eChurch Christian Blog

Interesting article from Ekklesia this morning:-

Another article from the Telegraph this morning:-

At least 85 separate sharia “courts” are now openly functioning in Britain, almost 20 times as many as previously believed, a report by Civitas claims.

A study by the thinktank found that scores of unofficial tribunals and councils regularly apply Islamic law to resolve domestic, marital and business disputes, many operating in mosques.

It led to claims of a “creeping” acceptance of sharia principles in British law, but the Muslim Council of Britain dismissed the report as “scaremongering”.

The study follows the outcry over remarks by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, last year that the adoption of aspects of Muslim law in Britain, such as in divorce proceedings, “seems inevitable”.

Lord Phillips, who was then the Lord Chief Justice, attracted controversy by saying that there was “no reason why” sharia principles could not form the basis of mediation in disputes.

Some decisions of Islamic tribunals are already considered legally binding and could theoretically be enforced in civil courts in England and Wales.

Other officially recognised bodies can agree to grant Muslim “divorces” as part of a parallel system of religious law in Britain.

“This whole business is creeping up on us without anyone really noticing,” said Dr David Green, director of Civitas.

The existence of a network of five court-like sharia bodies in London, Bradford, Birmingham, Coventry and Manchester, expanding to other cities under the umbrella of the Muslim Arbitration Tribual (MAT) has already been widely reported.

But Civitas estimates that the real number of Islamic “courts” operating in Britain is at least 85, as a result of scores of unofficial courts sitting in mosques in which imams make judgments on day-to-day disputes.

It argued that they are unlikely to treat women as equals and could even be against human rights law.

The organisation called for a change in the law to stop the decisions of such bodies being legally enforceable.

The MAT, which deals primarily with disputes between business partners or mosques, says that as a legally constituted arbitration body under the 1996 Arbitration Act, its decisions could be enforced in county courts.

That claim has yet to be challenged in a test case but a similar status for Jewish tribunals is already long established.

Another organisation, the Islamic Sharia Council, has a panel of seven judges based in London, dealing largely with divorce and issuing “fatwas” on issues such as how to bring up children.

Mufti Abdul Kadir Barkatulla, one of its judges, said that the organisation had been operating peacefully alongside the civil courts for 25 years without any major problems.

He also confirmed that dozens of informal sharia bodies sit across the country.

“Every imam, if they are qualified can have a hearings and make decisions according to sharia,” he said.

Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “To term them sharia courts is ridiculous, it’s just scaremongering.”

Qamat Bhatti, a member of the governing body of the MAT, said: “We don’t have a court, it’s an arbitration, we don’t have a judge sitting with a gavel in his hand but that’s the image that this report is creating.”

Article by the Telegraph this morning:-

Doctors and nurses should be able to offer to pray for patients without fear of disciplinary action, a medical conference will hear this week.

Guidance given by the NHS suggests staff could be sanctioned if they offer spiritual help to anyone who does not share their beliefs, according to the sponsors of a motion at the British Medical Association’s (BMA) annual representatives meeting in Liverpool.

The doctors will argue that the rules need clarifying to distinguish between those who try to offer religious support to patients as part of a programme of care and zealots who might target the infirm as potential converts.

The debate, which comes after the case of a nurse, Caroline Petrie, who given a warning earlier this year, will take place on Wednesday.

Mrs Petrie, 45, a baptist from Weston-super-Mare, Somerset, was warned that she could be disciplined after a patient complained that she had offered to pray for her.

The primary care trust later agreed she could continue to offer spiritual support for patients, as long as she asked them about their needs first.

Guidance from the General Medical Council, which regulates doctors, recognises the importance of a patient’s spiritual beliefs in helping them to cope with illness.

But a Department of Health document warns explicitly that disciplinary action could be taken against health staff discussing prayer with patients.

The NHS guidance says: “Members of some religions … are expected to preach and to try to convert other people. In a workplace environment, this can cause many problems, as non-religious people and those from other religions or beliefs could feel harassed and intimidated by this behaviour.

“To avoid misunderstandings and complaints on this issue, it should be made clear to everyone from the first day of training and/or employment, and regularly restated, that such behaviour, notwithstanding religious beliefs, could be construed as harassment under the disciplinary and grievance procedures.”

Joyce Robins, of pressure group Patient Concern, said: “Offering to say a prayer is a kind thought. Most patients will accept it as such. It is no more offensive than being offered a sleeping pill. You can say: ‘Thanks, but that sort of thing isn’t my cup of tea.’?”

Dr Hamish Meldrum, the chairman of BMA council, said: “Certainly, there is no suggestion of imposing your beliefs on patients. If you have a terminally ill patient then it is perfectly acceptable to ask if they would like access to a chaplain or whatever, and out of that a conversation could develop.”

A Department of Health spokesman said the document was to encourage awareness for staff and patients.

Three of Britain’s most senior religious leaders have joined forces in a rare bid to stop a Lords amendment that they fear would pave the way to “legalising euthanasia”.

Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury; Vincent Nichols, the Archbishop of Westminster, and Sir Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi, have come together for the first time to urge peers to reject proposals that would allow families to help loved ones to die abroad free from the threat of prosecution.

In a joint letter to The Daily Telegraph, they wrote that this legal change “would surely put vulnerable people at serious risk, especially sick people who are anxious about the burden their illness may be placing on others”.

It is the first time since his installation last month that the new Archbishop of Westminster has publicly joined with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Chief Rabbi to intervene in a legislative matter.

Lord Falconer, the former Lord Chancellor, made the proposal to drop the threat of prosecution to those accompanying the terminally ill to die abroad, in an amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill last month. It could be debated in the Lords as early tomorrow.

In their letter, the clerics also criticised legislators for trying to legalise euthanasia by the back door.

They wrote: “This amendment would mark a shift in British law towards legalising euthanasia. We do not believe that such a fundamental change in the law should be sought by way of an amendment to an already complex Bill. It should be rejected.”

Under British law assisting a suicide carries a sentence of up to 14 years. To date at least 115 Britons have travelled to Switzerland, where assisted suicide is legal, to die at the Dignitas clinic in Zurich. Some 800 more are on the clinic’s waiting list.

Decisions on whether to bring charges on assisted suicides matters are taken on a case-by-case basis and so far no Briton who has accompanied a dying friend or relative to Dignitas has been prosecuted.

Those who object to any softening of Britain’s euthanasia laws take this as evidence that the current law works well to deter assisted suicide, with one saying the law had “a stern face and a kind heart”.

But others argue that the law forces terminally ill people to travel abroad to die earlier than is medically necessary, as well as causing “real distress” to their loved-ones.

Dr Peter Saunders, director of the campaign group Care Not Killing, said if the law were changed then vulnerable terminally ill people might feel pressured to ending their own lives for financial or emotional reasons.

“We think that the current law works well, it has a stern face and a kind heart,” he said.
“We see Lord Falconer’s amendment as an attempt to legalise assisted euthanasia by stealth – to get the principle established.”

“The next step would be say ‘We need to change the law here as well now’,” he warned.

He argued: “If we want to change of law on assisted suicide let’s have proper primary legislation, let’s not try to tack it on to an existing bill.”

The Coroners and Justice Bill has been labelled a ‘Christmas tree bill’ as so many people have tried to hang so many things on it.

The bill has become the home of such diverse legislative ambitions as holding some inquests in private, changing the defence of diminished responsibility in murder and manslaughter cases, and making “homophobic hatred” a crime.

However, euthanasia supporters keenly supported Lord Falconer’s amendment.

Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying, said: “At least 115 Britons have travelled abroad to die, and many more look set to follow them. This is despite a law which threatens anybody who accompanies them with prosecution and imprisonment of up to 14 years.

“This law causes real distress to those contemplating travelling abroad to die and their loved ones, and in reality does very little to protect against abuse.”

She stressed that Lord Falconer’s proposal “introduces upfront safeguards which state that immunity from prosecution only applies to those that accompany a terminally ill adult, who is competent to make the decision and has set out their wishes in a declaration witnessed by an independent person.”

Debbie Purdy, 46, a multiple sclerosis sufferer who has been seeking to clarify the law to enable her husband Omar Puente to take her to Switzerland without the threat of prosecution, said the current law protected neither the terminally ill nor their families.

“My right to control my own life is surely something the Lords should be defending,” she argued. “What Lord Falconer is trying to do is to bring reality to the law.”

Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said: “The UK’s religious leaders continue heartlessly to seek to impose their dogma by law against the majority.”

That nobody had been prosecuted was “evidence that their motives have been compassionate,” he said.

Lord Falconer defended his proposal, and attacked the three signatories as having “no idea” about the current legal situation.

“I’m genuinely surprised by their unthoughtout opposition,” he said. “The amendment does not enable people who wish to commit suicide to go abroad to do so; they can do that already.”

He argued that what the amendment did was “to make the law reflect current practice”.

“It brings into law the practice of the Director of Public Prosecutions, except it builds in safeguards [to protect the person intending to commit suicide] that are not there already.”

If the archbishops and Chief Rabbi were arguing that the amendment amounted to the thin end of the wedge, “then they should have said so, rather than their own rather complicated explanation of their opposition”, he said.

He doubted that as “humane” people they wanted to see prosecuted the friends and relatives of those who accompanied the terminally ill abroad to die.

Lord Falconer added: “I agree with the signatories that if we want a fundamental change in the law regarding assisted suicide in the UK, then it should be done by a bill and a bill alone. But that’s not the effect of the amendment.

Prof Richard Dawkins, the prominent atheist, has helped set up an atheist summer camp where children will be taught rational scepticism and sing John Lennon’s Imagine alongside the more traditional activities of canoeing and swimming.

The evolutionary biologist and author of The God Delusion, who stepped down from his post at Oxford University last year, has subsidised the five-day camp in Somerset.

Camp-goers will be given lessons in rational scepticism, as well as sessions in moral philosophy and evolutionary biology.

There will be more familiar camp activities such as trekking, tug-of-war, canoeing and swimming but children will also be taught to disprove phenomena such as crop circles and telepathy.

The retreat is for children aged eight to 17 and will rival traditional faith-based breaks run by the Scouts and church groups. It will teach that religious belief and doctrines can prevent ethical and moral behaviour.

The camp is part of a campaign, backed by Dawkins and Professor AC Grayling, the philosopher and writer, designed to challenge Christian societies, collective worship and religious education.

Prof Dawkins said it was designed to “encourage children to think for themselves, sceptically and rationally”. All 24 places at the camp, which runs from July 27-31, have been taken.

Crispian Jago, an IT consultant, is hoping the experience will enrich his two children.

“I’m very keen on not indoctrinating them with religion or creeds,” he said. “I would rather equip them with the tools to learn how to think, not what to think.”

The emphasis on critical thinking is epitomised by a test called the Invisible Unicorn Challenge. Children will be told by camp leaders that the area around their tents is inhabited by two unicorns.

The activities of these creatures, of which there will be no physical evidence, will be regularly discussed by organisers, yet the children will be asked to prove that the unicorns do not exist.

Anyone who manages to prove this will win a £10 note – which features an image of Charles Darwin, the father of evolutionary theory – signed by Dawkins, a former professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford University.

“The unicorns are not necessarily a metaphor for God, they are to show kids that you can’t prove a negative,” said Samantha Stein, who is leading next month’s camp at the Mill on the Brue outdoor activity centre close to Bruton, Somerset.

“We are not trying to bash religion, but it encourages people to believe in a lot of things for which there is no evidence.”

A spokesman for the Church of England questioned Dawkins’ decision to stage a summer camp for atheists.

“We would defend the right for anyone to set up an event like this, as long as the young people are happy to attend,” he said.

“But in his imitation of the type of youth events that religious groups have been running for years, Dawkins makes atheism look even more like the thing he is rallying against.”

This news has just been released by Christian Today…are we witnessing the long awaited split in the Anglican church following the pattern of what has just taken place in the USA?

Five English bishops are set to join the launch of a new fellowship for orthodox Anglicans who say they want to stay true to Scripture and get on with the Great Commission of sharing the Gospel with the world.

The Fellow of Confessing Anglicans will be launched in Westminster on July 6 in the presence of the Bishops of Fulham, Lewes, Chichester and Rochester. The Bishop of Chester has sent greetings.

The gathering will also hear video and personal greetings from international guests including Nigerian Archbishop Nicholas Okoh and Archbishop Henri Orombi from Uganda.

Event spokesman and London vicar, the Rev Paul Perkin, said: “Some are staying in the Church, but failing to stand for Christian truth and practice; others are standing firm for Christian truth and practice, but are not staying. We are standing, and we are staying.”

The FCA is being launched just weeks after US and Canadian orthodox Anglicans held the inaugural assembly of the Anglican Church in North America in Bedford, Texas.

The ACNA is formed of around 700 orthodox Anglican congregations that broke away from The Episcopal Church in the US over its embrace of homosexuality and the consecration of an openly gay bishop in 2003.

The ACNA is headed by Bishop Bob Duncan, who told the assembly that much of mainline Protestantism was “finding itself adrift from its moorings” but that there was also a great Reformation underway in the Christian church that North American Anglicans were “very much in the midst of”.

Keith Ackerman, President of Forward in Faith in the US, was at the ACNA assembly and will join the FCA launch, where he will lead a main session on why he believes the FCA is a catalyst for united mission, ministry and focus for both orthodox Anglicans, both evangelical and Anglo Catholic.

He said: “One of the reasons I am really looking forward to being with my friends in England is so that I might be able to share with them the anointing of the Holy Spirit that has occurred at this gathering here in Texas.

“The time is right for us right now not to lose sight of what he is calling his entire Church to. The entire Anglican Communion is being called to stand up and be faithful at this very time.

“Luke-warmness has gone and we are now ready to talk about the light of the world, Jesus Christ who is ready to ignite the work he has placed before us at this time. I cannot wait to see everyone.”

A second article from the Telegraph:-

If recent trends are any guide, many Church of England parishes will have been cheered by higher attendances at Easter services. The last published statistics for 2006/7 show rises of 7 and 5 per cent in church going at Christmas and Easter.

But these figures are just about the only signs of hope for the church and certainly not the first green shoots of a revival. Other statistics make for gloomy reading.

Annual decline in Sunday attendance is running at around 1 per cent. At this rate it is hard to see the church surviving for more than 30 years though few of its leaders are prepared to face that possibility.

In the short term we are likely to see more closures of buildings as the church battles to meet a big pension bill, pay clergy, and maintain a large bureaucracy.

To its credit, the church has been successful at getting members to give, but larger donations cannot offset the fall in numbers. At present the church is struggling to maintain 16,200 buildings, many of them old and listed with 4,200 listed Grade I.

If decline continues, Christian Research has estimated that in five years’ time church closures will accelerate from their present rate of 30 a year to 200 a year as dwindling congregations find the cost of keeping them open too great.

Perhaps the most worrying set of statistics for the Church of England is the decline in baptisms. Out of every 1,000 live births in England in 2006/7 only 128 were baptised as Anglicans.

The figure rises by a small amount if adult baptism and thanksgiving services are included but it is hard to see the Church of England being able to justify its position as the established church on the basis of these numbers.

By way of contrast, out of every 1,000 live births in England in 1900, 609 were baptised in the Church of England. Figures for church marriages show an equally catastrophic decline.

The church is being hit by a double whammy: on the one hand it confronts the challenge of institutional decline but on the other hand it has to face the rise of cultural and religious pluralism in Britain.

How it responds to the second challenge will be crucial in determining whether it will be able to survive as a viable organisation and make a contribution to national life.

At present church leaders show little signs of understanding the situation. They don’t understand the culture we now live in.

Many bishops prefer to turn their heads, to carry on as if nothing has changed, rather than face the reality that Britain is no longer a Christian nation.

Many of them think that we are still living in the 1950s – a period described by historians as representing a hey day for the established church.

The coronation brought church and nation together in a way which will never be repeated. School assemblies had a definite Christian tone and children still sang familiar hymns.

The church could function as chaplain to a nation that was nominally Christian and Anglican, even if many actually only attended for baptisms, weddings and funerals. That world has gone for good.

Gordon Brown’s unilateral decision to take no part in nominating bishops to the Queen (a matter he did not discuss with David Cameron or Nick Clegg, in breach of constitutional protocol) makes it less likely that bishops will retain their place in a reformed House of Lords.

Rather than try to cling on to their places in the House of Lords, they should take the initiative by withdrawing, which would show that they appreciate Christian Britain is dead.

The church can try to fight the forces of change or it can see the crisis as an opportunity to give itself a clearer sense of identity.

One reason for increased attendance at Christmas and Easter may be that people are looking for a way of affirming identity in a pluralist society.

So far its leaders are choosing to resist but doing so in a very Anglican way: making concessions when necessary and hoping by small, strategic retreats to buy time and preserve the status quo.

The reason offered for upholding establishment is usually that it gives the church a sense of responsibility to the whole nation. In practice it often looks as if the church is really trying to keep its special privileges on false pretences.

For a time other faith communities may welcome the special position of the established church as a bulwark against secularism.

The Chief Rabbi is a forceful defender of the valuable role the Church of England can play in bringing faith communities together and fostering understanding across creedal barriers.

But the church would be a more effective bulwark against secularism if it was stronger and the role the Chief Rabbi has mapped out is likely to disappear as different faith communities get used to dealing with each other directly.

Disestablishment will actually pose major problems for society. Every country needs shared rituals and celebrations to foster a sense of community and provide a backdrop to major national occasions.

We are going to have to invent a new civil religion. Already the process has begun with the observance of Holocaust Day and increasing focus on Human Rights as providing a shared basis for morality.

If Anglicans could acquire a stronger sense of who they are and what they believe they might slow the rate of decline and possibly even stabilise their numbers.

They would still be a minority but they could be a creative minority. The trick will be to reach this situation without falling into a fundamentalist trap or cutting off links with the wider world.

Other organisations, particularly Roman Catholics with their three-hundred year history of persecution and minority status, can be a guide, showing both the dangers to avoid and the opportunities to seize.

The Rt Rev Paul Richardson is the assistant Bishop of Newcastle.

Interesting article from the Telegraph I thought:-

Britain is no longer a Christian nation and the Church of England could die out within a generation, an Anglican bishop has warned.

The Rt Rev Paul Richardson said declining church attendance and the rise in multiculturalism meant that “Christian Britain is dead”.

He criticised his fellow bishops for failing to appreciate the scale of the crisis and warned that their inaction could seal the Church’s fate.

As one of the Church’s longest-serving bishops, the comments by the assistant Bishop of Newcastle are set to fuel the debate over its future.

The General Synod, the Church’s parliament, will next month consider proposals to cut the number of bishops and senior clergy amid fears over the Church’s finances.

Writing for The Sunday Telegraph, Bishop Richardson said: “Many bishops prefer to turn their heads, to carry on as if nothing has changed, rather than face the reality that Britain is no longer a Christian nation.

“Many of them think that we are still living in the 1950s – a period described by historians as representing a hey day for the established church.”

He said that the Church had lost more than one in ten of its regular worshippers between 1996 and 2006, with a fall from more than one million to 880,000.

“At this rate it is hard to see the church surviving for more than 30 years though few of its leaders are prepared to face that possibility,” said Bishop Richardson.

Nearly half of the population in England regard themselves as belonging to the Church of England, while seven in ten described themselves as Christian in the last census.

However, the Bishop said that the fall in church marriages and baptisms revealed that Britain was no longer a Christian nation.

The number of babies being baptised has fallen from 609 in every 1,000 at the turn of the twentieth century to only 128 in 2006/7 and church marriages have also dropped.

Bishop Richardson said: “The church is being hit by a double whammy: on the one hand it confronts the challenge of institutional decline but on the other hand it has to face the rise of cultural and religious pluralism in Britain.”

He says that the way the Church responds to this will be “crucial in determining whether it will be able to survive as a viable organisation and make a contribution to national life”.

“At present church leaders show little signs of understanding the situation. They don’t understand the culture we now live in.”

The bishop believed it is inevitable that disestablishment will happen and suggests that the Church should take a lead on the issue rather than being dictated to by Parliament.

“Rather than try to cling on to their places in the House of Lords, they should take the initiative by withdrawing, which shows that they appreciate Christian Britain is dead.”

Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury has also delivered a bleak assessment of the future of Christianity in this country, claiming previously that Britain’s Churches are in such serious decline that if they were shops they would have been declared bankrupt long ago.

Attendance figures on Christmas Day and Christmas Eve have provided encouragement for the Church of England, showing that three million people attend services on these days and as many as 39 per cent go to some sort of Christmas service.

The Rt Rev David James, Bishop of Bradford, said that church leaders were aware of the challenge they face, but suggested that there are signs of hope.

“The Church is always one generation from extinction. That’s true of any organisation,” he said. “Many of our bishops and congregations are awake to the need to reach out and have been doing so succesfully.”

Bishop James added that many young people are now attending alternative forms of church worship and also pointed to a rise in adult baptisms.

I have been reading the latest news from Tony Blair’s so called ‘faith foundation’ and was interested in this first paragraph:-

On Monday June 22nd,Tony Blair took part in The Business of Giving Series at 92 Y in New York. This series is hosted by Matthew Bishop, New York Bureau Chief of The Economist and author of Philanthrocapitalism: How the Rich Can Save the World and features leading philanthropists talking about their efforts to try and make the world a better place.

‘How the rich can save the world’, mmm, I’m sorry but wasn’t it the rich that were ruining the world, in terms of the environment, oppression of the poor etc? But why should we stop them having a self congratulatory back slap while they inform us (and themselves) about their efforts to make the world a better place and ease their stricken conscience?

I tell you what, I am so glad that I am relying on Jesus to save the world, because if I had to rely on Tony Blair, his wealthy cronies (religious or otherwise) and the ‘faith foundation’ I would be rather depressed frankly.

The crux of the problem of course, is that his ‘faith foundation’ doesn’t actually seem to be anything to do with the God of any ‘faith’, but more about man and what man can achieve. Sorry…didn’t man cause all of the problems anyway…then why should we trust man to fix them all? Man cannot rule himself aside from God, just turn on your news channel to witness that fact.

The Tony Blair Faith Foundation is setting out to achieve greater interfaith understanding through practical programmes: by encouraging different faiths to work together to help achieve the Millennium Development Goals, with an initial focus on malaria; to increase religious literacy by connecting classrooms across the world; and by nurturing a deeper intellectual understanding of the dynamics of faith and globalization.

Doesn’t it all sound wonderful, but beware the man. He is hijacking emotive and sad issues like Malaria to promote an insidious and dangerous anti-faith ideology…don’t be conned by him and his smooth words, he is looking for a ‘global religion’ which can be manipulated for political purposes:-

Please see previous posts on the subject of Tony Blair to gain further insight:-

Tony Blair and Barack Obama, angels or demons

Tony Blair is not someone worthy to trust on religious matters

Cardinal will not join Tony Blair Faith Foundation

Perhaps a more appropriate title for his charity could be ‘Faith in rich and powerful men foundation’?

“For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of; for
necessity is laid upon me; yea woe is unto me, if I preach not the
gospel” 1 Corinthians, 9:16

THE greatest man of Apostolic times was the apostle Paul. He was always
great in everything. If you consider him as a sinner, he was exceeding
sinful; if you regard him as a persecutor, he was exceeding mad against the
Christians, and persecuted them even unto strange cities, if you take him as
a convert, his conversion was the most notable one of which we read,
worked by miraculous power, and by the direct voice of Jesus speaking
from heaven-”Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?”-If we take him simply
as a Christian, he was an extraordinary one, loving his Master more than
others, and seeking more than others to exemplify the grace of God in his
life. But if you take him as an apostle, and as a preacher of the Word, he
stands out pre-eminent as the prince of preachers, and a preacher to kings -
for he preached before Agrippa, he preached before Nero Caesar-he stood
before emperors and kings for Christ’s name’s sake. It was the
characteristic of Paul, that whatever he did, he did with all his heart. He
was one of the men who could not allow one half of his frame to be
exercised, while the other half was indolent but, when he set to work, the
whole of his energies-every nerve, every sinew-were strained in the work
to be done, be it bad work or be it good. Paul, therefore, could speak from
experience concerning his ministry; because he was the chief of ministers.
There is no nonsense in what he speaks; it is all from the depth of his soul.
And we may be sure that when he wrote this, he wrote it with a strong
unpalsied hand-”Though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of,
for necessity is laid upon me, yea, woe is me if I preach not the gospel.”
Now, these words of Paul, I trust, are applicable to many ministers in the
present day; to all those who are especially called, who are directed by the
inward impulse of the Holy Spirit to occupy the position of gospel
ministers. In trying to consider this verse, we shall have three inquiries this
morning:-First, What is it to preach the gospel? Secondly, Why is it that a
minister has nothing to glorify of; And thirdly, What is that necessity and
that woe, of which it is written, “Necessity is laid upon me, yea, woe is
unto me, if I preach not the gospel?”

I. The first enquiry is, WHAT IS IT TO PREACH THE GOSPEL? There are a
variety of opinions concerning this question, and possibly amongst my own
audience -though I believe we are very uniform in our doctrinal sentimentsthere
might be found two or three very ready answers to this question:
What is it to preach the gospel? I shall therefore attempt to answer it
myself according to my own judgment, if God will help me; and if it does
not happen to be the correct answer, you are at liberty to supply a better to
yourselves at home.

1. The first answer I shall give to the question is this: To preach the gospel
is to state every doctrine contained in God’s Word, and to give every truth
its proper prominence. Men may preach a part of the gospel; they may
only preach one single doctrine of it; and I would not say that a man did
not preach the gospel at all if he did but maintain the doctrine of
justification by faith-”By grace are ye saved through faith.” I should put
him down for a gospel minister, but not for one who preached the whole
gospel. No man can be said to preach the whole gospel of God if he leaves
it out, knowingly and intentionally, one single truth of the blessed God.
This remark of mine must be a very cutting one, and ought to strike into
the consciences of many who make it almost a matter of principle to keen
back certain truths from the people, because they are afraid of them. In
conversation, a week or two ago, with an eminent professor, he said to me,
“Sir, we know that we ought not to preach the doctrine of election,
because it is not calculated to convert sinners.” “But,” said I to him, “who
is the men that dares to find fault with the truth of God? You admit, with
me, that it is a truth, and yet you say it must not be preached. I dare not
have said that thing. I should reckon it supreme arrogance to have ventured
to say that a doctrine ought not to be preached when the all-wise God has
seen fit to reveal it. Besides, is the whole gospel intended to convert
sinners? There are some truths which God blesses to the conversion of
sinners; but are there not other portions which were intended for the
comfort of the saint? and ought not these to be a subject of gospel ministry
as well as the others? And shall I look at one and disregard the other? No:
if God says, ‘Comfort ye, comfort ye, my people’ if election comforts
God’s people, then must I preach it.” But I am not quite so sure, that after
all, that doctrine is not calculated to convert sinners. For the great
Jonathan Edwardes tells us, that in the greatest excitement of one of his
revivals, he preached the sovereignty of God in the salvation or
condemnation of man, and showed that God was infinitely just if he sent
men to hell! that he was infinitely merciful if he saved any; and that it was
all of his own free grace, and he said, “I found no doctrine caused more
thought nothing entered more deeply into the heart than the proclamation
of that truth.” The same might be said of other doctrines. There are certain
truths in God’s word which are condemned to silence; they, forsooth, are
not to be uttered, because, according to the theories of certain persons,
looking at these doctrines, they are not calculated to promote certain ends.
But is it for me to judge God’s truth? Am I to put his words in the scale,
and say, “This is good, and that is evil?’ Am I to take God’s Bible, and
sever it and say, “this is husk, and this is wheat?” Am I to cast away any
one truth, and say, “I dare not preach it?” No: God forbid. Whatsoever is
written in God’s Word is written for our instruction: and the whole of it is
profitable, either for reproof, or for consolation, or for edification in
righteousness. No truth of God’s Word ought to be withheld, but every
portion of it preached in its own proper order.

Some men purposely confine themselves to four or five topics continually.
Should you step into their chapel, you would naturally expect to hear them
preaching, either from this, “Not of the will of the flesh, but of the will of
God,” or else, “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.”
You know that the moment you step in you are sure to hear nothing but
election and high doctrine that day. Such men err also, quite as much as
others, if they give too great prominence to one truth to the neglect of the
others. Whatsoever is here to be preached, “all it whatever name you
please, write it high, write it low-the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing
but the Bible, is the standard of the true Christian. Alas! alas! many make
an iron ring of their doctrines, and he who dares to step beyond that
narrow circle, is not reckoned orthodox. God bless heretics, then! God
send us more of them! Many make theology into a kind of treadwheel,
consisting of five doctrines, which are everlastingly rotated; for they never
go on to anything else. There ought to be every truth preached. And if God
has written in his word that “he that believeth not is condemned already,”
that is as much to be preached as the truth that “there is no condemnation
to them that are in Jesus Christ.” If I find it written, “O Israel, thou hast
destroyed thyself,” that man’s condemnation is his own fault, I am to
preach that as well as the next clause, “In me is thy help found.” We ought,
each of us who are entrusted with the ministry, to seek to preach all truth. I
know it may be impossible to tell you all of it. That high hill of truth hath
mists upon its summit. No mortal eye can see its pinnacle; nor hath the foot
of man ever trodden it. But yet let us paint the mist, if we cannot paint the
summit. Let us depict the difficulty itself if we cannot unravel it. Let us not
hide anything, but if the mountain of truth be cloudy at the top, let us say,
“Clouds and darkness are around him,” Let us not deny it; and let us not
think of cutting down the mountain to our own standard, because we
cannot see its summit or cannot reach its pinnacle. He who would preach
the gospel must preach all the gospel. He who would have it said he is a
faithful minister, must not keep back any part of revelation.

2. Again, am I asked what it is to preach the gospel? I answer to preach
the gospel is to exalt Jesus Christ. Perhaps this is the best answer that I
could give. I am very sorry to see very often how little the gospel is
understood even by some of the best Christians. Some time ago there was
a young woman under great distress of soul; she came to a very pious
Christian man, who said “My dear girl, you must go home and pray.” Well
I thought within myself, that is not the Bible way at all. It never says, “Go
home and pray.” The poor girl went home; she did pray, and she still
continued in distress. Said he, “You must wait, you must read the
Scriptures and study them.” That is not the Bible way; that is not exalting
Christ; find a great many preachers are preaching that kind of doctrine.
They tell a poor convinced sinner, “You must go home and pray, and read
the Scriptures; you must attend the ministry;” and so on. Works, works,
works-instead of “By grace are ye saved through faith,” If a penitent
should come and ask me, “What must I do to be saved?” I would say,
“Christ must save you-believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.” I
would neither direct to prayer, nor reading of the Scriptures nor attending
God’s house; but simply direct to faith, naked faith on God’s gospel. Not
that I despise prayer-that must come after faith. Not that I speak a word
against the searching of the Scriptures-that is an infallible mark of God’s
children. Not that I find fault with attendance on God’s word-God forbid! I
love to see people there. But none of those things are the way of salvation.
It is nowhere written-”He that attendeth chapel shall be saved,” or, “He
that readeth the Bible shall be saved.” Nor do I read- “He that prayeth and
is baptised shall be saved;” but, “He that believeth,”-he that has a naked
faith on the “Man Christ Jesus,”-on his Godhead, on his manhood, is
delivered from sin. To preach that faith alone saves, is to preach God’s
truth. Nor will I for one moment concede to any man the name of a gospel
minister, if he preaches anything as the plan of salvation except faith in
Jesus Christ, faith, faith, nothing but faith in his name. But we are, most of
us, very much muddled in our ideas. We get so much work stored into our
brain, such an idea of merit and of doing, wrought into our hearts, that it is
almost impossible for us to preach justification by faith clearly and fully;
and when we do, our people won’t receive it. We tell them, “Believe on
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.” But they have
a notion that faith is something so wonderful, so mysterious, that it is quite
impossible that without doing something else they can ever get it. Now,
that faith which unites to the Lamb is an instantaneous gift of God, and he
who believes on the Lord Jesus is that moment saved, without anything
else whatsoever. Ah! my friends, do we not want more exalting Christ in
our preaching, and more exalting Christ in our living? Poor Mary said,
“They have taken away my Lord and I know not where they have laid
him,” And she might say so now-a-days if she could rise from the grave.
Oh! to have a Christ-exalting ministry! Oh! to have preaching that
magnifies Christ in his person, that extols his divinity, that loves his
humanity; to have preaching that shows him as prophet, priest, and king to
his people! to have preaching whereby the spirit manifests the Son of God
unto his children: to have preaching that says, “Look unto him and be ye
saved all the ends of the earth,”-Calvary preaching, Calvary theology,
Calvary books, Calvary sermons! These are the things we want, and in
proportion as we have Calvary exalted and Christ magnified, the gospel is
preached in our midst.

3. The third answer to the question is: to preach the gospel is to give every
class of character his due. “You are only to preach to God’s dear people,
if you go into that pulpit,” said a deacon once to a minister. Said the
minister, “Have you marked them all on the back, that I may know them?”
What is the good of this large chapel if I am only to preach to God’s dear
people? They are few enough. God’s dear people might be held in the
vestry. We have many more here besides God’s dear people, and how am I
to be sure, if I am told to preach only to God’s dear people, that somebody
else wont take it to himself? At another time some one might say, “Now,
be sure you preach to sinners. If you do not preach to sinners this morning,
you won’t preach the gospel. We shall only hear you once; and we shall be
sure you are not right if you do not happen to preach to sinner this
particular morning, in this particular sermon.” What nonsense, my friends!
There are times when the children must be fed, and there are times when
the sinner must be warned. There are different times for different objects. If
a man is preaching to God’s saints if it so happen that little is said to
sinners, is he to be blamed for it, provided that at another time when he is
not comforting the saints, he directs his attention specially to the ungodly?
I heard a good remark from an intelligent friend of mine the other day. A
person was finding fault with “Dr. Hawker’s Morning and Evening
Portions” because they were not calculated to convert sinners. He said to
the gentleman, “Did you ever read; ‘Grote’s History of Greece?’” “Yes.”
Well, that is a shocking book, is it not? for it is not calculated to convert
sinners. “Yes, but,” said the other, “‘Grote’s History of Greece’ was never
meant to convert sinners.” “No,” said my friend, “and if you had read the
preface to ‘Dr. Hawker’s Morning and Evening Portion,’ you would see
that it was never meant to convert sinners, but to feed God’s people, and if
it answers its end the man has been wise, though he has not aimed at some
other end.” Every class of person is to have his due. He who preaches
solely to saints at all times does not preach the gospel; he who preaches
solely and only to the sinner; and never to the saint, does not preach the
whole of the gospel. We have amalgamation here. We have the saint who is
full of assurance and strong; we have the saint who is weak and low in
faith; we have the young convert; we have the man halting between two
opinions; we have the moral man; we have the sinner; we have the
reprobate; we have the outcast. Let each have a word. Let each have a
portion of meat in due season; not at every season, but in due season. He
who omits one class of character does not know how to preach the entire
gospel. What! Am I to be put into the pulpit and to be told that I am to
confine myself to certain truths only, to comfort God’s saints? I will not
have it so. God gives men hearts to love their fellow-creatures, and are
they to have no development for that heart? If I love the ungodly am I to
have no means of speaking to them? May I not tell them of judgment to
come, of righteousness, and of their sin? God forbid I should so stultify my
nature and so brutalize myself, as to have a tearless eye when I consider the
loss of my fellow creatures, and to stand and say “Ye are dead, I have
nothing to say to you!” and to preach in effect if not in words that most
damnable heresy, that if men are to be bayed they will be saved-that if they
are not to be saved they will not be saved; that necessarily, they must sit
still and do nothing whatever; and that it matters not whether they live in
sin or in righteousness-some strong fate has bound them down with
adamantine chains; and their destiny is so certain that they may live on in
sin. I believe their destiny is certain-that as elect, they will be saved, and if
not elect they are damned for ever. But I do not believe the heresy that
follows as an inference that therefore men are irresponsible and may sit
still. That is a heresy against which I have ever protested, as being a
doctrine of the devil and not of God at all. We believe in destiny; we
believe in predestination; we believe in election and non-election: but,
notwithstanding that, we believe that we must preach to men, He Believe
on the Lord Jesus Christ and ye shall be saved,” but believe not on him and
ye are damned.

4. I had thought of giving one more answer to this question, but time fails
me. The answer would have been somewhat like this-that to preach the
gospel is not to preach certain truths about the gospel, not to preach about
the people, but to preach to the people. To preach the gospel is not to talk
about what the gospel is, but to preach it into the heart, not by your own
might, but by the influence of the Holy Ghost-not to stand and talk as if we
were speaking to the angel Gabriel, and telling him certain things, but to
speak as man to man and pour our heart in to our fellow’s heart. This I
take it, is to preach the gospel, and not to mumble some dry manuscript
over on Sunday morning or Sunday evening. To preach the gospel is not to
send a curate to do your duty for you; it is not to put on your fine gown
and then stand and give out some lofty speculation. To preach the gospel is
not, with the hands of a bishop, to turn over some beautiful specimen of
prayer, and then to go down again and leave it to some humbler person to
speak. Nay; to preach the gospel is to proclaim with trumpet tongue and
flaming zeal the unsearchable riches of Christ Jesus, so that men may hear,
and understanding, may turn to God with full purpose of heart. This is to
preach the gospel.

II. The second question is-How IS IT THAT MINISTERS ARE NOT
ALLOWED TO GLORY? “For though I preach the gospel I have nothing to
glorify it.” There are some weeds that will grow anywhere; and one of
them is Pride. Pride will grow on a rock as well as in a garden. Pride will
grow in the heart of a shoe-black as well as in the heart of an alderman.
Pride will grow in the heart of a servant girl and equally as well in the heart
of her mistress. And pride will grow in the pulpit. It is a weed that is
dreadfully rampant. It wants cutting down every week, or else we should
stand up to our knees in it. This pulpit is a shocking bad soil for pride. It
grows terribly; and I scarcely know whether you ever find a preacher of the
gospel who will not confess that he has the greatest temptation to pride. I
suppose that even those ministers of whom nothing is said, but that they
are very good people, and who have a City church, with some six people
attending it, have a temptation to pride. But whether that is so or not, I am
quite sure wherever there is a large assembly, and wherever a great deal of
noise and stir is made concerning any man there is a great danger of pride.
And, mark you, the more proud a man is the greater will be his fall at last.
If people will hold a minister up in their hands and do not keep hold of him,
but let him go, what a fall he will have, poor fellow, when it is all over. It
has been so with many. Many men have been held up by the arms of men,
they have been held up by the arms of praise, and not of prayer; these arms
have become weak, and down they have fallen. I say there is temptation to
pride in the pulpit; but there is no ground for it in the pulpit; there is no soil
for pride to grow on; but it will grow without any. “I have nothing to
glorify of.” But, notwithstanding, there often comes in some reason why
we should glory, not real, but apparent to our ownselves.

1. Now, how is it that a true minister feels he has “nothing to glorify of.”
First, because he is very conscious of his own imperfections. I think no
man will ever form a more just opinion of himself than he who is called
constantly and incessantly to preach. Some man once thought he could
preach, and on being allowed to enter the pulpit, he found his words did
not come quite so freely as he expected, and in the utmost trepidation and
fear, he leaned over the front of the pulpit and said “My friends, if you
would come up here, it would take the conceit out of you all, I verily
believe it would out of a great many, could they once try themselves
whether they could preach. It would take their critical conceit out of them,
and make them think that after all it was not such easy work. He who
preaches best feels that he preaches worst. He who has set up some lofty
model in his own mind of what eloquence should be, and what earnest
appeal ought to be, will know how much he falls below it. He, best of all,
can reprove himself when he knows his own deficiency. I do not believe
when a man does a thing well, that therefore he will glory in it. On the
other hand, I think that he will be the best judge of his own imperfections,
and will see them most clearly. He knows what he ought to be: other men
do not. They stare, and gaze, and think it is wonderful, when he thinks it is
wonderfully absurd and retires wondering that he has not done better.

Every true minister will feel that he is deficient. He will compare himself
with such men as Whitfield, with such preachers as those of puritanical
times, and he will say, “What am I? Like a dwarf beside a giant, an ant-hill
by the side of the mountain.” When he retires to rest on Sabbath-night, he
will toss from side to side on his bed, because he feels that he has missed
the mark, that he has not had that earnestness, that solemnity, that deathlike
intenseness of purpose which became his position. He will accuse
himself of not having dwelt enough on this point, or for having shunned the
other, or not having been explicit enough on some certain subject, or
expanded another too much. He will see his own faults, for God always
chastises his own children at night-time when they have done something
wrong. We need not others to reprove us; God himself takes us in hand,
The most highly honored before God will often feel himself dishonored in
his own esteem.

2. Again, another means of causing us to cease from all glory is the fact
that God reminds us that all our gifts are borrowed. And strikingly have I
this morning been reminded of that great truth-that all our gifts are
borrowed, by reading in a newspaper to the following effect:-
“Last week, the quiet neighborhood of New Town was much disturbed by
an occurrence which has thrown a gloom over the entire neighborhood. A
gentleman of considerable attainment, who has won an honorable degree at
the university has for some months been deranged. He had kept an
academy for young gentlemen, but his insanity had obliged him to desist
from his occupation, and he has for some time lived alone in a house in the
neighborhood. The landlord obtained a warrant of ejectment; and it being
found necessary to handcuff him, he was, by sad mismanagement,
compelled to remain on the steps, exposed to the gaze of a great crowd,
until at last a vehicle arrived, which conveyed him to the asylum. One of his
pupils (says the paper) is Mr. Spurgeon.”

The man from whom I learned whatever of human learning I have, has now
become a raving lunatic in the Asylum! When I saw that, I felt I could bend
my knee with humble gratitude and thank my God that not yet had my
reason reeled, not yet had those powers departed. Oh! how thankful we
ought to be that our talents are preserved to us, and that our mind is not
gone! Nothing came nearer and closer to me than that. There was one who
had taken all pains with me-a man of genius and of ability; and yet there he
is! how fallen! how fallen! How speedily does human nature come from its
high estate and sink below the level of the brutes? Bless God my friends,
for your talents! thank him for your reason! thank him for your intellect!
Simple as it may be, it is enough for you, and if you lost it you would soon
mark the difference. Take heed to yourself lest in aught you say. “This is
Babylon that I have builded;” for, remember, both trowel and mortar must
come from him. The life, the voice, the talent, the imagination, the
eloquence-all are the gift of God; and he who has the greatest gifts must
feel that unto God belong the shield of the mighty, for he has given might
to his people, and strength unto his servants.

3. One more answer to this question. Another means whereby God
preserves his ministers from glorying is this: He makes them feel their
constant dependance upon the Holy Ghost. Some do not feel it, I confess.
Some will venture to preach without the Spirit of God, or without
entreating it. But I think that no man, who is really commissioned from on
high, will ever venture to do so, but he will feel that he needs the Spirit.
Once, while preaching in Scotland, the Spirit of God was pleased to desert
me, I could not speak as usually I have done. I was obliged to tell the
people that the chariot wheels were taken off; and that the chariot dragged
very heavily along. I have felt the benefit of that ever since. It humbled me
bitterly, for I could have crept into a nut-shell, and I would have hidden
myself in any obscure corner of the earth. I felt as if I should speak no
more in the name of the Lord, and then the thought came “Oh! thou art an
ungrateful creature: hath not God spoken by thee hundreds of times? And
this once, when he would not do so wilt thou upbraid him for it? Nay,
rather thank him, that a hundred times he hath stood by thee; and, if once
he hath forsaken thee, admire his goodness, that thus he would keep thee
humble.” Some may imagine that want of study brought me into that
condition, but I can honestly affirm, that it was not so. I think that I am
bound to give myself unto reading, and not tempt the Spirit by unthoughtof
effusions. Usually, I deem it a duty to seek a sermon of my Master and
implore him to impress it on my mind, but on that occasion, I think I had
even prepared more carefully then than I ordinarily do, so that
unpreparedness was not the reason. The simple fact was this- “The wind
bloweth where it listeth;” and winds do not always blow hurricanes.
Sometimes the winds themselves are still. And, therefore, if I rest on the
Spirit, I cannot expect I should always feel its power alike. What could I
do without the celestial influence, for to that I owe everything. By this
thought God humbles his servants. God will teach us how much we want
it. He will not let us think we are doing anything ourselves. “Nay, says he,
“thou shalt have none of the glory. I will take thee down. Art thou thinking
‘I am doing this?’ I will show thee what thou art without me “Out goes
Samson. He attacks the Philistines. He fancies he can slay them; but they
are on him. His eyes are out. His glory is gone, because he trusted not in
his God, but rested in himself. Every minister will be made to feel his
dependence upon the Spirit; and then will he, with emphasis, say, as Paul
did, “If I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glorify of.”

III. Now comes the third question, with which we are to finish WHAT IS
THAT NECESSITY WHICH IS LAID UPON US TO PREACH THY GOSPEL?

1. First, a very great part of that necessity springs from the call itself: If a
man be truly called of God to the ministry, I will defy him to withhold
himself from it. A man-who has really within him the inspiration of the
Holy Ghost calling him to preach cannot help it. He must preach. As fire
within the bones, so will that influence be until it blazes forth Friends may
check him, foes criticise him, despisers sneer at him, the man is
indomitable; he must preach if he has the call of heaven. All earth might
forsake him; but he would preach to the barren mountain-tops. If he has
the call of heaven, if he has no congregation, he would preach to the
rippling waterfalls, and let the brooks hear his voice. He could not be
silent. He would become a voice crying in the wilderness, “Prepare ye the
way of the Lord.” I no more believe it possible to stop ministers, than to
stop the stars of heaven. I think it no more possible to make a man cease
from preaching, if he is really called, than to stop some mighty cataract, by
seeking, with an infant’s cup, to drink its waters. The man has been moved
of heaven, who shall stop him? He has been touched of God, who shall
impede him? With an eagle’s wing he must fly; who shall chain him to the
earth? With seraph’s voice he must speak, who shall stop his lips? Is not
his word like a fire within me? Must I not speak if God has placed it there?
And when a man does speak as the Spirit gives him utterance, he will feel a
holy joy akin to heaven; and when it is over he wishes to be at his work
again, and longs to be once more preaching. I do not think young men are
called of God to any great work who preach once a week, and think they
have done their duty. I think if God has called a man, he will impel him to
be more or less constantly at it, and he will feel that he must preach among
the nations the unsearchable riches of Christ.

2. But another thing will make us preach: we shall feel that woe is unto us
if we preach not the gospel; and that is the sad destitution of this poor
fallen world. Oh, minister of the gospel! stand for one moment and bethink
thyself of thy poor fellow creatures! See them like a stream, rushing to
eternity-ten thousand to their endless home each solemn moment fly! See
the termination of that stream, that tremendous cataract which dashes
streams of souls into the pit! Oh, minister, bethink thyself that men are
being damned each hour by thousands, and that each time thy pulse beats
another soul lifts up its eyes in hell, being in torments; bethink thyself how
men are speeding on their way to destruction, how “the love of many
waxeth cold” and “iniquity doth abound.” I say, is there not a necessity laid
upon thee? Is it not woe unto thee if thou preachest not the gospel? Take
thy walk one evening through the streets of London when the dusk has
gathered, and darkness veils the people. Mark you not yon profligate
hurrying on to her accursed work? See you not thousands and tens of
thousands annually ruined? Up from the hospital and the asylum there
comes a voice, “Woe is unto you if ye preach not the gospel.” Go to that
huge place built around with massive walls, enter the dungeons, and see the
thieves who have for years spent their lives in sin. Wend your way
sometimes to that sad square of Newgate, and see the murderer hanged. A
voice shall come from each house of correction, from each prison, from
each gallows, saying, “Woe is unto thee if thou preachest not the gospel.”
Go thou to the thousand death-beds, and mark how men are perishing in
ignorance, not knowing the ways of God. See their terror as they approach
their Judge, never having known what it was to be saved, not even
knowing the way; and as you see them quivering before their Maker, hear a
voice, “Minister, woe is unto thee if thou preachest not the gospel.” Or
take another course. Travel round this great metropolis, and stop at the
door of some place where there is heard the tinkling of bells, chanting and
music, but where the whore of Babylon hath her sway, and lies are
preached for truth; and when thou comest home and thinkest of Popery
and Puseyism, let a voice come to thee, “Minister woe is unto thee if thou
preachest not the gospel.” Or step into the hall of the infidel where he
blasphemes thy Maker’s name; or sit in the theater where plays, libidinous
and loose are acted, and from all these haunts of vice there comes the voice
“Minister, woe is unto thee if thou preachest not the gospel.” And take thy
last solemn walk down to the chambers of the lost; let the abyss of hell be
visited, and stand thou and hear

“The sullen groans, the hollow moans,
And shrieks of tortured ghosts.”

Put thine ear at hell’s gate, and for a little while list to the commingled
screams and shrieks of agony and fell despair that shall lend thine ear; and
as thou comest from that sad place with that doleful music still affrighting
thee, thou wilt hear the voice, “Minister! minister! woe is unto thee if thou
preaches not the gospel.” Only let us have these things before our eyes, and
we must preach. Stop preaching! Stop preaching! Let the sun stop shining,
and we will preach in darkness. Let the waves stop their ebb and flow, and
still our voice shall preach the gospel, let the world stop its revolutions, let
the planets stay their motion; we will still preach the gospel. Until the fiery
center of this earth shall burst through the thick ribs of her brazen
mountains, we shall still preach the gospel; till the universal conflagration
shall dissolve the earth, and matter shall be swept away, these lips, or the
lips of some others called of God, shall still thunder forth the voice of
Jehovah. We cannot help it. “Necessity is laid upon us, yea woe is unto us
if we preach not the gospel.

Now, my dear hearers, one word with you. There are some persons in this
audience who are verily guilty in the sight of God because they do not
preach the gospel. I cannot think out of the fifteen hundred or two
thousand persons now present, within the reach of my voice, there are
none who are qualified to preach the gospel besides myself. I have not so
bad an opinion of you as to conceive myself to be superior in intellect to
one half of you, or even in the power of preaching God’s Word: and even
supposing I should be, I cannot believe that I have such a congregation that
there are not among you many who have gifts and talents that qualify you
to preach the Word. Among the Scotch Baptists it is the custom to call
upon all the brethren to exhort on the Sabbath morning; they have no
regular minister to preach on that occasion, but every man preaches who
likes to get up and speak. That is all very well, only, I fear, many
unqualified brethren would be the greatest speakers, since it is a known
fact, that men who have little to say will often keep on the longest; and if I
were chairman, I should say, “Brother, it is written, ‘Speak to edification.’
I am sure you would not edify yourself and your wife, you had better go
and try that first, and if you cannot succeed, don’t waste our precious
time.”

But still I say, I cannot conceive but what there are some here this morning
who are flowers “wasting their sweetness in the desert air, “gems of purest
ray serene,” lying in the dark caverns of ocean’s oblivion. This is a very
serious question. If there be any talent in the Church at Park Street, let it
be developed. If there be any preachers in my congregation let them
preach. Many ministers make it a point to check young men in this respect.
There is my hand, such as it is, to help any one of you if you think you can
tell to sinners round what a dear Savior you have found. I would like to
find scores of preachers among you; would to God that all the Lord’s
servants were prophets. There are some here who ought to be prophets,
only they are half afraid-well, we must devise some scheme of getting rid
of their bashfulness. I cannot bear to think that while the devil sets all his
servants to work there should be one servant of Jesus Christ asleep. Young
man, go home and examine thyself, see what thy abilities are, and if thou
findest that thou hast ability, then try in some poor humble room to tell to a
dozen poor people what they must do to be saved. You need not aspire to
become absolutely and solely dependent upon the ministry, but if it should
please God, even desire it. He that desireth a bishopric desireth a good
thing. At any rate seek in some way to be preaching the gospel of God. I
have preached this sermon especially, because I want to commence a
movement from this place which shall reach others. I want to find some in
my church, if it be possible, who will preach the gospel. And mark you, if
you have talent and power, woe is unto you if you preach not the gospel.
But oh! my friends, if it is woe unto us if we preach not the gospel, what is
the woe unto you if ye hear and receive not the gospel? May God give us
both to escape from that woe! May the gospel of God be unto us the savor
of life unto life, and not of death unto death.

This following article from the Christian Institute today is quite pertinent to me at the moment, because I was asked to embark on a project for a registering charity to develop an Internet forum for them. I was told that this was a church initiative, but dealing with issues that impact on everybody’s life in a negative way.

Everything was fine until I put my link on their forum, just a link to my website to let folks know who developed the forum (bearing in mind I hadn’t charged for any of my work for them). Now the fact of having an inbound link to my website as the developer was not the core problem for them, but the fact that my website is called ‘eChurchWebsites‘. The funders would not agree to any reference to ‘church’ or God or anything of that nature as we live in such a ‘PC’ conscious environment and the mention of the word ‘church’ in my link would have a negative impact on them as a charity.

I find it incredible that a ‘church initiative’ must now do everything in its power to hide the fact that it is ‘Christian’ driven…is it me or is this a world gone mad? Where does God get any of the glory?

Government failing to support faith groups

“He shall choose our inheritance for us” Psalm 47:4

The Christian is always pleased and delighted when he can see Christ in the
Scriptures. If he can but detect the footstep of his lord, and discover that
the sacred writers are making some reference to him, however indistinct or
dark he will rejoice there at: for all the Scriptures are nothing except as we
find Christ in them. St. Austin says, “The Scriptures are the swaddling
bands of the man-child-Christ Jesus, and were all intended to be hallowed
garments in which to wrap him “So they are; and it is our pleasant duty to
lift the veil, or remove the garment of Jesus and so behold him in his
person, in his nature, or his offices. Now, this text is concerning Jesus
Christ-he it is who is to “choose our inheritance for us,” he in whom
dwelleth all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge is the great Being who
is selected as the head of predestination-to choose our lot and our portion,
and fix our destiny. Verily, beloved brethren, you and I can rejoice in this
great fact, that our Savior chooses for us. For were we all to be assembled
together in some great plain, as Israel was of old, to elect for ourselves a
king, we should not propose a second candidate. There would be one who
stands like Saul, the son of Kish, head and shoulders taller than all the rest,
whom we should at once select to be our king and ruler of Providence for
us. We would not ask for some prudent sage or deeply taught philosopher;
we would not choose the most experienced senior; but, without a single
moment’s hesitation, directly we saw Jesus Christ, in the majesty of his
person, we should say, in the words of the Psalmist, He who redeemed us,
he who ransomed us, he who loved us-”He shall choose our inheritance for
us.”

I remember once going to a chapel where this happened to be the text, and
the good man who occupied the pulpit was more than a little of an
Arminian. Therefore, when he commenced, he said, “This passage refers
entirely to our temporal inheritance. It has nothing whatever to do with our
everlasting destiny: for,” said he, “We do not want Christ to choose for us
in the matter of heaven or hell. It is so plain and easy that every man who
has a grain of common sense will choose heaven; and any person would
know better than to choose hell. We have no need of any superior
intelligence, or any greater being, to choose heaven or hell for us. It is left
to our own free will, and we have enough wisdom given us, sufficiently
correct means to judge for ourselves, and therefore, as he very logically
inferred, there was no necessity for Jesus Christ, or any one, to make a
choice for us. We could choose the inheritance for ourselves without any
assistance.” Ah! but my good brother, it may be very true that we could,
but I think we should want something more than common sense before we
should choose aright. For you must recollect that it is not simply the
choosing of heaven or hell; it is the choosing of pleasure on earth, or of
pain of honor or of persecution; and very often the man is bewildered. If it
were just simply hell that a man had to choose, none would prefer it; but
since it is the sin which engenders hell, and the lust which brings him on to
punishment, there comes the difficulty. For by nature we are all inclined to
follow the way which leads downwards, we are naturally willing to walk
the road which leads to the pit-we do not seek the pit itself, but the road
that leads to it-and were it not for sovereign grace, none of us would ever
have followed the path to heaven. I am daily more and more convinced that
the difference between one man and another is, not the difference between
his use of his will, but the difference of grace that has been bestowed upon
him. So that if one man has his “inheritance in heaven,” it will be because
Christ chose his inheritance for him; and if another man has his place in
hell, it will be because he chose his inheritance himself. We do need some
one to choose for us in that matter; we want our Father to fix our eternal
destiny, and write our names in the book of life, otherwise, if left to
ourselves, the road to hell would be as naturally our choice as for a piece
of inanimate matter to roll downwards, instead of assisting itself upwards.
However, to come at once to our text, and leave every other person’s
observations alone, “He shall choose our inheritance for us.” First, I shall
speak of the text as being a glorious fact — “He shall choose our
inheritance for us.” And, secondly, I will speak of it as being a very just
and wise prayer — “He shall choose our inheritance for us.”

I. First, then, I shall speak of this as being A GLORIOUS FACT. It is a great
truth that God does choose the inheritance for his people. It is a very high
honor conferred upon God’s servants, that it is said of them, “He shall
choose their inheritance.” As for the worldling, God gives him anything,
but for the Christian, God selects the best portion, and chooses his
inheritance for him. Says a good divine, “It is one of the greatest glories of
the Church of Christ, that our mighty Maker, and our Friend, always
chooses our inheritance for us.” He gives the worldling husks; but he stops
to find out the sweet fruits for his people. He gathers out the fruits from
among the leaves, that his people might have the best food, and enjoy the
richest pleasures. Oh! it is the satisfaction of God’s people to believe in this
exalting truth that he chooses their inheritance for them. But, since there
are many who dispute it, allow me just to stir up your minds by way of
remembrance, by mentioning certain facts which will lead you to see clearly
that verily God does choose our lot, and apportion for us our inheritance.
And, first, let me ask, must we not all of us admit an over-ruling
providence, and the appointment of Jehovah’s hands, as to the means
whereby we came into this world? These men who think that afterwards
we are left to our own free will by choosing this or the other to direct our
steps, must admit that our entrance into the world was not of our own will,
but that God there had his hand upon us. What circumstances were those
in our power which led us to elect a certain person to be our parent? Had
we anything to do with it? Did not God-of himself appoint our parents,
native place, and friends? Could he not have caused me to be born with the
skin of the Hottentot, brought forth by a filthy mother who should nurse
me in her “kraal,” and teach me to bow down to Pagan gods, quite as
easily as to have given me a pious mother, who should each morning and
night bend her knee in prayer on my behalf? Or, might he not, if he had
pleased, have given me some profligate to have been my parent, from
whose lips I might have early heard fearful, filthy, and obscene language?
Might he not have placed me where I should have had a drunken father,
who should have immured me in a very dungeon of ignorance, and brought
me up in the chains of crime? Was it not God’s providence that I had so
happy a lot, that both my parents were his children, and endeavored to
train me up in the fear of the Lord? To whom do any of you owe your
parentage -be it good, or be it bad? Is it not to be traced to the decree of
God? Did not his predestination put you where you were? Was it not the
Lord who appointed the place of your birth, and the hour thereof? Look
again at your bodies, do you not see the doings of God there? How many
children are born into the world deformed? How many come into it
deficient in some one or other of their faculties? But look at ourself. You
are perhaps comely in person, or if not, you have all your limbs; your bones
are well set, and you are strong — must you not trace this up to God? Do
you not see that he arranged the commencement of your life for you? You
might have opened your career there, or there, or there; but he placed you
there in that particular spot, without asking your leave. Did he turn to you
and say, O clay! in what shape shall I fashion you? Or, did he who begat
you ask you what you would be? No: he made you what he pleased, and if
you have now the possession of your faculties and limbs, you must
acknowledge and confess that there was the decree of God in it. And, still
further, how much of the finger of God must we discern in our temper and
constitution? I suppose no one will be foolish enough to say that we are all
born with the same natural temperament and constitution. I am sure there
are some persons who differ a great deal from others, at least I should like
to differ a little from them-some of those with whom you could not sit a
single moment without feeling that you would rather stand in a shower of
rain, and get dripping wet than sit on a sofa by their side; some persons are
so exceedingly warm in their tempers that they actually burn a hole in their
manners and conversation-they cannot speak without being cross, and testy
and angry. Now, although such persons often indulge their temper, yet we
must allow that, in some measure, they are excusable, because they can
trace it to the nature which their mother gave them, (as the worldly poet
would say) or rather, that temperament with which they were bore. As if
there should be others here who are naturally amiable-who have a kind
loving spirit-who are not so easily moved to wrath and passion; in whom
there is not so much of that absurd pride which makes man exalt himself
above his fellows: who has formed them aright or fashioned them so well?
Has not God done it and proved himself a Sovereign? And must we not see
in this that God in some way or other has fixed our destiny, from the very
fact that the opening bud of life is entirely in his hands? It does seem
rational that since God appointed the commencement of our existence,
there should be some evidence of his control in the future parts of it.
But now a second observation. I will ask any sensible man, above all, any
serious Christian here, whether there have not been certain times in his life
when he could most distinctly see that indeed God did “choose his
inheritance for him?” You are a young man-you are asked what will be
your pursuit: you choose such-and-such a thing. You are about to be
apprenticed to that peculiar trade-a misfortune happens-it cannot be done.
Without your consent, or will, you are placed in another position. Your
will was scarcely consulted; your parents exercised some authority, while
the hand of providence seemed to say to you, “it must be so” -and you
could not help yourself. Take another case: you had established a house of
business-suddenly there came a crushing misfortune which you no more
could avoid than an ant could stop an avalanche. You were driven from
your business, and now you occupy your present position because there
was nothing else to which you could betake yourself. Was not that the
hand of God? You cannot trace it to yourself; you were positively
compelled to change your plan; you were driven to it. Perhaps you once
had friends on whom you depended; you had no thought of launching out
into the world and being independent of the assistance of others. Suddenly,
by a stroke of providence, one friend dies; then another; then another; and,
without your own volition, you were placed in such circumstances that like
a leaf in the whirlpool, you were whirled round and round, and the
employment you now follow, or the engagement that now occupies you, is
not of your own choosing, but is that of God? I do not know whether all of
you can go with me here, but I think you must in some instance or other be
forced to see that God has indeed ordained your inheritance for you. If you
cannot, I can I can see a thousand chances, as men would call them, all
working together like wheels in a great piece of machinery, to fix me just
where I am, and I can look back to a hundred places where, if one of those
little wheels had run awry-if one of those little atoms in the great whirlpool
of my existence had started aside-I might have been anywhere but here,
occupying a very different position. If you cannot say this, I know I can
with emphasis, and can trace God’s hand back to the period of my birth
through every step I have taken; I can feel that indeed God has allotted my
inheritance for me. If any of you are so wilfully beclouded that you will not
see the hand of God in your being, and will insist that all has been done by
your will without providence: that you have been left to steer your own
course across the ocean of existence; and that you are where you are
because your own hand guided the tiller, and your own arm directed the
rudder, all I can say is, my own experience belies the fact, and the
experience of many now in this place would rise in testimony against you,
and say, “Verily, it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.”- “Man
proposes, but God disposes,” and the God of heaven is not unoccupied,
but is engaged in over-ruling, ordering, altering, working all things
according to the good pleasure of his will.

A third fact let me mention. If you turn to the pages of inspiration, and
read the lives of some of the most eminent saints, I think you will be
obliged to see the marks of God’s providence in their histories too plainly
to be mistaken Take, for instance, the life of Joseph. There is a young man
who from early life serves God. Read that life till its latest period when he
gave commandment concerning his bones, and you cannot help marvelling
at the wondrous dealings of providence. Did Joseph choose to be hated of
his brethren? But, yet, was not their envy a material circumstance in his
destiny? Did he choose to be put into the pit? But was not the putting into
the pit as necessary to his being made a king in Egypt as Pharaoh’s dream!
Did Joseph desire to be tempted of his mistress? He chose to reject the
temptation, but did he choose the trial? Nay, God sent it. Did he choose to
be put into the dungeon? No. And had he aught to do with the baker’s
dream, or with Pharaoh’s either? Can you not see, all the way through,
from first to last, even in the forgetfulness of the butler, who forget to
speak of Joseph till the appointed time came, when Pharaoh should want
an interpreter, that there was verily the hand of God? Joseph’s brethren did
just as they liked when they put him into the pit. Potiphar’s wife followed
the dictates of her own abandoned lust in tempting him. And yet,
notwithstanding all the freedom of their will, it was ordained of God, and
worked according together for one great end, to place Joseph on the
throne; for as he said himself, “Ye meant it for evil, but God intended it for
good, that he might save your souls alive! “There was the ordinance of
God’s Providence in it as clearly as there is light in the sun. Or take again
the life of such a man as Moses. I suppose no one will deny that there was
a Providence in his being placed in the ark, just in the particular spot where
Pharaoh’s daughter came to wash. And who will deny that it was a
providence that she should say, “Go and fetch me a woman to nurse this
child,” and his mother, Jochebed, should come to nurse him? I imagine that
no one would consider that there was an absence of Providence in the fact
that the child was comely, and that he grew in all the wisdom of Egypt, and
that he had a mind capacious enough to receive knowledge. Nor will you
deny the providence that led him to the side of Horeb’s mountain, or to
Jethro’s daughter, nor can you for an instant deny that there was a
providence which afterwards brought him before King Pharaoh, and helped
him all his way through. The man was a God’s-man. God seems to be
stamped upon his brow in all his acts; in all the three forties of his life,
whether the forty spent in the palace, the forty in the wilderness, or the
forty that he was king in Jeshurun. In all this there seems to be so
manifestly God overruling the man’s acts, that you cannot help saying,
“Here is the Almighty! here is the hand of God in everything the man
does!” and ye turn from the history of Moses, and say, “Truly God was in
this place though I knew it not.” I might refer you to the life of Daniel,
fraught with interest as it was, and in that book you would see how his
steps were first of all sadly guided to Babylon, by being carried captive;
and yet that from the degradation of his banishment there arises the
grandeur of Daniel’s visions, and Daniel’s character is displayed in all its
clearness, so that you must see that a wise hand was dealing with him, and
developing his virtues and his excellencies. More I shall not say here,
because I like you to refer to the Scripture yourselves. Scripture is the best
book of providence we have ever read. If any one should ask me for a
book of anecdotes illustrative of providence, I should refer him to the
Bible. There he might find the marvellous story of the woman who went
out into a distant country, and during her absence lost her inheritance. On a
certain day she went to the king to ask him for it, and just as she came
there Gehazi was telling the king concerning a woman whose son Elijah
had raised to life-and he said, “O, my Lord! this is the woman, and this is
the son!” There were Gehazi and the king talking on the subject, and the
woman came in just at the moment. And yet there are some fools who call
that a “chance.” Why, sirs, it is an appointment as clearly as anything could
be. And that is just one out of myriads of instances you could find in
Scripture, where you can see God present in the affairs of man.

But as the Bible, after all, is the best proof of any doctrine we can advance,
I beg to refer you to one or two texts therein: and first, let me ask you to
direct your attention to a passage in the Isaiah, 6,7, “I am the Lord and
there is none else. I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and
create evil; I the Lord do all these things.” Now here is a most direct
assertion of the power of God in everything: that he maketh peace, and
that he maketh evil-that he createth light and that he createth darkness. We
may ask as the prophet did of old, “Is there evil in the city and the Lord
hath not done it?” Even providential evil is to be ascribed to God; and in
some marvellous sense which we understand not and cannot comprehend,
the ordinance of God has even reference to the sins of men “He has made
even the wicked for the day of his wrath.” “The vessels of wrath fitted to
destruction even these shall show forth his praise. Good and evil in your
condition you must ever regard as the work of God. Whatever your
circumstances are this morning-are you sick, are you in poverty or are you
much troubled, the evil as well as the good is the work of God; and shall a
man receive good at the hands of the Lord, and shall he not in equal
patience receive evil? Will you not take everything from God which he is
pleased to give, seeing that he himself asserts “I create light I create
darkness; I make good and I make evil.” Turn now to a passage in Job
14:5. — “His days are determined, the number of his months are with thee,
thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass.” What a solemn
thought! God has “appointed our bounds.” One of the prophets says,

“Thou hast hedged up my way with thorns and made a wall so that I
cannot find my paths.” And that is first the truth in regard to man’s life.
The “bounds” of it are “appointed!” man only walks within these “bounds;”
out of these limits he cannot get. If this does not imply the hand of God in
everything I do not know what does. Turn now to a proverb from the wise
man-Proverbs 16:33.-”The lot is cast into the lap but the whole disposing
thereof is of the Lord.” And if the disposal of the lot is the Lord’s whose is
the arrangement of our whole life? You know when Achan had committed
a great sin the tribes were assembled and the lot fell upon Achan. When
Jonah was in the ship they cast lots and the lot fell upon Jonah. And when
Jonathan had tasted the honey they cast lots and Jonathan was taken. When
they cast lots for an apostle who should succeed the fallen Judas, the lot
fell upon Matthias, and he was separated to the work. The lot is directed of
God. And if the simple casting of a lot is guided by him how much more
the events of our entire life-especially when we are told by our blessed
Savior: “The very hairs of your head are all numbered: not a sparrow
falleth to the ground without your Father.” If it be so; if these hairs are
counted; if an inventory is written of each one of them; and if the existence
of each of these hairs is marked and mapped, how much more precious in
the sight of the Lord shall our lives be. Take one more passage in Jeremiah
21:25: “O Lord I know that the way of man is not in himself. It is not in
man that walketh to direct his steps.” Jeremiah said, “I know” and he was
an inspired man, and that satisfies us. “I know.” I have sometimes when
quoting a passage out of the apostle Paul been met by somebody replying
that; really they did not think Paul so great an authority as other Scripture
writers.” I was astonished at hearing of the following dialogue between
two young persons. One remarked “Mr. Spurgeon is too high in doctrine.”
Said her friend: “He is not higher than St. Paul.” “No” said she “But St.
Paul was not quite right according to my opinion.” I was very glad to sink
in the same boat as Paul for if Paul was not right in the view of poor pitiful
creatures, verily Spurgeon should not care. I would rather be wrong with
Paul than right with anybody else because Paul was inspired. But will they
cut out some of the Old Testament too? Will they dare to accuse Jeremiah
of mistake? Jeremiah says, “I know that the way of man is not in himself, it
is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.”

I may not have proved my point to any person who is an antagonist to this
doctrine: but to you who believe I do not doubt that I have somewhat
confirmed it. Let me say one word. Perhaps some who hear me will say,
“Then, sir in the case of Christians you make God the author of sin if you
believe that their lives were ordained of him!” I never said so! Prove that I
said it and then I will come before your bar and try to excuse myself. But
until you hear these lips say, that God is the author of sin go your way and
prove first of all what it means to speak the truth. I have not asserted any
such vile doctrine; but I will tell you who does say that God is the author
of sin-and that is the man who does not believe in natural depravity-that
man makes God the author of sin. I remember the case of a minister who
most fearfully split on this rock. When a child had been doing something
that was far from right a friend said, “See there brother, there is original sin
in the child; for at its early age see how it sins.” “No” said he, “it is only
certain powers God has placed in the child developing themselves; it is the
nature which God has given it originally it is one of God’s perfect
creatures.” These gentlemen make God the author of sin, because they
throw the nature upon God, whereas had we not fallen, every one of us
would have been born with a perfect nature; but since we have fallen,
anything good in us is the gift of God, and that which is evil springs
naturally from our parents, by carnal descent from Adam. I never said God
was the author of sin. I thank you, sir, take the accusation yourself:
II. And now having thus spoken upon the doctrine, we shall have a few
minutes concerning this as A PRAYER. “He shall choose our inheritance for
us.” Dry doctrine my friends is of little use. It is not the doctrine which
helps us it is our assent to the doctrine. And now I have been preaching
this morning concerning God’s ordaining our lives. Some do not like it, to
them the truth will be of no service. But there are some of you, who if it
were not the truth, would say you wish to have it so, for you would say, in
your prayer “Thou shalt choose my inheritance for me.”

First, “thou shalt choose my mercies for me.” You and I beloved often get
choosing our own mercies. God in his wisdom may have made one man
rich. “Ah!” says he, at night, “would God I had not all this wealth to tease
my mind and worry me. I believe any peasant who toils for me has far more
rest than I have.” Another who is a poor man wipes the hot sweat from his
brow, and says, “O my Father, I have asked thee to give me neither
poverty nor riches; but here am I so poor that I am obliged to toil
incessantly for my bread, would God I could have my mercies there among
the rich.” One has been born with abilities. He has improved them by
education, and this improvement of his natural powers has entailed upon
him fearful responsibilities, so that he has to exercise his thoughts and his
brain from morning till night. Sometimes he sits down and says, “Now if I
am not the most hard worked of all mortals. Those who keep a shop can
shut it up; but I am open it all times, and I am always under this
responsibility. What shall I do and how shall I rest myself?” Another who
has to toil with his hands is thinking, “Oh! if I could lead such a
gentlemanly life as that minister. He never has to work hard. He only has to
think and read, of course that is not hard work. He has perhaps to sit up till
twelve o’clock at night to prepare his sermon, that is not work of course. I
wish I had his situation.” So we all cry out about our mercies, and want to
choose our allotments. “Oh!” says one, “I have health, but I think I could
do without that if I had wealth.” Another says, “I have wealth, but I could
give all my gold to have good constitution.” One says, “Here am I stowed
away in this dirty London; I would give anything if I could go and live in
the country.” Another, who resides in the country, says, “There is no
convenience here, you have to go so many miles for the doctor, and one
thing and the other, I wish I dwelt in London.” So that we are none of us
satisfied with our mercies. But the true Christian says, or ought to say,
“Thou shalt choose my inheritance for me;” high or low, rich or poor, town
or country, wealth or poverty, ability or ignorance, “Thou shalt choose my
inheritance for me.”

Again, we must leave to God the choice of our employment. “Oh!” says
the preacher-and I have been wicked enough to say so myself — “how
would I like to have all my employment in the week that I might sit in the
pew on the Sabbath and hear a sermon, and be refreshed?” I am sure I
should be glad to hear a sermon; it is a long time since I heard one. But
when I do attend one, it always tires me-I want to be improving on it. How
would I like to sit down and have a little of the feast in God’s house
myself, instead of always being the serving man in God’s household. Thank
God! I can steal a crumb for myself sometimes. But then we fancy, O that I
were not in that employment! O that like Jonah we might flee to Tarshish,
to avoid going to that great Nineveh. Another is a Sabbath-school teacher.
He says, “I would rather visit the sick than sit with those troublesome boys
and girls. And then the teachers do not seem to be so friendly with me as
they should be.” The Sunday-school teacher thinks he can do anything
better than teach; but there is his friend who visits the sick coming down
the stairs, and he says, “I could teach little children, or preach a little; but
really I cannot visit the sick. There is nothing so hard, and that requires so
much self-denial.” Another says, “I am a tract distributor. It is not easy
work to have your tracts refused at this door, and then at another; and
persons looking at you as if you came to rob them; could stand up before
the congregation and speak, but I cannot do this.” And so we get selecting
our employments. Ah! but we ought to say, “Thou shalt choose my
inheritance for me;” and leave our employment to God. “If there were two
angels in heaven,” said a good man, “supposing there were two works to
be done, and one work was to rule a city, and the other to sweep a street
crossing -the angels would not stop a moment to say which they would do.
They would do which ever God told them to do. Gabriel would shoulder
his broom and sweep the crossing cheerfully, and Michael would not be a
bit prouder in taking the scepter to govern the city.” So with a Christian.
But there is nothing that we oftener want to choose than our crosses. None
of us like crosses at all; but all of us think everybody else’s trials lighter
than our own. Crosses we must have; but we often want to be choosing
them. “Oh!” says one, “my trouble is in my family. It is the worst cross in
the world-my business is successful; but if I might have a cross in my
business, and get rid of this cross in my family, I should not mind.” Then,
my beloved hearers, in reference to your mercies, your employments, and
your afflictions, say-”Lord, thou shalt choose my inheritance for me! I have
been a silly child; I have often tried to meddle with my lot. Now I leave it. I
cast myself on the stream of Providence, hoping to float along. I give
myself up to the influence of thy will.” He that kicks and struggles in the
water, they say, will be sure to sink; but he who lies still will float-so with
Providence. He that struggles against it goes down; but he who resigns
everything to it, will float along quietly calmly, and happily.

Having thus spoken upon the extent of the surrender very briefly, I might
hint at the wisdom of it, and show you it is not only good for you to offer
this prayer, but it is better for you, than to control yourself. I might tell you
that it is good for you to give yourself up to God’s hands, because he
understands your wants, he knows your case and he will so pity your
necessities that he will give you the best supplies. It is better for you then if
you trusted in yourself, for if you had the choosing of your troubles, or
your employments, you would always have this bitter thought, “Now, I
chose it myself, and therefore I must blame my own folly.”

But now another thought. What was the cause of the Psalmist saying this?
How came he to be able to feel it? for there are few Christians who can
really affirm it and stand to it: “Thou shalt choose my inheritance for me.” I
think the cause is to be found in this, that he had a true experience of
God’s wisdom. Poor David could indeed thank God for having chosen his
inheritance for him, for he had given him a very goodly one. He had put
him in a king’s mansion; he had made him conqueror over Goliath, and had
raised him to be ruler over a great people. David, by a practical experience,
could say, “Thou shalt choose my inheritance for me.” Some of you cannot
say it, can you? What is the reason? because you have never witnessed
Divine guidance, you have never looked to see the hand that supplies your
mercies. Some of us who have seen that hand in a few instances are obliged
to say from the very force of circumstances,

“Here I raise my Ebenezer.”

Then, again-

“Hither by thy help I’ve come.”

I hope and trust in that same good pleasure which has guided me hitherto,
that it will bring me safely home.

Again, it was a true faith that made the Psalmist say he relied upon God.
He knew him to be worthy of his trust, so he said, “Thou shalt choose my
inheritance for me.” And, again, it was true love, for love can trustaffection
can put confidence in the one it loves; and since David loved his
God, he took the unwritten roll of his life, and he said, “Write what thou
wilt, my Lord.” “Thou shalt choose my inheritance for me.”

I might finish, if I had time, by telling you the good effects that this
produced upon the Psalmist’s mind, and what it would produce upon
yours; how it would bring a holy calm continually if you were always to
pray this prayer; and how it would so relieve your mind from anxiety, that
you would be better able to walk as a Christian should. For when a man is
anxious he cannot pray; when he is troubled about the world he cannot
serve his Master, he is serving himself. If you could “seek first the kingdom
of God and his righteousness,” beloved, “all things would then be added to
you.” What a noble Christian you would be; how much more honorable
you would be to Christ’s religion; and how much better you could serve
him.

And now you who have been meddling with Christ’s business, I have been
preaching this to you. You know you sometimes sing-

“Tis mine to obey, ‘tis his to provide,”

but then you have been meddling with Christ’s business, you have been
leaving your own; you have been trying the “providing” pert and leaving
the “obeying?” to somebody else. Now, you take the obeying part, and let
Christ manage the providing. Come then, brethren, doubting and fearful
ones, come and see your father’s storehouse, and ask whether he will let
you starve while he has stored away such plenty in his garner! Come and
look at his heart of mercy, see if that will ever fail! Come and look at his
inscrutable wisdom and see if that will ever go amiss: Above all, look up
there to Jesus Christ your intercessor, and ask yourself, “while he pleads,
can my Father forget me?” And if he remembers even sparrows, will he
forget one of the least of his poor children? “Cast thy burden upon the
Lord and he will sustain thee,” “He will never suffer the righteous to be
moved.”

This I have preached to God’s children: and now one word to the other
portion of this crowded assembly. The other day there was a very singular
scene in the House of Commons. There is a certain enclosure there set
apart for the members; into this place a gentleman ignorantly strayed. Byand-
bye some one raised the cry “A stranger in the house!” The sergeant of
the House went up to him, took him by the shoulder and reminded him that
he had no business there-not being a member-not one of the elect-not
having been elected by the country. The man of course looked very foolish.
But, as he had made a mistake, he was let go. Had he wilfully strayed
within the enclosure, and taken a seat he might not have got off so easily.
When I saw that, I thought, “A stranger in the House!” This morning is
there not a stranger in the house? There are some here who are strangers
to the subject we have been discussing-strangers to God-strangers to true
religion. “There’s a stranger in the house.” It led me to think of that great
“assembly and Church of the first-born, whose names are written in
heaven;” and I thought of the people who, last Sabbath night, sat down to
the Lord’s table to partake of the Sacrament; and the idea struck me,
“There’s a stranger in the house.” Now, in the House of Commons, a
stranger cannot sit five minutes without being detected, for all eyes are so
soon fixed upon him; but in Christ’s Church-in this church-a stranger can
sit in the house without being found out. Ah! there are strangers sitting
here, looking as religious as other people: some that are not children, some
that are not chosen some that are not heirs of God. They are “strangers in
the house.” Shall I tell you what will happen by-and-bye? Though I cannot
detect you under the cloak of you profession; though God’s people may
not find you out, the grim “sergeant of the house “is coming-Death is
coming-and he will discover you! What will be the penalty of your
intrusion, as a professor, into Christ’s Church? What will be your lot if you
have been a stranger in his house below, when you find that, though you
may have sat for a little while in this House of Commons below, you
cannot sit in the House of Lords above? What will be your lot when it shall
be said, “Depart ye accused?” And you may exclaim “Lord! Lord! have we
not eaten and drunk in thy presence, and taught in thy streets?” And yet he
will say, “Verily, I never knew you!” “You are a stranger in the house!”-
”Depart, accursed one!” How can I tell who is a stranger in these pews,
and who are strangers upstairs? Some of us are not strangers! “We are no
more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints and of the
household of God.” To such of you as are strangers, I pray you think of it,
and go to Christ’s throne, and beg of him that yet you may be his children,
and numbered with his people. Then, after that, I will talk with you about
my text, but not now. Then I will bid you pray to God, “Thou shalt choose
my inheritance for me.”

Bishops could be banished from the House of Lords under plans being considered by Gordon Brown.

The Prime Minister is looking at blueprints for a new and radically reformed upper chamber of parliament as part of his programme of constitutional reform.

Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, will publish a paper on plans for Lords reform before the Commons rises for its summer break next month.

One option under consideration is a move towards an all-elected upper house. In the new, elected House of Lords, there would be no seats reserved for Church of England bishops or any other religious leaders.

A less radical option being discussed is for an 80 per cent elected Lords, with the remaining seats reserved for appointed members and others such as the bishops.

Advocates of the 80 per cent option say it would allow the Lords to retain the expertise of some of the distinguished academics, scientists, lawyers, medics, economists and generals who now sit as life peers.

A partially-elected Lords would also be more likely to win support from the Conservatives. David Cameron has recently signalled his willingness to support an upper house where two-thirds of members were directly elected.

The 26 bishops, known as the Lords Spiritual, sit in the House of Lords because of the Church of England’s position as the Established church.

Some constitutional reformers believe that removing them from the Lords would be the first step on the path to disestablishment.

Mr Brown earlier this year signalled his willingness to make changes to some of the fundamentals of the British constitution, including the monarchy.

He has discussed with the Queen the possibility of altering the Act of Settlement and other related laws, to allow female heirs and Roman Catholics to take the throne. The issue will be discussed at a Commonwealth leaders’ summit November.

Oh Great!!

A bit of good news for once

NEWCASTLE, U.K., June 22, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Baby Grace Vincent, a U.K. baby who was diagnosed with meningitis at six weeks, has miraculously survived after her life-support system was turned off.

Baby Grace was born without complications on April 3 to Emily Ashurst, 26, and her partner, Pete Vincent, 26. Vincent, a marine, had just returned from service in Afghanistan when, on May 16, Ashurst found Grace in a state of distress, covered with the purple patches characteristic of meningitis.

She was diagnosed with late-onset Group B Streptococcus (GBS), a bacteria present in almost a quarter of women, which can be passed on to babies during labor. GBS can normally be discovered prior to labor and its transmission prevented with antibiotics.

Describing the incident, Ashurst said, “Within hours she got poorly. We watched her stop breathing. We watched them put an oxygen mask on her face.”

After four days, Grace had suffered what was described as “catastrophic brain damage.”

“It was a bleak picture,” said Ashurst. “The doctors said they’d never seen a girl as poorly as Grace.”

“We came to the decision to switch off the machine. …She was baptized and all the family came to say goodbye.”

“Pete and I wanted to say goodbye on our own,” Ashurst continued, “and we were told she might gasp for air before she died. They put her in my arms before they disconnected her. We waited for her last breath.”

But miraculously, she never stopped breathing. About two weeks ago she was transferred, and doctors still expected she would die. Instead baby Grace stabilized and on Friday was sent home.

“Her breathing has stabilized,” Ms. Ashurst said, “showing that her brain stem is not damaged. She has opened one eye but is still blind. Her pupils have begun dilating back to their normal size. I think it is miraculous given the experience of five weeks ago.”

“We don’t look too far into the future and we are guided by Grace day by day. What she is doing now is amazing. Everyone has been calling her Amazing Grace.”

The BBC supports Islam and attacks Christianity, according to Don Maclean, the former Radio 2 religious programme presenter.

Maclean, who hosted Good Morning Sunday for 16 years, claimed that the corporation is biased against Christianity and had embarked on a movement to “secularise the country”.

“They’re keen on Islam, they’re keen on programmes that attack the Christian church,” he said.

Maclean, who was replaced on the Radio 2 show in 2006 by Aled Jones, said: “I know there are things that need to be brought forward, but you don’t see any programmes on Anglicanism that don’t talk about homosexual clergy and you don’t see anything on Roman Catholicism that don’t talk about paedophiles.

“They seem to take the negative angle every time. They don’t do that if they’re doing programmes on Islam. Programmes on Islam are always supportive”

The presenter, who also presented BBC children’s show Crackerjack in the 1970s, added: “I think there’s a secularist movement in this country to get rid of Christianity. Something must be done.”

He expressed concerns that the BBC had appointed Aaqil Ahmed as its new head of religious programmes. A document published on Monday said that the appointment of a Muslim in the role was a “worrying” development that could undermine corporation’s coverage of Christianity. The document accompanies a proposed motion to the General Synod of the Church of England. Members will have an opportunity to sign up to the motion in July.

A BBC spokesman said: “As the majority UK faith Christians remain central to the BBC’s religious programming. Songs of Praise celebrates Christianity every Sunday, we’re showing a major series on the history of Christianity later this year and Good Morning Sunday, Worship, the Daily Service and Choral Evensong are among our most popular regular religious programmes on our radio networks.”

Origonal Source The Telegraph

Nearly two thirds of teenagers don’t believe in God, according to a study by Penguin books.

Teenagers even say family, friends, money, music and even reality television are more important than religion.

It also emerged six out of ten 10 children (59 per cent) believe that religion “has a negative influence on the world”.

The survey also shows that half of teenagers have never prayed and 16 per cent have never been to church.

The study of 1,000 teenagers aged 13 to 18 was carried out by Penguin to mark this week’s publication of controversial novel ‘Killing God’ by Kevin Brooks.

The book is about a 15-year-old girl who questions the existence of God.

Kevin Brooks, the author, said: “I can’t say I am surprised by the teenagers’ responses.

“Part of the reason that I wrote Killing God was that I wanted to explore the personal attitudes of young people today, especially those with troubled lives, towards organised religion and the traditional concept of God.

“How can the moralities of an ancient religion relate to the tragedies and disorders of today’s broken world? And why do some people turn to God for help while others take comfort in drugs and alcohol?

“These are just some of the questions I wanted to consider… And I wasn’t looking for answers.”

The research also found 55 per cent of young people are not bothered about religion and 60 per cent only go to church for a wedding or christening.

Only three out of 10 teenagers believe in an afterlife and 41 per cent believe that nothing happens to your body when you die, but one in 10 reckon they come back as an animal or another human being.

A Church of England spokesman said: “Many teenagers aren’t sure what they believe at that stage of their lives, as is clear from the number who said they don’t know whether they believe in God.

“On the other hand many of these results point to the great spirituality of young people today that the Church is seeking to respond to through new forms of worship alongside tradition ones.”

Hanne Stinson, chief executive of The British Humanist Association, said: “It confirms that young people – like adults – do not need a religion to have positive values.

“The ‘golden rule’, which is often claimed by religions as a religious value, is in reality a shared human value – shared by all the major religions and the non-religious and almost every culture – that predates all the major world religions.”

Origonal Source The Telegraph

Public sector workers who face a conflict between their job and their faith should get another career, an MP scrutinising the Equality Bill says.

Lynne Featherstone MP said the world is not big enough to allow people to abide by their religious beliefs and conscience in the public sector workplace.

She said: “On the execution of public duty, it is important that we make it clear here and now that carrying out public services cannot be a matter of conscience.”

The Lib Dem MP for Hornsey and Wood Green was writing on her blog discussing her participation in the 9th and 10th sittings of the Equality Bill Committee.

She referred to amendments tabled by John Mason MP which aim to protect employees who are being asked to perform tasks which conflict with their religious beliefs.

She said: “John Mason’s argument was that the world was a big enough place to allow people to abide by their religious beliefs and conscience and employers could work around that.

“I totally disagree.”

She added: “if there are elements of the job that you cannot do in all conscience – then it isn’t the job for you.”

She referred to the case of Lillian Ladele, the Christian registrar who faces dismissal at Islington Council unless she agrees to perform same-sex civil partnership registrations.

Over the weekend it emerged that a second Christian registrar at Islington, Theresa Davies, has also been punished because she has the same view as Miss Ladele.

Islington Council has admitted that it has been able to provide a “first class” civil partnership service using its team of registrars without requiring Christian staff to be involved.

Despite this, Islington is pressing the two Christian registrars to act against their religious conscience or face the consequences.

Earlier this month a Sunday Telegraph poll showed that thousands of Christians are losing out on promotions and being hassled at work because of their beliefs.

More than half of the Christians surveyed said they had suffered some form of persecution for being a Christian.

Since the turn of the year a number of public sector staff have been punished by their bosses for expressing their faith in the workplace.

NHS nurse, Caroline Petrie, was suspended because she offered to pray for a patient.

Mum and part-time school receptionist, Jennie Cain, was disciplined because she emailed friends asking them to pray about an incident at school involving her daughter.

A Christian foster carer was struck off because she allowed a Muslim child in her care to convert to Christianity.

Teacher, Kwabena Peat, was suspended after he complained that a staff training day was used to marginalise those who disagreed with homosexual practice.

David Booker, a charity worker in Southampton, was suspended under ‘diversity’ rules after answering a colleague’s questions about his Christian beliefs on sexual ethics.

Duke Amachree, a council worker, was also suspended from his job for encouraging a terminally ill woman to turn to God. Bosses told him that even saying “God bless” at work was unacceptable.

Mr Anand Rao, a Christian nurse with 40 years experience, was sacked because he said during a training course that going to church could ease the anxiety of a stressed patient.

The Equality Bill is a huge piece of legislation which aims to consolidate years of equality laws into one Act of Parliament.

Christian groups are concerned about proposals to narrow existing exemptions that allow them to act in keeping with their religious ethos.

The Bill also proposes to place a positive duty on public bodies like schools and the police to actively promote gay and transsexual rights.

Source The Christian Institute

Scary Stuff from the Christian Institute:-