Tuesday, October 23, 2012

ISRAEL IN EGYPT (SERMON SKETCH 7)

(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.) 

Israel in Egypt

“And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb” (Revelation 15.3.)


Introduction. “The song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb.” The clause—‘the servant of God'—is inserted by the Holy Spirit to guard the honor of our blessed Lord. Moses’ song is united to the Lord’s in order to show that the glorious overthrow of Pharaoh at the Red Sea symbolized the total destruction of Satan and his host at the great battle of the Lord. There will be a song of triumph then, just as in Moses’ day. Here are three parallels.

(1) The Position of the Children of Israel, Symbolic of our Own. Like the vast host of Israel, the Church of God has been delivered from bondage, from being slaves of sin and Satan in our natural state. The iron yoke is taken from our necks; we no longer serve our lusts and the tyrant of sin. Joyfully we pursue our way through the wilderness. But we are pursued by Pharaoh, and some of us would almost give up and go back. We are not in Canaan yet, though we have tasted a few sweets from there. We are commanded to go forward through the Sea, until the last of us is safe on the other side. Then the world will suddenly be destroyed.

(2) The Triumph of Moses, a Picture of the Triumph of the Lamb. Now the song of Moses was sung by the side of the sea, which was glassy, and still, with the enemies all sunken to the bottom of it like a stone. The sea upon which God’s people shall walk shall seem to be a sea that is clear, while down in its hollow bosom shall be the horrid depths where the wicked must for ever dwell in the fire—and so we have in Revelation the statement, “a sea of glass mingled with fire.” One reason why Moses sung this song was because all Israel were safe. I strongly believe that there will be cause for singing again, just because of all the safety of the Church. As many as God has chosen, and Christ redeemed, and the Spirit called, as many as believe, shall arrive safe across the stream. The rearguard shall soon be where the vanguard already is. Every last one of God’s elect will one day stand upon the shore. The song would be unpleasant if it were not so. Perhaps the major part of Moses’ joy lay in the destruction of all the enemies of God. “The horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.” And you wait awhile—there will be singing by us on account of the end of Rome, Mohammed, the Secularist, and all Idolatries.

(3) Similarities between the two Songs. I think one might well have chosen to be a slave in Egypt, just to have stood in that mighty host who sung such mighty praise. Note, the praise was all to Jehovah, not even a word for Moses, the great lawgiver and miracle maker. And the last song will be wholly to Jehovah too. Even Luther and Whitefield will be like stars that refuse to shine when the sun appears. Note, the song of Moses describes the attack of Pharaoh—it is part of the song. A song is made out of the wrath of Pharaoh. And it shall be so at the last. The wrath of man shall praise God. Yes, fury, hatred, and weapons, all shall be woven into a song. Smite on, smite on, tyrant! The harder your blows, the sweeter our song, and all the worse for you in the end. And note, the emphasis in Moses’ song, “not one”—not one enemy left. And how easy is the overthrow! God, not us, causes his enemies to be “as still as a stone.” Then “the Lord shall reign for ever and ever”—O! may we be there to sing this!

Selection from Conclusion. “May God bless you, and give you all to taste of his salvation, that you may stand upon the sea of glass, and not have to feel the terrors of the mingled fire in the lower depths thereof! God Almighty bless this vast assembly, for Jesus’ sake.”

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





Saturday, September 29, 2012

OPEN LETTER TO TWO PASTORS


September 2012

Mr. Bradley
Liberty Christian Assembly

Mr. Bradley,

Greetings from churchesofreddeer.ca:

On the 23rd of September you received a guest speaker there by the name of Mr. Hawkins. A friend of mine heard this recent speech of his and related the substance of it to me. I recalled then that I had dealt with this man before. I heard him a few years ago via CD.  I knew then, and I know again now, that he is a fraud, a con man, or as they say in New York, a ‘playa.’ His stories and methods remain the same, with very little alteration. He’s still making his rounds, fooling the local churches, and fleecing the sheep. It is your responsibility to see to it that your people are not taken in by this sort of thing. It seems that you need a little help. Appended is the review I sent by letter to Mr. Vallee in 2006 concerning the same guy. For your benefit, I have made some minor clarifications. The guilt be on your own head if you do not heed what Mr. Vallee was too naïve or aloof to respond to.

But first, no matter what organization this conniving, irreverent man belongs to, whether good or evil, the fact is that he must be judged by his fruit, then responded to and treated accordingly.

Second, let us suppose that it is okay for a guest speaker to peddle his products in your church. You think it is okay, for you tried to justify it when you introduced Mr. Hawkins to your people. Let’s grant that you are correct (though Jesus has decisively shown that his House should not be a house of merchandise.) Will you agree with me that it is a sin for you to allow a con man to sell his stuff to gullible churchgoers?

Third, should Christians pray under shawls any more than they should pray by rote by the use of beads? Have any of your people come under the law by coming under the shawls that Mr. Hawkins was selling in your church? Should we come under the law against the advice in Galatians?

Fourth, “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” A church deceived by a con man is in bondage, not liberty, so long as the con man is there deceiving. Mr. Hawkins is a Judaizer of the sort the Galatian church was warned about by the apostle Paul. He was your guest. You are the pastor who received him. You must share the blame for the wrong he has done.

Now to my review of Mr. Hawkins from 2006.

May 2006

Pastor Vallee
Living Stones Church

Dear Pastor:

I do not attend Living Stones Church. But your ministry there has reached me through one of your CD’s. And therefore you must expect some comments now and then by persons outside your church due to your promotion of the material delivered in your assembly. Stephen Hawkins is the man whose message I have just heard on this CD. He did a kind of motivational/testimonial talk on Sunday, May 21st. About this message I would now like to say a few things.

The man included a lot of sad details in his life story: some of his family members were murdered in the Holocaust; his mother died of cancer at the age of forty-four; from the age of four until the age of eleven he was dispatched by his dad to foster homes far away into Australia and New Zealand; he was shuffled around to thirty-two of these homes during those eight years; he was sexually abused there fifty-six times; was abused yet again while on the boat ride back to England; then again in a place called Cornwall, being raped by four brothers there; attempted suicide; wound up in the hospital for six weeks, during which time his father did not visit him at all; was disowned by this father upon being saved at around the age of thirteen; lived homeless for awhile as a result; was thereafter pronounced dead to his family; and then by the permission of the father was maimed in one finger, burned in the legs, and nearly sliced in the throat by his brothers who attempted to bring him back to his former faith by persecution.

Should we not be wary of a man who tells us an unbelievable story like that about himself, especially when he just happens to have all this stuff for sale to benefit impoverished people? Just review the outline of the tragic life he says he lived, and it seems that few tales could be told by which to better disarm our critical minds. Who would be so callous as to question the truthfulness of a man’s biography when he says he was molested fifty-six times? And yet it is precisely the number fifty-six that should raise our guards just a little, since victims of child sexual abuse tend to repress bad memories, not count them.

Part-way through his address Mr. Hawkins mentions a man he would like to fly over to Canada from Uruguay for the price of $2400.00. Is it not a curious thing for a speaker who boasts of having God alone for his Provider, to drop a precise number down like that in the midst of his testimony? Is he not dropping the hint that this is the minimum amount of money he would like to walk away with today?

What do we do when our mind entertains doubts about a man who states that he was subjected to such appalling indignities as Mr. Hawkins claims to have undergone? Are we still permitted to judge him according to the command to test the spirits? Are we allowed to know him by his fruits just a little, and only then pass judgment? 

Among the choicest fruit in the life of a Christian is his character (Galatians 5.22.) Let’s examine this character some. ‘Lord have mercy,’ Mr. Hawkins is in the habit of carelessly exclaiming. What is this but taking the name of the Lord in vain? What does it mean to take the name of the Lord in vain but to use his name emptily and vainly: to no intelligent, reverent purpose? Because of the fact that 1 in 4 babies are born that way, Mr. Hawkins tells us that he prayed that his baby not be born Chinese. Who says a thing like that but a mocker, a joker, and a racist? He tells us about when he stood up in Swiss Chalet and yelled out his prayer so as to cause a scene and shock everyone in the restaurant. Who acts like that but a pompous buffoon? While recounting the story of his fare being paid for his trip to London, he says to someone in the congregation, ‘If someone offered to pay you to go to Toronto, you’d be happy wouldn’t you? Just nod your head. Good boy.’ What is this but a comedy routine? a routine performed more than once, I might add. ‘Were you a man at 13? Just nod your head. Good boy. Is that a sober evangelist who talks like that, or a sneering clown? This man’s indiscretions are so numerous and so repugnant that a lengthy polemic might be, and perhaps should be, written about it to his own shame: he makes light of brain damage and suicide; makes fun of how some people pray and sing; imitates Hindis and Jamaicans attempting to speak English; and then even imitates a Jew at the Wailing Wall; but his crowning insult is directed at God, to whom he professes to have replied (without a note of contrition for having so done), ‘I don’t speak Italian, hello!’ To much of this irreverence, the members of your congregation laughed and clapped, or at least many of them did, and not one person booed, and you offered to him nothing but praises, the right hand of fellowship, and probably a pocket-full of dollars. I did feel, however, a hush fall over the audience when Mr. Hawkins delivered one of his offensive punch-lines. I was relieved a little about that. Mr. Hawkins assures everyone that he is not Robin Williams. True, he’s much worse than a mere joker: he is a joker in the office of an evangelist. When an East Indian man asked him if he played any musical instruments, Mr. Hawkins replied, ‘The only thing I play is the fool. What is that but the truth coming out for those who have ears to hear?   

What have punch-lines to do with preaching and evangelism, anyway? Do we find any thing like that in the Bible? I fear that God, to teach a church something about his holiness, might strike dead a man who dares to use the pulpit as a theatrical stage. Do you not fear the same, Mr. Vallee? If not, then I boldly declare, though with disappointment, that you have precious little knowledge of, or not much respect for, the holiness that the pulpit space should be possessed of! You heard this man ‘preach’ last October in Fort McMurray. And you had to have him. He has the gift of evangelism, you say. Where is your gift of discernment? Stirring the pot of soup, as you put it, is that how God would have you supply his pulpit?    

We know from ‘listening’ to Mr. Hawkins that he is a mocker and a joker. Is it much of a leap to think he might be a liar too? What are mocking and joking but distortions of truth, anyway? They are subtle forms of lying. Is it wise then, to believe a minister who mocks and jokes? from a pulpit God ordained for the publishing of truth? Even if Hawkins told nothing but the truth in his message, yet because of all his joking and mocking, should a person even listen to him?

Loose morals usually betray the hireling’s true character. We have shown this. But we may turn to the character of his message to make doubly sure of our judgment. Mr. Hawkins quotes Acts 2 about the Spirit being a rushing mighty wind giving utterance, then tacks on Hebrews 13.8 about Jesus being always the same, and then voila! from this ‘exposition’ he would have us believe that God miraculously taught him his languages. This type of ‘exegesis’ is typical among ‘charismatic’ fellows. And this strange belief is an old heresy that goes back as far as the second century among the Montanists, and which has been promoted again and again since, notably among the Irvingites in the early 1800’s, whose leader got tragically disappointed when his ‘doctrines’ fell to the ground at the end of his abrupted life. Languages are learned; tongues are given in a very limited amount of words, for a season and a reason. That is much, much nearer to the proper understanding of this matter. Authentic tongues are given to Christians according to the need of the foreigners present who cannot comprehend the Christians’ language and gospel message. When tongues are attempted when there is no need, should we not wonder about the spirit of the speaker? Hawkins tells us about the time he woke a man up and asked him what his language was so that he could give him the gospel in his own tongue. But what need was there to give the Good News in a foreign tongue since the foreigner understood the proposal put to him in Hawkins’ own tongue? Pride goes with heresy, and so Hawkins would speak in a tongue just because he can. But then, can he, really? Listen closely to Hawkins’ utterances, and you find him repeating foreign expressions over and over again, probably because he knows very little more than a few phrases in these foreign languages he claims to be fluent in. Possibly, he knows a couple or a few languages fluently, and quite possibly, he knows the rest of his thirteen languages no better than an English kid knows French by learning a semester’s worth of French immersion.

More questions could be raised about this man, because of his knocking a woman over in a store by his mighty prayers, &c. But so what? Is he not a successful evangelist who got some people saved in your church? He quoted a total of three verses during the evangelistic portion of his address: John 3.16; and Romans 3.23 and 6.23. He did not interpret. He did not even preach. He said that Jesus is the Messiah. And he said that he himself received him as Lord and Saviour. That’s about all. Possibly, those who responded to his call had been convicted by some preaching before this, and were ripe for being reaped; or maybe their response will yet prove to have been insubstantial: for are we to believe that the Holy Spirit is so much with this mocking joker that he would save souls by the use of him? It is too much for me to swallow. This man is a hawker, a joker, a showboat, a mocker, a braggart, a liar, a trickster, and a parasite. What troubles me more than all this, though, is that a minister in charge of a pulpit would invite a man like that to speak to his congregation. And Mr. Vallee, what are you doing using the Lord’s House as a house of merchandise? If Jesus would not come in and turn your tables over on Sunday, then either the character of Jesus’ ministry on earth is not for churches today, or your church in particular is just so holy as to be above being reproved by the Lord you profess to serve. A character like Mr. Hawkins wants to sell his stuff? even to save children from poverty? If your zeal for God were what it should be, you would send Mr. Hawkins packing so he could hawk his wares outside the House of God.

You may shrug me off as a fanatic, now. But I hope you’ll do better than that. You know that when someone is concerned for the honor of God that he tends to diminish the worth of man. He might even go so far as to call men worms. Be a worm with me, then, Mr. Vallee, and humbly admit the truth of what I have noticed, and then be sorry before God. Do not be afraid of the faces of men. Am I not a worm speaking to a pastor? And yet am I afraid of you? Then do not be afraid of men like Mr. Hawkins. Deny them their speaking engagements and let them join the circus. If you’ll not do it for God, then look after your flock. Don’t tell me something like, ‘I know Mr. Hawkins can be silly sometimes, but we all fall short, &c.’ I don’t want to hear it. I will not be attentive to any apology like that. Mr. Hawkins cursed me more than he blessed me. And he did the same to others even if they do not realize it—because he is unsanctified. No matter how sad the story of a man’s life, there is no allowance for levity in any address given by one who calls himself an evangelist.  

A PICTURE OF MR. STEPHEN HAWKINS


Tuesday, August 14, 2012

THOMAS GOODWIN, THE RETURN OF PRAYERS (BOOK REPORT 15)

(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


Thomas Goodwin, The Return of Prayers (1641; Lafayette, Indiana: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1990), in vol. 4 of Soul-Winning Classics, pp. 709-741.





The first thing to keep in mind when reading this brief treatise is the status of the supplicant. He must be a child of God in order to expect a return of prayers (p. 739.) Thomas Goodwin does not go into how one becomes a child of God. This knowledge must be sought elsewhere to ensure that prayers will not rise in vain. God hears an enemy; but we want him to hear with favor (p. 711.)

What is prayer? The Puritan gives a bold answer. Prayer is suing God for his promises (p. 712.) “God is made our debtor by promise” (p. 713.) This begs the question: what is a promise? A promise may be indefinite, which fact many wings of God’s Church are in dire need of understanding and accepting. (Ancient treatises are the best cures for modern delusions.) While it is true that God often restores the sick when they pray, the promise in James 5.15 “cannot be universal, for it might then be supposed that men might never die” (p. 718.) Healing is not denied as a possibility by Goodwin, but the softer word ‘restore’ is used by him, probably because healing usually comes about through natural means. God’s promises of long life, riches, and honors are indefinite also, as experience alone is enough to show (p. 718.) Balance, caution, and common sense are the fruits of careful exposition. The Return of Prayers is a stern return to sanity for people used to treating God like a bellhop. Not that Thomas Goodwin dismisses the possibility that temporal blessings may be obtained through prayer. Far from it; special faith may even be given to this end, he admits, or a secret impression (p. 715.)

That God is our debtor by promise does not mean that all we have to do is sue him through prayer to get what we are allowed to receive from his hand. Importunity and subjection to his will are necessary (p. 725.) So are sanctification and necessity: an answer may be denied until we are weaned from a lust or until our need becomes extreme. Then God’s goodness will be delighted in. (p. 729.) This is painful teaching that many will find impossible to accept. But it is all backed by reference to Scripture. “How often has God been ready to grant a petition, even setting His seal to it, but an act of treason comes in between and stops it in the seal, and defers it, blots and blurs all, both prayer and grant” (p. 741.) We have all suspected as much. Our suspicions that past expectations have been blasted by sin are vindicated in this treatise. We may have been given a persuasion in prayer, even, that such a thing will be granted. But then we dealt falsely in the covenant we made, and because of that, were denied. “When David failed in his holy walk, God told him, ‘I would have given you much more’” (p. 725.) This is hurtful news we need to hear. That is a perfectly legitimate application from the story of David’s life. “The spirit of supplication in one while praying should become a spirit of obedience when finished” (p. 726.)

When Mr. Goodwin interprets a hard saying, he always gives us reason from Scripture to believe his interpretation. One time he turns to the life of Moses to interpret a phrase from David. “My prayers returned into mine own bosom” (Psalm 35.13) is like Moses being offered a great nation in return for praying for stiff-necked Israel (p. 719.) Sometimes God would dissuade prayer for someone altogether (another hard saying.) He did it when Samuel mourned for Saul; and he told Jeremiah to cease praying for his people. But when God calls on us to pray, he supplies us with arguments at hand to put before him. “Be careful to observe such times when God does this…You know then that you have his ear, and you may never again have such an opportunity” (p. 722.)

Though there is nothing in here to tickle the ear (and who should want to be flattered by falsehoods?), encouragement is not wanting. Answered prayer yields comfort from the knowledge that God concurred with you in a matter (p. 714.) Many such seeds of encouragement are dropped into this tough treatise. Do your prayers seem rough and rude to you? “Hezekiah’s expressions…[Isaiah 38.14] are referred to as chattering, yet God heard them” (p. 739.)  

The Puritans are fond of this saying, ‘a token for good,’ which is taken from Psalm 86.17. When Rebecca offered Abraham’s servant a drink, and agreed to water his camels also, that was a token for good because the servant had prayed that the damsel he looked for would obey his request. So our answered prayer may come stamped with the token (or special providence) we requested (p. 728.) When we have neglected to ask for a token, no worry; God often answers our prayer in an extraordinary manner so that we may see his hand in the affair (p. 727.)

The big question is (and the one I was looking for an answer to): how do we discern between answers to prayer and events that come about by ordinary providence? Things obtained through common providence come with thorns, or vexations; what comes by prayer is less thorny, because the curse is taken out (p. 732.) Things granted through ordinary providence increase our lusts; answers to prayer cause us to mourn over sin and to rejoice in God more than in what he granted (p. 731.) “Prayer and thanks are like the double motion of the lungs; the air that is sucked in by prayer is then breathed forth again by thanks” (p. 731.) If your prayers and blessings result in thankfulness to God, it may be that what you are granted (provided you prayed to receive it) issues from a return of prayer, not just from providence, which even the enemies of God have a stake in.

Another big question is (though a smaller one): how may we know, when denied, that our prayer has been heard? If you can be thankful after what you asked for is denied, then you may assume that you’ve been answered. If you are not discouraged, you’ve been heard (p. 737.) 

Things petitioned for by me seem to have been denied more than granted. If your case is like that, these two facts are two thoughts to treasure up: (1) “It moves God to see His children take repulses and denials well” (p. 737); (2) “When prayers are answered, mercies usually come thick and fast” (p. 728.) Goodwin seems to speak from experience here.

The most useful thought to share from this great concise treatise, and to leave ringing in the ear, I think, is this: Would you know if God intends to answer your prayer? If you are kept in a frame of obedience after you’ve prayed, that is a sign that God intends to answer you (p. 726.) 

Content: A (An inquiry into answered prayer.)
     Style: A (Proverbial.)
    Tone: A (Prescriptive.)
                       
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.

Monday, July 16, 2012

FAMILY OF FAITH CHURCH, MINISTRY AND MONEY (SERMON ANALYSIS 5)


May 2011

The message being reviewed this time is the last one in a series that was delivered by Mr. Huizing on the subject of ministry. The series is called, The M’s of Ministry. This message, says Mr. Huizing (and we presume this comment applies to the whole series), is mainly for ministers. We listened by CD.

Mr. Huizing, Family of Faith, Ministry and Money.

Summary: (He introduces the message with a speech on hard work, the balance of graces and talents, character and anointing, and the kind of ‘word of faith’ that should be preached.) Now today we want to talk about money. Money is a huge thing. Amen? But pastors don’t want to leave the wrong impression, as if they might benefit from the tithe. My answer is, ‘Why don’t you get over yourself.’ Both Testaments show that the tithe went to the workers of ministry. It’s not meant to make you comfortable, necessarily. I like what Joel Osteen says, “In order for a preacher not to be money-minded, he has to have lots of it.” You might need some more workers. You might have to get the message out. That’s where the tithe goes. It takes finances to bring some of the ministry gifts in. So it is helpful for you as a pastor to talk about money. Can I hear an Amen or a grunt? (He goes over Luke 16.11, and comments on its context.) The riches here might just involve people. One reason for money is to build relationships. Some people stop at having needs met. But how about using money to build relationships in order to take care of your future? Let’s talk about Abram in Genesis 14. Abram got some riches out of this war. And Mel showed up. He refused what the king of Sodom offered, but paid a tithe to Melchizedek. Why? Because he was building his relationship with God. Some will say that we don’t have to tithe because tithing was before the law. Well I would beg to differ. God did not tell Abram to tithe. It was a pagan ritual to strengthen something with God. Did it work? God shows up big time! for God says to him, ‘I am your shield.’ And not only that, and ‘I am going to be your exceeding great reward.’ Is not the tithe one reason why God was comfortable to make a covenant with Abram? Abram showed God that he was all heart. Then God made tithing a part of the covenant and law. And he said this is how ministers are going to be taken care of. Don’t get me wrong. God is the starter of everything. But he will let you think that you started it, and give you the credit for it. God gets the heart part. He does not need your master card. Why did Jesus go to the centurion’s house? Because the centurion loved Israel and built a synagogue. That’s why his servant got healed. Kind of interesting, isn’t it? Alleluia. Now let’s look at the story of Cornelius. The door of faith was opened to the Gentiles, not just by prayer, but because of alms. One of the reasons why you’re saved is because somebody not only prayed, but gave. Quite something! Praying and giving open doors. Say it with me: money creates relationships. (He quotes Proverbs 18.16, and speaks on the difference between a gift and a bribe.) If you give to get something, it’s a bribe. But when the intent is blessing, it’s an offering. One of the reasons for a service is to collect money. It just can’t be primary. Be honest about it. Get rid of the fear of it. This type of giving brings you grace, blessing, and prosperity. But you don’t buy it. Abraham’s blessing was because of the intent of his heart. Alright, I’m done with my part.

Remarks: In his introductory speech Mr. Huizing speaks on the necessity of a clear, well defined sermon. Too bad he doesn’t take his own advice. This message, or motivational talk, is just one big messy forty-minute blob. He quotes 2 Timothy 15, the verse about the minister’s high work ethic. But then he goes on in the spirit of what the verse after that condemns, “But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.”

Acceptable comments in Mr. Huizing’s message are few. Faith and works do go together. God knows the intent of the heart. Graces and talents must be well balanced in order to bring about a pastor’s maximum expression. But who on earth doesn’t already know such things? And remember, he is addressing ministers mainly. There is no real teaching from Scripture here. There is nothing close to what one might call maximum expression here. This man actually says that there is an element of ministry that has to do with work! To use an expression of his, ‘This is quite something.’ The statement divulges to us just how foreign the concept of work is to this man. You see, ministry is not work, per se, but work is in it somewhere. This is what he means. Mr. Huizing is just another prosperity preacher who doesn’t do his job, and consequently, has such a shallow, narrow grasp of the word that he continually adverts to the same biblical texts to teach false lessons from. Whatever lessons he pretends to get straight from a careful study of Scripture are just careful contortions to teach his unbiblical brand of ‘word of faith.’ In the Bible the ‘word of faith’ (Romans 10.8) is declared to be a confession concerning Jesus that is rooted in the belief of, or confidence in, his resurrection from the dead, which gospel is the way of salvation. Mr. Huizing declares his ‘word of faith’ to be ‘name it and claim it.’ He actually says this. We’re surprised but glad that he’s so candid about it! His attempt to support this erroneous doctrine is as weak as they come; that is, that the animals became Adam’s property after he named them. Adam was commanded to ‘subdue’ the animal kingdom and to give appropriate names. But there is no connexion to be found in Genesis between naming and owning animals. This word of faith of his is not rooted in Genesis and does not exist as a biblical principle. The biblical word of faith involves confession and faith regarding the death and resurrection of Christ for our salvation. Mr. Huizing’s word of faith is a verbal claim on something that you want, which is usually some material thing, most frequently money. That’s ‘quite something.’ One word of faith looks up to Jesus to be possessed of him for salvation from sin; the other looks down to possess the things of earth that sinners are in the habit of indulging in to their own destruction. One word of faith is the gospel to be saved by; the other is nothing but lust that conceives to bring forth sin and death (James 1.15.) Word of faith of the charismatic sort appeals to persons who are easily drawn away when tempted, who then become enticed to launch out into lusty lifestyles. And that is a lusty lifestyle to be obsessed with naming and claiming these things of earth to satisfy one’s base desires on! Furthermore, if a person tries to name and claim Jesus as his Saviour by such an empty avowal, that person will be sorely disappointed on the day of death and at the last day, for faith needs more than a verbal utterance of what one wants in order to be saving. Not all who call Jesus Lord will be saved. Jesus himself teaches this. A person who simply iterates his wants does not get them, not in the spiritual realm anymore than in this natural world. Once you believe in the charismatic kind of word of faith, you will begin to sift every sacred Scripture verse through the funnel of what you want. All teachings, whether from didactic letters or inspirational histories, will then seem good to you only in so far as they are made to speak on and confirm an already decided upon worldview of financing your little kingdom on earth. No text is too sacred for prostitution unto this purpose by men like Mr. Huizing and his ‘word of faith’ idols. The LORD God is ready to ‘trouble’ such men just as certainly and surprisingly as he troubled Achan for taking the Babylonish garment (Joshua 7.) Like the men who ‘rose up before Moses’ and were swallowed up in the earth for it (Numbers 16), these are in danger of being swallowed up in hell for rising up against the gospel of Jesus Christ. The supporters of Korah did not escape judgment for their complicity in Korah’s rebellion (16.35.) It is foolishly optimistic to suppose that supporters of this false word of faith will escape the same wrath of this Old Testament God who is the same today as yesterday. Let the reader understand (and we do not say this except by studious familiarity) that these inferences just made are no different from applications that are commonly found in the works of John Bunyan, who was, it could be debated, more acquainted with Scripture than any other man in his day, which day is now famous for having had so many men who understood the Bible comprehensively. We do not claim one tenth of Bunyan’s genius, indeed none at all, much less a fraction of his dedication, knowledge, and holiness. But in handling the word here we have not gone astray from the very hermeneutic used by him in speaking to the wayward professors of 17th century England. This analysis is not a tirade against anyone. It is a disputation for the good of anyone who may be so misled as to believe in ‘name it and claim it’ religion, which has absolutely no basis from Scripture to commend it. The only basis for it is lust for money, power, and the perks that fall out from being treated like a V.I.P. It always comes down to money with these guys of the ‘name it and claim it’ strain. Even salvation, says Mr. Huizing, is based, at least partly (next to prayer) on whether someone gives or not. So you see what we mean! The gospel to him is a product (and he literally calls it that) to be marketed. This is a horrible blasphemy, for the gospel is not a product to be marketed and sold, but a free revelation from God to be reverently preached. ‘Money is a huge thing’ to Mr. Huizing; and since he believes that salvation depends upon it, it must, must it not, be one of his biggest things? How pertinent that he would trace the tithe all the way back to pagan roots! If the root of tithing is pagan, why would a Christian even participate? We are happy to opt out of Mr. Huizing’s pagan tithe! ‘Word of faith’ tithing is just that, a pagan ritual. God is your reward (or gives you rewards) if you tithe. And this tithe, rather than the purpose and pleasure of God, is what this pastor bases the covenant on! When he says that God is the source of everything, he is just covering his guilty tracks because he knows some people might know better. Everything surrounding that statement is about God being a mere responder on account of man’s tithe. Money, in other words, decides everything. Or just build a synagogue or something, and God will heal your servant! ‘Kind of interesting, isn’t it?’ Yes, kind of like the false doctrine preached by crooked televangelists! What’s interesting is that the Bible could be interpreted in such a carnal way so overtly without protest from other pastors and with the assent and approval of so many professing believers. Mr. Huizing doesn’t even teach well, especially considering this is a message to ministers, and still all kinds of church people will get deceived by the false teachers taught by him! In the face of his verbal caveat to the contrary, this religion is all about giving to get something in return. God is just tacked on in this message in order for it not to look so bad. The gospel is nowhere to be found, except perhaps in a perverted form. We have heard enough of this man to know what his gospel is. Here it is: the trinity must answer to the greedy wants of man.

As is common among prosperity preachers who share pulpits, it doesn’t matter how much their doctrines clash so long as money is kept at the center. Mr. Johnson says you don’t have to tithe; Mr. Huizing begs to differ; but they both stay bent on begging money. You will no doubt find disparity, also, concerning what each believes the doctrine of Christ, sin, and salvation to be. But this matters not one bit to preachers of crooked finance, so long as they have money at the core. Mammon is not only their center, but their first and last, their love, their all. If Mr. Huizing and Joel Osteen are correct, that a preacher must have lots of money in order not to be money-minded, then Jesus was wrong when he said you can’t serve both God and mammon. Most preachers are going to have to be money-minded (which is to serve mammon) in order to have lots of money. You can’t serve both mammon and God together. Jesus was correct. And Mr. Huizing is the servant of mammon. A better rule than Osteens’s would be for each minister to take Jesus’ advice in Mark 10, and “sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor…and come, take up the cross, and follow me” (verse 21.) This would be a terrible cramp in Mr. Huizing’s style and plan, though. But we would be encouraged if he went only so far as to be “not greedy of filthy lucre” (1 Timothy 3. 3.) This verse, after all, is written especially for ministers. (About Mr. Johnson, see our previous analysis for this church.)     

Conclusion: Relationships with God and men are built on monetary influence. In a nutshell, this is the message of Money and Ministry. The ministry of Jesus Christ, in contrast, is all about selflessness and sacrifice, not influence through financial connexions. The ministry of Jesus’ followers is of this humble, modest hue, also, which is particularly evident in the book of Acts. Can anyone imagine the apostle Paul standing before souls in peril of hell to teach on influencing one’s future by financial deals? “Woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!” (1 Corinthians 9.16.) A real preacher has too much fear for his own soul to preach anything for his gospel except Christ crucified. Fear of God through fear of preaching ungodly, this is what real ministers experience and what Mr. Huizing is entirely empty of. Hugh MacKail, the 17th century martyr, could say, just before his execution, that “he averred that he was less cumbered about dying than he had often been about preaching a sermon!” (Jock Purve’s Fair Sunshine, p. 21.) Is Mr. Huizing ‘cumbered’ at all about what he preaches? Donald Cargill, another martyr of the same era, declared, “when setting his foot upon the ladder to go up to embrace the bloody rope…’The Lord knows I go up this ladder with less fear, confusion or perturbation of mind, than ever I entered a pulpit to preach’” (Ibid. p. 55.) These men feared the pulpit more than death; Mr. Huizing fears it not at all. They feared even while preaching Christ crucified, the real gospel message; Mr. Huizing fears not to preach babblings and counterfeits. There is no fear of God before his eyes (Romans 3.18.) With his tongue he has used deceit (verse 13.) His great fear is not to have lots of money. The church-growth (marketing) method passed on in this message to ministers is this: preach on money; then by the proceeds ‘gifted’ people can be brought in; and by their influence even more people and more proceeds can be gained. It’s just a clever money-building circle. God gets the heart part, remember that. But guess who gets the master-card part? Conversely, how are churches built up in the Bible? Churches are built up by the grace and Spirit of God when the death and resurrection of Jesus are preached to sinners who must, if they would go to heaven instead of the hell they presently stand condemned to, repent of their carnal, greedy, earthy, selfish, filthy ways. We do not shrink from suspecting that a pastor is unsaved who sins only so much as to call Melchizedek ‘Mel,’ especially since he admits that Melchizedek may be the pre-incarnate Christ! Would a Christian who thinks Melchizedek is Christ call Melchizedek ‘Mel’? But we have so much more on Mr. Huizing than this that we can literally (or ‘clearly and unequivocally’ as the politician would say) pronounce him unsaved, just as if we were ordained to say it. ‘Name it and claim it’ is not the biblical word of faith, and it’s not the gospel of Jesus Christ, nor even a part of it. Persons must be thoughtless about the Bible and stubborn in themselves to believe that a holy God ordered such a system, for according to that system God exists to satiate the lusts of sinful men, which is the same as having God the servant of sin. God will repay for dishonor like this! And it will be a guiltless revenge arising from the same Spirit who decided to no longer tolerate the saucy sins of Sodom! Whoever you are, take the warning! If you believe in this wicked word of greed instead of the word of faith from God, get understanding while you still have your mind and while you still have the time to use it. Get serious about getting the gospel right. Don’t think that you can get it wrong without repercussion. Get off the sinking sand before you fall through to hurt yourself forever!


Thursday, June 28, 2012

ELISABETH ELLIOT, A CHANCE TO DIE (BOOK REPORT 14)

(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

Elisabeth Elliot, A Chance to Die (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Revell, 1987), 382 pp.





Amy Carmichael (1867-1951) was a little Christian dynamo who emerged from Ireland to make a huge mark in India through the gospel and fruitful living. Before going to India, she went out from her happy but disciplined childhood to evangelize in the slums of Belfast and Manchester. Although this biography plods rather than moves, Miss Carmichael’s life and success as a missionary to India becomes, before long, the biographer’s main focus. By the time Amy Carmichael died, nearly nine hundred persons (p. 372) had been gathered under her spiritual wing in the safety and service of Christ.

Her missionary service occurred during the fallout from Britain’s influence over India through the East India Company (pp. 111, 132.) The political, financial, and social elements of this tense, and sometimes violent, engagement between East and West produced a compound of confusion and trouble for missionary enterprise. The missionary inevitably but unexpectedly entered an ancient heathen culture that was being further tainted by Western materialism and nominal Christianity, the latter of which, as in our day, was perpetuated by ‘Christian’ officials participating in pagan ceremonies, amounting, unbeknownst to them, to the propitiating of foreign deities (p. 128.) On the one hand, British rule was against evangelism because profit was being made through markets aimed at Hindooism. On the other hand, Westerners without vested interests were pressing for moral reformation (p. 112.) The missionary had to discourage the love of mammon and disprove hypocrisy, thus setting herself against marketers and hypocrites. And she had to show that Christianity is not moral reform, but the force and life that produce it, which truth could not but bewilder moralists for whom conduct alone was regarded as true religion (p. 291.) Beauty flourished in India due to the English presence there (p. 208.) Such exterior beautification (to throw in a thought of my own) is like that skin-deep morality that some think sufficient. “To share…what the Lord Jesus has done and can do” is the important thing that must not be sacrificed in the interest of good works (p. 291.)

The situation was mostly resistant to evangelism because of Indian culture. This was the formidable, complex barrier. A lower caste Indian might be tempted to make a false profession of Christ because association with that Faith would dignify him before other Indians and even the British (p. 117), while an upper caste Indian, like the Brahman, was a fortress against the ‘unclean’ from outside (p. 141.) According to the Hindu, caste and piety are one and the same (p. 156.) To convert to any other religion is to defile one’s caste. Ruthless relatives might kill such a ‘defiling’ Indian by any means possible. Accounts of this happening are recorded in this book, including some of the means involved. Much more was known of such horrors than Amy Carmichael felt free to share (p. 155.)

While certain facts were too horrid for her to speak of or write about, she was determined to convey a transparent account of missionary experience in India, Things as They Are (p. 161.) The chapters were too terrible, not thrilling enough for those who wanted crowded missionary meetings. Her honest reporting caused a movement calling for her return home, which campaign failed. Her position was, “Do not come unless you can say to your Lord and to us, The Cross is the attraction” (p. 265.) A missionary who put first things first and tried to walk and guide by the Book had to discourage nominal followers (p. 198.) In addition to the dangerous intrigues connected with trying to win souls from various castes, there came the compassionate impulse to rescue girls from temple prostitution and from child marriage (pp. 167, 181.) “So we have tried to tell you the truth—the uninteresting, unromantic truth,” she wrote (p. 162.)

What sort of woman could manage to accomplish so much good in spite of so many whirling conflicts and confusing circumstances all around? She was extremely modest, even to the point of showing no ankle (p. 297.) She was very innocent concerning evil, but at the same time very scrupulous to avoid stirring up sexual desire by her manner of dress (p. 298.) She was humble to the point of being ashamed at the blurb that was put on her book’s dust jacket (p. 235), and could take no pleasure in her accomplishment because of that blurb. She refused to use gimmicks to attract souls to the gospel (pp. 84, 126.) She did not make appeals for money (p. 189) and refused to accept funds from the government to fuel her ministry (p. 252.) Even money sent during a financial crunch, because it was sent under misapprehension, was sent back, not once but twice (p. 258.) What ministry is that conscientious today? She even refused an inheritance offered to the Fellowship (p. 306.) How different from ‘the Bible Answer Man’ who regularly asks for inheritances over the radio! She had scruples over killing bugs unnecessarily (p. 206, 214.) She ‘shrank in dread’ from the practice of ‘using pictures of Christ,’ a valid scruple if ever there was one, for depicting the Lord is to defile ‘holy ground’ (p. 93.) She endeavored to be ‘dead to the world’ (p. 37), hence the title for this book, or ‘dead to self, alive to God,’ which meant that natural hopes and plans were stifled in order for the voice of God to be heard (p. 57.) She was determined, if she could not find it, to develop that Christian love she read about in 1 Peter 1.22 (p. 69.) She was deeply convinced of what she believed to be true. A leader convinced of what needs to be done will not be dissuaded from following the ‘Pattern Shewn in the Mount’ (pp. 189, 253.)

A person singled out by God to execute spiritual good will have been shewn a pattern in the mount, as it were. So, as in the life of Moses, there will be points in that person’s history where the supernatural intersects. Such points are not lacking in Miss Carmichael’s life. (Appropriately, the biographer pictures her expostulating with God in the manner of Moses, p. 268.) The word of God was known to flash in upon her mind when she was routinely occupied (p. 31.) The Spirit sometimes favored her with what the Bible calls ‘joy unspeakable’ (p. 78.) Her biographer believes that she once had ‘what amounted to a vision’ (p. 181.) Occasionally she was led by dreams (p. 210.) She sometimes possessed ‘the gift of a healing touch’ (pp. 220, 221.) She performed exorcisms, and was successful at it (pp. 89, 90.) And for her both curse and answered prayer coincided to fulfill the purposes of God (pp. 311, 312.) So different from all of this is the actual religion of today’s charismatic that we might dare say that his spirituality is more akin to that of the stubborn, upper-caste Indian: “You have no medicine that will cure my body,” she said to Amy, “I want none to cure my soul” (p. 164.)

Another aspect of the supernatural in the life of this woman and her Fellowship concerns the putting out of fleece to salutary effect. Or you could call this asking for a sign and getting one, or asking for a token and receiving one. It’s all the same, or very nearly so. There are several instances of this to choose from. I’ll cite just one: “asked for a sign: one hundred pounds as a seal on the new endeavor…the next mail day it came” (p. 247.) By reviewing two books in a row showing the ‘token for good’ as a conventional, rather than obsolete, means of applying to God, some realignment has taken place in my own thinking on prayer. Amy Carmichael took advantage of whatever biblical means were available to her. We should too. Like her, we should be bold and tenacious about it.  

A person shown a pattern in the mount will exhibit an unswerving dictatorial aspect. It will be tempered with humility, as in Moses’ case, but it will be prominent. She would not deviate from her ‘vision of holy living’ (p. 198.) She might dismiss someone without explaining herself to the public (p. 266.) She seldom, if ever, gave in to the points of others (p. 268.) She was virtually an unquestioned authority figure. “Who dare oppose her” (p. 282.)

It seems plain, even though undeviating leadership is necessary in one sent by God to establish a spiritual foothold on foreign soil, that Amy Carmichael was autocratic to a fault, which begs us to consider her faulty side, as that may be shown by some negative points gathered in summary form from this account of her life. Maybe it is just due to a lack of precision that she advises us to be on guard against the foe of spiritual joy (p. 254.) Can a fruit of the Spirit be our foe? Next, if we should not explain things to our Father, if we should never press him as though he were unwilling, if we should never suggest to him what to do, as Miss Carmichael teaches, then what will be left for prayers to consist of? (p. 365.) The Psalmist is always explaining and suggesting, is he not? God knows everything, but the Psalmist explains and suggests anyway, all the time. And Jesus, both by parable and command, insists that we press in prayer to a God who seems to suspend answering! That’s where importunate prayer comes in! (I suspect that her Keswick affiliation might be the source of her strange opinions on prayer.) Her most noticeable fault, though, concerns the effect (it seems harsh to be this candid) of her prudish ignorance (pp. 298-300.) She seems to have had the gift it takes to live unattached (pp. 287, 302.) She understood that to push for the same in the lives of others is wrong (p. 287.) But celibacy was imposed upon others by her. She discouraged marriage in her favorite recruits (p. 286), who usually happened to be fair-skinned girls, by the way (p. 214.) She even arranged for married couples to separate (p. 299.) Her comments on portions of Scripture pertaining to the role of women all but prove that Victorian restraint was all that held her back from breaking right into the role of man (p. 347.) The seed of feminism must be alive in, and eager to pounce from, that woman, Christian or not, who is bold enough to hold that “men’s work was spiritually at a lower level than the women’s” (p. 300.) That doctors have something to answer for in refusing to give suffering patients a gentle push into the other world is an ugly piece of feminist belief as well (p. 338), for what feminist is against the ‘right to die?’ To delight in startling pedestrians by suddenly dashing near them on a horse (p. 119), or to imitate an uneducated dialect (p. 304), these are the kinds of peculiar faults that might be found in anyone at all. But some of these other faults are too serious to take lightly. They leave a disreputable mark on the life and legacy of Amy Carmichael.       

There are many unusual but touching anecdotes in this Christian biography. Imagine having to console a girl who just had her ‘eye pecked out by a heron,’ or a selfless girl picking flowers for her friends, only to slip, fall, and die in the act (p. 333), or little Chellalu whose heart said ‘pickapickapick!’ when a voice inside pressed her to ‘tell those men about God’ (p. 229.) Imagine a sick tiny boy strapped to a cot, anxiously waiting for the lyric to be given out so he can participate by waving his own flag (p. 294.) Or what about the ‘poor simple Lascar’ who clung to Jesus as his ‘own one’? (p. 66.) Such tenderizing anecdotes are enough to make a hard man cry! On a lighter note, this biography is frequently fun. Consider growling behind a tree to give some kids a shivering good time (p. 234.) Or take the fact that “Amy whizzed from one [room] to the other on a large tricycle” (p. 216.) And then, life in this Fellowship was also peaceful: “A set of more loving, unselfish women and girls and children could not easily be found” (p. 183.) But things were not so spiritual as to be without normal moments: “Amma [what the workers called Amy]…chided me. I threw the hot-water bottle at her and ran” (p. 356.) The compound was no doubt a fine place to live. Hard work, religious love, and tailor-made traditions made it so (pp. 187, 215.) This summary of fellowship life might make A Chance to Die seem like a riveting read.

Although Amy Carmichael is not a notable, nor very quotable, poet, some godly, stylish couplets may be found in her stanzas. And Elisabeth Elliot is not without her own sense of dash. She draws an eloquent, contrasting parallel between ‘dockside partings’ and travelers who simply disappear ‘into the jetway’ (p. 64.) She can shoot out the lyrical line: “Ceylon, a wonderland of rest to their sea-weary eyes” (p. 67.) Take one more: “Dohnavur bungalows in a bullock bandy with bells jingling” (p. 265.) I don’t know the meaning, but there’s a pretty sound there. Again, this time because of stylistic encounters, A Chance to Die seems like a page-turner.

But if A Chance to Die be read one page at a time and all the way through, the volume will be found as dry as desert dust. That Amy Carmichael was a realist (p. 76) intent on holy living (p. 32) explains the odd meld of military history (p. 239) and mystical authors (p. 315) on her bookshelves. These books were to her a ‘great luxury, my mental change of air’ (p. 313.) Her heavy consumption of mystical literature probably explains the absence of doctrine in this biography. Mystic writers are anti-intellectual; their readers tend to be likewise; and so there is probably very little doctrine for a biographer to glean from this woman’s literary remains. The absence of doctrine is why, I think, the story here told of Amy’s life, as well written as it is, is so painfully dry. The biography is full of excellent practice, but even extraordinary facts of life will end up seeming mundane unless theory, doctrine, or even psychological guesswork comes in to relieve us of practical information. A Christian life is founded on doctrine. Therefore the biography of one should contain some. No matter how void of this element the writings of Amy Carmichael must be, this omission is partly the fault of Elisabeth Elliot. For instance, her Subject was of the Keswick persuasion (p. 50), certain beliefs of which Amy rightly doubted the veracity of (p. 190.) Yet nothing even remotely substantial is told us about this Christian sect! More importantly, the gospel of Jesus Christ is nowhere woven into the story Elisabeth Elliot tells us about. If it is, the job is so uninterestingly done that I failed to notice it. Omission of that sort is a kind of Christian malpractice, to say the least. There were fair opportunities to bring the gospel in. “Then she beat her own arm instead of mine and explained salvation to me” (p. 213.) The gospel screams to be disclosed by the biographer in this place. But her mind is obviously elsewhere.

 A Chance to Die is about a life filled with meaning, purpose, pain, and conquest. Needless to say, such a life has no need of novels, fiction, or fairy tales (pp. 116, 205, 303.) And reading about a life like that should be more exciting than reading a good novel or fiction of whatever sort. But this one isn’t. I’ve heard it from translators that after they’ve gotten the book they are translating all correctly penned into another language, they have yet to do this further draft into which some spirit will be blown. That is what Elisabeth Elliot forgot or failed to do. She collected the data, but blew very little spirit into her findings. I am very surprised that I managed to finish reading A Chance to Die. This biography lacks thought, and therefore spirit. Nothing contained in the book can make up for this fault, for because of it the book is unreadable. This is not the definitive history of Amy Carmichael’s remarkable life. However, because it shows the ways around so many obstacles that romantic missionaries are bound to stumble at, I would certainly reread it before entering upon missionary work; and once on the mission field, I would keep this book close by for frequent inquiry.

 Content: B (A life boringly and slowly told, but with useful content.)
      Style: B (Unambiguous but dry.)
      Tone: B (Not romanticized; Amy's 'warts' are included.)

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, June 5, 2012

BENNETT, BUCKINGHAM, EDS., FAR FROM ROME, NEAR TO GOD (BOOK REPORT 13)


(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


Richard Bennett, Martin Buckingham, eds., Far from Rome, Near to God (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1997), 362 pp.




Mass, Mary, monk, missionary; Vatican, catechism, unction, heretic: these are some of the words that strike the eye when the pages are rolled off the thumb, a good preview of the themes you will encounter in these fifty testimonies, all of them recent. Many, if not all, of these fifty converted priests had entered the priesthood with good intentions, like little Jose Fernandez: “My greatest delight was to serve as an altar boy” (p. 172.) As priests, they tried their best to obey Rome’s unbiblical prohibition against marriage. They found no power in this religion to mortify their bodily desires. Herman Hegger: “We scourged ourselves several times a week, lashing our naked bodies with knotted cords” (p. 296.) Remember, these testimonies are all from the 20th century!

It is astounding to learn how little the Bible is involved in the making of a priest. Juan Sanz: “No seminarian could possess or read a Bible during his first eight years” (p. 149.) Bartholomew Brewer: “My transcripts from thirteen years of formal study in the Discalced Carmelite Order show that I had only twelve semester hours of Bible” (p. 23.) Bob Bush: “The only type of religion to which we were exposed was Roman Catholic theology and tradition with no emphasis on the Bible” (p. 65.) Simon Kottoor: “The teaching of the Church, called the magisterium, based on tradition, was accepted as the final authority, not the written Word of God, the Bible (which was an unopened book, even for those studying for the priesthood)” (p. 129.) Cipriano Valdes Jaimes: “For five years I studied the Latin of Cicero and Virgil. For three years my mind was filled with the philosophy of the Greek writers. With great care I was given four years of theology, where I learned all the dogmas of Romanism” (p. 79.) Salvatore Gargiulo: “In fact my theological studies were really based on scholastic philosophy and not on the Bible” (p. 272.) Carlo Fumagalli: “Roman Catholic theology is thus built up around pagan philosophy” (p. 278.) At best, as Enrique Fernandez puts it, “I knew only those parts of the Bible which were included in the Mass and in the texts of the Roman breviary” (p. 139.) What then is the result? Richard Peter Bennett: “My training in philosophy and in the theology of Thomas Aquinas left me helpless” (p. 348.) Salvatore Gargiulo: “Sadly, in spite of having a degree in theology, I knew nothing of the peace and simplicity which salvation by grace provides” (p. 273.) And how are the spiritual concerns of priests handled by their superiors? “After my ordination to the priesthood,” says Mr. Khouri, “the doubts remained. My superiors called these doubts ‘an angelic virtue’” (p. 109.)

Happily, they all found peace and simplicity in salvation by grace, but only after much precious time and effort wasted. Anibal Dos Reis: “In October 1956 my father died of lung cancer. I spent a whole year praying daily Masses for his soul” (p. 99.) Salvatore Gargiulo: “Another two years of uncertainty, hesitation and seeking went by” (p. 274.) Richard Peter Bennett: “The cobwebs of church tradition that had so clouded my twenty-one years as a missionary in Trinidad, twenty-one years without the real message” (p. 354.) How can seekers of truth be held in error for so long? Charles Berry: “I had been taught all my life to fear and distrust Protestant pastors” (p. 63.) Hugh Farrell: “The routine of the seminary is so arranged that one seldom has time for real reflection…if the mind is allowed to wander, one is in danger of committing a venial sin” (p. 31.) Thoufic Khouri: “I believed…that Rome alone was the custodian of salvation” (p. 113.) What must it be like to be held for years in the grip of religious doubt and consternation?! It was “a time of sleepless nights, agonizing indecision and a frightening lack of courage,” says one priest (p. 268.)

The main doctrinal problem in Rome has to do with its misapplication of Christianity’s most vital tenet, the atonement. By the performance of the Mass the bread and wine are supposed “to change…into the actual body and blood and soul and divinity of Jesus Christ…entitled to the worship of adoration” (p. 28.) This idea and practice, these fifty priests came to regard as utterly unacceptable and abhorrent. “The Roman Catholic Church will always insist that the Mass is an ongoing continuation of the sacrifice of Jesus” (p. 76.) But “man can never repeat Christ’s work on the cross” (p. 81) And “the Lord’s sacrifice is all-sufficient and complete” (p. 254.) Though this compilation of testimonies is no theological textbook, confessions by converted priests on the nature of the Mass, I think, may be regarded as accurate. They do seem precise. But presentations of the gospel do not always hit their mark exactly. Beware of that word ‘accept’ (pp. 73, 75.) Accepting (or even believing) that Jesus died for you may not amount to you actually trusting in his death. The presentation on page 157 is good, though: “We can never find salvation while part of us trusts in what Christ has done to take away the punishment of sin, and another part of us still trusts in sacraments, indulgences, and our attempted good works.”


I learned a lot about Roman Catholicism from this book. Church Tradition, not Scripture, is that religion’s foundation. This is why that Church is self-centered instead of centered on Christ. “The biggest gap I could see was that Jesus Christ sought to bring men to God, while the Church was always trying to bring men to itself” (p. 250.) Or, put another way, “The Bible teaches that it is not the church that makes us, but believers who make up the church” (p. 270.)

The modern priest who remains in ‘Mother Church’ is as liable as medieval priests ever were, “to be damned, excommunicated” (p. 23.) Better to be called a ‘Judas priest’ by priests who remain than to stay and actually be one! (p. 23.) Far From Rome, Near to God is a book that tells the terrible truth of the power of Roman delusion and the more powerful grace of God—fifty times over. A man like Luis Padrossa can be trusted: “After living forty-years a sincere Roman Catholic, fifteen of intense ecclesiastical training, ten as a priest and a popular preacher to great multitudes, and twenty-three of religious life in the Jesuit Order, I arrived at the conviction that the Roman Catholic Church was not the true Church of Jesus Christ. Thirteen years of intense study of apologetics brought me to an unbreakable conviction. I know the arguments on both sides,” he says, “I have analysed them” (p. 196.) Tragically, many Protestant churches today are “Rome-ward bound at the expense of biblical truth,” as Mr. Brewer observed when he came out of Rome “in search for truth” (p. 24.) “The variety of churches can be discouraging and even dangerous,” he says, because of the popular “ecumenical folly.”

Content: B  (Important but repetitive.)
     Style: B  (Not as eloquent as true.)
    Tone: A- (Appropriately solemn.)

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. 


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.