eChurch Blog

Third Sector – By Kate Youde

Bible charity IBS-STL UK puts its commercial side up for sale – Financial difficulties ‘exacerbated by recession’

Christian book and bible charity IBS-STL UK is looking for a buyer for its commercial operations after a “succession of financial problems”.

Its 490 staff learnt on Monday that the organisation had appointed accountancy firm Baker Tilly to lead the operation.

Financial difficulties, exacerbated by the recession, have left the charity with cash-flow pressures, excess stock, and supply chain and service difficulties in its distribution and retail units, a statement from the charity said.

A spokesman for the charity, which was founded in 1962, said the failed implementation of a new computer system in October last year had seriously weakened IBS-STL UK’s finances.

The charity has three trading divisions: Authentic Media, a book and music publisher; STL Distribution, a distributor of Christian resources; and Wesley Owen Books and Music, a retailer with 40 shops.

It is part of Biblica, a global Bible translation, publishing, distribution and outreach ministry.

Keith Danby, global president of Biblica, said IBS-STL UK was focused on a finding a solution to continuing its work, securing jobs and fulfilling obligations to suppliers and creditors. He said the “sale or exit from all or parts of certain operations was a prudent and necessary step”.

“We are working diligently and praying vigilantly for a successful outcome,” said Danby.

REPORT FROM BOOKSELLERS.COM

Christian bookshop chain Wesley Owen has been put on the market along with its sister companies STL Distribution and publisher Authentic Media, after parent company the Christian book and bible charity IBS-STL UK said it was experiencing “severe financial and operational strains”. In total 490 jobs could be at risk if the company fails to find a solution.

The charity has appointed Baker Tilly Corporate Finance to “pursue the sale” of its operations. IBS-STL UK has experienced a succession of financial problems including the failed implementation of a new computer system in October last year, which has led to “significant cash flow pressures, excess stock, and supply chain and service difficulties in its distribution and retail units”.

IBS-STL has created an emergency task force led by the global president of its US parent Biblica Keith Danby. The group has been in discussion with suppliers and bankers and has engaged restructuring and business process consultants in an attempt to resolve the systems and financial challenges. But Danby said: “Given the severe financial and operational strains we have experienced, the Board of Trustees and management team believe a sale or exit from all or parts of certain operations is a prudent and necessary step.”

He added: “Whilst a difficult decision, we are focused on finding a solution to continue the important work of IBS-STL UK, to secure the jobs of the 490 people employed in our ministry, and to fulfill our financial obligations to our suppliers and creditors. We are working diligently and praying vigilantly for a successful outcome.”

Baker Tilly was “actively marketing” the charity to a number of interested parties. It said it was hopeful it would complete negotiations for the sale or potential closure within the next few weeks.

IBS-STL UK has three trading divisions: Authentic Media, a book and music publisher; STL Distribution, a distributor of Christian resources and Wesley Owen Books and Music, a retailer with 40 shops in the UK. The charity employs 490 people. IBS-STL UK, formerly known as Send The Light, was founded in 1962 and is now one of the top 100 charities in the UK. The International Bible Society dates its origins back to 1802. The group was renamed Biblica in 2009, and is based in Colorado Springs. It had revenue of almost $70m in 2008. Biblica said the planned sale of the UK operations would not impact its other global operations.

Michael Fitch, chairman of the IBS-STL UK Board of Trustees, added: “We are praying that we can pass the torch on to other likeminded organisations so that our UK staff, suppliers and ministry partners can carry our work forward.” Weekly meetings will now be held with the workforce to keep employees informed of the situation.

by Sandro Magister – chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it

ROME, November 18, 2009 – Cardinal Walter Kasper has admitted it: “There has been a bit of confusion.” He himself contributed to some of the confusion, involuntarily.

When on October 20 Cardinal William J. Levada, prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, announced the imminent publication of an apostolic constitution that would regulate the admission of groups from the Anglican Communion into the Catholic Church, he, Kasper, president of the pontifical council for Christian unity and therefore absolutely entitled to be involved, was not in Rome, but in Cyprus, busy with completely unrelated matters.

From this, some deduced that Kasper had wanted to distance himself from a decision that was not his own and with which, perhaps, he did not entirely agree.

Cardinal Kasper was in Cyprus because the island was hosting, from October 16-23, the second round (after the first in Ravenna in 2007) of theological dialogue between Catholics and Orthodox on how to understand papal primacy. An ecumenical dialogue of capital importance, in which Kasper led the delegation from Rome.

There was, therefore, a perfect justification for his absence from Rome at the moment of the announcement of “Anglicanorum Cœtibus,” finally signed by the pope on November 4 and made public on the 9th. But the silence that Kasper maintained on the question even after his return from Cyprus continued to prompt speculation about his reservations.

Cardinal Kasper broke this silence with an interview published in “L’Osservatore Romano” on November 15.

The interview is full of clarifying new information. And it gives a little glimpse behind the scenes.

***

“Let’s stick to the facts,” Cardinal Kasper says in the interview. “A group of Anglicans has asked freely and legitimately to enter the Catholic Church. This is not our initiative. They first approached our council [for Christian unity], and, as president, I replied that the competency belonged to the congregation for the doctrine of the faith. [...] The council has always been kept informed by the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, and it is not true that it was pushed aside. We did not participate directly in the conversations, but we were kept updated, as is proper. The text of the [apostolic] constitution was prepared by the congregation for the doctrine of the faith. We saw the draft and presented our proposals.”

In any case, the gestation of “Anglicanorum Cœtibus” was kept secret until the last moment, even from the highest authorities of the Anglican Church. When the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams (in the photo with Benedict XVI), was told that it was about to be published, Kasper was already in Cyprus. And he says that Williams called him in the middle of the night, to ask him for an explanation. Kasper says in the interview:

“We we talked about the significance of the new apostolic constitution, and I reassured him about the continuation of our direct talks, as indicated to us by Vatican Council II and as the pope desires. He replied to me that for him, this confirmation is a very important message.”

A couple of days later, on October 20, Williams made the announcement from London about the upcoming release of the apostolic Constitution, together with the Catholic archbishop of Westminster, Vincent G. Nichols, at precisely the same time as Cardinal Levada was making the same announcement in Rome. For this reason as well, Kasper says that he appreciates “the balanced attitude” of the archbishop of Canterbury. “Our personal relationship is cordial and transparent. He is a man of spirituality, a theologian. In reality, the obstacles to ecumenical dialogue today can come only from tensions within the Anglican world.”

This last statement must be stressed. In Kasper’s view, both the desire of some Anglican groups to change to Catholicism and the obstacles to a more general reconciliation between Rome and Canterbury arise not from the desire of the Catholic Church to “expand its empire” (“a ridiculous comment,” the cardinal snaps), but from causes entirely internal to the Anglican Communion.

The cardinal describes these causes in the interview:

“There followed the ordination of women to the priesthood and then to the episcopate, the consecration of a homosexual bishop, the blessing of same-sex couples: decisions that have provoked serious tensions within the composite Anglican world. The thrust of these events has also widened the rift with Catholics. In any case, the critical response to these developments has not come only from the pro-Catholic Anglicans. Essentially, not all of those who do not agree with these novelties want to become Catholic, in part because the majority of the Anglicans are of Evangelical inspiration.”

Here the cardinal is alluding to the fact that most of the 77 million Anglicans in the world live in Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, and other African countries. And almost all of these oppose the “novelties” mentioned above, which are restricted to Great Britain and the United States. But this is not leading the Anglicans of Africa to want to become Catholic. The ones knocking at Rome’s door are, instead, groups from England, America, Australia, who are in more direct contact with these tendencies they abhor, and have long been drawn to Catholicism.

For them, Kasper says, “the pope has opened the door with kindness, he has pointed out a way, he has offered a concrete possibility that is certainly not contrary to ecumenism. The decree ‘Unitatis Redintegratio’ of Vatican II had already clearly specified that ecumenism is one thing and conversion is another. But there is no contradiction.”

But the cardinal also calls for prudence: “One must look at these people on a case-by-case basis. One does not become Catholic solely because of a disagreement with the decisions of one’s own confession. Just as it is not sufficient to subscribe to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, although this is a significant decision.”

Kasper mentions among the complicated practical questions “the preoccupation of some bishops with dividing their diocese: one part that enters the Catholic Church, and another that remains Anglican. How can a separation like that be managed?”

Then there is the case of the Traditional Anglican Communion, with about half a million followers:

“Almost two years ago, their representatives asked to be incorporated into the Catholic Church. But they didn’t participate in the conversations. Now, however, they have hopped onto a train that is already moving. All right, if they are sincere, the doors are open. But we are not ignoring the fact that they have not been in communion with Canterbury since 1992. [...] Also, conversion is a personal matter: there is the freedom of grace, the freedom of the human decision. It is not possible to intrude in this matter, to manipulate or organize it.”

In Cyprus, the news that the Catholic Church is ready to incorporate groups coming from Anglicanism also put the Orthodox on alert. Their fear is that a “Uniate” Church of the Anglican rite will be established and added to the “Uniate” Churches of the various Eastern rites: these are Churches obedient to the pope of Rome but in everything else the equals and rivals of the Orthodox.

In this regard, Kasper says in the interview:

“In Cyprus, in order to avoid misunderstandings, I immediately told our Orthodox counterparts that this is not a matter of proselytism or a new Uniatism. [...] Uniatism is an historical phenomenon involving the Eastern Churches, while the Anglicans are from the Latin tradition. The Balamand document of 1993 is still valid, according to which this is a phenomenon of the past that took place in unrepeatable circumstances. It is not a method for the present or the future. The Orthodox were mainly interested in understanding the nature of the personal ordinariates for the Anglicans, and I clarified that this is not a matter of a Church ‘sui iuris’, and therefore there will not be the head of a Church, but an ordinary with delegated powers.”

In simpler terms: while a “Uniate” Church has its own structured hierarchy, with a patriarch and territorial dioceses, none of this will apply to the former Anglican “personal ordinariates,” which will provide pastoral care for the faithful but without their own ecclesiastical territory, a little bit like the military ordinariates.

The new ordinariates will be characterized by the preservation of the Anglican rite for the Mass and the other sacraments – with liturgical books that were  approved for the United States in the 1980′s by the Vatican congregation for divine worship – and by the possibility of having married priests.

But only former Anglican priests and bishops who are already married will be able to be ordained to the priesthood in the Catholic Church. For the young men aspiring to be priests, the rule of celibacy will apply as it does in the rest of the Latin Church, except for the ability, under extraordinary circumstances, to “present to the Holy Father a request for the admission of married men to the presbyterate in the Ordinariate,” according to “objective criteria” that in any case “must be approved by the Holy See.” This exception is admitted “in consideration of Anglican ecclesial tradition and practice,” as it says in article 6 of the complementary norms for “Anglicanorum Coetibus.” And although it is “merely hypothetical” (according to Cardinal Levada, in a statement on October 31), it creates a loophole in the discipline of priestly celibacy in the Latin Church, which the former Anglicans are entering.

One last important passage from the interview with Cardinal Kasper concerns the visit that the primate of the Anglican Communion, Williams, will make to Rome from November 19-22, on the occasion of the centenary of the birth of Cardinal Johannes Willebrands, Kasper’s predecessor as head of ecumenical dialogue:

“His upcoming visit to the Vatican demonstrates that there has not been any rupture, and reiterates the shared desire to talk together at an historically important moment. It is in this spirit that the archbishop of Canterbury will meet with members of the Roman curia, and on November 21 will talk with the pope. We have the opportunity to open a new phase of ecumenical dialogue, which continues to be a priority for the Catholic Church and for the pontificate of Benedict XVI.”

By Barry Rubin

We are all searching, in this bizarre era we inhabit, for a healthy sense of déjà vu. By this I mean, we seek precedents for some of the strange things that Political Correctness forces onto people and current political debates bring into play.

Unfortunately, the virtually sole candidate brought up play in such matters is summarized by the word “fascism.” But the extremities of Nazi Germany generally don’t fit well with the relatively mild forms of mischief gotten up to in Western democratic states. Actually, the best parallel I can think of is the way that the Communist party and its fellow travelers tried to impose a cultural line on intellectual life, a process at its peak in the United States and in Britain during the 1930s, while continuingfor many decades longer in countries like France and Italy.

The experience described below by George Orwell in 1937 is a wonderful example of how history is repeating itself. I want to add quickly that I am not speaking here of subservience to a foreign state (the USSR) or even the kind of discipline exercised on party members, but how it permeated into the broader cultural, media, and intellectual scene.

To sum up the three themes:

–There is a party line which should be followed by everyone, even if they aren’t in the party.

–Those who don’t follow it will be called all sorts of awful names which even horrifies the victim since these insults have nothing to do with what he was trying to do or say. In those days, it was fascist or Trotskyist; today it is racist, neo-conservative, or Islamophobic.

–The line is justified because not following it is said to lead to terrible results (historically, the triumph of fascism and big business; today, the triumph of racism, Islamophobia, and big business). Another reason is that telling the truth would help the enemy, in those days, fascism or capitalism, in these days, Republicans, George W. Bush, or various reactionary, Christian fundamentalist, or fuddy-duddy forces.

–The punishments are not torture, prison, and execution but ridicule, denial of a teaching job or tenure, or just not getting your book or articles published.

The particular examples cited by Orwell pertain to the treatment in Britain of the Spanish Civil War. Orwell, a militant socialist but not a Communist, went to Spain to fight and, partly by accident, ended up in the POUM militia. This was a socialist group, mainly in Catalonia, which did not follow the Communist party line and believed that such things as peasant land seizures and workers running factories would strengthen rather than weaken the Spanish Republic in its war against the Fascist forces.

The Communists, however, wanted to control the republic and saw the POUM as a barrier. It repressed the group using bloody attacks, executions, and denunciations of it as fascist or Trotskyist. Orwell would call this in a letter, “Fascism being imposed under the pretense of resisting Fascism.”

Wounded by a sniper, Orwell headed back to Britain for treatment and here our story begins. He quickly discovered that the Communists would suppress the truth out of self-interest and goals, while fellow travelers and “well-intentioned” people would do so because they believed that knowing the truth would not lead the masses in the right direction.

Remember, too, that it doesn’t matter how stupid any idea or belief is as long as it is fashionable.

Now to Orwell’s experience in 1937. As soon as he reached France, he contacted the left-oriented New Statesman about writing an article on his experiences. As he recounted in a letter to a friend:

“Of course they said yes, but when they saw my article was on the suppression of the POUM they said they couldn’t print it.”

So to buy him off, they offered to let him review a new book on the war. But, Orwell continued, “once again when they saw my review they couldn’t print it as it was “against editorial policy.” They did, however, offer to pay him the full fee for the review, which Orwell saw as “hush-money.” The magazine was desperate to ensure he wouldn’t reveal publicly its policy of censorship.

Orwell wrote that the editors warned it would “cause trouble” or, in Orwell’s words, “blow the gaff on the Communist party…..They were evidently very anxious to prevent me giving away the fact that they are covering up important pieces ot the news.”

Orwell also lost his publisher which, he explained, “is of course part of the Communism-racket” and as soon as it realized he had been with the POUM and would be critical of the Stalinists, explained it would be unable to publish the book even though they hadn’t seen a word of the text. Orwell found another publisher and his Homage to Catalonia became a classic.

But this is how things worked then and work today. Blacklisting was not merely a technique of Senator Joe McCarthy. Back then, it was forbidden to write about Soviet concentration camps or antisemitism, or the economic incompetence of the USSR because that would allegedly “help” the bourgeoisie, or fascism, and hurt the cause of the workers.

Today, one cannot write about lots of things because they allegedly wouldn’t be good for people to think or believe. In the 1930s that was also true, except all the things designed to do good through self-censorship actually did immense harm. In fact, Orwell wrote as much in another letter:

“A number of people had said to me with varying degrees of frankness that one must not tell the truth about what was happening in Spain, and the part played by the Communist Party, because to do so would be to prejudice public opinion against the [Republican] Spanish Government and so aid [General Francisco] Franco [the fascist leader].”

Today we know that the Communists, including NKVD agents dispatched for the purpose, tortured and murdered huge numbers of people for the crime of having a view of their own. We also know about the Gulag of concentration camps and the framing of hundreds of thousands of people, many crimes of the USSR which were hidden from the world by those supposedly so solicitous of the rights of man and the worker’s cause. Of course, the result was that more people died and no effort was made to help them.

Another result was that the Republicans lost the war. You see, if you shut up about the misdeeds of those with the good fortunate of being dubbed “progressives” you do more harm both because of the people they victimize and since their weaknesses undermine whatever good there might be in the wider cause.

And all of this also shows one other thing: the cowardice of intellectuals. If the Wicked Witch of the West demanded that they surrender Dorothy, they probably would, and pronounce the deed just retribution for Dorothy’s house landing on the Wicked Witch’s sister. Disproportionate force, you know. And after all the Wicket Witch of the East was a civilian.

It is a cowardice both physical—though they beat their chest to advertize alleged courage in defying forces that in fact will do nothing to them—and moral. Dorothy Parker ridiculed such people long ago in a poem where she wrote: “Their one ambition is to get themselves arrested,/So that they can come out and be Heroes.”

Yet nowadays even such minimal inconveniences are avoided, replaced by the feather-lined mattresses of rewards for alleged heroism with no pain or risk whatsoever. The pain is suffered by others, including victims of the causes rationalized by the self-described virtuous.

Leaping to the defense of courageous democrats crushed by left-wing (at least in rhetoric) dictatorships might not make them look like courageous battlers for progressive causes.

Publishing the “Danish cartoons” or telling the truth about the radical Islamist threat might hurt someone’s feelings. Remember, it is always more popular to avoid hurting the feelings of people who might want to kill you in response.

Ah yes, to paraphrase Bob Dylan once put it, we’ve been in this movie before.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

Baptist Press

As reported by ICC in a Nov. 16 news release, Ali Hussein Weheliye, pastor of an underground church in Mogadishu, Somalia’s capital, was returning home from a worship service Oct. 10 when he was ambushed and shot by two masked men that ICC described as members of al-Shabab, an insurgent Muslim group that has risen to prominence in recent months.

“The Islamists left the pastor for dead,” ICC reported, recounting that Weheliye was taken to a hospital where he died of his wounds on Oct. 20.

“Ali converted from Islam to Christianity in 1999 while working in Somalia’s capital as a linguist. In 2002, he started pastoring an underground house church,” ICC stated.

“He is survived by his wife and a daughter who are now in hiding fearing for their lives.”

Al-Shabab, a rebel group linked to al-Qaida that has taken over large parts of Somalia, has “declared Somalia as an Islamic state, vowing to eradicate Christians,” ICC stated, listing Weheliye as the 13th Christian leader killed so far this year. A number of Christian workers have been beheaded and a number of Christians have fled the country due to the intense persecution.

“Despite the killings by al-Shabab, the Somali church is growing rapidly,” ICC noted.

“The underground church in Somalia is enduring untold suffering,” said Jonathan Racho, ICC’s regional manager for Africa and south Asia. “Al-Shabab and other Islamic extremist groups are hunting down and killing Christians. By killing Christians, the Islamic extremists have repeatedly demonstrated utter disregard to human life and freedom of religion.”

ICC urged Christians to “pray for God to comfort and strengthen Pastor Ali’s wife and daughter. Please pray for courage and wisdom to underground churches in Somalia.”

Somalia’s Christians comprise less than 1 percent of the African nation’s 9.8 million people.

Earlier this year, the Associated Press noted, “Punishments such as stoning, amputations and beheadings are historically rare in Somalia, which traditionally practices moderate Sufi Islam,” reflected by the nation’s president, Sheik Sharif Ahmed, a former religious teacher who rose to popularity in Somalia by helping rescue kidnapped children.

“But a more extremist form of jihadi Salafist Islam with its roots in Saudi Arabia has taken root during the chaotic warfare of recent years, strengthened by a recent influx of hundreds of foreign fighters,” AP noted.

By Hilary White

LONDON, November 17, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The push is on around the world to legalise “a broad array of private killing” no matter whether it is being called “assisted suicide” or outright euthanasia, US lawyer and anti-euthanasia campaigner Wesley J. Smith told an audience in London last night.

At a lecture to anti-euthanasia activists at the Cadogan Hotel, Smith said that the distinction between assisted suicide and outright euthanasia is becoming academic. The two, he said, “are like one leg following the other when walking.”

The push for euthanasia is based on a two-part ideology, he said. First that killing is an acceptable solution to human suffering, and second, that autonomy is the highest personal good. This ideology represents a radical remaking of society’s traditional values, from those predicated on equality of the person to one in which “people’s lives exist on different tiers of value.”

Smith criticized the criteria used by the UK’s Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) in recently issued draft guidelines on the application of the assisted suicide law, saying they are the same as those being used in a Scottish bill that proposes to legalise assisted suicide. Both the bill and the guidelines propose that assisting suicide should not be prosecuted where the deceased was terminally ill, neurologically degenerating, or seriously physically disabled.

He pointed out that the 2002 law allowing euthanasia in the Netherlands had its origins in prosecutorial guidelines which were relaxed at the behest of judges in the 1970s.

Writing of his London trip on his blog at First Things website, Smith said that he had met some euthanasia activists who demonstrated to him that the problem is two “divergent and incompatible world views.”

“What is each of our – and society’s – duty to the ill, disabled, and despairing who ‘want to die?’ I say, that we should value their lives, even if they can’t at the particular moment. That means suicide prevention, interventions to make life more bearable, love and inclusion to help the suicidal make it to a hoped-for new dawn.

“In contrast, my opponents here said, generally speaking, we should help them die.”

Anthony Ozimic who attended the London lecture and serves as communications manager of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, one of the leading anti-euthanasia groups in Europe, commented to LSN that the pro-euthanasia rhetoric is not “based on compassion” but on “ideology and subtle deceits” that have been promulgated by the media especially successfully in Britain.

“Judging from both live debates and debates in print,” he said, “the British euthanasia lobby is increasingly rattled that these deceits are being exposed.”

“The anti-religious prejudice of ardent euthanasia activists is frequently on display in the blogosphere, and now even in suicide notes.”

Ozimic cited the case of Dennis Milner, the elderly man who committed suicide with his wife earlier this month. Milner has been revealed to have been a Voluntary Euthanasia Society supporter and committed communist who sent his suicide note to the press, in which he attacked both religion and the existing ban on assisted suicide.

“These angry misanthropes,” Ozimic said, “are impatient to undermine the idea of modern human rights because that idea has its origins in the Christian tradition of the natural moral law.”

Previous related post

Doctors and lawyers raise concerns over Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Keir Starmer’s interim guidance on euthanasia (assisted suicide) law

John Piper

John 6:22-29

On the next day the crowd that remained on the other side of the sea saw that there had been only one boat there, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone. 23 Other boats from Tiberias came near the place where they had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks. 24 So when the crowd saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they themselves got into the boats and went to Capernaum, seeking Jesus. 25 When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” 26 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27 Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” 28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

Our focus today will be on verse 27 where Jesus says, “Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” What does Jesus mean that God has set his seal on the Son of Man? What does he mean that we should labor for the food that endures to eternal life? What does he mean that we should not work for the bread that perishes?

Those are the three main questions for today, and they relate directly to your situation in life. What are you doing so that you have eternal life? How are you going about your daily work—at the office, at home, at school—so that it won’t be said of you that you labored for the food that perishes?

A Public and Personal Message

But, first, let’s get the setting clearly in mind. The day before, in verses 1-15, Jesus had crossed to the eastern side of Sea of Galilee and fed over five thousand people with five barley loaves and a few fish. It was a sign that pointed to himself as the Bread of Life.

Verse 35: “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger.”

Verse 41: “I am the bread that came down from heaven.”

Verse 48: “I am the bread of life.”

Verse 51: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.”

Verse 55: “My flesh is true food.”

That’s what the miracle of the loaves and fishes was pointing to. It was also pointing very specifically to the fact that Jesus will always be there for his disciples to take care of them personally. He shows this by seeing to it that twelve basketfuls are left over—one for each apostle. So the miracle had a public message for all, and a personal lesson for the apostles.

The Masses Miss the Sign

Publicly, he was saying: I am the bread of heaven. Just like God sent you manna in the wilderness to sustain your life, he has sent me into the world to give life—eternal life. And personally, he was saying to the apostles: Serve me faithfully, and you will never lack what you need. I will be for you everything you need, even in the hour of suffering and death.

But the people didn’t see the sign that way. They missed it. And so verse 15 says, “Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.”

Jesus Will Be There for You

Later that evening, the disciples get in a boat and head for Capernaum on the west side of the sea, leaving Jesus behind. The people see them go, but don’t know where Jesus is. When a great wind threatens the disciples on the sea about three miles out in the lake, Jesus comes to them walking on the water. They are frightened, but he identifies himself, and they joyfully take him in the boat.

And I argued that having Jesus in the boat with them was the end of that “story within the story,” because John was really making the same point as with the twelve leftover baskets. Jesus will do whatever it takes to be there for us in our troubles. He may seem as distant and as inaccessible as a well-meaning, helpless friend on shore while you are about to drown three miles out to sea. But there is a difference. He makes bread out of nothing, and Jesus walks on water. He will be there for you. Nothing can stop him. And what he gives is above all is himself.

Jesus, Blunt and Critical?

In the morning, the crowd can’t find Jesus and so, according to verse 24, they cross the sea to Capernaum looking for him. And they find him in the synagogue. We know that because verse 59 says, “Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.”

Verse 25: “When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, ‘Rabbi, when did you come here?’” They were perplexed at how he had been left behind by his disciples, and yet managed to get across the sea. But Jesus does not see their question as a hopeful sign. He is very blunt and critical. Verse 26: “Jesus answered them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.’”

Fixated on the Product, Not the Person

What does this mean? It means that, when Jesus fed five thousand people with five loaves and a few fish, it was a sign—that is, it was like a beam of glory streaming out from the person of Jesus Christ. It was like a ray of light coming out from Jesus. And when the crowds saw the loaves and felt the pleasures of a full stomach, and thought about what it would be like to have a king who could fill their stomach like that every day, they were thrilled.

But what they didn’t do, when they looked at the sign, was to let their eyes run up the beam of glory from the pleasure in their belly to the Treasure of Christ. They didn’t follow the ray of light back up to the beauty of the sun. What they did was fixate on the product of the miracle, not the person of the miracle. And so the sign ceased to be a sign for them. And Jesus said, “You are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.” They were excited about bread as their pleasure, not Christ as their Treasure.

Jesus Is the Treasure, Not His Gifts

This Gospel is written to reveal the glory of Christ—not mainly the glory of his gifts—so that we would not make this mistake, but would see Christ himself as our Treasure—our all-satisfying Bread from heaven—and have eternal life.

So that’s where Jesus turns in verse 27, where we will focus the rest of our time. He says: “Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” So let’s take these clauses one at a time. 1) “On him God the Father has set his seal.” 2) “Labor for the food that endures to eternal life.” 3) “Do not labor for the food that perishes.”

1) The Father’s Seal on Jesus

First, the last clause of verse 27: “On him God the Father has set his seal.” I think that means ultimately that Jesus bears the mark of God because he is God. But more directly, it’s probably saying that God has authorized his Son, as the Son of Man, to be the Mediator of eternal life. He sent him; Jesus would give his flesh for the life of the world (verse 51); he would rise from the dead (John 10:18); and he would give life to others. God gave this authority to his Son as the Son of Man. He put his divine seal, or mark of authority, on him.

It’s the same thing we read in John 5:19-27…

For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. . . . 21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. 22 The Father . . . has given all judgment to the Son. . . . As the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man.

So the seal of God is God’s authorizing his Son, as the Son of Man, to give eternal life to whom he will.

2) The Food That Endures

Now the second clause in verse 27: “Labor for the food that endures to eternal life.” Let’s see it in context. Verse 27: “Do not labor for the food that perishes, but [labor] for the food that endures to eternal life which the Son of Man will give to you.” What does this mean?

The key is found in verses 28-29: “Then they said to him, ‘What must we do, to be doing the works of God?’” Now that question follows from what Jesus just said. He said, “Labor, or work, for he food that endures to eternal life.” And they ask, How? What are those works? How do you work for the bread that gives eternal life?

Doing the Work of God: Believing

Jesus answers in verse 29, “This is the work of God”—that is, this is the kind of work you do to please God and get the bread that gives life, this is the work that you do—namely, “that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

So what does it mean to “labor for the food that endures to eternal life”? Jesus says in verse 29 that it means believe in Jesus as the bread that God has sent from heaven for the life of the world. “Believe in him whom he has sent.”

Taste and See

Here they are standing in front of the Bread of Life, Jesus Christ—the infinitely valuable, infinitely beautiful, all-satisfying, everlasting Food that endures to eternal life—who gives eternal life. And they ask: What kind of works does God want us to do so that we can have the Bread of Life? And Jesus says, in essence: If you don’t see the person standing in front of you for who he is, no amount of work is going to make him your Treasure. You don’t need to do any works, you need to taste and see. Eat. Believe.

“To all who did receive him, who believed in his name,” is part of what John said in John 1:12. Believing is receiving. Believing is seeing him for the Food that he is, and eating. That is, taking him into your soul, your life, as the all-satisfying, life-giving Treasure that he is.

Doing Turned Upside Down

So Jesus takes the idea of working for this bread (“What must we do, to be doing the works of God?”) and turns it upside down. If a feast is spread before you, and you don’t see it as a feast, no amount of working for God will turn it into a feast. You see it and freely eat and live. Or you die. Jesus is that feast. Those who eat—that is, believe—live forever. Those who don’t, perish. “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

3) The Food That Perishes

Finally, what does the first clause of verse 27 mean? “Do not labor for the food that perishes.” In verse 26, Jesus said that these people were expending significant energy tracking him down, first on one side of the Sea of Galilee and then on the other. And why? Because they had eaten their fill. The product of his miracle, not the person, had satisfied them. “You are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.”

That’s the backdrop for saying now in verse 27: “Do not labor for the food that perishes.” That’s what they were doing. But I think Jesus is generalizing here for us as well as for them. He is speaking to us: Don’t labor for ordinary human food. So what does he mean?

What He Doesn’t Mean

We know he doesn’t mean: Quit your jobs. Stop working. We know that because the whole New Testament assumes and commends the dignity of work. Paul says in Ephesians 4:28, “Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor [!], doing honest work [!] with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need.” So I don’t take Jesus to mean: Quit your jobs.

And I don’t take him to mean: Don’t bring home the bread from your jobs. When he says, “Do not labor for the food that perishes,” he does not mean that we shouldn’t earn a living and use it to buy bread that perishes so that we and our families can eat it and keep on working.

We know this because Paul says to the freeloaders at Thessalonica, “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.” Which means: The normal way to eat the bread that perishes is to work for it. So, “do not labor for the bread that perishes” does not mean don’t make money and use it to put food on the table.

What He Does Mean

So what does it mean? Well, what changes when you believe on him whom God has sent? What changes when you taste and discover that Jesus is your all-satisfying Bread from heaven?

Verse 27 says that this bread is the “food that endures to eternal life.” So two things change: a new chapter is added to your working life, namely, eternity. You will live joyfully forever beyond the grave. And secondly, a new Treasure is added to your heart, a million times more precious than any amount of money or what money can buy. Jesus said, “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matthew 6:21). The Bread of Life is the Treasure of our hearts.

Something About Everything Changes

So your eyes are opened, you see Jesus Christ as the crucified and risen Son of God, you taste and know that he is the Bread of Life, you eat—that is, you believe—and the result? You stay in your job (most of you, 1 Corinthians 7:24) and something about everything changes. It has to. The food that perishes not longer dominates your mind. Christ dominates your mind as the supreme Treasure. And if things look bleak, you remember: I am going to live forever.

Working with Zeal, Excellence, and Joy

So you go to work now, not dominated by the desire for the bread that perishes of for the fear of losing it. You go to work knowing him, trusting him, treasuring him, being satisfied in him, with your heart set on making much of him in every aspect of your vocation.

Keeping eternal life before you, and snacking all day on the Bread of Life, won’t make you a lazy worker. It won’t make you a shoddy worker. It won’t make you a gloomy worker. You will bring zeal and excellence and joy to your work because you know him, you trust him, you treasure him, you aim to make much of him. And you know that everything you do in his name and for his glory—from washing the bathroom to running the boardroom—will be rewarded forever and ever in the new earth.

A Feast When All Else Fails

You won’t be driven by upward mobility, or big pay, or positions of power, or lust for weekends, or passion for retirement. Because every day Jesus will be with—in your boat. He will be a feast for you when everything else fails.

And you will have before you not the fragile hope for a few years of aged retirement, but the absolute certainty of the everlasting cabin by the lake with Jesus. And you won’t be too old to enjoy it. You’ll be young forever. And the everlasting ocean cruise with Jesus. And the everlasting evening by the fire with a good book and Jesus. And the fact that you don’t need to have that now—because you know you will have it forever—changes everything.

In summary:

God put his seal on Jesus, the Son of Man, as the Mediator of eternal life.

Jesus offers himself to us freely as the food that endures to eternal life and no amount of working for God can make you see him as a feast. He is free. He did the work on the cross. All we can do is eat, that is, believe, and live.

And when we eat, two things change: a new chapter is added to our lives, eternity. And a new Treasure dominates our heart, Jesus. And that changes everything.

I thought this to be a valid point from Michael Buckingham at Church Marketing Sucks

The Internet Is Not Your Delivery Boy

The Internet is more than a delivery method.

As I was reading a report on the meeting of the European bishops and reps from Facebook, Google, YouTube and Wikipedia, one of the quotes really grabbed me. It points out why so many miss the power of the internet.

From the article:

During a press conference, [Bishop di Falco] described the Internet “as important as the invention of the printing press,” saying just as the printing press helped make the Bible available to everyone who could read, the Internet can make the gospel accessible to everyone who uses the Internet.Too many times this is how we’ve viewed the Internet, as another delivery vehicle and why we see so many sites as nothing more than electronic brochures. While the Internet certainly is great at delivering information quickly and does make that information accessible to millions what makes it so much more is people.

The Internet isn’t powerful because it connects you to information, but because it connects you to other people.

A great example of this can be seen in LifeChurch’s YouVersion. If they had looked at the internet as a delivery option, it would simply spit out scripture. Instead they looked deeper and created something that’s about interaction with the scripture and each other.

This lesson is true for all of our marketing. It’s not about delivering information, it’s about making a connection.

“When thou hearest the sound of a going in the tops of the
mulberry trees, that then thou shall bestir thyself: for then shall the
Lord go out before thee, to smite the host of the Philistines.”
2 Samuel 5:24

DAVID had just fought the Philistines in this very valley, and gained a signal
victory, so that he said, “the Lord hath broken forth upon mine enemies
before me as the breach of waters.” The Philistines had come up in great
hosts, and had brought their gods with them, that like Israel, when the ark
of the Lord was brought into their midst, they might feel quite sure of
victory. However, by the help of God David easily put them to rout,
burned their images in the fire, and obtained a glorious victory over them.
Note, however, that when they came a second time against David, David
did not go up to fight them, without enquiring of the Lord. Once he had
been victorious; he might have said, as many of us have said, in fact, in
other cases — “I shall be victorious again; I may rest quite sure that if I
have triumphed once I shall triumph yet again. Wherefore should I go and
seek at the Lord’s hands?” Not so, now David. He had gained one victory
by the strength of the Lord; he would not venture upon another, until he
had ensured the same. He went and asked the sacred oracle, “Shall I go up
against them?” and when he was informed that he was not immediately to
march against them, but to encamp so as to surprise them at the mulberrytrees,
he did not demur a single moment to the mandate of God; and when
he was bidden to wait until he should hear the sound in the tops of the
mulberry-trees before he went to fight, he was not in an ill haste to rush to
battle at once, but he tarried until the mulberry-trees began to sing at the
top by reason of the wind that rushed along the leaves. He would wait until
God’s sign was given; he said, “I will not lift my spear nor my hand till
God hath bidden me do it, lest I should go to war at my own charges, and
lose all I have obtained.”

My brethren, let us learn from David to take no steps without God. The
last time you moved, or went into another business, or changed your
situation in life, you asked God’s help, and then did it, and you were
blessed in the doing of it. You have been up to this time a successful man,
you have always sought God, but do not think that the stream of
providence necessarily runs in a continuous current; remember, you may
to-morrow without seeking God’s advice venture upon a step which you
will regret but once, and that will be until you die. You have been wise
hitherto, it may be because you have trusted in the Lord with all your heart,
and have not leaned to your own understanding; you have said like David,
“Let us enquire of the Lord,” and like Jehoshaphat, who said to Ahab,” “I
will not go up until I have enquired of the Lord;” and you have not to ask
priests of Baal, but you have said, “Is there not here one, prophet of the
Lord, that I may enquire at his hands?” Now, keep on in the same way: do
not, I beseech you, go before the cloud. If Providence tarries, tarry till
Providence comes, never go before it. He goes on a fool’s errand who goes
before God but he walks in a blessed path who sees the footsteps of
Providence, and reads the map of Scripture, and so discovers, “This is the
way wherein I am to walk.” This may be imputed to some one here; I
thought I would begin with it, for it may be I have some young man here
who is about unadvisedly to take a step which may be his ruin, temporarily;
I beseech him, if he loves the Lord — I speak to none but those who are
already Christians, — I beseech him not to venture until he has sought
counsel of God, and unless he has a firm conviction that he is doing it not
merely for his own advantage but to help him in serving his God the better.
Unless he can be sure that he has God’s approval of his steps let me — by
the mistake that many have made, by the mischief that he will do himself
unless he listens to me, — let me beseech him to stop, and not take so
much as one half a step, or lift his foot, until he has sought of God, and has
had the answer, “Go up against them.”

Thus I have introduced the text: but now I would refer to it in another way
altogether. David was not to go to battle, until he heard a sound of a
rustling in the tons of the mulberry trees. There was a calm, perhaps; and
God’s order to David was, “You are not to begin to fight until the wind
begins rustling through the tops of the mulberry trees;” or as the Rabbis
have it, and it is a very pretty conceit if it be true, the footsteps of angels
walking along the tops of the mulberry trees make them rustle; that was the
sign for them to fight, when God’s cherubim were going with them, when
they should come, who can walk through the clouds and fly through the
air, led by the great Captain himself, walking along the mulberry trees, and
so make a rustle by their celestial footsteps. How true that may be, I
cannot tell; my remark IS only this — that there are certain signs which
ought to be indications to us of certain duties. I shall use the verse in this
way. First, there are certain special duties, which are not duties to
everybody, but only to some people. If we wish to know whether we are to
perform these duties, we must seek signs concerning them, and not go and
rush into a duty to which we are not called, unless we get a sign, even as
David got the rustling among the mulberry leaves. And then I should use it,
in the second place, thus, there are certain duties which are common to all
of us; but when we see some sign of God’s Holy Spirit being in motion, or
some other signs, these are seasons when we ought to be more than ever
active, and more than ever earnest in the service of our Master.

I. First, then, in regard to SPECIAL DUTIES. I shall confine myself, I think
to one. The office of the ministry is a special duty. I do not believe, as
some do, that it is the business of everyone of us to preach; I believe it is
the business of a great many people who do preach to hold their tongues. I
think that if they had waited until God had sent them they would have been
at home now; and there be some men who are not fit to edify a doorpost,
who yet think that if they could but once enter the pulpit they would attract
a multitude. They conceive preaching to be just the easiest thing in all the
world, and while they have not power to speak three words correctly, and
have not any instruction from on high, and never were intended for the
pulpit, for the mere sake of the honor or the emolument, they rush into the
ministry. There are hundreds of men in the ministry starving for want of
bread and entirely unsuccessful, and I believe in regard to some of them
that the best thing they could do would be to open a grocer’s shop. They
would be doing more to serve God and to serve the church if they would
take a business, and preach now and then as they had time to study, or else
give it up altogether, and let somebody come and preach to the people who
had something to tell them. For alas, alas, a preacher who has nothing to
say will not only do no good, but will do a great deal of harm. The people
who hoar him get disgusted at the very name of a place of worship; and
they only look at it as a kind of stocks, where they are to sit for an hour
with their feet fast, quiet and still listening to a man who is saying nothing,
because he has nothing to say. I would not advise all of you to be
preachers.

I do not believe God ever intended that you should. If God had intended all
his people to be preachers, I wonder how even He in his wisdom could
have found them all congregations; because were all preachers where were
the hearers! No, I believe the office of the ministry, though not like that of
the priesthood, as to any particular sanctity, or any particular power that
we possess, is yet like the priesthood in this — that no man ought to take it
to himself, save he that is called “hereunto, as was Aaron. No man has any
right to address a congregation on things spiritual, unless he believes that
God was given him a special calling to the work, and unless he has also in
due time received certain seals which attest his ministry as being the
ministry of God. The rightly ordained minister is ordained not by the laying
on of bishop’s or presbyter’s hands, but by the Spirit of God himself,
whereby the power of God is communicated in the preaching of the word.
There may be some here who will say “How am I to know whether I am
called to preach?” My brethren, you will find it out by-and-by, I dare say;
and if you are sincerely desirous to know when you are in the path of duty
in endeavoring to preach, I must bid you do as David did. He noted the
rustling in the leaves of the mulberry trees. And I must have you notice
certain signs. Do you want to know whether you can preach? Ask yourself
this question, “Can I pray? When I have been called upon in the prayermeeting,
have I been enabled to put my words together and has God
helped me in the matter?” So far so good. “Well then I will go and try, I
will preach in the street, for instance.” Suppose nobody listens to me,
suppose I go and take a room, or go to a chapel, and nobody comes to
hear, well, there is no rustling among the mulberry trees; I had better stop.
Suppose I go to my wife and children, and take a text, and just preach a
little wee bit to them and to the neighbors suppose, after I have preached
to them, I should feel that they could preach great deal better to me, there
is no rustling among the mulberry trees, and I had better give it up. And
suppose if, after having preached for sometime I hear of none who have
been brought to Christ, there is no rustling among the mulberry trees, I
think the best thing I could do is, to let somebody else try for suppose I
have not been called to the ministry, it would have been a fearful thing for
me to have occupied the watchman’s place, without having received the
watchman’s commission. He that should take upon himself to be a
policeman, and go and do the work of arresting others, without having
received a commission, must be in danger of being taken up himself, for
being a deceiver. And it may be, if I had not been called to the ministry,
and had no seal of it, I had better leave it alone, lest I go without God’s
commission, and that would never answer my purpose, to begin without
his having sent me; for if he have not sent me, it may be I shall break down
in my errand, and do no good. I do not ask whether you are much
instructed or learned, or all that; I do not need to ask you; for I do not care
about it myself. But I ask you these questions. Have you tried to address a
Sabbath-school? have you gained the attention of the children. Having tried
to address a few people, when they have been gathered together, have you
found they would listen to you after you had preached? Had you any
evidence and any sign that would lead you to believe that souls were
blessed under you? Did any of the saints of God who were spirituallyminded,
tell you that their souls were fed by your sermon? Did you hear of
any sinner convinced of sin? Have you any reason to believe that you have
had a soul converted under you? If not, if you will take one’s advice for
what it is good for — and I believe it is advice which God’s Holy Spirit
would have me give you — you had better give it up. You will make a very
respectable Sunday-school teacher, you will do very well in a great many
other ways; but unless these things have been known by you, unless you
have these evidences, you may say you have been called and all that; I
don’t believe it. If you had been called to preach, there would have been
some evidence and some sign of it. I remember, two years ago, some man
wrote to me a note, telling me that it had been said to his heart and God
the Holy Spirit had revealed it to him, that I was to let him preach in this
chapel. Well, I just wrote to him, and told him that was a one-sided
revelation, and that as soon as ever God revealed it to me that I was to let
him preach here, then he should; but until then I did not see that the
revelation was quite a square one. Why should it be revealed to him and
not revealed to me? I have heard no more of him, and I have not had it
revealed to me either; so that I do not suppose he will make his appearance
here. I say this because, though to a great many of you it would be nothing
at all, there are a large number of young men here who preach. I thank
God for them — for anyone who is able to preach. But I will thank God to
stop those who cannot preach, because if they go about to preach and have
not the ability, and God has not sent them, they will just make fools of
themselves, though that you should not be greatly surprised at, because
they may not be far off already; but they will make the very Gospel itself
come into contempt. If they profess to preach who have not the call from
God’s Spirit, when they begin to talk they will just bring more scandal
upon the cross by a rash defense of it than would have come if they had left
it alone. Now, take care about that. I would discourage none; I would say
to every young man who has a grain of ability, and believes he has been
called of God, and everyone who has really been blessed, “So far as I can
help you I will help you, I will do so to the very uttermost, if you need my
help, and I pray God Almighty to bless you, and make you more and more
abundantly useful; for the Church needs many pastors and evangelists.” But
if there is no soul converted under you, if you are not qualified to preach at
all, you shall have my equally earnest prayers for you that God may speed
you — and I shall pray for you in this way, that God will speed you by
making you hold your tongue. I waited till I heard the sound among the
mulberry trees, else had I been uncalled and unsent. David waited; he
would not go to the battle till he had heard the signal from on high, which
was the signal for the battle, and the signal of the commencement of
warfare.

II. But now, my brethren I come to something more practical to many of
you; you do not profess to be called to preach; THERE ARE CERTAIN
DUTIES BELONGING TO ALL CHRISTIANS WHICH ARE TO BE SPECIALLY
PRACTISED AT SPECIAL SEASONS. First, concerning the Christian church at
large. The whole of the Christian church should be very prayerful, always
seeking the unction of the Holy One to rest upon their hearts, that the
kingdom of Christ may come and that his will be done on earth even as it is
in heaven; but there are times when God seems to favor Zion, when there
are great movements made in the church, when revivals are commenced,
when men are raised up whom God blesses; that ought to be to you like “a
sound of a going in the tops of the mulberry trees.” We ought then to be
doubly prayerful, doubly earnest, wrestling more at the throne, than we
have been wont to do. I think this is just the time that demands your
extraordinary and special prayers. I look upon that great movement in the
Church of England, the preaching on Sabbath-evenings in Exeter Hall, as a
sign of rustling, a kind of “a going in the tops of the mulberry trees.” My
brethren, I could pity the man that would be for one moment envious,
though a thousand such places should be full to the doors; I could cry out
to God for mercy on the man, who could be so great a sinner against
humanity and against the souls of men, as to wish that it should not prosper
With all my heart I pray that God may bless it, and I exhort you just now,
as there appears to be a move in the right direction, now that some of the
ministers are more thoroughly roused up than they used to be, now that the
ordinance of preaching is more honored, now that there is a spirit of
hearing poured out amongst the people, I beseech you now, let your
prayers be doubly earnest. Do as David was commanded to do — rise up
and bestir yourself, not in a spirit of envy, not in a spirit of strife; do not
bestir yourself, lest the Church of England shall beat Dissenters. No,
brethren, let us each bestir ourselves that we may beat the devil. Let us
each be earnest, and let us each when we see a movement in any section of
the church, hold up the hands of faithful men, and pray to God that if they
are not faithful men they may be made right, but that as far as they are right
they may have a blessing. I think the church of Christ has lived to a
glorious period. I really think the day to which we have lived now, is a day
that ought to gladden the eyes of many of God’s people. So far from being
now, as I was a little time ago, in a gloomy frame about the worshippers of
the church, I seem to think I have lived now to a happy era. Even the holy
Whitfield himself never stirred up such a revival of religion as God has
been pleased to give now, not by his preaching did he stir up a host of
bishops and clergymen to come forth and preach to the poor. God has been
pleased of late to wake up the churches far and near. I hear the noise
amongst the mulberry trees. Everywhere I hear of the doctrine of grace
being made more prominent, and the preaching of the gospel becoming
more earnest, more energetic, and more full of the Spirit. We have seen in
our midst some called out of our church, whom God has blessed in the
preaching of the Word. There is in many places, and I allude especially to
the Church of England just now, “the sound of a going in the tops of the
mulberry trees.” Now, my brethren, is the time for us to bestir ourselves.
Oh let us cry to God more earnestly; let our prayer-meetings be filled with
men who come full of vehement petitions, let our private altars be more
constantly kept burning, causing the smoke of prayer to ascend, and let our
closets continually be occupied by earnest intercession. Bestir thyself: there
is a “sound of a going in the tops of the mulberry trees.”

That is concerning the church at large; the same truth holds good of any
particular congregation. One Sabbath-day the minister preached with
great unction; God clothed him with power, he seemed like John the
Baptist in the wilderness, crying, “Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is
at hand.” He spake with all the earnestness of a man who was about to die;
he so spake that the people trembled, a visible thrill passed through the
audience. Every eye was fixed, and the tears seemed to bedew every cheek.
Men and women rose up from the sermon, saying, “Surely, God was in this
place, and we have felt his presence.” What ought a Christian man to say,
AS he retires from the house of God? He should say, “I have heard this day
the sound of the leaves of the mulberry trees.” I saw the people earnest; I
marked the minister speaking mightily, God having touched his lips with a
live coal from off the altar. I saw the tear in every eye; I saw the deep,
wrapt attention, of many who were careless. There were some young
people there that looked as if they had been impressed, their countenances
seemed to show that there was a work doing. Now, what should I do? The
first thing I will do is, I will bestir myself. But how shall I do it? Why, I will
go home this day, and I will wrestle in prayer more earnestly than I have
been wont to do that God will bless the minister, and multiply the church.
Well, what next? Where do I sit? Was there a young woman in my pew
that seemed impressed? When I go this evening I will look out for her; I
have heard the “sound of the leaves of the mulberry trees,” and I will bestir
myself; and if I see her there, I will speak a word to her, or, what is more,
if I hear another sermon like it, and I see any who seem to be impressed, I
will try to find them out; for I know that two words from a private person
are often better than fifty from a minister. So that if I have seen a young
man impressed, I will touch him on his elbow and say, “You seemed as if
you enjoyed this sermon.” “Yes, I liked it very well.” “And do you like
spiritual things?” Who can tell? I may be made the means of his conversion.
At all events, I shall have this sweet consolation to go to bed with, that I
heard the “sound of the leaves of the mulberry trees,” and as soon as I
heard it I bestirred myself that I might serve my God, and be the means of
winning souls from hell. But, alas! my brethren, much of the seed we sow
seems to be lost for want of watering. Many an impressive sermon seems
to lose much of its force, because it is not followed up as it should be.
God’s purposes, I know, are answered, his Word does not return unto him
void; still, I think we might sometimes ask ourselves, have we not been too
dilatory, too neglectful in not availing ourselves of favorable times and
seasons, when the power of the Spirit has been in our midst, and when we
should have looked upon it as the signal for more strenuously exerting
ourselves in the service of our Master.

The same I might say of any time of general sickness, or any time of plague
or cholera, or sudden death. There are times when the cholera is raging
through our streets the people are all trembling, they are afraid to die;
mark, that is the “sound of a going in the tops of the mulberry trees.” It is
the business of you and I to bestir ourselves, when people are by any
means led to serious thought, when God is walking through the land, and
smiting down first one and then another, and the minds of the people are all
on tiptoe concerning what the end shall be; when there has been some
alarming fire, when a sudden death has taken place, in the street, or in the
court, or in a house, it is the Christian’s business to seize upon the time,
and to improve it for his Master. “Now,” said the Puritans, during the great
plague of London, when the hireling parish priests had fled from their
churches — “now is our time to preach.” And all through that terrible time,
when the carts, filled with the dead, went through the streets overgrown
with grass, these strong-minded Puritans occupied the pulpits, and boldly
preached the word of God. Brethren, that is what we should do whenever
we see a time more favorable than another for telling sinners of the wrath
to come. Let us seize it, just as the merchant looks out for every turn of the
market, for every rise and every fall; just as the farmer looks out for a good
season for sowing or planting or mowing. Let us look out for the best
times for seeking to do good. Let us plough deep while sluggards sleep,
and let us labor as much as possible in the best season, to make hay while
the sun is shining, and serve our God when we hear the “sound of a going
in the tops of the mulberry trees.”

And now permit me to go back to a thought I have given you. Keep the
same idea in view in regard to every individual you meet with. If you have
a drunken neighbor; it is very seldom you can ever say a word to him. His
wife is ill; she is sick and dying, poor fellow, he is sober this time. He
seems to be a bit impressed; he is anxious about his wife, and anxious
about himself. Now is your time; now for the good word; put it in well,
now is your opportunity. There is a great swearer, but he seems by some
terrible providence or other to become a little abashed, and he is not so
profane as he used to be. You should do as the ancient slingers did. If they
saw a warrior lift his helmet, in they would put the stone, before he could
get the helmet down again. So if you see a man a little impressed, and he is
open to conviction, do what you can, as God gives you opportunity; and if
any of your acquaintance have been in the house of God, if you have
induced them to go there, and you think there is some little good doing but
you do not know, take are of that little, it may be God hath used us as a
fostermother to bring up his child, so that this little one may be brought up
in the faith, and this newly converted soul may be strengthened and edified.
But I’ll tell you, many of you Christians do a deal of mischief, by what you
say when going home. A man once said that when he was a lad he heard a
certain sermon from a minister, and felt deeply impressed under it. Tears
stole down his cheeks, and he thought within him_ self, “I will go home to
pray.” On the road home he fell into the company of two members of the
church. One of them began saying, “Well, how did you enjoy the sermon?
The other said, “I do not think he was quite sound on such a point.”
“Well,” said the other, “I thought he was rather off his guard,” or
something of that sort; and one pulled one part of the minister’s sermon to
pieces, and another the other, until, said the young man, before I had gone
many yards with them, I had forgetter all about it; and all the good I
thought I had received seemed swept away by these two men, who seemed
afraid lest I should get any hope, for they were just pulling that sermon to
pieces that would have brought me on my knees. How often have we done
the same! People will say, “What did you think of that sermon?” I gently
tell them nothing at all, and if there is any fault in it — and very likely there
is, it is better not to speak of it, for some may get good from it. I do
believe that many a sermon that seems nothing but perfect nonsense from
beginning to end may be the means of salvation. You and I may have more
knowledge of the Scriptures, we may be more instructed and enlightened:
we may say, “Dear me, I do not know how people can hear that.” You may
think people are not able to hear it, but they are saved; that is all you have
to look after. A Primitive minister has sometimes quite puzzled you: you
have said, “I dare say the good man understands himself, but I do not
understand him.” And yet he has got all those people with their attention
fixed; and you have seen souls brought to God under the sermon, and
therefore you must not say anything about it. You are obliged to say,
“Well, it was not the sermon for me.” Never mind that, it was the sermon
for some one else. It is the best way for you not to hear that man again, but
let him go on; he will get some people to do good to, I dare say.
I just throw this in, in an interjaculatory way. If you have got hold of
people’s ears, or a bit of their ear; if you have got them to say, “I think I
will come again,” do not put in any word that may keep them away; but
bestir yourselves, to be the means of saving souls instrumentally, when you
hear these signals from on high.

And I think my brethren, I must expressly make an appeal to you in regard
to your own children. There are certain times in the history of my own
beloved children, when they seem more impressible than at other seasons; I
beseech you never lose the opportunity. Salvation is of God, from first to
last; but yet it is your business to use all the means, just as if you could
save them. Now there are times when your son, who is generally very gay
and wild, comes home from chapel and there is a sort of solemnity about
him you do not often see. When you see that, get a word with him.
Sometimes your little daughter comes home; she has heard something she
understands, something that seems to have struck her thoughts. Do not
laugh at her, do not despise that little beginning. Who can tell? It may be
the “sound in the tops of the mulberry trees.” Your son, a boy of fourteen
or fifteen, is often coming home apparently deeply interested, and
sometimes you have thought, “Well, I do not know, the boy seems as if he
listened rather more than others do. I think there must be a good work in
him.” Do not, by any harshness of yours, put a rough hand on that tender
plant; do not say to him, for instance, if he commits a little fault, “I thought
there was some good thing in you, but there is no piety in you at all, or else
you would not have done it.” Do not say that, that is a damper at once.
Remember, if he be a child of God he has his faults as well as any other
boy. Therefore do not be too harsh or severe with him, but if you find the
slightest good say, There is the “sound in the tops of the mulberry trees.”
There may be ever such a faint rustling, never mind, that is my opportunity;
now will I be more earnest about my child’s salvation, and now will I seek
to teach him, if I can, more fully the way of God; I will try to get him alone
and talk to him. The tender plant, if it be of God, it is sure to grow; but let
me take care to be the instrument of fostering it, and let me take my boy
aside, and say to him, “Well, my son, have you learnt something of the evil
of sin?” And if he says yes, and I find he has a little hope and faith, though
it may be rather a superficial work let me not despise it, but let me
remember, I was once grace in the blade, and though grace in the ear now,
I would never have been grace in the ear if I had not been grace in the
blade. I must not despise the blades, because they are not ears; I must not
kill the lambs, because they are not sheep; for where would my sheep come
from, if I killed all the lambs? I must not despise the weakest of the saints,
for where should I get the advanced saints from, if I put weak ones out of
the covenant, and tell them they are not the children of God? No, I will
watch for the least indication, the least sign of any good thing towards the
Lord God of Israel, and I will pray God that these signs may not be
delusive, not like the smoke that is driven away, nor like the early cloud
and the morning dew, but the abiding signs of grace begun, which shall be
afterwards grace complete.

And lastly, not to detain you longer Christian, in regard to yourself there is
a great truth here. There are times, you know, “when thou hearest the
sound of a going in the tops of the mulberry trees.” You have a peculiar
power in prayer; the Spirit of God gives you joy and gladness; the
Scripture is open to you; the promises are applied; you walk in the light of
God’s countenance, and his candle shines about your head; you have
peculiar freedom and liberty in devotion; perhaps you have got less to
attend to in the world and more closeness of communion with Christ than
you used to have. Now is the time; now, when you hear the “sound of a
going in the tops of the mulberry trees.” Now is the time to bestir
yourselves; now is the time to get rid of any evil habit that still remains
now is the season in which God the Spirit is with you. But spread your sail;
remember what you sometimes sing —

“I can only spread the sail;
Thou Lord must breathe the auspicious gale.”

Be sure you have the sail up. Do not miss the gale, for want of preparation
for it. Seek help of God, that you may he more earnest in duty, when made
more strong in faith; that you may be more constant in prayer, when you
have more liberty at the throne; that you may be more holy in your
conversation, whilst you live more closely with Christ.

And oh, with regard to some here, who to-night, or this morning, or at any
other time, have been led to think, “Oh, that I might be saved!” If you have
any thought about it, any serious impression, I pray that God the Holy
Spirit may enable you to look upon the impression that is made upon you
as the “sound of a going in the tops of the mulberry trees;” that you may be
led to bestir yourselves, and seek God more earnestly; if God the Spirit has
convinced you in any degree, if he has impressed you, if he has made you
tremble, if he has sent you home to pray, now, I beseech you, be in earnest
about your own soul; and if God has awakened you so far, look upon that
as a token of his grace, and say, “now or never.” It may be that this big
wave will help you over the great bar that is before the harbour’s mouth.
This may be the tide, which taken at the flood, leads on to heaven. Oh, that
God might help you to take it at the flood, that you might be carried safely
over your convictions and your troubles, and landed safely in the blessed
haven of faith — that haven which is protected by the atonement of Christ,
and by the bar of everlasting love. God bless you, for Jesus’ sake! Amen.

I am delighted (and relieved) to see that the death penalty for Islamic Apostates, that convert to Christianity, is finally being taken seriously here in the UK:-

“if anyone changes his religion, kill him” (Bukhari 9.84.57)

These media links will take you to the story:-

Afghan apostate from Islam gains asylum in U.K.

Christian convert who came in on hijacked plane given asylum

Afghan asylum seeker wins right to stay in Britain after converting to Christianity

Aw bless them, this will upset the Humanists….(Update, yep they’re not happy chicks)

BBC Trust

The BBC Trust today announced its findings on a number of appeals about the broadcast of Radio 4′s Thought for the Day and BBC editorial policy on non-religious content.

The Trust found that the editorial policy of only allowing religious contributors to participate on Thought for the Day does not breach either the BBC Editorial Guideline on impartiality or the BBC’s duty to reflect religious and other beliefs in its programming. However, the Trust confirmed that Thought for the Day must comply with requirements of due impartiality and that any future complaints on particular broadcasts of Thought for the Day would be judged against these standards on a case-by-case basis.

Read More

Previous related posts:-

Christians say the BBC’s Thought for the Day radio programme will lose its distinctiveness if it is opened up to humanist speakers.

Thought for the Day controversy to be aired in public debate – The Church and Media Network will host a public debate on BBC Radio 4’s controversial Thought for the Day next month.

Christians want BBC Thought for the Day to stay religious

BBC Trust considering non-religious Thought for the Day

A cross-party group of MPs say Radio 4’s Thought for the Day should remain a religious slot and not to be handed over to atheist commentators

Former head of BBC calls for atheists on Radio 4 God Slot – Lord Birt, the former Director General of the BBC, has called for atheists to contribute to Radio 4’s Thought for the day.