Wednesday 14 September 2011

A NEW TYPE OF PREACHER URGENTLY NEEDED!

Listen to these stirring and challenging words from Aiden W. Tozer:
"If the Church in the second half of this century is to recover from the injuries which she suffered in the first half, there must appear a new type of preacher.  The proper ruler of the synagogue type will never do.  Neither will the priestly type of man who carries out his duties, takes his pay and asks no questions, nor the smooth talking pastoral type who knows how to make the Christian religion acceptable to everyone.  All these have been tried and found wanting.  Another kind of religious leader must arise among us.  He must be of the old prophet type, a man who has seen visions of God and has heard a voice from the throne."   (The Divine Conquest,  OM Publishing, Carlisle, UK, 1979), 9).

Those who will protect and defend their own establishment at all costs will find Tozer's words offensive, no doubt, and will want nothing to do with them.  They will regard him as a 'sour' and 'bitter' old man who gripes about everything that goes on within the visible church.  His implication that many ministers are 'rulers of the synagogue' types will not gain him many new friends, nor will they 'cut the ice' so far as ecclesiastical recovery is concerned.  Yet there are far too many who fit this description within the churches today.  They are the church managers who oversee what is going on, and so long as all things proceed smoothly, with no hiccups, then all is fine.   
The priestly type - within the reformed churches?  Never.  Oh, yes, they are there, too.  Who are they?  well, they are the ministers who do what is required of them by their bosses - the elders - receives his pay every month (thank you very much), and who asks no questions as to what is going on within the wider denomination.  To do that would bring trouble down upon your head, and we don't want that, do we?  This type accepts without question what his denomination accepts, e.g, theological liberalism as an authentic expression of biblical Christianity, along with its legitimate child - the ecumenical movement.  These are accepted because, after all, we are a broad church, and we have room for everyone.
That brings me to the third type that Tozer mentions - the smooth talker who is 'hail fellow well met' to everyone, accepts everyone in membership as a Christian, and then supplements the membership by accepting other unconverted sinners.  His aenemic preaching suits everyone admirably, and all say how wonderful he is.  The entry standards for church membership set by the Bible are jettisoned, because these are too austere, too restrictive, too limiting, and we don't want that in our church!
But this is precisely what the church wants!  And it is also what those good men in the ministry also accept, without question.  They rationalise it by saying that because they cannot read men's hearts to see if they are real Christians, we have to let them into membership.  What they are unable or unwilling to see are the glaring public defects that characterise the lives of those who seek full communicant membership of the local congregation.
Will status-quo promoters and defenders make any real difference to the spirituality of the church of Jesus Christ on earth?  Will they drive back the forces of darkness and raise a standard for righteousness in the church?  Will they dare to preach a felt Christ who gave the church the mightiest weapon in existence to drive back Satan and his minions - the Gospel?
Sadly, the answer has to be 'HARDLY.'  The church of the 21st century just does not have the men of 'true grit' who will take on the wrong within the church, and seek to put it right.  They will just sally along as if all in the church garden is rosy.  "Then cometh the end!"  And what those servants do when the Lord calls for an account?  They will call on the mountains and hills to fall on them and cover them from the wrath of the Lamb.  They will be utterly ashamed and disgraced, and shut out of the Kingdom forever.  Do you want that?






Sadly, the answer has to be hrdly.'

No comments: