I am disappointed that your reply to my genuine concerns was so dismissive, but then again, 'why change the habit of a lifetime,' as they say.
It is not "the praise in XXX" that disturbs me; XXX can do whatever it likes under your leadership! Its when that 'praise' pretends to be "the worship of Almighty God," Whose nature is revealed in the Decalogue ... that causes me great concern.
On this morning's sermon, I think what you preached has highlighted in a way that I probably could not do, what I was trying to explain, and which I believe to be biblically valid. But you are actually breaking your own counsel and the teaching of the second commandment which you so ably expounded.
However, your application left a lot to be desired. When you stated that this commandment warns us against elevating imagination above revelation, I could not have agreed more. But can it not be argued that the worship practice in your church could only be as it is precisely because you have elevated your imagination above revelation!
Further, if in your reply where you are affirming that you "do not anticipate any radical change in the praise in the forseeable future," and, given the context of my email (and correct me if I am wrong), but what I think you are saying is this:
* That XXX, under your ministry, will continue to run its evening service an 'evangelical night
club;'
* The 'noise' that passed for worship and which was deafening, will continue;
* The thumping of drums which was almost unbearable, will also continue, and be disruptive;
* That the singing about the Cross to boogy-woogy, rock, rave-type accompaniment, and which
was grossly offensive, will be a regular part of the 'worship of God in XXX;
* That "the ways of the world" which are used to 'worship' the holy God, will still be used;
What this suggests to me is that you will continue to offer 'strange fire' to the Lord, while seeking His blessing upon what you do. Do you honestly think that this pleases Him?
Let me ask you these questions? Show me from Scripture how this kind of 'worship' can be argued for? Can you provide me with the evidence from the history of the church in her best times, that this is what God has blessed? Can or will you show me from the Directory of Public Worship that your church claims to accept, how this kind of 'worship,' promoted AND DEFENDED in XXX, is agreeable to what you, and your denomination, have accepted?
Rev. X, I am not against contemporary hymns being used in the worship of God, so long as they are theologically sound, and not of the sloppy, sentimental irritatingly repetitive variety, of which there is plenty. There are excellent modern hymns that are evocative and which teach biblical truth.
But remember, church worship is not supposed to be dictated to by the worldly youth culture of the day, as appears to be the case in your church. Its mandate comes from a much higher Source - the Holy Scriptures.
Nor am I advocating the singing of psalms exclusively; it is a concern that a so-called 'reformed' church, such as PCI claims to be, rarely sings the Psalms, and when it does, it appears to be a kind of 'tokenism' to those who revere the Word of God in worship. But the Psalms are Scripture, yet you seem to object to sing these Scripture songs, except in the rarest of occasions.
Rev. X, it grieves me to have to write this to you, as a dear brother minister and a brother in Christ. But when my Saviour's Name and Honour are being attacked 'in the house of His friends,' I cannot stand back and say nothing. I feel compelled to speak about this, and to use whatever social networking facilities I can to get my message across, because of your failure to listen to them. As in educational theory, you know when a learner has learned something when they start doing it! When listening leads to doing, I will then that you have listened.
I fear that you are again setting an example to our current superficial generation of youths that will not serve the cause of Christ very well in the days to come, let alone today. You are teaching them that they can worship God anyway they choose, and regardless of the biblical principles that they so arrogantly flout! Soon we will see the flashing strobe lighting in our services, and the 'smoke' effect to raise anticipation and get 'decisions.' This is not far away in many evangelical and reformed congregations. Even the pulpit will be removed and replaced by a stage, to enable performances to take place, and drama, and other show-biz antics, etc!
But where is all this going to stop? Is there anyone today who cares enough for the honour of Christ and the good of His church and His people of all ages? Please tell me there are such people of principle in the churches today! Perhaps there are not any! Perhaps the modernising movement within PCI is driving its best ministers out of the denomination because they fear the consequences of the church offering 'strange fire' to the LORD.
Rev. X, please do not dismiss my concerns. Perhaps these matters need careful consideration by the elders in session. The last thing I want to do is to cause you any unnecessary difficulty in your congregation. You referred today, and I paraphrase, to people with some kind of spiritual discernment. Some of your members can discern what is happening in XXX under your ministry, and are not impressed. Perhaps they have not spoken to you about their concerns, maybe out of respect or fear or because you won't listen; but those concerns are there.
These are real spiritual concerns. May I ask you? Who exactly is this god you are worshipping? Members may not articulate this in this way, but that is what they are saying. If He is the living and true God, then He has set out how He wants to be worshipped by His people; and He's done that in Scriptures.
As before, I do not expect a detailed response from you, for whatever reasons. Yet I would very much like you to treat me with respect and accord me the courtesy of a considered reply.
Sunday, 24 January 2010
Monday, 11 January 2010
Worship again!
With the heightening irreverence in much of what passes for Christian worship today, it is important to realise that there is still sufficient conscience left in the 'rock brigade' to know that it is inappropriate for drum accompanied jazz improvisation to be used in singing the Psalms.
I was interested to see what will happen when the minister of the church I was attending recently announced a Psalm for congregational praise. What amazement I experienced when I noticed the drummer standing at his pew, and the Psalm was sung, accompanied by the piano only.
This was most welcome, given that Psalms are only sung three or four times a year, despite it being a 'presbyterian' church where this happens.
What accounts for this change of worship format on this occasion? It's hard to say, because there appears to be no discernible pattern to what goes on in much contemporary worship, except that it is largely undignified and irreverent, weak theologically, extremely subjective, sloppy and sentimental, and something a group of religious people do on Sundays.
Perhaps, the 'worship group' knows instinctively that when the Psalms are sung, we are dealing directly with the Word of God, or better, that God, through His Word, is dealing with us! Is there a covert admission that many human compositions do not deserve the respect that the Psalms are given? How sad it will be if the Psalms were given the same 'treatment' that is given to other worldly compositions.
Sadly, the perpetrators of worship violence provide no certainty that they will not revert to form. If they imagine that some worshippers identify the rightness of abstinence from worship violence, they will not appreciate this, and will return to 'doing what they know best.'
What is it going to take to bring professing 'reformed' churches back to their traditional practices in worship? I think one thing necessary is an urgent return to submission to the authority of God's Word in all matters of faith and practice. The apparent absence of any submission to God as Lord is conspicuous. The lack of reverence for God and His House and worship is a very worrying attribute of much contemporary worship. One is forced to ask whether or not it is good for any informed Christian to even attend a church that treats God so shabbily? Is he wittingly or unwittingly supporting what he believes to be wrong? Does his presence provide a level of credibility to such theological violence?
Unless and until there is a return to a real and practical acknowledgement of, and submission to, the authority of the Scriptures over all matters, including worship, there will be no likelihood of the situation improving. God must take control in His church again for acceptable worship to be offered to Him, and not the current 'strange fire.' He must be given His place within the life of His church, and the place currently given to 'the young people' relegated to its proper position, that of a part of the congregation like any other part. No sectional interest ought to be allowed to determine what goes on in the life of the church. And certainly not inexperienced young people whose minds have been infiltrated by modern decadent youth culture.
I was interested to see what will happen when the minister of the church I was attending recently announced a Psalm for congregational praise. What amazement I experienced when I noticed the drummer standing at his pew, and the Psalm was sung, accompanied by the piano only.
This was most welcome, given that Psalms are only sung three or four times a year, despite it being a 'presbyterian' church where this happens.
What accounts for this change of worship format on this occasion? It's hard to say, because there appears to be no discernible pattern to what goes on in much contemporary worship, except that it is largely undignified and irreverent, weak theologically, extremely subjective, sloppy and sentimental, and something a group of religious people do on Sundays.
Perhaps, the 'worship group' knows instinctively that when the Psalms are sung, we are dealing directly with the Word of God, or better, that God, through His Word, is dealing with us! Is there a covert admission that many human compositions do not deserve the respect that the Psalms are given? How sad it will be if the Psalms were given the same 'treatment' that is given to other worldly compositions.
Sadly, the perpetrators of worship violence provide no certainty that they will not revert to form. If they imagine that some worshippers identify the rightness of abstinence from worship violence, they will not appreciate this, and will return to 'doing what they know best.'
What is it going to take to bring professing 'reformed' churches back to their traditional practices in worship? I think one thing necessary is an urgent return to submission to the authority of God's Word in all matters of faith and practice. The apparent absence of any submission to God as Lord is conspicuous. The lack of reverence for God and His House and worship is a very worrying attribute of much contemporary worship. One is forced to ask whether or not it is good for any informed Christian to even attend a church that treats God so shabbily? Is he wittingly or unwittingly supporting what he believes to be wrong? Does his presence provide a level of credibility to such theological violence?
Unless and until there is a return to a real and practical acknowledgement of, and submission to, the authority of the Scriptures over all matters, including worship, there will be no likelihood of the situation improving. God must take control in His church again for acceptable worship to be offered to Him, and not the current 'strange fire.' He must be given His place within the life of His church, and the place currently given to 'the young people' relegated to its proper position, that of a part of the congregation like any other part. No sectional interest ought to be allowed to determine what goes on in the life of the church. And certainly not inexperienced young people whose minds have been infiltrated by modern decadent youth culture.
Saturday, 9 January 2010
"Judge not, that ye be not judged!"
"Judge not, that ye be not judged!" These are the challenging words of our Lord Jesus Christ. What did he mean by these words? Well, he did not prohibit the use of our critical faculties otherwise assessing situations would then be impossible for Christians. We have to be able to judge between this and that in order to come to a decision as to which we prefer, or which is right.
What Christ was teaching is that we, as Christians, are not to judge in a way that is censorious, and comes from a self-righteous heart. Neither are we to judge harshly, nor must we make much more of the sins we see in others than we do of our own sins. For if we judge others harshly and without mercy, compassion or love, then we can but expect the selfsame judgment from others when we sin.
I am sure we all know people who have been so destructive, so negative, so ruthless and merciless in their judgment of others; such self-righteous 'judges' cannot expect anything different from those who judge them when they transgress. Indeed, self-righteous judges of others can only expect severe and merciless judgment from God on the last day. Such forthcoming judgment is evidence of a horribly wrong heart, one that is callous, cold, unfeeling.
The Robinsons - Peter is the First Minister of the Executive in Northern Ireland, and his wife is Iris - are a case in point. Perhaps no more censorious couple can be imagined anywhere. The intemperate language they employed to destroy their political enemies was thought to be unacceptable by decent people, although their followers enjoyed it immensely. The party of which he is the leader - at the moment, at least - has been trained by its founder, Dr Ian Paisley, to destroy everyone and everything that stood in the way of political success. Truthfulness did not seem to matter because winning at the polls was all that mattered. This party, the DUP, has destroyed every unionist leader in Northern Ireland since the 1960s - O'Neill, Chicester-Clark, West, Faulkner, and laterally Trimble. They set out to judge these civic leaders with a view to their destruction and failure, and succeeded, believing themselves to be impervious to negative circumstances, impregnable, un-defeatable.
But God had to teach these arrogant and self-righteous people that He is not mocked, and that whatever a man sows, that shall he also reap. If you sow to the wind, you will reap the whirlwind. If you judge others harshly, you will be judged in exactly the same manner.
The arrogant criticism of other 'good' men appeared to be the stock in trade of these two politicians - Peter and Iris Robinson. Their entire political careers were predicated, it was believed, on winning at all costs. Many a good man was totally destroyed by this party, and it was believed, by this couple! Isn't it salutary that those who build their careers of such a sandy foundation cannot expect to survive when the real storms arrive?
But the hypocrisy of their behaviour was and is evident to all. This is perhaps the hardest aspect of the situation to accept. While Iris was forthright and clear in her public condemnation of homosexuality, a position that many Christians would also accept, the time-line suggests that as she made this pronouncement, she may have been 'grooming' the teenager for a sexual liaison some short time in the future. However, this will all come out in the near future.
This should not come as any great surprise, of course. This same party went out of its way to criticise its political opponents in the Ulster Unionist Party for what they regarded as the disastrous Belfast Agreement, which, they claimed, was a staging post for a united Ireland, and totally opposed to what unionists traditionally stood for. The criticism and condemnation was piled on, on a daily basis, causing division not only within other parties, but within families and churches.
Yet, what Peter Robinson and his party, the DUP, accepted at St Andrews was significantly worse for unionism than that negotiated by Trimble. On Trimble's watch, there were only two politicians linked with the IRA terrorist machine, whereas under Paisley's watch, this had increased to five! Yet, they condemned Trimble for doing what he did, and laid it on him and his party with not even a smell of mercy or understanding. But the birds come home to roost, do they not?
Yes, Trimble's political career in Northern Ireland came to an end, as all political careers do, some in ignominy; but it came as a result of politics working itself out at the polls. In the Robinsons' case, their political careers will end differently - Iris's in ignominy and disgrace, and Peter's not far behind hers.
It is extremely sad that these politicians were unable to see that it is not how men judge others that really counts, but how God judges them, the only One Who can judge righteous judgment. When the Robinsons judged so harshly their political rivals, or even people they did not like or were viewed as a threat to their progress, they did not see into the hearts of those criticised. They did not know their hearts, nor could they.
I remember being present, with my wife and young family, at a loyalist event in Magherafelt almost 20 years ago, and at which the main speakers were senior members of the DUP; the personality assassination of political and religious opponents, the mimicking that went on, the mocking of those who had speech impediments, the taking down of the 'dress sense' of those they criticised, and the resultant jubilation of the supportive crowd that attended, is storing up an awful day of judgment for themselves, a judgment that might come long before the last Day, as it has done for the Robinsons and the entire DUP, and has thrown into question the entire political scenario in Northern Ireland.
Yet, it is extremely sad that any family should end up in this undesirable position, one that no decent person would wish on their worst enemies. The hurt they must be feeling, the sense of shame and betrayal, the disappointment, the future careers of the present and next generation, these are all painfully real. Peter had worked all his life to become the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland; now this is collapsing in tatters around his feet. His predecessor's political career, Dr Paisley, came to an abrupt end, and people still ask, "Did he jump, or was he pushed," a question still not answered. Now Peter will, in all likelihood, follow Iris into the political wilderness.
If there is anything good to come out of this, it is the fact that they belong to what seems to be a caring Christian church, the Metropolitan Tabernacle in Belfast. The pastor has said repeatedly that the church will help and support them, and love them, and work to see them through this terrible personal tragedy. Had they belonged to any other Christian church in Northern Ireland, they would have been ostracised, ignored, condemned, rejected, alienated, tramped upon, ministers and members told to have nothing to do with them, criticised, talked about behind backs, shown pretend love and consideration, and so on, ad infinitum. But their church family at the Metropolitan Tabernacle will be there for them at this extremely difficult time for the entire Robinson family. They will need that pastoral support more now than at any time in the past, and their church has promised to give it. To be surrounded by such caring, non-judgmental, supportive Christian friends is a rare privilege, not seen in too many churches in Northern Ireland today. Their church will love the sinner without condoning their sin.
Had they belonged elsewhere, the pastoral support would not have been forthcoming, at least not in many churches. But while many of their political colleagues will be very worried about their seats in Stormont and at Westminster, Peter might not have many friends left within the DUP! They will need, and will receive, pastoral support from their church.
To be shown God's amazing grace through the church is simply what the church is there to do, amongst other things. To be taken into the very bosom of their heavenly Father will convey the spiritual healing they will need. Grace is always shown to the undeserving, indeed to those who deserve the very opposite. Grace does not fix anything, but it does empower people to live above their circumstances. And it takes grace to show grace.
Perhaps the reason why this needy family will be shown grace from their church is because grace reigns in that church. Those churches that have a track record of refusing to show grace to the erring, to those in difficulties or trouble, demonstrate that grace is absent from their church and from the lives of their members and ministers, despite their claim to hold to the doctrines of grace. A caring church cannot be created by men, however hard they try; it is something created by God. It would appear that God is not at work in many churches today, nor in too many church members, despite their confident claim that God is in their church!
What Christ was teaching is that we, as Christians, are not to judge in a way that is censorious, and comes from a self-righteous heart. Neither are we to judge harshly, nor must we make much more of the sins we see in others than we do of our own sins. For if we judge others harshly and without mercy, compassion or love, then we can but expect the selfsame judgment from others when we sin.
I am sure we all know people who have been so destructive, so negative, so ruthless and merciless in their judgment of others; such self-righteous 'judges' cannot expect anything different from those who judge them when they transgress. Indeed, self-righteous judges of others can only expect severe and merciless judgment from God on the last day. Such forthcoming judgment is evidence of a horribly wrong heart, one that is callous, cold, unfeeling.
The Robinsons - Peter is the First Minister of the Executive in Northern Ireland, and his wife is Iris - are a case in point. Perhaps no more censorious couple can be imagined anywhere. The intemperate language they employed to destroy their political enemies was thought to be unacceptable by decent people, although their followers enjoyed it immensely. The party of which he is the leader - at the moment, at least - has been trained by its founder, Dr Ian Paisley, to destroy everyone and everything that stood in the way of political success. Truthfulness did not seem to matter because winning at the polls was all that mattered. This party, the DUP, has destroyed every unionist leader in Northern Ireland since the 1960s - O'Neill, Chicester-Clark, West, Faulkner, and laterally Trimble. They set out to judge these civic leaders with a view to their destruction and failure, and succeeded, believing themselves to be impervious to negative circumstances, impregnable, un-defeatable.
But God had to teach these arrogant and self-righteous people that He is not mocked, and that whatever a man sows, that shall he also reap. If you sow to the wind, you will reap the whirlwind. If you judge others harshly, you will be judged in exactly the same manner.
The arrogant criticism of other 'good' men appeared to be the stock in trade of these two politicians - Peter and Iris Robinson. Their entire political careers were predicated, it was believed, on winning at all costs. Many a good man was totally destroyed by this party, and it was believed, by this couple! Isn't it salutary that those who build their careers of such a sandy foundation cannot expect to survive when the real storms arrive?
But the hypocrisy of their behaviour was and is evident to all. This is perhaps the hardest aspect of the situation to accept. While Iris was forthright and clear in her public condemnation of homosexuality, a position that many Christians would also accept, the time-line suggests that as she made this pronouncement, she may have been 'grooming' the teenager for a sexual liaison some short time in the future. However, this will all come out in the near future.
This should not come as any great surprise, of course. This same party went out of its way to criticise its political opponents in the Ulster Unionist Party for what they regarded as the disastrous Belfast Agreement, which, they claimed, was a staging post for a united Ireland, and totally opposed to what unionists traditionally stood for. The criticism and condemnation was piled on, on a daily basis, causing division not only within other parties, but within families and churches.
Yet, what Peter Robinson and his party, the DUP, accepted at St Andrews was significantly worse for unionism than that negotiated by Trimble. On Trimble's watch, there were only two politicians linked with the IRA terrorist machine, whereas under Paisley's watch, this had increased to five! Yet, they condemned Trimble for doing what he did, and laid it on him and his party with not even a smell of mercy or understanding. But the birds come home to roost, do they not?
Yes, Trimble's political career in Northern Ireland came to an end, as all political careers do, some in ignominy; but it came as a result of politics working itself out at the polls. In the Robinsons' case, their political careers will end differently - Iris's in ignominy and disgrace, and Peter's not far behind hers.
It is extremely sad that these politicians were unable to see that it is not how men judge others that really counts, but how God judges them, the only One Who can judge righteous judgment. When the Robinsons judged so harshly their political rivals, or even people they did not like or were viewed as a threat to their progress, they did not see into the hearts of those criticised. They did not know their hearts, nor could they.
I remember being present, with my wife and young family, at a loyalist event in Magherafelt almost 20 years ago, and at which the main speakers were senior members of the DUP; the personality assassination of political and religious opponents, the mimicking that went on, the mocking of those who had speech impediments, the taking down of the 'dress sense' of those they criticised, and the resultant jubilation of the supportive crowd that attended, is storing up an awful day of judgment for themselves, a judgment that might come long before the last Day, as it has done for the Robinsons and the entire DUP, and has thrown into question the entire political scenario in Northern Ireland.
Yet, it is extremely sad that any family should end up in this undesirable position, one that no decent person would wish on their worst enemies. The hurt they must be feeling, the sense of shame and betrayal, the disappointment, the future careers of the present and next generation, these are all painfully real. Peter had worked all his life to become the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland; now this is collapsing in tatters around his feet. His predecessor's political career, Dr Paisley, came to an abrupt end, and people still ask, "Did he jump, or was he pushed," a question still not answered. Now Peter will, in all likelihood, follow Iris into the political wilderness.
If there is anything good to come out of this, it is the fact that they belong to what seems to be a caring Christian church, the Metropolitan Tabernacle in Belfast. The pastor has said repeatedly that the church will help and support them, and love them, and work to see them through this terrible personal tragedy. Had they belonged to any other Christian church in Northern Ireland, they would have been ostracised, ignored, condemned, rejected, alienated, tramped upon, ministers and members told to have nothing to do with them, criticised, talked about behind backs, shown pretend love and consideration, and so on, ad infinitum. But their church family at the Metropolitan Tabernacle will be there for them at this extremely difficult time for the entire Robinson family. They will need that pastoral support more now than at any time in the past, and their church has promised to give it. To be surrounded by such caring, non-judgmental, supportive Christian friends is a rare privilege, not seen in too many churches in Northern Ireland today. Their church will love the sinner without condoning their sin.
Had they belonged elsewhere, the pastoral support would not have been forthcoming, at least not in many churches. But while many of their political colleagues will be very worried about their seats in Stormont and at Westminster, Peter might not have many friends left within the DUP! They will need, and will receive, pastoral support from their church.
To be shown God's amazing grace through the church is simply what the church is there to do, amongst other things. To be taken into the very bosom of their heavenly Father will convey the spiritual healing they will need. Grace is always shown to the undeserving, indeed to those who deserve the very opposite. Grace does not fix anything, but it does empower people to live above their circumstances. And it takes grace to show grace.
Perhaps the reason why this needy family will be shown grace from their church is because grace reigns in that church. Those churches that have a track record of refusing to show grace to the erring, to those in difficulties or trouble, demonstrate that grace is absent from their church and from the lives of their members and ministers, despite their claim to hold to the doctrines of grace. A caring church cannot be created by men, however hard they try; it is something created by God. It would appear that God is not at work in many churches today, nor in too many church members, despite their confident claim that God is in their church!
Tuesday, 5 January 2010
Presbyterian Moderator would have attended Funeral Mass
An overnight illness prevented Presbyterian Moderator, Dr Stafford Carson, attending the funeral of Cardinal Daly on Tuesday 5th January 2010. From this press report, it is clear that this leading reformed, evangelical and Presbyterian minister was fully intending to attend this funeral Mass for one of the Pope's official representatives in Ireland.
Dr Carson, quite clearly, saw no contradiction in being a reformed evangelical minister, and attending the funeral mass for the late Cardinal. Having subscribed the Westminster Confession of Faith as the confession of his faith, he, in effect, and by his actions, stated that he no longer believed what the official faith of his church is. Perhaps as Moderator of his church's General Assembly - Presbyterianism's fancy name for 'chairman' - he has also called a truce on his earlier Gospel position, to enable him to attend this blasphemous ceremony.
When he was appointed to this position, Dr Carson, who used to be a firm critic of the ordination of women to the Christian ministry, and refused to exchange pulpits with his neighbouring female minister who belonged to the same denomination and ministered in the same town, as was customary at Christmas time, called a truce on the women's ordination issue for the duration of his year of office.
Now, another truce has been called, this time on the blasphemous nature of Roman Catholicism's Mass. This denial of the Christian Gospel that the Mass is, states that what Christ did on Calvary was not finished, and has to be repeated continually by the church. The Roman Mass is what does this.
For Dr Carson to have been present at this blasphemous celebration would have constituted a denial of the Gospel.
This raises the further issue of what exactly it is that Dr Carson preaches to his congregation week by week! His current practice will mean that he will no longer teach the wrongness of the ordination of women to the Christian eldership, or even that the Mass is a blasphemous act that really denies the Christian Gospel.
To give official recognition to the representative of AntiChrist in Ireland is what could be expected of a 'clergyman' from any other church; but for a reformed, evangelical, Presbyterian minister to do so is inexplicable. It also represents a further humiliation of the church's good Christian people, if not another form of abuse used by this denomination.
What is happening within reformed evangelicalism? Earlier in these posts, I highlighted the romanising tendencies within, and spear-headed by, evangelicals! These also have to do with the sacraments! How is it that covert romanising surfaces in relation to the sacraments! What is happening within evangelicalism? Is there a lack of sound biblical instruction? Is the church's failure to root its teaching in historical and theological ideas part of the reason why many Christians have no historical perspective for their faith? Is this a real problem, or an imaginary one? Why has ecumenism been so successful that it has now conquered large swathes of reformed evangelicalism? It has done this, and been promoted by, liberal churches, but even now the evangelicals within these liberal churches have succumbed to militant ecumenism!
The only good thing is that there are still some reformed Christians who do not embrace this anti-Christian teaching. These have remained outside the camp, and have maintained their spiritual and theological integrity. Even the "purest forms" of reformed Christianity have no difficulty in inviting ministers like Dr Carson to address their conventions! Do they not know? Are they not aware of what is going on? Has ignorance gripped even the 'purest' forms of reformed Christianity?
Dr Carson would have been there at that funeral mass for the representative of antiChrist in Ireland, had God not intervened and brought illness his way. Or, to be really naughty and cynical, did he really have an illness, and was this a believable ploy that he used to get himself out of a tricky and embarrassing situation? Only Dr Carson can answer these questions.
Thank God for those who are still holding the line and maintaining the faith. May God bless their faithfulness and their witness to the Gospel.
Dr Carson, quite clearly, saw no contradiction in being a reformed evangelical minister, and attending the funeral mass for the late Cardinal. Having subscribed the Westminster Confession of Faith as the confession of his faith, he, in effect, and by his actions, stated that he no longer believed what the official faith of his church is. Perhaps as Moderator of his church's General Assembly - Presbyterianism's fancy name for 'chairman' - he has also called a truce on his earlier Gospel position, to enable him to attend this blasphemous ceremony.
When he was appointed to this position, Dr Carson, who used to be a firm critic of the ordination of women to the Christian ministry, and refused to exchange pulpits with his neighbouring female minister who belonged to the same denomination and ministered in the same town, as was customary at Christmas time, called a truce on the women's ordination issue for the duration of his year of office.
Now, another truce has been called, this time on the blasphemous nature of Roman Catholicism's Mass. This denial of the Christian Gospel that the Mass is, states that what Christ did on Calvary was not finished, and has to be repeated continually by the church. The Roman Mass is what does this.
For Dr Carson to have been present at this blasphemous celebration would have constituted a denial of the Gospel.
This raises the further issue of what exactly it is that Dr Carson preaches to his congregation week by week! His current practice will mean that he will no longer teach the wrongness of the ordination of women to the Christian eldership, or even that the Mass is a blasphemous act that really denies the Christian Gospel.
To give official recognition to the representative of AntiChrist in Ireland is what could be expected of a 'clergyman' from any other church; but for a reformed, evangelical, Presbyterian minister to do so is inexplicable. It also represents a further humiliation of the church's good Christian people, if not another form of abuse used by this denomination.
What is happening within reformed evangelicalism? Earlier in these posts, I highlighted the romanising tendencies within, and spear-headed by, evangelicals! These also have to do with the sacraments! How is it that covert romanising surfaces in relation to the sacraments! What is happening within evangelicalism? Is there a lack of sound biblical instruction? Is the church's failure to root its teaching in historical and theological ideas part of the reason why many Christians have no historical perspective for their faith? Is this a real problem, or an imaginary one? Why has ecumenism been so successful that it has now conquered large swathes of reformed evangelicalism? It has done this, and been promoted by, liberal churches, but even now the evangelicals within these liberal churches have succumbed to militant ecumenism!
The only good thing is that there are still some reformed Christians who do not embrace this anti-Christian teaching. These have remained outside the camp, and have maintained their spiritual and theological integrity. Even the "purest forms" of reformed Christianity have no difficulty in inviting ministers like Dr Carson to address their conventions! Do they not know? Are they not aware of what is going on? Has ignorance gripped even the 'purest' forms of reformed Christianity?
Dr Carson would have been there at that funeral mass for the representative of antiChrist in Ireland, had God not intervened and brought illness his way. Or, to be really naughty and cynical, did he really have an illness, and was this a believable ploy that he used to get himself out of a tricky and embarrassing situation? Only Dr Carson can answer these questions.
Thank God for those who are still holding the line and maintaining the faith. May God bless their faithfulness and their witness to the Gospel.
Monday, 28 December 2009
Is the Offering an Act of Worship?
Really, for a minister to state and suggest that the taking up of the offering and tithes of worshippers was an act of worship, is ridiculous! This is how we get money from attendees to run the church and its programmes! Yet, Sunday by Sunday, congregations are bombarded with the words, or similar, "Let us worship God with our tithes and offerings. Your offering will now be received."
Now, when the minister calls the congregation to worship God, I take it that that is what he expects the congregation to do. When the living God is being worshipped, one would expect that their hearts and minds would be focused on that activity, and on nothing else! When they are called to pray, their souls are to be engaged in speaking to Almighty God. When they are called to sing praise to the Lord, again, the expectation is that hearts and minds are zoomed in on worshipping God. This is all they are supposed to be doing at that particular time!
But when they are equally sincerely called to worship as they make their offering for His work, the situation is totally changed. Indeed, it is not just changed, it is the very opposite of what the minister called the people to do!
Why do I say that? Because in my experience, when the minister calls for an act of worship when the offering is being made, this call is re-interpreted as permission to enter into a trivial chat with your nearest neighbour. Its an interlude, the short period after the commercial break, or announcements. Its a chance to catch up on the latest evangelical gossip. Its time for a break from concentrating on God.
And even when some worshippers want to use that time to worship the Lord and to reflect on Him and His gospel, a pew-sharer prefers to enter into an irrelevant conversation about something of interest to them. Such unspiritual behaviour is unacceptable.
When a duly ordained minister calls the congregation to worship God as it makes its offering, it is that precise thing that he expects the worshippers to do. In this act of worship, the worshippers are to give their hearts and lives to God as an offering, just as they give their money to support the work of the gospel. Their offering is a token of what is really in their hearts towards God. It is them giving themselves freely and willingly to the Lord. They are saying to the Lord, 'Use me in your service just as you would use my money.' And just as the money has no say in how it is to be used, so the submissive Christian has no say as to how God will choose to use him/her in His holy service. It is a giving of ourselves to the gracious Lord for His use, a handing over of our lives to Him.
What puzzles me is how Christian worshippers can do all this when they are engaging in meaningless chit-chat with their neighbour, while disobeying the call to worship God! Why do ministers not teach their congregations about the nature of worship, or indeed, the true nature of the God Who is to be worshipped? Or, if the 'offering' is not an integral element of the service of holy worship of the living God, then let us be honest enough to say just that! But let's stop the pretense, and say it as it is practised in today's diluted church!
Now, when the minister calls the congregation to worship God, I take it that that is what he expects the congregation to do. When the living God is being worshipped, one would expect that their hearts and minds would be focused on that activity, and on nothing else! When they are called to pray, their souls are to be engaged in speaking to Almighty God. When they are called to sing praise to the Lord, again, the expectation is that hearts and minds are zoomed in on worshipping God. This is all they are supposed to be doing at that particular time!
But when they are equally sincerely called to worship as they make their offering for His work, the situation is totally changed. Indeed, it is not just changed, it is the very opposite of what the minister called the people to do!
Why do I say that? Because in my experience, when the minister calls for an act of worship when the offering is being made, this call is re-interpreted as permission to enter into a trivial chat with your nearest neighbour. Its an interlude, the short period after the commercial break, or announcements. Its a chance to catch up on the latest evangelical gossip. Its time for a break from concentrating on God.
And even when some worshippers want to use that time to worship the Lord and to reflect on Him and His gospel, a pew-sharer prefers to enter into an irrelevant conversation about something of interest to them. Such unspiritual behaviour is unacceptable.
When a duly ordained minister calls the congregation to worship God as it makes its offering, it is that precise thing that he expects the worshippers to do. In this act of worship, the worshippers are to give their hearts and lives to God as an offering, just as they give their money to support the work of the gospel. Their offering is a token of what is really in their hearts towards God. It is them giving themselves freely and willingly to the Lord. They are saying to the Lord, 'Use me in your service just as you would use my money.' And just as the money has no say in how it is to be used, so the submissive Christian has no say as to how God will choose to use him/her in His holy service. It is a giving of ourselves to the gracious Lord for His use, a handing over of our lives to Him.
What puzzles me is how Christian worshippers can do all this when they are engaging in meaningless chit-chat with their neighbour, while disobeying the call to worship God! Why do ministers not teach their congregations about the nature of worship, or indeed, the true nature of the God Who is to be worshipped? Or, if the 'offering' is not an integral element of the service of holy worship of the living God, then let us be honest enough to say just that! But let's stop the pretense, and say it as it is practised in today's diluted church!
Thursday, 24 December 2009
Oy Vey in a Manger!
This excellent article is printed here on 24th December 2009 to help you read the NT accounts of Jesus' birth much more accurately, thus exposing some of the mythology that surrounds the Saviour's birth.
Mike Moore casts a sideways look at some assumptions about the birth of Messiah and concludes that they ain’t necessarily so.
The most enduring images of the birth of Jesus, perpetuated through paintings, literature, Christmas carols, nativity plays and sermons, is that the Lord of glory was born in a stable because there was “no room in the inn”. Even though the carols and some of our English Bible versions call Bethlehem a “town” or a “city,” in New Testament times, it would have been a village too small to support an inn. Also, inns were normally found only on major roads, especially the Roman ones, but Bethlehem was not on a major road.
Lost in translation
The misunderstanding is due to our English Bibles. The Greek word, katalyma, should never have been translated “inn”, as it is in Luke 2:7. The 1395 edition of John Wycliffe’s translation of Luke 2:7 reads: “And sche bare hir first borun sone, and wlappide hym in clothis, and leide hym in a cratche, for ther was no place to hym in no chaumbir.” For reasons known only to themselves, William Tyndale and the translators of the Geneva Bible and the Authorised Version opted for “inn” rather than “chaumber”. And so it has continued. The two exceptions to this translational custom are The New English Bible and David Stern’s The Jewish New Testament. The NEB translates Luke 2:7 as: “She wrapped him in his swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them to lodge in the house.” The JNT renders Luke 2:7 as: “She wrapped him in cloth and laid him down in a feeding trough, because there was no space for them in the living quarters.”
In Luke 22:11 and Mark 14:14 (the only other places in the New Testament where the word appears), katalyma clearly does not mean an inn: “Then he shall show you a large, furnished upper room [katalyma] ...” (Luke 22:11.). If Luke had intended to refer to a commercial hostelry in chapter 2, he would have used pandocheion, the very word he uses in the parable of the Good Samaritan in 10:25-37: “... he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn [pandocheion], and took care of him.” The 1915 edition of The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia observes that “Luke with his usual care distinguishes between [katalyma] and pandocheion, and his use of the verb katalúō (Luke 9:12; Luke19:7) makes his meaning clear... It is the word used of the ‘upper room’ where the Last Supper was held (Mark 14:14; Luke 22:11, ‘guest-chamber’), and of the place of reception in Bethlehem where Joseph and Mary failed to find quarters (Luke 2:7). It thus corresponds to the spare or upper room in a private house or in a village...” (available online at www.bible-history. com/isbe/I/INN).
...in a lowly cattle shed?
In Luke’s birth narrative, the Messiah was laid in a manger from which animals ate. Does that not strongly suggest a birth in a stable? According to the Biblical and Middle Eastern scholar, Kenneth Bailey, from the time of King David until the mid-twentieth century, most village homes in Israel and the Middle East consisted of two rooms; one for the family and the other for guests. The family room had an area, usually about four feet lower than the living space, in which the family donkey, cow and two or three sheep spent the night. The animals were brought into the house last thing at night and taken outside first thing in the morning. In the house they ate from mangers dug out of the stone floor of the raised family living area. The katalyma was the room reserved for guests and visitors. Contrary to the traditional Christmas story, Mary was not in labour when she and Joseph arrived in Bethlehem. Luke 2:6 records, “So it was, that while they were there [not upon arrival], the days were completed for her to be delivered.” The ESV reads, “And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth.” How could we have ever concluded from the biblical text that Mary was in labour at the time she and Joseph arrived in Bethlehem? The idea may have originated with a second-century apocryphal work of fiction, The Protevangelium of James: “And they came to the midst of the way, and Mary said unto him: Take me down from the ass, for that which is within me presseth me, to come forth. And he took her down from the ass and said unto her: Whither shall I take thee to hide thy shame? for the place is desert.” (Protevangelium of James 17:8, available online at www.earlychristianwritings.com/infancyjames.html).
No crib for a bed
Matthew records that when the magi arrived in Bethlehem they entered “the house,” not “the stable”, and there they “fell down and worshipped Him” (Mt. 2:11). Jews and Arabs have traditionally placed a high value on family and hospitality, so when Caesar Augustus decreed that the Jewish population of ancient Israel had to return to their home towns to register for the census, Joseph went to Bethlehem “because he belonged to the house and line of David”(Luke 2:4). “To turn away a descendant of David in ‘the City of David’ would be an unspeakable shame on the entire village,” writes Kenneth Bailey in Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes (p. 26). Even if there had been no room to stay with Joseph’s relatives in Bethlehem, no village in the hill country of Judea was more than an hours ride on donkey from Bethlehem, so Joseph could easily have taken his betrothed to her relatives, Elizabeth and Zechariah.
From these considerations, we can construct a more accurate scenario of the events surrounding the birth of Messiah. Joseph and his pregnant fiancée Mary made their way to this ancestral village of Bethlehem for the census decreed by Caesar. There, he and Mary stayed with Joseph’s relatives for the remainder of her pregnancy in a home which was crowded due to the census being taken and where there was no longer any space in “the guest room”. Consequently, Mary gave birth to her child in the family room and the baby was placed on clean straw in one of the stone mangers. The birth of the Lord of glory was indeed humble but the manger in which he was laid was in a warm, friendly family home, not in a cold, dirty and lonely stable.
This is not a call to preachers to devote their Christmas sermons to denouncing the traditional misunderstandings of the birth of Messiah. Still less is it an encouragement to ministers to ignore the festive season and to steer clear of preaching on the nativity. It is a plea for more careful reading, exegesis and exposition of Scripture in order to draw out better and more appropriate applications from the text of the Bible.
Mike Moore
The misunderstanding is due to our English Bibles. The Greek word, katalyma, should never have been translated “inn”, as it is in Luke 2:7. The 1395 edition of John Wycliffe’s translation of Luke 2:7 reads: “And sche bare hir first borun sone, and wlappide hym in clothis, and leide hym in a cratche, for ther was no place to hym in no chaumbir.” For reasons known only to themselves, William Tyndale and the translators of the Geneva Bible and the Authorised Version opted for “inn” rather than “chaumber”. And so it has continued. The two exceptions to this translational custom are The New English Bible and David Stern’s The Jewish New Testament. The NEB translates Luke 2:7 as: “She wrapped him in his swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them to lodge in the house.” The JNT renders Luke 2:7 as: “She wrapped him in cloth and laid him down in a feeding trough, because there was no space for them in the living quarters.”
In Luke 22:11 and Mark 14:14 (the only other places in the New Testament where the word appears), katalyma clearly does not mean an inn: “Then he shall show you a large, furnished upper room [katalyma] ...” (Luke 22:11.). If Luke had intended to refer to a commercial hostelry in chapter 2, he would have used pandocheion, the very word he uses in the parable of the Good Samaritan in 10:25-37: “... he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn [pandocheion], and took care of him.” The 1915 edition of The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia observes that “Luke with his usual care distinguishes between [katalyma] and pandocheion, and his use of the verb katalúō (Luke 9:12; Luke19:7) makes his meaning clear... It is the word used of the ‘upper room’ where the Last Supper was held (Mark 14:14; Luke 22:11, ‘guest-chamber’), and of the place of reception in Bethlehem where Joseph and Mary failed to find quarters (Luke 2:7). It thus corresponds to the spare or upper room in a private house or in a village...” (available online at www.bible-history. com/isbe/I/INN).
...in a lowly cattle shed?
In Luke’s birth narrative, the Messiah was laid in a manger from which animals ate. Does that not strongly suggest a birth in a stable? According to the Biblical and Middle Eastern scholar, Kenneth Bailey, from the time of King David until the mid-twentieth century, most village homes in Israel and the Middle East consisted of two rooms; one for the family and the other for guests. The family room had an area, usually about four feet lower than the living space, in which the family donkey, cow and two or three sheep spent the night. The animals were brought into the house last thing at night and taken outside first thing in the morning. In the house they ate from mangers dug out of the stone floor of the raised family living area. The katalyma was the room reserved for guests and visitors. Contrary to the traditional Christmas story, Mary was not in labour when she and Joseph arrived in Bethlehem. Luke 2:6 records, “So it was, that while they were there [not upon arrival], the days were completed for her to be delivered.” The ESV reads, “And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth.” How could we have ever concluded from the biblical text that Mary was in labour at the time she and Joseph arrived in Bethlehem? The idea may have originated with a second-century apocryphal work of fiction, The Protevangelium of James: “And they came to the midst of the way, and Mary said unto him: Take me down from the ass, for that which is within me presseth me, to come forth. And he took her down from the ass and said unto her: Whither shall I take thee to hide thy shame? for the place is desert.” (Protevangelium of James 17:8, available online at www.earlychristianwritings.com/infancyjames.html).
No crib for a bed
Matthew records that when the magi arrived in Bethlehem they entered “the house,” not “the stable”, and there they “fell down and worshipped Him” (Mt. 2:11). Jews and Arabs have traditionally placed a high value on family and hospitality, so when Caesar Augustus decreed that the Jewish population of ancient Israel had to return to their home towns to register for the census, Joseph went to Bethlehem “because he belonged to the house and line of David”(Luke 2:4). “To turn away a descendant of David in ‘the City of David’ would be an unspeakable shame on the entire village,” writes Kenneth Bailey in Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes (p. 26). Even if there had been no room to stay with Joseph’s relatives in Bethlehem, no village in the hill country of Judea was more than an hours ride on donkey from Bethlehem, so Joseph could easily have taken his betrothed to her relatives, Elizabeth and Zechariah.
From these considerations, we can construct a more accurate scenario of the events surrounding the birth of Messiah. Joseph and his pregnant fiancée Mary made their way to this ancestral village of Bethlehem for the census decreed by Caesar. There, he and Mary stayed with Joseph’s relatives for the remainder of her pregnancy in a home which was crowded due to the census being taken and where there was no longer any space in “the guest room”. Consequently, Mary gave birth to her child in the family room and the baby was placed on clean straw in one of the stone mangers. The birth of the Lord of glory was indeed humble but the manger in which he was laid was in a warm, friendly family home, not in a cold, dirty and lonely stable.
This is not a call to preachers to devote their Christmas sermons to denouncing the traditional misunderstandings of the birth of Messiah. Still less is it an encouragement to ministers to ignore the festive season and to steer clear of preaching on the nativity. It is a plea for more careful reading, exegesis and exposition of Scripture in order to draw out better and more appropriate applications from the text of the Bible.
Mike Moore
This article was first published in the Herald, the official organ of Christian Witness to Israel, in December 2009.
Tuesday, 22 December 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)