Puritans, preachers & preaching.

Preaching out of bounds & lay-preaching are by-products of the Evangelical Revival. It happens when the organised church isn't doing its job properly. Today's church is fragmented, its ministry increasingly unregulated and what passes for sound preaching and competent ministry is, to say the least, variegated. There has also been a noticeable increase in the number of men calling themselves pastor and evangelists, who have received little or no training. It could be argued that in a period of decline an irregular ministry might be the church's life line.

The Puritans, confronted a similar scenario in a different way. In the preface to his discussion of the Westminster Assembly's debates on preachers and preaching Van Dixhoorn says that 'in a rare display of initiative', the Assembly 'determined that preaching was important enough and bad preaching common enough that some directives were necessary.' (Pastors, and Ambassadors: Puritan Wisdom for Today's Church: (St Antolin Lectures, Vol 2. 2002-10 - Latimer Trust)

The bad preachers were incompetent lay-readers drafted in to deal with the problem created by absentee clergy. John Penry, (Martin Marprelate) wrote to queen Elizabeth describing non-resident ministers as “odious in the sight of God and man” because they kept the people from “the ordinary means of salvation, which is the word preached.” According to Strype, it was “the want of clergymen” that created the “inconvenience” of ordaining “illiterate men to be readers, which likewise many were offended at” (Annals, 1824, 265).

The radicals also contributed. Whether ordained or unordained, they threatened chaos by  unregulated preaching. George Gillespie wrote, 'Every man may not be a teacher ...' teaching 'is no part of the general calling of Christians.' For him, Romans 10:15 was critical - 'how shall they preach unless they are sent?' He argued that 'sending' denotes a sender and no one should presume to teach who has not been sent. In his case 'sending' was to be understood ecclesiastically, presbyterially and congregationally – all in one. Also, on the basis of 2 Timothy 2:2, a candidate for the ministry ought to have been taught by one someone experienced in the calling - faithful men, 'who will be able to teach others also'.

Some, like the antinomian William Dell, were opposed to every kind of authority: church, university (although he had been master of Gonville & Caius at Cambridge) and especially assemblies. To him Westminster Assembly was odious: 'What a sad thing is it' he asked 'when men look for their teaching no further than men? They only look to the minister or to such an able, learned, orthodox man - as they phrase it - or at the highest to the Assembly. And what they shall teach them, they are resolved to stand by it and build upon it for their foundation. In the mean time never regarding in truth the teaching of God, but say, What! can so many grave, learned, godly men err? And shall not we believe what they determine? Why now, these are none of the children of the spiritual Church, for they neither have God's teaching nor care for it. But the spiritual Church is all taught of God.' (Of the Spiritual Church, 101).  Such men equated the liberty of the Spirit with a kind of Do-It-Yourself approach to preaching. Thus it was that from the end of the Elizabethan period into the period of the Stuarts, that the church laboured under ignorant and antinomian preacher. The Puritans did not say 'ah well, something is better than nothing' but believed that following biblical principle is to the church's advantage. They therefore concurred with Calvin's view that “Those that intrude themselves confidently [into the ministry], and in a spirit much elated, or who discharge the ministry of the word with an easy mind, as though they were equal to the task, are ignorant at once of themselves and of the task.” (Commentary 1 Cor 9) .

For these reasons they routinely differentiated between 'lawful' and 'unlawful' ministers. William Gouge, in his reflection on 2 Cor 5:20 'we are ambassadors of Christ', describes preaching as "a clear revelation (exposition) of the mystery of salvation by a lawful minister." William Perkins said that preaching is to be of "the word of God alone ... in its perfection and inner consistency" done by one set apart "according to the rule of God’s word...." [Prophesying, 9, BT] The inward call to the ministry had to be recognised and confirmed by the outward call of the church. Perkins' words to aspiring preachers are “Your conscience must judge of your willingness and the church of your ability.”

As to the way of setting a minister apart, the Independents, less convinced about the necessity of ordination by the laying on of hands, tended to equate a 'call' issued by a congregation with a kind of formal commissioning. But as to the general point about 'lawful' ministers, they and the Presbyterians were more or less on the same page. The order of Acts 13, where the Holy Spirit works through the church to set apart men for the ministry was the pattern to follow. Their perspective included gifting (together with training), calling & sending. In effect, it was a method of 'quality control' to safeguard the gospel and the church.

Those who labour  among you.

Paul exhorts the church of the Thessalonians to 'know' (recognise) those who are over them in the Lord and admonish them; and to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake (1.1:5.12). We customarily read such exhortations for what they seem to say about office rather than function and function viewed as job-description rather than qualitatively.  Not than any exclude the others but there are nuances.

In this connection, not only did the apostle Paul not pull rank on the Thessalonians by mentioning his apostleship but went out of his way to remind them of his hard he work among them. He put his life on the line, chose to please God rather than men and worked night and day - as he put it. It gave him a strong platform to chide the lazy and exhort them to do an honest day's work. Such was his work-ethic that though he was least of all the apostles, he laboured more abundantly than them all (1 Cor 15:10), which makes me wonder whether we sometimes get sidetracked into discussions about office, when we should be thinking about quality of service rendered. 

1 Thessalonians 5:12 is a case in point. He tells them to 'know' or recognise the leaders 'who labour among them and are over them in the Lord' not only in respect of their position but also because of the quality of their service. It is not just 'leaders' but 'leaders who labour or toil'. He seems to make a similar point in 1 Timothy 5:17, where he writes 'Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.' The words are beloved of Presbyterians who want to differentiate between ruling and teaching elders but how does the logic work?  Elders who rule well (ruling elders?) are worthy of double honour (reward) but elders who rule well and labour in preaching and teaching are especially worthy. The distinction then is not one of office but of quality. All elders who rule well are worthy of respect and reward but especially those who labour or toil in the word and doctrine. In other words, the playing field is level but the quality of service varies. Which means that  pay-wise there is nothing in it for the hard working elders but at the end of the day, they are more worthy of their double honour.

This fits well his tendency to excoriate self-appointed renegade teachers& spongers (of which there were many) and to praise those who work hard. People duly chosen and appointed to office must work hard in shepherding the flock.

I wonder then, if we are in the realm not of nouns and adjectives but of verbs and adverbs 'ruling well and toiling hard in word and doctrine - not to be overly grammatical about it.

Be holy! - the categorical imperative.  

I used to think that quietism was the same as holiness; something to do with a person's aura - an appearance of detachment from things that work against the soul. But quietism itself is not holiness, even if some holy people cultivate a quiet spirit after learning that this is what pleases God. Essentially, they have learned to put God first and devote themselves to him - which is holiness. The Old Testament priests were 'holy to the Lord' because they were devoted exclusively to His worship and service. Holiness is often construed negatively as 'separation from' sin and while God's holiness is indeed his separation from sin, it is foremost the mutual devotion of the three persons of the Trinity to one another. God's devotion to himself. This means that separation from sin is inherent in his nature because out of which flows in the personal, eternal, unchangeable and perfect love - the love of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit for one another. Their consummate mutual devotion is such that no darkness can exist in the context of pure light.

Out of God's consummate holiness comes the categorical imperative 'be holy!' The simple rationale is 'be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.' Be like me! It is impossible for us to be like him ontologically and morally for we are creaturely and sinful, always doing battle with a heart that is deceitful and desperately wicked, a world that has turned its back on the Creator, a body which is so often the vehicle of sin and a Devil who is the enemy of our souls. First-century Christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bythinia found the going hard. Their Christian profession seemed to work against them in an unbelieving and often hostile life-setting.

Yet the categorical imperative came to them as to us: 'Be holy, for I, the lord your God am holy.' As Christians we are committed to warring, a striving, following,  learning and persevering - to being 'transformed by the renewing of our mind, that we may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.' (Rom 12:2) Is that a forlorn hope? Far from it! Augustine, who understood something about the nature of divine grace learned to pray 'give what you command and command what you will.' Paul writes 'Therefore, my beloved ... work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and do his own pleasure.' (Phil 2:12ff)

Why Paul did not pull rank on the Thessalonians

Paul's standard way of beginning a letter includes mention of his apostleship but in a few instances, such as I & II Thessalonians, he  introduces himself simply by his Christian name, Paul. The question is 'Why?' For Calvin, it is 'evidence that those to whom he writes voluntarily acknowledged him to be such as he was.' In other words, there was no need.

The truth is that they appreciated his work and regarded his service as of the highest quality and rendered for the purest motives. He writes, 'You know what kind of men we were among you for your sake' and as a result, in spite of on-going criticism, they continued to hold him in the deepest affection. The evidence is plain to see. They received his preaching 'in much affliction and with joy in the Holy Spirit' and became followers of him and of the Lord. When Paul eventually received Timothy's report about his return visit to Thessalonika, he acknowledged that their affection had not dissipated but grown stronger, that they continued to have good memories of him and longed to see him again. Taken as a whole, the letters provide ample proof that the bond between Paul and this fledgling church was strong, deep and affectionate.

Their affection was reciprocated. After his expulsion from the city, Paul experienced acute anxiety and felt that he and his companions had been orphaned by their enforced separation. Time and again, he tried to return but was prevented by Satan until, with anxiety at fever pitch, he sent Timothy back in order to establish and encourage them in what must have been extremely trying circumstances. Timothy's eventual report of this visit gave Paul and Silas great relief and unbounded joy: 'therefore, brethren, in all our affliction and distress we were comforted concerning you by your faith' adding 'for now we live, if you stand fast in the Lord.' (1.3.7-8) . It had all been more than worthwhile! 

 At Athens and Corinth they had prayed unceasingly, remembering their work of faith, labour of love and patience of hope in the Lord (1.1.3) God had answered their prayers and in a way that only served to strengthen the bond and deepen the affection. He writes 'For what thanks can we render to God for you, for all the joy with which we rejoice for your sake, night and day praying exceedingly that we may see your face and perfect what is lacking in your faith?' (1.3.9-10) 

True pastors have no need of rank and title because Christ's sheep recognise them as true under-shepherds - in Calvin's words, 'they voluntarily acknowledge [them] to be such as [they are].' And they do so because they see in them the heart of the Good Shepherd and know that they are not thieves and robbers. From the human perspective, it is wholly remarkable that Christ builds his church in this way: 'you are Peter, Bill or George' - as Flavel puts it, 'the most ridiculous course that can be imagined, in appearance, for such a design.' (Voices from the Past, 140) But in men of such a disposition the sheep discern and experience the love and care of the Good Shepherd for His sheep. Consequently their love for Him embraces His servants. It is no hardship for them to recognise those who labour among [them] and are over [them] in the Lord and admonish [them]; to esteem them highly for their work's sake. (1.5.12)

Saving Faith

Why is faith essential? 

Faith is essential because without it we cannot know or please God, continue in the Christian faith, go to heaven since scripture says that we are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation.

How does faith come? According to the apostle Paul, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Hearing, understanding and believing God's word are essential for faith in Christ. Faith in Christ is essential for salvation.

Question 86 of the Shorter Catechism states that saving faith consists of three things: the offer of Christ in the gospel - the preaching of the word; receiving or accepting Him as he is offered &Facebook resting on him alone (believing or trusting) for salvation.

WSC 86: ‘Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel.’ 

Preface to the Method of Ordination
Adopted by the Calvinistic Methodists in Wales , 1823

In 1811, what started in the 18th century as a group of religious societies under the leadership of lay exhorters, began the transition to a connexional denomination under the leadership of ministers and elders,duly examined and ordained on the basis of subscription to the Calvinistic Methodist Confession of Faith of 1823.

In 1933 the Calvinistic Methodists of Wales adopted the title The Presbyterian Church of Wales and took A Short Declaration of Faith as their working doctrinal standard. This brief statement consisting of six articles based on the Apostles' Creed, effectively replaced the Confession of 1823, which became redundant. From this time forward, the Short Declaration became the formal basis for the propagation of theological liberalism in the pulpits. With its adoption, men were officially free to preach aberrant doctrines with impunity.

Men accepted for ordination in the 19th century had once been lay preachers or exhorters in the religious societies. Under the new rules and with the eventual appearance of the 1823 Confession, they could be recognised as ministers of the word and sacraments. Due process amounted to examination, acceptance of the approved system of doctrine and a greater degree of collective oversight. The new arrangement, however, did not demand forfeiture of local freedoms or, indeed, insist on absolute agreement on every point of faith and practice. Those responsible remembered past conflicts and sought a balance between faithfulness and decency and order, on the one hand, and acceptable liberty, on the other. 

From the Preface:
'The members of any general society must lay aside their own opinions, in order, by agreement on certain central points, to unite together and, when formed into a society, cooperate in peace and without hindrance.  Whoever refuses to do this has no fitness to be a member of any society.  No one is required to change his opinions, but simply, as a member of the society, to hold them in abeyance, or else cease to avail himself of the privileges that membership secures. It is unbecoming in any man to think that all will agree with him in their judgement on every subject, or that it is every man's duty to bow to his opinions.

The Calvinistic Methodists in Wales are a very numerous body, and it would be unjust to expect all the members of so large a body to agree in every particular of church organisation. Men differ in the extent of their knowledge and the measure of their grace. They also imbibe prejudices in their early training from which they cannot entirely rid themselves, and which must be tolerated for the sake of the usefulness and peace of the Connexion.  To seek points of agreement that will bring all to work peaceably together, is becoming and in itself desirable; for it helps to promote the general welfare of the Connexion.

Official account of the first ordinations
At the Annual Meeting held at Bala* on the 19th and 20th of June, 1811, eight brethren were ordained in the following manner :
First, the oldest and most revered member of the Connexion, John Evans of Bala, read 1 Tim. iii., making, as he read, simple and appropriate remarks on the qualifications required in ministers of the Gospel ; and when he had read the chapter, he prayed in language simple and appropriate to the occasion.
Second, the Rev. T. Charles, of Bala, read, in the hearing of all, the names of those who had been chosen by the Monthly Meetings : — Thomas Jones and John Davies, from Denbighshire ; John Elias and Richard Lloyd, from Anglesey ; Evan Richards, from Carnarvonshire ; John Roberts, from Merionethshire ; Evan Griffiths and William Jones, from Montgomeryshire; and Robert Ellis, from Flintshire, ... The Rev. Thomas Charles requested them to signify by show of hands if they wished him to ask these brethren a few questions ... This being the unanimous wish of the assembly, he asked the following questions, to which he received very appropriate* and satisfactory answers : — What is your belief
1. Concerning the being and attributes of God ?
2. Concerning the Trinity ?
3. Concerning the word of God ?
4. Concerning God's decree and election ?
5. Concerning God's providence ?
 6. Concerning the fall and corruption of man ?
7. Concerning the moral law ?
8. Concerning the Person of Christ ?
9. Concerning the offices of Christ ?
10. Concerning the sacrifice of Christ and redemption ?
11. Concerning justification ?
12. Concerning the Person of the Holy Ghost ?
13. Concerning the work of the Holy Ghost in the plan of salvation ?
14. Concerning the call of the gospel ?
15. Concerning perseverance in grace ?
16. Concerning the resurrection ?
17. Concerning the general judgment?
18. What ordinances do you believe to have been divinely appointed ?
19. What is your belief concerning Baptism and the Lord's Supper—their purpose, use, and signification ?
20. Do you sincerely approve of the church government of the Calvinistic Methodists in Wales ?
21. Do you intend, as far as it lies in your power, and with the Lord's help, to maintain the unity of the Connexion in the form in which the Lord has hitherto so greatly blessed it, and set your faces against all unprofitable and contentious disputes that tend to gender strifes ?

 When he had asked these questions and received their simple and intelligent answers, he requested the Connexion to declare, by show of hands, if they chose these brethren to administer the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper among them. They did so unanimously.

 After this the Rev. Thomas Charles asked the brethren —
22. Do you, with full consent of mind, accept the call of the Connexion to administer the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and are you resolved to labour faithfully and diligently, to feed the flock of God by administering to them the divine ordinances with all earnestness, according to the help that God may give you ?

They answered humbly and simply, ' "We do,' and earnestly desired the prayers of the whole Connexion. After this, the aged brother, Robert Jones of Carnarvonshire, addressed a few words of earnest exhortation to them and the Connexion generally, and closed the meeting with a fervent prayer appropriate to the occasion'.

From 'The Glory of Plodding'

by Kevin DeYoung

The church is not an incidental part of God’s plan. Jesus didn’t invite people to join an anti-religion, anti-doctrine, anti-institutional bandwagon of love, harmony, and re-integration. He showed people how to live, to be sure. But He also called them to repent, called them to faith, called them out of the world, and called them into the church. The Lord “didn’t add them to the church without saving them, and he didn’t save them without adding them to the church” (John Stott).

“Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Cor. 13:7). If we truly love the church, we will bear with her in her failings, endure her struggles, believe her to be the beloved bride of Christ, and hope for her final glorification. The church is the hope of the world — not because she gets it all right, but because she is a body with Christ for her Head.

Don’t give up on the church. The New Testament knows nothing of church-less Christianity. The invisible church is for invisible Christians. The visible church is for you and me. Put away the Che Guevara t-shirts, stop the revolution, and join the rest of the plodders. Fifty years from now you’ll be glad you did.