Letter from SGM Board to SGM Pastors

Brent Detwiler has published a letter from the SGM Board (read Mahaney and Harvey I guess) to the current SGM pastors and it is VERY detailed in significant changes in SGM polity.

I haven't reprinted it here in detail due to length but the link is here.

What is useful is that Brent has annotated the letter with his own comments and insights which are useful (while taken with a pinch of salt due to his obvious and understandable bias). What particularly struck me was his comments on the understanding of Ephesians 4 Ministries. I think that issue has been the one big downfall for SGM. I understand why they changed their use of the term "apostle" due to their desire to become more acceptable to reformed big dogs like Al Mohler and Mark Dever - but the crunch for me is this;

They still treat the "SGM Board" like they are apostles - even though the current Board may not be gifted and anointed from the risen Christ to act in that capacity.

My contact with the SGM Board member in sorting out my problems was pretty much irrelevant because he would not act or acknowledge any involvement or authority in the church I had problems with. Meeting the church pastors was MUCH more useful because they could and did (but confusingly still referred to the excommunication happening on the advice/instruction of the SGM Board member).

So I would insist and argue that SGM need to decide - what place does a secular term like "Board members" have in an allegedly Christian organisation/movement of churches? Are they apostles or aren't they? I for one agree with Brent;

Personal Theology

I believe in apostles, prophets, evangelist, pastors and teachers (Eph 4:11). This five-fold ministry is the God ordained means for building mature churches and evangelizing the world. I made sure all five were included in the Statement of Faith. The evangelical world believes in pastors and teachings and theoretically in evangelists. I don’t know what SGM believes in. Their theology changes from week to week. It also remains open ended so they can fill in the blanks as they see fit according to the need of the moment.

Glimmers of Life in the UK!!

One of my more negative reflections on the last Brighton Newfrontiers leaders conference of the last summer - was the apparent (to me) lack of conferences/holy convocations (as Ern Baxter used to call them) that strove to held the tension between Word and Spirit (or Reformed doctrine and real charismatic experience - not "continuationism").

That's not to say they don't exist - or to dare claim that Newfrontiers hold the unique claim to Word and Spirit in the UK (although to me they certainly seem one of the few). But it was just that I wasn't aware of them and I found it difficult. Stoneleigh Bible Week was a massive yearly event in my life that I looked forward to greatly with friends, and then Brighton seemed to replace that. So when the Newfrontiers leaders stopped the Brighton conference (and I have nothing but trust in Terry Virgo and the other leaders for doing so!) - it seemed like a double kick in the teeth!

So it was a real joy to quite by accident come across this conference that is being held this weekend in the heart of London. The church is new to me - but the speakers; Terry Virgo and Greg Haslam among others are not! I am GUTTED that it's too soon for me to go to - I have other plans this weekend involving a trip to Bristol, but the thrill is - it's HAPPENING and in the capital of this country I love so much!

Now - a caveat - one of the major concerns I have had with the whole "Sovereign Grace Ministry mess" I have been closely following since July last year, has been the culture of "Celebrity Pastors". Ironically the man - C J Mahaney - at the centre of this "mess" is going to be on a panel at "Together for the Gospel" - addressing this very topic. I wonder how he will address these concerns given the very public celebrity status he holds? So - you may rightly say - am I not guilty of the same, elevating men like Greg Haslam and Terry Virgo (who I have made no secret of hugely respecting)?

I see a difference between "celebrity pastors" and "Ephesians 4 Translocal Ministries".

Celebrity pastors, it seems to me, seem devoted to building and maintaining their own ministries - whether that is based at (usually) a large, wealthy church with books, DVDs and seem to often be stalked by reports that they care little about the members of the churches they purport to serve. Ephesians 4 translocal ministries on the hand are marked by - what Terry Virgo called;

"The gift ... something of a supernatural element ... a gift that opens up the possibility of God breaking through".

While I appreciate many "celebrity pastors" such as John Piper or Joel Osteen - I often am left wondering if they do indeed carry the "gift" that Terry speaks of which opens up the supernatural element and the manifest Presence of God breaking into a meeting? I am sure they would strive to. But I can testify to most meetings I have been in with Terry, Greg Haslam, Rob Rufus and many, many others (such as Dave Holden) who do indeed carry this gift.

I wonder if it is what Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones calls the "anointing"?

Maybe some are tutting and saying this post is just "another" attempt to "slag off SGM". Not at all! There has been a radical change of thought in my mind these last few months. I see a vast distinction now within SGM where I can accept, love and appreciate many SGM pastors. I think though - the only SGM "apostle/Board member" I have sensed the anointing on has been - ironically - Brent Detweiler - when he spoke at Celebration UK.

So back to this Word and Spirit conference ...

Here's a video talking about the "need for demonstration" from one of the conference organisers;

Word & Spirit : 3 The Necessity for Demonstration from Revelation Church London on Vimeo.

DEMONSTRATION!!

Oh how my weary heart longs for demonstration of the beliefs we have talked about for years. Reformed theology is all well and good. And Lord knows - I generally still believe most of what I have always believed. But I am tired of conference after conference talking about "theology".

It's all very well being "together" for the gospel. But if the gospel doesn't change a needy, lost, hurting world - then really what is the point? I don't want to go to another conference where I do not see a "demonstration of power" there - praying for the sick, appeals to the lost, signs and wonders! I'm tired of a Christianity that has nothing to offer but words!

I can't make this conference - but I hope it spreads the seed for this essential - primary balance of theology and experience. Nothing else will do! To end with Terry Virgo's statement;

"We have never been content with a cessationist perspective that expects the church to try advancing without God’s manifest presence".

Vision of Church!

I am always on the hunt for faith-building definitions of church. In this day and age there seems to be so much to affect our belief in the Bride of Christ. Denominations make much of changing of a name (confusing to me!). Others downgrade their once held positions. It's vital to hold to a Word-based expression that inevitably leads to glorious reaching of the lost.

Dave Holden tweeted this morning;

"Sadly, many churches in the UK struggle to catch this vision. The reason, I believe, has to do with their foundations. Many are built fundamentally on pastoral foundations. This means that the leaders of these churches see it as their duty to only care for ‘their people’, not necessarily to be released to go and reach new people. Members of this kind of church see having their needs met as the primary reason for being in the church. If this doesn’t happen then they become easily disappointed. They may well even leave and go and find another church in the hope that they might do a better job! They may even object when the church starts to grow, realising that the more people there are, the less likely it is that attention will be given to them!

If, however, your church is built on apostolic, prophetic foundations as described for example in Ephesians 2:19-22, your church has at its very root a passion to be sent and to send. In other words, we exist not only to meet the needs of our existing members, but to constantly desire to go and meet the needs of those who are not yet a part of us".

Oh for more churches with this apostolic/prophetic foundations!

What Foundation? Pastoral or Prophetic?

I have greatly been enjoying Terry Virgo's new book; "The Spirit-Filled Church" and have almost finished it. One of his greatest giftings is presenting a sound theological apologetic for Ephesians 4 Ministries - all of them! While speaking at Brighton 2002 on Ephesians 2 - Terry made the point that the church hasn't finished being built and so continues to need apostles and prophets to lay a foundation! The issue is not even about the sufficiency of Scripture. It is about the church being properly built in regions beyond such as China or the Middle East!

In "The Spirit-Filled Church" Terry compared a church built on a pastoral foundation to a church built on prophetic foundations;

"Churches are sometimes built on a predominantly pastoral gift. When this is the case, they run the risk of concentrating on the needs of the flock rather than on the purpose of God. The flock can come to see pastoral care as the key factor of church life. The church can be constantly evaluated on the basis of whether their church can be constantly evaluated on the basis of whether their personal needs are being met rather than whether God's purpose is being fulfilled".

What about churches led by strong teachers (such as Westminster Chapel when Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones or Dr R T Kendall led it or indeed New Covenant Church in Dunstable when Stanley Jebb led us)? Terry wrote;

"If the church is built essentially and exclusively on a teaching gift it will tend to produce a preaching centre that gathers a crowd but does not build a body".

It is the desperate need of churches in the UK I believe that God raises up prophets and churches who happily welcome such prophets so these foundations can be re-laid. We have a far-too great majority of churches led exclusively with pastor/teacher foundations. I can only think of a few churches that could claim and show a true apostolic/prophetic gifting.

Where are the Fathers?

I am enjoying a couple of days off work presently - yesterday I spent a wonderful morning with my dear friend Pete Day in London. We spent time praying, hearing from God and one of the aches on our hearts was the apparent lack of spiritual fathers. And our prayer was that God will give to us - not organisational apostles but relational fathers who can lead and father us.

It is not a coincidence I think that I decided to listen to the DVD of Dr Ern Baxter speaking

during his final visit to us at New Covenant Church in Dunstable before he went to glory in 1991 on "History Making Prayer". He opened his message making some comments about one of the young assistant pastors to Stanley Jebb and emphasized his heart for what he called his "Timothys". He said that men would contact him after hearing him in conferences and he would write to them, and recommend books and have contact with them.

What moved me so much was that this mighty man of God who probably knew that he was nearing the end of his time on earth still had a heart for young men and fathering them. I think the below beautiful photograph (thanks to Terry Virgo for the link) demonstrates this perfectly. Ern Baxter had a wonderful love for eagles:

I didn't notice the young eagle under the wing of the magnificent parent eagles for a minute. I was too caught up admiring their proud bearing. But then I did. Terry Virgo spoke at Stoneleigh Bible Week 2001 on eagles also - and spoke about how parents will push their children out of the nest and make them take flight. This baby eagle to me looks like he should have passed that phase. But I love the fact that the parent is still protective towards it. We used to sing a beautiful song in Dunstable during our charismatic days called; "Living under the shadow of His wing - we find security".

Of course we always have our heavenly Father - but it was His divine design and indeed resurrection gift in Ephesians 4 that we should have earthly spiritual fathers also. And I fear that many current Ephesians 4 Ministries do not have that heart for fathering sons and daughters. The pressure is too great to treat our churches like businesses. When I used to try and contact men in the very same way that Ern spoke off - the phrase I would hear all too regularly was; "I'm too busy". It made me wonder how you can be too busy to father. Many of the excuses for business were valid - but they were outside their Ephesians 4 giftings. That's why so many pastors these days are caught up in administration, in finances, in church affairs - and are indeed too busy to father! Just the same with apostles - they are too busy leading their movements, trouble-shooting and so on.

The beauty of true Ephesians 4 Ministries means that each is freed to follow their true giftings - and that surely involves fathering. I realised that true Ephesians 4 Ministries all should see fathering as key! Oh for apostles who can father up and coming young men and women with apostolic gifting. Oh for prophets with recognised and powerful prophetic gifting (such as Greg Haslam or Jon Cressey or Ginny Burgin) who are prepared to spend time sitting with young men and women with prophetic giftings. Oh for evangelists (like Lex Loizides) who can inspire and fire those with evangelistic gifting.

And of course pastor/teachers - who perhaps may have opportunity to father more than any because of their local church involvement. I have to pay tribute to Stanley Jebb for being the only pastor/teacher in my experience who really had this heart for fathering young men. When he was leading the church in Dunstable he committed so much time to the Bible College we ran, and even when he had retired from church leadership - he still graciously spent some time with me years back fathering me for a short season. And I believe he still does - even though he is in his 70's! Alas - I have yet to meet other church pastors with that heart.

Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones Documentary on George Whitfield

The Martyn Lloyd-Jones Recording Trust are really spoiling us with yet another video of live footage of Dr Lloyd-Jones. This is a 15 minute documentary by the Doctor on one of his great heroes - George Whitfield.

It just makes me so grateful for the Ephesians 4 Ministry gifts that God has given His church!

Passing of a Prophet

I was saddened to find out today that Alex Buchanan was taken to glory at the end of last year. Alex Buchanan (for those who don't know him) was a fantastic man of God and a prophet who lived through the Charismatic Movement and had an incredible influence and encouragement on key men such as Terry Virgo and R T Kendall.

More personally Alex was an assistant pastor in Dunstable for a time while I was a child at New Covenant Church. He actually dedicated me and my parents told me that when he did - he prophesied over me. Alas they can't remember the detail of the prophecy but it's an inheritance that I hold dear - knowing that such a servant of God spoke words of life over me as a baby. Sadly for us as a church he left and moved on - but this was a good thing for the country as he became (as Terry called him); "A pastor of pastors".

Mum and Dad always remembered his preaching and ministry in Dunstable fondly - the sermon that they would talk about the most is one on the Song of Solomon. Alex saw this precious book biblically as key in representing the relationship between Christ and His Church. It's exciting to find out that ministry has been preserved on his website - "Musings on the Song of Solomon". One key truth about the book, he said;

"I suspect that many people avoid preaching from it because they do not have a sufficient grasp of the overwhelming and intimate love of God for His people, there¬fore they find that they cannot get to grips with it. Or some, especially men, are afraid of appearing sentimental or super spiritual if they speak too extravagantly about God".

I think this fear is behind the "sex manual" interpretation that Mark Driscoll and C J Mahaney hold on the Song of Solomon.

There will be a memorial service for him at Westminster Chapel on the 18th June at 2pm - with worship led by Graham Kendrick - which I shall be making every effort to attend. I think it will be a glorious time of remembering his ministry!

Farewell Apostles!

I remember a group of us young man talking to Terry Virgo at Stoneleigh Bible Week 1999 about the changes in doctrine regarding the baptism of the Holy Spirit. One of us asked "just how important" the baptism of the Holy Spirit was. Terry made a profound comment that I've never forgotten. He said that in his experience once the change is made on the baptism of the Holy Spirit - many other doctrines and church practices tend to follow suit. He quoted; "Worship, Ephesians 4 Ministries, spiritual gifts and spiritual warfare".

What was interesting was that we saw exactly this happen in my home church in Dunstable. The worship changed from being Spirit-led, sensitive use of hymns and choruses to a "hymn-prayer sandwich". The ministries of apostles and prophets were actively preached as ceasing with the New Testament canon (I still have the sermon notes). The gift of tongues was banned in public use and prophecies "may" be accepted but had to be written for viewing by the elders.

When Jeff Purswell published his "amendment" to the doctrines of faith for Sovereign Grace Ministries in 2003, I was intrigued. The paper was called; "Empowered by the Spirit: Room for Differing Views". I heard the accompanying tape - C J Mahaney launched the paper at a Leadership Conference to great applause and explained what it effectively meant - that cessationist churches who did not believe in a distinct experience of the Holy Spirit could happily and safely join Sovereign Grace.

I commented on the paper on my blog and wondered whether Terry Virgo's comment would come true of Sovereign Grace as it did my home church. And in watching from afar with interest (my family are still in SGM) - I've seen similar paths.

Until today this blog post was published; "What happened to the apostolic team?". Someone in the SGM family asked the question and then answer was given in this blog post. Essentially this is why SGM will no longer be using the phrase "apostle" (although I suggest they haven't properly used the ministry of an apostle for years).

"But over time, we discovered the name confused more people than it helped, so now we’re considering alternatives. We’ve also gained a better understanding of the term "apostolic," which makes us even more careful in how we apply it".

So if I understand this properly SGM have abandoned the use of the phrase and ministry because it "confuses" people. And then secondly (and I think this is the real reason) because they are travelling the same road my home church walked decades ago - and simply do not see it theologically anymore.

Interesting that a group so allegedly committed to "reformed doctrine" are more comfortable with the label; "Regional leadership team" that does not appear in the New Testament, than the label/ministry; "apostle" which most certainly does - and indeed is given as a gift from the ascended Christ.

A NEW Look at Ephesians 4 Ministries

I have been transcribing one of Rob Rufus's sessions at the recent "Grace and Glory Conference 2010" from Hong Kong on the book of Hebrews and was fascinated by a preliminary point he made. I have always been taught from the charismatic days by men like Terry Virgo and Stanley Jebb about Ephesians 4 Ministries - "God gave some to be ...". And have always assumed that God gives the gift of one. For example - personally I have wondered frequently what I may be! An apostle? No. A pastor? Definitely not. A teacher? Possibly. And so on.

Rob Rufus brought a very different and wonderfully freeing perspective to consider. Here's what he said;

"We often take the definition of who we are from other people's perspectives. We let other people define us!

From 30 years ago I had people saying to me; "I am telling you - you are an evangelist". Okay I am an evangelist. Someone else would say to me; "Rob I am telling you - you are a teacher". They would say it to me like they were the final authority! Okay I am a teacher - so I would try and teach. Then they would say; "No Rob - I am telling you - you are a prophet". Oh okay so I would try and prophesy. Then they would say; "No Rob - you are a psalmist when you lead worship". Okay great I'm a psalmist. A few would actually say; "No you are a pastor!". None said I was an administrator! Then some said I was an apostle! So I was living like a religious schizophrenic! Who am I!? I am an administrator of chaos! Then people would say - no you are an artist, a poet.

One day Bill Hamon - a wonderful prophet from the United States of America. He had never met me before and then one day laid his hands on me and said; "I have given you elements of the apostolic, elements of the prophetic, elements of the teacher, elements of the pastor, elements of the apostle, elements of the evangelist, elements of the psalmist". And I said; "Praise God for a word from heaven!". I want to say the same thing over all of you. God has given you diversity and elements in your uniqueness! I am telling you that if you believe you are pigeon-holed to a tight category then in your faith you will stay in that box and think you are being original.

Don't copy and mimic other people! We are called to imitate their faith - not mimic their methods! And there is a big difference.

We are more inside of us and becoming more as unique individuals than we realise. It is never too late to have a happy childhood!

When a chameleon stands on different colours - the chameleon becomes those colours. Paul the apostle says; "I become all things to all men to win some to Christ". Some may say - oh that's a politician, changing his colours to the political agenda of the day. No - hold on. Politicians move in fear to cater to their constituancy. They are so insecure that they want to be voted in again. That is not a chameleon. If you've watched a chameleon he does not change his colours out of fear but to be a successful hunter. He doesn't get eaten by predators like that - he gets close to his prey and out comes the tongue and he takes it out. When he touches a different colour. The colour-change doesn't come from the outside artificially. For within the chameleon is the capacity to become the colour of any colour he is standing on at that present time.

So if you don't know whether you are a poet then stand on a poetic colour. If you don't know whether you are prophetic then stand in a prophetic environment and you may see something inside of you become prophetic. If you don't know whether you are apostolic or not then stand in an apostolic environment Mr-oh-chameleon. Don't shrink your life! It is not an office you are to be unique in! You can be a whole diversity of rainbow things. It is where you express those rainbow things through the uniqueness of your personality that is most important".

I love this free understanding of the wonderful Ephesians 4 gifts - maybe this is something to consider and allow to thrill us. Imagine - God is so generous and so giving and so lavish that He isn't confined to assigned YOU a role as an apostle, or a prophet, or an evangelist - but wants you to be a prophetic evangelist! Or a teaching apostle who pastors! What an imaginative God who gives such good gifts!

A Call to the Ministry - by Dr Stanley Jebb

I find Dr Stanley Jebb's latest blog post incredibly interesting - for some years I deeply believed that I was called to "the ministry". I actually had a very vivid dream I still remember well in which I was walking down a country lane with Dr Stanley Jebb and turned to him and gripped his arm and said; "Stanley - I MUST preach!". So the call to the ministry is one that is very much on my heart.

However it is interesting to me that Stanley Jebb sees the problem as; "There are some men available, but not enough to fill all the vacant pastorates. Besides, not all the men are suitable, for one reason or another". I remember being at the Westminster Conference with a friend of mine in 2001 when Stanley Jebb was speaking. And during one of the discussions, some of the elders there said the same thing; "WHERE are the young men?!". My experience as one of those "young" men is slightly different. My experience is; "WHERE are the fathers!?".

And by that I mean that I have encountered many young men and women eager in fact desperate to be used by God in ministry for Him and His church but there is a massive lack of spiritual fathers - men like Stanley himself or Terry Virgo who have the ability to father, nuture and love those young people. The three main churches I have been involved with in my life has not been positive at recognizing and using that willingness to be used. I think Sovereign Grace Ministries in Bristol was by far my worst experience. I foolishly thought that being part of a church plant would be a massive opportunity to be used and made my intentions clear that I was so keen to be available. That was seen by the leadership as "pride" and so I was ignored for 2 years.

I say again - I think the church needs BOTH! It does need those eager and willing to be called. But it needs secure and mature fathers in the faith who can gladly disciple and nuture and teach and use. One other point - essential to any "call to the ministry" is a recognition and appreciation for the Ephesians 4 Ministries. Prior to 1990 - Stanley Jebb used to teach very wisely that it is wrong to expect all to be poured into the mold of pastors. There are different gifts and different ministries - apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.

Here's the blog post;

Call to the Ministry

By stanleyjebb

For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show Himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is loyal to Him. (2 Chronicles 16:9).
So I sought for a man among them who would make a wall, and stand in the gap before Me on behalf of the land that I should not destroy it, but I found no one. (Ezekiel 22:30).
He saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor… (Isaiah 59:16a).
When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his disciples, The harvest is plentiful, but the labourers are few; therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out labourers into his harvest. (Matthew 9:36-38).

Some months ago I was in conversation with a former President of a major denomination about the difficulty of finding a suitable pastor for a vacant pulpit. We agreed that there is a dire shortage of suitable men. There are some men available, but not enough to fill all the vacant pastorates. Besides, not all the men are suitable, for one reason or another. The few excellent men available are quickly settled into a pastorate Some of the men who have made themselves available are already in a pastorate but want to move. Either they want to leave or have been asked to leave their present position. Some of those men may be very able and sound and have good reasons for wanting to move. In the case of others it raises a question in the minds of those responsible for finding a pastor. The Scriptures cited above suggest that, in a sense, God Himself is looking for men suitable for His service. In considering this shortage it is worth asking the question, what are the necessary and the desirable qualities in ministers of the Gospel? This is how I see these matters.

1 A definite call from God.

Some would deny this. A few months ago when I mentioned in a discussion this need for a call a prominent evangelical minister retorted that there is no difference at all between the call to be a minister and the call to be a dentist . Another evangelical minister said to me, ‘The only call in the New Testament is the call to be a Christian. There is no such thing as a specific call to the ministry.’

Now granted that we use the word ‘calling’ in a general way to describe any person’s job, and therefore every person has, in that sense, his or her ‘calling’, is there really no difference? The Scripture does use the word ‘calling’ in that general sense in 1 Corinthians 7:20. But is there no difference between the sacred ministry and any other calling? Surely the vast majority of people in what we may term ‘secular’ employment actually choose their vocation. While in school or college they consider the various options and select the one that most appeals to them. In some cases they may have had that goal in mind from childhood, perhaps following in a parent s footsteps. It is certainly possible that in a very few cases their particular vocation was impressed upon them by God, but that is surely rare. It is certainly possible that a person may feel that God has specifically called them to be a dentist or a dustman, a farmer or a fisherman, but the impression one gets is that most people choose their vocation. Please note that to be doing one s job as to the Lord and serving Him in one s chosen calling is not the same thing as to be called by God in the first place to do it.

But for a man to choose the Christian ministry as his option without any sense of it being God s will, would seem to fly in the face of biblical teaching. Normally the ministry chooses the man, or the Lord does! Let me stress that I am not seeking to deny that a person may strongly feel that God led them into a particular ‘secular’ employment, but merely seeking to make clear that the call to the ministry is a definite and distinct calling, different from other ‘callings’.

Consider the Biblical evidence.
In the first place, we are told quite clearly in Hebrews 5:4 concerning the Old Testament priesthood that ‘no man takes this honour to himself, but he who is called by God.’ John the Baptist was ‘a man sent from God’ (John 1:6), and Jesus said to the apostles, ‘You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit…’ (John 15:16). Again, in Ephesians chapter four we read that the ascended Christ ‘gave gifts unto men,’ and ‘He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers’. In Acts chapter Thirteen we read that ‘as they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Now separate to me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”’ Clearly that was not the call to salvation, but a distinct and definite call to ministry. Of course there are several ‘callings’ in Scripture which are common to all Christians, such as the call to salvation, the call to holiness, etc (e.g. 1Cor. 1:1-9). But the calling to an Ephesians four ministry is not common to all Christians, for Ephesians 4:11 states that it is only some that are so called. This calling may not come in a dramatic way. In fact one of the striking features about those called to ministry in the Bible is that each call to ministry seems to have been distinct; Moses, Gideon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Paul. Only the fishermen friends and brothers seem to have been called in a common way to be Christ s apostles.
Now if it is being taught that there is ‘no difference at all’ between the call to be a dentist (or any other work) and the call to be a minister, which means in effect that you can choose to be a minister if you like, is it any wonder that there are men in the ministry without a sense of definite call from God? And is it any wonder that, if the idea of a distinct call from God to the ministry is denigrated, men do not expect to hear it or, if there are a stirring within them from God, His voice is ignored as being an erroneous suggestion?
Jesus looked with compassion on the multitudes and said to the disciples, ‘The harvest truly is plentiful, but the labourers are few. Therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out labourers into His harvest.’ (Matthew 9:37,38). Surely that passage implies that labourers are specifically sent by God into the harvest? But why bother God with such prayers if there is no definite and distinct call into the ministry? Why not spend our energy in persuading men that they should choose that vocation? The answer to the dearth of ministers is to earnestly beseech God to send forth labourers, and to expound the Scriptures so that God may use such preaching to call men.
James M. George in his chapter on The Call to Pastoral Ministry writes:

The call of God to vocational ministry is different from God s call to salvation and His call to service issued to all Christians. It is a call to selected men to serve as leaders in the church. To serve in such leadership capacities, recipients of this call must have assurance that God has so selected them. A realization of this assurance rests on four criteria, the first of which is a confirmation of the call by others and by God through the circumstances of providing a place of ministry. The second criterion is the possession of abilities necessary to serve in leadership capacities. The third consists of a deep longing to serve in the ministry. The final qualification is a lifestyle characterized by moral integrity. A man who fulfils these four qualifications can rest in the assurance that God has called him to vocational Christian leadership. [Rediscovering Pastoral Ministry, John MacArthur, et al, Word Publishing, 1995, p. 102].

2. A Knowledge of the Bible.

This may seem obvious, but, alas! It cannot be taken for granted today. Many men coming from Bible Colleges and University Theological departments just do not know their Bibles. A minister showed me a letter from an officer of one of the largest city missions in this country, in which he gave examples of five candidates for posts as city missionaries who, in a fairly simple and straightforward Bible examination, revealed an appalling ignorance of Scripture. Three of those applicants had degrees in theology from British Theological colleges! A graduate of Oxford University told me that a lecturer in Theology there complained that he found it extremely difficult to get theological students to study their Bibles. When he set them a passage to study they went straight to the commentaries and quoted them, rather than studying the passage itself. This may be a reflection on the churches from which those students came, but sadly one hears of supposedly evangelical churches where drama, testimonies, family services have replaced the reading and exposition of the Word of God. And how many churches have dropped their Bible Study meetings? A minister must know his Bible.

2. Doctrinal Integrity.
If there is a lack of Bible knowledge in the churches today there is certainly also an ignorance of basic doctrine, or at least woolliness about fundamental truths. A man must be sound in doctrine if he is to be a preacher of the Gospel. A leading evangelical minister stated recently that every evangelical minister ought to be able to preach on the doctrines of grace without any notes. In other words, he should know basic doctrines so well that he could preach on them extempore.

3. Preaching ability.
It goes without saying that if a man is to be a preacher he should be able to communicate truth in a clear and compelling fashion. This ability will grow, however, if someone is called. This alone, however, is not enough. Even non-Christians can be eloquent speakers, and many liberal ministers are able communicators.

4. A man of prayer.
The apostles refused to take on other tasks because they insisted that they must give themselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the Word. Notice the order, prayer first. Notice also that they were to give themselves continually to these matters. It is a sad reflection on our churches that few candidates for the ministry today seem to have experienced spending a day, a half-night or a whole night in prayer, still less done this with any regularity. What is even more alarming is that some will confess that they do not have a daily time of prayer and meditation on the Word. Some pour scorn on the term Quiet Time but cannot suggest a better name for it. It is usually reckoned to be wisdom not to destroy something good until you are ready to replace it with something better, and the danger is that publicly denigrating the title of a Quiet Time may result in the practice of it suffering as a side effect.

5. Consecration.

The ministry should be their all-absorbing passion. Like Paul they should be able to say, ‘this one thing I do..’. They may, of course have other interests. It is good for a man to have a hobby, a means of relaxation. But if the hobby, the sport, television, or whatever it is, looms too large in his life so that at times the ministry takes second place, the balance is wrong. Some men today are so obsessed with sport that the ministry seems like an avocation and the sport is what they live for. The hymn, Take my life and let it be consecrated Lord to Thee, must be a reality in a minister s experience.

2. Separation.
This is a contentious issue, and standards and opinions vary widely among evangelicals today in a way that they did not fifty years ago. Worldliness is an increasing problem in Western churches at the present time. But let us take an issue which is very clear; our use of time. It is surely incontrovertible that before the advent of television no man of God would have spent as long in the cinema each week as some ministers today spend in front of the television. Oh yes, we all know that some programmes are informative and interesting, but the vast bulk of television is distinctly unedifying, and much of it is degrading and depraved. It seems to me that one application of Romans 1:31 is that to ‘have pleasure’ (AV) in those who do wicked and depraved things could include being entertained by watching people enact them. That would rule out all the ‘soaps’. But let us assume that a godly minister will not allow himself to be entertained by watching evil perpetrated on the screen. Let us simply draw attention to the amount of time spent watching TV. A recent survey revealed that many ministers spend very little time reading. It is a question of priorities. There are many other smaller issues one could mention such as dress, demeanour, general attitude, behaviour of children, attitude of wife, use of money, etc, which in themselves might not debar a man from ministry, but when added to the more serious matters turn a congregation off, or even more seriously, lead a congregation into worldly ways. By way of illustration, think about buying a second-hand car. If you are getting it for a good price then one small defect that can easily be remedied, such as one cracked wing mirror, or one worn tyre, might not put you off. But if there were many such ‘small’ defects you would almost certainly look elsewhere. It is just the same with ministers. No man is perfect, and one small defect such as a fondness for television, keenness on sport or a less than tidy appearance, might not deter some churches. But if the candidate watches a lot of TV, is very keen on, say, football, is untidy in appearance, his wife uncooperative, his children undisciplined, etc, a church would have to be either very undiscerning or desperate, or both, to call such a man.

3. Willingness to sacrifice.
It is deplorable how some churches treat their ministers. But entering the ministry is for most men a sacrifice in that they could earn more money and live more comfortably in secular employment. A man may have to go to a church that can afford only a small stipend at first, until God has blessed the work and the church has grown. Indeed he may have to take a part-time job as well as the pastorate to support himself, as the apostle Paul did.

4. Godliness.
Godliness is a general term for a way of life that is God obsessed. Some years ago the writer was at a conference and sitting next to the Principal of a well-know Bible College. In conversation it came out that we were seeking to train men for the ministry in the church I was pastoring at the time. I remarked that my aim was to produce men of God. To my astonishment the Principal remarked. ‘Oh, that s impossible in Bible College. The students are so bolshy, wanting their rights, and so on.’ What are things coming to?

5. A stable home life.
In the qualifications for an overseer in I Timothy 3, two out of the seven verses refer to the candidates family life. A minister has to set an example.

These are some of the issues the present writer considers essential for a call to the ministry.

Word ... Spirit ... Word .... Spirit - IS there a balance?!

I'm an unashamed charismatic. I used to say I'm a behind the scenes reformed Christian (i.e. some reformed doctrine bothers me). So I like the term charismatic calvinist at the moment (but that may change soon!). Whatever the labels - the fact is that I love and appreciate the Word of God and I honour and desperately need and love the Spirit of God. But I do struggle to find that "tension" that Ern Baxter used to speak about.

I probably have far more books in my library than I care to count. And frequently want more! I am currently wrestling with my conscience and my wallet being HUGELY tempted by Wayne Grudem's awesome DVD collection called "Christian Beliefs". It is a mighty 16 DVD collection of hours of Wayne Grudem speaking on vital Christian doctrines. I'm sure I will give in at some point soon!

But I must admit the "Word" part of me was positively dribbling at these three videos of Wayne Grudem speaking about Phoenix Seminary where he lectures. If I had unlimited resources I would love nothing more than to come over to the United States and take full advantage of that incredible rich resource of teachers! I think the key is that we don't need to become a "Grudem-ite" or a "Piper-ite" or a "Macarthur-ite" or a "whatever-ite". I remember someone describing it as enjoying a selection of cakes at a buffet. You take the slice you like the look of and move on. Why not the same with teachers of the Word of God?!

Here are the videos;

Can the WORLD teach the CHURCH something?!

Historically the church tends to believe that they are the one with the gospel message for a world that needs to hear it. And that's right (in a sense). However I want to go out on a limb and suggest that if the world does something well - then is there any reason why we should not consider it and take it on board?

Background Thoughts

Chris Welch and I have been thinking a bit about Ern Baxter and his prophetic message to the Dales Bible Week 1976 and "going into the land". Chris was thinking about the role that apostles/prophets of the 1970s were equipped for the church. In essence - were Ern Baxter and Terry Virgo and Bryn Jones and so on actually even ready to lead the church? It's a fair question. I think the church is LONG overdue getting away from the "one (or maybe two) church pastor - many member" model. It scares the hell (or heaven) out of me that there are STILL church members who govern their lives by what their church pastor says - and if asked would state that they believe he does stand in the very stead of God (for them).

Does the Church Needs 'Command and Control'?

I have spent all day on an intensive training course in relation to my current Emergency Planning work. We were being trained to be "Loggists". For those who aren't familiar with this term, let me explain;

In major incidents (such as terrorist attacks, large vehicle crashes involving civilian casualties, floods and so on) all the health services have what are called "Commanders" who are usually Chief Executives and senior staff who will be making decisions throughout the incident. This can be quite a lengthy process. For example the 7/7 bombings that London suffered in 2005 required Commanders making strategic decisions for some weeks.

And EVERY decision they make MUST be logged by a "Loggist" - who during the major incident are effectively joined to the Commander at the hip!

But it was the background to commanding Major Incidents that intrigued me. The United Kingdom has a "Gold-Silver-Bronze" command structure in an emergency. Here's what they do;

1. Gold Commander - Strategic overall control of the operation and is usually the Chief Executive of a service.

2. Silver Commander - Tactical control of the operation - will usually be senior officers such as medical consultants or Chief Operating Officers of hospitals. Will be located near scene and able to feed information back to Gold Command.

3. Bronze Commander - Operational control of the operation - will be on the scene directing emergency services - such as fire or ambulance senior officers.

So here's where my rather random thought processes fit together - why can't the same processes work in a church situation? Maybe they do in some situations. But why are so many church pastors endowed with being "Gold-Silver-Bronze" commanders all in one? I know that it is difficult to compare major incidents such as bomb explosions with church life (although maybe in some churches it isn't so dissimilar!). But let's take some examples - local and national;

• Say it is discovered in a local church that a couple are having serious marriage difficulties. The wife is cheating on her husband with another man in the church. In most "usual" churches - this will go straight to the church pastor who will be expected to become marriage counsellor as well as potentially invoking church discipline. Is that church pastor gifted to do this? And should he? Or she? If the Gold-Silver-Bronze command approach is applied then the church pastor/lead elder could potentially be "Gold" offering advice where appropriate. An elder could be "Silver" involved in discussions and advice and help and a cell leader could be "Bronze" spending time with the hurting couple.

Say that an international family of churches suffer a serious crisis when a key church in a country begins preaching what is perceived as heresy or doctrinal error. In most "usual" situations the father (or apostle) of the family of churches is often involved and called upon. But what if the same Gold-Silver-Bronze command approach was applied? The apostle does not necessarily know the day to day situation in that country's key church. But a "Silver" leader in that country may - and can make decisions while feeding back points for prayer and decision to "Gold".

Would this not only free up the "Gold" leaders to continue making strategic decisions for the on-going growth and the health of the on-going church or family of churches while releasing perhaps more junior and inexperienced leaders to take decisions and become involved in potential "crises. I firmly believe that the church (universal) MUST mobilise more leaders. If we are indeed going "into the land" then there are so many issues that we have not even dreamed of facing - particularly in the Western world. Here's a few that occured to me;

1. The threat of martyrdom - what if a church faced the certainity of execution if they continued meeting and spreading the gospel? Who decides whether to continue regardless or back out, re-group and re-plan?

2. The "flowing in" of the nations - as promised in Isaiah. Many of us have already experienced prejudice and fear from established churches when some of the "taboo" struggles we face have been shared. For example Sovereign Grace Ministries have demonstrated they seem to particularly struggle (and over-react through harsh discipline) particularly with church members sharing that they struggle with homosexuality. If the nations are going to "flow in" then there are a LOT of homosexual people that are coming in! Who will be deciding and guiding church leaders to stop panicking and over-reacting by excommunicating every church member who confesses they are dealing with this?

3. This is partially related to number 1 - but I don't believe it is far off before public preaching of the gospel is banned in our countries (possibly coming in under religious hatred laws). Again - what and how are churches going to respond to this? Are churches simply going to back down? Or face jail over this? Or could we re-strategise and consider other ways of spreading the gospel but within the law (such as cyber-church)?

These are just random thoughts prompted by an incredibly interesting training day I had - but I wonder if this is a step in the right direction towards Ephesians 4 Ministries serving the glorious church by surging forward to fulfill the mission we are on.

Apostolic Teams in Restoration Magazine

I found this interesting article in one of the Restoration Magazines about the apostolic teams of the 1970's to 80's. The three main key ones of course in the United Kingdom were Terry Virgo, Tony Morton and Bryn Jones's teams.

Something occured to me - a challenge to our generation. Thank God for the Tony Mortons, Bryn Jones and Terry Virgos that were gifted to us by the risen Christ. Two of those men have been taken out anyhow. Who is rising up to take their place? Thank God that Ephesians states that the risen Christ gives these gifts to the church and there is no hint of an end to that giving until His glorious return! The question is - are the church recognising and welcoming those gifts?

Arthur Wallis on Apostles and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit

I spent last night sorting through my collection of New Wine and Restoration Magazines and was incredibly stirred to read two articles by Arthur Wallis. It seemed to me from my understanding that Arthur Wallis was seen as the elder and respectable statesman of the Charismatic Movement. Leaders such as Bryn Jones or Terry Virgo often came under criticism for various theological or ecclesiastical stands that they took. Arthur Wallis never seemed to - that I could read.

I know in my home church - New Covenant Church in Dunstable - Wallis was held in high esteem by Stanley Jebb and the leadership and indeed he came to speak at several of our "All Saints Nights" - celebration evenings of worship and preaching. So to find these articles on issues that are so important to me was an exciting find.

1. "Apostles" - from Restoration Magazine - November/December 1981.

A few key quotes to encourage you to read the article;

"We need to see these men as primarily those who brought the word of revelation and direction into the living situations where God was building His church ... the view that apostles and prophets have passed away, and that spiritual gifts have ceased both rest on the faulty premise that the completion of Scripture rendered them obsolete".

Arthur Wallis answers this faulty premise;

"Though we have inspired writings, we still need inspired utterances and having the Word of revelation, we still need men (and women) of revelation".

He concludes this excellent article;

"The Ephesians 4 Ministries of today are concerned primarily with an experiential foundation, one that has to be freshly laid for every redeemed community that comes into being ... for many 'Apostles today?' is nothing more than a hypothetical question. If, as we believe, the end-time shakings are upon us then the ministry of the apostles will become increasingly crucial".

I was amazed that he wrote this article in 1981 - he is addressing a perspective on apostles that is only really being preached and taught maturely recently. Proof of his unique gifting as a teacher.

2. "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" - from Restoration Magazine - March/April 1979

Once again I found this article amazingly advanced in revelatory teaching for the time in which it was written. Arthur Wallis drew on the typological teaching from Exodus - baptism in the Red Sea and in the cloud - to apply it to New Covenant life today. We need to be baptised in water just as we need to be baptised in the Holy Spirit. He said;

"God's people under the New Covenant need to be initiated into Christ as His Old Covenant people were initiated into Moses, that is by a baptism in cloud and sea. Neither water baptism nor Spirit baptism is an optional extra for the committed Christian".

One of the key words that the Word of God applies to the receiving of the Spirit is the word "upon". It seems that a lot of the more conservative church get confused with this and believe that if one has not received the Holy Spirit then it is an issue of "holiness". Arthur Wallis writes;

"The word that is used consistently and repeatedly to describe what happens in the Baptism in the Spirit but is never used simply of conversion is "upon". Th Old Testament prepares us for this. Anointing oil was poured "upon" the head of prophet, priest and king, not to make them God's people (for they were already that) but to fit them for their special service. God put the Spirit that was "upon" Moses "upon" the elders of Israel to equip them for leadership.

The Spirit coming "upon" the Lord Jesus at the Jordan was not to make Him more holy than He was - an impossibility - but that the works and words of God ... might be manifested in Him ... Later in the Acts we read how the Spirit came "upon", fell "upon" and was poured "upon" different groups of disciples. Paul reminds Titus of the "Holy Spirit that was poured upon us richly".

And Wallis asks;

"Have you had an "upon" experience of the Holy Spirit?".

I do hope both articles are of considerable interest! We dare not forget either of these two vital subjects - Apostles and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Speaking of Arthur Wallis - if anyone is interested in reading more early Charismatic material by him - I do strongly recommend looking at the "Revival Library" website - they have preserved some of the early conference notes which he hosted! Even more exciting (to me anyway!) - the "Revival Library" have carefully made available a complete collection of the Restoration Magazine - from which I have made these links available here. Only £19.99!

Christmas Thoughts - Sweet and Sour!

I really hope that all had a blessed safe and happy Christmas 2009!

I have had a lovely time down in Bristol and Newport with my family. Christmas always is a special time for spending it with family and friends - and mine was great. Especially celebrating the recent birth of my baby nephew. It was lovely sitting around the table looking at my large and extended family and feeling incredibly grateful for each and every one of them. One of my presents from my Mum and Dad was the latest John Piper book I requested; "Filling Up the Afflictions of Christ" - the 5th volume in his biographical series that Piper gives at the Bethlehem Conference for Pastors - which I duly read on Christmas Day afternoon and was challenged by.

One of his biographical chapters was on William Tyndale and Piper had some insightful comments. Piper was talking about William Tyndale and why his translation of Scripture attracted so much persecution - particularly from Thomas Moore. Why was this? Piper wrote;

"There were deeper reasons why the church opposed the English Bible; one doctrinal (justification) and the other ecclesiastical (the papal, sacremental structure of the Roman Catholic Church).

The church realised that they would not be able to sustain certain doctrines biblically because the people would see that they are not in the Bible.

And the church realized that their power and control over the people, and even the state would be lost if certain doctrines were exposed as unbiblical - especially the priesthood and purgatory and penance".

Is the modern church so different? Why does a church write on it's website; "... although we would ask that any convictions that would differ from those of the pastoral team be held to privately and not espoused publicly"? What is so wrong with discussion and debate? Of course I agree that trouble making and gossip can never be right, but I don't see in the New Testament where Paul the apostle (for example) EVER commanded that differing convictions be "held privately and not espoused publicly". On the contrary - Paul was aware of the Corinthian's differing views to him and wrote eloquently arguing his case as to why they were mistaken.

I find similar themes in a blog post that Jeff Purswell wrote called; "They Stand in the Very Stead of God". Purswell said;


"No. You are not sharing thoughts. You are not Jay Leno. You are not a talking head. You are standing in the very stead of God. Oh, that is a frightening thing. It’s not only a divine message you are bringing but you are meant to be a suitable vessel for that message".


I must admit I'm still undecided about this (although pretty nervous about Purswell's statement). I was raised to deeply honour preaching. My former pastor Dr Stanley Jebb spoiled us with two hour-long sermons on a Sunday and one mid-week where he would week by week faithfully expound the Scriptures to us. I passionately believe in the Ephesians 4 Ministries of apostles, prophets, evangelists and pastor/teachers. But to assign them this level of standing for God? I'm not sure.


What happens simply when pastors get it "wrong"? And they do. I've sat and watched two men do 180 degree turns in theology and declare they got it wrong. One is documented here; "Why I left the Charismatic Movement". So if Purswell was correct - when was that preacher in particular standing; "In the very stead of God"? Before the change in theology and practice or after? Or can one get it wrong standing in the very stead of God and being a "suitable vessel"?


But all those are just a few thoughts that I will take into the New Year. The slightly sad and painful part of Christmas for me was that for the first time this year - we were not together as a family. I went down on Christmas Eve and left Boxing Day but one of my siblings was not able to be there until the Sunday 27th December. I needed to be back in Birmingham for work commitments but was very keen to see my entire family as we rarely manage to get together these days now my sisters have their own families. However my parent's church scheduled a meeting on the Sunday 27th - which of course I would not have been welcome at.


My sibling was arriving in time for church and of course the family would have then been away at church until at least 13:00. It seemed pointless to me staying in Bristol alone waiting for them to return from church. So I had to leave Saturday night. And as I was driving back - I must admit to getting pretty upset. I've always been close to my family and have loved them dearly. It's not always easy being single particularly in a Christian environment where marriage is pretty much expected. Having a large and thriving family makes up for that - or did - until SGM. I'm sad. I wonder what SG leadership would feel about family unity.


Family/church? Shouldn't it be both? Anyhow - there are some Christmas thoughts.


All in all it's been an absolutely horrid year. BUT! I earnestly believe that the devil brings trials and temptations to try and wreck our faith in the God of Abraham - the God who blesses lavishly and in abundance. The devil doesn't really care about the manner of the trials - to him I suspect as long as the end is achieved, the means are whatever works. If he can drain a Christian to stop believing that God is good and He loves His children then the job is done. That Christian will stop praying, stop worshipping, stop witnessing to the goodness of God and generally stop being "salt and light".


Have I stopped believing in the goodness of God? NEVER! I won't pretend there has been manifest Presence of God where there hasn't. I won't pretend I've been blessed financially or socially where I haven't. But I have a home to live in. A bed to sleep on. Food to eat (mostly!). Clothes to wear. A job to go to. And for that - I give total and pure thanks to God!


Roll on 2010!!

Vintage Terry Virgo!!

There is nothing more thrilling and exciting to me to have true living heroes of the faith. Of course I've got numerous heroes who are now in glory - Ern Baxter, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, C H Spurgeon, John G Lake, John Owen ... the list is endless. But living heroes are so important to me also and Terry Virgo is firmly near the top of that list.

I've had heroes in the past who have been men of Word and Spirit and have fallen into law or cessationism and the respectability of men. So to see elders in the faith who still firmly believe in a living God who encounters His people and is passionate about them - as well as not straying into excess or weirdness - is glorious and a true blessing from Him.

Terry's latest blog was just ... awesome. He is a man who has lived through decades of church life and yet still is prepared for change - for upset - for a coming God. He writes;

"Jesus came as the ultimate table-turner! He upset everything! What if He should come to His church today? What tables need to be overturned in modern evangelicalism?".

As you may expect - I've got plenty of tables in mind that need to be overturned in modern evangelicalism! But this is Terry's blog and he goes on;

"Reformation was not a matter of keeping up with the changing times but conforming to God-inspired prophets and their writings. What about today? Tables must be overturned if we are to return to authentic Biblical Christianity. Human traditions - unknown in Scripture - have become foundational in many churches".

Oh there is so much I could say! Human tradition - WHY do humans so quickly respond to a genuine move of God through His Spirit and settle down into traditions? Why do humans see a gifted and anointed man who has been singularly used and seek to reproduce the anointing on that individual by copying what they think are the secrets of their success? And yet know nothing of the secrets of the God who gave that anointing in the first place?

Terry makes a point that is quite personal to me;

"What point is there calling for private, personal obedience from individual believers if churches blatently ignore the Biblical instruction regarding church life?".

I have heard church leaders order me to do something yet I have seen them stand up in church on Sundays and without shame quench the Holy Spirit - or worse teach something that is contrary to the Word of God. I'm not trying to use Terry's comment as an excuse for disobeying church leadership - I long and love submitting to genuine, spirit-filled authority when it is clothed and soaked in grace. But what point is there?

I love his conclusion;

"Ultimately God's purpose is not merely to overturn church life but to turn the world itself upside down ... We follow a table-turning Saviour - let's not be status quo disciples".

Something They Should Teach in Pastor's College

But I'm not sure that they do ...

Rob Rufus speaking at the 'Increasing Glory' Conference in South Africa said;

"We will not use people to build our ministries; we will use our ministries to build our people".

A revolution is rising in the earth that isn't just freeing people into the glory of grace - but it is freeing pastors and teachers to realise what their true identity and mission is for.

Ern Baxter in "Voice of Healing" Magazine!!

I was thrilled recently to discover probably one of the earliest articles by Ern Baxter. It was in the "Voice of Healing" Magazine that was run by Gordon Lindsey who worked with William Branham. The issue is June 1951 and Ern's article is called; "The Case of Carnal Comparisons". As a historical document it is very prophetic to this day and age right now today. Much of the divisions in the church (I think) are linked to a "I am of Paul - I am of Apollos-syndrome". It's not helped by the kind of teaching that says "I am in the very stead of God". Rather than Ephesians 4 Ministries being seen as "gifts" given to bring the church to maturity we are seeing a restoring of clergy who stand between God and the priesthood of all believers.

The scan of the facsimile is here alongside the transcribed text;

"The Case of Carnal Comparisons"

2 Corinthians 10:12; "For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves; but they measure themselves by themselves and comparing themselves among themselves are not wise".

1 Corinthians 3:4; "For while one saith, I am of Paul, and another of Apollos, are ye not carnal?".

We thank God for such visitations of His power and blessing as are being experienced throughout the world at the present time. Entire cities are being stirred by great revival efforts and in some instances require the erection of special buildings to contain the crowds. The Gospel is the world's only hope and we pray that these great Gospel efforts will continue to enlarge in power and influence until the whole world feels the influence of the Spirit of God. Such moves as we refer to are, in most cases, spearheaded by certain men, obviously God-blessed and God-ordained for the task. It is our duty to pray for such men, that they will be sustained in spirit, soul and body that they might be at their best constantly in this greatest of all battles.

There is, however a great danger in such mighty movements where individuals are catapaulted into places of prominence as leaders. Instead of humbly recognising the hand of God in the whole and the grace of God in equipping men for leadership and thus giving all the glory to God, there is a tendancy to humanly evaluate leaders, and compare and pick and choose favourites. Such an attitude indicates a limited vision. This robs God of His glory, is unfair to the leader and contributes to the party spirit among Christians which God so evidently deplores as indicated in His Word.

Each of these leaders, indeed every minister in the Church of God has some distinctive features which makes him to differ from every other minister and unless the great principle of ministerial oneness is recognised, there exists the constant danger of dividing God's people into as many groups as there are ministers to give them leadership.

"There is no new thing under the sun" and this seems especially true when considered in terms of error and defection among Christians. We can think of no modern system of error or trend of defection in the realm of professed Christian religion that had not appeared at least in germ form in the days of the apostles, and which was not given apostolic treatment in the sacred writings of the New Testament. The subject with which we are dealing received extensive attention from the Apostle Paul in the Corinthian epistles, as well as being referred to in the other epistles. Although the directions given in the Corinthian epistles are intended primarily to meet the local conditions, they nevertheless are applicable on a body-wide scale.

The apostle declares the condition that exists in the Corinthian church by saying, "It hath been declared unto me of you my brethren by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are conventions among you. Now this I say, that everyone of you saith, I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas and I of Christ" (1 Corinthians 1;11, 12). There certainly had been a good deal of carnal comparison indulged here. Paul mentions himself first, for a group in the Corinthian church had chosen him as their preferred preacher, quite evidently without any encouragement from him. Paul indicates his sincerity in deploring and attempting to correct this party spirit by placing his name first on the list, and thus being the first to be demoted as a sectarian leader. No doubt the Gentile believers clung to Paul as their leader as against those Jews which preferred Peter with his background.

Then there were those who were followers of Apollos described in the Scriptures as "an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures" (Acts 18:24). Apollos was an Alexandrian Jew, distinguished for literary culture and eloquence and it is probable that the more highly educated among the Corinthian Christians were his perculiar followers. Then there were the Cephasites, the followers of Cephas or Peter. He of course had an apparant priority over the others, being one of the first followers of Jesus. His apostleship was well established, there being no argument as in the case of Paul. He was a "senior minister" and there were those who felt he deserved a superior place and so were quite prepared to battle for his leadership.

Finally Paul mentions the Christ party. This may at first seem strange for we should all be "of Christ". It has been suggested however that "this sect of Christ probably rejected the apostles, and professed to be admirers and followers of the traditional sayings of Jesus. They approved His ethics but rejected the doctrines outlined in the epistles. Possibly the apostle had this group in mind when he wrote; "Henceforth know we no man after the flesh' yea though we have known Christ after the flesh yet now henceforth know we Him no more" (2 Corinthians 5:16).

The apostle counters this condition with three pertinent questions, the first one being; "Is Christ divided?". Of course the answer to this is an emphatic "No!". The body of Christ is one and knows but one head, the risen and glorified Lord Jesus Christ! The one head governs the body, instructing the various members concerning their duty and appointing the various tasks for the individual parts of the body setting up an independent centre of government and control, they must at all times adhere to the authority of the head. The structure of the human body contains the various functions of the body. It has the advantage as the highest part of the body seeing the farthest and thus from it's high place being able to intelligently instruct and direct the action of those members which live on a lower plane and are depending upon the head for direction.

If the body is to function normally, the authority of the head must constantly be recognised. This is true of every member of the body and especially true of those who are ministers in the body. Such ministers may be likened to those parts of the body such as the hands and feet which are most active, and play such a prominent part in the functioning of the body in it's varied activities.

Such members are tempted to think that they are indispensible and thus can set up a new centre of authority. This of course produces confusion.

True ministry gifts are those men ordained by God to minister to His people, are the gifts of the risen Head to the body for it is written; "When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive and gave gifts unto men ... He gave some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists and some pastors and teachers" (Ephesians 4:8, 11). Such men are God-gifted and appointed. They are not placed in the body to further some division or sect and use their God-give abilities to enlarge a segment of the whole but they are placed in the body for the "perfecting of the saints, for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (Ephesians 4:12).

Their interest is body-wide, they are affectionately disposed towards all God's people, and are obliged by reason of the nature of their calling to seek to build up the whole body of Christ.

No, Christ is not divided! His body is one. There is but one head of the body and that is the risen Christ. Thus, every attempt to promote a group of God's people as a segregated section as opposed to all the rest of the people of God is to work at cross purposes with the divine programme. "Was Paul crucified for you?" is the second question. Who deserves our first loyalty? All our fellow humans, much as we esteem and love them must never come between our undivided loyalty to Christ and His Word.

Many of those who would divide and rend the body of Christ are certainly not prepared to die for anybody and before we take a hand in promoting some injurious division let us remember that those who we are influencing are the purchase of Jesus blood.

The final question of the trio is "Were ye baptised in the name of Paul?". If these party leaders were so important as to create a division among God's people, then why did they take in public confession at their baptism, a place of identification with the Lord Jesus? The argument is overwhelming.

There is no place for the exaltation of human leaders and much harm is done all around when such exaltation is promoted.

The divine ideal is beautiful and we dare not despise it by saying, "It will not work". Let us listen to it humbly as God's pronounced desire for His people - "Now I beseech you brethren by the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ that ye all speak the same thing, and there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgement".

Dr Stanley Jebb Hits the Blogging World!!

I've just come back from a blessed day of fellowship with two childhood friends - Mark Heath and J-D Laurence - in Bristol and their respective families. We spent many happy hours discussing theology and the past and our church experiences. One of the most exciting pieces of news that Mark told me was that my prayers have been answered and my former senior pastor has given in to popular demand and has begun a website/blog!

It's here;

"Alethinos Reflections"

One of his first posts is absolute vintage Stanley Jebb - "Books and Reading". He writes;

"A minister must read. A leader must be a reader. The Apostle Paul sent for the books and the parchments (2 Timothy 4:13). But there are three obstacles to overcome if a minister is to read much: the money to buy them, the time to read them, and the choice of what to read from the vast choice available".

This emphasis from Dr Jebb was one of the things that convinced me to join Mark Heath and set up a "Quotes Blog" and read with the purpose of absorbing other men and women's wisdom and using it and not allowing said ministries to fade into history.

It will most certainly be a blog I am following and recommend it highly for readers who want a high quality, Reformed, teaching blog full of years of experience and wisdom. My parents are having them to lunch tomorrow and I can't wait to hear what was discussed!

When John MacArthur Gets It Right!!

One of the joys of being a constant student and son of God is that the Holy Spirit is constantly tweaking and adjusting prejudices in my life and I always know when it is Him. Because He does so, so utterly gently and tenderly. After leaving Bristol (as many know) I struggled a lot with unforgiveness and bitterness towards Sovereign Grace Ministries and the church in particular for their harsh legalism. And if I dared to share what I was struggling with, I was told (mainly by SGM-ers) that I should "just get over it". I am indebted still to Pete Day for dealing with this excellently in a blog post.

But probably in the last 18 months or so I've discovered that the Holy Spirit has taken away that bitterness and that anger without me even noticing or making any attempts to "just get over it". That's true sanctification surely! That as Ryan Rufus said in his sermon on Sunday - God wants us to focus on Him and His heart and then He will adjust the externals that He wants changing. Rest! Anyway that's a bit of an example as to how constant gentle change goes on in our lives so gently by the Spirit within us.

I've never had much time for John MacArthur since reading his "Charismatic Chaos" back in the days when our home church was marching steadily towards a functional and theological cessationist position. I hated his aggressive attitude and judgemental intolerance of charismatics (ironic that the Holy Spirit's gently pointed out in my life recently how aggressive and judgementally intolerant I have become of those I didn't like for being such!!). However I was very impressed with some articles that MacArthur published earlier this month dealing with the Song of Solomon - and in particular Mark Driscoll's approach to them.

Here's a brief summary of what MacArthur wrote;

1. "The Rape of Solomon's Song".

"Apparently the shortest route to relevance in church ministry right now is for the pastor to talk about sex in garishly explicit terms during the Sunday morning service ... These are schemes that make daily sex obligatory for married couples over a specified time—usually between seven and forty days".

This was exactly the question I asked my family at dinner last night. "Relevance". I was shocked to hear that Driscoll's worship pastor used a swear word from the CCK platform when he was there for the Worship School recently. Now I am no prude! I'm a nurse and am well aware of swear words. Like Rob Rufus said once - I too can swear like a poet if I am so inclined. But I was asking my family if we need to use such words in church to be "relevant"?

MacArthur isn't saying we should stay in the Dark Ages of Victorianism and avoid sex in church;

"So there's simply no way to preach the whole counsel of God without mentioning sex. But the language Scripture employs when dealing with the physical relationship between husband and wife is always careful—often plain, sometimes poetic, usually delicate, frequently muted by euphemisms, and never fully explicit".

He then went on to get more specific with the way that the Song of Solomon is used in this "relevant" approach to sex;

"But it has become popular in certain circles to employ extremely graphic descriptions of physical intimacy as a way of expounding on the euphemisms in Solomon's poem. As this trend develops, each new speaker seems to find something more shocking in the metaphors than any of his predecessors ever imagined ... We're assured moreover that the shocking hidden meanings of these texts aren't merely descriptive; they are prescriptive. The secret gnosis of Solomon's Song portray obligatory acts wives must do if this is what satisfies their husbands, regardless of the wife's own desire or conscience.

I was recently given a recording of one of these messages, where the speaker said, "Ladies, let me assure you of this: if you think you're being dirty, he's pretty happy." Such pronouncements are usually made amid raucous laughter, but evidently we are expected to take them seriously. When the laughter died away, that speaker added, “Jesus Christ commands you to do this.” That approach is not exegesis; it is exploitation. It is contrary to the literary style of the book itself. It is spiritually tantamount to an act of rape. It tears the beautiful poetic dress off Song of Solomon, strips that portion of Scripture of its dignity, and holds it up to be laughed at and leered at in a carnal way".

That was exactly my concern and my heart when I wrote my blog yesterday. Something is wrong when women who were created and given to be protected by man are being treated like this surely?

Anyway MacArthur ends the first part by mentioning that he feels Mark Driscoll is the main proponent of this view and treatment of the Song of Solomon. That may be true - I don't know. But in my opinion it was C J Mahaney who first brought this to the discussion table.

2. "The Rape of Solomon's Song - Part 2".

Again I couldn't agree more with his opening lines;

"It's frankly hard to think of a more appalling misuse of Scripture than turning the Song of Solomon into soft porn. When people can no longer read that portion of Scripture without pornographic imagery entering their minds, the beauty of the book has been corrupted, its description of righteous love perverted, and its role in sanctifying and elevating the marriage relationship deflected. That preachers would do this in public worship services is unconscionable".

MacArthur quotes Tremper Longman saying;

"Tremper Longman III says this about preachers and commentators who interpret the Song's poetic imagery in overtly explicit ways: "[Their] free association with the images of the Song is so prevalent that we learn far more about the interpreters than we do about the text".

He then goes on with some more specific comments about Driscoll which can be read but aren't the object of this post. This isn't meant to be a dig at Driscoll. I don't like the guy but I know he is touching thousands with his style and that's great! My querying is more about this issue of do we have to become like the world and speak like the world to attract the world? Or should there be something rather different about us?

3. "The Rape of Solomon's Song - Part 3".

MacArthur makes some comment on the interpretation of Song of Solomon that I'm not quite sure about. He says;

"I emphatically agree with those who say the Song of Solomon is not mere allegory. It is best understood when we take it at face value, like any other text of Scripture. Many interpreters whom I otherwise hold in high esteem (including Spurgeon and most of the Puritans) have unfortunately done more to confuse than clarify the Song's message by treating it in a purely allegorical fashion that eliminates its primary meaning. Solomon's Song is, as I've said from the outset, a love poem between Solomon and his bride, celebrating their mutual love for one another, including the delights of the marriage bed. To interpret this—or any other portion of Scripture—in a purely allegorical fashion is to treat the interpreter's own imagination as more authoritative than the plain meaning of the text".

I agree that it's not helpful to take everything in an allegorical fashion. But my gut feeling is that we must see marriage as it's God-given intention - that of a picture of Christ and His Bride! The supremacy of the relationship between God and us surely sets the tone for everything else. After all - why else would there be no "giving and receiving of marriage" in heaven? If marriage was that supreme then surely it would go on into eternity? Why does God get so upset in the Word of God when His picture of marriage is abused through sexual sin? Because it reflects on Christ and the Bride. Why did Moses get forbidden from entering the Promised Land? Simply for abusing a picture of Christ on the Cross.

MacArthur quoted Driscoll saying this about the allegorical approach to Song of Solomon;

"Some have allegorized this book, and in so doing, they have destroyed it. They have destroyed it. They will say that it is an allegory between Jesus and his bride the church. Which if true, is weird. Because Jesus is having sex with me and puts his hand up my shirt. And that feels weird. I love Jesus, but not in that way."

MacArthur goes on;

"Driscoll has said almost the exact same thing in at least three other sermons. For example: “Jesus keeps making out with me and touching me in inappropriate places.” “Now I’m gay, or highly troubled, or both.” “As a guy, I do not feel comfortable with Jesus, like you know, kissing me and touching me and taking me to bed. Okay? I feel sort of very homo-erotic about that kind of view of Song of Solomon.”

Some of Driscoll's supporters have tried to stand up for him saying that he's toned down in his recent "Peasant Princess" series that some of my family have liked so much. MacArthur thinks not - quoting Driscoll;

"Now what happens is some say "Well, we do believe in the book [of Song of Solomon], and we will teach it, but we're gonna teach it allegorically." And there's a literal and an allegorical interpretation. They'll say, "Well the allegorical interpretation, it's not between a husband and a wife, Song of Solomon, love and romance and intimacy; what it is, it's about us and Jesus." Really? I hope not. [Laughter from crowd] If I get to heaven and this goes down, I don't know what I'm gonna do. I mean it's gonna be a bad day. Right? I mean seriously. You dudes know what I'm talking about. You're like, "No, I'm not doing that. You know I'm not doing that. I love Him [Jesus] but not like that." [Laughter from crowd]"

Er ... no. This "dude" doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. But I won't go on otherwise I'll be writing stuff that I will later regret. MacArthur (while not taking the allegorical approach to Song of Solomon) writes something that I really found helpful and interesting;

"Thus even a non-allegorical interpretation of Song of Solomon, (simply taking the love-song between Solomon and the Shulamite at face value) ultimately points us to Christ and his love for the church. The text ought to be handled by the preacher accordingly, not as an excuse to bathe in the gutter of our culture's easygoing obsession with crude sex-talk and graphic sexual imagery".

I think if Mahaney and Driscoll had pointed to Christ and His love for the church then I wouldn't have had half the problem I do with the "literal" approach.

4. "The Rape of Solomon's Song - Part 4".

In his final article MacArthur begins by responding to questions that arose from the many comments left as a result of these articles on his blog. Just prior to that MacArthur quoted Tim Challies who's reaction to this view of Song of Solomon was;

"I have a real problem with anyone interpreting Song of Solomon like that . . . . To be honest, words fail me when I even try to explain myself—when I try to explain how I just cannot even conceive of Song of Solomon like that. The poetic nature of the Song is entirely eroded when we assign such meaning to it: such specific meaning. And I think as well of what it may do to a couple to be able to say “Look, this specific sex act is mandated in Scripture. So let’s do it.” That may be said to a spouse who has no desire to do that act or who even finds it distasteful. And yet with our interpretation of Song of Solomon, which we really have no way of proving (at least beyond a reasonable doubt) we are potentially bludgeoning an unwilling partner into doing something. I just … again, words really fail me here".

One interesting question I noted was this (followed by MacArthur's answer);

"2. Song of Solomon is a very explicit erotic book. How can you possibly argue that this book of the Bible, which is God's Holy Word, is anything but "fully explicit"? Isn't it a denial of the obvious to claim that the Song of Solomon is not a pretty graphic description of sex?

explicit -- ek ● SPLIS ● it -- Distinctly expressing all that is meant; leaving nothing merely implied or suggested; unambiguous

Since there is not one explicit mention of a reproductive body part or sexual act in Song of Solomon, no credible commentator on the Song would ever make such a claim about that book. Furthermore (and this is the key point of the whole discussion) Song of Solomon is not "erotic" literature in any sense—i.e., it is not intended to arouse readers sexually. Clearly it should never be preached in a way that has that effect. That is so obvious a point that only an exploiter of the book would ignore it for prurient interests".

One important question was raised;

"4. Could it be that your scruples about graphic descriptions of sexual acts are cultural and generational? Perhaps the culture in which you minister isn't as uninhibited as the subcultures other preachers are trying to reach".

This surely is a fair point. MacArthur is a lot older than Driscoll. However I think Mahaney isn't that much younger than MacArthur and he seems to be very much in agreement with Driscoll. But even though I'm 31 - and I don't have scruples about discussing sex - I still have the same problem in graphic descriptions of sexual acts from the pulpit. How on EARTH is that fulfilling the Ephesians 4 mandate that these gifts of the ascended Christ are meant to be doing? To bring the body of Christ to maturity? To giggle in repulsion at the idea of the glorified and risen Christ trying to "put His hand up my shirt" sounds like it belongs in the gym changing room at school. Not the church. And certainly not from the platform.

Anyway. I promised myself I wouldn't get into a rant. Here's MacArthur's answer to that question;

"Sex is not something new in the postmodern era. Every culture and every generation has dealt with the same obsessions and perversions as today—though not always with the same unbridled self-indulgence our culture encourages. Every Christian has always faced the same lusts and temptations that assault us: "No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man" (1 Corinthians 10:13).

Those who think pornography and unrestrained debauchery weren't commonplace in the pre-Internet era ought to visit the ruins of Pompeii and see what life was like in the culture of Rome during the apostle Paul's generation. Paul ministered in cultures that were far less “inhibited” than ours. Yet when he found it necessary to deal with sexual topics—whether giving positive instruction about the marriage relationship or a negative exhortation about sexual sins—he never spoke in sexually graphic terms".

In many ways our generation is more prudish than some of the generations that MacArthur mentioned. MacArthur makes a very important point;

"The truth is that God’s Word never gives specific instruction about the details of a married couple’s personal preferences in their sex life. Sermons that pretend to find such instruction, like the sexual preoccupation demonstrated in these assaults on the Song of Solomon, are more damaging than helpful—because they elevate the imagination of the preacher to a higher position of prominence and authority than the true revelation of God".

This is something I've worried about time and again. The two churches that formed the bulk of my Christian experience were both led by very dominant (some might say domineering) church pastors. Even if they didn't intend it - there was a culture in both churches where church members would take the word of the pastor as the Word of God. And that wasn't just the preached word. That was throw-off comments and opinions that said pastors had.

We discussed Driscoll's views on the Song of Solomon last night (mainly me and my mum) and this question actually came up in conversation;

"6. Was Driscoll’s sermon really as bad as you say? Aren’t you overreacting to what is ultimately just a difference in style?".

MacArthur gives a link to the two sermons Driscoll preached in Scotland - and I duly read them. Why is such an issue made of this? Well here's why according to MacArthur;

"That’s why I am making such an issue of this. Because the New Testament makes an issue of it. It is not simply a difference of opinion, generation, preference, style, or methodology. It is an issue that arises from clear New Testament mandates related to the character of an elder. If anything, I don’t think I have reacted strongly enough".

Finally someone asked MacArthur why he is dealing with this matter publicly and why he hasn't approached Driscoll privately (he has and was ignored). The questioner knew that both John Piper and C J Mahaney are having some degree of input into Driscoll's life. Here's what MacArthur said;

"I am pointing out something that should not be the least bit controversial: pastors are not free to talk like that. In response, a flood of angry young men, including several pastors and seminary students—not one of whom has ever attempted a private conversation with me about this topic—have felt free to post insults and public rebukes in a public forum, declaring emphatically (with no obvious awareness of the irony) that they don’t believe such things should be handled in public forums".

He quotes Scripture to back this up;

"When 1 Timothy 5:20 says, “Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all,” it is talking about elders in particular. Those in public ministry must be rebuked publicly when their sin is repeated, and public, and confirmed by multiple witnesses".

On Driscoll's tongue, MacArthur said;

"Mark did indeed express regret a few years ago over the reputation his tongue has earned him. Yet no substantive change is observable. Just a few weeks ago, in an angry diatribe leveled at men in his congregation, Driscoll once again threw in a totally unnecessary expletive. A few weeks before that, he made a public mockery of Ecclesiastes 9:10 (something he has done repeatedly), by making a joke of it on national television. So here are two more inappropriate Driscoll videos being passed around by young people and college students for whom I bear some pastoral responsibility. In their immaturity, they typically think it’s wonderfully cool and transparent for a pastor to talk like that. And they feel free to curse and joke in a similar manner in more casual settings".

That's something I've noticed. I know a church in Wales that has adopted the "Driscoll-style" in church life (and the pastors certainly aren't immature) and I've heard the MP3's and the same cursing and joking seems to crop up there too.

And finally on Mahaney and Piper's involvement;

"Finally, it seriously overstates the involvement of John Piper and C. J. Mahaney to say they are “discipling” Mark Driscoll. In the first place, the idea that a grown man already in public ministry and constantly in the national spotlight needs space to be “mentored” before it’s fair to subject his public actions to biblical scrutiny seems to put the whole process backward. These problems have been talked about in both public and private contexts for at least three or four years. At some point the plea that this is a maturity issue and Mark Driscoll just needs time to mature wears thin.

In the meantime, the media is having a field day writing stories that suggest trashy talk is one of the hallmarks of the “New Calvinism;” and countless students whom I love and am personally acquainted with are being led into similar carnal behavior by imitating Mark Driscoll’s speech and lifestyle. Enough is enough. Yes, I did inform John Piper and C. J. Mahaney of my concerns about this material several weeks ago. I itemized all of these issues in much more thorough detail than I have written about them here, and I expressly told them I was preparing this series of articles for the blog. To those asking why pastors Piper and Mahaney (and others in positions of key leadership) haven't publicly expressed similar concerns of their own, that is not a question for me. I hope you will write and ask them".

I'm glad that someone of MacArthur's statesmanship wrote these articles. Not because I am rejoicing that someone else is taking a pop at Driscoll - because I said before that wasn't my concern. He is who he is. And God can work all things together for good. But because the whole issue of Song of Solomon is being dealt with properly and in a concerned manner for the glory of God and for His Name and for His fame.

The world isn't very impressed when the church starts speaking in a smutty manner. They can do it far better than the church ever can. The world isn't very impressed when the church starts speaking explicitly about sex - not when explicit sex is available anywhere and everywhere. In my experience non-Christians expect the church to be different. And when they are not - even non-Christians know something is wrong.