bigger congregations, and the spiritual poverty of the two smaller ones. This is nothing other than a mission-field on the very doorstep, but no one wants to even admit it is there! They send their money and their personnel to fields far away, but would never even consider sending their best people to join these two struggling and neighbouring congregations, or even re-aligning the congregational unions so that the stronger could help the weaker – a Presbyterian principle.

Why this neglect? Is it because there are too many exaggerated egos in the big churches to care for the smaller ones? Do the bigger churches prefer to be “as ease in Zion,” as Amos put it, rather than get their hands dirty trying to build up and strengthen the weaker churches? Is personal comfort to be preferred to the arduous task of spreading the everlasting Gospel amongst needy people? Or is the spread of the Gospel not that important after all?

That Abusive Mother Church!

Augustine rightly said that “no one can have God as his Father who does not also have the church as his mother.” The principle is sound. The Church, which He purchased with the blood of Christ, is His treasured possession. Christ loves her, and gave Himself for her. His purpose: to present her as a spotless Bride to the Father. And her role on earth: to bring glory to her Husband, to nurture, feed, encourage, strengthen, discipline, care for, those to whom the Father has given new life. She is to be tender with her children, discipline them when necessary, always love and care for them, and act for their best interests.

So far so good. But when that ‘mother’ turns out to be abusive, uncaring, unloving; when she becomes unfaithful to her Husband and flirts with other gods, when she becomes drunk with notions of her own self-importance, blinded by power and pounds, when she becomes the end of all things, she then has departed from her high calling – to be the Bride of Christ, and to submit to His will in all things. When that mother turns from and against the very children her Husband gave to her, and treats them in a most abusive manner, the entire scenario has changed drastically. The sad reality is that it is the blood-bought church of Christ that behaves in this despicable way!

Yet when preachers, who are big on ‘theory,’ tell their congregations that it is their Christian duty to commit to ‘mother church’ as a covenant obligation, regardless of her track record, then they have gone too far. (I wonder how this approach differs from that used by the Baptists to convince new converts to undergo their particular form of baptism? If they are to demonstrate their obedience to Christ, then they have to be baptised in our way). In the outside world, if anyone suggested that children commit to a mother who has proved to be abusive towards her children, they would be roundly turned upon, and let know what reasonable people think about such a suggestion.

Further, before they agree to becoming church members, Christians must be told who and what the leaders, the elders, are. Before they join such a church, they must make it their business to discover what example the leaders set, how diligent they are at church services, prayer meetings, etc, whether or not they are truly spiritually men who are well-versed in the theology of the Scriptures and of the church, whether or not they have true pastoral hearts, what their record on church discipline is, whether they do lead in the affairs of the church or is their leadership a form of laisez faire leadership (if it brings the people in and keeps the church coffers filled, then who cares what God expects of His church), whether they are first and foremost ‘firm’s men,’ whether they possess the discernment that is desired in holders of this office; and so on. These and related questions must be asked and answered satisfactorily before any commitment is given to any church.

Christians must also be told in great detail what submission to the leadership in the local church entails. Do the leaders (elders) to which submission is to be given have the confidence of the people who are expected to submit to them? Are the elders worthy of the submission of thinking Christian people? Are they true to traditional theological values and modes of worship, or have they ‘sold the pass’ and gone the way of almost all flesh within evangelicalism in all its forms?

It has been said that one of the reasons for membership of local fellowships is to show who the true Christians are. And church members and other Christians are expected to take this seriously! The truth is that all who are members of churches are not Christians, and many who attend worship regularly but who are Christians are not members. In my experience, my best Christian people were not officially church members – best attendees at worship, Bible studies, prayer meetings, etc, the best givers to church funds, and the most supportive of my ministry. On the other hand, the people who gave me least support, the worst attendees at ordinances – except the Lord’s Supper and insistent on the baptism of unbeliever’s infants – the poorest givers to church work, the people who made most demands, were most critical of my ministry, and yet who had a say in the direction of the church, were full unconverted members. Even some of the elders were not Christians, and some of those who were did not possess the qualifications for this high office.

Given that type of ‘mother’ church, plus her track record as an unrepentant abusive mother towards her children – a track record that is current, is it unreasonable to expect, especially those who have been abused by her, to commit to being members? Add to this the fact that she is truculently unrepentant of her evil actions, and committing to her is out of the question. Indeed, her ‘faithful servants’ give their tacit support to church abuse, by refusing to identify the problem and deal Christianly with it.

These ‘firm’s men’ are not good for the church or the Kingdom of God, and are, at the end of the day, merely playing at church. As for motherly care of her children? Well, that’s the biggest joke of all!