DANIEL DEFOE, ROBINSON CRUSOE (BOOK REPORT 8)

(One’s level of piety, whether devotional or practical, depends much on knowledge being either learned or misconceived. In these analyses we have made mention, occasionally, of books that either help or hinder the grand object of piety. It seems natural, consequently, to supplement the analyses, now and again, with correlating book reports.)

GABOURY’S CRITICAL BOOK REPORT

Daniel Defoe, Robinson Crusoe, (1718; London: Arcturus Publishing Limited, 2010), 287 pp.

Possibly based on the true account of Alexander Selkirk, Robinson Crusoe is set some decades before that unfortunate event, in the mid-1600’s. Against the warnings of his father and the pleadings of his mother, young Robinson Crusoe resolves to go off on adventures, which plan pans out like so: “never any young adventurer’s misfortunes, I believe, began sooner, or continued longer than mine” (p. 16.) Indeed, by the time the prodigal son returns home, his parents are no more, and he is on the verge of becoming an old man. No doubt the book’s popularity has had much to do with the obvious moral that a son disobeys his parents at his own peril. Notwithstanding the divine oversight that saves Crusoe from perishing time after time, the misfortunes that make this care necessary may be enough to discourage some young man from tempting Fate.

Though ‘something fatal in that propension of Nature’ (p. 11) is said to drive Crusoe to disobedience and misery, the effect of this reflection is not licentious. The concept of being predestinated to misery tends to produce revulsion from those acts that might fulfill the prophecy. So there is no cause to fear the book on that account.

As nearly obvious as the moral on obedience is the moral on contentment. The story may be interpreted as the fallout from not being content with what Providence has supplied. Somewhere in between poverty and riches are the safest and happiest stations in life to be found, according to Proverbs 30.8. This verse and the teachings that surround it are alluded to on page 12. In fact, the Proverb is well preached there. ‘The middle state’ is the blessing Crusoe is born into and so soon gives up at great personal cost.

The opportunities he gets to settle back into that blessed state in spite of having ‘broken through good advice’ (p. 39) is what breaks open the moral on God’s forbearance, which moral persists until Crusoe is finally brought to repentance by the fact of divine patience breaking in upon him (pp. 92, 128.) This awakening to the goodness of God causes Crusoe to rethink his past judgment of things. He had supposed that the grain springing up beside his makeshift hut was due to some miracle of Providence, for example. Then when he remembered pouring some chicken feed out where the grains were now growing, his “religious thankfulness to God’s Providence began to abate” (p. 80.) But Robinson Crusoe, once enlightened, sees that the train of events necessary to the remarkable blessing of growing grain is a wonder that merits thankfulness to God as much as a miracle would. Present-day miracle-mongers might learn from this. They are like Crusoe before his conversion: their religion is deflated so long as no miracles are happening. “And I add this part here, to hint to whoever shall read it, that whenever they come to a true sense of things, they will find deliverance from sin a much greater blessing than deliverance from affliction” (p. 96.)

Robinson Crusoe is a narrative catalogue of morals. For those seeking to learn the basics of sorrow leading to repentance in the easiest possible way, but with some force, a novel like this might faithfully serve. And it’s as clean and righteous a novel as one can wish for. Notice how discreetly Defoe describes a bodily function that your modern novelists would take advantage of for the sake of being what they call ‘true to life’: “in short, I turned away my face from the horrid spectacle; my stomach grew sick, and I was just at the point of fainting, when Nature discharged the order from my stomach” (p. 158.) Class resists the allure to be crass.

Which leads naturally to a comment or two on Daniel Defoe’s style. His sense of rhythm is superb, which he sometimes achieves by combining the right amount of syllables with similar sounding words: “It is not easy for any one, who has not been in the like condition, to describe or conceive the consternation of men in such circumstances” (p. 45.) At times he closes a sentence oddly, which keeps him from slipping into cliché boredom: “and shot him into the head again which dispatched him quite” (p. 33.) You might say that Defoe, like Crusoe, ‘called a council in his thoughts’ (p. 57) in order to arrive, only for different reasons. The novel’s faults are few and paltry. It may be that penguins never journey as far north as Trinidad (pp. 107, 200), the mention of which gives us the most certain idea of where Crusoe’s desolate island paradise generally is. Would it get dark there during the rainy season, or any time of the year, for that matter, as early as seven o’clock? (p. 79.) Such matters are not worth checking out. There’s only one cumbersome sentence in the whole book, a burdensome affair of twenty lines (p. 183.) But even this can be gotten hold of without too much strain. The worst error is Crusoe’s assumption that an anonymous kidnap victim is Christian, for which reason he fights off the savages preparing to kill and eat him (p. 216.) But this may be just Crusoe’s fault, not Defoe’s; for all we know the author put that in on purpose to show a character flaw in the chief subject of his book.  

The story of Crusoe is much occupied with relating the mundane details of how to survive and then prosper on a deserted island. A sense of wonder is maintained through all of that by observations on incidental events: “I believe it was the first gun that had been fired since the creation of the world” (p. 56.) This sense of wonder is executed by tantalizing speculations too, conjectures on the nature of what we call gut instinct (pp. 177, 230.) These lines of guesswork come right up near the edge of superstition. Maybe one of them walks off the edge into dark, dangerous territory (p. 166.) The story does contain ‘a whole collection of wonders’ (p. 238), by which is meant ‘a life of Providence’s chequerwork’ (p. 278.) But this recitation of so many wonders is a little choked by pages and pages of detail on necessity being the mother of invention on this island. Because of that, mainly, this novel, like Pilgrim’s Progress, continues longer than it should, and makes for much reading for too little gain. Had it been cut to half, the impression would have been more wonderful, and Robinson Crusoe would be known today as one of the greatest short stories. As a novel, however, it is good but not great. This edition is sketched by George Cruikshank, ‘the preeminent English caricaturist and book illustrator of the 19^th century.’ These twenty-two illustrations, along with the glossary at the end, make for pleasant, carefree reading.

Content: A- (On Disobedience, Contentment, Forbearance, Providence, and Salvation.)

    Style: A- (Extraordinary moments.)

    Tone: A- (Humble, matter-of-fact, and discreet.)

                       

Grading Table: A: a keeper: reread it; promote it; share it.

                      B: an average book: let it go.

                      C: read only if you have to.

RED DEER BIBLE BAPTIST CHURCH, A HEART TO PLEASE THE LORD (SERMON ANALYSIS 3)

October 2010

Mr. Bueckert, we have gotten around to listening to a third sermon of yours. We assume that you want listeners to listen to what you preach with all the carefulness that the Bible commands. We assume that you want them to judge whether or not your sermon conforms to the text preached on and to the Bible at large. Thank you.

Mr. Bueckert, Red Deer Bible Baptist, August 2, 2009, A Heart to Please the Lord.

Summary: Our text is in John 8. Our heart’s desire must be to please our Father. The carnal nature struggles against this. (He reads John 8.28-32, then prays.) Our Lord did not have a carnal flesh. He was tempted like us, yet without sin. Jesus was the son of Man. He laid his attributes aside. He had to grow, but not out of sin. He grew, and waxed strong in spirit. The Lord had to be taught. He learned, and submitted to what he knew. He is God, and all Man. God the Father taught God the Son. We also are in the process of learning. Then he expects us to obey. (He speaks of his past work experience.) Can we know that we please the Lord? If you go just by your conscience, you could end up doing something that is condemned by Scripture. You can grow, but you don’t have to lose your ha ha. God has a sense of humor. We must do what we say we’re going to do. If you can obey, you can know that you please the Father. Find out from the word what pleases the Father. Then do it. Set aside your own will. What pleases the Father hardly ever pleases the flesh. Your flesh will haunt you until you die. You can fall. I can fall. We must be willing to continue to change. Are you changing for the Father? Or for someone else? We need to pray for each other. Keeping the law doesn’t work. Do we have a heart to please God? Am I willing to dress modestly? (He gives an explanation on pleasing God, with examples from dressing and tithing.) We have to trust the Lord as we tithe. It is an act of faith. Going on holidays and missing church does not please God. And is it considerate of one another? Sickness, holidays, and jobs cannot be avoided. We don’t want to get into legalism. It’s about our heart. I believe in the local church. To sin is not to please the Father. (He speaks of the varieties of ways that people take the name of the Lord in vain, then finishes with prayer for obedience.)

Remarks: Mr. Bueckert encourages Bible study as the method of finding out what to obey. He does fairly well this time on the person of Jesus Christ (though he calls God ‘the guy’ at one point.) He warns against trusting our conscience, for that, like the rest of us, is corrupted. This is a truth not usually known, even amongst pastors. And so the carnal nature is preached a bit (though the doctrine of human depravity is compromised by his emphasis on man’s ability to obey the law.) He speaks of the variety of ways that people take the name of the Lord in vain. Some of these ways are so subtle and customary that this is often done without our realizing it. And so a reproof on this pervasive evil is welcome. Churchgoers are just as guilty as anyone else, probably, of using the Lord’s name unthinkingly. In some ways, they take his name in vain even more than open sinners do. This is a topic we need to hear addressed. We’re thankful that someone is dealing with it. And some specifics on how women should dress are suggested in this sermon, together with a word on why modest dress among men is not treated in the Bible. This is a neglected topic too. Mr. Bueckert is brave to speak up on it, feminism being the strength it is, not just all over the country, but even in our so-called ‘Bible belt.’ Most pastors would sink under the prospect of revolt if they should feel it necessary to do a message that might offend the Jezebels in the church. We’re glad that there’s at least one person behind one pulpit in this city who’s not scared of unleashing principles for females that feminists will gnash their teeth at. Imagine a sermon whose preacher is not ashamed to use that word (next to the word ‘submission,’ maybe) the feminists hate the most: ‘shamefacedness.’ This is a real treat!

On the other hand, this sermon is ‘the worst of times’ also. We would like to say that the sermon is moral, not in the bad sense: by a preaching of grace and heaven by the works of the law; but in the right sense: by the preaching of obedience to God from a renewed heart. But it would be overly generous to say so, for the evidence, if we can call it that, is way too thin. He does say in one place, “Keeping the law doesn’t work.” And in another place, “Do we have a heart to please God?” This is not very much to go on. It is not enough. He does not bring up the necessity of a regenerate heart as the prerequisite to pleasing the Lord. The sound this sermon makes is the hammer of salvation by works, not salvation by the cross and nail, and not even works on the ground of grace and faith. We’d like to say that he teaches obedience to God from a platform of saving grace. But the drift of the sermon is toward the worst kind of legalism: obeying God (or trying to) by our own strength. This is how the sermon will strike the internet listener who has little or no knowledge of what this church is about (though he may not be able to state the case even as well as we have here.)  The truth may be that Mr. Bueckert considers each and every member of his little flock as saved persons who need to learn no other doctrine than that which might immediately touch upon practical morality. And so in each sermon we’ve listened to so far, the basis of moral behavior is neglected, while the only thing preached upon is: do this or don’t do that. The only way to approach the sermon honestly is to judge it from the standpoint of what he actually says (not what we hope he might be trying to say) and what is left out, with special care as to who his audience is. If a pastor preaches to the world (by offering the sermon over the internet), then we must assume that when he leaves the gospel out and preaches nothing but ‘do this and don’t do that’: he therefore intends to direct sinners immediately to God without regard to Jesus Christ the Mediator, who alone can quench the wrath God presently harbors toward all condemned, unsaved sinners. In short, Christians in this church might understand this to be a sermon on obedience to the Lord who saved them through their faith in his death, which would be good; but to internet listeners it will certainly sound like a sermon on obedience that is based, not on faith in the death of Christ for sin, but on the ability, without faith, to follow Jesus’ morally perfect example. And of course, such obedience is impossible; those attempting to be accepted by God on such a basis will be damned. Any imitation of Christ will ultimately fail unless perfect obedience can be done, for perfection is what God’s law demands. Therefore the righteousness of Christ arising from his obedience must be ours by faith. “Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him [reckoned to his account] for righteousness” (James 2.23.) We may begin to obey in some acceptable fashion after that, but never acceptably for salvation. This is for Christ to do for us. None of these doctrinal basics ought to be necessary to explain in an analysis of a sermon on the text chosen by Mr. Bueckert (John 8.28-32.) There is no excuse for a pastor to leave an impression of ambiguity that needs to be deconstructed like this, for the gospel is in the very text he is preaching on, and he does nothing but avoid it!

Here, then, are our points of contention with this message. (1) It does not distinguish very much, if at all, between trying to obey the Lord with the strength of an unregenerate heart, and obeying on the basis of a salvation that has been worked into those who believe on Christ. It is difficult to know for sure what the doctrine is that he is trying to teach, for in this sermon of almost an hour almost nothing is said except repetitions about obeying some moral rules. It would not be too far off the mark to say that there is no doctrine being taught here at all. In case there might be unsaved persons listening to this over the internet, shouldn’t he make it plain what doctrine he is putting out there, if any? Does this man really think that listeners won’t take this legal-sounding sermon (as indistinct as it is) to mean that obedience to God is possible even without, or before, one goes to Christ in faith? Righteousness by the works of the law is man’s default setting. Unless it is made plain that nothing is pleasing to God without Christ’s righteousness being ours by faith, the unsaved listener will go on believing that he can come to God just as Cain falsely did, or just as the Roman Catholics vainly suppose to have the ability to do. Though the mission statement on this man’s site promises better, Mr. Bueckert teaches in a very disconnected fashion. Jesus did this; now you do that: this is what his teaching on obedience amounts to. You are urged to obey, it seems, without any connexion to Jesus at all. Like in his two other sermons that we listened to and looked at, this preaching eerily resembles that of the Unitarians. And so in the first two sermons he teaches (inadvertently, we believe and hope) that there is one person in the Godhead instead of three (like the trinity-denying Unitarians believe.) And now in this sermon he teaches that all we need to do for our spiritual well-being is to follow Jesus’ example (just as the Unitarians teach.) The redemptive provision that Christ made on the cross and that we must anchor into by faith in his name because of our disobedience, or the union with Christ by faith as the fountain from which can flow our non-meritorious works of obedience—these aspects are completely lost to Mr. Bueckert. He does not realize it, but his teaching is that Jesus saves, not through faith in his sacrificial death, but through our imitation of his life, which is the same as being saved by our works. The moral virtues of Jesus ought to be imitated, we’ll grant this as much as any Christian or moralist, and we should; but only faith in what he accomplished on the cross can save. This is what the pastor does not get.

(2) The sermon does not adhere to, nor does it draw much from, the chosen Scripture text. This is the main reason why the drift of the sermon is not plain. Mr. Bueckert doesn’t really unfold his chosen text. There is a lot more going on in John 8.28-32 than Jesus’ obedience to the Father that can be imitated by us. If this text had been truly worked out, the sermon would have been about Jesus’ obedience, alright: his vicarious, meritorious death, which was the greatest part of his obedience—the part we can’t imitate—the part we need to hear about and be saved by! If he had stuck to his text to exposit it, then the death of Christ would have been at the center (‘When ye have lifted up the Son of man’) and the whole matter of how any obedience to the Father may be done by us could have been shown to be on the basis of our faith in Jesus’ obedience to his Father as a sacrifice for our sins in order to save! Is this not what we need? Sinful men are unable to approach the Father, much less obey him. Is that a sufficient message, to just obey the Father as Jesus did? If we can do this high imitation (just obey the law), then Jesus died in vain to save us by grace and faith! “I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain” (Galatians 2.21.) It is a strange thing, though entirely true and so clear that it should never be missed by the Bible reader, that pastors who boast of being Christ-centered habitually preach a man-centered message! Even when a passage is chosen in which the death of Christ is central, they end up preaching nothing but a moral sermon of the most legal, unhelpful, ambiguous kind! The reason he misses the gospel is that he has a one-track mind for moral behavior, which will seem commendable to those who do not know the higher worth of the gospel that saves those whose morality can never be perfect, which perfection God requires! Yet even the law that he is obsessed with he is unsure of! With this pastor, one minute we can’t do the law; the next minute we can. Sometimes it is impossible, even by examining a single sentence of his, to know which one of these two principles he is trying to teach. “Keeping the law doesn’t work.” Does this mean that we can’t keep the law? Or does it mean that keeping the law does us no good? His manner of speech is routinely unclear like this. In any case, just go to these verses (John 8.28-32) and see for yourself if he did not avoid the most important and essential part. Is the death of Jesus Christ not the greatest deed that sinful man must, if he will be saved at all, put his faith in? Is faith in that meritorious death not the avenue to getting Christ’s righteousness to replace our disobedience? Why pass it over, then, when it happens to be the text you’re preaching on? You say you love Jesus Christ more than anything and any other person. Why avoid him, then? Why avoid the sacrifice he made for you? Why avoid the very event (spoken of in the verse) that was pleasing to the Father in a vicarious way for needful sinners? Instead of faith in Christ’s atoning sacrifice as the great term of salvation, what we are urged to do here is to come directly to God, the offended Creator. The sinner is brought before God as if he could obey the law that Jesus fulfilled for man and that Jesus was put to death for man’s breaking of. Mr. Bueckert’s preaching misses the gospel because it misses Jesus Christ as the Saviour that man ought to put his trust in for salvation. He even quotes John 12.25 once, which could have been another entry point (since he missed the one his text begged to give him.) But he misses the gospel even while he quotes the gospel verse! We would give a cheer for a moral sermon on drunkenness or immodesty, but not that kind which, by its total abstinence from the gospel, cannot be interpreted through the righteousness of Jesus Christ, without which the highest level of morality performed by us will count for nothing but more judgment. To preach an imitation of Jesus’ perfect example of morality is a great idea if we can be saved by the law. But we can’t. And so what we need is a sermon on the One whose perfect morality can be reckoned to us by faith. At least present imputed righteousness as the only basis for any attempted imitation of his perfect legal walk, for without it we can only assume that you are trying to bring us to God the Father directly through the law, which is an impossible thing—a thing forbidden and condemned in Scripture—a thing that can only be cursed because it leaves the work of Jesus Christ for man out of sight.     

Conclusion: This pastor takes up a whole hour of his people’s time to say almost nothing, or at best, to speak poorly on the most common things from the least important part of his text. He seems proud of the little that he knows in the sense that everyone else must know even less. This man is in the delusion of an estimation of himself that far surpasses the level he is at. Rumor has it that this pastor is extremely busy. But if, because of his busy life, he has to avoid the richest part of the text that he has decided to preach on, then what is the use of him continuing behind that pulpit he can’t handle? Is it not better to do something common and to do it well instead of the holiest work of all and to do it badly? On his website he says that he has been ‘empowered to preach the word’ and that, in the words of Nehemiah, ‘I am doing a great work.’ Should he not, in light of the obvious fact that no power is evident and that no great work is going on here, apologize to God and admit to the rest of us that he is a presumptuous liar? Are these hard words? Better to give out stinging honesty like this than a flattering word that might further this man in his dishonest evaluation of himself and what God is doing in his church. To say that we are empowered and that a great work is being done when these things are so obviously untrue is not only to lie to, and about, our self, but to God and about what he is doing. Who could listen to preaching like this and then say (without speaking against his awakened conscience, we mean) that there is power here and that a great work is being done? Are great sins not committed when we, even from righteous motives, put lies into God’s mouth? Is there any fear of God in publishing false notions of empowerment and blessing? Truly, this type of sin does not emerge from charismania alone! Baptist pastors practice it just as well! There might be some solid doctrinal planks in the mission statement Mr. Bueckert has put up on his site. But the real test is in the preaching and teaching. And in there we do not find much well delivered orthodoxy (although we do find a little heresy.) To endorse orthodox planks and then preach something less points to malevolence or incompetence. We believe the latter to be the sin here. There is no use complimenting someone for a job badly done. Mr. Bueckert preaches the law as the way to God, not because he wants to, but because he does not know how to do anything else. This is what’s going on, we believe. To preach the law through a knowledge of the gospel—this he seems to know nothing of. To recommend this church is completely out of the question. Mr. Bueckert asserts that he is teachable. We beg to differ. He asks his listeners if they have teachable spirits. But he never tells them how a teachable spirit might be obtained.

Finally, we will close with a comment on this verse he has put up at the top of his website, the one by Nehemiah that Mr. Bueckert intends for himself as well. This verse is more apropos than he could have been aware of when he put it up, for in its immediate context this ‘great work’ has nothing to do with preaching, but with manual labor, which is Mr. Bueckert’s true calling. And this is not to put him down that we say this, but just to point out the conspicuous fact. For quality of work, manual laborers put the white-collar crowd to shame, nine times out of ten. Mr. Bueckert belongs in the garage with a wrench in his hand, not in the pulpit with a Bible for his tool. 

ELIJAH'S APPEAL TO THE UNDECIDED (SERMON SKETCH 3)

(Because of the wretched state of Red Deer’s pulpit space, it is now, as predicted by Solomon in Ecclesiastes 3, the time to ‘pluck up that which is planted…a time to break down…a time to weep…a time to cast away stones’ and even ‘a time to refrain from embracing.’ And it is certainly more ‘a time to speak’ than ‘a time to keep silence.’ Be that as it may, the wrecking ball of negative criticism should be followed by the laying down of truth. To this end, we introduce the sermon sketch as an intermittent blog feature. As the term ‘sketch’ implies, this kind of post, in distinction from the usually lengthy analysis, will be pithy. The source for each sketch will be indicated at the bottom of each post.)

ELIJAH’S APPEAL TO THE UNDECIDED

“How long halt ye between two opinions?” (1 Kings 18.21.)

Introduction. It was a day to be remembered. The lone prophet of the Lord against the 450 priests of Baal. On this hill of Carmel we have three kinds of persons: the devoted servant of Jehovah; the decided servants of the evil one; and the undecided. Elijah addresses his sermon to this last and largest group. And so will I, because most of you are double-minded and undecided too.

(1) The Difference between the Worship of Baal and the Worship of Jehovah. This class of people thought they could worship two Gods. But Elijah informed them that these were two opinions that could not be combined. This class is with us today. Members of this class go to church and then go gambling. But my, serve one or the other, God or the world, already! A woman who fellowships but tattles also, this is the same thing again. A dishonest hypocrite is worse than an open sinner. Take your mask off. One opinion is better than two. Go one way or the other.

(2) The Amount of Time you have to choose between two Opinions. The argument from this crowd is, ‘I need more time to choose.’ But the drought had continued for over three years to convince them to turn to God! You who are trying to be Christian worldlings, how long will you halt between two opinions? You older persons, you young, you boys, you girls—how much time is enough for you? How many sermons and Sundays will you waste? How many plagues and deaths must happen all around to warn you to decide? You might just find yourself in eternity before you make up your mind. The will is bent for evil—that’s the problem.

(3) To Delay is Dumb. These people think that a claim of religion is better than nothing. When they are among the worldlings, they are secretly laughed at for being bad Christians; when among Christians, they are wondered at for being hypocrites. They do not fully enjoy the world; nor do they fully enjoy religion. They have the fears of religion without joy; and too much fear of sinning to truly enjoy the world. They are too good for the world; and too bad for church. Purgatory would be perfect for them, if it existed. Even the damned in hell will laugh at these people, for they will be punished without having gotten all their pleasure.

(4) How it is known that People are Undecided. It is known by an undecided behavior. Know first, that all opinions cannot be right. Then choose an opinion and let your conduct back up it up. Keep your religious claim, or give it up. Choose Baal or God; faith or fun; holiness or filthiness.

(5) Why Decide? Not for happiness. No, like the prophet says, “If God be God follow him.” If you believe the devil is God, then go that way. Carry out your convictions. Never mind tradition and what others do. If the gospel is right, believe it; if not, give it up.

(6) How Long will you Delay? Some have decided; others will hesitate between opinions until the fire of God’s Spirit decides them, or until the fire of eternal judgment. 

Selection from Conclusion. “I tell you that you must either be decided by the descent of the fire of his Spirit into your hearts now, or else in the day of judgment. O! which shall it be? O! that the prayer might be put up by the thousand lips that are here: ‘Lord, decide me now by the fire of thy Spirit; O! let thy Spirit descend into my heart.’”

{This sermon by C. H. Spurgeon (1834-1892) is sketched by M. H. Gaboury.}

MOUNT CALVARY LUTHERAN CHURCH, MARK 7.31-37 (SERMON ANALYSIS 3)

October 2010

Mr. Hennig, this is our third and final analysis. We thank you for your interest in our effort to test the word that you preach.

Mr. Hennig, Mount Calvary Lutheran, Untitled Sermon, Mark 7.31-37.

Summary: (He begins by relating the difference between the 20^th century generations regarding the technological milieus each has grown up in, his point being that the more recent generations are jaded and desensitized by their immersion from youth into our advanced state of technological use.) We think nothing of sending mail around the world in seconds. We are amazed only when we can’t send an email. Does anything amaze you anymore? Does God amaze you anymore? Are we amazed at what God offers to us eternally? (He summarizes the text.) The crowds who witnessed this miracle Jesus performed were so amazed that they could not stop talking about it, even after being commanded by Jesus himself to keep quiet. Are we amazed like this? We have learned greater things of Jesus than this miracle. But are our tongues not tied up in knots at times? We find it easier to talk about sports or television shows than about the true God. Pay attention to your own conversations. How easy they flow when they’re all about Big Brother or the Eskimos game? We are filled with enthusiasm when these topics come up. But is it that way when the opportunity to talk about Jesus comes about? When it’s about Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, the One who could cure ailments by a mere word, the overcomer of death itself, do we speak with enthusiasm, or even at all? How often do we say, ‘good luck’ when we could confess our faith with a ‘God be with you’? How often do we say ‘don’t worry about it’ instead of ‘I forgive you, for I have been forgiven by Christ’? Has your faith become dull? Does your conscience no longer bother you when you do wrong? Do we justify our thoughts of lust and our gossip about others? Has church attendance and Bible study become a chore? For a cure, there is only one place to go. With just a word, Jesus healed that man. He still heals through his word. This is why you are encouraged to worship in God’s house and to take part in Bible study. Your minds and hearts are opened to him and to his teachings through his powerful word. By the word of his law, Jesus alerts us to our illness. But he does not leave us there. His love is found in a manger, on the cross, and in an empty tomb, and comes to us in baptism, communion, and preaching. With the message of the gospel, he is able to open your hearts. We can be amazed at the world’s offerings, but amazed too at how hurtful the world can be. But on the cross and in his resurrection, Jesus has earned our forgiveness. Jesus has overcome Satan and his ways. There is nothing more amazing than that. And yet the amazing is yet to come. The apostle Paul ascended into heaven and was lost for words to describe it. This heaven is for you. It’s for you because of what your amazing Saviour did. 

Remarks: The sermon is Christ-centered and somewhat convicting, with a pastoral touch. The theme that is preached is taken right out of the text. The story used to illustrate the theme is suitable. There is no pulpit horseplay to revolt us. And we can even detect a hint of Spurgeon-like wit in his preaching manner. On the negative side, the pastor seems to give out the same word-for-word benedictions each and every Sunday; for this reason they strike us in a meaningless, tiresome way. And we can testify to this sensation after listening to just three sermons. For certain this is an instance calling for a repetition of the well-known saying, ‘Familiarity breeds contempt.’ That which produces a tendency of contempt for benedictions that approximate Scripture is intolerable. Variety of expression should replace whatever sounds like vain repetition to avoid this upsetting effect. Next, salvation is much declared, but not preached enough, in this sermon. We understand if Mr. Hennig considers himself a pastor addressing a flock full of regenerate persons. But is there no warrant at all for testing the salvation of these church members by warning them of the possibility of their assuming faith without possessing it, or of their relying on church attendance instead of on the merits of Christ, or of their simply believing the pastor’s declaration without any assurance of salvation from God himself? It would not be an easy task to fit such provisos into an address as short as Mr. Hennig is in the habit of delivering. But they are so sorely needed that more space should be allowed the sermon for meting these qualifications out to each kind of listener. With the sermon as it is, a visitor might too easily assume he is safely chosen and sealed for heaven, and a confused soul would be left staring at a pile of doctrines, not knowing what ones, if any, are for him. The only way a sermon like this is safe for all is if all are saved. And such a circumstance has never been presumed by great preachers even at the best of times. Salvation must be more than declared, even when addressing what appears to be a saved crowd. And this declaration must not be focused only on what we are saved to, but also on what we are saved from; this, to the glory of God for the benefit of God’s people when they are made more humble before him by such reminders, but also for the convicting of that soul that we are mistaking for one of our own brood. Because of the importance of that part of the ministry (the pulpit) by which God principally speaks, not just to his people but to those who shall yet enter in, is there no reason to reevaluate the priorities of the church service? Even supposing that each member is truly a kingdom child (a careless and dangerous supposition!), can the members’ wants, concerns, needs, and backslidings be met by a mere sermon introduction? Is there nothing in the service at large that might be shortened in order to give place to a lengthened word from the pulpit? Could not the man the church is named after furnish an example to follow in this matter of pulpit priority? It would surprise us extremely were we to learn that Luther’s preaching took a back seat to anything except prayer. Some of his sermons are indeed brief, which means they are not brief habitually. Is it not possible that Luther’s descendents have passed on to us more ritual than Luther bequeathed to them? We suspect that some little research would prove this to be the case. 

Conclusion: We are thankful to know that something more than a pretended sermon containing jokes, worldliness, and heresy exists in our city. But we must not stop at comparing Mount Calvary Lutheran to the circus-churches around it. How would this church compare if it were resituated in another city at some other time? The pastor of this church ought to strive more to fulfill the desires of a people who are hungry for God. And if the people are not hungry yet in this way, or not hungry enough, then what agency other than the pulpit would God use to stimulate the appetite? Besides prayer and the ordinances, much teaching and preaching needs to be done to satisfy hungry souls. God would have a church eating regularly to the full, and then yet hungering after the cup that runneth over. Therefore more preaching is required on Sunday than a fourteen-minute prelude. Breakfast is the most important meal of the day, the nutritionists tell us. And the great preachers would tell us that the Sunday sermon is the most important meal of the week. Something more than an egg should be served at this meal, then. Granted, the pastor gives an egg, not a scorpion, for the Sunday feast, which is good, tasty, and wholesome. But where are the fish and the bread? So much for quantity. To speak of quality, we might say that there is more milk here than meat. As for strong meat, there is none here at all. This sermon cannot take a new convert much deeper than he has already gone. 

Based on the three sermons listened to (we know little about what the rest of the service is like), we could recommend this church to a Christian looking for one. But first we would like to know if Mr. Hennig insists on the necessity of any sacrament for salvation.

DEER PARK ALLIANCE CHURCH, THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST (SERMON ANALYSIS 3)

August 2010

Mr. Doeksen, Deer Park Alliance, April 12, 2009, The Resurrection of Christ.

Summary: The question is, Did Jesus really live again? In part, a true story is revealed to us in the exceptional way it unfolds. (He tells a true story from his experience to try and show this.) The text is John 20.8, 9. Jesus did live again. For John it’s a growing belief. The story is told that you might believe. It’s true and powerful whether you believe it or not. I invite you to enter into it—see for yourself. Your story matters, but it is invited into this story. What if the disciples had never gone into the grave to see—had never seen for themselves? Enter in at your own point of contact. “Enter in; don’t be bashful about feeling great about who Jesus is and how his story has intersected yours.” I ask you to enter in from this perspective: your story will move forward because of this story. For many of you, your life looks like that of the disciples on Saturday. What happened on that day? It was a setback Saturday. There were stories that seemed to be going nowhere on Saturday. They were following after a Messiah, this idea of a King. All of these teachings and miracles were left hanging. “Where is your story stalled? Where do you seem stuck this morning? Enter in. See for yourself that you might believe.” Did Jesus live again? I’ll answer this question with four answers that unfold in the Bible. (A) Jesus’ resurrection was seen first in the word of God—in prophecy. There was enough evidence to believe in Jesus’ resurrection even before it happened. (See John 2.18-22.) But the disciples couldn’t see it yet. (B) Jesus was seen dead. He actually died, not just swooned, fainted, or passed out. The trial, the pain, the scourging, the crucifixion, the act of the executioner, the embalming, the burial for three days, and the guards posted at the grave all point to an actual death. (C) Jesus was seen alive again. Many who looked to see confirmed this. They saw Jesus. Some touched him. An individual could have an illusion; but a whole crowd will not have the same one. Jesus went out of his way to prove he was alive. You are invited to come and see for yourself. He could command you to just blindly believe. He doesn’t have to be that merciful. He gives reasons and opportunities to investigate. He ate in his resurrected state. A ghost does not eat. The eyewitnesses recorded these things, fulfilling the journalistic standards of today. (D) Jesus’ resurrection was seen, and is seen today, in the transformation of people. Peter, a coward for awhile, turned into a fearless preacher who willingly died for his faith. Jesus’ own family was transformed. The members of this family had thought he was crazy. But because he rose from the dead they ended up worshipping him as their God and Saviour. Jesus’ own enemies, like Paul, turned from being persecutors to Christians. People are changed by Jesus’ life today. His life is imparted to those who believe. In the lives of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, we see faith even before his resurrection. From these instances, do you see the life of Jesus at work from his death? Is your faith delayed? Has it seemed stalled in some way? God’s resurrection life is already at work in your life even before you see its results. Where are you stuck? Jesus’ life is already at work there, on your failed marriage, on your broken relationship, on your illness. The disciples moved from their Saturday of disillusionment to a deeper faith. With Mary, there is this moment when she recognizes Jesus. She enters in. Upon seeing Jesus, her faith is not just moving; it also has a purpose. It has direction. If you’re entering into his resurrection life this morning, there are two directions given to you. The first is, upward to the Father. The other one is outward. Go and tell others. “Jesus is alive today. And his life is bringing faith where there was none, is restoring hope where there was little, and moving our hearts in the direction he wants our hearts to move.” (He finishes with a prayer along these lines.)

Remarks: This sermon is a pleasant surprise, not because we believe it to be a passable address, but because it so far surpasses in every way the first two specimens of his that we have listened to. The question he proposes to give an answer to is, “Did Jesus really live again?” This is well answered. Obviously, some research was done. The sermon is well structured. There are some layers to it. And the application unfolds naturally from the first three points. There is this tactic of repeating, ‘See for yourself.’ This is excellent, though he could have enlarged upon the maneuver. The idea of showing the contrast between a meaningless story and the meaningful resurrection story is good.  But by going too much into this meaningless story from the pastor’s life, a comic atmosphere is created and the pastor becomes the center of attention. These things work against the gospel being taken seriously. And it is not true that the truthfulness of a story is necessarily revealed, even in part, by its exceptional nature. He moves on, though, from these early blunders soon enough. He repeatedly presses the listeners to ‘enter in’ without telling them what he’s getting at. But later he puts some content to these pleas by presenting some proofs to be believed. There are some phrases that are borderline inappropriate, like ‘embalming junk.’ This term does not do justice to the fact that the spices were lovely contributions to Jesus by his loyal saints. But he was fumbling around for words to describe the embalming substance, and had to say something. Therefore we won’t make too much of this fault. Next, he says that Paul, even before his conversion, never denied the resurrection. How could the pastor know this for sure? The assertion is probably false, for Saul was a persecutor of ‘the Way,’ which includes this major tenet and fact. Furthermore, it seems difficult to believe that he was not denying this event when he participated in the martyrdom of Stephen. But this is not a cardinal issue. The scriptural anecdote about Peter and John running to the tomb seems mentioned just for fun. This is bad. The incident must be inspired to teach us something, not to make us laugh.

While the sermon is a relief to hear in many ways, there is one significant fault to mention, the consequences of which are extremely terrible. We would call this point: either his use of dainty speech, or his dread of distinguishing between the saved and the unsaved. The proper thing to call this error depends on what comes first: the chicken-like communication, or the egg that seems to have hatched it: his fear. We’ll just call it the fault of dainty speech and work from there. And so, his use of dainty language. That might sound more like a faux pas than a sin. But this faint-hearted communication of his is detrimental. Here is an example of what we mean. In one of his comprehensive invitations that can only be interpreted as going out to the congregation at large and without distinction, he says, “Where is your story stalled? Where do you seem stuck this morning? Enter in. See for yourself that you might believe.” What could be wrong with this? Let’s note right away that a phrase like ‘entering in’ is to the purpose of believing, which invitation is fit for the unsaved; but that those invited by him to enter in he calls ‘stalled’ or ‘stuck,’ which language is fit only for the saved. Speaking to the saved as if they’re unsaved (they are invited to ‘enter in’) is not so bad. But speaking to the unsaved as if they are saved (just ‘stalled’ or ‘stuck,’ and therefore not dead in trespasses) is very bad, about the worst thing a Bible teacher can do, for it causes sinners to think they need therapy instead of the regenerating grace of God. Suffice it to say that he commonly does this: he addresses both the saved and the unsaved without distinction. This is likely the result of his effort to talk in such a fashion that will not cause offense to sinners. He will not single out the unsaved from the saved. This failure to distinguish between the saved and the unsaved is a problem throughout the whole sermon. Some things he says are only applicable to the saved. But he seldom, if ever, lets us know who is being addressed. For instance, without qualification, he says, “Where are you stuck today? Jesus’ life is already at work there.” This is a presumptuous pronouncement unless Mr. Doeksen is a prophet looking someone in particular right in the eye. Here is the same kind of thing again: “Enter in; don’t be bashful about feeling great about who Jesus is and how his story has intersected yours.” Jesus’ story has already intersected with these other stories. How can he say this without qualifying who he is referring to? Is he an inspired prophet? And when he speaks of the day before the resurrection as a ‘setback Saturday,’ this seems, at first blush, to be applied by the pastor to disciples alone, whether those of yesterday or today, for sinners not yet saved are experiencing more than just a setback. So it seems that he’s referring to Christians by this term—Christians who are suffering a setback like the disciples did just before their discovery of the resurrection, saved but cast down, discouraged, and disillusioned. But though the term fits only this segment of the people, he tries to apply it to the unsaved as well, for just after this, he says, “Where’s your story stalled? Where do you seem stuck this morning? Enter in. See for yourself, that you might believe.” Of course, this ‘setback’ language is entirely inadequate to apply to unregenerate sinners who have not yet placed their faith in the risen Lord. They are not suffering a setback, but suffering from a depraved nature that needs much more than encouragement or edification. Does the Bible ever present sinners as being merely ‘stalled’ or ‘stuck’? Is that adequate language to describe souls needing to be saved from the penalty of God’s law? Is it not more true to say that they are dead in trespasses and under condemnation? Sinners need to be born again because they are more than stalled and stuck. They are “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2.1.) Jesus said, “He that believeth not is condemned already” (John 3.18.) Does the word ‘stalled’ imply that we need the Saviour who spoke these words? No it doesn’t. And if you’re stuck, do you need anything more than a little push? If you’re dead in sins and condemned to hell, which is the truth of the matter, you need much more. You need the Spirit to regenerate you and Jesus as your Substitute. Your spirit needs new life and a suffering Saviour. The pastor uses the word ‘transformed’ a time or two. This is much better than what the words ‘stuck’ and ‘stalled’ convey sinners need. And he speaks at least once of ‘God’s resurrection life.’ If he means regeneration by that, this is excellent. But what he means we do not know for sure. The words ‘stuck’ and ‘stalled’ are his usual words to describe the need sinners have. These words imply a need that falls far short of what the sinful condition actually requires. The words come across as your needing, not a creative act of the Holy Ghost, but just a little shot in the arm. However: “YE MUST BE BORN AGAIN,” the Bible says. The ‘stalled’ and ‘stuck’ speech used by Mr. Doeksen has a Semi-Pelagian ring to it, for according to this weak form of theology, man is not dead in sin, but sick; he needs grace, but not to begin his faith, just to assist it. This Semi-Pelagian remedy exactly agrees with the need connoted by the words ‘stalled’ and ‘stuck.’ People who are stuck or stalled do not need to be saved. This is the point. This is why this dainty speech of his is so dangerous.

Another commission of the same order is this whole idea of our ‘story.’ What does it mean when we say that ‘our story will move forward’ because of Jesus’ story? Whatever it means, it doesn’t mean enough. Having a story that must move forward does not come remotely close to describing the fact that souls are on their way to an eternity of gloom and distress unless they cast their all on Christ. Indeed, we must not move forward at all, but change direction. That ‘our story matters’ just doesn’t come near to relating the fact that we are souls moving forward to an inevitable end of woe unless we embrace by faith the Prince of Peace. And ‘stories going nowhere’ does not begin to state the gravity of the situation sinners are in. Calling the death and resurrection of Christ this other story that we should enter our own stories into undermines the pastor’s effort to get sinners saved because it’s a weak, ambiguous way of presenting the need sinners have to be delivered from sin’s looming penalty. We do not object to calling the resurrection a story. A story is not necessarily a piece of fiction. What we object to is the idea that we are stories that must enter into Jesus’ story. We object to this because it does not do justice to the gravity of sin and to the glory of salvation. And because this idea is a weak, dainty way of presenting depravity and grace, it undercuts the pastor’s effort to urge sinners to cast their souls on Christ for safe keeping. The ‘story’ language weakens the object of the sermon, which is to convince the listeners to enter into Jesus’ eternal love and care.

The four proofs, as strong as they are, have very little incentive attached to them for achieving this end of getting souls to repent and believe. If you want to persuade sinners to ‘enter in’—then you have to speak about what they must leave in order to it, and what will happen if they refuse. You must discard your dainty euphemisms and speak honestly, plainly, directly, and biblically. You have to get down to what sins these people are hanging on to—what treasured habits are barring their entry—what sinful amusements they love more than a rescue from everlasting misery. If the sermon does not come down to this uncomfortable level, the preaching will likely be taken as a pep talk from which to glean strength to labor on in unbelief for another week, nothing more. You are ‘stuck,’ and so the sermon gives you a push. You enter your stalled story into Jesus’ story, and you are moved by it for a little while. This is all these dainty sayings are capable of. If you’re not dead in trespasses and sins, but only ‘stalled,’ then all you need is to get into a story that will move you just enough to budge you out of your rut. But there you are, out of your rut, but still on the broad way that leads to destruction. There’s the danger of preaching with ‘kid gloves.’ Your listeners will not understand the radical change that must be undertaken, both by the Spirit who saves by grace alone, and by the sinner who presses into the kingdom so much as to take it by force with hands emptied of cumbersome sins. In other words, regeneration and repentance must be preached. If a sermon is going to be all things to all people—to a mixed multitude of saved and unsaved persons, as it seems Mr. Doeksen is bravely and properly attempting to achieve here, then distinctions need to be made. And the only way to do that is to speak of the sin nature and of sins particularly on the one hand, and of mortification of sin and the outworking of faith on the other; of initial repentance for some, and of persevering repentance for others. Mr. Doeksen never tells us why Jesus died or why he was resurrected. If sinners are not told these things, why would they feel compelled to enter in? If the incentives for entering in are the remission of sins and an admission into heaven instead of hell, then should these incentives not be included in a message on entering in to Jesus’ life? To get into the reasons for Jesus’ death and resurrection would necessitate a preaching of sin. Are we being too speculative when we suppose that he does not tell us about the incentives because he does not want to preach aspects of the truth that will make his congregation uncomfortable? And why does he not want to make anyone uncomfortable? Because if he does, this will cause discomfort to himself! This sermon is factual. But it is not convicting, for no incentives are given to compel us to believe. That our story will ‘move forward’ is not an incentive. That we will remain in our condemned state forever unless we believe—this is an incentive. He focuses on God being at work on failed marriages, illnesses, and relationships. What about sin? What about the kinds of sin? What about the sin nature? These are the things we need God to work on. These are the things that need to be preached.

Conclusion: Mr. Doeksen should remember the method by which he prepared this sermon so he can imitate that in sermons to come. Then if he can teach and discipline himself to make a distinction in his address between saved persons and the unregenerate crowd, there might be a glimmer of hope. And then if he can bring himself to preach to the unregenerate as sinners in peril instead of disconsolate persons needing a lift, the glimmer might metamorphose into a little flame. If these things are not done, there is no reason to believe that he has been led by God to execute this holy profession he is presently scrambling, and failing, to discharge. 

SOVEREIGNTY AND SALVATION (SERMON SKETCH 2)

(Because of the wretched state of Red Deer’s pulpit space, it is now, as predicted by Solomon in Ecclesiastes 3, the time to ‘pluck up that which is planted…a time to break down…a time to weep…a time to cast away stones’ and even ‘a time to refrain from embracing.’ And it is certainly more ‘a time to speak’ than ‘a time to keep silence.’ Be that as it may, the wrecking ball of negative criticism should be followed by the laying down of truth. To this end, we introduce the sermon sketch as an intermittent blog feature. As the term ‘sketch’ implies, this kind of post, in distinction from the usually lengthy analysis, will be pithy. The source for each sketch will be indicated at the bottom of each post.)

SOVEREIGNTY AND SALVATION

“Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God” (Isaiah 45.22.)

Introduction. Six years ago today I was saved from misery and sin as the minister read this text, “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.” How marvelous it is to now address these words for the good of some other poor sinner! There was a time when mighty God dwelled in solemn silence alone. How outrageous that his creatures would for a moment compare themselves with him! Yet Satan tried to take his throne! Then man imitated Satan. Since then God has been teaching the world this great lesson from our text.

(1) God has been Teaching this Lesson to Mankind. He has been teaching it to false gods. Where are the gods of Persia? Where is Persia’s fire-worshipper? Where are the gods of Greece, like Jupiter and Saturn? Who bows before them now? Where are the gods of Rome? Of China and Polynesia? Buddha, Brahman, and Vishnu shall yet be tramped in the mire. So much for idols. God has been teaching this lesson that there is no God but him, to Empires. Go and see the ruins of Babylon. Go seat yourselves in the temples of Greece. Walk through the deserted theatres of Rome. Hear the voice in the wild wind, “I am God, and there is none else.” God has taught this great truth to monarchs. Take Nebuchadnezzar, who was so proud of his Babylon. He was driven into the field to eat grass like an ox. Remember Herod, who imagined he was divine. The worms ate him up that same day. Modern history is full of examples of kings humbled by God. Wise men of this world have learned our lesson too. The wisdom of Socrates, the writings of Aristotle and Bacon, are all but forgotten now. Philosophies and systems quickly pass away to be replaced by others. God’s Bible is the rock that shall crush all of them into powder. Even the Church of God forgets our lesson: that God has no equal or rival. How did Israel forget when she worshiped strange gods! And Christians in prosperity and pride have been taught the hard lesson by various trials. Great preachers too have had to learn it.

(2) The Special Way God Teaches this Lesson. He teaches us that he alone is God by directing us to look unto him alone for salvation. “Look unto me,” he says, not at the priest, not at yourself. Don’t even look at your repentance and faith. Look to Jesus, or you’ll be damned. Sin qualifies you to come to Jesus, not your righteousness. The sick have need of a physician. And so the preacher says, “Look unto Christ, and ye shall be saved.” See the thorny crown cause drops of blood to trickle down his cheeks. If you want mercy, look at all his wounds. Observe next, that it is “look unto me.” That is the simple way to be saved: Look—four letters, and two of them alike! Man wants a complicated way, with candles and ceremonies, etc. To take down your pride God orders you to do a simple thing, “Look unto me, and be ye saved.” A look takes less than a moment. Salvation is as fast. It is not seeing Christ so much as looking for him. Jesus in the dark is as good as Jesus in the light. The will for Christ, the wish for him, that is what is wanted. This method of salvation is the same for everyone, for the gentleman, the prostitute, the Gentile, and the Jew. It is for anyone. This is why the text says, “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth.” Are you a filthy sinner? So filthy that you dare not look? But God will condemn you unless you look. If you fear, look anyway, and your sin will be removed.

Selection from Conclusion. “In all thine agony, poor soul, in all thy repentance for thy guilt, look unto Christ, and find pardon…Now believe on him; now cast thy guilty soul upon his righteousness; now plunge thy black soul into the bath of his blood…Now ‘Look!’”

{This sermon by C. H. Spurgeon (1834-1892) is sketched by M. H. Gaboury.}

FAMILY OF FAITH CHURCH, EARS TO HEAR (SERMON ANALYSIS 3)

February 2011

This is the third sermon by Mr. Huizing that we have chosen to review. The date of its delivery is not given. Again, we listened by CD. We are happy to announce that Mr. Huizing must approve of our writing this review, and of our making it public too, for in this sermon he says, “The main thing would be for you to go back to Scripture to make sure what I’m telling you is true. Right?”

Mr. Huizing, Family of Faith, Ears to Hear.

Summary: If you really pay attention to this message, it absolutely will revolutionize your life. Are you ready for this, though? Can I say some things that may be controversial? Some things might go totally against your grain. Ponder it. Or put it on the shelf to meditate on later. What you possess today has more to do with what and how you hear than what God wants you to have. Most people are just satisfied with what they have. But Jesus says to take heed what you hear and how you hear. “Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever has, to him shall be given; and whosoever has not, from him shall be taken even that which he seems to have” (Luke 8.18.) If you have something, it’s easier to get more. God is interested in getting you further ahead. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. That’s a spiritual principle. Go back to the Scripture to make sure that what I’m telling you is true. Social justice means everyone should have the same. But according to the kingdom of heaven, not everybody has the same. Everybody will get the opportunity to get the same. With what you hear and how you hear, it’s up to you. (He goes to the parable of the talents in Matthew 25 to try and support his point.) So when they gained, they were called good and faithful people. In our day, that’s hard to talk about cuz if you gain, you’re evil. How many of you know God is the God of increase? You should not be satisfied with a status quo. God expects you to do something with what he has given you. You can do something with the word he has given you. You can be in the have cycle. (He turns to Luke 5.15.) The people came not just to be healed, but to hear. You get faith to be healed by hearing the word. Without hearing, it is virtually impossible to possess anything in life. Hearing is always a prerequisite for healing. What’s the number one command? It has to do with hearing. If you don’t hear, you won’t know how good God is. People have heard that God is waiting for an opportunity to wipe them out, and that since he is in control of the earth, that he lets bad things happen. The truth is, the Bible never said that. God will always make sure you have a seed to sow. Don’t eat it. What do you have? You have the word. Everything that happens, it starts with a seed. When you hear the word, you’ve got something. The devil’s not worried about those who don’t hear. He’s already got them. Once you hear, you are a target. The devil comes right away. It’s much easier to get a seed out of the ground than the stump of a grownup tree. If he can get the word out of you, he’s got you whipped. Whatever measure you use, it will be measured to you. You have to think big. Don’t just build for sixty-five, but for eternity because it’s going to come back to you. The devil wants you in survival mode, one day at a time. You’re a world overcomer. You’re a long distance marathon runner. Do you just want your needs met? Or do you want enough to meet someone else’s needs too. (He turns to the Old Testament miracle regarding the widow who had her oil increased.) At home is your greatest treasure of all time. Her future has more to do with what she heard than with what God wants her to have. God doesn’t show you everything. He leaves it up to how far you want to go. Amen? (He turns to the New Testament miracle concerning the coin in the mouth of the fish.) Everything has to do with how you hear.  

Remarks: Again, on the face of it, some of what he says is okay; but the baggage that comes with it is not. (1) It is good to have enough means to meet the needs of others in addition to your own. But it is wrong to come up to this level of prosperity by the lust for wealth that permeates Mr. Huizing’s message. And if wealth were acquired by us through such immoderate, eye-on-the-world mentality, would the needs of others be still on our heart at the end of our quest? (2) It is good to emphasize the responsibility of man toward God. But this is continually done by Mr. Huizing at the expense of God’s overarching, sovereign will. Furthermore, the responsibility of man only comes up to a materialist obligation in this sermon, which is hardly what the Bible would lay the stress upon: our moral obligation. By resorting to the same Bible stories as before, like the widow who had her oil multiplied in the time of Elisha, the coin in the mouth of Peter’s fish, etc., Mr. Huizing builds his prosperity gospel, while cutting down the sovereignty of God and the meaning of Scripture to do so. The coercive trick that he uses to force an acceptance of his prosperity doctrine is the laying on of contrived guilt. The major transgressions in this message can be thus categorized: a materialistic interpretation of Scripture; a low view of God; and pressure tactics deviously applied. And this is all to the purpose of converting us to a gospel of prosperity instead of peace.

(1) His materialistic interpretation of Scripture. By Luke 8.18 Mr. Huizing wants us to believe that Jesus teaches that we should hear a certain way in order to obtain greater wealth. But how can this be Jesus’ lesson since it is precisely the desire for worldly riches (verse 14) that Jesus here preaches against? Those who hear a certain way have their seed (the word of God) choked by their ‘cares and riches and pleasures of this life,’ teaches Jesus. Yet Mr. Huizing teaches from the same passage that we should hear exactly in the manner Jesus there warns against! He tells us to hear with an ear for prospering materially; Jesus warns us to hear for the sake of obtaining consolation eternally. The seed is the word; our hearing must be a good use of this word, which hearing is a resolve to obtain salvation, not material riches. Strange to say that the parable of the sower is about hearing the gospel aright, and that this parable is then used by a Bible teacher to get people to hear a false one, and that a people could be so ignorant or careless as to believe the pastor instead of Jesus! And even more shocking is the fact that people are deceived into hearing the wrong way when the very text being distorted by their pastor has this warning in it!—: ‘Take heed therefore how ye hear.’ That people so careless as to ‘hear’ this pastor’s perversion of Jesus’ text could be in a saved condition must be very doubtful. How could saved people not hear what the truth is in this parable whose interpretation is explained to disciples by Jesus himself? Present salvation in people as gullible as this is highly improbable. No one gets saved by a careless hearing of the word. This is the message in the parable of the sower. Shall we not wonder about the faith of people who cannot hear this message? We hope for the best, but we honestly fear the worst. If you attend this church, what are you about? Are you a Christian who cannot see your sacred Scripture being mangled before your eyes? Do you not have eyes to see that your pastor is making it say the very opposite of Jesus’ intent? This text is not about hearing to get rich. More will be given if we hear attentively. More what? More stuff? No, more understanding, more desire to understand, more conviction for what we learn about Jesus. It’s not about material wealth. It’s not about hearing what you want to hear, but about hearing with a view to listening to, and profiting spiritually from, the revelation of God regarding the chief aspects of a Christian’s interest: like redemption, heaven, and Jesus Christ himself. Mr. Huizing’s materialist emphasis of Scripture can be easily shown to be false elsewhere as well. The purpose of Peter’s catching the fish that had the coin in its mouth was for paying the tax, not for getting rich by miraculously placed coins. Therefore the lesson that says Peter should have stayed for a second fish, then a third, etc., is inapplicable and absurd. Moreover, being content with money enough to meet the obligation of paying the tax agrees with the spirit of contentment that the Bible demonstrates is a principal characteristic to be found among saints. The apostle Paul learned to be content with little or nothing if need be (Philippians 4.11.) Shall we not learn the same? “Give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me” (Proverbs 30.8.) This is the spirit of a humble, regenerate soul that is being sanctified by the hearing of God’s word. Can Mr. Huizing pray this prayer? Why does he press us to aim beyond sixty-five? His answer: because it’s going to come back to you. What does he mean by this? To press for wealth that will cover you beyond that age is a lifestyle exercise that will redound unto you even more than you planned for—that’s what he’s getting at, which is just a sister principle to the give-to-get scheme. This one is a you-can-never-get-enough scheme. What does the Bible say to this? “And he said, this will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul, soul thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, be merry. But God said unto him, fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God” (Luke 12.18-21) There’s nothing wrong with planning for future sustenance. But the problem is that Mr. Huizing’s teachings are of the type that stir up a lust for gain and profuse abundance. The more this hunger is fed, the more one’s spirit is groomed to never rest content with necessities, and the result is a continual worrying and fretting about tomorrow. Those who have much never have enough. That is the devil’s rule. Just observe your politicians. Mr. Huizing teaches that survival mode is bad, that ‘one day at a time’ is bad, that this is what the devil wants for you. But how more wrong can a pastor be? What he presents as being so bad and of the devil, is actually Jesus’ command!--:  “Therefore I say unto you, take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?…Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof” (Matthew 6.25, 34.) Will you believe Jesus the Lord, and be content to live one day at a time? Or will you side with Mr. Huizing, and be anxious for tomorrow? That’s quite a ruse, to put Jesus’ ideal on contentment in the mouth of the devil to make listeners give in to the greedy ways that Jesus condemns! This pastor cannot be so ignorant as to Jesus’ position on such matters! This pastor is a fox, and we can hear the licking of his lips to eat forbidden eggs in this sermon, particularly near the close of his commentary on the parable of the talents in Matthew 25. He craves more than what God wants him to have, and not only this, but he thinks and teaches that this craving is good! Can we, like Mr. Huizing, say some things that may be controversial? Can we say that this man must be very discontent with what the Lord wants him to have? He actually believes that to be content with necessities is the doctrine of the devil! Careful pastor, for it is Jesus who teaches that! Can a man this opposed to the teachings of our Saviour have saving grace in his soul? Is it too controversial to raise this question? It’s a perfectly proper question to raise! The Lord bless us for doing so!

(2) His low view of God. We have seen, particularly in the first sermon reviewed, that Mr. Huizing owns and peddles the sacrilegious opinion of a sinful, reborn jesus. (And it should go without saying that such a jesus could save no one.) In harmony with this sacrilege is his low view of the First Person. What you get has more to do with what and how you hear than with what God wants you to have, he teaches, and in more places than one. Do we not hear in this odd saying that what God wants for us is not good enough? It seems that this pastor understands, but does not like, that God wants us to be content with focusing primarily on our spiritual state and growth.  This is the taste we get from the flavor of the sermon. It just seems that at the bottom of Mr. Huizing’s hatred for biblical sovereignty is his desire to get what God doesn’t want him to have. We may be wrong about the ground of his hatred for this grand doctrine. Who knows if it’s because of his obvious discontent? Regardless, about his hatred of it there is no doubt. He does very plainly renounce the doctrine of divine sovereignty. We believe in God’s control over all things that happen. Mr. Huizing does not believe in this all-encompassing control in the divinity. God is not in charge of the bad, he says. The Bible never said that, says he. How could a Bible teacher be so wrong on such a fundamental point? First, the sovereignty of God is logically necessary for maintaining the idea of God. If God is not in charge of the bad as well as the good, then he’s not in charge, and therefore he is just a god among others. We have, then, events happening that are beyond his control; this is chaos, not sovereignty. Can a Being who hasn’t got full control even be called God? He cannot. He’s just a player, then, one who might win or lose. No matter what this pastor’s hang-up is, does the Bible teach that God is in charge of the bad or not? Are people-destroying catastrophes bad things? The Flood, was God in charge of that? The judging of Sodom, what about that? The crucifixion of Christ, did the Father have a hand in that? Yes, even in that, say we, though God is without sin in all his ways. Jesus of Nazareth was ‘delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God’ to be crucified by wicked hands (Acts 2.23.) Now there is a bad thing that was done; in fact, crucifixion is not only the worst of all deaths, but the crucifixion of a God-Man is the worst of all evil deeds. Here we have something bad, even the worst, and yet God was in charge of it! It was God the Father who delivered Jesus up to be crucified by wicked hands! If God was in charge of the worst act of wickedness that was ever done, is it a stretch to believe, in spite of this pastor’s hang-up, that he must be in charge of everything. The hand of God determined, by his delivering Jesus into wicked hands, the most heinous deed that was ever done. Strong language! We would never say it if the Bible did not teach the troubling, comforting truth so distinctly. It is troubling that nothing bad is done except God allow it and even ordain it. But it’s comforting that this means nothing happens beyond his care and control. It ‘pleased the LORD to bruise him’ (Isaiah 53.10), which statement gives us the background of Genesis 3.15, in which verse we have the sinful bruising of Christ by Satan prophesied. The devil did the sinful act; God was pleased to determine it. The sovereign control of God over everything is all over the Bible. But it seems that sovereignty is not part of Mr. Huizing’s theology (and we use the word ‘theology’ over-generously and unchastely in his case.) And a pastor so hostile to the idea of sovereign prerogative we can hardly expect to be orthodox in matters touching on salvation, for it is Almighty God who must grant the grace thereto, after all. God is not only sovereign over the bad, but determines the salvation of bad sinners by a sovereign decree to extend and apply grace. But if, as this pastor maintains, he is not sovereign over bad things, then will bad things not trump the power of God to save? Will anyone get saved in a universe that has gotten away from the grasp of God? Unless we believe in the sovereignty of God over evil, we have no reason to believe that good will reign or that salvation will happen. The pastor might not be able to follow this logic, though it is simple enough. Slighting sovereignty over evil is a tiny step from contemning sovereign grace. The following warning from a 17^th century chief in theology is therefore relevant: “Either what we read in Scripture is not the gospel, or those who are wise in their own conceit and swollen with contempt of sovereign grace are dashing unrepentant to judgment” (John Owen, Biblical Theology, p. xxxvii.) It perhaps goes without saying, moreover, that Mr. Huizing’s accent on physical healing instead of the regenerating, convicting, and sanctifying influences of the Spirit amounts to a cheap, low-down view of the Third Person. The pastor, therefore, puts all members of the trinity on the same level. Not to say that we can compliment him for doing so! for what a sunken level are they put to by this worldly minister! Is God’s attention given to the lesser infirmities of our nature? Or does he not strive with us unto holiness? Yes, mainly this. Why were all those cripples healed during the ministry of Christ? To relieve their suffering? Yes, but was that primary? No, Jesus himself was primary, or it was the Father he glorified by his works. These healing acts were for the purpose of showing who Jesus was and for men to believe who Jesus claimed to be. And this was to the purpose of men believing on him for the salvation of their souls. But saving doctrine is too high and rich for Mr. Huizing. He must operate on the lower level where moth and rust doth corrupt (Matthew 6.20.) Did Jesus care for bodies? Yes, but what more? “And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire” (Mark 9.47.)

(3) His pressure tactics deviously applied. It appears to be this pastor’s habit to begin his sermon by laying on a guilt-trip. If you’re not ready for his message, you’re just not ready to ‘hear.’ That’s the feeling we get from his attitude. Instead of unholy coercion, he should prove his teachings by the word. His introduction is full of illegitimate pressure directed to make us accept a controversial spin on the Bible. And he exerts himself so because he knows that professing Christians have heard from the Bible that they should be content with necessities being met. He’s got to get them to give up this humble idea. Teaching alone will not work because his is so twisted. So he resorts to devious pressure tactics. Yet pastors like him can gain a following because one’s carnal nature is only too happy to leave the humble idea of moderation behind in favor of the ‘pleasures of sin for a season’ that Moses abandoned. The only nature that can stomach an interpretation of Scripture and a view of God that are both earthly instead of heavenly is that one which would serve its own belly (Romans 16.18) before the Lord Jesus Christ. This ‘old man’ (if we should be so charitable as to call it that) is what we are called to mortify in order for our sanctification to increase.

Conclusion: Mr. Huizing is fixated on teaching this false idea that ‘ears to hear’ is the first commandment. This monstrous invention (not his only one to this purpose) is his gateway for leading heedless, hapless people into his ‘word of faith’ system of error. Calling ‘ears to hear’ the great commandment is a gimmick that he hopes will yield the appearance of credibility to his way of thinking. By this gadget he hopes to convince his listeners to enter into the fatal pattern of thought that he would have the gospel to be. What he counts on from his listeners is ignorance, or at least inattention. If you just dimly know what the Bible contains, you might think that he is a trustworthy teacher of truth, for he does mention some Bible stories. But you have to know what the Bible means in order to test the spirit of a teacher. If you are a listener receiving instruction from this pulpit (or one like it) and you love your soul, listen here. Give that man a hearing who is trying to do you some good. That man who shows you doctrine without having to twist the Bible out of shape to do it, hear ye him for just a moment. You are burying yourself under more darkness with every sermon you hear from this ‘word of faith’ teacher; they that descend so willingly into this black pit must bring upon themselves more and more liability to judgment with each passing week; the likelihood of ever getting to see the light of a sinless Christ who alone can save must ebb away each time you pull away the shoulder, stop the ears, and refuse to hearken (Zechariah 7.11) to biblical advice such as we have given you here. Regard the word of the Lord that we have refuted Mr. Huizing with in this analysis. Become very zealous not to end up, by shaking off Scripture, with the adamant heart that will never repent (verse 12.)