How Churches become entrenched: Two Insecure Pastors

What usually happens

Pastor McKinley reflects carefully on what the Robinsons are saying.  Inwardly, he is pleased, delighted in fact.  He needs families like this in his congregation.  Everything they have said confirms what he has believed all along.  He has a good few like them in his flock.  They all have similar stories.  It simply proves what his elders and he have suspected about Living Springs and churches like it all along.  False apostles.  False teachers.  False prophets.  He is going to warn his people once again about the dangers of so-called Charismatic churches.

Meanwhile, across town...

Sharon: Well Steve.  What do you think?  That's the third person in the last year who has left Ebenezer, considering coming here.  What's going on?  They all say the same sort of things.  Won't that church ever learn?  

Steve: I agree, Sharon.  Really do.  But I feel uneasy about something.

Sharon:  Uneasy?  What about?

Steve:  Not sure.  Ermmm.  I think it's this.  We haven't seen the Robinsons for a few weeks now have we?

Sharon:  No.  I miss Marie.  And their kids are lovely.  Have they started to go somewhere else do you think?

Steve:  Yep.  I saw Peter in town a couple of days ago talking to one of the families who go to Ebenezer.  Those Irish people who came to our church for a while.  I think they may have joined them at the Tabernacle.

Sharon:  Oh.  If that's the case, I'd feel a little hurt.  Have they ever said to you they were unhappy with us?

Steve:  No, not a thing.  Don't they think they can talk to us?  I always thought I was approachable at least.

Sharon:  So what are you saying, Steve?  Maybe you and Billy McKinley ought to talk to each other as well...

Steve:  I just can't, Sharon.  In all honesty, I find him a bit intimidating...

And so, our two churches stay in their trenches.  Each believes the other church to be in serious error.  Is there a better way?  Can these pastors be a little more grown up?

I have some ideas, see what you think.

Alternative Approaches

1.  Do not permit any transfer growth.  Simply tell people who want to transfer to your church from another in the same town to go back.  I know of one pastor who took precisely this approach and his church did not seem to suffer for it.  They grew.  I just wonder if that approach is a bit of a blunt instrument, an over-reaction, tarring everyone with the same brush.

2.  Check that they have talked.  Tell people who want to move to your church to make sure they have talked their issues through with their previous pastors.

So Pastor McKinley will say, 'You'd be more than welcome to join us, Mr Robinson.  But I must insist that you do one thing.  All the concerns you have mentioned to me, you must raise them with Pastor Brightside.  Have you had this conversation with him?  Have you given them a full opportunity to sort themselves out?  It's only fair.  If you haven't talked through these things with him, especially the issue around the worship band and the man on benefits, then I can't really allow you to come into membership here.'

3.  Pull Ranks.  Tell people that the leader of the other church is a good friend of yours.  It has to be the truth of course!  But if people are moving with for the wrong reasons, perhaps with a critical spirit or because they were confronted about sin in their lives that they don't want to deal with, it puts them on the defensive.  The shepherds in a town or city need to be more grown up than the sheep and, as far as they are able, co-operate and work as a team, even if they disagree over some significant things.

So in this scenario, Steve Brightside would say to 'Oh yes, I talk to Bill McKinley every now and again.  How is his eldest son doing on his Law degree?  Was his wife's operation successful?'

The only problem with this approach would be if one church was doing something seriously wrong.  To know about an issue and not to mention it out of fear or a misplaced desire for unity can result in serious damage to some individuals and the honour due to the Lord.

4.  Get in touch.  In this instance, the Pastors - whoever wants to make the first move - meet each other or speak on the phone about the families in question.  Leaders need to be more mature than their followers.  Perhaps frank discussions should take place where there are deep disagreements and where misunderstandings might have taken place.  Where someone has clear convictions, states them, states his principles but shows grace and integrity, I can have a good relationship with that person, even if I disagree with some of what he believes.

The phone rings.

Pastor M: McKinley Household
Steve (Breathing quite heavily): Is that Pastor McKinley from Ebenezer Church?
Pastor M: It is.  Can I help you?  Who am I speaking to?
Steve: Nice to speak to you, Pastor.  My name is Steve Brightside.  I'm the Pastor of Living Springs Church.  Er, I wondered if we could chat about a few things?
Pastor M (Pausing a little): Oh, er, good evening!  (At this point, a hundred thoughts go through his mind.  How do I relate to this guy?).  Call me Bill!  How are things, Steve?  What can I do for you?
Steve: Well, I've noticed quite a few of people have left us to join your church, and we've recently had a couple of your families joining us.  It doesn't seem right to me to just keep letting this happen without at least touching base with each other.  What do you think?  Can we discuss some of these people, Bill?
Pastor M: Hmmm.  Aye, I think you're right Steve.  But it's better to talk face to face than on the phone, what do you think?
Steve: Agreed!  Should we go somewhere for coffee?  They're on me!!
Pastor M:  Well, why not come to our place?  Bring your wife too, Sharon is it?  My wife will keep her company...

How Churches become entrenched: Two disgruntled families

I think you get the gist by now.

I could do another post on DL Moody.  Or the Huguenots.  Or some of the early missionaries to the British Isles like St Aidan, St Augustine of Canterbury, St Patrick, St David.  I could quote from the writings of our own son of Jarrow, the Venerable Bede or from the writings of the Church Fathers.

There are plenty of websites that cover these things.  My point would be that if you are prepared to do the research, it is possible to find plenty of instances of phenomena like healing, deliverance from demons, gifts of prophecy, words of knowledge and so on which are verified by people widely respected by evangelical and reformed Christians.

And I will be the first to admit that there are many false prophecies, fake healing, dodgy manifestations of the Spirit out there too, as the New Testament warns us.  Of course there are!  When you have something good, someone will try to counterfeit it.  The existence of the fake suggests that the real thing exists as well.

But I thought I would take you over to Shieldcastlehope to discuss how people become entrenched in their positions.

We have two scenarios.

The Robinsons

When the Robinson family leaves Living Springs for Ebenezer, they meet the pastor.
This is what Jim Robinson says:

"Pastor McKinley, I don't think we can take another week there.  They're shallow.  The songs and the sermons are shallow.  I think the pastor copies most of his sermons from YouTube.  They preach an easy-going 'feel-good' gospel.  And they'll let anyone to the front and speak, and I mean anyone, even people with nothing meaningful to say.

They have a food bank, and that's great.  But it's run by a guy who lives on benefits and refuses to work for a living, but he does all sorts for the church.  It's not right!  If he's fit to serve for his church, isn't he fit to work for a living and come off benefits?  There's a guy in the worship band who's living with his girlfriend.  Everyone knows this but nobody says anything because he's a great drummer.  We're trying to teach our children right from wrong, but the church kids are allowed to watch all sorts of unsavoury stuff on the telly. 

What's the difference between them and the world?  I'm beginning to think they're a false church"

What do you think Pastor McKinley is going to say?  What should he say?

The Johnsons

Now, over to the Johnsons.  They leave ERBT for the LSVF.  What's their story?  Here is a summary of what Frank Johnson says:

"Steve.  We can stand it no longer!  The teaching at Ebenezer's great, but it's so dry!  There's a lack of real faith, real joy. 

Yes, they can be friendly, but you can't talk about deep things.  It's so hard to get beyond 'how's your mother's illness? or how is James doing in his GCSEs?'.  They'll talk about theology, but I'd be embarrassed to discuss our recent marital problems with the pastor and certainly not any of the elders.  They just seem to pretend everything is fine when it isn't. 

And our kids keep being told off for running around after the service.  We're thirsty for God Steve, but I find the approach is so intellectual.  Our kids find it boring and the pews are hard.  When the main service is over, people stay for tea and coffee but it's difficult to make any really meaningful friendships. 

And the women... my wife Jan is so intelligent and would love to develop a ministry like counselling, but there's no way of her developing there.  There's tea making and flower arranging.  But is that what the Kingdom of God is all about?  It's like the Bible says somewhere - a form of godliness but denying the power.  Weren't the Pharisees like this?  Obeying all the rules but not really knowing the Lord in any intimate way?  Perhaps it's a false church."

Should Steve and Sharon welcome this family?  Is there anything else they could or should do?

Well Known Charismatic Christian Leaders: Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones on Demon Possession

The occasion, a conference of the Christian Medical Fellowship.

The year,  1971.

The speaker,  Doctor Martyn Lloyd Jones.

The session,  Questions and Answers on Healing and Demon Possession

The following question is posed:

While not denying that devil possession sometimes occurs, are we not in danger of thinking that phenomena of this sort constitute the chief attack by the Devil upon the church and the work of God, and are forgetting that his main evil work is and always has been to make men (1) to doubt and (2) to disobey God?  May it not be that dramatic phenomena like devil possession are the Devil’s own way of distracting our attention from his main but much more subtle attack?

A good question?  Many would nod at the premise of the question, which almost answers itself does it not?

This audio should be listened to in its entirety, though the question is posed in the 20^th minute.  The talk is entitled “Questions and Answers on Healing and Demon Possession”

For those who want to read the transcript of the answer, I reproduce it below:

Yes.  That’s very typical if I may say so.  And I won’t say of whom!  But it is very typical!  [laughter].  I’m almost enough of a higher critic to say who sponsored that question originally, but I’m not going to speculate, I don’t believe in this.

Do you see what’s happening?  Are we not in danger?  Well the answer to that is, are we?  Are you people finding devils in everybody?  I don’t think you are.  What this question is saying is this.  Now this has been very wrong in this conference to call so much attention to devil possession.  People will be forgetting the main work of the Devil.  And so, you see, you don’t consider devil possession at all.  And you go on sending people who are devil-possessed into mental hospitals and they get drug treatments and so on and they are no better, and sometimes worse, and the problem goes on.

No, this is a very ill-conceived question.  I pointed out in one of the previous sessions that there are people go to excess about this, as we do with most matters.  But, you see, the answer to excess is not to do anything at all, which is what this question is obviously suggesting.  That we shouldn’t talk about this.  “There’s grave danger here.  Mustn’t do this, otherwise we’ll be doing nothing else and the Devil’s going to get a great advantage.”  No!  I think the Devil’s going to get a great advantage by bringing in devil-possession en masse, and we are not going to face it or consider it because of this kind of attitude.  I think this is very wrong indeed, it is not ‘either or’.

We all know the main business of the Devil.  But does that mean that he doesn’t do this in addition?  Does it mean that he isn’t doing this at this present time in a very particular manner?  For the reason that I give.  That the Christian influence is on the wane.  And in any case we know what happens in other countries abroad.  I commend to the writer of this question that he or she or both [laughter] immediately proceed to buy that booklet to which I referred by the Overseas Missionary Fellowship, “Roaring Lion”.  And there they will discover the dangers that confront the missionary or the minister in this country or indeed anybody – a doctor in particular – who is ignorant of this matter of devil or demon possession.  I reject the whole implication of that.

I myself went out of my way to warn against running off, people do, it doesn’t matter what thing is mentioned in the Christian realm, somebody is always going to take it up and rush away with it and run it to an excess and the result is the whole thing is ridiculed.  No, no.  We must take a balanced view of these things and beware of this false antithesis, this ‘either or’ which doesn’t apply here at all.  The Devil does it in both ways, in all ways.  We are not ignorant of his devices, and I feel that attention needs to be called today in this country particularly to this aspect of which we haven’t seen much in the past, but which we are seeing more and more at the present time.

This was followed up by another question, as follows:

The remaining questions are a group of four.  I’m going to read all of them through quickly because they are on the same theme so that the whole subject is covered.

One, can a Christian become demon possessed, are there clear diagnostic signs to differentiate between demon possession and various mental illnesses.

Two, could we have advice regarding guiding rules to distinguish between the areas of mental illness from demon possession.

Three, to what extent may psychotic illness be in fact a sophisticated form of demon possession or influence?  How can a doctor recognise the difference between mental illness and demon possession if there is a difference and the final one which is in three parts,

What are the basic clinical features of demon possession?  Are these fundamental features constant in different countries and cultures although the expression naturally varies, two, what is its treatment and three, what are the results of treatment?

I will not write the answer, but will leave you to listen to this one on the link indicated above.

To me, this is dynamite.  Let me spell this out:

• Doctor Martyn Lloyd Jones was a medical Doctor before he was a preacher
• He is of the Reformed Evangelical part of the church and his main calling was expository preaching of the word
• He was one of the (arguably ‘the’) most respected evangelical leader of the 20^th Century

 In other words, he is no ‘lightweight’, not given to jumping on bandwagons or relying on experiences.  And as a doctor by profession, he cannot over-spiritualise every issue by saying that it is demonic.

Being in the rare position of being and experienced pastor as well as a doctor, he has had many difficult cases referred to him.  And he clearly states that he has frequently had to deal with the demonic in his ministry.  Including in Christians.

-----------------------------

I possibly need to discuss this subject further for those who are new to this subject.

In the days of Jesus and the early apostles, the New Testament refers to people who experience physical healing.  But it also talks about people who are delivered from demons.  And all of Jesus' disciples were trained in healing and deliverance from demons.

And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

Mark 16:17-18

In order to (1) bring people to Christ (2) Demonstrate the power of the Gospel (3) Bring in the Kingdom of God on Earth and (4) help people overcome untold suffering, I believe that we can’t bury our heads in the sand!  We need to be equipped to deal with these things, and frankly, we’re not.  It means that if a problem has a demonic root, surely we should be able to deal with it effectively.

I find it interesting that every diocese within the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England has a designated exorcist to deal with phenomena such as people disturbed by demons, hauntings, poltergeists, buildings with creepy presences and so on.  They don’t employ these people, I believe, because they are simply being superstitious and weird.  They do it because there is a constant trickle of people coming forward asking for help with these things.  I once heard a radio interview with a couple of very well-spoken Anglican exorcists who matter-of-factly explained how they successfully dealt with a range of phenomena in the Name of Jesus.  I’d love to have a recording of it, but I haven’t.

But again, nether of these denominations hold any water with a large number of evangelical Christians.

There are evangelical Christians who will not give Pentecostals or Charismatics the time of day.  So anything they say about:

• Healing miracles
• Baptism in Holy Spirit
• Gifts of the Spirit
• Demonisation*

 …will be instantly dismissed.  But I find it interesting that Doctor Martyn Lloyd Jones brings this issue to the attention of his own constituency.
-----------------------------
*It is not my purpose here to expound the biblical teaching on the subject of how demons affect people, including believers in Christ.  It is a big subject that I am not qualified to comment on with much authority.  However, I will say that I prefer the term 'demonised' to 'demon-possessed'.  Traditional translations of the Bible prefer the latter term, yet in modern English it carries the connotation of being possessed by i.e. fully owned and controlled by a demon.  Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones, speaking in the early 1970s and the best known writer at this time on the subject, the Lutheran Pastor Kurt Koch, would say 'Demon-possessed'.  No Christian can be fully controlled by a demon in this way.  And yet, I believe (and Lloyd Jones would concur) that Christians can be affected, oppressed, disturbed, weakened by demons.  Hence, I prefer to used the term 'demonised', which is preferred by many of today's writers on the subject, and in my view it better resembles the New Testament Greek term.

Well Known Charismatic Christian Leaders: Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones on Joy in the Holy Spirit

Older Evangelicals Christians in Britain will need no introduction to Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones.  Originating from South Wales, following Campbell Morgan at Westminster Chapel in London, he was arguably the most influential Christian leader in the 20th Century.

Not only did he write numerous books, for example:

• A 12 Volume commentry on Romans
• A 5 Volume commentry on 1John
• A 2 Volume commentry on the Sermon on the Mount
• 'Preaching and Preachers', possibly his most influential book

More than this, however, he founded the Publishers 'Banner of Truth'.

A far more adequate introduction can be read in his Wikipedia entry or the introduction in the MLJ Trust website which includes some videos.

His credentials as a preacher from the Reformed tradition who had an uncompromisingly high view of scripture and a great legacythrough his teaching and writing are there for all to see.

I want to mention a few things now in relation to his views on issues of interest to Charismatics.

1. Between the years 1955 and 1968, Lloyd Jones taught through the Book of Romans.  Spanning Chapters 1 to 14, there are 366 sermons on the Epistle.  Due to an illness from which he retired from pastoral ministry, he only reached as far as Chapter 14:17.  I will follow with the Doctor's own words on this:

There is another thing to be said, and I am more concerned about this at present.  The interruption of my ministry had a message for me.  I was at Romans 14:17.  I had dealt with ‘righteousness’, with ‘peace’ on March 1st, and there I was stopped.  I was not allowed to deal with ‘joy in the Holy Ghost’.  I have the feeling that this was not accidental.  God intervened and I could suggest a reason why.  I was able to deal with righteousness and peace (I had fleeting experiences of it), but the third thing is the profoundest of all.  Why was I not allowed to deal with it?  Because I knew something, but not enough about it.  ‘I want you to speak with greater authority on this,’ God said.

"Here is what I would put before you.  For six months, until September, I did not preach at all.  For four months I have had the most valuable experience of being a listener.  My general impression is that most of our services are terribly depressing!  I am amazed people still go to church; most who go are female and over the age of forty.  The note missing is ‘joy in the Holy Ghost’.  There is nothing in these services to make a stranger feel that he is missing something by not being there.  It is as though there is a weight upon us and the minister, feeling this, thinks he must be short.  So the people come together in order to depart!  Speaking generally, I think it is true to say this and there is little difference in this respect in evangelical churches.

It is a great thing to be a listener.  You want something for your soul.  You want help.  I don’t want a ‘great sermon’.  I want to feel the presence of the God I am worshipping and to know that I am considering some great and glorious subject.  If I do get this, I do not care how poor the sermon is.

I suggest to you that our greatest danger is professionalism.  We do not stop sufficiently frequently to ask, ‘What are we really doing?’  There is the danger of just facing a text and treating it as an end in itself with a strange detachment.  It is all intellectual.  Nor should our preaching be just emotional, or only to the conscience.  Far too often it is one or other of these things.  There is no life, no power!  We of all people ought to have it.  Joy and power are intimately related.  One without the other is spurious."

So there we have it.  Britain's foremost Reformed Evangelical leader of the last century admits that there is a lackof joy in the Holy Spirit in his own life and in the churches.  To me, this is an incredible admission.

He later dealt with the subject of joy in the Holy Spirit in his book 'Joy Unspeakable', published posthumously in 1984.

I need to say here that he did not share the Pentecostal understanding of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.  He put his views into a more objective and Calvinistic framework.  However, he did say that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is a separate experience from conversion and is something that the church needs in order to experience revival.

I am going to finish here with some fascinating thoughts by John Piper on Lloyd Jones.  If you enjoyed reading this blog post, the following is solid gold, a treat to read, but better still if you listen to the audio version at the top of the page.

I have more to say on Doctor Martyn Lloyd Jones, but I will leave this until next time.

Well known charismatic Christian Leaders: JN Darby on the Continuance of Gifts of the Spirit

The man who led me to Christ was from a Brethren background.

The first missionaries I regularly supported in prayer were from the Brethren.

An old Scottish ex-missionary to India who greeted me every week in my church for many years was from the Brethren.

Some of the most effective evangelists I know in the North East, a couple of whom I count as friends, are from the Christian Brethren.

I have a great respect for these people.  My brothers in Christ, for sure, but I am talking about the Brethren - a loosely linked group of churches with no full time pastors.  Some are more 'exclusive' than others.  They're unfashionable.  Their women still cover their heads in worship.  Some have a pre-occupation with Bible prophecy.  Some say the're in a kind of 'time warp', old fashioned and quaint perhaps?  Dangerous even?  Embarrassing?  Irrelevant?  Personally, I hold these people in high esteem.

How do you get to meet these people?  That's a tricky one.  So here's a guide.  Let's start with the easy bit.

How not to find the Brethren
1. Go to pastors' conferences
2. Go to the local 'Churches Together' meeting in town
3. Go to big conferences like Spring Harvest
4. Wait until they invite you to speak at their churches
5. Go to anything 'charismatic'
6. Visit the grandiose church buildings in your town

How to find the Brethren
1. Get involved in open air evangelism

The above will explain why so few Christians in our mainline churches will ever meet them.  These people keep themselves to themselves.  They do not have a high view of the established church.  Generally, they will not mix on any formal level with other groups of Christians.  They have no paid ministers.  But they do preach the gospel and hand out tracts.  In many towns, they are the only ones left who are really reaching large numbers of unchurched people.  Some have a rather dated or condemning method.  But rather than criticise, we need to get out on the streets as much as they do, and improve on their methods.

If you go to one of their meetings in a traditional Assembly, you will find the men taking it in turns to stand up and introduce hymns, spiritual insights, scriptures and prayers.  Someone will then preach a relatively short prepared sermon towards the end of the meeting.  The women do not publicly contribute.

When I first went to one of these meetings, I found it extraordinary.  In a sense, this was the closest thing I had ever seen to New Testament Christianity.  It came right out of the 1Corinthians 14 textbook:

What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. 1 Corinthians 14:26

But there was one thing missing.  Gifts of the Spirit!  I would have expected charismata to thrive in this type of meeting, yet they were... forbidden!

Why?  Did their founder believe that such things had 'died out'?  What was the view of their founder, John Nelson Darby?

Get this.  John Nelson Darby, the founder of the Brethren, believed passionately in the charismatic gifts of the Spirit.  It is easy to find his collected writings on the internet.  He has written articles entitled,

ON THE PRESENCE AND ACTION OF THE HOLY GHOST IN THE CHURCH

CHAPTER 1

ON THE INTRODUCTION OF MR. WOLFF’S PAMPHLET; IN WHICH, WHILE DENYING THE CONTINUANCE OF GIFTS, HE ASSERTS HIS INTENTION OF DEFENDING MINISTRY FROM THE ATTACKS DIRECTED AGAINST IT…

CHAPTER 16

ON MR. WOLFF’S CHAPTER 16, WHERE THE WRITER PRETENDS TO PROVE, BY TWENTY-FIVE REASONS, THAT THE GIFTS OF THE HOLY GHOST HAVE ALL CEASED

The above is a lengthy rebuttal of a prominent church leader who believed that such things had ceased.  Here's a quote from Darby's response:

Are we really come to this, that those who think they are pillars of the church give their approval to that which denies the presence of the Comforter, and while denying it, seeks to persuade us that the church enjoys ‘all the primitive blessings’?  The gifts were only ‘the manifestation of the Spirit.’  How much have we lost in this respect, alas is but too evident!  All that was, under the apostolic administration, a public sign of the presence of the Holy Ghost to the world… all this is lost.

In another article, entitled:

OPERATIONS OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD

Darby writes:

This leads us to see the blessing and importance of these gifts, definitely committed by Christ, as He sees good in grace, for the good and communication of His blessed fullness to the Church; whereby, fed with what is good, it should be preserved and guarded against hankering after the trash of deceivers.  They are gifts to the Church, not to all but for all.  The development of these in full liberty and openness of ministry is most important.  Not can they be really or rightly developed otherwise.

So why have such things been forbidden from their meetings?

Well, according to David Pawson's book, 'Word and Spirit togeher, when these new assemblies first met together, a frequent result was... other languages and healing.  At that time, the leaders of the movement met to decide what to do about this.  And they took the cautious - some would say cowardly - approach.  They forbade the gifts.  Because the movement was already facing opposition from its detractors, they felt that continuing with charismatic gifts was a radical step too far.  And they forbid them to this day.  The precise opposite of Darby's original intention!

The first Brethren Assemblies were charismatic!

Well Known Charismatic Christian Leaders: John Piper on Gifts, Spiritual Warfare and the Prayer of Faith

John Piper is a well known Christian Leader in the United States.  Most of my American friends who read this will know him better than I do.  My main acquaintance with him is over two things.  Firstly, the superb book he co-wrote and edited with Wayne Grudem, entitled Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

Secondly, his very, very comprehensive and high quality website Desiring God.

He is from the Reformed, Calvinistic part of the church.  It is well known, I think, that he believes that gifts are for today.

I include him here, along with the clip below because John Piper has a high view of scripture and is widely regarded as holding 'conservative' views on some issues such as the roles of men and women, the need for book by book teaching, expository teaching, taking care over appointing elders, healthy Christian families and so on.  There is nothing frivolous, flippant, flaky or lightweight about him.  Yet he does not just passively accept that 'charisma' could be from God, he actively and firmly advocates that we should 'earnestly desire the greater gifts'.  I find his approach refreshing.

This clip is, to me, an extraordinary one.  Here he basically talks about the importance of the ministry of the Holy Spirit in world mission.

1. Firstly, he quotes approvingly an uncompromising statement coming out of the second Lausanne conference on World Mission.

 'We therefore call upon all Christians to pray for such a visitation of the sovereign Spirit of God, that all His fruit will appear in all His people and that all His Gifts may enrich the Body of Christ.  Only then will the whole church become a fit instrument in the hands of God, that the whole earth may hear His voice.'

2. Secondly he talks about the use of spiritual warfare in preparing the way for Christian Mission and church planting, using the prayer of faith.  He relates the story of a group of people who had to exercise authority over spiritual powers of evil over an region in Argentina that had been marked by occult activity by a group of witches.  Once they had done this, church planting flourished.  Before they did it, all attempts to start new churches had failed.

3. Thirdly, he talks about how his father had on occasion had to wrestle with God in prayer and get to a point of praying in faith and authority before seeing evangelistic results.

The second account is an interesting to me.  He refers to spiritual oppression over a particular geographical area and the need to deal with this.  This is something I would have rejected as nonsense not too long ago.

See what you think.

Well known Charismatic Christian Leaders: Charles Spurgeon's ministry of Words of Knowledge and Healing

The next few posts are aimed at my cessationist brethren.  A cessationist, remember, is someone who believes that gifts of the Spirit such as prophecy, other languages, physical healing, are not for today.  They were only for the times of the early apostles and those who seek these things are in error.

So (through these slightly provocative titles) I will begin by showing how well known leaders admired by cessationists exercised gifts of the Spirit of various kinds.

I used to dislike Charles Spurgeon.  My antagonistic feelings began many years ago, when a good friend of mine joined a reformed evangelical church, very similar to the Ebenezer Reformed Bible Tabernacle in Shieldcastlehope.  My friend began to grow less friendly towards some of my other Christian friends and started picking arguments with people over predestination and freewill.  At the same time, he became an avid student of Charles Spurgeon sermons and biographies.  He told me once that the Pastor of his church had a large poster of Charles Spurgon in his study.  I was unhappy with the direction my friend's spiritual life was going in and to some extent I blamed CHS himself.

This all changed when I began to read some of his sermons, and his book 'Lectures to my Students'.  Hey!  I really like this guy!

So what has been going on here?

I think that people who limit God and in doing so, quench the Spirit, instinctively look for a champion to further their cause.  CH Spurgeon, who was a Calvinist and huge admirer of the Puritans, fits that bill quite well, not least because he had a hugely fruitful and powerful ministry.  He stood against the liberal theologians of his day, warned against emotionalism, he disliked altar calls, he eschewed more superstitious expressions of Christianity and he therefore became a champion of the Reformed faith.

Most books about Spurgeon are written by cessationists and therefore will not say too much about the miraculous elements of his ministry, and he himself downplayed these things.  But I am going to quote now from some biographies of Spurgeon - firstly his own autobiography via this You Tube clip:

Now a quote from 'Spurgeon A New Biography' by Arnold Dallimore (P140).

In view of Spurgeon's own long sickness and that of his wife, it is difficult to believe that many people thought he posessed a "gift of healing".  The best information on this matter is to be found in Russell Conwell's Life of Spurgeon, particularly in his chapter, "Wonderful Healing."
The idea began during the cholera epidemic.  As we saw, Spurgeon visited numerous homes where the disease raged, and there he prayed that the sick one might be made well.  In many instances, in someone who seemed near death the disease was stopped, and before long health returned.  People were sure this was the result of prayer.
During further years Spurgeon prayed for persons in sicknesses of various kinds, and although in many a case there was no betterment, in others there was improvement that appeared miraculous.  Dr Conwell examined several of these experiences and in 1892, the year of Spurgeon's death, he declared:

There are now living and worshipping in the Metropolitan Tabernacle hundreds of people who ascribe the extension of their life to the effect of Mr Spurgeon's personal prayers.  They have been sick with disease and nigh unto death, he has appeared, kneeled by their beds and prayed for recovery.  Immediately the tide of health returned, the fevered pulse became calm, the temperature was reduced, and all the activities of nature resumed their normal functions within a short and unexpected period.  If a meeting were called of all those who attribute their recovery to the prayer of Mr Spurgeon, it would furnish me with one of the most deserved tributes to his memory that could possibly be made.

Conwell goes on to report seven specific instances of what was considered healing in response to Spurgeon's prayers.  "The belief in Mr Spurgeon's healing power became among some classes a positive superstition, and he was obliged to overcome the very false and extravagant expressions... by mentioning the matter from the pulpit, and rebuking the theories of the extremely enthusiastic.  He felt it was becoming too much like the shrines of Catholic Europe."
Spurgeon declared that the subject of divine healing was very much a mystery to him.  He said he prayed about sickness just as he prayed about anything else, and that in some instances God answered with healing, whereas in others, for reasons beyond our understanding, He allowed suffering to continue.

On Labels: A Tale of two Churches

Let's head down to the (fictitious) North East town called Shieldcastlehope.  In it are two main gospel churches, one called the Ebenezer Reformed Bible Tabernacle, led by Pastor William McKinley.  The other church, the Living Springs Victory Fellowship is led by husband and wife team, Pastors Steve and Sharon Brightside.

Yes.  You’ve already worked out which is which, which one you would attend and which one you wouldn’t be seen dead in!  Let’s just say that Ebenezer is the more traditional.  Suit and tie, Westminster confession, KJV, hymns only, cessationist, Calvinist, male preachers only, it contrasts with Living Springs with its hair-down, lights down, jeans and trainers dress code (and that's the leadership), its cool Saturday youth night and ‘give it a go’ approach to anything new.

Neither of these churches really exist, and yet.... they are replicated across the land.  I need to say here that both Ebernezer and Living Springs have sincere, committed people who love the Lord and one day their people, many of whom will not even acknowledge each other when they pass on the street, will share the New Heaven and the New Earth together.  Both have their good points and their bad points.

For now I will make just one observation.

They don't really like each other.  There's grudging acknowledgement that they do some good things, and there's a certain amount of fear in the relationship between respective leaders.  But they are entrenched in their respective positions.  If truth be known, they're even a bit embarrassed by their neighbours who they believe to represent an incorrect form of Christianity.

But every so often, an individual or family will leave one congregation for the other, having been hurt or frustrated or disappointed in some way.  Or an issue will come up which may need a united response.  They're in a smallish town.  They can't always avoid each other.

We'll revisit Shieldcastlehope a little later.

On Labels: What Charismatic does not mean

The term 'Charismatic', in church circles, has become synonymous with a whole lot of things that go on, some of them harmless but nevertheless unrelated to the filling and gifts of the Spirit, some distasteful inappropriate embarrassing or unwise, some just wrong.  This is why I need to do a list of things that charismatic does not mean.

Here goes.  'Charismatic' does not mean...

• A particular style or volume level of worship, lighting level or amount of electronic gadgetry
• A particular set of weird noises, manifestations, physical twitches or the habit of falling over in meetings
• Large numbers of people speaking in other languages in unison after a song accompanied by a musical instrument with no attempt at explanation or translation
• Teaching on an apparently random topic week after week based on 'what I think God wants to say to us'
• A larger than usual amount of hugging, ranging from slight side hugs to passionate bear hugs with no thought given to how well I know the person,cultural sensitivities, personal space or possible sexual attraction
• A more informal style of teaching with more than the usual daft jokes and self-indulgent anecdotes
• Allowing absolutely anyone to teach or 'share' from the front without any consideration of the person's character, commitment or background
• Because the worship is going so well, doing more songs and scrapping the teaching session, then treating it as a kind of triumph
• Regular prophecies of imminent revival or 'outpourings of the Holy Spirit' in the town or city the meeting is in without any reference to repentance, commitment, obedience or even competence
• Going around prophesying over people blessings without any reference to repentance, commitment or obedience
• Inviting prophets or healers to take meetings/missions/weekend schools without adequately checking their lifestyle, reputation, financial probity, track record or theological stance
• Basing major decisions on leadership or other personnel based on 'what God told me/us' and on various signs and co-incidences without reference to the person's character, biblical qualifications or suitability
• Using 'God told me...' as the last word on any decisions that have been taken
• Doing things because one 'feels led' and not checking things with other more mature people

That is why I can define myself a a 'Charismatic Evangelical' Christian.  A church like the Living Springs Victory Fellowship (see my next post!) would wholeheartedly call itself charismatic.  But it needs to look carefully at what that does and doesn't actually mean.  I have seen all of the above (and more) in churches and meetings that would call themselves charismatic.  But it doesn't actually mean they are.

On Labels: Charismatic

We are talking church definitions here.

So 'Evangelical' doesn't just mean 'zealous', 'fervent', 'persuasive'.  And Charismatic doesn't necessarily mean possessing a great deal of personal magnetism.

The Christian term 'Charismatic' has taken something of a beating, especially in the States.  Sermons, articles, books and even conferences have been brought about with the intention of warning Christians about these errant people.

But I'm sticking with it, one reason being that for many years, the term 'Pentecostal' attracted utmost suspicion and derision in Christian and unbelieving circles alike, but the term is now relatively respectable.

Evangelical comes from the Greek work 'Euangellion' which means good news, or Gospel.

Charismatic comes from the Greek work 'Charisma' which means Grace-gift.

The New Testament teaches that Holy Spirit(1) gives certain gifts [charisma] to believers, such as Prophecy, other languages(2) (tongues), healing and words of knowledge.  There are many recorded instances of charisma being used by Jesus and the early Christians as well as guidelines as to how they should be used.

A 'cessationist' believes that such things were a temporary phenomenon for the time in which the New Testament was being written, and possibly shortly afterwards.

A Charismatic believes as follows:

- We seek to have an experience of being 'baptised' (filled, immersed, drenched) in Holy Spirit.  This is distinct from conversion and is to be sought by all Christians.
- The baptism in Holy Spirit is normally evidenced by spontaneous speech.  This may be joyful praise, prophesying, speaking in other languages for example.
- We are to seek to be continually filled with Holy Spirit
- Holy Spirit gives us boldness and makes it easier to preach the Gospel.
- Holy Spirit gives gifts, such as prophecy, healing, wisdom, knowledge, discernment and speaking in other languages, distributed to all believers as He wills, applying to all classes, incomes, sexes and ages.  We are to earnestly desire the greater gifts.
- Holy Spirit enables us to preach the Gospel with signs following, such as healing and deliverance from demons.
- Through our knowledge of Scripture, our maturity in Christ and the Gift of Discernment of Spirits, we can identify false prophecy and prophets, counterfeit gifts and miracles thus protecting ourselves from 'wolves' who would damage the church.

Charismatic Churches:
1. Seek for their members to be (initially) baptised in and (continually) filled with Holy Spirit.
2. Earnestly desire spiritual gifts and use them in church meetings and evangelism
3. Use the gift of discernment and scriptural knowledge to weigh up prophecies.
4. Allow suitably gifted people to contribute in meetings no matter what age, education, race, sex or social class.
5. Speak with authority.  Use words of command as well as prayer to deal with sickness and demons.

Why are we charismatic?

Because the Bible, in Acts, says this:

In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people.  Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.  Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.

In Mark Chapter 16, it says this:

He said to them, ‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.  Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.  And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on people who are ill, and they will get well.’
After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God.  Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.

Note that the command to go into all the world includes the command to heal the sick and cast out demons, although non-charismatic Evangelicals tend to truncate the above verse in Mark, missing off the second sentence.

We are still in the last days.  The term 'last days' refers to the period between Christ's ascension and his return (feel free to check this out).  The Holy Spirit has not withdrawn his power.  Some churches have shut these things out, contrary to the teaching of Paul, who said we should 'earnestly desire the greater gifts'.

Notes
(1) I am going to use the phrase 'Holy Spirit' without the definite article, i.e. rather than 'the Holy Spirit'.  Some Bible Teachers such as David Pawson do this, and I believe it does better justice to the Biblical text and emphasises His Personality
(2) I prefer to use the term 'other languages' rather than 'tongues'.  This is a better modern expression of what the Bible says  emphasises the fact that God gives people other languages to speak which have not been learned and can be translated rather than just gibberish.

On Labels

“Don't swear!”, a friend once said when I used the term 'evangelical'.  It was the 1980s.  He was very much on the charismatic wing of the church and it was fashionable at that time for some to dismiss the churches evangelical heritage as irrelevant.  I don't follow the soap opera of which Christian leader has said what to whom very closely, but I suspect that the boot is now on the other foot.  To call yourself 'Charismatic' in some circles it to put your head well above the parapet.

I am not keen, however, to abandon a label just because there has been a serious attempt to discredit it.  In fact, insults can be a badge of honour.  The terms 'Christian', 'Methodist', 'Puritan' were coined as terms of abuse.  Spurs supporters have confused the authorities by defiantly calling themselves 'Yids'.  My daughter was asking some time ago for a t-shirt labelled 'Geek'.

Blessed are you when...

The next phase of my blog explains to some degree where I am doctrinally, or to be more exact, my ecclesiology – my view as to how church should be.  It is not to say I won't ever change my mind, but I have firm convictions which are are carefully thought out.

I think that in the UK, terms are less nuanced than they are in the US where, for example, 'Reformed', 'Evangelical' and 'Fundamentalist' are separate terms with their own well defined adherents.  I'm not as sophisticated as that.  Apart from fundamentalist or 'fundy', which has been almost completely discredited over here, I could be happily defined as Reformed or Evangelical.

So the best thing, I think, is to use a term and then define it with my own personal interpretation.

So, very simply, I am going to go through four terms which represent 'where I am', and what foundations a church should be built upon.  Some of my views are 'mainstream' and others are 'radical'.  The church I have a vision for would be pretty unique in the North of England.  Possibly unique in the UK.  Maybe unique in Western Europe.  But I will be bold enough to say that in order for the church to thrive in the 21st century, we need churches like this!

Blessings