Majoring on Minors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Psalms in Worship - a 'no-go' area

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Romanising Trends Within Mainstream Evangelicalism

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

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

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

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

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

The Church and Mission.

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

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

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

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

That Abusive Mother Church!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standing for truth!

It is quite interesting to note, even though few note it, that when truth is really promoted, whether in church or in society, it always provokes a reaction from the ungodly world. Take the preaching ministry, for example. When the Gospel is truly and relevantly preached, it stirs the ire of the ungodly. Indeed, it tackles the 'sacred cows' within that congregation or community. When 'sacred cows' are attacked by faithful preachers, they will know about it.

When a similar stand for truth and righteousness is taken in wider society, then we can but expect the self-same reaction. Truth always hurts! It irritates! It antagonises! If it doesn't, then one must ask if it is truth that is being promoted, or is it mere personal preferences that are being set forward, and not the revolutionary Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Martin Luther famously said that if a man preaches on every subject in the Bible, and refuses to deal with the openly defiant issues of the day, then he can hardly be said to be preaching the Gospel.

If Luther is correct, then much of what passes for Gospel preaching is nothing of the sort. The truth always hits home, even when it is preached or witnessed to in a manner that is less than perfect. It always provokes a reaction from the world; it never fails to stir Satan, the accuser of the brethren.

It is said of John Wesley that when he preached, there was either a revival or a riot! Sad that today, even amongst Wesley's adherents, there is little evidence of his spirit in those who love his name!

We must ask if it is possible for the Gospel to be preached when unbelievers love the preacher! When the world within the church says that the minister is very nice, then he most probably is not proclaiming Christ in all His fulness. If unbelievers can sit comfortably under his ministry, being "at ease in Zion," as Amos said, then something is tragically wrong.

Also, in society, when truth is treasured and precious, and this truth is promoted, then Satan is aroused and bears his evil teeth at those who stand for it.

What is important to know is that when the same truth is promoted, whether in the church or outside of it, the same Satan is provoked, and sets out to take action against those who are men and women of truth.

Christians must ask themselves if they are, in fact, living the truth, or are they just playing at being Christians? Do they know what true truth is (Schaeffer's phrase)? Are their lives based on true truth, or are they 'fly by nights' who have made a 'decision' about something religious, even evangelical, but are not quite sure what it was they decided?

Christians who have lost their saltiness are fit for nothing but to be thrown out and trodden underfoot by men. Beware the judgement of God!

The Sentence of Death

Paul speaks about "the sentence of death" having been passed on him, and his fellow preachers. This was a reality with which he lived on a daily basis, and experienced several attempts to make this reality materialise.

When this happens to the modern day Christian, it is amazing how the amazing grace of God comes to his aid. To know the real presence of the Spirit of God in his heart, is an all too rare felt experience, but at times of extreme challenge, this becomes a reality. To be filled with a conscious sense of the peace of God, amidst hostile external circumstances, is proof of the nearness of God to His people at all times. To have his mind filled with the comforting words of Scripture, puts iron into his faith, and enables him to stand resolute and firm whatever the circumstances.

Then in the midst of disturbing circumstances, to have Ps.46 as the daily reading, with God saying to him through His word that "[He ]was/is their refuge and strength, a very present help in time of trouble," well, that crowns it, does it not? Even though the entire physical world goes into convulsions, yet God is still the same, and can comfort His people. To "be still and know that [He] is God," is a tonic that cures all spiritual doubts.

"How good is the God we adore! Our faithful, unchangeable Friend. His love is as great as His power, and knows neither measure nor end." That's our God! How truly wonderful He is! He's our Father, in Christ. He loves us with an everlasting love. He is still the Father Who cares.