Monday, March 26, 2007
Dissolution of the ERCS
The ERCS classis on 3 March 07 decided to dissolve the ERCS. The effective date is on 30 June 07. This date gives members of FERC sufficient time to transfer their membership and for the finance and management committee of the ERCS enough time to put their house in order before closing shop. May the Lord be merciful to us.
Friday, March 16, 2007
The Urgency of Preaching by R. Albert Mohler, Jr
The Urgency of Preaching
R. Albert Mohler Jr.
And how will they hear without a preacher?Romans 10:14
Has preaching fallen on hard times? An open debate is now being waged over the character and centrality of preaching in the church. At stake is nothing less than the integrity of Christian worship and proclamation.
How did this happen? Given the central place of preaching in the New Testament church, it would seem that the priority of biblical preaching should be uncontested. After all, as John A. Broadus--one of Southern Seminary's founding faculty--famously remarked, "Preaching is characteristic of Christianity. No other religion has made the regular and frequent assembling of groups of people, to hear religious instruction and exhortation, an integral part of Christian worship."
Yet, numerous influential voices within evangelicalism suggest that the age of the expository sermon is now past. In its place, some contemporary preachers now substitute messages intentionally designed to reach secular or superficial congregations--messages which avoid preaching a biblical text, and thus avoid a potentially embarrassing confrontation with biblical truth.
A subtle shift visible at the onset of the twentieth century has become a great divide as the century ends. The shift from expository preaching to more topical and human-centered approaches has grown into a debate over the place of Scripture in preaching, and the nature of preaching itself.
Two famous statements about preaching illustrate this growing divide. Reflecting poetically on the urgency and centrality of preaching, the Puritan pastor Richard Baxter once remarked, "I preach as never sure to preach again, and as a dying man to dying men." With vivid expression and a sense of gospel gravity, Baxter understood that preaching is literally a life or death affair. Eternity hangs in the balance as the preacher proclaims the Word.
Contrast that statement to the words of Harry Emerson Fosdick, perhaps the most famous (or infamous) preacher of this century's early decades. Fosdick, pastor of the Riverside Church in New York City, provides an instructive contrast to the venerable Baxter. "Preaching," he explained, "is personal counseling on a group basis."
These two statements about preaching reveal the contours of the contemporary debate. For Baxter, the promise of heaven and the horrors of hell frame the preacher's consuming burden. For Fosdick, the preacher is a kindly counselor offering helpful advice and encouragement.
The current debate over preaching is most commonly explained as a argument about the focus and shape of the sermon. Should the preacher seek to preach a biblical text through an expository sermon? Or, should the preacher direct the sermon to the "felt needs" and perceived concerns of the hearers?
Clearly, many evangelicals now favor the second approach. Urged on by devotees of "needs-based preaching," many evangelicals have abandoned the text without recognizing that they have done so. These preachers may eventually get to the text in the course of the sermon, but the text does not set the agenda or establish the shape of the message.
Focusing on so-called "perceived needs" and allowing these needs to set the preaching agenda inevitably leads to a loss of biblical authority and biblical content in the sermon. Yet, this pattern is increasingly the norm in many evangelical pulpits. Fosdick must be smiling from the grave.
Earlier evangelicals recognized Fosdick's approach as a rejection of biblical preaching. An out-of-the-closet theological liberal, Fosdick paraded his rejection of biblical inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility--and rejected other doctrines central to the Christian faith. Enamored with trends in psychological theory, Fosdick became liberal Protestantism's happy pulpit therapist. The goal of his preaching was well captured by the title of one of his many books, On Being a Real Person.
Shockingly, this is now the approach evident in many evangelical pulpits. The sacred desk has become an advice center and the pew has become the therapist's couch. Psychological and practical concerns have displaced theological exegesis and the preacher directs his sermon to the congregation's perceived needs.
The problem is, of course, that the sinner does not know what his most urgent need is. She is blind to her need for redemption and reconciliation with God, and focuses on potentially real but temporal needs such as personal fulfillment, financial security, family peace, and career advancement. Too many sermons settle for answering these expressed needs and concerns, and fail to proclaim the Word of Truth.
Without doubt, few preachers following this popular trend intend to depart from the Bible. But under the guise of an intention to reach modern secular men and women "where they are," the sermon has been transformed into a success seminar. Some verses of Scripture may be added to the mix, but for a sermon to be genuinely biblical, the text must set the agenda as the foundation of the message--not as an authority cited for spiritual footnoting.
Charles Spurgeon confronted the very same pattern of wavering pulpits in his own day. Some of the most fashionable and well-attended London churches featured pulpiteers who were the precursors to modern needs-based preachers. Spurgeon--who managed to draw a few hearers despite his insistence on biblical preaching--confessed that "The true ambassador for Christ feels that he himself stands before God and has to deal with souls in God's stead as God's servant, and stands in a solemn place--a place in which unfaithfulness is inhumanity to man as well as treason to God."
Spurgeon and Baxter understood the dangerous mandate of the preacher, and were therefore driven to the Bible as their only authority and message. They left their pulpits trembling with urgent concern for the souls of their hearers and fully aware of their accountability to God for preaching His Word, and His Word alone. Their sermons were measured by power; Fosdick's by popularity.
The current debate over preaching may well shake congregations, denominations, and the evangelical movement. But know this: The recovery and renewal of the church in this generation will come only when from pulpit to pulpit the herald preaches as never sure to preach again, and as a dying man to dying men.
R. Albert Mohler Jr.
And how will they hear without a preacher?Romans 10:14
Has preaching fallen on hard times? An open debate is now being waged over the character and centrality of preaching in the church. At stake is nothing less than the integrity of Christian worship and proclamation.
How did this happen? Given the central place of preaching in the New Testament church, it would seem that the priority of biblical preaching should be uncontested. After all, as John A. Broadus--one of Southern Seminary's founding faculty--famously remarked, "Preaching is characteristic of Christianity. No other religion has made the regular and frequent assembling of groups of people, to hear religious instruction and exhortation, an integral part of Christian worship."
Yet, numerous influential voices within evangelicalism suggest that the age of the expository sermon is now past. In its place, some contemporary preachers now substitute messages intentionally designed to reach secular or superficial congregations--messages which avoid preaching a biblical text, and thus avoid a potentially embarrassing confrontation with biblical truth.
A subtle shift visible at the onset of the twentieth century has become a great divide as the century ends. The shift from expository preaching to more topical and human-centered approaches has grown into a debate over the place of Scripture in preaching, and the nature of preaching itself.
Two famous statements about preaching illustrate this growing divide. Reflecting poetically on the urgency and centrality of preaching, the Puritan pastor Richard Baxter once remarked, "I preach as never sure to preach again, and as a dying man to dying men." With vivid expression and a sense of gospel gravity, Baxter understood that preaching is literally a life or death affair. Eternity hangs in the balance as the preacher proclaims the Word.
Contrast that statement to the words of Harry Emerson Fosdick, perhaps the most famous (or infamous) preacher of this century's early decades. Fosdick, pastor of the Riverside Church in New York City, provides an instructive contrast to the venerable Baxter. "Preaching," he explained, "is personal counseling on a group basis."
These two statements about preaching reveal the contours of the contemporary debate. For Baxter, the promise of heaven and the horrors of hell frame the preacher's consuming burden. For Fosdick, the preacher is a kindly counselor offering helpful advice and encouragement.
The current debate over preaching is most commonly explained as a argument about the focus and shape of the sermon. Should the preacher seek to preach a biblical text through an expository sermon? Or, should the preacher direct the sermon to the "felt needs" and perceived concerns of the hearers?
Clearly, many evangelicals now favor the second approach. Urged on by devotees of "needs-based preaching," many evangelicals have abandoned the text without recognizing that they have done so. These preachers may eventually get to the text in the course of the sermon, but the text does not set the agenda or establish the shape of the message.
Focusing on so-called "perceived needs" and allowing these needs to set the preaching agenda inevitably leads to a loss of biblical authority and biblical content in the sermon. Yet, this pattern is increasingly the norm in many evangelical pulpits. Fosdick must be smiling from the grave.
Earlier evangelicals recognized Fosdick's approach as a rejection of biblical preaching. An out-of-the-closet theological liberal, Fosdick paraded his rejection of biblical inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility--and rejected other doctrines central to the Christian faith. Enamored with trends in psychological theory, Fosdick became liberal Protestantism's happy pulpit therapist. The goal of his preaching was well captured by the title of one of his many books, On Being a Real Person.
Shockingly, this is now the approach evident in many evangelical pulpits. The sacred desk has become an advice center and the pew has become the therapist's couch. Psychological and practical concerns have displaced theological exegesis and the preacher directs his sermon to the congregation's perceived needs.
The problem is, of course, that the sinner does not know what his most urgent need is. She is blind to her need for redemption and reconciliation with God, and focuses on potentially real but temporal needs such as personal fulfillment, financial security, family peace, and career advancement. Too many sermons settle for answering these expressed needs and concerns, and fail to proclaim the Word of Truth.
Without doubt, few preachers following this popular trend intend to depart from the Bible. But under the guise of an intention to reach modern secular men and women "where they are," the sermon has been transformed into a success seminar. Some verses of Scripture may be added to the mix, but for a sermon to be genuinely biblical, the text must set the agenda as the foundation of the message--not as an authority cited for spiritual footnoting.
Charles Spurgeon confronted the very same pattern of wavering pulpits in his own day. Some of the most fashionable and well-attended London churches featured pulpiteers who were the precursors to modern needs-based preachers. Spurgeon--who managed to draw a few hearers despite his insistence on biblical preaching--confessed that "The true ambassador for Christ feels that he himself stands before God and has to deal with souls in God's stead as God's servant, and stands in a solemn place--a place in which unfaithfulness is inhumanity to man as well as treason to God."
Spurgeon and Baxter understood the dangerous mandate of the preacher, and were therefore driven to the Bible as their only authority and message. They left their pulpits trembling with urgent concern for the souls of their hearers and fully aware of their accountability to God for preaching His Word, and His Word alone. Their sermons were measured by power; Fosdick's by popularity.
The current debate over preaching may well shake congregations, denominations, and the evangelical movement. But know this: The recovery and renewal of the church in this generation will come only when from pulpit to pulpit the herald preaches as never sure to preach again, and as a dying man to dying men.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
The ERCS (Evangelical Reformed Churches in Singapore) will be taking a vote concerning the matter of the dissolution of the ERCS. This will take place in the Class is of 3 March 2007. I would like to offer my personal reflections on how this state of affairs came to the ERCS after bring existence since 1982.
1. The teaching of Divorce and Remarriage were not clearly and explicitly preached and taught. This is evident when the older members cannot recall a single sermon devoted to such a topic. This teaching was neglected, perhaps, they did not see a real need for preaching on a topic or a scenario that did not exist in that time.
2. There was a growing group of people that preferred the theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith rather than the 3 Forms of Unity, as represented by the Protestant Reformed Churches. So, naturally, when the issue came up many opted with the viewpoint of the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Lessons learnt from this controversy
1. The whole counsel of God must be taught, even though there was no current case. In fact, through our controversy we have learnt that it is much too late to wait for an existing case to happen to begin preaching. When this controversy came about, the ERCS classis forbid preaching on this matter.
2. Churches must preach the Word of God concerning D & R, and not be silent on this matter. Furthermore, the life of the churches ought to reflect the new distinctive and not deny this truth.
3. There is a need to separate from the other church that takes another view, that is, Remarriage of the Innocent party.
What are the reasons?
a. The issue is a matter of sin, and not an indifferent matter or a matter of opinions but a strong conviction of God's Word
b. A continance in this denomination or association will cause us to deny the truth of No - Remarriage. This is the case bacause whenever there are combined meetings there is an unwritten rule of understanding that we are not to speak of things that divide but speak of things that unite.
c. Such an association will hamper the growth of the Church so that she will not be able to grow as she ought to
c. If we ever have joint activities, we must go there with the aim to call them to repentance. Fellowship is out of the question as they have committed an error and such an error will lead to sin.
1. The teaching of Divorce and Remarriage were not clearly and explicitly preached and taught. This is evident when the older members cannot recall a single sermon devoted to such a topic. This teaching was neglected, perhaps, they did not see a real need for preaching on a topic or a scenario that did not exist in that time.
2. There was a growing group of people that preferred the theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith rather than the 3 Forms of Unity, as represented by the Protestant Reformed Churches. So, naturally, when the issue came up many opted with the viewpoint of the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Lessons learnt from this controversy
1. The whole counsel of God must be taught, even though there was no current case. In fact, through our controversy we have learnt that it is much too late to wait for an existing case to happen to begin preaching. When this controversy came about, the ERCS classis forbid preaching on this matter.
2. Churches must preach the Word of God concerning D & R, and not be silent on this matter. Furthermore, the life of the churches ought to reflect the new distinctive and not deny this truth.
3. There is a need to separate from the other church that takes another view, that is, Remarriage of the Innocent party.
What are the reasons?
a. The issue is a matter of sin, and not an indifferent matter or a matter of opinions but a strong conviction of God's Word
b. A continance in this denomination or association will cause us to deny the truth of No - Remarriage. This is the case bacause whenever there are combined meetings there is an unwritten rule of understanding that we are not to speak of things that divide but speak of things that unite.
c. Such an association will hamper the growth of the Church so that she will not be able to grow as she ought to
c. If we ever have joint activities, we must go there with the aim to call them to repentance. Fellowship is out of the question as they have committed an error and such an error will lead to sin.
Monday, February 19, 2007
A book, "Christianity and Neo-Liberalism" by Paul M. Elliot
This is an excellent read. If you are a pastor, elder and deacon you ought to get a copy to read it. It is a very tragic account of a reputable theological seminary and groups of churches denying the fundamentals of the Christian Faith. This is a sad account where a reputable reformed seminary and group of churches succumbing to false doctrine. That this was deliberately kept from the people for about 30 years. And the tragic consequence is that this institution has produced ministers, missionaries that has infiltrated the Reformed churches with their errors. Now, the error is not a minor error but concerns the way of salvation. This is a worthy saying, "The church that does not learn from its errors are condemned to repeat its errors"
I have learnt the various lessons:
1. Do not condone false doctrine by our silence, connivance and accommodation.
2. False doctrine, if left alone will grown an affect the entire church, even entire denomination
3. False doctrine must be dealt with swiftly by disciplining those who teaches false doctrine
4. There must be a antithetical preaching and teaching to expose false doctrine so that God's people know errors from truth
5. Elders and Pastors must be vigilant in upholding the truth and not for the sake of friendship sell the truth for the pottage of popularity, reputation and what not.
I have learnt the various lessons:
1. Do not condone false doctrine by our silence, connivance and accommodation.
2. False doctrine, if left alone will grown an affect the entire church, even entire denomination
3. False doctrine must be dealt with swiftly by disciplining those who teaches false doctrine
4. There must be a antithetical preaching and teaching to expose false doctrine so that God's people know errors from truth
5. Elders and Pastors must be vigilant in upholding the truth and not for the sake of friendship sell the truth for the pottage of popularity, reputation and what not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)