Monday, May 14, 2012

FAMILY OF FAITH CHURCH, THE TITHE IS HOLY (SERMON ANALYSIS 4)

April 2011

This is the first sermon by a visiting pastor that we have chosen to examine. It was delivered in March or April of 2011, or maybe some time shortly before this. Says Mr. Huizing about it, “Ingrid and I have taken this message to heart and have created an opportunity for our congregation to have a holy—a set apart—time to present the tithe to the Lord as our High Priest.” We listened by CD.

Mr. Glen Johnson, Family of Faith, The Tithe is Holy.

Summary: (He begins by stating phrases to be repeated by the congregation and then follows up with anecdotes on the recession.) Our church needs to live above this recession. The tithe is holy. Turn to Genesis 26. (He reads from there.) In the midst of a famine God blessed Isaac. (Here he mentions a couple of Jesus’ miracles, including the one about the coin in the mouth of the fish that Peter caught.) Now to Leviticus 27 and to some of what was downloaded to me. The tithe is holy to the Lord. God showed me that certain conduct concerning the tithe is unholy. The first way we make the tithe unholy is by not tithing, or there are budgeting issues, doctrinal issues, or unwillingness. The second way is in how we receive our tithes. Turn now to Philippians 4. (He reads from there.) “May I die and spend eternity in hell if I have an ulterior motive to get money for myself.” If there’s an acceptable sacrifice, there is also an unacceptable sacrifice. Look at Genesis 14, which is the first recorded tithe. The tithe was before the law. I don’t believe you have to tithe. (He reads from the text.) The blessing of Abraham is that you get to switch families, you get prosperity of heaven and earth, and your enemies are delivered into your hand. The only reason Melchizedek shows up is to receive someone’s tithe. With that in mind, let’s turn to Hebrews 7. (He reads from there.) The only reason we have for his existence is to receive tithes. He was similar to Jesus. One of the main reasons why Jesus is at God’s right hand is to receive your tithe. How holy is that? Jesus intercedes and all that. But the reality is that he’s there to receive tithes. The tithe has always been holy to me and my wife. It’s always had a preciousness to it that we didn’t understand. (Digression on his buying a house.) Look at Malachi 3. (He reads from there.) The church usually sees not tithing as a curse. So we say that the one who gets saved but had no curse before comes under a curse at his conversion unless he tithes! But that’s not what it’s saying. God’s just stating there to try the tithe out in order to be financially blessed. (Digression on hunting.) The tithe is more about thanking God for what he has done. The offering is for what he’s going to do. That’s why you need to pay your tithe and give towards this building thing. What will return to you? It’s not about that. It’s a heart issue. Maybe I just had too much lazagna last nite, but I think I have a message for the whole body of Christ. (Anecdotes follow about people receiving money because of tithing.) I never push people to give. It’s not about giving 10%. It’s about keeping the tithe holy. If it’s a law to you, keep your money. But if you honor God with your tithe, watch God begin to work for you! (He calls the worship team up and gets the tithe going.) 2 Chronicles 31: This is what I’m believing for this church (meaning that the leaders be taken care of financially.) ‘Well, I’m not being fed at this church!’ Well maybe that’s your problem! not the pastor’s problem! Tithe, and you’ll get fed! Pastors should not have to be more concerned with meeting their budget than preparing their Sunday morning messages! Maybe it’s more about you than your pastor! You tithe, Jesus receives it, you receive back, the church prospers, God is honored. It’s a cool situation. There is virtually nothing in the New Testament on the tithe. But there is nothing in the New Testament about worship either. So where do we go to get our patterns? The Old Testament. I believe I’ve delivered a message that will rock your house personally.

Remarks: It is perhaps impossible to draw up a coherent summary of a scatterbrained message like this without being guilty of being too gracious. Our summary may feel disconnected in thought. But the sermon audio that our summary is based on is much worse. There is absolutely no boundary in this recording between what we might call a ‘message’ and the idle talk that runs right through it. The sermon never begins nor ends. It just drifts in and out like a mist. All we could do is to make the summary reflect what we have heard: a chitchat about money with some verses of Scripture crookedly dropped in to get the congregation to empty its pockets. Whoever listens to this recording will notice that we have been gracious, perhaps to a fault, in the summary. Our remarks will be an attempt to capture more of the fullness of this recording’s emptiness and sinister tone. There are just three things in it that we can find to commend the Speaker for. He has a manly voice. He has reproved his congregation in the States for high-fiving and texting during the service. And one of his observations on Scripture seems to impart light: the windows of heaven being opened is more impressive when we consider that ancient windows consisted of flaps of wood, not panes of glass. Ordinarily, no one who loves God and his word would bother commenting on a prattling, impious message like this. That some poor persons felt compelled by it to tithe their money and give their offering (both are required by this pastor) into profane hands might make it worthwhile to tackle. Preventing further hucksterism is a good work where tithing is solicited by an unholy freeloader. That pastor who makes a living preaching earthly, sensual, devilish garbage (James 3.15) instead of heavenly manna is not worth his wages: he is a freeloader. Maybe this visiting pastor should study instead of getting his message ‘downloaded’ from the spirit world! 

Mr. Johnson’s method is to jump quickly from Scripture verse to Scripture verse. By doing so he does in fact convince the shallow-thinking or prosperity-conditioned listener that he gathers a lot of support for deserving compliance to his appeals for money. But no Scripture is given enough attention and respect by this man to certify his authority to, and to yield any obedience from, the circumspect listener. The people we hear laughing at his lewd comments and chuckling at his insults are obviously too ignorant of truth to spot a sham or else too weak in grace to resist the swindler’s intimidating manner. We pity them for getting squeezed out of their money. Some of them, at least, must have given with a heavy heart of suspicion. It’s not easy to resist following the crowd and be left unwilling all by yourself. Peer pressure is one of the hottest pressure cookers the devil can use to melt the soul into a wicked conformity. Thankfully for us, we are not in the CD, only listening to it. Otherwise the heat of the moment might have melted our resolve against error too. You could wish, though, that people would get up and leave at the first sign of trouble in a meeting like this, before the atmosphere of deceit and force closes in. You could hope, also, that after leaving they would vow never to return to be tempted like this again. What do we say when people are tempted but do not escape? Was a way of escape made for them? Why did they stay? Why do they come back? Those who stayed to get harangued and fleeced did so out of ignorance or weakness, maybe both. Right near the beginning, Mr. Johnson commands the congregation to repeat statements like these: ‘It’s God’s will that I’m healed’ and ‘My marriage is great.’ Now, if cognizant of the error going on in this, then the conforming people must be weak. If they are strong enough to resist conformity, then they might just be ignorant of this being a fault. But whether weak or ignorant, their sin was extorted through trickery. And we’ll get to that. But first, notice the exact words they are told to repeat: ‘It’s God’s will that I’m healed.’ That would be bad enough to repeat an assertion of future healing. But it is the assertion of present healing that is repeated. Any sick person repeating this is lying. Any healthy person is complicit in that lie because he is moving his neighbor, by his own peer-pressure participation, to so speak. Stating your marriage is great when it’s falling apart is to speak a lie. Anyone repeating ‘I am prosperous’ when he can’t pay his bills is lying too. What’s going on in these repetitive affirmations is the ‘word of faith’ practice of calling your wishes into existence. This heresy is nothing different from, and no more effectual than, the lying affirmations that are done before the mirror by those who are desperate to overcome inferiority complexes. Such people are usually made fun of for speaking lying vanities to their mirror-image. But charismatics practicing the same inanities are the last ones who should laugh at a foolish, futile exercise like that. What they do by the ‘word of faith’ is the same thing. This lying is no small sin. “He that speaketh lies shall not escape” (Proverbs 19.5) and “he that speaketh lies shall perish” (Proverbs 19.9.) One of the seven things that are an abomination to the LORD is ‘a lying tongue’ (Proverbs 6.17.) The Bible is meant to be applied. And so “the leaders [Mr. Huizing and Mr. Johnson] of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed” (Isaiah 9.16.) The Psalmist prays against this very thing for the good of his soul: “Incline not my heart to any evil thing, to practice wicked works with men that work iniquity: and let me not eat of their dainties” (Psalm 141.4.) How fitting is that? Hopefully, many persons whose pastors teach the practice of lying will read this. Suppose you are one of these persons who repeats things that are untrue. Do you think these verses just quoted mean what they say? Or is God a liar too? ‘I believe the Bible’ is one of the setup phrases Mr. Johnson gets the people to repeat. But if these repeaters truly believed the Bible, would they, in the very next breath, repeat an untruth? If you say or have said, that you believe the Bible, why do you so willingly participate in stating lies? What does your belief in the Bible amount to when you think so little of practicing what it condemns? These are valid questions, not hasty assumptions. Mr. Johnson is wily enough to begin with phrases he wants repeated that are readily assented to by churchgoers, like ‘I believe the Bible.’ Then right away he comes out with a phrase that will no doubt be untrue to many, and before the people know what they’re doing they’re repeating lies without thinking. They are tricked into lying. The pastor has the greater sin. But lying is a sin, even if you are tricked into it. Call it a thoughtless fib, call it what you will, but it’s still an ugly violation of the ninth commandment. In churches with pastors like this, the people “consider not that they do evil” (Ecclesiastes 5.1.) ‘Be more ready to hear’ (hear intelligently, perceive) before you obey. Then you may avoid giving ‘the sacrifice of fools.’ The sin of a rash mouth is ‘before God’ (verse 2.)

A man who beguiles others into lying is worse than a liar, being the instigator of it. Like Satan, he is the father of lies. Mr. Johnson is that kind of father. We don’t have to dig deep to uncover a lie done by him. Some of his lies are right on the surface for all to look at and be disgusted by. How anyone could be blind to such noticeable darkness is hard to get your mind around! You’d think that such a black sin would clash with the whiteness of the ministerial office so much as to be a revelation to everyone! He says that tithing is not about the return you hope to get from God. Soon after this he relates a series of short stories that are designed to generate hope in this very kind of consequence from tithing! To beguile in this way, or to state one thing in principle and then teach its opposite by narrative, is a lie. This is a surface lie—easy to spot. Surface lies like this are necessary in order to shore up support for the big, central lie. He states that the tithe is holy, which is true. But his whole fifty-minute talk is a defense, or apologetic, for greed. His interpretation of the tithe is a greedy one, not a holy one. From Malachi 3 it can be made to look like the LORD of hosts is urging people to give simply to receive a return. But if you look closely at that passage it should be obvious that what is being taught is a consequential blessing from giving, yes, but not a blessing on account of any mere sake of giving. The blessing is on account of the holy living and repentance that underlie the holy tithe. “Return unto me, and I will return to you” (Malachi 3.7.) This is the fundamental ‘return’ of that text. And it is exactly the kind of return that pastors like this and the people under their sway need most of all to hear and to put into effect, their present focus being on the earthly, monetary, moth corrupting things of our present, dying, transient world. They need to repent and get their eyes on God, Jesus, and eternity. And the blessing that accrues in the account of the saintly giver is now (for we are not Jews of the Old Testament) ‘treasures in heaven,’ not stuff on earth to satisfy our lower nature by. Mr. Johnson complains of pastors being criticized for preaching on finances, then responds, “But I say, ‘let it rock n’ roll’” That says it all, really. He is a greed-centered teacher, not grace-centered like a pastor should be. A grace-centered pastor would have preached repentance from that passage in Malachi, not financial reward. Early on in this vexatious monologue he makes a big deal about how the recession was threatening to oblige him to lay off some of his staff. He kind of leaves it at that except to say that his offerings increased on account of his tithing. Later, very quickly and abruptly, he admits that ‘we do this’ and then received, by which he means, either that the practice of the holy tithe increased the offerings, or that staff were indeed laid off and so the increase came about through money freed up. It’s really unclear what is being communicated in that spot. But we would not be surprised that this ‘increase’ he speaks of came from the staff no longer having to be paid. It’s a guess; we admit it. Our suspicions and the ambiguity of his communication justify our mentioning it. Nevertheless, we have plainly shown the man to be a liar and a money-oriented interpreter of Scripture. Since he is infinitely far beneath the standard of blamelessness that the Bible commands him to be at, he does not deserve the benefit of any doubt whatsoever.

The members of this congregation are far from guiltless victims in this visiting pastor’s ploy to get their money into ‘buckets’ at the front of the church. They laugh when the pastor admits that ‘what’s in it for me?’ is a key question for him in his approach to Scripture. They seem okay with him making a lewd comment about having wanted a certain woman in a carnal way. His imitations of how tithing should not be done in unholy ways are themselves unholy. But they’re okay with that too. As near as we can tell with a careful ear, his unholiness is never checked nor bemoaned by the people, except perhaps for a sprinkling of murmurs once. His irreverence toward God in the stories of himself they seem quite comfortable with. In fact, he praises them for receiving ‘politically incorrect’ stories more readily than his own congregation does. The people at Family of Faith have their own measure of unholiness (though we’re convinced that it can’t quite measure up to this visiting pastor’s.) And by their own desire for the wealth that this pastor boasts of in his air of pretended humility, they are drawn in to put both the tithe and the offering into unclean, money-grabbing hands. They want the tree-lined lane too; they want to be able to buy the big house over the phone; they want the fountain out in front, the acres out back, and the shop to put the Harley in; and so they try to believe that by giving they will get. By sowing like the big tither himself, they will reap what the big tither reaped—this is their deluded hope. If churchgoers could know for sure—I mean infallibly—that getting does not follow from greed-motivated giving, then snakish pastors like this would curl up in the most obscure corners and their ministries would begin to dry up and die for the good of all of us. A good indicator that his interpretation of the tithe is false is in how he came by his conviction to buy the house he brags about. He says that by keeping the tithe holy the windows of heaven were opened to show him what he should have. Just think about this in the large context of what’s in the Bible. Is God in the habit of opening his windows to show us that we should have stuff? Or does he open the windows to show heavenly truths? What did he show Peter? Creeping things that Peter should eat, not luxury items for Peter to enjoy; a message that abased him, not a message that puffed him up (Acts 10.) God did not show this proud pastor that he should have this house; much less did he show him this on account of his wonderful tithing! Mr. Johnson complains that pastors should not have to worry about meeting the bills so they can concentrate on their sermons instead. But the Bible forbids anxiety for necessities, doesn’t it? At the very least, the pastor could put the sermon first, then the worry. Or why doesn’t a pastor sell his million-dollar house to pay the bills? Or even better, why doesn’t he just speak ‘words of faith’ into the air to take care of it all? While the ‘word of faith’ takes care of the matter, he could speak on something more important than mammon! No, you see, he can’t do that because the only things that work for false prophets are deception and pressure. No matter how far Mr. Johnson’s offerings back home are up, who will believe that he preached for free on this occasion? Or who will believe that he came for any holier reason than getting money into Mr. Huizing’s coffers? ‘Maybe that’s your problem’ is his answer to anyone who might complain of not getting fed in church. He’s hoping the listeners will interpret this materially and then give money to get money back. But they should know that the pastor who does not feed the flock the deep things of God deserves to handle no tithe at all. If we ought to be on guard against the professing Christian who, like the hypocritical Pharisees did, attempts to ‘serve God and mammon’ (Luke 16.13), then how much more should we be wary of the pastor of a church who serves mammon alone? This ‘hired gun’ brought in by Mr. Huizing to force his people to hand over their money for some ‘building thing’ and whatnot seems even more of a false shepherd than the man who invited him! But we wouldn’t be too dogmatic about that, for who is guiltier, the one who fleeces, or the one who paves the way for his own people to be fleeced? What’s the difference, anyway, between fleecing by your own sly message, or through some other person’s devious rant? There is so little of God about these two men, if we take for our guide this message and the other three by Mr. Huizing that we have biblically scrutinized, that without a hum or a haw we can say that there is not a speck of grace detectable in both of them together! This is supposed to be a message ‘that will rock your house personally.’ For sure, it will rock your house in more ways than one: it’ll rock your wallet (in a bad way) if you believe it; but more ominously, if you believe it your faith will be rocked because this message is a sort of antichrist; it is unchristian. Jesus cannot and will not approve of mammon-centered religion; he is not receiving any tithe from givers who go about tithing through the dark prism of what they can gain materially from it, for the tithe of greed must be unholy. We have to wonder about the hearts of givers who give on the basis of greed because greedy behavior seems like the conduct of people who are, at bottom, irreligious. We’re not saying that every person taken in by flattery and bombast is unsaved. But the question must be raised. Those who cave in to pressure and intimidation and can give money to men like Mr. Johnson with nothing but a heavy heart, they might have grace. It’s possible. And those who give but not just to get back, they might be in a saved state. That too is possible. At best, in giving in to the appeals of a man like this, or in giving with an eye to receiving something back, the giver is acting, in the words of Paul, ‘as carnal.’ And he should be reproved by someone. Do not be persuaded by anecdotes that giving-to-get works. In our Western world, money eventually comes from somewhere at some time. The money in the mail is not because of how much money you gave in church to a man like this. In fact, had you not given to ministries like those governed by Mr. Huizing and Mr. Johnson, you would have both the money you gave and the money that followed after. You would be richer, not poorer. Now God is gracious. He might bail you out if you gave where you should not have given. But you are responsible to know better than to give to false prophets. If you continue, without scrutiny, to give to them, he may allow you, because of your irresponsibility, to lose your money and that’s that. When tithing begins to be an act of giving for the purpose of financial return, it ceases to be a holy act, for the motive is earthly instead of godly. Selfish giving, how can this be God-ward giving? This idea that you can’t out-give God is a dangerous precept to put into practice when giving is selfish and carnal, for carnal giving is not giving to God in the first place. Giving to get is just an attempt to give to yourself. Will God out-give that kind of giver? The concept that you can’t out-give God is not meant by godly givers to be taken in a mathematical, calculating way. The concept is that God will take care of those who, from a state of grace and a willing, cheerful heart, perform acts of mercy. Believe it, that is no act of mercy to trust your money to men like Mr. Huizing and Mr. Johnson!  

So focused on material riches is Mr. Johnson that sweeping statements most false, perhaps from the foundation of the first church, are uttered by him in order to fixate listeners to his carnal doctrine. There is virtually nothing on worship in the New Testament, he proudly claims. Isn’t that interesting? For starters, the word ‘worship’ in one grammatical form or other, occurs over 70 times there. “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (John 4.24.) There is a precept on worship (and a good one for charismatic folks, for they usually worship in spirit at the expense of truth, and what kind of spirit is that?) Furthermore, it is common knowledge even among babes that the Corinthian letters were written to instruct carnal-acting Christians how to worship properly. And here is a sweeping statement that you need not be afraid of believing: virtually every part of the whole Bible, either by direction, lamentation, genealogy, poetry, example, practical application, or narrative disobedience, is a manual for worship! Mr. Johnson knows, or knows his audience knows, that the New Testament does not enforce tithing in any legalistic fashion like he hopes to enforce. So he resorts to trying to sweep the New Testament away (except, of course, for the story of the coin in the mouth of the fish) while he keeps instead to distortions of the Old Testament to put his evil theories into effect. Like Mr. Huizing, he must worship that fish! or rather the coin that was found inside it! and so turn a lovely lesson-giving miracle into some sort of golden goose! Regarding worship, a fitting word for these men is, “Ye worship ye know not what” (John 4.22.) About what the Spirit supposedly showed Mr. Johnson, let’s show again, this time by another apostle, that it is at odds with the truth. We know that this vision (or whatever) is phony just by the spirit of it, or we should say, by the stuff inside it. The apostle Paul was shown something from heaven. And what did he tell us? “Of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities” (2 Corinthians 12.5.) What else besides?—: reproaches, necessities, persecutions, distresses for Christ’s sake (verse 10.) What did Mr. Johnson come out of his experience speaking of?—: his million dollar house, his fountain, his tree-lined drive, his five acres, and his Harley! Are these two spiritual experiences not just a little different in their effect? What Paul was shown humbled him. But what Mr. Johnson saw filled him with pride. Why the difference? The difference is between a real experience with God and a hoax, or between a vision from God and a carnal dream, or between the windows of heaven and Satan’s lair, and certainly between true religion and false. Mr. Huizing’s religion does not fair any better, what with his ‘7Ms of Ministry’ on that sheet of paper that came with the CD, which includes such exalted M’s as ‘marketing,’ ‘man power,’ and ‘money.’ What a mockery of ministry when such M’s as mantle, monuments, and mercies could have been lifted, even from just a mini concordance!      

Conclusion: The narrator for the CD’s promo states that the vision of Family of Faith is to ‘reach our region with quality teaching.’ But consider: God is only working for you when you get some monetary or material reward for your tithing. This is the thesis of Mr. Johnson’s selfish, financial, ungodly speech. Is this ‘quality teaching?’ Even the ministry of Christ (and therefore his person too) is reduced to servitude of ‘unrighteous mammon’ (Luke 16.11) by this pastor (who’s been the pastor of a church for 28 years!) Is this ‘quality teaching?’ Note where Mr. Johnson’s emphasis lies, “His [Jesus’] priesthood is the intercession for us. But the reality is, he’s compared to Melchizedek in a place where—he says I’m here to receive the tithe” (That’s his broken speech, not ours.) You see, it’s this ‘reality’ that really counts for Mr. Johnson. This interceding and all that, you know, the office of the High Priest that is done to secure and complete this matter of redemption, that’s nothing compared to this ‘reality’! And here is the ‘reality’ of Christ’s priesthood, according to Mr. Johnson: that he is bound to give an earthly reward for selfish giving. Is this the practice of tithing to Christ? of laying up treasures in heaven? This is no tithe at all. It’s just a poverty-resulting exercise on your part, and a profitable enterprise for the huckster who handles this kind of ‘tithe.’ Melchizedek, if this pastor would care to crack open his New Testament, did not just exist to receive tithes. And neither does Jesus exist for the likewise purpose. Melchizedek’s existence is to foreshadow the office of Jesus as High Priest outside the order of Aaron, which therefore means, a ministry for, and applicable to, any and all who believe in his name, no matter what their status or stripe. The way is open to anyone willing to believe. And never mind that bit by Mr. Johnson about sinners not bearing a curse prior to conversion. Until conversion, every sinner stands condemned (John 3.18.) We should have a right to hope, since this truth occurs so close to the universally known 3.16, that a pastor would have learned at least that!

Many critics outside the church, be they cynics, skeptics, or open unbelievers, are entirely correct about a certain churchgoing crowd being naïve and brainwashed into surrendering their hard-earned salaries to money-begging ministers. The scenario in the mammon-ministries of our day resembles a certain obscure, gloomy situation spoken of by Zechariah the prophet: “Thus saith the LORD my God; feed the flock of the slaughter; whose possessors slay them, and hold themselves not guilty: and they that sell them say, blessed be the LORD; for I am rich: and their own shepherds pity them not” (Zechariah 11.4, 5.) Even without exposition or meditation, there is just something about this passage that eerily mirrors the situation in churches where mammon-mongers rule. And hear Matthew Henry on this: “It is ill for a church when its pastors can look upon the ignorant, the foolish, the wicked, the weak, without pity. The sentence of God’s wrath passed upon them for their stupidity. And, as their shepherds pitied them not, so they did not bemoan themselves…Those who are willing to have their consciences oppressed by those who teach for doctrines the commandments of men are often punished by oppression in their civil interests, and justly, for those forfeit their own rights who tamely give up God’s rights.” How perfectly applicable this is! and not only to this congregation, but to so many others! As for false shepherds, they can be cut off by the LORD in one month, as it says further on in verse 8; and since the life of a man is no longer in the eyes of God than the length of time it takes for a flower to fade, this prophecy will hold true even if these counterfeit shepherds continue to deceive and dispossess for more than another actual month. It’s a pain to have them in pulpits now; but we pray for better in the midst of our pain. Preaching cannot become more materialistic or money-centered than what goes on in churches like this one. Hopefully, things can only get better. The shinier these pulpits may yet appear because of the dung that presently covers them.

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

ALEXANDER TAYLOR INNES, CHURCH AND STATE, A HISTORICAL HANDBOOK (BOOK REPORT 12)

(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

Alexander Taylor Innes, Church and State, a Historical Handbook (1890; Bibliolife, n.d.), 275 pp.




(The above picture is not on the book; but it is suggestive of the intersecting of two kingdoms. The picture on the book you order will be a somewhat random affair. Mine was appropriate to the subject. There is no dust jacket, an excellent idea!)


The question of Church and State exists when conformity to national religion and its religious practice are no longer the accepted opinion (p. 2.) With some help from a Frenchman, Mr. Innes does not take long to show the tension between Church and State: “The Roman empire admitted [allowed] no association within the State independent of the State…The cold hand of the State should not press on the inner kingdom of the soul…Association independent of the State, but without destroying the State, is the great question of the future” (Les Apotres, Ernest Renan, p. 7.) If not persecution for nonconformity, the Christian of Roman times (less in our day) had to beware of civil or military participation, for recognition of Pagan rites is then inevitable (p. 14.) The Christian might also be tempted to yield even more than this, and by a wholly voluntary act, bring the Church under State rule by asking it to settle disputes among churches or sects regarding matters like ownership of property (pp. 16-19) or even orthodoxy of belief (p. 45.)

An edict in 311 ended the last persecution of Roman times (p. 22.) The year following, soldiers marched under Constantine at the sign of the cross, an event showing the subordination of State to Church (p. 23.) At this time, Constantine still worshipped the sun. Paganism was not made illegal by him; nor did he profess to establish Christianity, maintains Innes. The proclamation of Christianity as the religion of the empire came generations later (p. 25.) “When these Christians, with their intense convictions, should have themselves become a victorious majority, how long would the Christian ruler be able to keep his official neutrality and equal-handed justice?” (p. 27.) As Constantine’s convictions became more intense, though, his toleration became (a rare thing in history) vivid. Innes is strong on this point, claiming that justice has never been done to the man on this account. A long quote from the writings of Constantine follows in support of this opinion (p. 30.) However, “to tolerate all religions, but to favour Christianity, was the idea of his reign” (p. 32.) One can see the hint of a crackdown in the word ‘favour.’ Before his death in 337, municipal, as well as Pagan temple revenue, was being turned over to Church use, and forms of Pagan worship were being prohibited (pp. 32, 33.) Through the zeal of his sons, toleration decreased even more, and Constantine’s vision of uniting Christianity and Paganism into a sort of Deism faded into oblivion (p. 33.) “The wheel had now come almost full circle; for not only was Christianity now established, as Paganism had been before, but the open exercise of the one religion was now declared a crime against the State in the same way—and even in the same words—in which in the previous century the law had been bent itself against the profession of the other” (p. 38.)

It is necessary to digress from the summary to observe a little. Historical relations of Church and State are hard to study. What writer can simplify such complexity? But the subject is second to none when it comes to life principles that must be learned from a general acquaintance with it. Here is the most concerning principle that this book is suggestive of. The State is now encroaching on the Church (Canada, 2011); but without warning, and suddenly, the reverse might become the case (which I would not advocate.) Those who are glad to see the Church lose its rights should, with historical precedent in mind, back off for fear of backlash. Christians, for all their talk of peace and love, can be abruptly agitated, who knows by what moral event, and can become, with no warning, just as fanatically ardent to get their opinions into law as most of the worst of liberal activists. It can happen just like that. Liberals should draw back from poking Christians in the eye. Religious zeal is the hardest to stop once it gets moving. Revenge is not something you want to provoke a Christian to, especially nowadays, for today’s Christian has all but lost his compass, his virtue, and his senses. There’s no telling what he might do with the powers on his side.

“The Creeds of the Church down to the Reformation contained nothing on the relations of Church and State” (126.) Then come the Protestant Confessions on the subject, which are more advanced in the advocacy of religious tolerance than was then allowed in practice (pp. 130, 131.) ‘The ruler of the region is the ruler of religion’ (p. 156) proved a dictum not easily dislodged. On the other hand, the imposition of religious observances upon secular peoples leads to reactionary philosophies. While Hobbes (1588-1679) would put faith and conscience in the power of a king (p. 189), Rousseau (1712-1778) would go so far as to have Christian faith disallowed (p. 204, 207.) The State, when supreme, can go this way or that; and so a system yielding liberty for all is the aim.

In Church and State, a Historical Handbook, Innes does not propose an ideal, not by his own pen nor by that of another. But the wisdom approaching to an ideal may be found in the research well organized by him. The question is now more between Parliament and Church than Church and king. But the issues remain basically the same. That the State exists for man, not the man for the State (Kant, p. 252) seems to agree with the State being ordained to bear the sword for the good of man, as stated in Romans 13. The ideal is hinted at more largely by Pope Nicolas I (865) on page 129, and excellently too, if we can get past the word ‘pontiff’ and pretend to see ‘Church’ or ‘church minister’ there instead. In short, his meaning is that the State and Church benefit each other most when they keep to their proper stations, the Church depending on the State to solve temporal issues, the State depending on the Church in regard to spiritual matters. A briefer, though slightly less marvelous sum of the ideal may be gleaned from Coleridge. The Church completes and strengthens the State, he says, but does so from without interference or commixture, as it goes about laying its own foundations. The Church does not ask wages or dignities from the State, but only protection and to be let alone (p. 230.) The page on Locke’s position contains more of the same sentiment, but writ more large (p. 194.) The reality is that “all ideas upon Church and State, and human welfare generally, like gases into different sides of the same chamber, must henceforth meet and mix in the one European democracy” (Innes is a UK author, p. 268.)

This is not a definitive word on the Church/State question; that is not Inne’s design. It is, just as promised, a handbook on the subject from the historical angle. And it’s a good one. This 19th century lawyer delivers a scholarly, readable, stylistically attractive synopsis.  
 
Content: A- (Comprehensive, knotty legal history)
    Style: A- (Better than your average legal file, I’m sure.)
    Tone: A  (Objective but not cold.)
                       
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.

Thursday, April 5, 2012

ON THE RED DEER MINISTERIAL (CRITIQUE 1)

(This blog feature is for the purpose of critiquing what is called ‘The Good Word’ in the Red Deer Advocate. ‘The Good Word’ is supplied by those ministers in Red Deer who are united in that relationship called ‘The Red Deer Ministerial.’ Ministerial pastors (virtually all Red Deer ministers) share with one another the privilege of writing what they call ‘The Good Word.’ Thus, ‘The Good Word’ is ‘The Ministerial Word.’)

The Subject: ‘Are we a skittish Easter people?’ by Mr. Rolf Nosterud, Lutheran Church of the Good Shepherd, in the Red Deer Life, ‘The Good Word,’ Sunday, March 25, 2012.

The Sin Committed in this Article: PROSTITUTION OF GOD’S HOLY WORD.

Here is the Proof:

In this article, Mr. Nosterud said: “Jesus once said, ‘Many are called, but few rise to answer.’”


This particular ‘Good Word’ is about how Christians ought to rise up and ‘protest for a different world!’ By this is meant that we should rise up and ‘protest the trampling of the innocent and vulnerable—wherever it happens!’ That is the gist of Mr. Nosterud’s message. We agree with the moral; but there is no gospel here, no message about how the death of Christ might be to our eternal benefit through saving faith in his name. For all their noise and preparations for Easter, Red Deer ministers haven’t much to say about the Easter message of Christ’s death and resurrection.

If it is a good thing to ‘protest for a different world,’ then it must be an excellent thing to ‘protest for a different word’ than the one given to us here by Mr. Nosterud. It must be an excellent thing to protest against the prostitution of God's word in the column called ‘The Good Word.’ To ‘prostitute,’ according to Webster’s: ‘to devote or corrupt to unworthy purposes.’ Maybe some reader or other will contend that Mr. Nosterud corrupted Jesus’ words for a worthy purpose: to preach against injustice. No matter why you corrupt the word of God, the reason cannot be important enough, can it, to make Jesus and God’s word into liars? Say that it can if you dare. Get on Mr. Nosterud’s side if you like. But we will call his abuse of Jesus’ words ‘prostitution,’ just like the Bible lovers of old would have done. Jesus spoke. It is written. Any purpose in the world will not justify this History to be rewritten! Such rewriting is prostitution; we should use the strongest possible word we can think of to single out the sin Mr. Nosterud is guilty of. It is PROSTITUTION. He prostitutes the word of God to his own purpose.

Mr. Nosterud cites no Bible book, nor number, in support of what he tells us ‘Jesus once said.’ What Jesus really said was: “Many are called, but few are chosen” (Matthew 22.14.) It is doubtful that even the most corrupt modern translation says anything like, ‘but few rise to answer.’ If this educated man had been loyal to quote what Jesus actually did say, he would have gained easy access to preaching the gospel, for that verse, accurately quoted, naturally leads to it. But he must think it is no sin at all to misquote Jesus in order to preach something the verse was not designed to address. To be faithful to the word of God must be less important to this man (who calls himself a Rev. Dr.) than being faithful to his own idea about what the word, even Jesus Christ, should say! 

Blameworthy behavior of this magnitude is more the norm than the exception in ‘The Good Word.’ The word of God has been prostituted in that column, in one fashion or another, nine times out of ten, for as long as we’ve been aware of the column’s existence: since about 1995. Long-term discreditable conduct! Many letters of protest have been sent over the years, both to these ministers and to the newspaper they publish in. But not one time (and we have followed this column very closely) have we ever come across a protesting letter from one minister to another. Can their silence about each other’s false doctrines and sins be on account of all ministers always agreeing with what is written in ‘The Good Word’ by their fellow brother? Can it be that they all agree that exchanging the words of Christ for an invention is okay? Their unity is such that we never hear of any one breaking rank to reprove another of false doctrine or practice, no matter how wicked the fault. Paul withstood Peter for acting two-faced (Galatians 2.11, 12.) Acting two-faced must be a less serious transgression than tampering with the word of God! But will the Ministerial cry foul? Will it, or any minister in it, withstand Mr. Nosterud to his face? Because of past Ministerial silence when a voice was needed to correct one of its ministers, we have reason to expect nothing more honorable than ongoing cowardice in the interest of Ministerial unity.

But brotherly confrontation is okay to do; and it may even be written about. Paul did both. Where bona fide biblical unity exists, there will be a shared concern for truth, and because of this, you will notice that confrontations happen. But a Ministerial that lets each minister believe and do what is right in his own eyes, what kind of brotherhood is that? Is it biblical? That unity may be tight in some outward, superficial sense; but it has no spiritual depth, no accountability, and in consequence, no credibility. This ‘brotherhood’ is an associaton of light and darkness, which is condemned and forbidden by Paul in 2 Corinthians 6. Attempt to make a condemned association like this work, and you will have to overlook, and be silent about, the sins of your ‘brothers’ in order to maintain order and peace. This is why the Ministerial is bankrupt where earnestly contending for the faith is concerned (Jude 3.) How can you contend for the faith when there are so many faiths in your ‘brotherhood.’ Which faith would you contend for? The faith of Roman Catholicism, which says that salvation is by works as much as by faith? The ‘Word of Faith’ from Family of Faith, the aim of which, is not salvation by the Lord and the enjoyment of him, but material prosperity from him and the enjoyment of things? Or will it be the particular Lutheran faith of Mr. Nosterud, which says that the words of a minister may replace the words of Christ whenever it suits the minister’s fancy or design? Rather than contend for the faith, then, this Ministerial, in order for a show of peace to exist and continue, contends for no faith at all, not even the ‘faith of Jesus’ (Revelation 14.12.)         

Mr. Nosterud is okay with Scripture prostitution. And many professing Christians will not see much of a sin, if any at all, in what he has done. Some will, we hope, be enlightened to how awful that sin is, through this critique. If you see no sin in a minister deciding what a verse should be—no sin in his exchange of Christ’s words for his own, then is your respect for the word of God not wanting? Is your respect, then, for Jesus the Word, not extremely insignificant? Is it not even possible, then, that you are stone-blind spiritually? Do not allow the state of your religion to come down to what is typical among churchgoers in these ignorant, apathetic times. There are churchgoing persons who possess critical faculties of a very dulled character through the corrupted church culture that believes nothing should be judged, that anything goes, and that nothing counts. Pray that God will disallow your mind from withering to the point at which you don’t care what is done to his precious, soul-saving word. If God will judge at all (and he will), our reaction to his word being corrupted and abused will certainly be some part of what will be weighed by him in that holy exercise. 

The verse this minister abuses happens to be the conclusion to the parable known as the marriage of the king’s son. This verse states the fundamental reason why worldly men will not gain entrance into heaven, but instead will be ‘cast into outer darkness’ (verse 13.) The reason: “For many are called, but few are chosen” (verse 14.) “The mass miss the wedding feast, and a few choice spirits find it by the choice of God’s grace” (Spurgeon’s Commentary on Matthew.) How eerily ironic that this minister would abuse a text on the judgment to come when that same judgment is promised for those who abuse the word of God! “And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life” (Revelation 22.19.) Do not cavil at this by saying this warning pertains only to what is contained in Revelation, and that therefore Mr. Nosterud is not liable to judgment. Common sense reasons that one part of Scripture is as inspired as another, and that therefore God will be holy to his word everywhere. The warning, or promise of judgment, just happens to be in the back of God’s Book. Mr. Nosterud takes out the words of Jesus the Saviour to insert his own instead. What greater sin can be committed by a man in the ministry? In his article, he speaks against compromise among Christians. But what compromise is done here by the Christians’ minister?! He is not this Christian’s minister! He compromises the very word that he has been ordained to save souls and glorify his God by! He compromises the words of the very Person ordained from eternity as the only Saviour of sinful souls! This man is culpable. The word of the very Person whose words he prostituted testifies to it. That fearsome word in Revelation 22.19, though penned by the apostle John and summoned forth by the Spirit, is ‘The Revelation of Jesus Christ’ (Revelation 1.1.)        

“The story of Nightingale is generally known [not anymore], which Foxe relates, how he fell out of the pulpit and broke his neck, while he was abusing that Scripture (1 John 1. 10)” (John Flavel, The Mystery of Providence, p. 38.)

Monday, March 19, 2012

SUNDRY AMERICAN PURITANS, GOD'S CALL TO YOUNG PEOPLE (BOOK REPORT 11)

(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

Sundry American Puritans, God’s Call to Young People, ed. Dr. Don Kistler (1700’s; Morgan, Pennsylvania: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2001), 229 pp.



The sermons in this compilation were preached by American Puritans not that long after they had “planted themselves in an uncultivated wilderness” (p. 28.) This fact alone should draw attention from adventurous readers. Mockers, however, will dismiss the book on the supposition that the age of its contents has rendered its message obsolete. “Amos tells them that as God has been especially good to them, so their sins especially call for punishments” (p. 154.) Is this kind of preaching obsolete? Can more timely preaching be heard from your local pulpit? All good preaching has a timeless aspect to it. This preaching from 18th century America has more life left in it than that last sermon you heard from your walking-talking preacher. It can time-travel well enough! Though the sermons are for the ‘rising generation’ of three centuries ago, their reach extends even to the older generation of this present day: “Should young people be careful to cleanse their way? What shall be said then of such as are grown old, and are not yet cleansed from their filthiness? If these lines should fall under the eye of any such, let them consider that awful word from Isaiah 65.20: ‘The sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed’” (p. 144.) Don’t be misled by the image on the dust-jacket; these sermons are not just for little girls! 

While the sermons are meant for adolescents, and their parents whose duty it is to send them off in the God-ward line, I cannot think of any person needing them more than today’s minister. Souls were generally saved at a younger age back then. The cause of this, at least instrumentally, was the preachers’ understanding of juvenile psychology and their subsequent response to that in their preaching. (About this, see especially Sermon 8 by Charles Chauncy.) Unlike what is done in our day, youth were not enticed to religion through deceit. The idea that you can be converted and yet hang on to your familiar routine and your old buddies is foreign to the Bible and absent from this book. The Puritans, because of their unshakable confidence in the sovereignty of God, were able to overcome the temptation to win souls through a compromised message: “There are sacrifices made by the young in turning to God that are not made by the old. It is at some cost that they relinquish the joys of earth and youthful companionships, and take up the cross” (p. 83.) What preacher today is faithful enough to lay an obstructing truth in the path of the young souls before him? A good preacher can balance an obstructing truth with some truthful incentive: “Let this one thought go along with you in your ardent and reckless career: Youth vanishes, and that bounding heart will soon beat sluggishly with age and become still in death, and after death is retribution” (p. 76.) And he will weave in some sweet invitation: “It will be no grief of heart to you that you remembered your Creator in the days of your youth. You will not regret it when God shall bring you into judgment. No son nor daughter of Adam will on that day be heard to say, ‘I wish I had taken my swing in the world a little longer. I was pious too early. God loved me too soon!’” (p. 91.) There, in a short space and by three quotes, is the Puritan approach to preaching to souls of any age. The sinner’s case is honestly presented; the reasonable threat is unleashed; and the sweet invitation is proffered. Does your Alpha course do any of this?

There is an existential reason why sermons from this Puritan collection should be promoted as models for pulpits today. The men responsible for delivering them were fruitful in theirs. Note the modesty in their testimonies to the grace of God upon their ministries. William Cooper: “We see, through the grace of God (as loose as the times are), many young people walking in the ways of godliness” (p. 151.) Jonathan Todd, 1740: “And I can’t but be pleased (and I hope it is a token for God) that the young people of my charge are inclined to be serious, and to consider the voice of God in the alarm that seemed given them. Oh, that your goodness may not prove as the morning cloud, and as the early dew go away” (p. 167.)

Due to the many tragedies that have come upon the world these last few decades, whereby thousands upon thousands have been swept to their graves ‘on a sudden,’ ministers have been often called upon, or expected, to respond with some appropriate message for the grieving survivors. All messages that I have heard in response to modern calamities have been about the love of God and his absence from the horror. The Puritans experienced their own hardships of a mortal nature, which usually came in the form of disease, and through which their infants and children were especially ravaged. Their message at such trying times is more about the judgment of God than his love; and for them, tragedy assumes or requires, rather than prohibits, the presence of God. “God, being infinitely good and delighting in mercy, most frequently sends His awakening judgments before He proceeds to the utmost against men. He warns them and gives them space for repentance. He sometimes visits with awful and distressing sicknesses. He sends the destroying angel, and takes away some as a warning to the rest” (p. 163, 164.) Can we not learn to preach like this when tragedy strikes? It is, after all, biblical. Pages 158, 159: “Thus the Assyrian, who had it in his heart to destroy and grievously wound Israel, is called ‘the rod of God’s anger’; and the staff in their hand is said to be His indignation” (Isaiah 10.5.) Puritan sermons are seasonable because they are biblically sound. When a pastor preaches on nothing but God’s love for survivors and his absence from tragedy, he is misrepresenting the case, not to mention God! He does so to avoid causing offence to man, which offence could be returned upon his own head by the offended. But by cowardliness, he misses his best opportunity to get offensive man reconciled to his offended Creator. Take the best interpreters and preachers of God’s holy word for your teachers!

There is one doctrine that I disagree with which is almost always found among people who revere the Covenant aspect of Revelation: the idea that children are in the covenant of God by virtue of ministerial administration and parental transmission (p. 19.) Covenant Theology is chief, but in this part I must part ways. Sometimes there is a fly to be found in the best ointment. But this fly does not contaminate the contents, for this doctrine of theirs does not include certain ‘mainline’ heresies, like baptismal regeneration. Their covenant theology is hedged about by biblical facts: “It is a sad thing that so vile a wretch as Nabal was should descend from such a house as Caleb’s was! Josiah was a godly man, yet all of his children were bad!” (p. 66.) Again, “Oh, the sovereign grace of our God! Samuel has a wicked son, and Jeroboam has a godly one” (p. 94.) Bible knowledge prevents heresy. God’s Call to Young People is a safe book full of sacred truth.

Content: A (Sermons not easily shrugged off.)
    Style: A (Beauty and clarity in the American-Puritan mold.)
    Tone: A (Arguments tenderly enforced to induce early religion.)
                       
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.

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

HENRY M. MORRIS, EVOLUTION AND THE MODERN CHRISTIAN (BOOK REPORT 10)

(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

Henry M. Morris, Evolution and the Modern Christian (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1967), 72 pp.

 
Scientist Henry M. Morris, Ph.D., does not subscribe to theistic evolution, progressive creation, the day-age theory, or the gap theory (the supposed time gap between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2.) “We have acknowledged that most scientists believe in evolution, but that is not at all the same as saying that science teaches evolution…Science…means knowledge—not theories, opinions, beliefs, or philosophies, but actual, verified, factual, certain knowledge—the organized body of observed data and experimentally verified processes and their relationships” (p. 41.) Now that’s definition!—clinical definition. Lots of exactness in Evolution and the Modern Christian. “Why are there many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no animals intermediate between cats and dogs?” (p. 23.) The observed data show that there are gaps that evolution cannot account for. How come there are no intermediates? “All the ‘information’ for the development of each particular organism was already ‘encoded’ in the D.N.A. of its parent. They must reproduce ‘after their kinds’” (p. 25.) “New varieties can be established, but not new kinds” (p. 26.) Mutations happen. Can an accumulation of favorable mutations not be the bridge between kinds? “Even evolutionary geneticists readily acknowledge that at least 99.9 per cent of all observed mutations are harmful [to themselves]” (p. 28.) What we observe in biology today is in line with what we observe in history in the geological column. In there, “still no organisms intermediate between the protozoa and metazoa, between the dog and the cat, between the horse and elephant…There are literally an innumerable host of ‘missing links’ in the record” (p.33.) There are great gaps between all the basic kinds. That may be the simplest way to show the want of evolution: in the gaps.

Mr. Morris goes on to point us to the evidence of catastrophe in the column, which is the only reasonable answer to why fossils exist to be examined. “Rapid burial is necessary if a fossil is to be formed; otherwise the organism would quickly disappear because of scavengers or decay” (p. 38.) Historical sources, biblical and otherwise, point us to the catastrophic flood, which the Apostle Peter and Jesus Christ affirmed (p. 39.) In short, the various data direct us to the biblical record of creation, not to evolution. Other probabilities for creation include those two basic Laws of thermodynamics, of conservation and entropy. These laws point to Genesis. The theory of evolution persists in the face of so much evidence against it because the only real alternative is this creation account, and what that implies. “It is true that most scientists reject Biblical Christianity—just as do most lawyers and most plumbers and most ditch-diggers. This is not because of their science but because of…the demands of the Word of God” (p. 41.) Here is why the question of evolution is vital to the Christian: “One cannot legitimately question the historicity of the creation record without questioning the judgment or veracity of the Apostles or of Christ Himself” (p. 57.)

Content: A (An honest look at the data.)
    Style: A (A good summary of the problem.)
    Tone: A (A bold spokesman for the solution.)
                      
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.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

SPIRITUAL REVIVAL THE WANT OF THE CHURCH (SERMON SKETCH 6)

(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.)

Spiritual Revival the Want of the Church

“O Lord, revive thy work” (Habakkuk 3.2.)

Introduction. All true religion is the work of God. It is his greatest work. He views the work of grace as being more glorious than the works of nature. I believe the Eternal might sooner forgive the sin of attributing the creation of the heavens and of the earth to an idol, than that of attributing the works of grace to any thing else but God. There are means and agencies employed, but the work of converting the soul is both start and finish wholly the Lord’s. He converts, maintains, completes, and perfects the life of the soul and Church. Therefore, ‘O Lord, revive thy work!’

(1) Revival in Ourselves. We are too quick to flog the church, too fast to magnify her little errors. Let’s lay the whip on our personal shoulders first. I will not flatter you. London is a huge criminal full of sin; if all of its professors of religion were true, this city would be less wicked. Let us admit it, or our enemies will! How many church members are liars or money-chasers, grinding the faces of the poor? Now if these be true Christians, is not their spark smothered, needing to be fanned into a flame? Ah, it is so fashionable to be religious when persecution is taken away! If you are fake, quit pretending! If you are real, quit your errors! Do you think that God would now stoop from heaven to listen to the conversation of his church? Where is the talk of our Lord and Master? Are we too scared to speak of Christ for fear of being called strange? O, we must not talk about this doctrine or the other because so and so disbelieves it! Then we end up with nothing but worldly talk! Now let me ask—when did you last have a love-visit from Jesus? Do you weep and groan over this lack? Maybe you are content without Christ? Ah, you need prayer most of all! There are many that need revival, but only few that feel they need it. Stir up your feelings by recollecting what the Lord has done for you. If you feel your need you will groan to have the ordinances of song, preaching, and communion to seem as sweet as once they were! Is your emptiness an aching void? Forget about resolutions to revive yourself. Instead, pray, ‘O Lord, revive thy work!’ When you really feel the lack of revival, you will never speak of reviving yourself! He that first made you must revive you!

(2) Revival in the Church. This age is too much the age of form, not enough of life. Men are the rarest things in all the world. Compared with the puritanic times, where are our preachers? our Howes,  our Charnocks? Where is the galaxy of grace that followed Whitefield? We have no real preaching today. Where are the preaching tears? There is a lack of revival because there is a lack in the pulpit. And look at the lack of good teaching. Orthodox men of old would be called heretics today! The decline was gradual, and was begun by ministers who were ashamed to preach the hard doctrines! We need revival of sound teaching. And we need a revival of zeal too. Our prayer meetings are too empty. We are too honorable in the world’s eyes. If we were zealous we would be hated more. Maybe you think we are fine, that there is no need? But some of us will cry out for reviving. We need life, not new plans, forms, and fresh ministers—but life!

Selection from Conclusion. “O! for the days when in this place hundreds were converted sometimes under Whitefield’s sermons. It has been known that two thousand credible cases of conversion have happened under one solitary discourse…O! for the age of deep feeling…Let us ask God for it; let us plead with him for it. Perhaps he has the man, or the men, somewhere, who will shake the world yet; perhaps even now he is about to pour forth a mighty influence upon men!”

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

Thursday, February 2, 2012

BALMORAL BIBLE CHAPEL, BEEN INVITED TO ANY GOOD PARTIES LATELY? (SERMON ANALYSIS 3)

May 2011

This is the third sermon by Mr. Lane that we have chosen to review. We listened by podcast.

Mr. Lane, Balmoral Bible Chapel, October 31st, 2010, Been Invited to any Good Parties Lately?

Summary: (The sermon is prefaced by Mr. Lane’s approving comment on a shelter, which he follows up by a comment on Jesus’ first miracle.) John is excited that the word became flesh. (He reads from 1 John 1.) They saw him with their eyes! Matthew says his name will be Emmanuel, God with us. We need to be Jesus in the flesh. Stand as we read from John 2. Notice the outcome, the disciples put their faith in him. (He quotes John 20.31.) The purpose of John’s writing is to bring people to faith. We see this in John 1.34 and later in the testimony of Nathaniel. The story of the wedding feast at Cana is one of eight signs to bring us to faith in Jesus as the Son of God. That’s the bigger picture. The story is not just a proof of his divinity. There are lessons there. (A) The location, Cana of Galilee. We don’t know exactly where Cana was or is. If I were orchestrating a miracle, I would pick a more known place to do it in. That’s not what Jesus did. (B) Jesus and his disciples were invited to the wedding. Some people explain their own lack of faith as the result of not being helped by God. But they never invited God to the party. God always takes the initiative. But we need to invite him. Without his presence, we can’t benefit from his blessing. Are you inviting Jesus into every area of your life? Don’t expect God’s help unless you’ve invited Jesus into your life. (C) The problem was running short of wine. This was a very serious problem in that culture. Mary realizes the solution is in her Son. ‘Do whatever he tells you’ are the last recorded words of Mary. She expresses trust that he is in control. He hears and he responds. Take it to Jesus because he cares. Trust is followed by obedience. They filled the jars to the brim. Blessing comes from obedience. (He reads John 15.10, 11.) Love is proven by obedience, and obedience is followed by joy. In the Bible wine is equated to joy. Jesus wants to fill us to the brim. The lesson for disciples is that you can only be obedient if you are listening. You need to be in his word. You listen to obey. (D) The water was transformed. We have a God who can transform lives, taking evil and bringing good out of it. (He reads Psalm 30.11.) God clothes us with joy. What a God we have! He can make us a new creation. He transforms rebels into children of God. (E) God is always surprising us, like choosing Cana. He chose Israel, the least of people (Deuteronomy 7.7.) He chooses Mary, humble and of no means. Shepherds are chosen to announce Jesus’ arrival. He is raised in Nazareth, the backwoods town. He chose unschooled, ordinary men for disciples. I’m so glad of God’s choices because he chooses rejected, humble, unqualified people; in short, people like you and me. (He relates a birthday story by Tony Campolo.) We should reach out to the street-people of Red Deer. That’s what Jesus would do. Spiritually speaking, without Christ we are lost, homeless, rejected, as outcasts to God. Jesus comes into the picture and transforms us and throws us a party. We’re all invited. Have you accepted your invitation? (He shares a story about his mother and a nursing home.) The nursing home is a great leveler. Everyone there is on the same level. Communion is a great leveler also. We’re on a level playing-field because none of us deserve to be here. And yet Jesus invites us. He says, ‘Come…Remember what I have done for you?’ Just as his people came from lives of weakness, rejection, and wandering, and have been transformed, we come and celebrate. We invite you to share with us in this. (He finishes with prayer.)

Remarks: This sermon is smoothly delivered; Mr. Lane speaks well and does not stumble after words. Though the outline is indistinct and inharmonious (points one and five are synonymous, for instance), the message runs nicely along. Historical details on Cana and wine help to keep up our interest. We are taken passed apologetics into practical Christianity. Applications are made: wine up to the brim, for instance, is like fullness of joy. The story from Mr. Campolo’s trip to Honolulu is affecting. And hearing that ‘do whatever he tells you’ are Mary’s last recorded words really sticks with us for a lasting impact. Without a doubt, this is the best part of the sermon. The shocking thing is that a sermon that sounds so nice and seems so good could have so much wrong with it. Our list of faults is very, very long. We’ll try to be brief, but this will be very, very hard.

Grading this sermon would be impossible to do as a whole. We’re relieved that we’ve not pigeonholed ourselves into having to give a general score. On the one hand, the sermon is charming, heartwarming, uplifting, and extensive in its use of Scripture; on the other hand, biblically, evangelically, and theologically it does not come up to an acceptable standard. Because of its very serious faults, it is more fit to line a birdcage than rest on a pulpit. It might sound terribly harsh to hear it put that way. But if we are allowed to have our say, taking the Bible for our measure, we will be faultless of the charge of sinful faultfinding.

First, there is a comment near the opening that we need to be Jesus with flesh on, or Jesus in the flesh. We know that he simply means by this that we need to do the works, or attempt to do the good works, that Jesus did, and would do if he were here on the ground with us, like feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc. We know this. But not all do. If Mr. Lane thinks that there are no churchgoing people who will take his comment too literally, he needs to go over to Family of Faith, or have a ‘heart to heart’ on doctrine with Mr. Huizing at the next Ministerial meeting! Belief in the self as god is not limited to new-agers, crackpots, and users of crack. It’s the belief of many of these far-out, emotion-based professors of faith too. That we must be Jesus in the flesh is a precarious comment to leave unqualified when there are so many persons in our churches who are unhinged from the most basic doctrines. Mr. Lane may be in touch in some ways with the churches of Red Deer. But he is not in touch with what’s being preached by some of his ‘brothers’ in the ministry. Instead of being involved in so many programs that tend to give a show of unity, he should get into what his peers are preaching in order to see if unity is genuine and warranted.

Second, in order to highlight the eternality and deity of Christ, Mr. Lane repeats the supposedly astute remark by someone, that Jesus’ first miracle was not, in fact, this one at Cana, but the act of creating all there is. About this miracle at Cana where Jesus turned water into wine, the Bible says ‘this beginning of miracles’ (John 2.11.) The act of bringing the universe into being was no miracle, but something infinitely more wonderful. A miracle is God working above the governing laws of his universe in order to bring something supernatural to pass inside this natural realm. Creation is the generation of a milieu in which a miracle may take place. It is more than a miracle. It is before, above, and beyond the miracle. Maybe Mr. Lane would not hesitate to accuse us of ‘semantics’ here. He does point out Jesus’ divinity by referring to the universe being created by him, and by this point does elevate that act above the miracle at Cana. But to suppose that creation is a prior miracle than the one at Cana is to make a category mistake and to understate the case for Christ’s creative act. It is not small-minded or nit-picky to bring this up. “So much for the miracles which do small and quick what we have already seen in the large letters of God’s universal activity…I must guard against a misunderstanding. Do not imagine I am trying to make the miracle less miraculous” (C. S. Lewis, Miracles.) The difference between a miracle that is wrought in the universe and the universe being created from nothing by decree is an important theological distinction, a distinction that the pastor would not muddle and confound if the books he read were more worthy of a minister’s time. Theological treatises (like those by B. B. Warfield, William Cunningham, or John Bunyan) would help this pastor keep to distinguishing definitions. Popular paperbacks like those by Campolo and Wiersbe will not. If the pastor were to adopt a more serious reading curriculum, he would be enabled to teach Christians something they do not already know and need to learn. The most basic act of Jesus, or God, is qualitatively above even the wonder of doing a miracle. Would teaching this fact not be a practical ministerial act? Could such teaching not evoke some wonderment about what the transcendence of Almighty God must amount to? Theological study is practical. By it we can learn to magnify Divinity above what the average intelligence can reach to. God is magnified by his nature being opened up to people who need to learn about who their Creator, and perhaps Redeemer, fundamentally is. Sadly, arduous theological study is not much respected among ministers today. They dismiss hard reading because they believe (falsely) that deep truth cannot be communicated from the pulpit to their church members. Another reason may be that they are simply too lazy to apply themselves to hard mental work. Throwaway paperbacks are what they feed upon; and because most men can’t tell a husk from a good piece of bread, churchgoers are content to feed on the husks that these ministers serve.  

Third (the character of the sermon), this is watered-down preaching that hypocrites are made by. There is no use saying it any less plainly than that. We’ll keep to the policy of being honest and biblical in our criticism. Anything less would be to water down our own beliefs. What good could be accomplished by that? Pay attention to Mr. Lane’s description of street-people. They are those who need to be reached out to and loved because they are homeless, rejected, weak, wandering, and outcasts to God. We agree. They are homeless, rejected, weak, wandering, and outcasts to God. That’s part of the truth (a small part.) But do some of them not spurn love? Do some of them not hate? Do some of them not wander about committing crimes? Do any of them wander into taverns? casinos? strip clubs? brothels? Are some of them not rejected because they are dangerous, lazy, or abusive? Oh no, not in Mr. Lane’s rose-colored world! Don’t preach to them as sinners! They need only to be loved! Not one single sin is mentioned in this sermon that such persons might be guilty of! No, they must all be perfect saints! Turn your back to some of these rogue vagrants, then, and see what such saintliness amounts to! Go down to the shelters and soup kitchens and see if they should not be called sinners, and if many of them should not be called wicked, bloody, vicious, and ungrateful! Love them, yes, but when will they be commanded to ‘repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand’? Give them a helping hand, yes, but when will they be warned that a person who can still work but won’t is ‘worse than an infidel’? Will treating sinners like perfected saints rescue even one of them from a life of sin and crime, and a death (the second death) worse than a homeless person’s present hell on earth? Mr. Lane would have to say yes, apparently! Some homeless people have been robbed, beaten, and raped. Yes, and so pity them and help them. But have none of them been robbers, abusers, and rapists? Everyone needs to be preached to. Jesus called sinners to repentance. He himself said so. We must imitate him. Simply mentioning that street-people are outcasts to God, by the way, is not preaching, for who knows what that even means unless some sins are mentioned also? You’ve heard of watered-down doctrine. What is watered-down doctrine? In Mr. Lane’s sermon you have a definitive example of it, a sad spectacle of sinful substitution of Scripture terminology for something soft and pleasing. Asking people whether they have invited God to the party, is this evangelism? No, this is the substitute that a ‘nice’ pastor has to come up with because the language of his own Bible offends him! Nice pastors who use ‘party’ language for evangelism do not realize how crude they are in scared matters. This is the kind of dirt you end up with when you let the fear of man determine the character of your ministry. Invite God to the party? How will street-people take this? There they are in bushes passing their bottle around. ‘Hey, let’s invite God to the party, man! ha! ha! ha! Pass me the needle from the needle exchange, Bud, and I’ll show you how to invite God to a party! ha! ha! ha!’ That’s the effect you can expect from sissified evangelism! If one were to invite God at all, it would be because the party is over, not because it is in session! Invite God to the party? That sounds like we’ve got to save God from some sad estate! Maybe God is the one who is a sad, lost outcast, eh, Mr. Lane? Invite God to the party. There’s Mr. Lane’s solution for lost men in a state of condemnation leading to hellfire. “Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13.3.) Mr. Lane says to invite God to the party. Everything must be okay! Jesus Christ says to repent, or else perish. Something must be dramatically wrong! Now in regards to evangelism, is Mr. Lane following Jesus? If you do not see the startling difference between Mr. Lane’s cowardly evangelism (which is no evangelism at all) and the warning by Jesus Christ to repent or else, then you are a poor, lost, sin-filled soul, and ‘ye must be born again.’ If you are a Christian who is not offended by Mr. Lane’s party substitute for evangelism, then you are among the most unsanctified of saints in all of history. Does the dignity of God and the glory of the gospel mean anything to anyone anymore? Does it mean anything to you? Should the words of our Lord Jesus Christ determine a minister’s message and method, or not? If the answer is yea, then this criticism by us of Mr. Lane’s sermon is a blessing to you. You should be happy to see the man’s corrupting message pointedly corrected.

Mr. Lane has a special reason (though not a good one) for being faint-hearted this time round. He is on this day entertaining this woman from the shelter; and she may have brought some street-people with her. ‘How will I not offend?’ This must be the question haunting his mind. But don’t worry; he has dug up this story from some Tony Campolo romance. He will show this lady and all the street-people she represents that the gospel need not be offensive to any, no matter how sinful. Here, then, we will bring something in from the real world of C. H. Spurgeon:

“Hear me, then, brethren! What the apostle Paul did, every minister ought to do. He selected a topic appropriate to his audience. It is ours ever to do the same. But are there not to be found many ministers who, if they addressed kings and princes, would pour out before them the vilest adulation and flattery that ever came from mortal lips? Are there not many who, when they are aware that great and mighty ones are listening to them, trim their doctrine, cut the edges of their speech, and endeavor in some way or other to make themselves pleasing to their audience…Are there not some to be found, who think the highest object of the minister is to attract the multitude and then to please them? O my God! how solemnly ought each of us to bewail our sin, if we feel that we have been guilty in this matter. What is it to have pleased men? Is there aught in it that can make our head lie easy on the pillow of our death? Is there aught in it that can give us boldness in the day of judgment, or cause us happiness when we face thy tribunal, O Judge of quick and dead? No, my brethren,we must always take our texts so that we may bear upon our hearers with all our might. I hope I may never preach before a congregation — I desire always to preach to you…I would simply say, ‘Hear me, my fellow men, for God doth send me unto you. There are some things that concern you; I will tell you of them. You are dying; many of you when you die must perish for ever, it is not for me to be amusing you…it is for me to fit the arrow to the string and send it home — to unsheathe the sword — be the scabbard never so glittering, to cast it aside, and let the majesty of naked truth smite at your hearts’…But some men will say, ‘Sir, ministers ought not to be personal.’ Ministers ought to be personal, and they will never be true to their Master till they are. I admire John Knox for going, Bible in hand, to Queen Mary, and sternly upbraiding her. I admit I do not exactly love the way in which he did it; but the thing itself I love. The woman had been a sinner, and he told her so flat to her face. But now we poor craven sons of nobodies have to stand and talk about generalities; we are afraid to point you out and tell you of your sins personally. But, blessed be God, from that fear I have been delivered long ago. There walketh not a man on the surface of this earth whom I dare not reprove. There are none of you, however connected with me by ties of profession or in any other respect, that I would blush to speak personally to, as to the things of the kingdom of God; and it is only by being bold, courageous, and sending home the truth, that we shall at last be free from the blood of our hearers. May God grant us the power of Paul, that we may reason on appropriate subjects, and not select generalities, when we ought to be pushing home truths to the consciences of our hearers. After all, the apostle Paul needs no eulogy. The best eulogy that could be passed on the apostle was the fact that ‘Felix trembled’” (Paul’s Sermon Before Felix.)

What ministerial eulogy will be passed on Mr. Lane? Did anyone tremble during this ‘party’ sermon of his? Has his preaching made anyone tremble ever? Has he ever really ‘reasoned,’ as the apostle Paul did, ‘of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come?’ These are impolite questions that will disturb men, who, like Agag, walk ‘delicately’ (1 Samuel 15.) But listen, you persons who will not tolerate just criticism! The sword of Samuel hewed Agag to pieces; and the sword of God’s justice may be hanging over your head right now, for he who does not think men need to tremble from a sermon has probably never been humbled by the word of God. Agag thought the bitterness of death was past. But it was at the door! It may be likewise the case with you. Maybe the sting of death will gain the victory over you, after all. “O death, where is thy sting?” Maybe that rhetorical question is not your victory to claim.

Who is this sermon for, anyway? Disciples who have put their faith in Christ? Or those persons who have ‘never invited God to the party?’ Whichever it is, consider this business of ‘inviting God to the party.’ The lost sheep that was recovered by Jesus, did he invite Jesus to find him, or did Jesus have to go fetch him without having heard so much as a bleat? The certain man who was wounded and left for dead, was it by some invitation of his that the Good Samaritan came to his rescue? What about Lazarus? Did he invite Jesus to resurrect him from the dead? Mr. Lane’s theology of invitation is at odds with the theology of the Bible. There is not one single instance in the whole Bible of anyone ‘inviting’ God to a party or anything else, and not one single instance of anyone inviting Jesus into his heart. The inviting is done by Jesus, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11.28.) Jesus invites; we receive. The concept of inviting God or Jesus or the Holy Ghost, if that may be found in the Bible, must be very cautiously integrated with, and tempered by, the more obvious call by God for sinners to repent, which call to repentance the invitation by Jesus implies. The invitation, or command, by God for sinners to repent, where is this to be found in the works of Mr. Lane? If it is to be found at all, what is it worth when he will not tell us what it is we are to repent of? What is it worth when he will not expound to us the consequences of not repenting; that is, what judgment and hell are? What worth is it to say that God takes the initiative when this fallacious form of ‘invitation’ is preached instead of regeneration? It is a fearful thing when we search a sermon for precious stones, only to find stubble instead! What will the piercing eye of an all-seeing God find? Will a pastor stand when his sermon does not? We fear for you, Mr. Lane, and for ourselves too! yes indeed! for who does not fail every day! But the Bible teaches that your sermon must make the cut! And does it? Who is willing to stand out and reprove you? Love like this is a thousand times better than all the flattery you receive! Has anyone in the Ministerial ever pointed out the faults in any one of your sermons? Are they not willing? Are they not qualified? And these are your brothers?! Is this brotherly love?! Is this the sacred unity that you hold so dear?! 

Now directly to this story of Mr. Campolo’s that Mr. Lane is so enthusiastic about. Mr. Campolo threw a party for a prostitute after overhearing that she’d never been the subject of a party before. That is the gist of it. And then comes the emotional pitch: “Wouldn’t we all love to join a church that throws birthday parties for prostitutes at three in the morning? Well that’s the kind of church that Jesus came to create.” We’re all supposed to gush (without thinking), ‘O yes! yes! Let’s have a church like that!’ But what’s the proper answer? Not the emotion-based one, but the cool-headed, biblical one. The answer is no. Churches (not good ones, anyway) don’t throw parties for prostitutes. They preach to them as sinners that will end up in a worse hell than the street corner or the back alley unless they crawl out of the sewer to embrace the bloody cross of Christ! The prostitute is not going to go to heaven because you threw her a party. Street-people are not going to be saved by our catering to their whims and sins. Mr. Campolo’s background is sociology; popular sociology, it seems, pretty much sums up his unbiblical methods. His is an indiscriminate acceptance of sinners to whom it would be a sin to preach. And this sermon, especially given its shameful title, seems more based on Tony Campolo’s story than the formal wedding feast of Mr. Lane’s Bible text. Mr. Lane’s object is the same as Mr. Campolo’s: to get people into church at any cost, even at the cost of dumbing down Scripture and refusing to call evil evil, and sin sin. To get listeners to assent to what he is teaching, Mr. Lane appeals to their emotions, not Scripture doctrine. This is what you call demagoguery, which is the favorite tool of crooked politicians. This story is the tool for manipulating listeners by appealing to their emotions. Did Jesus throw parties for prostitutes? Or was it not that prostitutes were laid low before him, stricken by their sense of sin? Does that sound like a party? What good would it do to get prostitutes and street-people into a church like Mr. Lane’s? For sure, he will not preach to them! He won’t preach to them on the street because he’s not an evangelist. And he won’t preach to them in church because he’s afraid of his own pulpit. He thinks they’ll be ‘transformed’ by niceness. When you leave it to this word ‘transform’—I mean without explanation and without regenerative doctrine, what will people take it to mean? What will sinners take ‘transformation’ to mean? Self-reform? By being transformed, you’ll have a story, the pastor says. Through preaching like this? What kind of story? Like the one the prostitute in Campolo’s story has to tell? She was still on her way to hell after the party was over. Is that a good story? Street-people will be on the same broad way after they are fed, clothed, sheltered, financed, drugged, and catered to. Is that a good story? By imitating Tony Campolo instead of Christ, Mr. Lane comes up with a party theme instead of a wedding feast. And that is a sure way to end up with a bad sermon; and in consequence, with people under your charge who will be forbidden access to the Wedding Feast that matters most of all. Prostitution, instead of being preached as the degrading, disgusting sin that it is, is romanticized by Mr. Campolo, and through a ‘green as grass’ evaluation of material for sermon illustration, by Mr. Lane also. The Bible is misrepresented by Mr. Lane in order to get the unchurched into church. This is not done by the title of his sermon merely. The title is just the sign that something will be wrong in the sermon. The whole sermon is a misrepresentation: of sin, of preaching, of Scripture, and of ecclesiastical order, or church discipline. There can be no doubt that when sinners are referred to, almost exclusively, as victims only, and not sinners on their way to hell, that there is a case of misrepresenting the revelation of God. Near his close, the pastor invites whosoever will come, to the ordinance of Communion. By this open invitation, he thinks to put everyone on the same footing, those in church who have come to know Christ as their Saviour, beside those who haven’t. He tries to make the mingling of both these groups together look biblical by equating those who came to Christ in the New Testament era with those who might come to Communion right now alongside Christians. He puts them all together as people who come from lives of weakness, rejection, and wandering. (This is beginning to look as bad as what we saw at Crossroads and Living Stones!) What’s wrong with that? Were New Testament saints those who came from lives of weakness, rejection, and wandering? Is that a fair representation of the case? The outcasts who believed on Christ in the New Testament time were, first and foremost (at least this is what the Bible teaches!), no matter what else they might have been, repenting sinners who turned away from lives of degeneracy, like drunkenness, prostitution, adulteries, fornication, etc. Outcasts, repenting outcasts, may be invited to Communion. Being a rejected wanderer, this alone qualifies no one. Sinners who came to Christ believing in his name were fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, thieves, revilers, and such like. “And such were some of you,” says the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 6.11.) Notice the word ‘were.’ They had repented. Our street-people, by-and-large, have not. And notice that wanderers are not in Paul’s list. Wandering is not necessarily a sin. Neither is rejection, much less weakness! Everyone’s on the same ‘playing-field’ at Communion, says Mr. Lane. Well, they’re supposed to be (and on something a little more holy than a playing-field!) But in this church, if people respond to his invitation as eagerly as he gives it, we have a mixture of Christians and hypocrites, hypocrites made, by the way, by Mr. Lane! Are Christians and hypocrites on the same ‘playing-field’? They’re not on the same level at all. Christians deserve to be communicants based on the merits of Christ received by faith; all others don’t deserve to be there, period, for they are wanderers and worse, and not repentant converts. (They can’t be converts, not through soft preaching like this!) They have not ‘crept in unawares’; well would it be, or at least better, for Mr. Lane if they had! They were openly admitted. And this is why churches burst almost to busting with ignorant sinners who are as hardened as brass against doctrine, Christ, moral conduct, and holiness. The only grace in their souls is the counterfeit kind that pastors like this have convinced them they possess. They care no more for the death of Christ than their next television drama or illicit fix! It’s never been more true to say that the church is full of hypocrites than right now right here in Red Deer (notwithstanding the few ‘which have not defiled their garments.’) The cause of this evil principally rests on the guilty shoulders of pastors like the one whose party sermon is being reviewed in this analysis. As if his open invitation to Communion were not bad enough, he seems to present the ordinance as if those coming to it, perhaps for the first time, might be converted thereby. We’re not dogmatic on this last point. But he seems to be hoping that new communicants will be seduced into getting saved by participating in a holy ordinance they know nothing about and that does not apply to them. Listen to the invitation for yourself, if you can, and then see if it does not sound like a ‘converting ordinance.’ Again, big, hard theological treatises would have helped Mr. Lane; in this case, such ponderous volumes could have helped him observe ecclesiastical order and decorum, to the purpose of keeping worship and fellowship undefiled. But Jonathan Edwards’ Qualifications for Communion is not on the bestseller’s list and never will be. Few readers read what they need to read; even fewer know what their literary needs are. Ministers need to be the wisest of all readers, for the good of the rest of us. 

Conclusion. Mr. Campolo’s story is a carefully measured attempt to get anyone at all into church and to have him treated as a full-blown Christian. Mr. Lane’s reiteration is to the same purpose. We imagine (for we can see no other) that this is the main thrust of his sermon. Incidentally, each point in the sermon would have been sufficient for its own full, separate treatment. If that had been his approach, the chance would have been greater for a main point to emerge. And, while resisting the persuasive emotionalism of Mr. Campolo’s story, an expository treatment of some little piece of text might have given us biblical preaching. Mr. Lane, because of his sensitivity toward persons on the margins of society, coupled with his light reading habits, is all but powerless to resist the temptation to wrest the Scriptures as he does in this charming, pernicious message. This will not absolve him, though; we’re not saying that! He’s in love with people who are hurt. We understand that. We wish that we had his love, only without his blind eye to sin and his disregard for biblical precedent. People are going to hurt a lot more in the long run if you don’t preach to them, Mr. Lane. Have you no sensitivity for that? This pastor is taking a conservative Plymouth Brethren assembly, and driving it into the same ditches that most other churches are already stuck in. It’s good, very good, that he’s an outgoing pastor, though it is possible that he’s the one restraining error there most of all! As poor as his teaching is, he may be the best man there! What then? In any case, it’s a pity that he must go out on such a sad note. He needs to have his ministry ‘transformed.’ It should have been done long ago. Now it might be too late. Now we look to the future, hoping that the men (hopefully they will be men, and we mean this both biblically and biologically) who follow after will be less like-minded in the preparation and delivery of their sermons. It needs to be understood that a minister need not preach against every sin in every sermon. But in a sermon that’s for people to be converted by (like this one), a sermon inviting anyone to Communion (like this one), the doctrine of sin is essential, and that of judgment also. Whitewashing the corrupt nature of man is not done merely in deference to the shelter official who spoke just prior to the sermon being given. This fault seems to be part of Mr. Lane’s modus operandi. Ministers should be blameless, the Bible says. In fact, the Bible says they must. Therefore to be loyal, we must hold them up to that standard. They need to be examined according to what the Bible says they must be. There is no good excuse that a minister can put forward for committing errors like the ones in Red Deer commit. They are far less gifted and educated than ministers of the past. But by depending on former scholars, blamelessness is not out of reach. The best works of history are now available to all to check one’s mediocre sermons by. And so blamelessness in pulpit content is more possible than it ever has been! There is no excuse. Ignorance is a sin. “Though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5.17.)

You really have to be on the lookout for omissions, these days. It’s not just what’s in a sermon that matters, but what’s missing from it. There is a lot of serious mishandling of God’s word in this message. But what’s missing from it is even worse: the doctrine of sin for sinners needing to know their need of salvation; and passion in the preaching, which will carry the arrow (by the Spirit) of conviction to their hearts. Not much can happen until such reform takes place. Both the minister and his sermon need to be (to use Mr. Lane’s own word) transformed. Unless you deliver some teaching to convict and humble sinners by, the Holy Spirit will not use you as the messenger through which he quickens them and saves them from their perilous course. Pulpit speakers are supposed to be so afraid of God that they’re scared not to faithfully preach. This one is so scared of men (and women too) that he simply can’t bring himself to preach at all. The apostle Paul had the right kind of fear: “Woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!” (1 Corinthians 9.16.) 

Mr. Lane fears man and he dreads gospel preaching. Look at what confusion this causes. On the one hand, he says to invite God to the party. Later, he says that God throws a party and that we are all invited. Which is it? This or that? Who invites? Who’s party is it? What kind of party? Will unrepentant prostitutes and hardened street-people be there? Can Mr. Lane clear up this confusing cacophony of contradictions and concerns? No, even a theological genius would come to his wit’s end trying to unravel this, not that one of these could be found. This party sermon is a dog’s breakfast; as such, it is not fit for the ever-living soul of man. 
                               
There is a sermon by Mr. Lane on the wedding feast at Cana in John 2, Been to any Good Parties Lately? There is a sermon by C. H. Spurgeon on the same text, The Feast of the Lord. When the fire tries the merits of each one, like it says in 1 Corinthians 3.12, guess which sermon will be consumed as wood, hay, and stubble, and which one will endure the fire, and yield up gold, silver, and precious stones? If you were to make your guess, on the sole basis of the title of each, your guess would prove correct. The sermon containing the best wine will stand the test. Parties for prostitutes and the feast of our Lord are not exactly equals.

Friday, January 20, 2012

MERCY, OMNIPOTENCE, AND JUSTICE (SERMON SKETCH 4)

(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.)

Mercy, Omnipotence, and Justice

“The Lord is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked” (Nahum 1.3.)

Introduction. Men will misunderstand God, because men are fallen and flawed. Men especially misunderstand with regard to certain lights and shadows in God’s character, which are so marvelously blended in the perfection of his nature. Paul is noted for zeal, Peter for courage, John for love, because they were unbalanced men. But in Christ, characteristics are so perfectly blended that we do not note him for any one attribute, but are conscious of the harmonious diversity in his Personality. It is the same with God. The two clauses in my text seem to describe contrary attributes: mercy and justice. But because we are imperfect, we fail to see how they agree.

(1) God is Slow to Anger. The sword of God’s justice is in its scabbard: not rusted in it—it can be easily withdrawn—but mercy holds it there. Why is God slow to anger? Because he never strikes without threatening first. Men give a word and a hit, sometimes the hit first and the word afterward. Not God. He preaches by Noah and by Jonah first. And he is even slow to threaten. He promises swiftly, threatens reluctantly. He did not send Jonah to Nineveh until Nineveh was foul with sin. He does not even threaten the sinner by his conscience until the sinner has often sinned. But best of all, when God threatens, he is slow to sentence the criminal! When Adam sinned did God hurry up to sentence him? No. “The Lord God walked in the garden in the cool of the day.” And then, even when the sentence is signed, God is tardy to carry out justice. He will go down to Sodom to see for himself. And, ah! it just crossed my mind! There are some men, even now, who have sinned unto death. But God allows them their pleasures for awhile longer. If God were not slow to anger, this giant city would have already been annihilated! Our nightly vices cannot be equaled for evil. Wrath says, “Unsheath thyself, O sword!” Mercy puts her hand upon the hilt, and the sword rattles back again. “Slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy.” God is slow to anger because he is good, but also because he is great. Only little things are easily stirred up.

(2) God is Slow to Anger because he is Great in Power. He that is great in power has power over himself.      The power that binds omnipotence is omnipotence surpassed. We bless God that the greatness of his power is a great reason of our protection. Ah, but the greatness of his power is also an assurance that he “will not at all acquit the wicked.” We feel much assured of this when the storms brew, do we not? Who stood to see the lofty tree sliced in half by the lighting flash? A swearer? Did he swear then? Did not his face go white?

(3) God will not at all Acquit the Wicked. This is his most terrible attribute, justice. Never once has God pardoned an unpunished sin. ‘What!’ you say. To prove it. First, the cloud of justice has fallen into that great reservoir of misery, the Saviour’s heart, to pardon us. Second, take a walk through history and see the judgments there. Third, every shriek and groan in hell is proof enough. Why will God not acquit the wicked? First, because he is good. Even an earthly judge will condemn a murderer out of love for a nation. Mercy, with her weeping eyes, looks more terribly grim even than justice, when she drops the white flag! Second, because justice demands punishment for sin. Must I pass through all the attributes of God to prove this. I think not.

Selection from Conclusion. “My friend, man or woman, what is thy state? Canst thou look up to heaven and say, ‘Though I have sinned greatly I believe Christ was punished in my stead?’”

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