C. H. SPURGEON, LETTERS (BOOK REPORT 7)

(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

C. H. Spurgeon, Letters of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, ed. Iain Murray (1850-1892; Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1992), 219 pp.

My expectations were blasted when I opened this up and saw how short the letters were. But my spirit spruced right back up after I began to read. Three factors will account for the brevity of Spurgeon’s letters: He was a busy man; he had a talent for saying his piece in a nutshell; he did not like verbosity. To his son, on page 108, “Your little notices of books are first-rate. Short and pithy—better than half-a-page of long-winded nothings.”

It becomes obvious by the very first letter why this man was so used of God. At fifteen years of age he was already working out salvation, “I can get good religious conversations with Mr. Swindell, which is what I most need”; had already left the old life behind, “Oh, how unprofitable has my past life been”; and was enjoying the fullness of God, “How sweet is prayer! I would be always engaged in it” (p. 19.)

By the Book he charted his own course, opting for baptism at fifteen (p. 22), and refusing  Hyper-Calvinism at nineteen (p. 41.) Initiative and discernment in a youth, how rare! We do not even see the like among seminary graduates!

His letters to his girlfriend, to his ‘Sweet One,’ these are the most valuable, I think; particularly sweet they are—and challenging. These two qualities characterize the tone of his correspondence. The following advice to a junior preacher will be enough to show what I mean by that. “I shall ever value my first-born above all the rest. Now I am going to give you a proof of my true love…You used to speak roughly, but it was pleasant to listen to your voice; but several friends have mentioned, what I also noticed, a sort of ministerial tone, a genteel way of pulling the tails of some of the words and cutting the ears of others, till they look like little dogs fresh from the fancier's” (p. 83.) Sweet but challenging.

Now some wise bullets from the great preacher so gifted at shooting out the crisp remark. To a hurting friend, “What fine clusters our Vine-dresser will get from so much pruning” (p. 209.) On orthodoxy, “The old gospel is the real wonder-worker; the new stuff would not save a robin” (p. 201.) On separating from a clever company of liberals, “I should never know what they meant, and like the good people at the tower of Babel I should soon be on the move” (p. 190.) On faith, “I have lived on the gospel, and I can die on it” (p. 136.) My first full portion of Spurgeon was The Practice of Praise, which was true but dry. His Letters are as fresh as a dewdrop.

                                      

Content: A (Gospel-centered correspondence.)

     Style: A (Clean-cut and pretty.)

    Tone: A (Witty and lovely.)

                      

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.

LIVING STONES CHURCH, CHRIST IN THE WORKPLACE (SERMON ANALYSIS 3)

June 2010

Mr. Vallee, Living Stones, Christ in the Workplace.

Summary: (He begins with a reading of Psalm 8, followed by a prayer. The text is in Colossians. But he does not begin his sermon there. Instead, he tells a long story about a woman who aspired to excellence.) Some of the most devastating experiences can actually shape us into better people if we’ll not allow bitterness to reign in our lives. You can learn to make a difference in people’s lives. (The text is Colossians 3.23 and surrounding verses.) This could be a ‘life purpose’ verse. We should serve people as if we’re serving Jesus. It will bring us to a whole new level. What transcends a mundane job to a place of dignity and value? The answer is in Paul’s approach to slavery. Half of the Roman population was enslaved. Jesus never raised slavery as an issue. I think that sometimes we crusade too much. We need to focus more on what we’re for, not against. Change must begin in the spiritual part of us. Jesus gets to the root of the problem. The gospel overturns oppression in a peaceful way. The process is just as important as the end result. The end does not justify the means. Long-lasting, permanent change has to be done in the right way. The apostle Paul called for dignity and justice between slaves and masters as an expression of their submission to Christ as Lord. And slavery has been eradicated. But what social institution can we apply these truths to? What we’re concerned with today is the lordship of Christ in the workplace. (A) Our attitude. The attitude is as important as what we do. My job is not my provider; God is. Write that down. So I don’t have to obey my employer when he tells me to do something wrong or illegal. God will take care of me. Otherwise, just do what you’re told. You don’t have to know why you’re doing what you’re doing. We’re not allowed to use company materials for personal use. And a half-hearted effort is a sort of stealing. Make your job your primary area of ministry. We have to give God our best. Here’s how you preach at work:            Do your job. Do it for Jesus every single moment. The example is Joseph’s work ethic. He rose to high favor by his work. In that day, it was a sign of favor by your God if you prospered. Any work is spiritual work when you’re a Christian. If you were feeding God, wouldn’t you feed him a good meal? We need to do the same for people. Work is not a curse. The curse is in how difficult work is. We work for an ever-present employer. Bosses know when the work is not getting done. We must be employees the boss doesn’t want to let go of. (B) Our Conduct. Your employees need to be pastored. Then they will be loyal. Good employers share their benefits with the workers. The ‘rich man’ is a negative term in the New Testament. God is not against money; he is against trusting in money. Employers will answer to God for their behavior. Threats will get less out of your workers than affirmation. (At this point Mr. Vallee states that this sermon is better than a seminar because it’s free and because here you are given the power to do what you are asked to do.) “God himself says, ‘I’ll help ya.’” (Music begins, while the pastor continues to motivate. Then he begins to pray.)

Remarks. There is a better and more peaceable way to confront issues than to just crusade against them. As a Christian, any kind of work is spiritual work. Christians do not have to evangelize in their workplaces, their jobs well done being themselves the sermons. It is refreshing to hear wisdom like this come from a local pulpit. Also, a work ethic drawn from the life of Joseph is excellent. Figures and lessons drawn from history are helpful and interesting. The interpretation of the word ‘rich’ as it is used in the New Testament is on the mark. There is some good moral instruction here.  One sin, at least, is pointedly warned against. The introduction has more weight than the body of the sermon. And something could have been said about the kinds of slavery that still persist.

But here are the main faults. (1) It is a superficial message. Stories are just as prominent in this sermon as the Scriptures are. The first story he tells is told in part, then he actually begins to exposit the thing! Then after turning to something else he returns to the story again, this time to finish it. We cannot find that the story has much at all to do with the subject allegedly being treated. We can only guess what he means to teach by it. Regardless, stories are given precedence over Scriptures in this sermon; but it is the Bible that deserves to be expounded, not stories. Biblical content is needed, not stories. Stories should serve the Scriptures, not vice versa. Why all the stories? Maybe because it is easier to tell stories than expound Scriptures. Maybe because that’s what everyone else is doing. Maybe he thinks the Bible is not interesting enough. We don’t know. He says, “It’s amazing when we’re interpreting the Bible, how uncommon sense some people have.” What’s more amazing is the ‘uncommon sense’ that a Bible teacher does not interpret the Bible any more than what is accomplished by a bare reading of the text! Just a glance at the final passage of Colossians is enough to bring to mind the possibilities of what might have, and should have, been expounded. Nothing is said in the body of this sermon beyond what any Christian, or non-Christian, for that matter, could have shared. Mr. Vallee inadvertently agrees with this criticism when he compares his sermon to a business seminar. The difference is that the sermon is free. Let’s examine this a little. Is this sermon really free? How much is this pastor getting paid? And what, besides money, is this sermon costing the listeners? If sermons never transcend moral lessons, then it might just cost these listeners their souls! If salvation is always assumed and never tested by fiery preaching that denounces the sins of the people and warns of hell as a consequence of not repenting, then sermons like this one might cost these listeners their very souls! Yes, he did say in here that Jesus died for their sins and that stealing is wrong, but is that enough? Believing Jesus died for you will not save you. You must believe in Jesus for the remission of your sins. The other difference between this sermon and a seminar is that here you get the power to do what you’re asked to do, he says. This last difference we might have to disagree on too, for no power is likely to be unleashed where there are no major doctrines preached and where what is preached is delivered in such a casual manner. Much soul-stirring doctrine could have been lifted from phrases like ‘singleness of heart’ and ‘eyeservice.’ But no verse of Scripture is more than superficially touched upon. This is why anyone without too much fear of standing before a crowd could have delivered this message or even a better one. There is a noticeable lack of strong work ethic here. It seems that in preparation for the sermon, a little was read from a few books or commentaries. But Scripture was not dug into nor meditated on. A pastor gets paid a lot of money, no doubt, in a church this big. And he gets paid for much more than what was delivered on this Sunday. Speaking for his listeners as the kind of attitude they should have toward work, he says, “I don’t want to give God a haphazard kind of job.” If they should give God more than a haphazard effort, shouldn’t the pastor? Should the pastor not lead by example? He obviously does not apply this lesson to himself. This pastor failed to do his job. To use his own quaint expressions, he ‘duffed off’ and ‘flubbed up.’ A Christian doing his regular job at the level of competency, diligence, and dedication exhibited by this pastor would be fired before long at all. If an employee were ordered to move boxes, but continuously moved crates instead, would he not be fired? Pastors are ordered to preach the Scriptures; but instead they continuously tell stories, and yet they keep their jobs! One of his stories is about how certain company executives shared some profits with their workers that they were not obliged to share. And so the lesson is that if we work hard, we might be similarly surprised. But do saints work for God to receive a monetary benefit and reward on earth? What about the reward hereafter? This is what needs to be emphasized. The story that is told and the lesson that is drawn from it tell us something about where the pastor’s mind is at; the unintended lesson for us is his lack of depth. He is not pointing us to an ultimate end. He is not exalting Christ in his workplace.

(2) It is a commonplace delivery. Here is how he begins his sermon, “Alright! Boy, talk about a book that’s invasive, right?” A sermon is not supposed to be just on the level of what one might say at a business lecture. We’re not referring to the content merely, but the delivery. A sermon is not a business lecture, not a pep-talk, and not a motivational speech. It is a word from a man who has a message from God to deliver to a fallen people in need of, or in possession of, redemption by Christ. If a slang dialect must be used for an ignorant people to understand, fine. But are these people so ignorant that they will understand nothing above street talk? And should words not be properly enunciated? Regardless of the dialect used, the pastor must be a prepared man who is determined and able to deliver the message in such a manner that God speaks through him. There must be a sense of something majestic being transferred by the Spirit through the man of God. We get absolutely no sense of this happening here. What we get is commonplace principles delivered in street slang, and an audience being invited by the pastor to offer feedback while the sermon is in process! This is more than inappropriate. This sort of conduct displays a disregard or ignorance of what the man in the pulpit is actually called to do. A sermon is not supposed to be a commonplace speech. It is supposed to be holy, uncommon, separate from the world’s crude, undignified manners of speech and dispatch. Mr. Vallee speaks of a mundane job transcended to a place of dignity. He should be the first one to take this advice. Pulpit-speaking should never rest in, nor be satisfied with, the mundane. It should always be dignified, for that is what God is, and the sermon is supposed to be a message from him. God should never be presented as saying, “I’ll help ya.” This is just one example out of the many unsuitable, vulgar utterances that could be culled from this sermon. But we’ll leave it at that. Another aspect of this commonplace delivery is the apologetic tone he uses, as in phrases like ‘come on now’ and ‘let me just say this.’ This timid talk, especially considering the soft content of his message, proves that he is very afraid of reproving or offending anyone. This fear of men might be the principal reason for this pastor’s many faults. Nowhere in the Bible do we encounter such fear after the prologue, ‘Thus saith the Lord.’ A pastor does not speak inspiration. But in a very real sense his sermon ought to be a word from the Lord. His love for the Lord ought to overwhelm his fear of man. “Perfect love casteth out fear” (1 John 4.18.) This verse teaches that our love to God should be such that we no longer fear the eternal future. How much less ought we to fear the faces of mortal men? 

Conclusion. What we come away with after listening to this sermon is that we should go out and do a good job. Should we not expect something more memorable and elevated than that? Scripture should be made to point to Christ. This he does not do. Issues must be dealt with at the heart level, he says. But he never tells us how that may be done. His wording is so careless when he speaks of this necessity of being changed from the inside out that no one could be blamed for accusing him of teaching that this heart-change may be effected by man. “It starts with how we have to change people from the inside out,” he says. His language is so careless that it gets away from him and involves him in errors and even heresies that he does not intend to be guilty of promoting. It would be safer if he just read word for word from a carefully prepared document. Indeed, what else can a cautious pastor do if the extempore model is too perilous for him to use? He may not think his method is perilous until someone points out the errors he is guilty of letting out. We trust that this has been attempted in some measure by us. After a comment near the close of his sermon, Mr. Vallee mentions the name of Martyn Lloyd-Jones. It is encouraging to know that he is familiar with that great Bible expositor. Mr. Vallee should read many times over that book of Lloyd-Jones, Preaching & Preachers. If he obeyed those lectures, his talking would become preaching, his low delivery would rise to dignified speech, and there would be a noticeable difference in the lives of the souls under his care. Without a substantial change, if hard times come, this pastor will find, either that he has few real followers, or that his people are suddenly unhappy with what and how he is preaching. The way things are, the souls attending this church will probably continue being easy and comfortable in their ignorance. A pastor ought always to be asking himself why his people continue to come to his church Sunday after Sunday. Are they coming because they get challenged and nourished there? Or are they coming for social reasons? 

Our summary of the sermon might make the critique that follows it seem a little unjust. This is because we have almost completely resisted putting his baby-talk into the summary. The podcast must be listened to in order for the critique to come across as fair.

Mr. Vallee, you speak of our needing to learn to use the right means to achieve the right ends. We urge you to meditate on what you are preaching, why you are preaching, how you are doing it, and to what end. Is Jesus Christ being honored and exalted by your work ethic?  

JOHN FLAVEL, THE MYSTERY OF PROVIDENCE (BOOK REPORT 6)

(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

John Flavel, The Mystery of Providence (1678; Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2002), 221 pp.

Good, solid food for the soul. That is what you get. This is a Puritan work by a Nonconformist (to the Church of England) who strove to unite Presbyterians and Congregationalists. The book reflects that balance: Flavel is loyal to Scripture, loving to his brethren. But his love is not that flabby love that gives only the positive side of Providence. No. Flavel scares you to stiff obedience by unfolding the negative side too. There is an anecdote borrowed from Foxe about Nightingale, who "fell out of the pulpit and broke his neck, while he was abusing that Scripture (1 John 1. 10)" (p. 38.) True stories of Providence become farther between as you read on. For this reason things are  livelier at the start than near the finish. But where the anecdotes drop, the exposition picks up, and all through there is balanced instruction for the good of each one.

There are many new lessons to take in here. This book should be read slowly and thoughtfully, with pencil and ruler in hand to mark the epigrams to be rehearsed and obeyed. About contentment we read, "O what would the damned say if they were but put into your condition once more! What! and yet fret against God because everything else does not suit your desires!" (p. 136.) About leaning on your own understanding, "Nothing is more plausible, nothing more dangerous" (p. 142.) On true love to God, "Every man loves the mercies of God, but a saint loves the God of his mercies" (p. 146.) About the Christians' inheritance, "All things are ours upon no other title but our being His" (p. 161.) Of our need of adversity, "The earth does not need more chastening frosts and mellowing snows than our hearts do nipping providences" (p. 209.)

Because he ministered to a seafaring people: in Dartmouth, England, by the English Channel, there are well ordered meditations to bring before the worshipers the roiling sea and the faith that ought to walk upon it. Makes me want to read The Seaman’s Companion, in which Flavel works up a favorite passage of mine from Psalm 107. Copious appeal to Scripture, then Scripture's appeal to the congregation­—this is a Puritan mark, ubiquitous in The Mystery of Providence. Whatever your circumstance or station in life, Flavel weds a Providence to it. No one is left untouched. And what skill to be able to repeat the word Providence that often without irritating!

Michael Boland tells us, in the Publisher's Introduction, that an aged farmer was converted by the memory of a sermon preached by John Flavel eighty-five years before! This gives us some idea of John Flavel’s preaching power, strong enough to leave a lasting and effectual impression. Read, and hear something of Flavel's anointed preaching yourself. Whether you live by the sea or not, this sermon will have you reaching for the “Preserver.”

Content: A (He has you searching Scriptures to confirm Providences.)

    Style: A (Moments of obscurity are rare, and no need for a dictionary.)

    Tone: A (His many pretty word pictures are not just for show.)

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.

 

BALMORAL BIBLE CHAPEL, THE INCARNATE WORD (SERMON ANALYSIS 1)

May 2011

The sermon being reviewed this time is by a Plymouth Brethren pastor. The date of its delivery seems to be Thanksgiving Sunday, 2010.

Mr. Lane, Balmoral Bible Chapel, The Incarnate Word.

Summary: (Mr. Lane begins by chatting about something called sermon-based life-groups; then he reads a few Bible verses.) The verses for this morning make me feel as though I’m standing on holy ground. Stand with me as I read them. Our passage is from John 1. (He reads from there.) The word became flesh. No other verse can be more appropriate for Thanksgiving Sunday. We can thank God for many blessings, but Jesus being bestowed to us is the best one. The eternal Word, Almighty God, the Creator came to dwell among us and to restore us to a right relationship with God. The word ‘flesh’ is a crude word that John used to convey the reality that Jesus became one of us. The eternal God became Man while not ceasing to be God. That ‘he dwelt among us’ means that he pitched his tent, or tabernacled, with us. The tabernacle was the symbol to Israel that God was among them. Jesus is the fulfillment of the glory of God revealed to mankind. John says that we have seen his glory. The glory of God was revealed through Jesus in the transfiguration, his miracles, and his character. He came to show us the true picture of the Father by living a perfect life. Much more than that, the glory of God was revealed in his death and resurrection. This exemplified the glory of God in his love for us. He came from the Father, full of grace and truth, or life and light. Part of your challenge this week is to think about this expression. I read that grace without truth would be deceit; truth without grace would be condemnation. Jesus came to show us the real picture of the Father; but also, in his truth he revealed our sinfulness. It’s not a pretty picture. But along with truth, he is grace. Grace is unmerited favor. Jesus’ message was that he found a way, by applying a righteousness to us that was not our own. The law was to show us our need. The fullness of what Moses taught came in Jesus. I want to dwell on verse 16. (He reads it.) This is a picture of endless blessing available to us through Jesus Christ. (He reads Philippians 4.19.) I want to talk about three areas of blessing that come from the fullness of his grace. (A) Forgiveness, 1 John 1.9. It is a great gift from God. And this involves the ability to forgive others. You will never be asked to forgive more than you need to be forgiven. (He references Psalm 32, then quotes Corrie ten Boom.) (B) Peace. Peace follows forgiveness, peace with God. (He reads Romans 5.1.) To live without peace is to live a kind of hell on earth. Jesus came to release us, to give us that peace. (He reads John 14.27.) Can you say that it is great to live without fear of death? As Christians we can have peace about death because of what Jesus has done. (C) Significance. When you have no sense of self-worth, it’s hard to live a worthwhile life. God gives us significance. He calls us his children once we believe in Jesus. And we are heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ. Do you consider yourself a child of the King? We became that way because of the price of the blood of Jesus Christ. We are valued. People need to know they are loved and cared for. When you come into relationship with Jesus Christ, you are God’s beloved. Talk about significance! If you don’t know that, if you don’t have the sense of forgiveness, peace, and significance, thank God for bringing you here to speak that into your life. I urge you to respond to his invitation. God says to choose life instead of death, light instead of darkness. (He introduces the Communion table, invites everyone to partake, then finishes with prayer.)

Remarks: This message stands out from, and is above, most of the others we have reviewed so far. There are no silly, tactless stories in it. There is no reference made to television or movies. Computer lingo is not used to speak of sacred matters. The articulation runs on without stumbling in and out of broken sentences. There is no pretence in the delivery nor pride. At least one heresy is put down. Lots of Scripture verses are appropriately quoted (so many that we did not fit them all in the summary.) The congregation is asked to stand while the main portion of Scripture is read, which is good and reverent. The sermon is Christ-centered. In fact, there is nothing in it that isn’t about Jesus Christ in some way. This is orthodox Fundamentalism; in other words, basic truths prevail, and no heresy is committed.

You would think, that given all this praise, nothing can be left to criticize. But there is a fair bit that needs to be said to the negative. This sermon may be up near the best that a Red Deer pulpit can produce. Comparatively speaking; that is, as it compares to sermons by other pastors in the city, this one is near the top. But in light of what a sermon is and should contain, this sermon is poor, even very poor. There are people who will dig their heels in upon hearing this; they will maintain against clear evidence, that Mr. Lane’s preaching contains nothing but gold. Those who think that this is an excellent sermon perhaps have no experience of what could be justly appraised as excellent. Instead of digging in to defend, it would be better to dig out and reach for better. Only the unbiased mind and teachable spirit can be brought to a consideration of criticism that will be a pain to read. To such persons alone do we make our appeal.

Why doesn’t Mr. Lane’s preaching compel the listeners to take up his challenge to meditate on Scripture and to share the gospel with others? It is much the fault of Mr. Lane that (according to his survey) there is such wide-ranging spiritual inactivity among his people. It is surpassing odd but pitifully true that a pastor will do hard labor year after year to produce change among his people, all the while neglecting instead of incorporating, the elements of ministry that the Bible so clearly teaches are essential for an effectual outcome. This is a teaching sermon; it is not preaching per se. But even the teaching sermon must have some spiritual force in it by which the people may be compelled to active obedience and improved character. There is an attempt by Mr. Lane to cause a compelling influence; but the people remain unmoved. Deliberate enunciation of Scripture through the conduit of an elevated voice is something, but still something less than passion, pathos, and unction. The people are not moved to reform and share for this reason at least: the minister asking them to preach does not do it himself. ‘Part of your challenge this week will be to think about these words’—this is not preaching—this is not going to get anyone going. Neither will ‘points to ponder’ drive anyone into a pondering state of mind. The repeated exclamation, ‘Talk about significance!’—this would be more significant if it were prefaced with some preaching on insignificance. Light would better appear by a contrast with darkness, would it not? There is nothing here to pierce the conscience, no cutting law, nothing to cause so much as a nudge of guilt for sin. Until this happens, people will not care to take up a challenge. The minister should strive to make each person fear God in some way. Will this sermon make anyone fear God as an imminent Judge? Will it make a Christian fear him as a chastising Father? We don’t think so. When the sermon is all about pronouncing spiritual graces to people (many of whom probably possess none), what’s left for the people to do? They have absolute forgiveness, unshakable peace, and even stirling significance; but nothing is said about anyone’s shortcomings in knowledge, holiness, or goodness. Shall we expect people who are told about nothing but the blessings they ostensibly possess to go out and become self-made scholars and street gospellers? There is not one particular sin mentioned by this pastor that the people he addresses might need to repent of. What if many of these persons are lying and cheating during the week (and what fool will deny that this is a fact), only to come here on Sunday to be told they are entirely forgiven, that peace is assured, and that personal significance is a reality? Will affirmations alone help them to move forward in religion or relationship? Will preaching like this move people to get involved in the graces and helps of Faith? Everything is fine; and so what need is there to improve or perform? Does this pastor think there is no sin, even wicked sin, to expose and uproot among his listeners? All he says about sinfulness is that ‘it’s not a pretty picture.’ Is that being specific and forceful enough? Or is this what one might call the soft-peddling of truth? Mr. Lane, your description of sinfulness being ‘not a pretty picture’ is a little too pretty. Try this instead: “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like” (Galatians 5.19-21.) And how about preaching it, like this: “of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (verse 21.)

Does Mr. Lane think that not one among this whole body of souls in front of him is really an unforgiven sinner on his way to hellfire? Far from preaching as if some might be unsaved when they think they’re safe, he does not even say a word from God about anyone needing discipline! Certainly there is a place to speak of the significance of a person in Christ. But is it not just as important, and more biblical, to emphasize unworthiness? Mr. Lane’s unbalanced concern for a sense of significance in people is imported from his years in social work. He admits as much in this very sermon (though he would not admit, we think, the ‘unbalanced’ part.) He does not balance significance with the other side of the coin: contrition, or sorrow for sin. And for the good of those who might be attending as unbelievers, he should balance human significance with the more important truth of condemnation, which he does not do. (This is a Thanksgiving service, remember; visitors are present, unchurched people.) What do sinners need to hear most, that they are significant, or that they stand condemned to hell, according to God’s word in John 3.18? Modern psychology would call sinners significant. The Bible just calls them sinners. Modern psychology issues challenges without speaking of consequences. The Bible pronounces guilt that must, without the grace of repentance, bring on the fruit of condemnation, which is hell forever.

There happens to be a very grave sequel to Mr. Lane’s unwillingness to preach to men as sinners: perilous confusion. Near the end, because he will not plainly state that some persons in the crowd might not be saved, he ends up mixing an invitation to be saved with a presumption of salvation. He speaks of being in relationship with Jesus and being God’s beloved. But then he adds, “But if you don’t know that already [that you’re God’s beloved], if you don’t have that sense of forgiveness, if you don’t have that sense of peace, if you don’t have that sense of significance, thank God that he brought you this morning to hear him speak that into your life. And I urge you to respond to his invitation. Because as we said a few weeks ago, the Bible is full of times when Jesus says and God says, ‘I put before you light and darkness, I put before you life and death.’ And he says, ‘choose life.’ And I urge you to come and see me after if you don’t know how to get into that relationship where you can have that blessing….” We have had to quote at considerable length to show that there is no question about this being intended as an invitation to salvation. Since when is a right relationship with Jesus arrived at simply by knowing you have it? What kind of a cowardly, nonsensical invitation is that? to express that people who need salvation might just not sense forgiveness? A sense of forgiveness is not the matter to be concerned with when giving an invitation. What a pastor should be concerned with when giving an invitation is the getting of sins forgiven through faith in Christ. To speak of a sense of forgiveness instead of sins needing to be forgiven is to miss the mark, and badly! If this is not clear enough on what’s wrong with this invitation, surely everyone will see what nonsense it is to ask persons to thank God for bringing them to church to speak a sense of forgiveness into their lives and then to ask them to choose life instead of death! Here they are asked to thank God for the blessing of assurance even before the preacher urges them to choose life! What hurtful presumption is being foisted on these poor souls! The error would be just as bad if the people were asked to thank God for actual forgiveness, which is what is meant. Why does this pastor speak so strangely? Raising the possibility that persons might not know they are God’s beloved and that they might not have the sense of forgiveness is his way of suggesting that maybe they’re not in a saved state, but in a condemned one instead. But the biblical form of speech would be too rough for him to use. He’s so scared that all he can speak of is the ‘sense.’ And so we have this unbiblical and perilous confusion. The persons before him are told they might just be missing the sense of forgiveness; then they are told to thank God for bringing them to church to have that sense spoken into their souls; and finally they are told to choose life instead of death. What are they to think? Do they need assurance of salvation? Must they thank God for infusing a sense of forgiveness? Or should they choose life? This is a miserable, soul-confusing invitation. This is what happens when you’re afraid to call sinners what they are; and that they are, in truth, presently condemned sinners who need to repent for admission into God’s kingdom. This is no mere slip on Mr. Lane’s part. He falls into this fault by avoiding the truth about sinners being condemned to hell. And this can help no one; it just confuses the very people you are inviting to be saved. By this sermon, they cannot know whether they are safe or whether they stand condemned. As confirmation that this avoidance of negative truth is no mere slip on Mr. Lane’s part, pay attention to his use of Scripture. Usually when he reads from the Bible, he gives the location also. But this time, in the interest of not getting caught being tricky, he reads but gives just a general location; that is, 1 John. He does not want people, especially the unsaved sinners who are there, to know what he is up to. Philip Yancey (one of Mr. Lane’s favorite authors) does the same thing in one of his books. Here is that intentional fault: Mr. Lane reads (without telling us from where exactly) from 1 John 3.1, and we quote from his NIV: “How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called the children of God! And that is what we are!” That’s all very positive. But what about the rest of the verse? “The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him.” Mr. Lane does not want the visitors to know they are outsiders looking in. No, he wants to be ‘inclusive.’ What good will this do? Sinners will not want in until they know and feel that they are out. Mr. Lane, however, would try and beat the Bible’s own system. He’s wiser than that! We’re so convinced of his treachery in this that we have not resorted to leaving any question about it. We speak dogmatically. We know what he is up to. He’s scared of being exclusive. He stops reading mid-verse for the very personal reason that he fears the exclusivity that the rest of that verse pronounces. It is not wrong to quote half a verse and leave it at that. But when what we leave out testifies against us as it does here against this pastor, it proves a grave sin. Can it be improper, after this review, to suggest that this man might be guilty of the blood of men’s souls? (Ezekiel 33.6, 8.) But he’s such a nice man. Does being nice mean the Scriptures are not in force? Does being nice mean the Scriptures don’t apply? We hear that he will retire some time during the summer of 2011. This kind of preaching would be a sorry note to finish on!

Have we been too bold in reproving this pastor and too certain about him being tricky and sly? Suppose we’ve hit him a little hard. His motives we do not question. We believe that he believes he must preach without preaching. But should we soft-peddle our criticism of that which soft-peddles the truth? No humble pastor would balk at a stern criticism if he were even a little guilty of preaching off-center. He would thank the critic for being hard on him and for sparing him nothing. When reproved by a certain poor man for preaching above his head, Thomas Manton vowed never to preach like that again. “Friend,” he said, “if I did not give you a sermon, you have given me one” (The Works of Thomas Manton, Vol. 1, pp. xiii, xiv.) On the significance of unbelievers, everyone should read The Chaff Driven Away by C. H. Spurgeon. This would be an apt corrective for Mr. Lane and this sermon’s message. Creatures made in the image of God have significance. But that’s not the whole truth. Finally, Mr. Lane invites anyone to Communion who is willing to partake; he does this without warning anyone of what this involves, contrary to the decree in 1 Corinthians 11. He did not learn this oversight from his Plymouth Brethren textbooks! What can freewheeling invitations like this do but encourage those who are hypocrites or who would be, to partake of a sacred ordinance to their own hurt? And this incompetence also subjects disobedient Christians to the discipline of God, for it is by unmortified participation in sacred things that many Christians are made sick or put to ‘sleep’ (killed) by God before their time, as it were (1 Corinthians 11.27-32.) He even mentions participation in Communion as God’s command at one point, but without specifying to whom! This is extremely harmful negligence on the part of this pastor. And what brings all of this ecclesiastical error about? Is it not a weak-kneed fear of man? Fear, not ignorance, must be the cause of his terrible faults at the Communion Table, for ministers in the Plymouth Brethren camp know better; they used to, anyway.

 Conclusion. Mr. Lane chooses to read from a translation (usually the NIV paraphrase) that conveys less power than other translations (like the KJV and NKJV) do. This adds to the sermon’s weakness. There is so much skipping lightly from verse to verse that nothing gets delved into, and we get, instead of a direct, searching, probing sermon, just a point-form outline that closes with a few points to ponder. A sermon should not recommend that you ponder. It should compel you to self-examine and to seek after God, if haply, or in consequence, he might be found (Acts 17.27.) If no title had been given to the sermon, we wouldn’t know what to call it, for there is no central lesson in it to be gleaned. The gnostic heresy is spoken against. But what about addressing heresy in the practical and useful sense of what it looks like here on the ground? Mr. Lane should be aware of how heresy is being preached and practiced before his eyes and by his peers. Then his preaching against it might actually help someone escape it. Do ministers in the Ministerial not share with each other the gospels they believe? the sermons they preach? the issues to be on guard against? What do they do over there, if not such ministerial communication? Has Mr. Lane attempted to expose ‘doctrines of devils’ in order to be, like pastor Timothy, ‘a good minister of Jesus Christ?’ (1 Timothy 4.) Speaking out against heresy generally when you are in league with ministers who preach heresy particularly and regularly is hypocrisy, and without any semblance of a redeeming factor to color or gloss over the sin. One of the easiest heretics to spot is Mr. Huizing. Should it be left only to laymen to expose a heretic? Or should that pastor who is an orthodox Fundamentalist do it? Has Mr. Lane ever confronted heresy among members of the Ministerial? Is the notice from Galatians 1.9 too intimidating for a pastor to use towards a heretic? When did this change? Have we received further Revelation that forbids this being done? Since Mr. Huizing preaches the mammon-centered gospel, why couldn’t Mr. Lane tell him, as Peter would, the words of Acts 8.20? Is the Bible no longer applicable in those places where it seems unkind and harsh? Whatever these sermon-based life-groups are that Mr. Lane speaks of in his introduction, we pray that Berean-like scrutiny will prevail there so that better sermons will result. Hopefully, the collected sermons of someone like Spurgeon will be used for a guide as to what a sermon should be. Then progress will be possible. It is unlikely that such a holy standard will be used as a benchmark, though, for pastors seem to think that to reach high is to reach above one’s ability. So would it be better to use inferior sermons for a prototype? Before pondering the few points that are carefully selected by a pastor, it would be wise to go over his whole sermon with a fine-toothed comb to find out what’s actually going on in it and to see whether the sermon swims more than it sinks. Nonetheless, the adoption of the sermon-based life-group, we hope, will at least mean the death of that mushy, cartoony, ecumenical-oriented, politically correct Alpha course for this one church. The salvation of souls should not be made to depend on whether or not you can trick sinners to repent through offers of free food!

MAX LUCADO, COME THIRSTY (BOOK REPORT 5)

(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

Max Lucado, Come Thirsty (Nashville, Tennessee: W Publishing Group, 2004), 215 pp.

Max Lucado is probably the best known, most loved Christian writer in the world today. Hank Hanegraaff, in his usual over-the-top manner, calls him “one of the greatest authors on the planet.” Max Lucado is popular. Multitudes think his writings are great. But the truth is, his books are popular and considered great because Christian readers are addicted to literary cotton candy. By page 71 I was so thirsty for something more satisfying than watered down milk that I had to lay it down and try something else. Every time I tried to read this my stomach literally knotted up. In contrast to what the cheerleaders say on pages i and ii, I came thirsty, left early and parched, and did not have the fortitude to return.

I did observe some good points before I quit. He says this against legalism, “Grace blockage. Taste, but don’t drink. Wet your lips, but never slake your thirst. Can you imagine such instructions over a fountain? ‘No swallowing, please. Fill your mouth but not your belly.’ Absurd” (p. 32.) Many, if not most, of the stories he tells are slow and wearisome. But there are some short, sharp ones. The one about Florence Nightingale is not bad (though how true, I wonder?): “She went to bed. And stayed there. For fifty-three years!…Except for three years, Florence cowered before the giant of death. But during those three years on the Crimean battlefront, she made a name for herself, not as one who suffered, but as a friend of those who did” (p. 42.) There are some excellent quotes, even one from Joseph Alleine on the gravity of human depravity, “O miserable man, what a deformed monster has sin made you! God made you ‘little lower than the angels’; sin has made you little better than the devils” (p. 21.) Some of his own attempts at eloquence work out okay, “Blessings and burdens. Both can alarm-clock us out of slumber” (p. 52.) This pithy coinage reminds me of Henry Drummond (a much better writer with a worse worldview) saying that theology has to ‘uncentury itself.’ And it reminds me of R. M. M’Cheyne (who deserves to be read more than almost everybody) asking his transient church members if they know ‘what o’clock it is?’ Lucado can hit the mark at times, at least stylistically. 

So what do I have against Max Lucado? Is he not blessing thirsty souls? I think that his writings, and books by other authors of the same class, are glutting shelves and souls with an inferior brand (if not a pseudo-brand) of evangelism and devotion. The situation is like the shelf in the grocery store, where all the processed food is at eye level, while all the healthy stuff is down at your feet, out of sight and out of mind. Compare the everywhere-available Come Thirsty to William Bridge’s hidden gem, A Lifting up for the Downcast. See the difference for yourself. 

Here are three things I have against Come Thirsty and other similar narrative-like ‘devotionals.’ (1) The gospel mishandled. This book is not just for the saved. That is obvious on page 46 where an invitation is tendered to the lost. But I can find no explicit command to trust Jesus or to repent of sin in order to salvation. On page 25 he says to “trust the work of God for you. Then trust the presence of Christ in you.” But is that enough? That Jesus died for you is necessary to your salvation, true. But trusting that he died for you is not trusting in his death, and, all by itself, will do you no good. Trusting that Christ died for you will not guarantee that he is savingly in you. Believing that Christ died for you is not saving faith; trusting in his death, this is. Here is a subtle difference on paper; but believing one way or the other spells the difference between heaven and hell! Hear Spurgeon on this point: “I have heard it often asserted that if you believe that Jesus Christ died for you, you will be saved…Do not get that into your head, or it will ruin you. Do not say, ‘I believe that Jesus died for me,’ and because of that feel that you are saved. I pray you to remember that the genuine faith that saves the soul has for its main element—trust—absolute rest of the whole soul—on the Lord Jesus Christ to save me, whether he died in particular or in special to save me or not” (See The Forgotten Spurgeon by Iain Murray, p. 78.)

(2) The coarseness. To supply the imputed righteousness of Christ with a colloquial equivalent, Lucado offers up, “His Teflon coating becomes yours” (p. 25.) To popularize the parable of the prodigal son, he gives us, “Fire up the grill. Bring on the drinks. It’s time for a party!” (p. 29.) Being filled with the Spirit is described as, “No sipping. No tasting. It’s time to chug-a-lug” (p. 58.) The word of God deserves a more sober, reverential assortment of expressions by the man who would do some justice to its illustration than what Max Lucado comes up with. The phrases just culled from his pen are not just homely (that would be okay); they are ungodly. This dialect he uses is the language of the bar, the glutton, and the weekend drunkard. Does this kind of talk not make us wonder about Mr. Lucado’s lifestyle and reading habits? Is this how holy men speak today? This kind of speech is unholy.

Much more could be said to the negative. For instance, how arbitrary and juvenile for a church leader to hang a book on an acronym he pulled out of his hat instead of on a Scripture text! But just one more point. (3) The pride. In his Acknowledgements we read, “They prodded, applauded, extolled, and cajoled…Jim Barker—the God-seeking golf professional…Susan Perry—Look up the word servant in the dictionary and see your picture,” &c., &c. If Lucado were a teenage girl, I’d leave him alone. But that so many people are necessary to a church leader completing something this shallow and insubstantial should be too embarrassing to admit. And such inflated flattery toward his helpers is a fat hint that the author believes his work is worth more than it is. Compare the proud tone of these acknowledgments to what J. C. Ryle confesses at the close of his Preface in his Expository Thoughts on the Gospel of John, Volume 3: Borrowing from Dean Alford, he says, “I have now only to commend to my gracious God and Father this feeble attempt to explain a most glorious portion of His revealed Scripture. I do it with humble thankfulness, but with a sense of utter weakness before the power of His word, and of inability to sound the depth even of its simplest sentence. May he spare the hand which has been put forward to touch the ark!” There is a contrast here, and not only of styles. I’m sorry to rain on so many people’s parade. Max Lucado may have helped you. And he may be thanked. But a Christian so highly esteemed should exhibit more sanctity than this—much more. God is not exalted by Lucado’s grimy rhetoric; and I fear that by his substandard explanation of Scripture many sinners may be falsely assured of salvation.  

Content: C (Should be revolting to anyone familiar with truly devotional literature.)

     Style: C (Holy truth cast in the form of poor, foul poetry.)

    Tone: C (Thoroughly conceited, albeit, maybe somewhat ignorantly.)

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.

CROSSROADS CHURCH, SHIPWRECKED (SERMON ANALYSIS 3)

April 2010

Mr. Cochrane, Crossroads, March 22, 2009, Shipwrecked.

Summary: (He opens with a few anecdotes about storms, and tries to make it funny. Then he does a reading from Acts 27, acknowledging that the reading of Scripture is what does the most good.) Luke likes to speak of journeys. In Acts, Luke takes us from Jerusalem to Rome. The point of spending so much time telling of this shipwreck is to teach us that God is sovereign. This means to be in absolute control, to be above all, working everything out to accomplish his purposes. “Nothing and nobody can thwart God’s purposes.” God purposed Paul to bring the gospel to Rome. Many circumstances happened that seemed to come against this purpose. The sea represents the devil trying to thwart God’s purposes. (He cites examples from the Bible of the devil’s opposition.) “By the way, God has a purpose for your life. It’s really good.” (Then he paraphrases 1 Corinthians 2.9. And, concerning the content of this verse, he continues.) This is true of heaven. But the context shows that it has nothing to do with heaven. It’s got to do with here. This is about God’s plan for you to serve in his kingdom. The enemy will try and thwart that. Sometimes we do it ourselves by falling into sin. You can trust God to fulfill these purposes in your life if you’ll just walk with him day after day after day. When storms hit, like job losses or relational issues, we say, ‘How am I going to survive?’ If you can’t survive them, you’ll never get to see God’s purposes worked out. Here are three things that stabilize in the storm. (A) Storms are inevitable. (Anecdotes follow.) ‘Count it all joy,’ says James. When we compare the cases of Paul and Jonah at sea, we learn that even when you’re in the center of God’s will, storms happen. In the midst of the storm, or trial, James tells us to pray. (Here follows the story of a storm.) (B) Not every storm is stilled. This storm of Paul’s was not stilled. “For every person that’s healed, somebody isn’t.” God is working out his purposes and will bring something out of it. He can be trusted if the storm ends, or if it doesn’t end. (Here he cites, with comment, Isaiah 40.31.) Sometimes God will give you strength to run through the storm, sometimes strength enough just to walk. (C) God’s word, not our circumstances, must determine how we act in a storm. God’s word sustained Paul. For Paul, God’s word led to godly actions. Our words and actions can be a great help to others. (He comments on the similarity between the breaking of bread in Acts 27.35 to Communion. And he references an anecdote from a book to show good action during a storm.) “Christians are hope agents in the world when they live by the word of God, not the circumstances around them.” Paul was not alone in this storm. What storm are we all in together? An economic storm. We don’t know where it will end. I’m going to leave you with some pointers on how Christians live and act in the storm we are in together. We can live and act in such a way as to give hope even to those who may be watching us. Don’t panic. God is in control. We may literally have to pray for our daily bread one day. Let God’s word, not circumstances, determine the action we take, especially regarding money. Here are God’s money management principles: earn enthusiastically, but honestly; live within your means; avoid debt; save and invest if you can; give to the poor; give ten percent to God; trust God, not your money. These principles work both in good times and in storms. But here’s a warning. It doesn’t always feel good. You might have to wear last year’s fashions. It’s not easy, but it’s right. (D) Declare the faithfulness of God every single day. We should learn to thank God during the storm. (He’s funny here in a good sense.) Noah saw a rainbow after the storm. Ezekiel saw one during the storm. On the isle of Patmos, John saw one before the storm. Let’s declare God’s faithfulness today. His will will be done. And we praise him. (He closes by inviting the music team to come up and play their storm theme. And while this is under way, people may come up and wait for prayer. Then a general prayer is given.)   

Remarks: The reading of Scripture is good. That Acts 27 teaches the sovereignty of God is indisputable. His interpretation of the sea as representative of the devil is correct. Storms indeed are inevitable, and not always stilled by God; his word must determine how we act in the storms of life; and we should declare his faithfulness always. All of this is excellent and true. The illustration drawn from the rainbows that were seen by Noah, Ezekiel, and John is brilliant. This is meant to show, I think, that God may manifest his promise to us before, during, or after the storm. And so we should trust his promises and praise him whether we see the rainbow right now or not. His comparison of the breaking of bread in Acts 27.35 to Communion is insightful and intriguing. And the principles of responsible finance are useful. An attentive Christian would find comfort from this sermon.

Here are the faults in it. (1) His interpretation of 1 Corinthians 2.9. There can be only one true interpretation of any given verse, though many applications. Here is the verse, “But as it is written, eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.” Mr. Cochrane is right when he says that this is true of heaven but that it refers to the present. But then he says that it’s about God’s plan for Christians to serve in God’s kingdom. This part of his interpretation is incorrect. The things spoken of in verse 9 are said in verse 10 to have been revealed to us by the Spirit. But has the plan of God in the service we will render been revealed? For many of us it has not, except in the very general sense that our service will be according to the precepts that should govern the new life. Regardless, this verse is not speaking of our service to God, as important as that is. The context shows that what has been revealed to Christians is the mystery that pertains to Jesus Christ, and him crucified (verse 2, 7.) After looking at the passage surrounding verse 9, that is the sense I came away with. Then I checked three respected commentators to see if they took the same sense as this. They all agree that what has been revealed are those gospel truths that the world is blind to: like the pardon of sin, the atonement, justification by faith, and the blessedness of being favored by God. In short, ‘eye hath not seen’ until the incarnation: these glories of the gospel. That’s what 1 Corinthians 2.9 is all about. It is so sad that all of the meat that the congregation needs is right there, but then missed by a hasty interpretation! The spiritual victuals that the congregation needs for the Christian walk that the pastor speaks of is all right there in the marrow of this one verse. Too bad it was misinterpreted! He could have dug into a vein of gold, but went panning instead, and so ended up with not one nugget concerning Jesus and what he accomplished at the cross! But why did this happen? It seems that this pastor is always looking for something about the Christian’s walk, and in so doing, misses the doctrinal road the Christian is supposed to be walking upon. And this amounts to some form of humanism at the expense of teachings about Christ. Of what use is it to always be telling your people to walk the walk when you fail to tell them where they came from, how to get on the right road, what that Way is, and how to stay upon it? To do this, the doctrines of sin, redemption, and the ongoing process of growth and sanctification need to be expounded.

(2) His concept of God’s purposes. First, he says this, “Nothing and nobody can thwart God’s purposes.” A little after that, he says this, “By the way, God has a purpose for your life. It’s really good.” Now if both of these propositions are true, then the deduction must be that everyone to whom he is speaking is eternally safe. But only the most naïve pastor will assume that all his listeners are Christians. Even in churches of old where all the substance of the gospel was preached for years every Sunday, it was assumed that empty professors abounded. There needs to be some qualifications, then, to these propositions of his. Is that not a dangerous thing to say that the purposes of God are both unalterable and good for a whole company made up of saints and unrepentant folk? This mistake he makes about the purposes of God shows the need for, and this pastor’s lack of, strong theological study. This lack has him stumbling right into universalism!

Conclusion: When we put these two faults together, the gravity of the problem should be apparent. There is no gospel doctrine taught, yet the never-failing purposes of God to these church members are said to be all good. What might the consequence be from this coupling? People who are ignorant of the gospel may assume that there is yet a good purpose from God for their lives and that this purpose cannot be thwarted. And so, they might imagine a bright future in eternity for themselves that they have absolutely no basis to hope for. And what is more tragic that that? For a pastor to assume that God’s good, never-failing purposes are to each one, even while the pastor expounds no gospel and accuses no one of sin (by the revelation of which they may be reconciled to God)—this must be put down as a cardinal fault. It is a perilous thing for sinners to go away with a notion of possessing a salvation they likely do not have. But this, I fear, is exactly what is happening in this church. There is a passage in 1 Timothy 1 that speaks of certain fellows who made shipwreck concerning the faith (1.19, 20.) It happened when they failed to hold the faith and maintain a good conscience. This faith they failed to hold refers to the grand truths of Christianity; this conscience they failed to maintain refers to that which these truths affect unto godliness. And so these souls were shipwrecked. Any pastor who swerves around the life-changing truths concerning Jesus Christ ought to expect the same result multiplied in his church. Unless the facts about the person, life, and death of Jesus Christ are particularly preached, along with how sinners may come into saving union with him, the same result is inevitable. I repeat that Christians could go away consoled and encouraged by this sermon. I must hold to that. But the two faults he makes are huge. Because of these faults, the message is without doctrine, without Jesus, man-centered, and so more shallow than it might have been. And as I have shown, it may tend to grant an assurance of salvation to listeners who have no valid reason whatsoever to believe they are saved. 

MERLIN CAROTHERS, PRISON TO PRAISE (BOOK REPORT 4)

(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

Merlin Carothers, Prison to Praise (Escondido, California: Merlin R. Carothers, 1970), 106 pp.

Tired of waiting to get sent into action during WW2, a cocky young soldier goes AWOL. He steals a car, botches a stick-up, gets a suspended sentence, then finally gets his wish to go into battle overseas. He then serves as a paratrooper, Demolitions Expert, and guard for General Eisenhower. And he gets into all sorts of adventures, perhaps the strangest one involving a training exercise during which paratroopers plunge to their death all around Marlene Dietrich, the actress. After all of that, Merlin Carothers goes back home. A civilian now, he aspires to become a lawyer. While visiting his grandparents, his grandmother makes him an offer he’d like to refuse but can’t, to attend a church meeting in a local barn. There God speaks to him and he gets converted. After making restitution for his faults as best he can, he gets a pardon, in part, on account of his excellent combat record. He sums up his intentions from there, “If God could make a preacher out of an ex-jailbird, paratrooper, gambler, and black-marketeer, that would be a greater adventure into the unknown than anything I’d ever tried before” (p. 21.) Applying himself diligently, he accomplishes four years of college in just two-and-a-half, and crams three years of seminary into two. His first charge is the Methodist church in Claypool, Indiana, where “young people accepted Christ in growing numbers” (p. 23.) In 1953 he responds to an inner pull and becomes an Army chaplain, and adds to this the profession of pilot. Feeling like something’s missing in his spiritual life, he launches upon a search for power: “I began to read everything I could find about psychic phenomena, hypnotism, and spiritism, hoping to find a clue to the secret of letting God’s Spirit work in and through me” (p. 27.) The search heats up when an eye is partially blinded in an accident. Still disabled in the eye after two operations, and on his way to a third one, he receives a communication: “Your eyes are going to be all right” (p. 27.) The eye gradually heals. But his search for power continues. He gets wise to the dangers of hypnosis and other dark phenomena, and goes to Camp Farthest Out where he receives the ‘gift of tongues’ on the authority of a woman. An experience of love, joy, and courage is the outcome, and “everywhere I went, men accepted Christ,” he says (p. 40.) Promoted from the rank of Major even before he is eligible, he goes to Vietnam as a Lieutenant Colonel in 1966. Through his instrumentality, many conversions and healings happen, and the Lord guides him in the decisions he should make, by which he is several times prevented from certain death: “At the last minute I was strongly impressed to cancel the service. At the exact time and place where we would have met, an explosion set off the bombs” (p. 62, 63.) Similar things happen all around him: “Man after man told me how he had been saved from death by a power beyond his understanding” (p. 64.) Thanking God in all circumstances in order to all things working out is the theme that gradually takes over; Merlin gets victory after victory for himself and whoever he can convince to apply the biblical principle; and this theme runs on into an excerpt from his next book, where he leaves us hanging.

There is a current of victory in this book that is definitely above the experience of most Christians. In a bedridden state Mr. Carothers decides to put impure thoughts away for good. After that episode of sickness he seems no more tempted in this area (p. 51.) There are remarkable victories in his ministry to others, especially by the inculcation of that injunction to thank and praise God no matter what and for everything. There is a vision he tells us about, which shows very well how most Christians accept a level of victory that is sub-Christian, while those who persevere by praising God through the darkness eventually come out on top. “Often the prayer of praise is done in sheer teeth-gritting willpower; yet when we persist in it, somehow the power of God is released into us and into the situation” (p. 92.)

But there is another current running through these pages, an unbiblical one that makes me suspicious of all those wonders and victories or at least of the greatness of many of them. (1) His promotion to greater usefulness began when he received the gift of tongues by a woman’s ‘laying on of hands.’ Because of all that’s thoroughly unbiblical in this, it would be foolish not to suspect all the marvels and conquests that follow. Carothers himself was suspicious at first (p. 34.) (2) At one point he prays in tongues to heal someone’s fears (p. 62.) But nowhere in the New Testament is healing transmitted this way. (3) He says that God couldn’t do a thing for the Israelites when they were in unbelief (p. 44.) But if that were true, they had never left Egypt! (4) He thinks it’s a good thing when a brand new convert teaches Sunday School (p. 57.) That doesn’t sound right. (5) Instead of sermon prep, he lets his mind go blank to receive what is impressed upon him to speak (p. 46.) This ‘letting go and letting God,’ as he calls it, is not a valid principle, as he believes. It’s more like Transcendentalism than the Bible (2 Timothy 3.16, 17.) (6) His theory of healing is not as foolproof as he lets on. When symptoms of hay fever persist after he has been ‘healed,’ he rationalizes like this, “Now I knew that the symptoms meant nothing. Faith in God’s promise was all I needed; then Satan could fake all the symptoms he wanted!” (p. 81.) That’s a denial of reality. Then, supposedly, God spoke, “You will never again have even one symptom unless you need it for your good” (p. 82.) I always get a skeptical feeling in my gut when I read stuff like that, especially the kind of talk that slips into a dialogue with God, and there’s lots of that in here.

Some passages seem eerily satanic. After laughing for fifteen minutes in a prayer group (what some nutty churchgoers do for fun), God, he maintains, begins to speak to him like so: “It really makes you glad that they took my Son and drove nails into His hands. It really makes you glad, doesn’t it?” (p. 70) I can’t shake off the feeling that this sounds like Satan or a demon speaking. Carothers too, before he gave in to the spirit, seems to have had doubts: “Everything became very silent. I didn’t know how to answer” (p. 71.) Maybe it’s just the way Carothers records the event that makes it sound like the voice of Satan. I suppose that’s possible. But note: he got this communication while he was in this laughing hysteria. We should be very suspicious of that. Certain of his anecdotes, like the one about him seeing Jesus kneel before him, seem blasphemous: “He was holding my feet and resting His head on my knees. He said: ‘I don’t want to use you. I want you to use Me!’” (p. 52.) The trouble with a bio like Prison to Praise is that you want to believe all the fantastic stories; but because of all the unscriptural paraphernalia, you just can’t.

Content: C (More believable stories of God’s mighty acts are available.)
     Style: B (It reads okay.)
    Tone: C (Unintentionally irreverent in places.)
                       
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.

JAMES B. RICHARDS, THE GOSPEL OF PEACE (BOOK REPORT 3)

(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

James B. Richards, The Gospel of Peace (New Kensington, Pennsylvania: Whitaker House, 1990), 203 pp.

Richards’ object is to present the converse of a “works-righteousness [which] always brings fear and rejection” (p. 93.) The book seems mainly for believers who may have slipped back into an unbelieving works-righteousness attitude in their too fearful approach to God. “There should be no fear of God in the heart of a believer” (p. 11.)

It is true that a works-righteousness attitude may lead to feelings of fear and rejection, and that this was common in the Dark Ages among persons who feared God. But are such feelings necessarily unhealthy? And is this our problem today? Fearing God is not our problem. Our problem is that we do not fear God. We have no craven fear, no reverent fear, nor any other kind of fear. No more shame…no more fear! says the subtitle, when shame and fear are exactly what we need!

It is often difficult to make out to whom Richards’ counsel is directed and in what manner his ‘no fear’ is intended. This may be on account of his attempt to apply the book to everyone. When we examine the basis for Richards’ counsel of peace, it becomes obvious that The Gospel of Peace must be classified as heresy. I was encouraged to discover some soteriological doctrines in this Gospel of Peace, like justification, propitiation, and reconciliation. The heresy is that these contributors to gospel peace are nullified by Richards’ position that says man has been at peace with God all along. If we were enemies to God only in our minds (p. 65), then what need of reconciliation? If “God has never been the enemy of mankind” (p. 66), then who needs any of the whole system of salvation and the coming of Christ to make peace? If “God is at peace with man” (p. 96) already, do we really need to preach that souls are in peril of hell? Literally everything pertaining to salvation and judgment is nullified if God has never been man’s enemy. Richards doesn’t realize this, obviously. I do not question his desire to minister. But his is truly a case in which the order to “lay hands suddenly on no man” (1 Tim. 5.22) was not heeded, and a man who knew not the gospel was appointed to preach it. By the uncritical and relaxed standard of some college or seminary, a babe, or maybe even an unbeliever, was given the title of doctor. When the gospel is undermined by the notion that God is at peace with mankind and always has been, then it is no surprise that Richards’ evangelism is void of saving substance. The sinner’s prayer that he urges upon the reader at the close of his Gospel of Peace is self-defeating, “…You [God] have never hurt me. You are not judging me. You are not the source of pain in my life…You love me; You accept me,” &c. (pp. 196, 197.) If God has never hurt me and if God is not judging me, what’s the problem? Why a sinner’s prayer? Where there is no condemnation, there is no need of being saved. 

It is common among charismatics to wrongly assert that the source of all discomfort is the devil. I think that’s why Richards views peace with God as something that just needs to be acknowledged instead of obtained. Why does he promote the idea that God has always been the friend of every soul? Part of the answer, I believe, may be gleaned from the Dedication in which Richards exalts his uncle as “the only real father I ever knew…without rejection.” My guess is that Richards is constructing a theology around the wounds of his youth as a balm to help him get through this tough world. And he thinks to help troubled teens in his ministry to them by applying the same unbiblical psychology. We trust that some youths are actually helped, regardless. And let us generously suppose that some are helped for eternity, not just temporally, for the Lord can use an ounce of truth in a pound of heresy. Richards himself was saved through a twisted mix of profanity and Scripture when he overheard a blasphemer curse an evangelist! (p. 175.) Strange things happen. We can be sorry that Richards had no father. We can rejoice that he is not on the typical charismatic sign-gift hobbyhorse. But he has a long way to go before he gets the gospel right. We must disapprove any gospel of peace that negates what was done by Christ to obtain our peace.

Richards arrives at his false interpretation of Scripture by two avenues mainly. (1) He selects verses that emphasize only one side of a truth, and then promotes this truth as the whole truth. Example: It is written that we reap what we sow. But does this truth mean there is no judgment of God in plagues and afflictions? (p. 128.) Did God not plague Egypt, for instance? (2) He selects verses that touch on his theme, and then he stretches the meaning of these verses to support his proposition. Example: In Proverbs there are certain prohibitions concerning anger. But does this mean that fiery preaching (what Richards calls ‘hard preaching’) is unbiblical? (p. 165.)

Embarrassing errors can fall out from a halfhearted stab at interpreting Scripture: “Because I am in Jesus and have His righteousness, every promise God ever made to anyone in the Bible is mine” (p. 69.) Let’s test this proposition. So God’s promise to Abraham, that his seed would be as the dust of the earth for number (Gen. 13.16), consisting of nations and kings (17.6), this is God’s personal promise to me? I can be the father of all Israel? Just as embarrassing are sweeping statements made that call an author’s integrity into question: “As I have traveled around the world, I have seen every miracle in the New Testament,” says Richards (p. 189.) And so are we to understand that Richards has witnessed men walk on water, the dead raised up, virgins found pregnant by the Holy Ghost, and even fishes with coins inside for paying the tax? I guess so. 

I should not leave the impression that this book is entirely bad. Some basic truths are simply iterated. Example: “Works place the emphasis on what I have done. Faith places the emphasis on what Jesus has done” (p. 70.) But because his idea of peace makes what Jesus did unnecessary, Richards must be included among those he warns us about, who “have run forth out of their own zeal…anxious to perpetuate their own perceptions…not sent with the Gospel of peace” (p. 121.) What Richards says on page 170 should give us goose-bumps, “What I sow from the pulpit is what I and the people will reap in the church and our lives.” We hope, then, that his book is not too popular. In more ways than one, you don’t get what you pay for. This book runs to 203 pages. Sixty-seven of these are blank. And each chapter begins halfway down the page.

Content: C (No gospel is a false gospel.)

     Style: C (Unremarkable.)

     Tone: C (Presumptuous.)

                       

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.