Three Streams

I think this quote from Spurgeon is very appropriate for today. These are not days in which whole hearted commitment to the scriptures are encouraged. Many evangelicals think they want revival but very few are willing to pay the price for true revival.

“We admire a man who was firm in the faith, say four hundred years ago . . . but such a man today is a nuisance, and must be put down. Call him a narrow-minded bigot, or give him a worse name if you can think of one. Yet imagine that in those ages past, Luther, Zwingle, Calvin, and their compeers had said, ‘The world is out of order; but if we try to set it right we shall only make a great row, and get ourselves into disgrace. Let us go to our chambers, put on our night-caps, and sleep over the bad times, and perhaps when we wake up things will have grown better.’ Such conduct on their part would have entailed upon us a heritage of error. Age after age would have gone down into the infernal deeps, and the pestiferous bogs of error would have swallowed all. These men loved the faith and the name of Jesus too well to see them trampled on….

It is today as it was in the Reformers’ days. Decision is needed. Here is the day for the man, where is the man for the day? We who have had the gospel passed to us by martyr hands dare not trifle with it, nor sit by and hear it denied by traitors, who pretend to love it, but inwardly abhor every line of it . . . Look you, sirs, there are ages yet to come. If the Lord does not speedily appear, there will come another generation, and another, and all these generations will be tainted and injured if we are not faithful to God and to His truth today. We have come to a turning-point in the road. If we turn to the right, mayhap our children and our children’s children will go that way; but if we turn to the left, generations yet unborn will curse our names for having been unfaithful to God and to His Word.”

 (C. H. S., Sermons, 1888, 83-84; cited in Iain Murray, The Forgotten Spurgeon, 192).

In our evangelical churches, are we truly hearing, understanding, living, experiencing, proclaiming and guarding the everlasting gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ? Or have we exchanged the true gospel for the idols of ‘relevance’ and ’success’?

This Christmas period has felt very ‘traditional’ in so many ways. Firstly we had one of the first ‘white Christmas’ that we have had for many years. Also it was Ethan’s first ‘real’ Christmas in that he is 14 months old and therefore he had a greater awareness and a lot of what was happening was focused around him. Christmas morning saw loads of pressies under the trees which later resulted in a mass of Christmas wrapping, toys and boxes. This reminded me of Christmas as a kid. Thirdly we attended a carol service on Christmas eve in a Church of Scotland. I have to say, I actually loved it. I loved the traditional building, the traditional songs and the traditional service.

Of course, Christmas for almost everyone is a time of tradition, it that time in the year when we exchange gifts and celebrate. Whether we celebrate the birth of Christ, or ‘winter festival’, or only see it in humanistic or consumerist terms, the underlying factor for all of us that it is a time of tradition. It is time of year when decorations are put up, food is bought and prepared and gifts are sought out for loved ones. For most people it is a time of fun, family, friendship and feasting.

It struck me recently, that many assumptions are made about ‘traditions’ particularly in the church world. Most of my Christian life has been spent within the pentecostal and charismatic movements, and this movement has revelled, in many ways, in the abandoning of traditions. The underlying assumption, of many modern church movements is that 1) people in the world do not go to church because it is traditional, 2) Because church is traditional it is dull and unappealing 3) If we make church non traditional people will see ‘life’ and come and join us. This philosophy has led many churches down a path of ever seeking the latest thing.

As I rub shoulders with non christians, I am finding more and more that this philosophy is faulty. Many people actually appreciate tradition. In fact many people prefer it. A lot of non christians, if they ever decided to go to church, do not actually want to enter a building that resembles the night club, the rock concert or the shopping mall - in fact such marketing often appears cheap, tacky and ireverant to the minds of many non believers.

In the midst of an ever changing society, I wonder if the key to effective mission, lies not in chasing the idol of relevance in a never ending pursuit but instead lies in remaining true to and connected with what has gone before. What we do and how we look as church should have a heavy sense of tradition. We should not look like the latest thing on the market- we should look and smell 2000 years old because we are! In a world that ever changes people need constants, the church is called to be one of those constants. Our message is old in fact our message is ancient because it comes from eternity, this sense of ancient truth should be seen, tasted and felt as we gather together and seek to win others to Christ. When they meet the church, do they meet that which is ancient and eternal or do they meet with that which is new, temporary and already six months out of date by the time it has been implemented?

Back to the assumption about people not attending church because it is old, traditional and dull. The truth is, people do not go to church because they are fallen beings who have rejected God’s authority over their lives. People do not reject Christianity because it does not seem relevant or modern, they reject Christianity because that is all they can do until the Spirit of God draws them and turns their hearts towards the Father. Secondly, flashy modern churches will not draw them in either but only the faithful preaching of the gospel, the old ancient gospel.

 Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck have brought out another book, this time tackling critics of institutional church. I really enjoyed their book on the emergent church and I gave it a mostly favourable review.

I finished their second book in a matter of days and I enjoyed a lot of what was written. I agree with a lot of what was written. However, the book left me feeling uncomfortable in several areas.

1. Their are too many ‘broad strokes’ in this book. In fact it could be said that the book is one huge broad stroke. DeYoung in particular attempts to lump every critic of the church together along with every modern ecclesiologist and attempts to respond and correct to all of them. This creates the problem of not dealing with authors fairly.
2. Those who are meeting together in new ways for missiological purposes are criticised as harshly as those who are abandon church altogether. The missiological expressions of church were really not dealt with fairly. Nothing was mentioned of Mark Driscoll or the Acts 29 network who would undoubtedly share DeYoung’s theology of salvation but would differ greatly in his criticism of missiology.
3. Organic church people are slated quite heavily for their criticism of the institutional church. While some of the criticism are valid i.e their weak view of preaching, to simply regard organics as people who have commitment issues is simply unfair. In many cases those in organic churches are far more committed to each other than those who only gather a few times a week. Secondly, Deyoung only tackles Viola’s Pagan Christianity, and as a result often misrepresents Viola’s views. In order to get the full picture you would have to read Viola’s Re imagining Church and other materials. In many ways I probably agree more with Deyoung’s view of church than I do Viola’s however I have to say some of the strengths of Viola and organic church were completely overlooked and at times mocked. One chapter revealed a real lack of understanding of Viola’s teaching on ‘body participation’ and it also revealed a lack of charismatic experience in this area. In DeYoung’s church people obviously have not learned how to be led by the Holy Spirit in open and participatory meetings. This is sad as having experienced this level of fellowship and ministry myself, it is a very edifying and Christ exalting experience. If only the Reformed churches had embraced the charismatic movement!
4. There comes across a real lack of spirituality in the book. I think this perhaps comes from the fact that intellectualism can be predominant in Reformed churches and there can be a lack of emphasis on the inner spiritual life. The Christian life is not just about believing the facts of the gospel it is also about entering into the life of Christ that is now possible through the cross and resurrection.

Overall some of the dangers of the new models of church are highlighted well, particularly their abandonment of the gospel. However, the guys reminded me of a debate I once had on a reformed discussion board regarding the question ‘Did the Reformation go far enough in ecclesiology?’ You would have thought I had been promoting a real heresy by asking this question! Most of the people who responded were reformed Presbyterians who were convinced that their particular view of the church was the complete restoration of what had been corrupted through Roman Catholicism! The argument went a bit like, ‘we are happy with church as it is, we are biblical, to suggest otherwise is to depart from the bible’. I found it interesting that most of the baptists on that board were rather quiet during ecclesiological discussions. Church history shows that the church has had to continually renew itself and reform. Institutionalism can easily become an oppressive system that kills all spiritual life.

For those who want to practice new forms of church but want to abandon the gospel (or church) this book is a good corrective, however for those who who love the gospel  and care about the wellbeing and growth of the church this book will prove very frustrating at points.

 Here is a link to an audio version of the sessions delivered at the Acts 29 Boot Camp in London.

^{1 Thess 2:3}For the appeal we make does not spring from error or impure motives, nor are we trying to trick you. ⁴On the contrary, we speak as men approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel. We are not trying to please men but God, who tests our hearts. ⁵You know we never used flattery, nor did we put on a mask to cover up greed-God is our witness. ⁶We were not looking for praise from men, not from you or anyone else.

“Entrusted with the gospel”. These were the words that rang out from the pulpit on Sunday morning. Our guest speaker was retired baptist minister Rev W Wright.

The message was timely, powerful and prophetic. If ever there was a time in which the church of Christ needed to be reminded of what it means to be “entrusted with the gospel” now is that time!

We are living in times when very few who claim to believe in Christ have grasp of the gospel. Worse still, we are living in a time when very few leaders of God’s people have a grasp of the everlasting gospel of Christ. To some extent this is not a new situation. The gospel has always been in the firing line because the gospel alone delivers lost men and woman from the grip of sin, Satan and eternal destruction.

In our passage there is one interesting factor. Paul links a mans motive with his message. Is the message impure? Then it is very likely that the messenger is impure. Is the message pure? Then good chance that the messenger is pure? Why is this? The gospel is itself the great purifying message. When a person embraces the gospel they embrace a deep cleansing from the filthy stain of impurity. When the gospel touches a persons life that person knows something of what it is to seek the praise of God and not man. A man untouched by the gospel knows nothing of the depths of impurity of his own soul.

Embracing the gospel carries not only the blessings of cleansing but also the responsibility of embodying the gospel and taking it to others. Yet the gospel does not invoke the praise of man, instead it will often invoke hostility. Many modern professors of faith in Christ have opted for an easier road. They have not remained faithful to the preaching of the cross of Christ. They say nothing about the sinfulness of mankind and the burning wrath of a righteous God. They say nothing of the blood of Christ which was shed to absorb the wrath of God for salvation of sinners. They say nothing of the exclusivity of ssalvation which is through faith in Christ alone. They say nothing of the judgement to come. And any mention of the everlasting condemnation of the wicked is nowhere to be found. One would think that these matters are optional extras rather than the very foundations of the gospel.

In the Old Testament there were two types of prophet, the false prophet and the true prophet. What distinguished them? One spoke the words of God and the other spoke vain imaginations. One brought an ear tickling message that left people in sin the other brought a sharp message that convicted of sin and aimed to restore people to God. One brought false hopes the other brought truth and reality. One sought the acceptance and praise of the masses the other sought the praise of God alone.

What are our motives in ministry? Are we in ministry for personal gain? Are we in it for the adoration of the people? Do we serve God out of selfish ambition? If so it is very unlikely that our message is pure. Are we preaching Christ? Do we preach repentance? Do we understand the centrality of the new birth? Are we submitted to the authority of the Word of God? If not it is very likely that our motives are impure. And if so we need to repent and embrace the cleansing work of Calvary. Are you called of God? If so remember that you have been “Entrusted with the gospel”.