The religion of the 'good pagan' is of purely human, this-worldly, origin and orientation. He calls it 'Christian,' but it has no need of Christ as Saviour and Lord, therefore has nothing to do with the historic and biblical Christian faith.
It is centred on self - how good he is and how much better he is than many Christians. It glories in the kind of life lived with only a formal relation to God, but no dependence upon Him.
His is a morality that owes nothing to Christ or on what He did on the Cross, and everything to himself. Christ simply does not enter the equation.
Religious observances are purely outward, there being no heart in them. They are religious rites that are not right.
When he sings praise, this is a form of enjoyment much akin to what is sung in the bar, only this is religious singing, the other is not. He knows the words and likes the tunes, but beyond that there isn't much.
When (or if) he reads the Bible, it bears no more relation to him than if it was a John Wayne comic story. Its just another religious book! Indeed, the Bible is not a much read Book. Different from the newspapers, including the notorious Sunday papers.
When he gives, it is to ensure the minister calls and 'says a wee prayer' when he or a family member is ill, and also to ensure two other important things: that he is buried by the church, and is assured a place in heaven.
In short, his religion has no place for Christ, no place for His death on the Cross as mankind's only hope for eternity, no personal relationship with Him, has never trusted Him personally for his salvation, and in fact just does not need Him or His righteousness. His own righteousness is sufficient to satisfy God at the judgement Day, he argues. So good is this pagan that it never occurs to him that Christ died for him because his own righteousness is like "filthy rags" in His sight, and therefore no good to be accepted by God.
But he just cannot or will not see this. The 'god of this world' (Satan) has blinded the eyes of those who believe not, so that they cannot believe! Their blind unbelief has been used by Satan to keep them from believing. But the responsibility will rest squarely on their shoulders when they wake up in Hell.
So right are they in their own eyes that they actually despise those who claim to have been saved by Christ. And why do they despise other believers? Because in their self-righteous hearts, they despise the truly righteous Christ Himself.
In order to justify himself, he resorts to some known imperfection in another's life, of which there are many, both the seen and the unseen. He thinks this comparison justifies his paganism. But it does not!
The modern pagan is a stranger to God, and puts down any goodness in him to his own works, his own religious efforts. It had all to do with himself, and nothing to do with Christ. A man who has no place in his heart for Christ is not Christian, whatever else he might imagine his religion to be. It is not God's revealed religion in the Scriptures or in Christ, therefore cannot, by definition, be Christian.
As a stranger to God, he is obviously a stranger to grace. For God is the God of all grace. And if a man is a stranger to grace, he has no part or parcel in the pilgrim band that is on its way to Heaven. He is a lost soul!
The pagan's religion is one of arrogant self-satisfaction. He is so pleased with himself that for anyone to suggest differently is ridiculed. He accepts that he is s sinner like everyone else, but has never been brought to see himself as a lost, hell-deserving sinner. Never has he viewed his sin as divine wrath-provoking. His religion does not allow him to see the God he claims to worship as being angry at his rebellion against Him, so imagines, vainly, that all is well with his soul.
In fact, it is questionable if he even believes he has or is a soul. He has taken in the absurdity proffered by some GPs that they have never seen a soul in any person they examined or dissected. Such smart-alec talk is unimpressive, and tells us nothing about the facts, but plenty about these self-styled experts in everything.
Have these 'professionals' ever seen electricity? No. But they have seen the positive and negative effects of it and would never dream of being irresponsible in its use.
Such 'smart' pagans lead other 'good' pagans astray because the latter believe that since these 'professonals' know a lot about a little, they assume that they know everything about everything. This is patently untrue. In fact, they know nothing about the things that matter most - a sinner's right relationship with God through Christ alone.
Sadly, all 'ministers' are not good spiritual guides, although this is what they are supposed to be. Some are excellent guides on spiritual matters, and are indispensable to a person's total well-being. But that's a discussion for another day.
Friday, 26 February 2010
The Suffering Servants of Christ
A saint cannot serve if he is not prepared to suffer ... because all servants have a cross that comes with their calling. So wrote the Puritan William Gurnall in 1662.
One of the clear qualifications of a calling to the Christian ministry is the willingness to suffer for the sake of Christ and the Gospel. The Gospel is God's 'change agent' in the world, and change will be contested at every point by that God-defying world. Change is an unwelcome intrusion into a comfortably sinful world (and church), and will be resisted at every stage once change has been proposed.
But the called minister will have already embraced the hostile resistance to him and his message, and be prepared to suffer for it, long before he has been ordained to the Christian ministry. He will have 'considered' and 'reckoned' what ordination to the Christian ministry will cost, and concluded that he is prepared to accept the attendant suffering.
This suffering will be completely misunderstood by the unbelieving world, and also by the unbelieving church, a fact that, in itself, adds to the minister's suffering. Sometimes, he will misunderstand it himself, and even his own family, his nearest and dearest, will not understand the situation. As Gurnall do rightly says, 'Whoever may be the instrument of trouble to a saint, the sword is always in God's control.'
But, if he is not prepared to suffer, even greviously, he has disqualified himself from service in Christ's Kingdom! If he is not prepared to walk the same road his Master trod, service for his Master is impossible! Service in Christ's Kingdom is predicated on daily and willing cross-bearing. How sad and pathetic are those usurpers in Christ's church who seek 'peace at any price, or none,' for the sake of 'getting on' with their people and in their chosen 'career'! How cowardly are those who run close to the world in some vain attempt to gain and hold its worldly young people! It is clear from this that such men are not serving the Christ Who revealed Himself in the Scriptures, but another Christ made in their own image. He is not the Saviour Who suffered and died for the world on Calvary. Nor is He the Lord who told His disciplines that if they refused to take up their cross daily and follow Him, they could not be His disciples. He was
disqualifying them for service in His Kingdom.
Oh, how sweet and disturbing a thing it is to realise that it is the Lord Who determines the qualifications for service, and Who will remove from His service those who do not meet His criteria.
That does not necessarily mean, of course, that men who once served in the church and are no longer there, have been removed from the church by the church's Lord because they were disqualified for service! Hardly. It is often the case that the gracious Lord showed His compassion and tender care to His faithful servants who were suffering at the hands of the church because of her unwillingness to serve her suffering Lord! To follow the Lord against all pressure is to display a humility and obedient spirit that is most rare!
As Gurnall says, if there is no cross in a man's calling, the calling is absent. Ministers who are at ease in the Christian ministry are as ugly as members who are at ease in Zion.
Hence every minister can test his calling by the presence of the Cross. Those men who do not preach the Cross - and I'm not talking about preaching 'about' the Cross, for there is a difference- will never experience what it means to suffer as a Christian minister. If the suffering is because of faithfulness to the self-crucifying ministry of the cross-centred Gospel, then that man has been truly and divinely called to the work of the ministry; but if that man has concocted an admixture of Gospel and world, and suffers for that, then he needs to make speedy and radical amends. But if he has forsaken the Cross for a life of ease, then he had better examine the foundations once again; his ministry is resting on very shaky foundations. And who suffers as a consequence? Himself, his congregation and the entire Christian church worldwide.
In conclusion, if the Cross is absent, so also is the calling. If God's servants actually flee the Cross - and such is unknown within even reformed evangelicalism - then they are usurping the place God had set apart for His true servants. No minister can serve the Suffering Saviour who does not himself suffer for that Saviour.
One of the clear qualifications of a calling to the Christian ministry is the willingness to suffer for the sake of Christ and the Gospel. The Gospel is God's 'change agent' in the world, and change will be contested at every point by that God-defying world. Change is an unwelcome intrusion into a comfortably sinful world (and church), and will be resisted at every stage once change has been proposed.
But the called minister will have already embraced the hostile resistance to him and his message, and be prepared to suffer for it, long before he has been ordained to the Christian ministry. He will have 'considered' and 'reckoned' what ordination to the Christian ministry will cost, and concluded that he is prepared to accept the attendant suffering.
This suffering will be completely misunderstood by the unbelieving world, and also by the unbelieving church, a fact that, in itself, adds to the minister's suffering. Sometimes, he will misunderstand it himself, and even his own family, his nearest and dearest, will not understand the situation. As Gurnall do rightly says, 'Whoever may be the instrument of trouble to a saint, the sword is always in God's control.'
But, if he is not prepared to suffer, even greviously, he has disqualified himself from service in Christ's Kingdom! If he is not prepared to walk the same road his Master trod, service for his Master is impossible! Service in Christ's Kingdom is predicated on daily and willing cross-bearing. How sad and pathetic are those usurpers in Christ's church who seek 'peace at any price, or none,' for the sake of 'getting on' with their people and in their chosen 'career'! How cowardly are those who run close to the world in some vain attempt to gain and hold its worldly young people! It is clear from this that such men are not serving the Christ Who revealed Himself in the Scriptures, but another Christ made in their own image. He is not the Saviour Who suffered and died for the world on Calvary. Nor is He the Lord who told His disciplines that if they refused to take up their cross daily and follow Him, they could not be His disciples. He was
disqualifying them for service in His Kingdom.
Oh, how sweet and disturbing a thing it is to realise that it is the Lord Who determines the qualifications for service, and Who will remove from His service those who do not meet His criteria.
That does not necessarily mean, of course, that men who once served in the church and are no longer there, have been removed from the church by the church's Lord because they were disqualified for service! Hardly. It is often the case that the gracious Lord showed His compassion and tender care to His faithful servants who were suffering at the hands of the church because of her unwillingness to serve her suffering Lord! To follow the Lord against all pressure is to display a humility and obedient spirit that is most rare!
As Gurnall says, if there is no cross in a man's calling, the calling is absent. Ministers who are at ease in the Christian ministry are as ugly as members who are at ease in Zion.
Hence every minister can test his calling by the presence of the Cross. Those men who do not preach the Cross - and I'm not talking about preaching 'about' the Cross, for there is a difference- will never experience what it means to suffer as a Christian minister. If the suffering is because of faithfulness to the self-crucifying ministry of the cross-centred Gospel, then that man has been truly and divinely called to the work of the ministry; but if that man has concocted an admixture of Gospel and world, and suffers for that, then he needs to make speedy and radical amends. But if he has forsaken the Cross for a life of ease, then he had better examine the foundations once again; his ministry is resting on very shaky foundations. And who suffers as a consequence? Himself, his congregation and the entire Christian church worldwide.
In conclusion, if the Cross is absent, so also is the calling. If God's servants actually flee the Cross - and such is unknown within even reformed evangelicalism - then they are usurping the place God had set apart for His true servants. No minister can serve the Suffering Saviour who does not himself suffer for that Saviour.
Sunday, 24 January 2010
The Impurity of Worship
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.
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.
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)