Comments from sites previously blocked UNBLOCKED

Somehow the comments have been blocked to some who have read my blog. I have no idea how things became changed.That has been unintentional.

It has been fixed!

A PLAIN MAN

I was quite pleasantly surprised, and taken back a few decades whilst reading Dave Black's site. He quotes Thomas Haweis, who was preaching at the inauguration of the London Missionary Society in 1795.

Thomas Haweis said:

A plain man -- with a good natural understanding -- well read in the Bible, -- full of faith, and of the Holy Ghost, -- though he comes from the forge or the shop, would, I own, in my view, as a missionary to the heathen, be infinitely preferable to all the learning of the schools; and would possess, in the skill and labour of his hands, advantages which barren science would never compensate.

After many years of sitting under the ministry of quite few excellent, some not so excellent, preacher/pastors, and having been called to our first country pastorate, I had been impressed with similar thoughts as those expressed by Thomas Haweis.

I have a very clear memory of the first day I sat at the desk in my first office, surrounded by the library of good books I had collected over the years, all by great men of God. I felt a surge of pride, and immediately was ashamed, as I remembered my previously mentioned thoughts.

As I sat there I was compelled to pray that my loving Father would keep me an ordinary man,able to be in touch with the lives of those to whom I would minister.

A few years later, after the Lord of the Church had blessed our evangelistic efforts I was asked to speak at an evangelism conference regarding rural evangelism. I mentioned that one thing I had learned was that it was important for those who wish to minister to others to learn to "sit in the dust" if necessary, "get some dirt under one's finger nails", if we were to fully relate to those we sought to influence for Christ.

There were some fellows there, both young and older, who thought my comments were ridiculous.

Over the years we continued to be blessed. I can only assume that the Lord didn't consider my words ridiculous.

Whether I'm still an ordinary bloke, that's for others to judge,but I have no desire for anything else.

Haweis was right. Thank you Dave for reminding me!

SOMETHING IS MISSING!

No matter what way a congregation of genuine Christians function, traditional, home church, or some other form of the gathering of God's people, I would assume that the Scriptures have a leading part in the what transpires, yet, as I read the writings of each of the alternatives, I see something standing out quite clearly, and have to question my assumption.

I wonder whether you have noticed what I'm alluding to?

I will illustrate what I'm noticing with a well known story by C. H. Spurgeon, told in a sermon preached on March 13th, 1859.

“A Welsh minister who was preaching last Sabbath at the chapel of my dear brother, Jonathan George, was saying, that Christ was the sum and substance of the gospel, and he broke out into this story:

A young man had been preaching in the presence of a venerable divine, and after he had done he went to the old minister, and said, "What do you think of my sermon?"

"A very poor sermon indeed," said he.

"A poor sermon?" said the young man, "it took me a long time to study it."

"Ay, no doubt of it."

"Why, did you not think my explanation of the text a very good one?"

"Oh, yes," said the old preacher, "very good indeed."

"Well, then, why do you say it is a poor sermon? Didn't you think the metaphors were appropriate and the arguments conclusive?"

"Yes, they were very good as far as that goes, but still it was a very poor sermon."

"Will you tell me why you think it a poor sermon?"

"Because," said he, "there was no Christ in it."

"Well," said the young man, "Christ was not in the text; we are not to be preaching Christ always, we must preach what is in the text."

So the old man said, "Don't you know young man that from every town, and every village, and every little hamlet in England, wherever it may be, there is a road to London?"

"Yes," said the young man.

"Ah!" said the old divine "and so from every text in Scripture, there is a road to the metropolis of the Scriptures, that is Christ. And my dear brother, your business when you get to a text, is to say, 'Now what is the road to Christ?' and then preach a sermon, running along the road towards the great metropolis—Christ. And," said he, "I have never yet found a text that had not got a road to Christ in it, and if I ever do find one that has not a road to Christ in it, I will make one; I will go over hedge and ditch but I would get at my Master, for the sermon cannot do any good unless there is a savour of Christ in it." Now since you say amen to that, and declare that what you want to hear is Jesus Christ, the text is proved—"Unto you therefore which believe he is precious."

AN IMPORTANT QUESTION

The title of a recent article on the excellent blog of Alan Knox, was a question, “What Caused You to Start Studying the Church?”

In my case, the reason was my first meeting, half a lifetime ago, of a large number of other pastors at a denominational pastor’s conference, and the denominational annual assembly. Those meetings were the catalyst to start me questioning why I was even a part of such a group.

That meeting helped me, over a period of time, to see that for myself that, as a denomination, our understanding of “church” was very limited. That limited view was established by our experience of church life and denominational distinctives, not by the Scriptures.

For me, and many others, that experience was a long one, the authenticity of which we had never questioned. Mine began at the age of twelve, and had been repeated and established during the first twenty years of my total involvement, from simply sitting in the pews to preaching and teaching.

To ask anyone the question, "What is church?", always had the effect of people looking very perplexed, and finally voicing the opinion that, “We are the church!”

The faithful attendance at the habitual following of established traditions, reinforced by the messages from the pulpit, was instilling in the congregations the certainty that, as long as they were regular in attending to this, everything was fine and dandy.

The only conversations the congregations were involved in always revolved around the pragmatic matters of organized religion; filling empty pews, and bigger buildings when we filled them, finance and the need to increase the accumulation of it to do the grand schemes the pastor had envisioned. Of course there was the normal discussions of house keeping, maintenance, etc. Occasionally the matter of missions came up. Of course our mission was those missions and never our Jerusalem, or even Judea.

We were a missions oriented church, but not mission oriented!

Very seldom were there discussions which didn’t result in some strong words, which were certainly not appropriate for those claiming to be brethren in Christ.

We didn’t know it at the time but, our individual definition of “church” revolved around our own experience, that with which we were familiar, we were always correct and anyone who disagreed was incorrect. As a result most other congregations in the area were suspect.

No wonder we had problems and cliques of those who agreed with each other, and disagreed with everyone else, even within the local congregation. (have a look at this great article from Paul Burleson)

Other definitions of “church” arise from the satisfaction of personality problems of functioning in community, or desires for “life” which has more to do with sensual satisfaction.

As I’ve talked to people, and pressed them on the original question, "What is church?", several common thoughts appeared. Although, not in any specific order they were generally:

1. Believers who came together each week on Sunday

2. They were a church because they had been baptized as become members.

3. They had a qualified pastor, and possibly elders.

4. Baptism and communion was practiced according to denominational dictates.

5. Although unsure of what it meant church discipline was necessary.

6. Most importantly there had to be a document of doctrinal beliefs which defined who they were.

7. Evangelism is important as long as someone else accomplished it.

When asked, “Who owns the church?” The answer was always, emphatically “We, the congregation, do!”

The presence of Jesus Christ is only assumed, and any concept of His presence by His Spirit, is very vague.

This assumption has allowed many of our institutional churches to become nothing more than social institutions for people who gather using Jesus’ name, and to have reinforced in us the thought that our church/denomination is the one with God's stamp of approval.

Where is the evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit, who reveals Jesus amongst a ministering people from whom living waters flow, who opens our hearts to understand Scripture, who leads and directs?

Is our idea of church formed by the standard of what we have always done, or, the clear standard of Scriptures?

Are we disciples of Jesus Christ, or, are we disciples of a tradition, from which our standard arises?

Are we afraid to ask questions of that standard, and compare it with Scripture? I think so!

BIRTHDAY PRESENT FOR ALAN

Read the following links and give a brother in Christ a birthday boost:

Here, here, and here.

OUR SOVEREIGN GOD!

If you want to read something very important, read this . When you have read it read this!

IS HISTORY HISTORY?

My blogging friend Paul and I share quite a few similarities. He says, “I love history”.

Well, we are different on this one! I don’t love history.

I like to read history. The more history I read history, the more I see that mankind cannot be trusted to record his own history. Almost every author has his own version, revealing his bias. Even the so-called “official” versions.

As far as I can ascertain, from spending time in the home of an American school teacher, Americans have not been taught Australian history in their schools. Maybe that’s a good thing. Even our Australian “official” histories reveal the (often political) bias of the writer.

When I was attending school, we were taught quite a bit about world history, including American, but all of my reading since confirms my suspicion that secular history alone, is clearly not reliable, especially if we will put aside national pride.

The Apostle Paul has history well defined in his statement regarding the Jews, “ For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God himself has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been understood and observed by what he made, so that people are without excuse."

That statement applies to the whole human race!

The fulcrum upon which all of history hangs is spiritual. God created all that there is. From the first day of creation, God’s hand was on all that would ever take place (I did not say God caused ). God's Spirit is at work among men, and no one can understand history apart from that fact. He is both “hands on” and “hands off”, at the same time.

God is indeed sovereign, and if He is sovereign at all, He is sovereign over all, including history, at all times.

My friend, Paul, avers his love of poetry, as well. As for poems, I love some and loathe others. Here is one which rang a bell for me:

The Calf-Path
Sam Walter Foss (1858 -1911)

One day, through the primeval wood,
A calf walked home, as good calves should;

But made a trail all bent askew,
A crooked trail as all calves do.

Since then two hundred years have fled,
And, I infer, the calf is dead.

But still he left behind his trail,
And thereby hangs my moral tale.

The trail was taken up next day
By a lone dog that passed that way;

And then a wise bell-wether sheep
Pursued the trail o'er vale and steep,

And drew the flock behind him, too,
As good bell-wethers always do.

And from that day, o'er hill and glade,
Through those old woods a path was made.

And many men wound in and out,
And dodged, and turned, and bent about;

And uttered words of righteous wrath,
Because 'twas such a crooked path.

But still they followed - do not laugh -
The first migration of that calf.

And through this winding wood-way stalked,
Because he wobbled when he walked.

This forest path became a lane,
That bent, and turned, and turned again.

This crooked lane became a road,
Where many a poor horse with his load,

Toiled on beneath the burning sun,
And traveled some three miles in one.

And thus a century and a half,
They trod the footsteps of that calf.

The years passed on in swiftness fleet,
The road became a village street;

And this, before men were aware,
A city's crowded thoroughfare;

And soon the central street was this,
Of a renowned metropolis;

And men two centuries and a half,
Trod the footsteps of that calf.

Each day a hundred thousand rout,
Followed the zigzag calf about;

And o'er his crooked journey went,
The traffic of a continent.

A hundred thousand men were led,
By one calf near three centuries dead.

They followed still his crooked way,
And lost one hundred years a day;

For thus such reverence is lent,
To well-established precedent.

A moral lesson this might teach,
Were I ordained and called to preach;

For men are prone to go it blind,
Along the calf-paths of the mind;

And work away from sun to sun,
To do what other men have done.

They follow in the beaten track,
And out and in, and forth and back,

And still their devious course pursue,
To keep the path that others do.

But how the wise old wood-gods laugh,
Who saw the first primeval calf !

Ah ! many things this tale might teach -
But I am not ordained to preach