IS THE ONE PASTOR SYSTEM BIBLICAL? by Mark Frees

In the summer of 1990, while pastoring a denominational church in rural Mississippi, 1 felt led to teach a Bible study series on the New Testament pattern for the church and its leadership. We were not very far into this study before I began to seriously question the scripturalness of many of our church practices and traditions. Most troublesome was the question of whether or not my own position as the Pastor of a local church was a scriptural one.

 

I had always assumed that the one-Pastor system, being the pattern followed in the overwhelming majority of churches today, was founded upon Scripture. But as I began to earnestly study the Scriptures on the issue of church leadership, one disturbing question kept intruding itself-a question I present here for the sober consideration of the reader. Where in Scripture is there warrant for one man to be the spiritual leader and authority over the local church?

 

Never mind that this is the pattern unquestioningly followed throughout Christendom today. Where is it in Scripture? As I searched the length and breadth of the New Testament, it became obvious to me that such a pattern was nowhere to be found. Rather, I found that the primary role in shepherding the New Testament churches was exercised, not by a solitary Pastor, but by a plurality of men, described as "elders" or overseers.

 

And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed. (Acts 14:23)

 

From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church.... He said unto them... Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:17-28)

 

Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons: (Phil.1:1)

 

For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: (Titus 1:5)

 

Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: (James 5:14)

 

The quotation above from Acts 20 makes it clear that the "elders" and "overseers" are the same persons, and that it is they who are given responsibility to shepherd, or pastor the church of God. ("Shepherd" is the literal meaning of the word "pastor.") So while others besides elders may exercise a pastoral gift-Bible teachers, for instance, there is no hint in Scripture of anyone claiming to be "the Pastor" of a local church and assuming a position of oversight apart from and superior to the work of the elders. We read nothing of a "Senior Pastor," or "Presiding Elder." Such titles, in fact come perilously close to blasphemy, since Christ Himself is spoken of as "the Chief Shepherd" (1 Peter 5:4).

 

The apostle Peter confirms that the terms "elders" and "overseers" refer to the same persons, and that their work is that of pastoring the flock: The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:  Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; (1 Peter 5:1-2)

 

So when we read in Ephesians 4:11 that God has given "some as pastors" (literally, "shepherds"), can we not assume that this refers primarily to these elders, or overseers, and not to a one-man office about which the rest of the New Testament is completely silent. Nor is all this mere wrangling over terminology.

 

The point to be fixed clearly in the mind from the above Scriptures is that, in the New Testament, churches were never shepherded by one man, whatever his title or designation, but by a plurality of men. Further, the clear impression given by these Scriptures is that elders were generally raised up by God from within the local church, not hired and imported from outside-and certainly not from the ranks of a professional "clergy".

 

This gives rise to another question. Where in Scripture is there any such thing as a servant of the Lord contracting to receive a stated salary from a church? The New Testament clearly sets forth the principle that those who preach the gospel are entitled to "live from the gospel" (Matt. 10:9-10; 1 Cor. 9:14; 1 Tim. 5:17-18), but there is never any indication that this involves a stated salary, but rather, free will gifts:

 

Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.(Gal. 6:6)

 

Now you Philippians know also that in the beginning of the gospel... no church shared with me concerning giving and receiving but you only. For even in Thessalonica you sent aid once and again for my necessities. (Phil. 4:10-16)

 

Bring Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their journey diligently, that nothing be wanting unto them. And let ours also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful.(Titus 3:13-14)

 

The only case in Scripture of a "minister" receiving a fixed salary occurs in Judges 17-a situation filled with compromise and idolatry!

 

But did not Jesus say, "The laborer is worthy of his hire" (Luke 10:7)? True, but the briefest glance at the immediate context, where these laborers are instructed to carry neither purse nor scrip, and to "eat and drink such things as are set before you"-shows that a fixed salary was the last thing our Lord had in view. Yes, the Lord's laborer is worthy of his hire, but who is it that "hires" him? In whose employ is he--the church's or the Lord's? Surely the Lord's, but the system of a

salaried pastorate implies otherwise. I cannot help but believe that the present-day "Pastor search" process, complete with resumes, salary negotiations, trial sermons, and the like, is a grievous offence to the Spirit of God. Again our urgent question must be: where is all this in Scripture?

 

Where also is the notion that the public ministry of the Word is to be confined to one man in a local church, and that it is contingent upon him being "ordained" by some human authority? On the contrary, we read:  Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. (1 Cor 14:29-31)

 

Regardless of one's view concerning the nature of the gift of prophecy and its validity for today, it is abundantly clear that the practice of one man monopolizing the public ministry of the Word was utterly foreign to the New Testament churches.

 

Sad consequences

So when confronted with the plain teaching of Scripture, I could not escape the conclusion that the oversight of the local church is to be exercised by mature brethren raised up by the Holy Spirit from within the church. and that public ministry of the Word is open to any brother who has been divinely gifted for it. In Contrast, most churches today entrust the spiritual leadership of the congregation and the vast majority of the public ministry to a solitary Pastor, who is chosen from among the professional "clergy," imported from outside the church and promised a fixed salary for his services. Can the reader-with his New Testament open before him-deny that this is a drastic departure from the scriptural pattern? Indeed it is, and it has had predictably severe consequences on the spiritual life of churches. The following are only some of the problems that are created or aggravated by this unscriptural one-Pastor system:

 

(1) Perpetuates the deplorable distinction between "clergy" and "laity."

No more pernicious device of the devil has ever been deployed than this utterly unscriptural distinction. Pastors today grieve about being unable to involve the "laity." without ever considering that it is the very system of dividing Christians into two classes that is to blame.

 

The answer is not to "involve" the laity, but to abolish it! Away with the idea that Christian work is the province of a special few!

 

(2) Causes believers to neglect their own responsibility for witnessing to the lost, encouraging the brethren, in-depth Bible study, visiting the sick, etc., out of a conscious or subconscious assumption that these are "the Pastor's Jobs." Often the only one visibly working for Christ in the community is the Pastor, whose witness is impaired by the fact that he is perceived as paid to do so, And how rare is serious Bible study outside of the Pastor's study! There is a widespread delusion that only the "ordained" Pastor is qualified to mine the riches of God's Word, and that only he is responsible for using the Word to encourage the brethren and warn the lost. As a result, men who have been believers in Christ for thirty or forty years and "by this time ought to be teachers" are still being spoon-fed them- selves. (Heb. 5:12) In our

churches today this is not the unfortunate exception. It is the norm. Of all the damage wreaked by the unscriptural system of handing over the ministry of the church to a single professional (or in larger churches, a staff of professionals), this debilitating effect on the men of the congregation is perhaps the most tragic.

 

(3) Leaves little or no room for the exercise of spiritual gifts, other than the Pastor's, in the gatherings of the church.

 

(4) Leads to churches being built in the flesh, as programs, promotion, and the Pastor's personality must replace the spiritual gifts of the body.

 

(5) Produces widespread discouragement among Pastors, who are trying earnestly to fill an unscriptural role.

 

(6) Denies Pastors the fellowship in the ministry they so desperately need. Usually the difference in spiritual vision and ministry responsibility between the Pastor and the congregation is so wide that his only meaningful fellowship is with other Pastors, who are not fellow-laborers in the same field, but have their own fields to worry about.

 

(7) Tends to negate the presidency of the Holy Spirit in the church.

 

Though the Pastor may earnestly seek the mind of the Spirit, his pein the church. Though the Pastor may earnestly seek the mind of the Spirit, his perception is clouded by his own personality, desires, etc. How much better, when formulating plans or making a decision, for the elders as a group, along with other spiritual men, to come before the Lord in prayer.

 

(8) Since one man is given responsibility for the entire ministry of the church-and since no one man has all the gifts-Pastors are forced to spend much of their time doing ministry they are not supernaturally gifted to do, or else that ministry goes undone.

 

(9) Creates a situation where one person, the Pastor, can turn a doctrinally sound church into a heretical church overnight.

Having multiple elders, while not providing absolute immunity from doctrinal error, is a powerful check against heretical teaching.

 

(10) Leads to a paralyzing shortage of national Christian workers in many mission areas, because of the assumption that these workers must be professionally trained and imported from outside the church. Where is the confidence that the Lord has already supplied the body with the leadership gifts needed?

 

(11) Puts undue pressure on the Pastor's wife and children, as they are forced to live in a "fishbowl" environment as "the preacher's" family.

 

These are but a sampling of the consequences that I believe can be laid squarely at the feet of unscriptural beliefs and practices concerning the ministry.

 

Some Objections Answered

 

Objection 1: The proper role of a pastor is not to assume the entire ministry of the church, but to mobilize and equip the saints to do the work of the ministry. Therefore, most of the problems you have listed are results, not of the single-Pastor system itself, but of the abuse of that system.

 

Reply:  Since the single-Pastor system is universally beset with these problems, the burden of proof lies on its defenders to prove that the system itself is not at fault, particularly since it is a system with no warrant in Scripture. The concept of a church led by a Pastor-equipper who mobilizes the saints to do the work of the ministry sounds attractive, but the experience of thousands of frustrated Pastors testifies that it simply does not work. There is simply too deeply ingrained a perception in the minds of the congregation that Christian work is for a special few. The clergy-laity gap is the great demobilizer of the saints. Anyone trying to abolish that gap is doomed to failure while clinging to a system where one man, professionally trained and credentialed, is viewed as "the Minister." Incidentally, those who espouse the concept of the Pastor- equipper normally have a very limited notion of what the "work of the ministry" includes. For instance, even

the Pastor who makes equipping the saints an emphasis of his ministry will normally call a fellow clergyman-not someone from the congregation-to fill the pulpit when he is away.

 

Objection 2: The approach you have suggested would produce incompetent church leadership at best, and doctrinal mayhem at worst.

 

Reply: This is a serious charge because it I implies that the Holy Spirit is incompetent in placing the proper leadership gifts within each church. Is it seminary training that qualifies a man for leadership in the church, or the gifts of the Spirit? We have often been guilty of giving lip service to the latter, while placing greater weight on the former.

 

Objection 3: The word "overseer" is singular in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:7 where the qualifications of the overseer are described. This suggests at least the possibility of "overseer" being a one-man work.

 

Reply: It is a most natural use of language to employ the singular when describing the qualifications of a position. For instance, I might say, "A United States Senator (or even, the United States Senator) must be a man of integrity. honor, etc." without in the least implying that there is only one United States Senator, or even one per state! To stress Paul's perfectly explicable use of the singular here, while ignoring the overwhelming evidence of the rest of the New Testament, would be a

strange and twisted exegesis. At any rate, a closer look at Titus 1:5-7 rules out the possibility that Paul was advocating a one-pastor system.  How can the use of the singular "overseer" in verse 7 possibly imply that each local church is to have only one overseer, when two verses earlier Paul had introduced the subject by reminding Titus of his instructions to "appoint elders [plural I in every city"?  To my mind, this is conclusive.

 

Objection 4: Were not the "Pastoral Epistles" addressed to single individuals?

 

Reply: This objection is based on the common misconception that Timothy and Titus were each "Pastors" of local churches. This is simply not true. To quote from the Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary: "Though these letters do furnish worthwhile directions for pastors, the addressees were not Pastors in the usual present-day sense of that term. Rather, they were Paul's special envoys sent by him on specific missions and entrusted with concrete assignments according to the need of the

hour."

 

Objection 5: What about the leadership role of James at Jerusalem (Acts 12:17). Epaphras at Colossae (Col. 4:12). And Epaphroditus at Philippi (Phil. 2:25)?

 

Reply: This objection, which I have heard used in defense of the one-Pastor system is a patent example of reading the Word of God through the distorting lens of tradition. James, the Lord's brother, was an apostle (Gal. 1:19). not a Pastor. Epaphras was an evangelist. The "fellow bond-servant" of Paul who brought the gospel to the Colossians (Col. 1:7). (Strange that if he were "Pastor" of the church at Colossae. he is never seen as present there, but always with Paul elsewhere!. (Col. 4:12; Philem. 23) Epaphroditus is simply described as one of Paul's fellow-workers who was sent by the Philippian church as a minister to his needs. All this is evidence for the one-Pastor system?

 

Objection 6: Do not the "angels" of the churches in Revelation 2-3 refer to Pastors (e.g. "To the angel of the church in Ephesus write...," etc.), and is there not one per church?

 

Reply:  No person reading the New Testament apart from preconceived notions would ever imagine that the "angels" of Revelation 2-3 refer to Pastors. Although the Greek word angelos may be translated "messenger," in every other occurrence of the word in Revelation-and it occurs 76 times!-it unquestionably refers to literal angels. If it does mean

"messenger" in Revelation 2-3, it still could hardly be stretched to mean "pastor." In every case where the New Testament uses the phrase messenger of..." (e.g. "messenger of Satan," "messengers of John," etc.), it always describes by whom the messenger is sent, never to whom.  In other words, "the messenger of the church in Ephesus" would not likely mean a messenger sent to the church, but a messenger sent by the church, perhaps as part of a delegation to minister to the apostle in his exile on Patmos and to receive instructions from him.

 

Objection 7: Perhaps the many New Testament references to multiple elders are due to the fact that, while each church had only one elder or overseer, each city had several different churches. For instance, when Paul writes to "the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons" (Phil. 1: 1), there may have been a number of congregations in Philippi, each with their own overseer, or Pastor.

 

Reply: This reasoning may seem to answer certain passages, but it utterly falls apart in view of others, such as Acts 14:23 ("So when they had appointed elders in every church...), James 5:14 ("Let him call for the elders of the church"), etc.

 

Objection 8: Even if it can be proven that the New Testament churches had multiple elders that would not necessarily be normative for the church today. After all, everyone agrees that believers in the Jerusalem church sold their goods and had all things in common, yet who suggests returning to that pattern today?

 

Reply: To say that the pattern of the New Testament church is not normative for us today is tantamount to saying that God has left us without any pattern at all. Distressing thought! Has God really left us at the mercy of human ingenuity in deciding how the ministry of His Church is to be ordered? Rather, let us say with the Psalmist, "I esteem right all Thy precepts concerning everything" (Ps. 119:128). In regard to the selling of goods by believers in the Jerusalem church: (1) The

passage in question, Acts 2:42-47, does not say that all those who believed sold all their possessions. This was not "Christian communism" as it is sometimes pictured. The use of the imperfect tense in verse 45 implies that from time to time, as necessary, they sold their goods to distribute to brethren in need. (2) I, for one, am not prepared to say that the example of these early Jerusalem saints is not the norm for believers today, particularly in light of the words of John's epistle: But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him. (1 John 3:17)

 

Objection 9: You cannot deny that God has through the years mightily blessed many Pastors and churches who have used the one-Pastor system, and continues to do so today.

 

Reply: No one would think of denying this. Yet the problems mentioned above cannot reasonably be denied either. And who would claim that the fruitfulness of the Church as a whole is anywhere near the divinely intended level? Besides, it is a mistake to think that because God graciously blesses someone operating under a certain set of beliefs or practices, that He thereby endorses those beliefs or practices. God has, for instance, greatly used many preachers, teachers, and missionaries

who have held to the teaching that Christians may lose their salvation. Yet few who are taught in the Scriptures would suggest that this view therefore has God's sanction, or that it is unimportant to uphold the scriptural teaching of Salvation. Praise God, He does not require us to be perfect in our interpretation of Scripture before He will use us. If so, who could hope to be used? But as we are given further light on the Scriptures, it is our duty and our Joy to conform our beliefs and

practices as nearly as possible to the Word of God.

 

Objection 10: A multiple-elder system might well solve some problems, but at the same time it would create a whole new set of problems of its own.

 

Reply: This I willingly admit. When, however, you are operating under a scriptural pattern, the problems that arise are scriptural problems. That is, they are problems that have been anticipated in Scripture and for which guidance is provided in Scripture. Also, let us not forget that, quite apart from the question of what problems might be solved or created, we ought to follow the New Testament pattern simply because it is the New Testament pattern. We conform to the authority of Scripture as a matter of principle, not for pragmatic reasons. But when we do so, we invariably find God's way to be the best way.

 

Objection 11: Surely you don't think all the problems you mentioned would vanish if our churches simply changed their pattern of leadership?

 

Reply: Unfortunately, no. Not overnight at least, particularly where the clergy-laity mentality has been firmly entrenched for decades. But even in such a case a return to the New Testament pattern, if wholeheartedly adopted by the local church, would certainly produce a dramatic effect. The manifold problems and unscriptural attitudes nurtured by the false

clergy-laity distinction could at least begin to be resolved. In other situations, where a fresh start is possible (such as on the mission field, in new churches, or with new converts), these problems can be avoided altogether.

 

What shall we say then? The one-man pastorate, far from having the sanction of Scripture, is essentially a "Protestantized" holdover from the Roman Catholic clerical system. For those of us who claim the Bible, rather than tradition, as our authority, it is time to fervently search the Scriptures to see if these things are so. (Acts 17:11)  I would that every reader of this booklet might share the blessing I have found by "turning my feet to His testimonies" (Ps. 119:59) and choosing to meet in fellowship with those who gather in New Testament simplicity and order. I have written more about this in a small booklet entitled, What I Have Found: My introduction to "brethren" assemblies. *

 

A free copy may be obtained by writing to the publisher of this booklet.

Published by

Spread the Word

2721 Oberlin Drive

York, PA 17404

REPLY TO BEGGING LETTERS (letters requesting money)

Dear one,

Pardon me for saying so, but the appeal for funds that you have sent shows how thoughtless, selfish, shameless and certainly how unspiritual professing Christians have become in our times.  To send appeals for funds for yourself to any other human is wrong, and when you send them to a missionary who is serving the Lord and living by faith himself, is thoughtless.  To God's glory I can testify that He is faithful, and although I have to set a table for 10 people 3 times each day, He has never failed us, and we have never made our needs known to others or asked for money.  All such servants of the Lord certainly have scores of other "needs" like any other human, as well as the countless needs of the ministry of preaching the gospel, making disciples and founding assemblies, however, we who live by faith trust the Lord, and never ask anyone but Him for our needs to be met.  If there were no God, no heavenly Father, people like you would continue to have their needs met by men, but people like us would starve to death, because we depend solely upon Him.  Think about it!  Therefore for you to solicit funds from such people is thoughtless to say the least.

But it is also selfish to do this, because it is thinking of yourself, and trying to cause other people to think of you.  It is promoting your own interests as the best, the most urgent, or the most worthy.  Yes, I realize that the apostle Paul asked for money, however you must realize that he did not do so for himself or his ministry, but rather for the poor who lived in Jerusalem.  When one professes to serve the Son of man who came not to be ministered unto but to minister and give His life (Mark 10:45), he must not advertise himself or ask for himself or his ministry, but rather think of others.  Selfish behavior like advertising your needs and asking others to meet them is certainly unbecoming to those who profess to serve the Lord Jesus Christ.  You may say, "but it is only so I can help others", and think that this justifies your asking.  But remember that the Lord and the apostles truly did help others, and they did so without advertising their needs to men or asking men to give them money.  How then did they do it?  By faith.  By prayer.  By patient waiting on the Lord and at times even by taking work!  To beg for money is impatient.  It is presumptuous, as if you knew by revelation that your ministry was better and more deserving than all other work of the Lord, but no one can say this!

Also, to reduce yourself to this that we will have needs, and He cares about this because He cares about us.  He wants to supply our needs and teaches us what to do, but how many of us remember or obey His teaching?   The Lord says that we should go into our closet [literally in greek - our storeroom or supply room], shut the door, and ask our Father in secret, and He will reward us openly.  To do otherwise is to show a lack of faith and with it a lack of spirituality.   That one should ever consider to be insufficient what the Lord said in Matthew 6 casts doubt upon whether that person, whoever he is, should declare himself to be a servant of this Lord.  All who behave thus would do well to consider the Lord's question: "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46).


Such behavior is not only thoughtless, selfish, and shameless, but also it is most certainly unspiritual.  How much better to trust in the Lord, for He is trustworthy, isn't He?  Can't He be trusted?  How can you exhort and encourage others saying "Faithful is He who has called you" if your own life shows a basic mistrust of Him as your Master?  How can you read the 121st Psalm to others to comfort them if you are unwilling to look unto the Lord to help you?  An older brother once told me that the Lord pays for what He orders.  So if we live by faith and make no appeals but to the Lord, we know what the Lord "orders" because He provides the funds for it without us having to ask men.  "The squeaky hinge gets the oil" says the world, and unspiritual believers "squeak" a lot, hoping for the oil of money to be applied to them.  There is no question that sometimes their appeals are for noble causes, but the nobleness of the cause does not justify publicizing your needs.  It calls for increased and intensified prayer.  He sustains His servants.  Faith is the evidence of things unseen, not the obtaining of pledges of support from men.  Oh yes, I already have heard many reply that "the laborer is worthy of his hire", but remember, don't forget, it is the Lord who has "hired" him, or else he is not the servant of the Lord!  The world certainly has success in appealing for funds in this way, but we are not of the world, are we?  We are to be spiritual, not carnal and not worldly.  It is unspiritual to scorn the idea of faith, for it puts a bad light on the promises of our Lord and on His own faithfulness. It is a bad testimony to the unsaved who hear your appeals, too, because they say scornfully like the infidel Voltaire, "When it comes to money, all men are of the same religion." 

There is no need to appeal to us to "be more practical",  because there is nothing more practical than for a spiritually minded person to trust in the Lord.  One could certainly understand how a young, immature or ignorant believer might mistakenly adopt worldly attitudes and methods and ignore the promises and example of the Lord and His apostles.  But for one to do so who professes to certain maturity and to be dedicating himself to serving the Lord, is inexcusable.

I realize that you may be shocked by this letter, because it is possible that in your circles no one disapproves of begging and no one teaches workers to trust in the Lord for the supply of their needs and the needs of their ministry.   You may object to this letter or take offense at it if you like, but I certainly hope you will not.  It was written to reprove behavior that is not glorifying to God, and Proverbs says that if you reprove a wise man he will love you for it.  You may say that you disagree with me, but that is only a distraction.  Your disagreement is not with me because I didn't write the Scriptures.  I am not the one who said that you should enter into your closet and pray in secret.  The Lord Jesus Christ said it, so if you have a problem, you have it with Him and with the Scriptures.  Neither is it a question of interpreting them, but simply of reading what they say and doing it.

Therefore, although I am happy to receive prayer requests and information about your ministry, I must stipulate that this is as long as it does not include appeals for funds, publicizing of budget shortfalls, statements of what you could do if you had more money, etc.  I have a special file for all such correspondence and it is emptied every day.

By His grace, for His glory, according to His Word,

POEM -- THE ANVIL OF GOD'S WORD

Last eve I paused beside the blacksmith's door,
And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime;
Then looking in, I saw upon the floor,
Old hammers worn with beating years of time.

"How many anvils have you had," said I,
"To wear and batter all these hammers so?"
"Just one," said he, and then with twinkling eye,
"The anvil wears the hammers out, you know."

"And so," I thought, "The Anvil of God's Word
For ages skeptic blows have beat upon,
Yet, though the noise of falling blows was heard,
The Anvil is unharmed, the hammers gone."

—John Clifford, D.D.

A Poem By John Greenleaf Whittier (1807-1892)

We search the world for truth. We cull

The good, the true, the beautiful,

From graven stone and written scroll,

And all old flower fields of the soul;

And, weary seekers of the best,

We come back laden from our quest,

To find that all the sages said

Is in the Book our mothers read.

From William Blane's poem, The Atonement

William Blane of South Africa wrote a poem called THE ATONEMENT.
It takes up 22 pages in his book titled: Lays of Life and Hope.
This is just one little part of his superb work.

Th’ Atonement was no business act
In which the Saviour did contract
To undergo so many pains
That He might cleanse so many’s stains.
He gave His all—His life’s blood flowed
To reconcile the world to God.
‘Twixt God and man, to close the rent,
The spotless Lamb of God was sent.
If all the sins of Adam’s race,
With perfect justice to each case,
In Heaven’s balances were laid,
They would be utterly outweigh’d
By Jesus’ death. The value lies
All in th’ infinite sacrifice:
When Christ for man was crucified,
Th’ Creator for the creature died.

DIVINE AUTHORITY OR HUMAN OPINION?

by William MacDonald

When a public figure was lecturing on the need to restore values to our culture, a college student asked him, “On what do you build your values?” The speaker was flustered. He looked down and said, “I don't know”.
That's just the trouble. He had no authority. Modern man desperately needs what this man lacked—a firm foundation on which to base his judgments. He needs an infallible standard to guide him in all matters of faith and morals.
God has provided such an infallible authority in His Word, the Bible. This wonderful book provides the basis for sound judgments and wise decisions. The Bible is absolute truth. Jesus said, “Thy Word is truth.” There is no risk in following its teachings, no fear it will change from day to day.
The alternative to divine authority is human opinion. “The Bible says ... is replaced by, “I think ...” Fact gives way to feeling. There are no more absolutes; everything is relative.
We know too well that there is no uniformity to human opinion. There is an endless variety of viewpoints, each clamoring to be heard. The result is confusion and chaos. When human opinion rules, there is no way of deciding whose opinion is right. One person's opinion is no better (or worse) than another's.
If God's Word is rejected and opinion takes its place, the natural tendency is for man's word to conflict with God's. This explains the downward moral drift we witness today. God has given various authoritative laws to govern human behavior. Here are some basic ones:
God is to be loved with all the heart, soul, mind, and strength. He is to be acknowledged as the Creator; human life is sacred, the marriage relationship is sacred, and the family unit is sacred; man is given the place of headship in the human chain of command; immorality is forbidden; children are to respect their parents; human governments are to be obeyed.
Man refuses to bow to these divine principles. What happens when a society abandons the authority of God, whether found in the Sacred Scriptures or written in the hearts of all mankind? What happens when human opinion takes over?
People give themselves over to all forms of immorality. Marriage is scorned in favor of a live-in relationship, formerly called fornication or adultery. Sodomites are accepted as respectable members of the race, and the homosexual lifestyle is legalized. Even homosexual marriages are recognized by the state. Residual laws against incest are unenforced. Without absolute standards, any form of sexual disorder is approved, even glamorized. After all, isn't it popular opinion that counts.
The family unit largely disappears as a stabilizing influence in the community. Public sentiment favors divorce for any reason. Latch-key kids are raised by single parents. Respect for parents disappears, in fact, disrespect is dramatized on the T.V. Children can get a divorce from their parents.
Man's headship in the home ends. The buck no longer stops with him. Radical feminism demands equal authority and gets it.
Violence becomes so widespread that the government is unable to Thefts, rapes, terrorism, tortures, and murders hardly make it into the newspapers. The average citizen is shocked by the brutality in the daily news, so much so that he is afraid to open his door. Politicians promise peace and security but fail to deliver. People come to despise their rulers and speak evil of them. The breakdown of law and order causes the populace to look for a dictator, a superman to solve the problems by inaugurating a new world order.
Materialism is the of the game in business. Men are lovers of money, and success is gauged by the extent their possessions. Greed rules out any semblance of ethics. In a cutthroat society, honesty becomes a synonym for bankruptcy. He who dies with the most toys wins.
The names of God and Christ are banned from government, school, anal all public life. Secular humanism becomes the prevailing religion. Man trumpets his own achievements. What can he not do? He is invincible. Bookstores feature an endless variety of titles on self-love. William Henley's blasphemous poem, becomes the national anthem.

Out of the night that covers me
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be,
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance,
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance.
My head is bloody but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears,
Looms but the horror of the shade;
And yet the menace of the years,
Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the master of my fate,
I am the captain of my soul.

Christians, however, are singing different words. They have the national anthem of another kingdom.

Out of the light that dazzles me,
Bright as the sun from pole to pole,
I thank the God I know to be,
For Christ the conqueror of my soul.

Since His the sway of circumstance,
I would not wince nor cry aloud.
Under that rule which men call chance,
My head with joy is humbly bowed.

Beyond this place of sin and tears.
That life with Him! and His the aid
That, spite the menace of the years,
Keeps and shall keep me unafraid.

I have no fear though strait the gate,
He cleared from punishment the scroll,
Christ is the Master of my fate,
Christ is the Captain of my soul.
—My Captain by Dorothy Day

As a result of this failure to conform to the world, there is increasing hostility toward Christ and His followers. Because men are despisers of good, they vent their rage against Christianity. This opposition includes ridicule, insults, reviling, blasphemies, legal restraints, physical attacks, and even martyrdoms. The anti-Christian spirit finds its culmination in an antichrist.
People turn to the occult, to eastern mysticism, to New Age philosophies, and to the freedom these religions offer them. They have a multiplicity of cults to choose from. False prophets promise prosperity in an age of apostasy. Some claim to be the Messiah and people are duped.
The disintegration of society sees a population without natural affection, a people given over to selfish pleasure. Men are unloving, unfaithful, and unthankful. Life is cheap; abortuaries murder millions of the unborn—an unprecedented holocaust, yet quietly accepted by most. In some places old folks are put to sleep and “doctors” assist suicides.
No wonder the Bible says, “Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint” (Prov. 29:18, NKJV). This means that when God and His Word are not recognized and obeyed, men abandon themselves to unbridled evil. Civilization returns to jungle life. Everyone does what is right in his own eves. We see it all around us today. Even people without any particular love for the Bible are alarmed. They can see that our culture is on a toboggan slide. They have no infallible authority, and without it they are rushing pell-mell to chaos, to tribulation, and to God's judgment on a society that has supplanted His Word with human opinion.

published in “Counsel” magazine, Nov.-Dec. 1993

SO MUCH FOR GLOBAL WARMING...

After noting the record setting cold temperatures and snowstorms in many areas this winter, I say: "so much for 'Global Warming'; it looks more like global freezing! And there have been record rainfalls, too! Then I found the following article (not the only one of its kind) on The Berean Call website:

The Worst Scientific Scandal of Our Time

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation [Excerpts]
By Christopher Booker

A week after my colleague James Delingpole , on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.

The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.

Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher [than] they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.

(Christopher Booker, “Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation,” The [London] Daily Telegraph Online, 28 Nov 2009)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html