The connection........
I've posted a number of photos of church signs with those incredibly vacuous, insipid, Gospel-less slogans -- ostensibly a way for that church to "reach" passers-by. Reach them with what is not quite clear....
A friend commented recently "wonder what goes on inside a church which puts that on the outside?" I told her the same type stuff was being proclaimed from the pulpit as from the sign. How could we think otherwise?.......surely no doctrinally sound pastor would allow such drivel as their public witness.
So, this is the "connection" I refer to. There is a dismaying amount of drivel falling from the lips of preachers, even some from whom we might expect better. Just recently, I've been exposed to a flood of sloganeering by supposedly sound preachers. These guys are masters of the quip and the quote. They can wow you with blurbs from all the Big Names.....MacArthur, Tozer, Spurgeon, Piper, et al.
This is a variant of the "spring board sermon" where the preacher starts with his idea, his theme, his point.......then he searches the Bible to find a verse (note: a verse) which he feels supports this idea. Building his structure upon one verse, he springs into action, lambasting the hearers with his own pet ideas whilst claiming Biblical support from the out of context verse.
Now we can get instead of a verse, a one-liner from Spurgeon or one of the other icons. From then on, the preacher goes where his own imagination takes him, having justified his thoughts by appealing to one of the Masters.
Another variant is the "borrowed sermon" These guys read Piper, MacArthur, Spurgeon (less so) and next thing you know, they have a sermon! Nice little 3-pointer, sometimes complete will illustrations. This, of course, has been going on for centuries. Some of the most popular books I sell are collections of sermons by Clovis Chappell, Clarence Macartney, and F W. Boreham. Those sermons have been preached and re-preached for nearly 100 years.
The question is: Why do they do this?
The answer is: They don't have nothin' else.
Some birds (pigeons and doves, maybe some others) feed their babies by going out, finding a nice meal and eating it.....back in the nest, they regurgitate that meal in a form palatable to the babies. This is called "pigeon milk"
Lots of congregations of hungry Christians are being fed on regurgitated theology. Those preachers read a clever bit on Piper's website or a MacArthur book, or had a good time on Phil Johnson's Spurgeon site.....and they carry this bit into the pulpit with them Sunday morning and spit it out for the starving sheep.
Baby pigeons thrive on that stuff. Baby Christians will starve.
Much as I like all the Greats I have mentioned here, their writings are inadequate food. Where have we read that:
Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word which comes from the mouth of Spurgeon (Piper, etc)? No, that's not it. These guys who are imitating some other preacher, "borrowing" his sermons, quoting him endlessly, in fact, worshiping some man.....are on dangerous ground. They are in danger and their congregations are starving.
I have lots of books; I have lots of commentaries (though I will say I don't use them much these days except for a word study perhaps)...but what I need is a Word from God, not from Spurgeon. Some preachers think a dream come true would be them locked away in a luxury hotel room, with tons of food, hundreds of books to read and "study" and at the end of that stay, they'd be a more powerful preacher. I'm going to tell you that the ideal would be locked up in a bare room with some water and saltines, a pencil and paper, and the Word of God.....after a couple weeks, a changed man would emerge.
All this man-made stuff lacks nutrition. Preachers need a Word from God. They will not get it from reading second-hand stuff, even if it's written by Godly men. Cut out the middle man! Go to the Source! Lock up all those commentaries and sermons books and get into the Word! Your congregation is hungry, some of them are starving,
Feed my sheep!
Showing posts with label Preaching. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Preaching. Show all posts
Friday, March 19, 2010
Sunday, September 20, 2009
SHALL WE "MOVE ON" FROM THE CROSS?
A friend asked recently, in so many words, "Should we not move on from all this emphasis on the Cross....move on to the Throne, where Christ is now?"
Of course, "No!" pops into my mind immediately. Following that, as I began thinking about the ramifications of the question, I posted this blurb: "...the centrality of the Cross. No event in history approaches the magnitude; no event in eternity will overshadow it. Nothing good or worthwhile is possible apart from it."
But, the question deserves more than a one-word answer or a clever blurb. It's difficult first of all because it's impossible to know exactly what a questioner means, what's in their heart, how they define their terms, etc. So misunderstanding and miscommunication are real threats. Nevertheless, I am going to undertake if not to answer, to open up this area for thought and discussion.
The original question included the phrase "...Cross more of a doorway to the throne where we ought to be" We'll start there....Background: we have a race of fallen men, sinners, alienated from God because of their sinful state/nature......and we have God who wills to reconcile some of those fallen men to Himself for His glory. In order to maintain His righteousness, to continue to be the Just God, He must execute His wrath, His justice in response to those sins. He chooses the only way to be both Just and Justifier: the sacrifice of His perfectly holy, sinless Son in the place of those whom He will redeem. That work took place on that cross and is referred to in various terms like "the Cross" "the Blood" and "the Death of Christ"....all connected to this work of sin-bearing, wrath, expiation, atonement.
The questioner's specific reference to the "throne" came from Hebrews 4:16--
Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
Yes, we may now draw near to this throne of Grace and receive mercy and grace.....but it seems impossible to leave the Cross out of this picture. A couple of random thoughts:
1. Throne. Generally, God's throne is pictured as a place of judgment. Often it is portrayed as a courtroom scene where guilty sinners stand before a Holy God to hear their doom pronounced. In this instance, the throne is a "throne of grace and mercy".....How can that be? Because of the Cross! The required Judgment has been executed upon Christ for those who are His.
2. This throne is not a "dwelling place" for believers, but a place to which we can draw near as necessary. So far as positional standing, Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:6 that believers are presently (right now) seated with Him in heavenly places. Note well the last three words of that phrase: in Christ Jesus. This is spiritual positioning. Believers are "in Christ" so we are wherever He is, spiritually.
Paul (ok then, the "writer of Hebrews...lol) says "draw near to the Throne"....How are we able to do that? What man can stand before the Throne, in the presence of God? Only the man who is "in Christ"...Further along in Hebrews, chapter 10, it is written:
Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus,
.....let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
See? The only means by which we can "draw near the throne" is the Blood of Christ, the Cross. They are inseparable.
Believers are still sinners--saved sinners, to be sure--but sinners. Were we not "in Christ" we could never approach the throne except as we were dragged before God in judgment. Believers are commanded continually to avail themselves of this cleansing stream. Though spiritually seated with Christ, we are physically still walking in this filthy world, in our sin-corrupted flesh, and are wracked by sin.
If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. (1 John 1)
So, what are believers to do about their sin? If we've left behind the Cross, we're in trouble, because God's provision is:
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. .......If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1)
We must visit the Cross regularly, daily. It, the Blood of Christ, is the birthplace of the forgiveness we receive from God. It's not a "one time deal" from we can "move on" to higher or better things. There are no "higher or better things"!
For some, this kind of question may be born out of a low view of the Gospel (not the case with my questioner, but others I have met). There is this notion that the "gospel" is some one-trick pony in which a lost man recites a wrote prayer and presto-chango becomes a child of God. Recently I was engaged in an internet discussion where a man reduced the "gospel" to one verse in his argument that there was so much more of importance in the Bible than the Gospel.
My view is that there is nothing in the Bible but the Gospel. God's word is His revelation to man of His plan and work for redeeming unto Himself a people and glorifying Himself in so doing. The redemption of sinners, their reconciliation to a Holy God is the Gospel. The centerpiece of the Gospel is the Cross. Every other "good thing" which believers have is a product of the Cross. Apart from it, we have nothing. We dare not leave it behind.
I feel that all scripture supports my view on this but am particularly led by a couple of passages from Paul's epistles:
For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.
(1 Corinthians 2:2)
To this troubled church in Corinth, Paul had only one message and it was born out of that foundational event--the crucifixion of Christ--the Cross.
Earlier he had written to the church in Rome of his desire to come to them and minister to them.....what did he say specifically?--
So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
(Romans 1:15-16)
See that? He wanted to preach to this church, this local assembly of believers.......and his desire was to "preach the Gospel" to them. There is no "moving on" in his heart. The Gospel is the power of God to those who believe!
Really, this is much of what's lacking in today's churches. They have moved on.....and now get sermons on financial practices, sex technique, and electoral politics. But lives are not transformed by that; God is not glorified by that.
But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.
(Ephesians 2:13-16)
Of course, "No!" pops into my mind immediately. Following that, as I began thinking about the ramifications of the question, I posted this blurb: "...the centrality of the Cross. No event in history approaches the magnitude; no event in eternity will overshadow it. Nothing good or worthwhile is possible apart from it."
But, the question deserves more than a one-word answer or a clever blurb. It's difficult first of all because it's impossible to know exactly what a questioner means, what's in their heart, how they define their terms, etc. So misunderstanding and miscommunication are real threats. Nevertheless, I am going to undertake if not to answer, to open up this area for thought and discussion.
The original question included the phrase "...Cross more of a doorway to the throne where we ought to be" We'll start there....Background: we have a race of fallen men, sinners, alienated from God because of their sinful state/nature......and we have God who wills to reconcile some of those fallen men to Himself for His glory. In order to maintain His righteousness, to continue to be the Just God, He must execute His wrath, His justice in response to those sins. He chooses the only way to be both Just and Justifier: the sacrifice of His perfectly holy, sinless Son in the place of those whom He will redeem. That work took place on that cross and is referred to in various terms like "the Cross" "the Blood" and "the Death of Christ"....all connected to this work of sin-bearing, wrath, expiation, atonement.
The questioner's specific reference to the "throne" came from Hebrews 4:16--
Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
Yes, we may now draw near to this throne of Grace and receive mercy and grace.....but it seems impossible to leave the Cross out of this picture. A couple of random thoughts:
1. Throne. Generally, God's throne is pictured as a place of judgment. Often it is portrayed as a courtroom scene where guilty sinners stand before a Holy God to hear their doom pronounced. In this instance, the throne is a "throne of grace and mercy".....How can that be? Because of the Cross! The required Judgment has been executed upon Christ for those who are His.
2. This throne is not a "dwelling place" for believers, but a place to which we can draw near as necessary. So far as positional standing, Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:6 that believers are presently (right now) seated with Him in heavenly places. Note well the last three words of that phrase: in Christ Jesus. This is spiritual positioning. Believers are "in Christ" so we are wherever He is, spiritually.
Paul (ok then, the "writer of Hebrews...lol) says "draw near to the Throne"....How are we able to do that? What man can stand before the Throne, in the presence of God? Only the man who is "in Christ"...Further along in Hebrews, chapter 10, it is written:
Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus,
.....let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
See? The only means by which we can "draw near the throne" is the Blood of Christ, the Cross. They are inseparable.
Believers are still sinners--saved sinners, to be sure--but sinners. Were we not "in Christ" we could never approach the throne except as we were dragged before God in judgment. Believers are commanded continually to avail themselves of this cleansing stream. Though spiritually seated with Christ, we are physically still walking in this filthy world, in our sin-corrupted flesh, and are wracked by sin.
If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. (1 John 1)
So, what are believers to do about their sin? If we've left behind the Cross, we're in trouble, because God's provision is:
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. .......If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1)
We must visit the Cross regularly, daily. It, the Blood of Christ, is the birthplace of the forgiveness we receive from God. It's not a "one time deal" from we can "move on" to higher or better things. There are no "higher or better things"!
For some, this kind of question may be born out of a low view of the Gospel (not the case with my questioner, but others I have met). There is this notion that the "gospel" is some one-trick pony in which a lost man recites a wrote prayer and presto-chango becomes a child of God. Recently I was engaged in an internet discussion where a man reduced the "gospel" to one verse in his argument that there was so much more of importance in the Bible than the Gospel.
My view is that there is nothing in the Bible but the Gospel. God's word is His revelation to man of His plan and work for redeeming unto Himself a people and glorifying Himself in so doing. The redemption of sinners, their reconciliation to a Holy God is the Gospel. The centerpiece of the Gospel is the Cross. Every other "good thing" which believers have is a product of the Cross. Apart from it, we have nothing. We dare not leave it behind.
I feel that all scripture supports my view on this but am particularly led by a couple of passages from Paul's epistles:
For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.
(1 Corinthians 2:2)
To this troubled church in Corinth, Paul had only one message and it was born out of that foundational event--the crucifixion of Christ--the Cross.
Earlier he had written to the church in Rome of his desire to come to them and minister to them.....what did he say specifically?--
So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
(Romans 1:15-16)
See that? He wanted to preach to this church, this local assembly of believers.......and his desire was to "preach the Gospel" to them. There is no "moving on" in his heart. The Gospel is the power of God to those who believe!
Really, this is much of what's lacking in today's churches. They have moved on.....and now get sermons on financial practices, sex technique, and electoral politics. But lives are not transformed by that; God is not glorified by that.
But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.
(Ephesians 2:13-16)
Sunday, August 9, 2009
"JOHN MACARTHUR IS NOT SAVED" (The Accuser)
Based on an interview in which MacArthur cannot pinpoint the exact date and circumstances of his conversion, a handful of internet "preachers" are now pronouncing him "unsaved." I've not seen the interview and am not focused on it at this moment.
My concern is with these accusers. We are somewhat accustomed to the calvinists accusing the arminians and vice versa. This is a case of fratricide: calvinists slandering calvinists, making it all the more disturbing.
Just for the record, those of us who were converted as adults (I was a week short of 32, for example) can usually remember the date, etc, but what if God saved you at age 5? How much do you remember of your life from that time? That was 60 years ago for me, and if I had been converted then, if would not have been from a life of open, blatant immorality, so I can understand being unable to pinpoint a dramatic change.
Regardless, this slandering of a brother is inexcusable and, I suspect, is born out of other, unresolved grievances, out of bitterness. The "ringleader" of this group of accusers has previously written to me complaining of how he was treated by folks including MacArthur. I suspect this bitterness is festering in him like a poison and that he has been seeking something like this with which to avenge himself.
The sad part is that one bitter soul can have a cult-like following, younger believers who think whatever the Leader says is gospel...and they fall for the accusation and start to parrot the poisoner. Let me refer all these "preachers" to a couple passages of scripture:
First, God does not say we will recognize His children because they can recite date and time for His regenerating work in their lives. He says "by their fruits ye shall know them." John MacArthur's fruits are out there to be seen. Mr Accuser, where are your fruits? You might have the date and time down, but where are your fruits?
Second, that this takes place among brothers, especially brothers "like-minded" theologically, is an abomination. I urge you to take a serious look at Ephesian 4:
Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
(Ephesians 4:29-32)
If MacArthur offended you, you need to confront him in the Biblical manner. You're instructed to forgive him. Give up your bitterness and forsake your slander. Your words serve not to give grace to the hearers but to strengthen the enemy.
My concern is with these accusers. We are somewhat accustomed to the calvinists accusing the arminians and vice versa. This is a case of fratricide: calvinists slandering calvinists, making it all the more disturbing.
Just for the record, those of us who were converted as adults (I was a week short of 32, for example) can usually remember the date, etc, but what if God saved you at age 5? How much do you remember of your life from that time? That was 60 years ago for me, and if I had been converted then, if would not have been from a life of open, blatant immorality, so I can understand being unable to pinpoint a dramatic change.
Regardless, this slandering of a brother is inexcusable and, I suspect, is born out of other, unresolved grievances, out of bitterness. The "ringleader" of this group of accusers has previously written to me complaining of how he was treated by folks including MacArthur. I suspect this bitterness is festering in him like a poison and that he has been seeking something like this with which to avenge himself.
The sad part is that one bitter soul can have a cult-like following, younger believers who think whatever the Leader says is gospel...and they fall for the accusation and start to parrot the poisoner. Let me refer all these "preachers" to a couple passages of scripture:
First, God does not say we will recognize His children because they can recite date and time for His regenerating work in their lives. He says "by their fruits ye shall know them." John MacArthur's fruits are out there to be seen. Mr Accuser, where are your fruits? You might have the date and time down, but where are your fruits?
Second, that this takes place among brothers, especially brothers "like-minded" theologically, is an abomination. I urge you to take a serious look at Ephesian 4:
Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
(Ephesians 4:29-32)
If MacArthur offended you, you need to confront him in the Biblical manner. You're instructed to forgive him. Give up your bitterness and forsake your slander. Your words serve not to give grace to the hearers but to strengthen the enemy.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
PASTORAL HERMENEUTIC? (part 3--conclusion)
When I started this series, my intention was to frame it like the old preacher's joke: "3 points and a pome" (poem to you literate folks). The first two posts took forever and intervening posts have come and gone; frankly, I've lost momentum on this train of thought.
Except for the "pome" The poem was the dramatic conclusion to the sermon, the moment of pathos where all the intellectual brilliance and spiritual power of the 3 points landed with a thud in the hearers' hearts, breaking those hearts and driving the hordes to the altar of repentance, rededication, and reconciliation.
So I've been haranguing pastors for haranguing their congregations, demanding obeisance and other forms of blind following; exhorting the sheep to fill the coffers so the $25 million dollar pile of bricks can be properly maintained and the million dollar payroll continued without interruption.
Now I want to shine the spotlight on myself for a few words. I was a pastor once. November 2009 will mark the 30th anniversary of my ordination to the Gospel ministry. At that time, I was serving as interim pastor for a little country congregation who had, in their deranged state of mind, decided to call me as their pastor.
I was painfully reminded of that experience a month ago when I met a pastor-friend not quite my age but who started younger and probably has about as much time in ministry as I have....30 years or so. After a handshake, the first communication from him was: "I'm really disgusted with my congregation. I don't know if half of them are even saved." (as an aside: I feel that way about most congregations.....the number of church members who are really saved has to be low)
But, I didn't say anything, just let him rave on for a few minutes about how his congregation did this and didn't do that, and now it was summer and attendance was down from 100 to 50-60, etc, etc, etc. What I was tempted to ask him was this:
How much time do you spend praying for those people?
Have you ever, I mean ever, wept over them, their apparent coldness, their lack of spiritual growth?
See, he sounded just exactly like I sounded, and acted, 30 years ago. I went into that little country church and told them "what for". The next week, I raked them over the coals because they had not changed......."What is the problem? I told you a week ago how you should live, and still you are unchanged!"
I rode my hobby horses all over their turf. I had come out of the independent Baptist world into this Southern Baptist association and I spent half my time condemning the SBC and urging this congregation to leave the association and go independent. I had 5 deacons, one of whom showed up for the services faithfully. Three others were there most Sunday mornings but never at night or on Wednesday. One showed up for Easter or something like that. One day I had them all in a Sunday a.m. service and called them to the front of the congregation and gave them "down the road" Now, every one of these men was older than I, and had grown up in that church. But I told them to either "deac" or hit the door!
I am sickened by my past behavior and attitude. I'm grateful to God that His longsuffering permitted me to even live through that kind of behavior, let alone continue in ministry to this point where, finally, I have some sense. So, it was really disturbing to hear this "senior pastor" talking just like I used to be 30 years back.
I doubt God will ever put me back into a pastorate. In many ways, I consider myself a "pastor" to my inmates but it's not quite the same since I am restricted by rules and regulations about exactly what I can and cannot do regarding their families and so forth. I know that my heart is more of a "pastor's heart" today than ever before.
If I were a pastor, and I say this to those who do serve as pastors, two things: If you don't have a heart which is broken over the souls of the folks who face you every Sunday, get out! They do not need you to lecture them, harangue them, scold them, or fleece them. Secondly, if you do have that heart, you will do this without me telling you--just preach the Word faithfully and trust God to do His work in their heart. If He does it instantly, praise the Lord; if you preach there 20 years before you see change, praise the Lord. During those 20 years you'll have spent most of your time on your face before God praying that He move upon those folks because you 1.) love Him and want to see Him glorified in their lives, and 2.) because you love them and want to see them transformed into the image of His son.
Anything else that happens is secondary at best, probably less important........new buildings, new carpeting, doubled membership, all the stuff the world uses as a measuring stick. The greatest joy a pastor can have is seeing his folks changed by the power of God.....I wouldn't trade that for 3 twenty-five million dollar buildings and a television ministry.
Except for the "pome" The poem was the dramatic conclusion to the sermon, the moment of pathos where all the intellectual brilliance and spiritual power of the 3 points landed with a thud in the hearers' hearts, breaking those hearts and driving the hordes to the altar of repentance, rededication, and reconciliation.
So I've been haranguing pastors for haranguing their congregations, demanding obeisance and other forms of blind following; exhorting the sheep to fill the coffers so the $25 million dollar pile of bricks can be properly maintained and the million dollar payroll continued without interruption.
Now I want to shine the spotlight on myself for a few words. I was a pastor once. November 2009 will mark the 30th anniversary of my ordination to the Gospel ministry. At that time, I was serving as interim pastor for a little country congregation who had, in their deranged state of mind, decided to call me as their pastor.
I was painfully reminded of that experience a month ago when I met a pastor-friend not quite my age but who started younger and probably has about as much time in ministry as I have....30 years or so. After a handshake, the first communication from him was: "I'm really disgusted with my congregation. I don't know if half of them are even saved." (as an aside: I feel that way about most congregations.....the number of church members who are really saved has to be low)
But, I didn't say anything, just let him rave on for a few minutes about how his congregation did this and didn't do that, and now it was summer and attendance was down from 100 to 50-60, etc, etc, etc. What I was tempted to ask him was this:
How much time do you spend praying for those people?
Have you ever, I mean ever, wept over them, their apparent coldness, their lack of spiritual growth?
See, he sounded just exactly like I sounded, and acted, 30 years ago. I went into that little country church and told them "what for". The next week, I raked them over the coals because they had not changed......."What is the problem? I told you a week ago how you should live, and still you are unchanged!"
I rode my hobby horses all over their turf. I had come out of the independent Baptist world into this Southern Baptist association and I spent half my time condemning the SBC and urging this congregation to leave the association and go independent. I had 5 deacons, one of whom showed up for the services faithfully. Three others were there most Sunday mornings but never at night or on Wednesday. One showed up for Easter or something like that. One day I had them all in a Sunday a.m. service and called them to the front of the congregation and gave them "down the road" Now, every one of these men was older than I, and had grown up in that church. But I told them to either "deac" or hit the door!
I am sickened by my past behavior and attitude. I'm grateful to God that His longsuffering permitted me to even live through that kind of behavior, let alone continue in ministry to this point where, finally, I have some sense. So, it was really disturbing to hear this "senior pastor" talking just like I used to be 30 years back.
I doubt God will ever put me back into a pastorate. In many ways, I consider myself a "pastor" to my inmates but it's not quite the same since I am restricted by rules and regulations about exactly what I can and cannot do regarding their families and so forth. I know that my heart is more of a "pastor's heart" today than ever before.
If I were a pastor, and I say this to those who do serve as pastors, two things: If you don't have a heart which is broken over the souls of the folks who face you every Sunday, get out! They do not need you to lecture them, harangue them, scold them, or fleece them. Secondly, if you do have that heart, you will do this without me telling you--just preach the Word faithfully and trust God to do His work in their heart. If He does it instantly, praise the Lord; if you preach there 20 years before you see change, praise the Lord. During those 20 years you'll have spent most of your time on your face before God praying that He move upon those folks because you 1.) love Him and want to see Him glorified in their lives, and 2.) because you love them and want to see them transformed into the image of His son.
Anything else that happens is secondary at best, probably less important........new buildings, new carpeting, doubled membership, all the stuff the world uses as a measuring stick. The greatest joy a pastor can have is seeing his folks changed by the power of God.....I wouldn't trade that for 3 twenty-five million dollar buildings and a television ministry.
Monday, July 27, 2009
PREACHING IN IGNORANCE OF BASIC DOCTRINE... WHAT AN ABOMINATION!
What a state the "church" is in today.....led by so many "preachers" who are abysmally ignorant of the basic doctrines taught in the Word.
For the past couple weeks, I've been interacting with a group of pelagian-style heretics on Facebook. Over the weekend, one of them responded to a Spurgeon quote on another fellow's page, throwing out the usual straw-man stuff about all calvinists consigning to Hell those who die in infancy. As his presentation developed he made the expected denial of the doctrine of Original Sin then advanced to denying the Impeccability of Christ.
I made a couple responses to his "born innocent" comments then wrote him off, following the admonition in Titus 3:10. Others continued to respond as he went into his "Jesus could have sinned" statement but no one ever confronted him on either heresy (or either component of the same heresy, as you wish). This was on the Facebook page of a preacher who never raised his voice against the man's heresy at all. None of the others involved in the conversation ever even mentioned the issue of Christ's impeccability.
This made me wonder: Do they even know that this is an issue? Do they not recognize heresy when they hear it? Apparently not, because this thread dissolved into a "well, we must agree to disagree..." cop-out. Now, I will "agree to disagree" over instrumental music in church or over the use of a common cup for the Lord's Supper, but the idea of letting slide a major heresy is pretty lame! Will you also "agree to disagree" over the Deity of Christ? ...or the Virgin Birth?
So, I wrote to the preacher on whose page this took place asking him specifically if he was aware of the heresies involved or was he ignorant of them. His response was a non-response "Sorry if I offended you...." This seems to be a modern-day catch all which must mean: I am really offended that you asked that so I am going to apologize and put an end to the discussion. Even allowing the possibility of my tone, being one of combined outrage and incredulity, might stretch to him seeing me as an offended party, the question still hangs there unanswered: Do you or do you not understand the doctrines involved here and their importance?
So, this guy is out there preaching but unable to answer questions from those who will ask about original sin or the idea of whether Jesus could have sinned but set a great example for us, etc. I suspect the nation's pulpits are filled with similar examples of ignorance, and not just ignorance but a willing ignorance, one which shows no interest in learning, in study, in pursuing the details of the Truth revealed in God's Word.
Are we not commanded to "study to show ourselves approved of God......WORKmen who need not be ashamed....because we can RIGHTLY divide the Word"...??? I have deliberately avoided detailed discussion here of the details on these doctrines....because I wonder about you--do you understand them? Do you have a clue what I am talking about? Do you realize the importance?
If not, here are a couple links which will introduce you to the issues:
http://home.att.net/~sovereigngrace/impeccability.html
http://www.fbinstitute.com/McCormick/IMPECCABILITY.htm
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/classics/jonathanedwards/original_sin.shtml
This McCormick essay contains an interesting footnote: "One scholar (Bartmann) has pointed out that the ancient heretics, however divergent they were in Christology, did not attack or question the Impeccability of Christ."
Even those ancient heretics did not question what these modern day heretics assail in their efforts ultimately to discredit Christ's Deity.
For the past couple weeks, I've been interacting with a group of pelagian-style heretics on Facebook. Over the weekend, one of them responded to a Spurgeon quote on another fellow's page, throwing out the usual straw-man stuff about all calvinists consigning to Hell those who die in infancy. As his presentation developed he made the expected denial of the doctrine of Original Sin then advanced to denying the Impeccability of Christ.
I made a couple responses to his "born innocent" comments then wrote him off, following the admonition in Titus 3:10. Others continued to respond as he went into his "Jesus could have sinned" statement but no one ever confronted him on either heresy (or either component of the same heresy, as you wish). This was on the Facebook page of a preacher who never raised his voice against the man's heresy at all. None of the others involved in the conversation ever even mentioned the issue of Christ's impeccability.
This made me wonder: Do they even know that this is an issue? Do they not recognize heresy when they hear it? Apparently not, because this thread dissolved into a "well, we must agree to disagree..." cop-out. Now, I will "agree to disagree" over instrumental music in church or over the use of a common cup for the Lord's Supper, but the idea of letting slide a major heresy is pretty lame! Will you also "agree to disagree" over the Deity of Christ? ...or the Virgin Birth?
So, I wrote to the preacher on whose page this took place asking him specifically if he was aware of the heresies involved or was he ignorant of them. His response was a non-response "Sorry if I offended you...." This seems to be a modern-day catch all which must mean: I am really offended that you asked that so I am going to apologize and put an end to the discussion. Even allowing the possibility of my tone, being one of combined outrage and incredulity, might stretch to him seeing me as an offended party, the question still hangs there unanswered: Do you or do you not understand the doctrines involved here and their importance?
So, this guy is out there preaching but unable to answer questions from those who will ask about original sin or the idea of whether Jesus could have sinned but set a great example for us, etc. I suspect the nation's pulpits are filled with similar examples of ignorance, and not just ignorance but a willing ignorance, one which shows no interest in learning, in study, in pursuing the details of the Truth revealed in God's Word.
Are we not commanded to "study to show ourselves approved of God......WORKmen who need not be ashamed....because we can RIGHTLY divide the Word"...??? I have deliberately avoided detailed discussion here of the details on these doctrines....because I wonder about you--do you understand them? Do you have a clue what I am talking about? Do you realize the importance?
If not, here are a couple links which will introduce you to the issues:
http://home.att.net/~sovereigngrace/impeccability.html
http://www.fbinstitute.com/McCormick/IMPECCABILITY.htm
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/classics/jonathanedwards/original_sin.shtml
This McCormick essay contains an interesting footnote: "One scholar (Bartmann) has pointed out that the ancient heretics, however divergent they were in Christology, did not attack or question the Impeccability of Christ."
Even those ancient heretics did not question what these modern day heretics assail in their efforts ultimately to discredit Christ's Deity.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
PASTORAL HERMENEUTIC?
It seems to me that there is a dichotomy in Bible interpretation between that of pastoral ministers and us non-pastors, missionaries, evangelists, and so forth who do not lead local congregations.
One of these areas is the concept of "storehouse tithing" I am convinced that there is absolutely no scriptural basis for teaching such a "doctrine," but from the most muddle-headed, decisional-regeneration-hyping, inch-deep, mile-wide theologian of the high-volume-covers-inadequate-study pastors to the Godly, scholarly, otherwise-pretty-good-divider-of-the-Word type, there is agreement on One Thing: We want your money here!
Basically, they are saying: Do not support para-church ministries. (FULL DISCLOSURE: I lead a para-church ministry. Our financial support, apart from my wallet, is in the neighborhood of $240. annually). To be sure, I think there should be no need for para-church ministries. All ministry should be done by the local assemblies. Since local churches have often failed in their assignment, para-church ministries have been started. Many of these para-church ministries are thinly-veiled scams but there are those led by Godly men and women who have stepped into the gap created by the failure of the local church.
It is not unusual, for example, to find a large, prosperous local church with a fairly good foreign missions program. They support several folks in the fields across the world, mission boards, and so forth....BUT that same local assembly has no outreach in its own community. They have no nursing home ministry; they have no jail or prison ministry; they have no food bank; they have no shelter for abused women or children. Their idea of local ministry is usually reduced to the "visitation" model centered on inviting neighbors to attend services at the church....and there's no need inviting folks from nursing homes or prisons, right?
I hate to disabuse all the "comfortable pew" folks but asking your neighbor to come to church is not obedience to "preach the Gospel to every creature." "We have the best coffee in our Sunday School class!" is not the Gospel. "We have a really fun children's program" is not the Gospel!
The other aspect of this "pastoral hermeneutic" is in regard to Hebrews 13:17--Obey your leaders and submit to them.....I'll make that a separate post....soon.
One of these areas is the concept of "storehouse tithing" I am convinced that there is absolutely no scriptural basis for teaching such a "doctrine," but from the most muddle-headed, decisional-regeneration-hyping, inch-deep, mile-wide theologian of the high-volume-covers-inadequate-study pastors to the Godly, scholarly, otherwise-pretty-good-divider-of-the-Word type, there is agreement on One Thing: We want your money here!
Basically, they are saying: Do not support para-church ministries. (FULL DISCLOSURE: I lead a para-church ministry. Our financial support, apart from my wallet, is in the neighborhood of $240. annually). To be sure, I think there should be no need for para-church ministries. All ministry should be done by the local assemblies. Since local churches have often failed in their assignment, para-church ministries have been started. Many of these para-church ministries are thinly-veiled scams but there are those led by Godly men and women who have stepped into the gap created by the failure of the local church.
It is not unusual, for example, to find a large, prosperous local church with a fairly good foreign missions program. They support several folks in the fields across the world, mission boards, and so forth....BUT that same local assembly has no outreach in its own community. They have no nursing home ministry; they have no jail or prison ministry; they have no food bank; they have no shelter for abused women or children. Their idea of local ministry is usually reduced to the "visitation" model centered on inviting neighbors to attend services at the church....and there's no need inviting folks from nursing homes or prisons, right?
I hate to disabuse all the "comfortable pew" folks but asking your neighbor to come to church is not obedience to "preach the Gospel to every creature." "We have the best coffee in our Sunday School class!" is not the Gospel. "We have a really fun children's program" is not the Gospel!
The other aspect of this "pastoral hermeneutic" is in regard to Hebrews 13:17--Obey your leaders and submit to them.....I'll make that a separate post....soon.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
EXPOSITORY PREACHING--A NECESSITY
I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word;....(2 Timothy 4:1,2)
Recently I was again exposed to the negative aspects of "topical preaching." So often, I am tempted to say "always" but won't, so often, the preacher takes his heart's Topic and drags in every scripture verse he can find in support of his own view as he builds his "case."
The result is a man-made conglomeration of error and half-truths and the Word of God lies mangled at the preacher's feet. I speak as one who has fallen into this trap more than once. I have hobby-horses just like most men do. I have "proof-texts" too. But that imperative "preach the Word" does not mean: preach what you think is right and torture the scriptures as necessary in order to support your theme.
The art of expository preaching, where one preaches through a text verse-by-verse, protects both the preacher and the hearers from much of the error which can come from the work of sinful men, even regenerated sinners. The Word acts as a restraint upon our passion to promote our own ideas and pet theories. We should be, by this framework, held close to the intent of the Holy Spirit Who penned the words of the text. It is so easy to grab a verse somewhere because it "sounds good" in support of our topic when in fact, it is being used out of context, either grammatical or historical, or both.
"Preach the Word" means preach His Word, not ours.
Recently I was again exposed to the negative aspects of "topical preaching." So often, I am tempted to say "always" but won't, so often, the preacher takes his heart's Topic and drags in every scripture verse he can find in support of his own view as he builds his "case."
The result is a man-made conglomeration of error and half-truths and the Word of God lies mangled at the preacher's feet. I speak as one who has fallen into this trap more than once. I have hobby-horses just like most men do. I have "proof-texts" too. But that imperative "preach the Word" does not mean: preach what you think is right and torture the scriptures as necessary in order to support your theme.
The art of expository preaching, where one preaches through a text verse-by-verse, protects both the preacher and the hearers from much of the error which can come from the work of sinful men, even regenerated sinners. The Word acts as a restraint upon our passion to promote our own ideas and pet theories. We should be, by this framework, held close to the intent of the Holy Spirit Who penned the words of the text. It is so easy to grab a verse somewhere because it "sounds good" in support of our topic when in fact, it is being used out of context, either grammatical or historical, or both.
"Preach the Word" means preach His Word, not ours.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
TRADING AWAY THE GLORY OF GOD
Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
(Romans 1:22-23)
Recently I was invited to preach a Sunday morning service in a small country church pastored by a friend. He's a wonderful fellow with a real heart for the downtrodden and is a faithful worker in prison ministry.
In a month of study on the Glory of God in Preaching (using Piper's book as a guide), my heart was greatly impressed by the absolute primacy of God's Glory in all that we do, preach, how we live, how we conduct ourselves among other people, in church and out. I guess that's stating the obvious....but it's one thing to believe that in one's head and quite another thing to have God impress it upon one's heart.
So, I delivered the message and as much as one can tell, it seemed well received by both the pastor and the congregation. We had the traditional "dinner on the grounds" (It was Homecoming Day) and after lunch returned to the auditorium for the traditional "singing."
The first group to perform make the oft-heard remarks of how their goal was to "lift up the Name of Jesus" and "glorify Him" etc. Immediately following these protestations of piety came 7 songs totally bereft of any mention of the Gospel, the Work of Christ, or the Glory of God. At that time I thought I'd remember all seven titles and record them somewhere for posterity, but my failing memory leaves me only with a hint of the first 3 titles: "I'll Never Be Ashamed" "I'll Never Turn My Back" and "I Need One More Miracle" (or words to that effect). Three more equally Christ-less examples followed, capped off with a popular chorus, "On Holy Ground" which does have at least a hint of the Lord of Glory......but only a hint.
We were able to escape after that set and I drove back home really stunned by what I had just experienced. Now, these people are not evil; they are local folks, good church members, moral, honest, friendly, and would tell you in a heartbeat of your need of Jesus Christ. I love that pastor out there for his testimony of God's great grace intervening in his wicked life at nearly 40 years of age, for his burden for the outcasts of our community, for his devoted ministry to prison inmates.
But they, like the fools Paul excoriates in Romans 1, have traded in the Glory of God for an idol. Rather than a stone or carved wooden idol, this 21st century group has an idol not just "resembling mortal man" but, in fact the mortal man himself. We are so often the focus of our worship. In the vernacular of this culture: It's all about me!
As I discussed this situation with my wife the Monday morning following the event, I wept over the state these folks are in. They simply don't get it.
This is dangerous territory. I do not want to sound "holier-than-thou"...for me, I barely get it. I'm just beginning to understand a little of God's view of His glory. I've been trying to put together an analogy which would picture how I feel.......
I am driving my car through a dark valley. A friend sits beside me in the front seat. Now and then, in between the peaks of the hills which surround us on all sides, I catch a glimpse of the brightness, the radiance, the glory of the Sun. It is overwhelming! There are no words adequate to describe to anyone what I see during those too-brief seconds of Light.
I turn to my friend to share the wonder of what I've seen......Wow! Did you see that? "What" he says. "I saw nothing. What are you talking about?"
And, he doesn't see it. They don't see it. Why does someone not see what is evident to me, and to others? I do not want to use the word "blind" in my analogy here because of the spiritual implications. "Blind" people are lost. I don't want to label any of these people as "lost"; I don't think they are all lost. But, why do they not see? Maybe my friend has the sun visor down and it blocks his view. Maybe he is reading a newspaper and will not look up. Are they distracted? Is something blocking their view?
What will it take to clear their view?
Where will we see the Glory of God?
For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
(Romans 1:22-23)
Recently I was invited to preach a Sunday morning service in a small country church pastored by a friend. He's a wonderful fellow with a real heart for the downtrodden and is a faithful worker in prison ministry.
In a month of study on the Glory of God in Preaching (using Piper's book as a guide), my heart was greatly impressed by the absolute primacy of God's Glory in all that we do, preach, how we live, how we conduct ourselves among other people, in church and out. I guess that's stating the obvious....but it's one thing to believe that in one's head and quite another thing to have God impress it upon one's heart.
So, I delivered the message and as much as one can tell, it seemed well received by both the pastor and the congregation. We had the traditional "dinner on the grounds" (It was Homecoming Day) and after lunch returned to the auditorium for the traditional "singing."
The first group to perform make the oft-heard remarks of how their goal was to "lift up the Name of Jesus" and "glorify Him" etc. Immediately following these protestations of piety came 7 songs totally bereft of any mention of the Gospel, the Work of Christ, or the Glory of God. At that time I thought I'd remember all seven titles and record them somewhere for posterity, but my failing memory leaves me only with a hint of the first 3 titles: "I'll Never Be Ashamed" "I'll Never Turn My Back" and "I Need One More Miracle" (or words to that effect). Three more equally Christ-less examples followed, capped off with a popular chorus, "On Holy Ground" which does have at least a hint of the Lord of Glory......but only a hint.
We were able to escape after that set and I drove back home really stunned by what I had just experienced. Now, these people are not evil; they are local folks, good church members, moral, honest, friendly, and would tell you in a heartbeat of your need of Jesus Christ. I love that pastor out there for his testimony of God's great grace intervening in his wicked life at nearly 40 years of age, for his burden for the outcasts of our community, for his devoted ministry to prison inmates.
But they, like the fools Paul excoriates in Romans 1, have traded in the Glory of God for an idol. Rather than a stone or carved wooden idol, this 21st century group has an idol not just "resembling mortal man" but, in fact the mortal man himself. We are so often the focus of our worship. In the vernacular of this culture: It's all about me!
As I discussed this situation with my wife the Monday morning following the event, I wept over the state these folks are in. They simply don't get it.
This is dangerous territory. I do not want to sound "holier-than-thou"...for me, I barely get it. I'm just beginning to understand a little of God's view of His glory. I've been trying to put together an analogy which would picture how I feel.......
I am driving my car through a dark valley. A friend sits beside me in the front seat. Now and then, in between the peaks of the hills which surround us on all sides, I catch a glimpse of the brightness, the radiance, the glory of the Sun. It is overwhelming! There are no words adequate to describe to anyone what I see during those too-brief seconds of Light.
I turn to my friend to share the wonder of what I've seen......Wow! Did you see that? "What" he says. "I saw nothing. What are you talking about?"
And, he doesn't see it. They don't see it. Why does someone not see what is evident to me, and to others? I do not want to use the word "blind" in my analogy here because of the spiritual implications. "Blind" people are lost. I don't want to label any of these people as "lost"; I don't think they are all lost. But, why do they not see? Maybe my friend has the sun visor down and it blocks his view. Maybe he is reading a newspaper and will not look up. Are they distracted? Is something blocking their view?
What will it take to clear their view?
Where will we see the Glory of God?
For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
RABBIT TRAILS, Part 2
Part 2.
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
(1Tim 3:2-6)
Maybe in this segment I can get to the point....
All that KJO stuff previous was born out of a recent experience with a young pastor who is of the KJO persuasion and took great umbrage because of a quote I posted elsewhere--a 1954 statement by A.W. Tozer wherein Tozer decried the decline of fundamentalism into (even then) shallow, worldly, man-centered religion.
This young fellow's problem is that he has been taught that fundamentalism = the belief that the King James Version is "the" Word of God; that short haircuts on men, dresses on women, and attendance to every church service are Biblical mandates, even indicators of salvation.
That's why I get in trouble when I describe myself as a "fundamentalist"--because I mean none of that by the word. Before the 60's or whenever the co-optation of the word took place, "fundamentalist" meant simply and clearly "an adherent to the fundamentals of the faith." Those fundamentals were defined with some variation but more or less agreed-upon to mean:
1. The inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture. 2. The virgin birth and Deity of Christ. 3. The vicarious, substitutionary, and penal death of Christ. 4. The bodily resurrection of Christ. 5. The imminent return of Christ.
From thinking about this fellow, who is pastor of a small Baptist church, my thoughts expanded to include all the young preachers I have come across in the past 30 years--including myself, for I was young once. Very few of the men I am thinking of are scripturally qualified to be pastors (elders, bishops). They are novices! My experience is limited to the Baptist world, either independent Baptist, or Southern Baptist, and in a small corner of the world, but this is what I've seen. Men are routinely "ordained" to the Gospel ministry based upon their profession of a calling from God followed by an examination conducted on a local level, by other pastors, many of whom themselves might be poorly qualified.
What we end up with is churches, especially the smaller, "country" churches, pastored by novices who lack:
1.) Emotional maturity simply because of their age and lack of life experiences.
2.) Any education or training whatsoever (who lean heavily on "Ye have no need that any man teach you..." while clearly lacking the "anointing" referred to in the same passage)
3.) At best, or perhaps "worst" some of them have been trained--at Dr Billy Bob's Bible School and Flea Market--where they were indoctrinated into the particular cultic mindset of whatever sub-set of "fundamentalism" they belong to.
I speak from experience, too, having qualified in all three of those categories at the time I was "ordained" by a local SBC church: NOVICE: saved only 2 years. NOVICE: no education or training of a theological nature. NOVICE: under the influence of the KJO, neo-fundamentalist world I lived in as a new convert.
Part of the problem here is that there are way too many local churches and too few qualified pastors. The county where I live has about 28 churches in the local association. There are usually 5 or 6 open pulpits--mostly little 20-60 member congregations (some even smaller) who can barely pay a man gas money for driving out there and holding one service a week. They have no teaching ministry ("Sunday Schools" are a travesty), no outreach, no witness, most are just kept alive by tradition and family sentiment (Grandad is buried out back....). I have preached in several of these, just filling in on a Sunday morning. I have been offered pulpits in nearly every one....after one appearance......with no questions asked apart from "would you be our pastor?" The idea of qualifying a man to be the episkopos based on his ability to walk into a building, speak for 40 minutes without slobbering too much, and having a firm handshake, prevails in too many such situations.
I heard this story (not directly from Paul) that Paul Washer preached in a pastor-less church one evening, first time ever in the town, and after the service was approached by the leadership who offered him the pastorate! Just like that......! Now, he's an impressive preacher, to be sure, but his reaction was right on: What? You don't KNOW me......you have no idea who I am, how I treat my family, how I live my life.....and you offer me your pastorate?
Exactly. This passage of scripture carries no weight with entirely too many churches. because they are desperate, they are frustrated, and they are like ships without a rudder. They have no internal leadership to carry on when there is no pastor. Of course, this is another strong argument for plurality of elders but that's for another time.
Compounding the problem that these hundreds and thousands of churches, especially small congregations are "led" by novices is something even more disturbing to me. In recent years, mostly in the "internet phase" of my life, where I have been in contact with many more "pastors" than would be possible for me to do "face-to-face," I have found a level of carnality among these men which is astounding. In this internet world, the filthy mouth, the trivialization of the things of God, the preoccupation with things of this world (sports, money, sexual things, etc) demonstrated by self-styled "men of God" is absolutely mind-boggling. And, I'm not hanging around with unitarian-universalists or liberal Methodists...I'm talking about "fundamentalists".
We're all sinners. I am aware of my own fleshly inclinations, so I'm not talking about the occasional slip and stumble; I'm talking about a lifestyle of worldly preoccupation, behaviors, and attitudes. Much is written these days about the problem of the local churches being populated by an unregenerate membership. Real problem. A product of the decisional regeneration heresy, superficial "evangelism" and psycho-babble preaching of the self-esteem mantras.
Now I'm beginning to suspect an even more disturbing aspect of this situation: unregenerate pastors. It would not be illogical for these novice preachers, those who perpetuate the easy-believism heresy and the morphing of fundamentalism into a system of outward appearances, for them to be deceived even about their own salvation. When they are teaching others that one's salvation depends upon "saying the prayer" and "walking the aisle" why should we not wonder if they have fallen for the Lie? J.C. Ryle said it succinctly: Where there is no holiness, there is no Holy Ghost.
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
(1Tim 3:2-6)
Maybe in this segment I can get to the point....
All that KJO stuff previous was born out of a recent experience with a young pastor who is of the KJO persuasion and took great umbrage because of a quote I posted elsewhere--a 1954 statement by A.W. Tozer wherein Tozer decried the decline of fundamentalism into (even then) shallow, worldly, man-centered religion.
This young fellow's problem is that he has been taught that fundamentalism = the belief that the King James Version is "the" Word of God; that short haircuts on men, dresses on women, and attendance to every church service are Biblical mandates, even indicators of salvation.
That's why I get in trouble when I describe myself as a "fundamentalist"--because I mean none of that by the word. Before the 60's or whenever the co-optation of the word took place, "fundamentalist" meant simply and clearly "an adherent to the fundamentals of the faith." Those fundamentals were defined with some variation but more or less agreed-upon to mean:
1. The inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture. 2. The virgin birth and Deity of Christ. 3. The vicarious, substitutionary, and penal death of Christ. 4. The bodily resurrection of Christ. 5. The imminent return of Christ.
From thinking about this fellow, who is pastor of a small Baptist church, my thoughts expanded to include all the young preachers I have come across in the past 30 years--including myself, for I was young once. Very few of the men I am thinking of are scripturally qualified to be pastors (elders, bishops). They are novices! My experience is limited to the Baptist world, either independent Baptist, or Southern Baptist, and in a small corner of the world, but this is what I've seen. Men are routinely "ordained" to the Gospel ministry based upon their profession of a calling from God followed by an examination conducted on a local level, by other pastors, many of whom themselves might be poorly qualified.
What we end up with is churches, especially the smaller, "country" churches, pastored by novices who lack:
1.) Emotional maturity simply because of their age and lack of life experiences.
2.) Any education or training whatsoever (who lean heavily on "Ye have no need that any man teach you..." while clearly lacking the "anointing" referred to in the same passage)
3.) At best, or perhaps "worst" some of them have been trained--at Dr Billy Bob's Bible School and Flea Market--where they were indoctrinated into the particular cultic mindset of whatever sub-set of "fundamentalism" they belong to.
I speak from experience, too, having qualified in all three of those categories at the time I was "ordained" by a local SBC church: NOVICE: saved only 2 years. NOVICE: no education or training of a theological nature. NOVICE: under the influence of the KJO, neo-fundamentalist world I lived in as a new convert.
Part of the problem here is that there are way too many local churches and too few qualified pastors. The county where I live has about 28 churches in the local association. There are usually 5 or 6 open pulpits--mostly little 20-60 member congregations (some even smaller) who can barely pay a man gas money for driving out there and holding one service a week. They have no teaching ministry ("Sunday Schools" are a travesty), no outreach, no witness, most are just kept alive by tradition and family sentiment (Grandad is buried out back....). I have preached in several of these, just filling in on a Sunday morning. I have been offered pulpits in nearly every one....after one appearance......with no questions asked apart from "would you be our pastor?" The idea of qualifying a man to be the episkopos based on his ability to walk into a building, speak for 40 minutes without slobbering too much, and having a firm handshake, prevails in too many such situations.
I heard this story (not directly from Paul) that Paul Washer preached in a pastor-less church one evening, first time ever in the town, and after the service was approached by the leadership who offered him the pastorate! Just like that......! Now, he's an impressive preacher, to be sure, but his reaction was right on: What? You don't KNOW me......you have no idea who I am, how I treat my family, how I live my life.....and you offer me your pastorate?
Exactly. This passage of scripture carries no weight with entirely too many churches. because they are desperate, they are frustrated, and they are like ships without a rudder. They have no internal leadership to carry on when there is no pastor. Of course, this is another strong argument for plurality of elders but that's for another time.
Compounding the problem that these hundreds and thousands of churches, especially small congregations are "led" by novices is something even more disturbing to me. In recent years, mostly in the "internet phase" of my life, where I have been in contact with many more "pastors" than would be possible for me to do "face-to-face," I have found a level of carnality among these men which is astounding. In this internet world, the filthy mouth, the trivialization of the things of God, the preoccupation with things of this world (sports, money, sexual things, etc) demonstrated by self-styled "men of God" is absolutely mind-boggling. And, I'm not hanging around with unitarian-universalists or liberal Methodists...I'm talking about "fundamentalists".
We're all sinners. I am aware of my own fleshly inclinations, so I'm not talking about the occasional slip and stumble; I'm talking about a lifestyle of worldly preoccupation, behaviors, and attitudes. Much is written these days about the problem of the local churches being populated by an unregenerate membership. Real problem. A product of the decisional regeneration heresy, superficial "evangelism" and psycho-babble preaching of the self-esteem mantras.
Now I'm beginning to suspect an even more disturbing aspect of this situation: unregenerate pastors. It would not be illogical for these novice preachers, those who perpetuate the easy-believism heresy and the morphing of fundamentalism into a system of outward appearances, for them to be deceived even about their own salvation. When they are teaching others that one's salvation depends upon "saying the prayer" and "walking the aisle" why should we not wonder if they have fallen for the Lie? J.C. Ryle said it succinctly: Where there is no holiness, there is no Holy Ghost.
Monday, August 4, 2008
RANDOM THOUGHTS AND TESTIMONY ALONG SOME RABBIT TRAILS.
Part 1
Today, August 3, 2008, I went to church carrying my Bible.
Zowie, that's a hot item, huh?
It really is because that Bible was an ESV (English Standard Version). I did it without thinking, because we missed Bible study and were going just to the preaching service, I decided to leave behind the large, heavy Key Word Study Bible (KJV) which I usually carry to our Small Groups class. This event marked the first time in the 32 years I've been going to church that I did not carry a King James Version.
That should say something.......and I've been trying to figure out just what it says. It's not a landmark because I've been using other translations for years--mostly ASV and NKJV--for study and comparison; and have unhesitatingly referred to Greek and Hebrew texts and commentaries like Keil and Delitzsch and Robertson's Word Studies. Maybe what it says is that old habits die slowly.
When God saved me, He used the witness of some fellows who were members of an Independent Baptist church of the most extreme sort, and one decidedly King James ONLY. Though we lasted in that atmosphere only a few years because of our discomfort (and worse) concerning various practices and teachings, the King James stuck with me. It probably took 20 years for me to get over the KJO brainwashing I had been subjected to. I remember my wife taking up with an ASV (American Standard Version) at some point and making a serious effort to dissuade her from using it. (She still uses it.)
Furthermore, I always liked the KJV, and still like it. For my own reading it's fine; I love the Jacobean language and am comfortable with it (probably related to my love of Elizabethan literature). All the scripture I have memorized is from the KJV. I never make any effort to memorize ESV or NASB. At the same time, I am aware of the various weak spots in the translation and correct them in teaching or preaching without the slightest twinge of guilt--an act which is directly contrary to my KJO indoctrination.
For the past few years, since I have been preaching in prisons, I frequently intersperse readings from the ESV where the archaic language of the KJV is just too much to cope with, especially for a group of men whose average education is on the 3rd grade level. One can take the time to translate the occasional archaism when reading from the KJV, but some entire passages are replete with words which cause my listeners to go "Huh?"
The KJO world is still out there; it's small but it's loud and it's impenetrable to reason and logic. And, it's sad to see people so wrapped up in a totally baseless "philosophy" which is, in fact, idolatrous. Though it might sound to some as if I'm making this up for the purpose of mockery, I assure you this is true and not unique, though maybe not a majority view in the KJO world: I have heard it taught (condensed version here): Jesus is the Word of God (John 1:1); the Bible (KJV or course) is the Word of God; therefore, the Bible = Jesus. We are carrying Him around with us. We worship the Bible (Jesus).
So, it's hard to get along very far with KJO folks if you're not one of them. I started working as a volunteer with a prison ministry which is KJO. It's a great ministry with fine, Godly men serving therein. I had no problem because I always used my KJV (which is just how I am; I didn't do it just for their benefit; I always preach from the KJV) I was compromising to some degree in that I knew better than to "correct" the KJV in any way, whereas I might have so done in another setting. I finally got convicted about my duplicity and have forsaken the work. It's interesting though, looking back. My "calvinist" preaching never bothered anyone; but if I had "corrected" the KJV or quoted my ESV, I'd have been jerked out of the pulpit in a heartbeat.
(to be continued)
Today, August 3, 2008, I went to church carrying my Bible.
Zowie, that's a hot item, huh?
It really is because that Bible was an ESV (English Standard Version). I did it without thinking, because we missed Bible study and were going just to the preaching service, I decided to leave behind the large, heavy Key Word Study Bible (KJV) which I usually carry to our Small Groups class. This event marked the first time in the 32 years I've been going to church that I did not carry a King James Version.
That should say something.......and I've been trying to figure out just what it says. It's not a landmark because I've been using other translations for years--mostly ASV and NKJV--for study and comparison; and have unhesitatingly referred to Greek and Hebrew texts and commentaries like Keil and Delitzsch and Robertson's Word Studies. Maybe what it says is that old habits die slowly.
When God saved me, He used the witness of some fellows who were members of an Independent Baptist church of the most extreme sort, and one decidedly King James ONLY. Though we lasted in that atmosphere only a few years because of our discomfort (and worse) concerning various practices and teachings, the King James stuck with me. It probably took 20 years for me to get over the KJO brainwashing I had been subjected to. I remember my wife taking up with an ASV (American Standard Version) at some point and making a serious effort to dissuade her from using it. (She still uses it.)
Furthermore, I always liked the KJV, and still like it. For my own reading it's fine; I love the Jacobean language and am comfortable with it (probably related to my love of Elizabethan literature). All the scripture I have memorized is from the KJV. I never make any effort to memorize ESV or NASB. At the same time, I am aware of the various weak spots in the translation and correct them in teaching or preaching without the slightest twinge of guilt--an act which is directly contrary to my KJO indoctrination.
For the past few years, since I have been preaching in prisons, I frequently intersperse readings from the ESV where the archaic language of the KJV is just too much to cope with, especially for a group of men whose average education is on the 3rd grade level. One can take the time to translate the occasional archaism when reading from the KJV, but some entire passages are replete with words which cause my listeners to go "Huh?"
The KJO world is still out there; it's small but it's loud and it's impenetrable to reason and logic. And, it's sad to see people so wrapped up in a totally baseless "philosophy" which is, in fact, idolatrous. Though it might sound to some as if I'm making this up for the purpose of mockery, I assure you this is true and not unique, though maybe not a majority view in the KJO world: I have heard it taught (condensed version here): Jesus is the Word of God (John 1:1); the Bible (KJV or course) is the Word of God; therefore, the Bible = Jesus. We are carrying Him around with us. We worship the Bible (Jesus).
So, it's hard to get along very far with KJO folks if you're not one of them. I started working as a volunteer with a prison ministry which is KJO. It's a great ministry with fine, Godly men serving therein. I had no problem because I always used my KJV (which is just how I am; I didn't do it just for their benefit; I always preach from the KJV) I was compromising to some degree in that I knew better than to "correct" the KJV in any way, whereas I might have so done in another setting. I finally got convicted about my duplicity and have forsaken the work. It's interesting though, looking back. My "calvinist" preaching never bothered anyone; but if I had "corrected" the KJV or quoted my ESV, I'd have been jerked out of the pulpit in a heartbeat.
(to be continued)
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Powerful Preaching
For years, my wife and I, along with most church-goers, endured preaching which was at best mediocre. As our hunger for the Word increased, we sought out men who were preaching with power and listened to them expound God's Word via recordings, radio broadcasts, etc. During the past year, God lead us to our new church home where we are blessed with this kind of powerful preaching "first hand." Not only is our senior pastor endued with power but, to use one of my sports metaphors, the church has a deep bench. We've heard 3 or 4 other men preach from that pulpit and are grateful to God that they too demonstrate great depth and boldness in their preaching. These are not "guest speakers" but other members of the staff/congregation of this church.
During the lean years, when we had to travel far or use recordings to satisfy our thirst for the Word, God brought us into contact with some of His mighty men of today and the recent past. One of these men is Dr Alan Cairns, until recently Pastor of Faith Free Presbyterian Church in Greenville SC. A native of Northern Ireland, Dr Cairns was in Greenville for about 25 years until his recent retirement. Over 2000 of his sermons are available free on sermonaudio.com We have downloaded 400 of them and have listened to about 200 of those. Just recently, we listened to two messages which might make the "all time best" list for us and I'm going to put the links here so that you can listen to them if you like.
First, a message entitled The Law of God from a text in Exodus 20 which is about the relationship of God's Law and God's Grace:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=5114
Then, this message entitled The Love of Christ, based on Ephesians 3. A far cry from the syrupy, sentimental "love" we hear from so many pulpits....powerful!
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=5116
And, here's a link to our church's website where you will find past services archived (audio and video):
http://www.fbcms.org/
During the lean years, when we had to travel far or use recordings to satisfy our thirst for the Word, God brought us into contact with some of His mighty men of today and the recent past. One of these men is Dr Alan Cairns, until recently Pastor of Faith Free Presbyterian Church in Greenville SC. A native of Northern Ireland, Dr Cairns was in Greenville for about 25 years until his recent retirement. Over 2000 of his sermons are available free on sermonaudio.com We have downloaded 400 of them and have listened to about 200 of those. Just recently, we listened to two messages which might make the "all time best" list for us and I'm going to put the links here so that you can listen to them if you like.
First, a message entitled The Law of God from a text in Exodus 20 which is about the relationship of God's Law and God's Grace:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=5114
Then, this message entitled The Love of Christ, based on Ephesians 3. A far cry from the syrupy, sentimental "love" we hear from so many pulpits....powerful!
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=5116
And, here's a link to our church's website where you will find past services archived (audio and video):
http://www.fbcms.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
