It is quite amazing that in today's unfaithful church, there is a greater willingness to co-operate in matters ecclesiastical and spiritual with theological liberals and ecumenists than there is to support the ministry of reformed evangelicals. Yet this situation ought not to surprise anyone because, as I have written many times in the past, the principle followed by many in the compromised denominations is simply this: church must, and does, come before Gospel.
Good men are prepared to cooperate in church life with those who oppose the Gospel, yet are not Christian enough to embrace other evangelicals that are not of their particular fold. The hold the church has on them is tight, suffocatingly tight, but they do not seem to realise that. This hold prevents them seeing the truth and how it is being compromised by the willing acceptance of all forms of deviation from the truth of the Gospel. Indeed, any attempt to defend such an arrangement always results in deep embarrassment for those who try to justify the unjustifiable.
It is very difficult to see how reformed evangelicals can justify their acceptance of theological liberalism as a bona fide understanding of the Gospel. What the common ground is between those whom preach that a man is justified by his good works, his decency, his church membership, etc, and those who preach the true biblical Gospel is difficult to see. Yet many attempt this very thing today. This is possibly the most telling measure of the spiritual temperature that is found in the churches today. Were the good men in these churches burning evangelicals, then the world would hear of their attenpts to turn their churches right side up. But their silence is deafening.
Why is this? There can be only one reason. These men have lost sight of the glory of the Gospel and of the Lord of the Church, Jesus Christ. They have precious little concern for the many men and women who listen to false doctrine. Were they really concerned they would be challenging the falsehoods that are being perpetrated in their name within their denominations Sunday by Sunday. But no. There is no concern, no voice being lifted up in protest, no placing their own reputations on the line for the sake of the Gospel.
But then again, you only do that for something you think is worthwhile.
Saturday 31 March 2012
Friday 30 March 2012
PURITANS' PROGRESS (Part 2 of 2)
A 350th Anniversary Commemoration of the Norwich & Norfolk Ministers Ejected from their Churches by the Act of Uniformity, 1662.
Dr Alan C. Clifford
Norwich Reformed Church (used here with his permission).
Remember those ... who have spoken the Word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct - Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and for ever. (Hebrews 13: 7-8)
Another and more well-known Puritan is Jeremiah Burroughs. This faithful servant of Christ was born in 1599. Having graduated from Emmanuel College, the ‘Puritan seminary’ at Cambridge, Jeremiah Burroughs
commenced his ministry as colleague to the influential Puritan Edmund Calamy at Bury St Edmunds in Suffolk. (Calamy, of Huguenot descent, was to be one of the ‘Amyraldian’ members of the Westminster Assembly). In 1631, Burroughs became the Rector of Tivetshall in Norfolk. In this rural setting, he faithfully preached the Gospel of Christ according to Puritan principles. When Bishop Wren’s articles and injunctions were issued in 1636, Burroughs was suspended and deprived of his living for ‘nonconformity’. Leaving for London, he temporarily found refuge under the hospitable roof of the Earl of Warwick. Increasing intolerance from the ecclesiastical authorities made this refuge insecure, so, to escape persecution, he fled to Holland, and settled at Rotterdam. Here in the English Congregational church, Burroughs ministered alongside William Bridge (who had escaped from Norwich in 1636).
Besides being a victim of certain false political accusations, Burroughs was ater severely criticised by the Presbyterian Thomas Edwards for deserting his ministry (even though Christ permits avoiding persecution where possible, see Matthew 10: 23). His testimony to the Lord’s leading is full of interest:
It was four or five months after this accusation before I went to Rotterdam. Had not the prelatical faction been incensed against me, for standing out against their superstitions, I should have ventured to have stood to what I had spoken, for all I said was by way of query, affirming nothing. I knew how
dangerous the times then were. I knew what the power of the prelatical party at that time was, who were extremely incensed against me. A man’s innocency, then, could not be his safety. A mere accusation was enough then, to cause me to provide for my security. I was, by Bishop Wren, deprived of my living in Norfolk, in which, I believe, I endured as great a brunt as almost any of those who stayed in England; though Mr Edwards is pleased to say, we fled that we might be safe upon the shore, while our brethren were at sea in the storm. I believe neither he, nor scarcely any of our Presbyterian brethren, endured a harder storm at sea, than I did before I went out of England. Yet, I bless God, he stirred up noble friends to countenance and encourage me in my sufferings; for which I will not cease to pray that the blessing of God may be upon them and their families. For some months I lived with my lord of Warwick; with whom I found much undeserved love and respect, and was in the midst of as great encouragements to stay in England, as a man deprived, and under the
bishop’s rage, could expect; when I set myself in as a serious a manner as ever I did in my life, to examine my heart about my staying in England; whether some carnal respects, that countenance I had from divers noble friends, the offers of livings, did not begin to prevail too far with me. My spirit was much troubled with these thoughts: why do I still linger in England, where I cannot with peace enjoy what my soul longs after? Did I not formerly think, that if ever God took me clearly from my people, I would hasten to be where I might be free from such mixtures in God’s worship, without wringing my conscience any more? Why do I, therefore, now stay? Am I not under temptation? God knows these were the sad and serious workings of my spirit, and these workings were as strong as ever I felt them in my life.
Burroughs then explains an amazing providence that occurred while he struggled with his thoughts in the Tivetshall rectory:
While I was thus musing, thus troubled in my spirit, and lifting up my heart to God to help me, and set me at liberty, leaning upon my chamber window, I spied a man, in a citizen’s habit, coming in the court-yard towards my chamber; and upon his coming near, I knew him to be formerly a citizen of
Norwich but, at that time, one of the church at Rotterdam. When this man came near to me, he told me that he came lately from Rotterdam; and that he was sent there by the church to give me a call to join with Mr Bridge in the work of the Lord, in that church. When I heard him say this, I stood awhile
amazed at the providence of God; that, at such a time, a messenger should be sent to me upon such an errand. My heart, God knows, exceedingly rejoiced in this call. I presently told the man I saw God much in it, and dared not in the least to gainsay it. My heart did much close with it yet I desired to see the hand of God a little further. I required him to return my answer to the church, with a desire, that, as most of them knew me, they should give me their call under their own hands; then there would be nothing wanting, but I should be theirs; and thus we parted.” [The messenger from Rotterdam eventually returned with confirmation of Burroughs’ call].
Then, he says, “We agreed upon the day when, and the place where, we should meet in Norfolk, to make a full conclusion and prepare for our voyage."
Having enjoyed a fruitful ministry in the Netherlands, Burroughs returned to England at the beginning of the civil war in 1642. The Church of England having been abolished by the Puritan Parliament (the power of the bishops being terminated), Burroughs was determined ‘not to preach sedition, but peace; for which he earnestly prayed and laboured’. We must now briefly consider the religious context in which he ministered.
The Westminster Assembly
In 1643, Parliament adopted the Solemn League and Covenant and the Westminster Assembly was convened to reform the Anglican Church along presbyterian lines. The Assembly's proceedings were held from 1643-49. Their deliberations produced the Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, the Directory for Public Worship (a replacement for the Book of Common Prayer) and the Form of Church Government (the presbyterian alternative to episcopacy). These documents remain the doctrinal standards
for Presbyterians throughout the world.
For all that is truly biblical and commendable in these statements of the Reformed Faith (not without ultra-orthodox tendencies compared with Reformation Confessions), the entire Presbyterian programme was beset with coercive intolerance—the disease of Rome and Canterbury. Due to the procrastinations of earlier generations of Presbyterian Puritans, English nonconformity had grown into a wide spectrum of religious groups. The Presbyterian politicians and pastors, fearing anarchy and confusion, demanded prohibition with civil penalties of all the puritan sects—Independents, Baptists, Quakers and others. Now Cromwell—himself an Independent—and his Ironsides represented these more radical versions of Puritanism. They were predictably angered at Parliament’s proscribing tendencies especially before the war was even won! Presbyterian policy weakened the Army’s morale. Cromwell was happy whatever sectarian opinions his soldiers maintained so long as ‘the root of the matter’ was in them. Voices of protest within the Army were growing. Thus John Milton, destined to be Cromwell’s Latin secretary, wrote in one of his famous sonnets that ‘New Presbyter is but Old Priest writ large’.
This disarray within Puritanism was a major contribution to its eventual collapse. In 1648, Parliament decreed in the Ordinance of May 2 that eight anti-trinitarian errors(including the denial of the two natures of Christ) were to be punishable by death. Sixteen opinions—including the denial of infant baptism—were to be punishable by imprisonment. Only the military power of Cromwell and the Independents prevented this harsh statute from coming into effect. How tragic that the new Presbyterian establishment failed to see the counter-productivity of its intolerance. Indeed, all parties were tainted in this way. How often have persecuted groups persecuted others on acquiring political power! Human nature being what it is, doubtless Baptists and Quakers would have oppressed others had political power been in their grasp.
Truly, this was a tit-for-tat era. As intolerant Laud had driven Puritans out of the Church of England, so intolerant Presbyterians removed Laudian clergy (albeit for arguably more plausible reasons). The Restoration government was to have the last word in ejecting around two-thousand Puritans—mostly Presbyterians—in 1662.
Since it was our Dutch Reformed neighbours across the North Sea who provided the ultimate solution to our constitutional ills in 1688, the Anglo-Scottish Presbyterians would have done better to emulate them. Much
earlier, in the 1580s, the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (like the Huguenots in France, non-coercively Presbyterian), never forgetting their appalling sufferings at the hands of Spanish Catholics, decided to tolerate the Anabaptists. They acknowledged that failure to reach agreement in religious profession was God’s judgement on account of their sins. However, another factor must not be ignored. The Jesuits were by no means dormant in these turbulent years. According to information sent to the Jesuit
headquarters in Paris, they had successfully infiltrated Puritan ranks masquerading as Independent and Baptist radicals in order to foment divisions. Their objective—as ever—to discredit and destroy Protestantism.
Notwithstanding the disappointments of the times, the next century was to vindicate the essential case for Puritanism. Albeit born and nurtured within Anglicanism, the Methodist Evangelical awakening—in England and Wales—produced a dynamic movement which could not be contained within the confining forms and structures of the Established Church.
Dissenter at Westminster
Jeremiah Burroughs was one of several members of the Westminster Assembly who dissented from the Presbyterian programme. Benjamin Brook describes his London ministry and Assembly activities thus:
Mr Burroughs was a person highly honoured and esteemed, and he soon became a most popular and admired preacher. After his return, his popular talents and great worth presently excited public attention, and he was chosen preacher to the congregations of Stepney and Cripplegate, London, then accounted two of the largest congregations in England. Mr Burroughs preached at Stepney at seven o’clock in the morning, and Mr William Greenhill at three in the aftern oon. These two persons, stigmatized by Wood as notorious
schismatics and independents, were called in Stepney pulpit, by Mr Hugh Peters, one the morning star, the other the evening star of Stepney. Mr Burroughs was chosen one of the assembly of divines, and was one of the dissenting brethren, but a divine of great wisdom and moderation. He united with his brethren, Messrs Thomas Goodwin, Philip Nye, William Bridge, and Sydrach Sympson, in publishing their Apologetical Narration, in defence of their own distinguishing sentiments. The authors of this work, who had been exiles
for religion, to speak in their own language, “consulted time scriptures without any prejudice.” They “considered the word of God as impartially as men of flesh and blood are likely to do,” in any juncture of time; the place “they went to, the condition they wore in, and the company they were with, affording no
temptation to any bias.” They assert, that every church or congregation has sufficient power within itself for the regulation of religious government, and is subject to no external authority whatever. The principles upon which they founded their church government, were, to confine themselves in every thing to what the scriptures prescribed, without paying any regard to the opinions or practice of men; nor to tie themselves down so strictly to their present resolutions as to leave no room for alterations upon a further acquaintance
with divine truth. They steered a middle Course between Presbyterianism and Brownism: the former they accounted too arbitrary, the latter too rigid; deviating from the spirit and simplicity of the gospel. These are the general principles of the Independents of the present day.
Burroughs was therefore opposed to Presbyterian coercion, as Brook makes clear:
He was a divine of great piety, candour, and moderation; and during their debates, he generously declared, in the name of the independents, “That if their congregation might not be exempted from the coercive power of the classis; and if they might not have liberty to govern themselves in their own way, so long as they behaved themselves peaceably towards the civil magistrate, they were resolved to suffer, or go to some other part of the world, where they might enjoy their liberty. But,” said he, “while men think there is no way of peace but by forcing all to be of the same mind; while they think the civil sword is an ordinance of God to determine all controversies in divinity; and that it must needs be attended with fines and imprisonment to the disobedient; while they apprehend there is no medium between a strict uniformity and a general confusion of all things: while these sentiments prevail, there must be a base subjection of men’s consciences to slavery, a suppression of much truth, and great disturbances in the Christian world.”
Burroughs’ last years
‘After his return from exile’ says Brook, ‘he never gathered a separate congregation nor accepted of any parochial benefice, but continued to exhaust his strength by constant preaching, and other important services,
for the advantage of the Church of God. He was a divine of a most amiable and peaceable spirit; yet he had some bitter enemies, who, to their own disgrace, poured upon him their slander and falsehood. Mr Edwards, whose pen was mostly dipped in gall, pours upon him many reproachful and unfounded reflection’. Burroughs’ incessant labours, and his grief over the religious and civil disturbances of the times, are said to have hastened his end. Injured in a fall from his horse, he died from an infection on 14 November 1646, aged forty-seven.
Baxter’s assessment of Burroughs
Richard Baxter’s gracious and generous verdict on Jeremiah Burroughs could not be more different: ‘If all the Episcopalians had been like Archbishop Ussher; all the Presbyterians like Mr Stephen Marshall; and all
the Independents like Mr Jeremiah Burroughs, the breaches of the church would soon have been healed’. Consistent with his character, Burroughs preached and published his Irenicum: to the Lovers of Truth and Peace. It was a commendable attempt to heal the divisions among Christians.
Of Burroughs’ numerous books, Dr Daniel Williams wrote that his Exposition of Hosea ‘is a pleasing specimen, to shew how the popular preachers of his time applied the Scriptures, in their expository discourses, to the various cases of their hearers. He published several of his writings while he lived,
and his friends sent forth many others after his death, most of which were highly esteemed by all pious Christians’. The famous Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment, first published in 1648, went through many editions.
We close with a brief extract from the Rare Jewel. Exhorting us to be content in the love and salvation of our Lord Jesus Christ, with a humble dependence on God’s merciful providence day by day, Burroughs urges us
to view all our needs from an eternal perspective:
Thus it should be with us in this world, for the truth is, we are all in this world but as seafaring men, tossed up and down on the waves of the sea of this world, and our haven is Heaven; here we are travelling, and our home is a distant home in another world. Indeed some men have better comforts than others in travelling, and it is truly a great mercy of God to us in England that we can travel with such delight and comfort, much more so than they can in other countries, and through God’s mercy we have as great comforts in our travelling to Heaven in England as in any place under Heaven. Though we meet with travellers’ fare sometimes, yet it should not be grievous to us. The
Scripture tells us plainly that we must behave ourselves here as pilgrims and strangers: ‘Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul’ (1 Peter 2: 11). Consider what your condition is, you are pilgrims and strangers; so do not think to satisfy yourselves here. When a man comes into an inn and sees there a fair cupboard of plate, he is not troubled that it is not his own. — Why? Because he is going away. So let us not be troubled when we see that other men have great wealth, but we have not.—Why? We are going away to another country; you are, as it were, only lodging here, for a night. If you were to live a hundred years, in comparison to eternity it is not as much as a night, it is as though you were travelling, and had come to an inn. And what madness is it for a man to be discontented because he has not got what he sees there, seeing he may be going away again within less than quarter of an hour? You find the same in David: this was the argument that took David’s heart away from the things of this world, and set him on other things: ‘I am a stranger in the earth, hide not thy commandments from me’ (Ps. 119: 19). I am a stranger in the earth - what then? - then, Lord, let me have the knowledge of your commandments and it is sufficient.
God grant we might all be content in Christ, the almighty Saviour who loved us and gave Himself for us. Amen.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Edmund Calamy, An Account of the Ministers, Lecturers, Masters and Fellows of Colleges and Schoolmasters, who were Ejected or Silenced after the Restoration in 1660. By or before, the Act for Uniformity. Design’d for the preserving to Posterity, the Memory of their Names, Characters, Writings and Sufferings (London, 1713).
James Reid, Memoirs of the Westminster Divines (1811; facs. Edinburgh, 1982)
Benjamin Brook, The Lives of the Puritans, 3 vols (London, 1813)
Daniel Neal, The History of the Puritans, 5 vols (London, 1822)
A. H. Drysdale, History of the Presbyterians in England (London, 1889)
C. H. & T. Cooper, Athenae Cantabrigienses (Cambridge, 1861)
John Brown, History of Congregationalism and the Memorials of the Churches in Norfolk and Suffolk (London, 1877)
A. F. Scott Pearson, Thomas Cartwright and Elizabethan Puritanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 1925)
Albert Peel & Leland H. Carlson, Cartwrightiana: Elizabethan Nonconformist Texts (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1951)
J. Burroughs, The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment (1648; Edinburgh, 1964)
M. M. Knappen, Tudor Puritanism: A Chapter in the History of Idealism (Chicago, Phoenix ed., 1965)
C. G. Bolam, Jeremy Goring, H. L. Short, Roger Thomas, The English Presbyterians: Fom Elizabethan Puritanism to Modern Unitarianism (London, 1968)
H. C. Porter (ed), Puritanism in Tudor England (London, 1970)
Michael R. Watts, The Dissenters (Oxford, 1978)
M. E. Lonsdale, Hingham in History (Wymondham, n.d.)
Patrick Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (Oxford, 1991)
Muriel McClendon, The Quiet Reformation: Magistrates and the Emergence of Protestantism in Tudor Norwich (Stanford, 1999)
Patrick Collinson, John Craig, Brett Usher (eds), Conferences and Combination Lectures in the Elizabethan Church, 1582-1590 (Woodbridge, 2003)
Matthew Reynolds, Godly Reformers and their Opponents in Early Modern England: Religion in Norwich c.1560-1643 (Woodbridge, 2005)
PURITANS’ PROGRESS (Part 1 of 2)
Introduction (3)
A 350th Anniversary Commemoration of the Norwich & Norfolk Ministers Ejected from their Churches by the Act of Uniformity, 1662.
Dr Alan C. Clifford
Norwich Reformed Church (used here with his permission).
Remember those ... who have spoken the Word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct - Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and for ever. (Hebrews 13: 7-8)
A PAIR OF COUNTY PURITANS
(1) Robert Peck of Hingham
Introduction
In the decades following John More’s death (1592), the conflict between the Anglican establishment and Puritanism was reaching a climax. With nationwide sympathy for Puritan ideals having grown since the late 1560s, measures to suppress the movement had been initiated by Queen Elizabeth I (1558-1603) and King James I (1603-25). After Charles I (1625-49) became King, the appointment of William Laud as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633 saw the re-introduction of ‘Romanizing ritual’ into the (semi-) Reformed
Church of England. These measures included the ‘altarizing’ of the Lord’s Table, suitably raised up on steps and surrounded by a rail to mark it off as ‘too holy for the people’. Ministers were to wear the surplice rather than the Geneva gown (generally worn by Puritans), and preparatory preaching before the Holy Communion was to be discouraged. In short, whatever progress had been made in reforming the Church of England was to be reversed!
These measures were set in motion locally by Matthew Wren, Bishop of Norwich in 1636: ‘he, the more to manifest his Popish affections, caused a crucifix, that is to say, the figure of Christ upon the cross to be engraven upon his Episcopal seal, besides the arms of the See’.
Puritan resistanceAmong the many Puritan ministers in Norfolk to resist ‘Wren’s anti-reforms’ was Robert Peck of Hingham who, in 1638, with his wife and children, followed a large group of emigrating ‘pilgrims’—including Samuel Lincoln, ancestor of American President Abraham Lincoln—to the New World. All this was in consequence of Bishop Wren’s tyranny. However, Peck’s problems commenced much earlier under an equally-bigoted bishop, Samuel Harsnet (1619-28). Ordained by Bishop John Jegon (1602-17) in 1604, Peck became Rector of Hingham the next year. During the next two decades, his ministry aroused an increasing aversion to the rigidly-enforced Prayer Book liturgy with its sacramentalist ambiguities. He and his growing congregation now enjoyed additional informal fellowship in his own house on the Lord’s Day evenings. This included catechizing and psalm singing.
Bishop Harsnet was incensed at Peck’s unconventional practice. Such conventicle’s (secret religious meetings) must cease forthwith! So these nonconformists were enjoined to ‘do penance’, each guilty parishioner being required to say, “I confess my errors.” Those who refused were excommunicated and required to pay heavy fines. The citizens of Norwich presented a complaint against the bishop in the House of Commons. His Lordship’s defence indicated the kind of ‘errors’ he feared. Besides the holding of conventicles:
Mr Peck...had infected the parish was strange opinions: as, ‘that the people are not to kneel as they enter church; that it is superstition to bow at the name of Jesus; and that the church is no more sacred than any other building’.
Friction with Episcopal authority took place over an extended period (1615, 1617 and 1622). Then, when Archbishop William Laud’s ‘altarizing’ agenda was set in motion after 1633, local conflict was inevitable when Matthew Wren became bishop (1635-8). This policy—implemented throughout the Norwich diocese (including St Andrew’s, Hingham)—involved (as we have noted) the elevation of the sanctuary floor above the chancel and nave, the altar being railed off.
True to their convictions, Peck and his Puritan people removed and destroyed the altar rails, proceeding then to restore the east end to its original ‘Reformation’ level, installing a table instead of the stone altar. Such differences in architecture and furnishings indicated a fundamental theological difference, not merely aesthetic preferences. Peck and his people believed that ’the Church’ was ‘the people of God’ not a so-called sacred stone building. They held that the Holy Communion or Lord’s Supper was a celebration of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice on a table of remembrance, not a re-enactment of His sacrifice on an altar (as in the Mass). Together with all the Puritans of England, they were battling against Laud’s ‘Romanizing ritual’ in favour of the Gospel recovered at the Reformation. It cannot be denied that these remain defining issues in the Rome-ward ecumenical confusion of the 21st century.
Peck was summoned before a Synod held in Norwich on 9 October 1636. Refusing to appear personally, he was excommunicated by Dr Corbet, Chancellor of Norwich. Naturally, the pressure was getting to him. After seeking absolution in a moment of weakness, his courage returned when subscription to strongly-anti-Puritan articles was demanded. Peck was suspended from his duties, other curates performing the church services and administering the parish revenues as they pleased. This crisis led to an emigration to Massachusetts of a large group of Peck’s people, a contingent including the ancestor of Abraham Lincoln. Peck and his family went into hiding ‘in Essex’ (as one source states). His enemies said, ‘the old fox is
kennelled there’. A year later, they sailed to join their fellow pilgrims in New England.
The Old Meeting House Hingham, Massachusetts (built 1682)In Hingham, Massachusetts, Peck shared the oversight of the Puritan settlers with Peter Hobart (originally from Higham in Suffolk). Several years later (possibly in 1646), with the Puritans at home gaining more power, Peck returned to England—‘a pilgrim who returned’! Sometime prior to Oliver Cromwell’s Protectorate, he resumed his place as minister at Hingham. There he remained until his death in 1656. In his will, he desired to be buried ‘beside my wife and near my church’. The location of his grave is unknown. Peck’s funeral sermon was preached by his Puritan brother, Nathaniel Joceline, MA, pastor of nearby Hardingham. It is alleged that the sermon was published, but—sadly—no copies have been traced to date.
Perhaps more sadly, Peck’s successor Edmund Dey was not to join the noble 2000 at the Great Ejection of 1662. While he initially shared Peck’s Puritan convictions, he ‘swallowed the oaths at the Restoration’ and capitulated before the Act of Uniformity, dying in 1666.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Edmund Calamy, An Account of the Ministers, Lecturers, Masters and Fellows of Colleges and Schoolmasters, who were Ejected or Silenced after the Restoration in 1660. By or before, the Act for Uniformity. Design’d for the preserving to Posterity, the Memory of their Names, Characters, Writings and Sufferings (London, 1713).
James Reid, Memoirs of the Westminster Divines (1811; facs. Edinburgh, 1982)
Benjamin Brook, The Lives of the Puritans, 3 vols (London, 1813)
Daniel Neal, The History of the Puritans, 5 vols (London, 1822)
A. H. Drysdale, History of the Presbyterians in England (London, 1889)
C. H. & T. Cooper, Athenae Cantabrigienses (Cambridge, 1861)
John Brown, History of Congregationalism and the Memorials of the Churches in Norfolk and Suffolk (London, 1877)
A. F. Scott Pearson, Thomas Cartwright and Elizabethan Puritanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 1925)
Albert Peel & Leland H. Carlson, Cartwrightiana: Elizabethan Nonconformist Texts (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1951)
J. Burroughs, The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment (1648; Edinburgh, 1964)
M. M. Knappen, Tudor Puritanism: A Chapter in the History of Idealism (Chicago, Phoenix ed., 1965)
C. G. Bolam, Jeremy Goring, H. L. Short, Roger Thomas, The English Presbyterians: Fom Elizabethan Puritanism to Modern Unitarianism (London, 1968)
H. C. Porter (ed), Puritanism in Tudor England (London, 1970)
Michael R. Watts, The Dissenters (Oxford, 1978)
M. E. Lonsdale, Hingham in History (Wymondham, n.d.)
Patrick Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (Oxford, 1991)
Muriel McClendon, The Quiet Reformation: Magistrates and the Emergence of Protestantism in Tudor Norwich (Stanford, 1999)
Patrick Collinson, John Craig, Brett Usher (eds), Conferences and Combination Lectures in the Elizabethan Church, 1582-1590 (Woodbridge, 2003)
Matthew Reynolds, Godly Reformers and their Opponents in Early Modern England: Religion in Norwich c.1560-1643 (Woodbridge, 2005)
A 350th Anniversary Commemoration of the Norwich & Norfolk Ministers Ejected from their Churches by the Act of Uniformity, 1662.
Dr Alan C. Clifford
Norwich Reformed Church (used here with his permission).
Remember those ... who have spoken the Word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct - Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and for ever. (Hebrews 13: 7-8)
A PAIR OF COUNTY PURITANS
(1) Robert Peck of Hingham
Introduction
In the decades following John More’s death (1592), the conflict between the Anglican establishment and Puritanism was reaching a climax. With nationwide sympathy for Puritan ideals having grown since the late 1560s, measures to suppress the movement had been initiated by Queen Elizabeth I (1558-1603) and King James I (1603-25). After Charles I (1625-49) became King, the appointment of William Laud as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633 saw the re-introduction of ‘Romanizing ritual’ into the (semi-) Reformed
Church of England. These measures included the ‘altarizing’ of the Lord’s Table, suitably raised up on steps and surrounded by a rail to mark it off as ‘too holy for the people’. Ministers were to wear the surplice rather than the Geneva gown (generally worn by Puritans), and preparatory preaching before the Holy Communion was to be discouraged. In short, whatever progress had been made in reforming the Church of England was to be reversed!
These measures were set in motion locally by Matthew Wren, Bishop of Norwich in 1636: ‘he, the more to manifest his Popish affections, caused a crucifix, that is to say, the figure of Christ upon the cross to be engraven upon his Episcopal seal, besides the arms of the See’.
Puritan resistanceAmong the many Puritan ministers in Norfolk to resist ‘Wren’s anti-reforms’ was Robert Peck of Hingham who, in 1638, with his wife and children, followed a large group of emigrating ‘pilgrims’—including Samuel Lincoln, ancestor of American President Abraham Lincoln—to the New World. All this was in consequence of Bishop Wren’s tyranny. However, Peck’s problems commenced much earlier under an equally-bigoted bishop, Samuel Harsnet (1619-28). Ordained by Bishop John Jegon (1602-17) in 1604, Peck became Rector of Hingham the next year. During the next two decades, his ministry aroused an increasing aversion to the rigidly-enforced Prayer Book liturgy with its sacramentalist ambiguities. He and his growing congregation now enjoyed additional informal fellowship in his own house on the Lord’s Day evenings. This included catechizing and psalm singing.
Bishop Harsnet was incensed at Peck’s unconventional practice. Such conventicle’s (secret religious meetings) must cease forthwith! So these nonconformists were enjoined to ‘do penance’, each guilty parishioner being required to say, “I confess my errors.” Those who refused were excommunicated and required to pay heavy fines. The citizens of Norwich presented a complaint against the bishop in the House of Commons. His Lordship’s defence indicated the kind of ‘errors’ he feared. Besides the holding of conventicles:
Mr Peck...had infected the parish was strange opinions: as, ‘that the people are not to kneel as they enter church; that it is superstition to bow at the name of Jesus; and that the church is no more sacred than any other building’.
Friction with Episcopal authority took place over an extended period (1615, 1617 and 1622). Then, when Archbishop William Laud’s ‘altarizing’ agenda was set in motion after 1633, local conflict was inevitable when Matthew Wren became bishop (1635-8). This policy—implemented throughout the Norwich diocese (including St Andrew’s, Hingham)—involved (as we have noted) the elevation of the sanctuary floor above the chancel and nave, the altar being railed off.
True to their convictions, Peck and his Puritan people removed and destroyed the altar rails, proceeding then to restore the east end to its original ‘Reformation’ level, installing a table instead of the stone altar. Such differences in architecture and furnishings indicated a fundamental theological difference, not merely aesthetic preferences. Peck and his people believed that ’the Church’ was ‘the people of God’ not a so-called sacred stone building. They held that the Holy Communion or Lord’s Supper was a celebration of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice on a table of remembrance, not a re-enactment of His sacrifice on an altar (as in the Mass). Together with all the Puritans of England, they were battling against Laud’s ‘Romanizing ritual’ in favour of the Gospel recovered at the Reformation. It cannot be denied that these remain defining issues in the Rome-ward ecumenical confusion of the 21st century.
Peck was summoned before a Synod held in Norwich on 9 October 1636. Refusing to appear personally, he was excommunicated by Dr Corbet, Chancellor of Norwich. Naturally, the pressure was getting to him. After seeking absolution in a moment of weakness, his courage returned when subscription to strongly-anti-Puritan articles was demanded. Peck was suspended from his duties, other curates performing the church services and administering the parish revenues as they pleased. This crisis led to an emigration to Massachusetts of a large group of Peck’s people, a contingent including the ancestor of Abraham Lincoln. Peck and his family went into hiding ‘in Essex’ (as one source states). His enemies said, ‘the old fox is
kennelled there’. A year later, they sailed to join their fellow pilgrims in New England.
The Old Meeting House Hingham, Massachusetts (built 1682)In Hingham, Massachusetts, Peck shared the oversight of the Puritan settlers with Peter Hobart (originally from Higham in Suffolk). Several years later (possibly in 1646), with the Puritans at home gaining more power, Peck returned to England—‘a pilgrim who returned’! Sometime prior to Oliver Cromwell’s Protectorate, he resumed his place as minister at Hingham. There he remained until his death in 1656. In his will, he desired to be buried ‘beside my wife and near my church’. The location of his grave is unknown. Peck’s funeral sermon was preached by his Puritan brother, Nathaniel Joceline, MA, pastor of nearby Hardingham. It is alleged that the sermon was published, but—sadly—no copies have been traced to date.
Perhaps more sadly, Peck’s successor Edmund Dey was not to join the noble 2000 at the Great Ejection of 1662. While he initially shared Peck’s Puritan convictions, he ‘swallowed the oaths at the Restoration’ and capitulated before the Act of Uniformity, dying in 1666.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Edmund Calamy, An Account of the Ministers, Lecturers, Masters and Fellows of Colleges and Schoolmasters, who were Ejected or Silenced after the Restoration in 1660. By or before, the Act for Uniformity. Design’d for the preserving to Posterity, the Memory of their Names, Characters, Writings and Sufferings (London, 1713).
James Reid, Memoirs of the Westminster Divines (1811; facs. Edinburgh, 1982)
Benjamin Brook, The Lives of the Puritans, 3 vols (London, 1813)
Daniel Neal, The History of the Puritans, 5 vols (London, 1822)
A. H. Drysdale, History of the Presbyterians in England (London, 1889)
C. H. & T. Cooper, Athenae Cantabrigienses (Cambridge, 1861)
John Brown, History of Congregationalism and the Memorials of the Churches in Norfolk and Suffolk (London, 1877)
A. F. Scott Pearson, Thomas Cartwright and Elizabethan Puritanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 1925)
Albert Peel & Leland H. Carlson, Cartwrightiana: Elizabethan Nonconformist Texts (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1951)
J. Burroughs, The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment (1648; Edinburgh, 1964)
M. M. Knappen, Tudor Puritanism: A Chapter in the History of Idealism (Chicago, Phoenix ed., 1965)
C. G. Bolam, Jeremy Goring, H. L. Short, Roger Thomas, The English Presbyterians: Fom Elizabethan Puritanism to Modern Unitarianism (London, 1968)
H. C. Porter (ed), Puritanism in Tudor England (London, 1970)
Michael R. Watts, The Dissenters (Oxford, 1978)
M. E. Lonsdale, Hingham in History (Wymondham, n.d.)
Patrick Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (Oxford, 1991)
Muriel McClendon, The Quiet Reformation: Magistrates and the Emergence of Protestantism in Tudor Norwich (Stanford, 1999)
Patrick Collinson, John Craig, Brett Usher (eds), Conferences and Combination Lectures in the Elizabethan Church, 1582-1590 (Woodbridge, 2003)
Matthew Reynolds, Godly Reformers and their Opponents in Early Modern England: Religion in Norwich c.1560-1643 (Woodbridge, 2005)
Wednesday 28 March 2012
Staying Fit
Have you visited my other website at www.reallyliving2008.blogspot.com ? Since the Gospel is concerned about the whole man, this might well be of help to you, or to someone you know. Please visit here and find out some things that might help you be fit and well in your service for the Lord.
The Gospel Entertainment Industry
Have you noticed how people within the evangelical church are quick learners - especially when it comes to making considerable extra money from the Gospel? Some men have become very wealthy by making merchandise of the Gospel. First, there were vinyl records (EPs and LPs) with Gospel songs sung by evangelicals; then videos were made of Christians singing Gospel songs; then, CDs became the 'in' thing, and now it is DVDs that people buy; and all the while, the artists make a killing out of the Gospel.
But this does not happen only here. When these artists are asked to do a Gospel concert, they charge, and the promoters pay, a hefty fee for the privilege. Even when a Christian is asked to sing at a wedding, there is an excessive charge for singing two songs - up to as much as £80.
Now, the sad thing is that some Christians are so naive that they are taken in by this commercialisation of the Gospel. It seems that you cannot ask a Christian to do anything today in the service of Christ without their charging a fee for doing so. I suppose that they have learned from well-known Gospel singers who have made a fortune from Gospel singing, and they have now jumped on the bandwagon.
Evangelical ministers have endorsed this practice and have given the Gospel singing industry a justification by referring to it as a 'ministry in song.' Many parts of the evangelical church have lifted Gospel singing to the level of 'a ministry.' A Gospel sub-culture has been developed in which businesses have been set up with the purpose of making a career out of the ministry of the Gospel. Why else do the practitioners within this industry have not only one or two jobs, but more!
What makes it even more unbelievable is that, unlike the days of the apostles when they were persecuted and hounded for the Gospel, some imprisoned and many gave their lives for their testimony, these Gospel performers are actually applauded by their tantalised hearers. The Reformers, the Huguenots, the Covenanters, the Puritans, the eighteenth century Methodists, these all bore the stigma of the Cross because of their ministries.
But not the modern Gospel performers; no, no. They are applauded, admired, regarded as great performers; but they are not persecuted and oppressed and opposed because they 'stand' for the Gospel of Christ. They get more bookings for future performances because of their past performances. But at the end of the day, that is all they are - mere performances. And we pay a heavy price for them.
But this does not happen only here. When these artists are asked to do a Gospel concert, they charge, and the promoters pay, a hefty fee for the privilege. Even when a Christian is asked to sing at a wedding, there is an excessive charge for singing two songs - up to as much as £80.
Now, the sad thing is that some Christians are so naive that they are taken in by this commercialisation of the Gospel. It seems that you cannot ask a Christian to do anything today in the service of Christ without their charging a fee for doing so. I suppose that they have learned from well-known Gospel singers who have made a fortune from Gospel singing, and they have now jumped on the bandwagon.
Evangelical ministers have endorsed this practice and have given the Gospel singing industry a justification by referring to it as a 'ministry in song.' Many parts of the evangelical church have lifted Gospel singing to the level of 'a ministry.' A Gospel sub-culture has been developed in which businesses have been set up with the purpose of making a career out of the ministry of the Gospel. Why else do the practitioners within this industry have not only one or two jobs, but more!
What makes it even more unbelievable is that, unlike the days of the apostles when they were persecuted and hounded for the Gospel, some imprisoned and many gave their lives for their testimony, these Gospel performers are actually applauded by their tantalised hearers. The Reformers, the Huguenots, the Covenanters, the Puritans, the eighteenth century Methodists, these all bore the stigma of the Cross because of their ministries.
But not the modern Gospel performers; no, no. They are applauded, admired, regarded as great performers; but they are not persecuted and oppressed and opposed because they 'stand' for the Gospel of Christ. They get more bookings for future performances because of their past performances. But at the end of the day, that is all they are - mere performances. And we pay a heavy price for them.
Tuesday 27 March 2012
God's Simple Gospel
Isn't it great that the Gospel is the only message that can deal with the spiritual and eternal problems of people of any condition or status in life? It is shallow enough for a child to paddle in but deep enough for an elephant to swim in - I think it was Dr Leon L. Morris who made this point in the introductory section of his commentary on John's Gospel.
But how true! And how insightful! Fallen man tends always to make the Gospel a complicated and complex thing. He wishes to adorn it with 'all kinds of everything.' He wants it to become so deep that a child cannot grasp it.
But the Gospel of Jesus Christ is essentially simple - it can be understood by the merest child. Thank God that is true. No one would ever be saved were it not true that sinners like us can actually understand enough of it to commit ourselves to it. It is simple; but it is not simplistic - whatever that means. Its profundity can be put across in simple enough terms and language.
So let us preach this Gospel will all directness, leaving asside all those dry academic niceties that keep some people in jobs. Let us preach this soul-saving message in the power of the Holy Spirit.
But how true! And how insightful! Fallen man tends always to make the Gospel a complicated and complex thing. He wishes to adorn it with 'all kinds of everything.' He wants it to become so deep that a child cannot grasp it.
But the Gospel of Jesus Christ is essentially simple - it can be understood by the merest child. Thank God that is true. No one would ever be saved were it not true that sinners like us can actually understand enough of it to commit ourselves to it. It is simple; but it is not simplistic - whatever that means. Its profundity can be put across in simple enough terms and language.
So let us preach this Gospel will all directness, leaving asside all those dry academic niceties that keep some people in jobs. Let us preach this soul-saving message in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Monday 26 March 2012
The Manse Widows
This has always been a problem in the church and especially for dedicated ministers of the Gospel. It is profoundly gratifying to know that there are men who have given themselves to the work of the ministry, and who see themselves as preachers of the Gospel. It is refreshing to see their zeal and determination to preach Christ and Him crucified.
But this comes at a price! If a minister is single, such as the late Rev. Dr John Stott and Rev Dick Lucas in London and the late Rev William Still in Aberdeen were, then there is no big problem. These were single men who had the freedom to exercise their ministries as they saw fit. They had no family responsibilities to restrict how they developed their ministries. They were single men and they would live and work as single men.
But the married minister does not have that freedom. He has voluntarily taken on additional responsibilities so he now has his wife and family to give adequate time to. He is a married man who cannot now live as if he were a single man. When he married he voluntarily undertook to live from hence forth as a married man. For a married man to live as a single man is unfaithfulness to Christ however else he might chose to describe it.
The married man's priorities are: First to Christ; second to his wife and family, and thirdly to his work in the church. His wife and family always come in between his relationship to Christ and to His church. This is necessarily the case.
I remember listening (as a young assistant minister) with bated breath to a church Moderator who was by this time into his sixties, confessing with brokenness to the fact that he put the church before his family and as a result lost his family. He was elected Moderator because he was seen as a good church man. But for him it was a very hollow honour; what can make up for losing your family for Christ when you put the church before Christ!
What a warning this was. I had to fight against the temptation to put the church before my family, and most importantly before Christ in my life. My role was to set a good example to church members and my fellow Christians. If another Christian is having difficulties in his marriage and he comes to you for counsel, and the problem is that he is not spending enough time with his wife and family, what can you say to him? How can you, with any credibility, say to this man that he has a responsibility to his wife and family when you, yourself, are defaulting in this very way.
'Manse widows' are usually found where a husband is dedicated to the service of Christ and where that same man is not fulfilling his marriage vows in the way he would expect others to do. There must surely be a ministry to 'manse widows' who feel lonely, not valued, and overlooked. These very special women will wonder why their husbands are prepared to give more time with other people than they are prepared to spend with them.
There needs to be a radical overhaul of ministry when this kind of thing occurs. That is not to suggest or imply that the church has got it wrong with respect to full-time ministry. It is to admit, however, that ministers sometimes get it wrong when it comes to apportioning their time between work and home life.
But this comes at a price! If a minister is single, such as the late Rev. Dr John Stott and Rev Dick Lucas in London and the late Rev William Still in Aberdeen were, then there is no big problem. These were single men who had the freedom to exercise their ministries as they saw fit. They had no family responsibilities to restrict how they developed their ministries. They were single men and they would live and work as single men.
But the married minister does not have that freedom. He has voluntarily taken on additional responsibilities so he now has his wife and family to give adequate time to. He is a married man who cannot now live as if he were a single man. When he married he voluntarily undertook to live from hence forth as a married man. For a married man to live as a single man is unfaithfulness to Christ however else he might chose to describe it.
The married man's priorities are: First to Christ; second to his wife and family, and thirdly to his work in the church. His wife and family always come in between his relationship to Christ and to His church. This is necessarily the case.
I remember listening (as a young assistant minister) with bated breath to a church Moderator who was by this time into his sixties, confessing with brokenness to the fact that he put the church before his family and as a result lost his family. He was elected Moderator because he was seen as a good church man. But for him it was a very hollow honour; what can make up for losing your family for Christ when you put the church before Christ!
What a warning this was. I had to fight against the temptation to put the church before my family, and most importantly before Christ in my life. My role was to set a good example to church members and my fellow Christians. If another Christian is having difficulties in his marriage and he comes to you for counsel, and the problem is that he is not spending enough time with his wife and family, what can you say to him? How can you, with any credibility, say to this man that he has a responsibility to his wife and family when you, yourself, are defaulting in this very way.
'Manse widows' are usually found where a husband is dedicated to the service of Christ and where that same man is not fulfilling his marriage vows in the way he would expect others to do. There must surely be a ministry to 'manse widows' who feel lonely, not valued, and overlooked. These very special women will wonder why their husbands are prepared to give more time with other people than they are prepared to spend with them.
There needs to be a radical overhaul of ministry when this kind of thing occurs. That is not to suggest or imply that the church has got it wrong with respect to full-time ministry. It is to admit, however, that ministers sometimes get it wrong when it comes to apportioning their time between work and home life.
The Rule of Faith and Practice
What a great encouragement it is to realise that there are at least some evangelical and reformed minsters who not only believe but seek to implement the reformation principle of the final authority of Scripture in every aspect of church life. And they do exist, even in Northern Ireland. While there are many men who take the reformed evangelical tag, not all of them seek to submit everything in church life to the touch stone of Scripture. "To the Word and to the testimony" is not really in their vocabulary at all. And their church life demonstrates little or no evidence that this is their practice.
How often we see how local church leaders try to pressurise the minister of the Gospel into applying increasingly lower standards to church life, and all in a bid to increase numbers in the congregation. And how frequently it is that these church leaders try to squeeze the minister into their narrow and at times worldly mould.
But thank God for those good men who are prepared to stand up and proclaim the authority of Scripture in the church of Christ. This is an urgently needed emphasis in the church today. Men try to implement all their schemes in order to attract the world into the church of Christ, and they do this under the pretext of evangelisation. In reality, they want to be able to boast of their numbers and activities. They multiply organisations and in so doing bring division into church families and therefore into the church itself. Many churches have become caterers; they want to cater for every special interest group within its bounds. All age groups must be catered for, both (or all) genders, all needs.
But as it clearly the case in the biblical church, the greatest responsibility of the Christian Church is to be the proclaimer of the Gospel of saving grace in Christ Jesus alone. No other body has been given this responsibility, none. This is the church's unique domain and calling - to preach the word (Gk. keruxov tov logov, 2 Tim.4:2). Acts 2:42 details the practice of the infant church in Jerusalem, and they were all exclusively spiritual activities.
Once the church gets into all kinds of entertainment-type activities, she has departed from the clear mandate of Acts 2:42. The moment she becomes, or tries to become, 'all things to all men,' in the sense of trying to run something for everyone, she has diluted her energies by so doing.
The most pressing need for the church today is a return to the full and final authority of Christ in His Church. She must again submit herself to Christ's Lordship in all things. She must yield herself totally to her Lord and Saviour, a surrender that must become part and parcel of her activity and life. It is not sufficient just to renew a covenant of some kind if there is not a hearty response to the terms of the covenant. There must also be a constant drive for increasing submission to Christ as He has revealed Himself in the Scriptures. The church today must prostrate herself before God's Throne, seek His forgiveness for her coldness and unfaithfulness, and reconsecrate herself to Him in all things. She must be the church and not an mere institution. The life of Christ her Lord must not only be confessed but demonstrated in and through her life.
That will be a most costly business. She will have to deal with the unbelievers within her membership if she is to be submissive to Christ as Lord. She must ensure that her elders are godly men, and not, as so many are, filthy-mouthed, cursing and swearing blasphemers, not a few womanisers, and some extremely poor role models for the new generation. She must look again at her ministry and ascertain who is and who is not preaching the Gospel with power and faithfulness. A man may be an evangelical by profession but if his preaching is not a passionate presentation of Christ in all His saving fulness; if it does not plead with sinners to come to Him Who alone can save them; if it does not 'nail sinners to their pews' as they listen to the preaching, then they must be asked to re-train as preachers, or at least promise to conduct a deep assessment of their preaching ministry - its content and its approach - with their peers in the ministry who are preachers, and even bringing in outside specialists who have proved themselves as preachers of the Gospel. Ministers who are mere time-servers - and there are many - must be encouraged to leave the ministry or take early retirement, and not allowed to become Sunday supplies for the rest of their lives.
The ministry needs a radical shake-up if it is to 'cut the ice' in today's decadent world. The church be seen to be different from the world, not like it - as many are becoming.
How often we see how local church leaders try to pressurise the minister of the Gospel into applying increasingly lower standards to church life, and all in a bid to increase numbers in the congregation. And how frequently it is that these church leaders try to squeeze the minister into their narrow and at times worldly mould.
But thank God for those good men who are prepared to stand up and proclaim the authority of Scripture in the church of Christ. This is an urgently needed emphasis in the church today. Men try to implement all their schemes in order to attract the world into the church of Christ, and they do this under the pretext of evangelisation. In reality, they want to be able to boast of their numbers and activities. They multiply organisations and in so doing bring division into church families and therefore into the church itself. Many churches have become caterers; they want to cater for every special interest group within its bounds. All age groups must be catered for, both (or all) genders, all needs.
But as it clearly the case in the biblical church, the greatest responsibility of the Christian Church is to be the proclaimer of the Gospel of saving grace in Christ Jesus alone. No other body has been given this responsibility, none. This is the church's unique domain and calling - to preach the word (Gk. keruxov tov logov, 2 Tim.4:2). Acts 2:42 details the practice of the infant church in Jerusalem, and they were all exclusively spiritual activities.
Once the church gets into all kinds of entertainment-type activities, she has departed from the clear mandate of Acts 2:42. The moment she becomes, or tries to become, 'all things to all men,' in the sense of trying to run something for everyone, she has diluted her energies by so doing.
The most pressing need for the church today is a return to the full and final authority of Christ in His Church. She must again submit herself to Christ's Lordship in all things. She must yield herself totally to her Lord and Saviour, a surrender that must become part and parcel of her activity and life. It is not sufficient just to renew a covenant of some kind if there is not a hearty response to the terms of the covenant. There must also be a constant drive for increasing submission to Christ as He has revealed Himself in the Scriptures. The church today must prostrate herself before God's Throne, seek His forgiveness for her coldness and unfaithfulness, and reconsecrate herself to Him in all things. She must be the church and not an mere institution. The life of Christ her Lord must not only be confessed but demonstrated in and through her life.
That will be a most costly business. She will have to deal with the unbelievers within her membership if she is to be submissive to Christ as Lord. She must ensure that her elders are godly men, and not, as so many are, filthy-mouthed, cursing and swearing blasphemers, not a few womanisers, and some extremely poor role models for the new generation. She must look again at her ministry and ascertain who is and who is not preaching the Gospel with power and faithfulness. A man may be an evangelical by profession but if his preaching is not a passionate presentation of Christ in all His saving fulness; if it does not plead with sinners to come to Him Who alone can save them; if it does not 'nail sinners to their pews' as they listen to the preaching, then they must be asked to re-train as preachers, or at least promise to conduct a deep assessment of their preaching ministry - its content and its approach - with their peers in the ministry who are preachers, and even bringing in outside specialists who have proved themselves as preachers of the Gospel. Ministers who are mere time-servers - and there are many - must be encouraged to leave the ministry or take early retirement, and not allowed to become Sunday supplies for the rest of their lives.
The ministry needs a radical shake-up if it is to 'cut the ice' in today's decadent world. The church be seen to be different from the world, not like it - as many are becoming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)