Evangelism doesn't work?

Here at MBC we're in the middle of a very full week of guest meetings with evangelist Roger Carswell.  It's been a lot of effort, and a lot of money.  The meetings have been excellent - believers and unbelievers agree - but attendance (of believers and unbelievers) has been poor and disappointing so far.  So I was interested to see that John Stevens over at his blog today is interacting with Andrew Evans who critiqued an earlier post of John's.  OK - with me so far?  Stay with me - go on, make the effort - 'cos it's important.


John had suggested that 'the attractional model' of evangelism - getting the unconverted to come into the church - isn't all that good an idea; it doesn't work.  Here's the quote:

• I was very struck by Julian's vision for training the members of the congregation to do the work of evangelism out in the community. He rightly questions the viability of an "attractional" model of evangelism where churches are seeking to reach the "never-churched" rather than the "de-churched", as people simply will not come in to the church. As he put it, the church seems to have nothing to offer them that is not done better by the world. Instead they want to equip the members of the church to share the good news of the gospel with the community where they are. I think this is a ministry shift we will increasingly need to make in our secular and post-Christendom society if we are to reach the lost all around us. We have taken it for granted that unbelievers will come to church, and that we ought to invite them to come in as our primary evangelistic strategy (or even worse to give up and wait for revival when they will come in without being invited!) and as a result tend to treat our church gatherings as if they are a cross between a meeting for committed believers and the lecture hall of Tyrannus (Acts 19v11) where we are addressing interested unbelievers. We have acted as if the church IS the market place or public square for evangelism. It may have been in the past, but in most communities it is not today. This doesn't seem to be the New Testament model. In the NT,  "church" is the gathering for committed believers, designed to encourage and edify them. Occasionally an unbeliever might come in amongst them (1 Corinthians 14v24). The gospel is to be taken and proclaimed outside of the church, whether in the public square, house to house, or in individual personal witness. We need to face up to the fact that we have to take the gospel to people, and not just invite them to come to where we preach it. This is going to be essential if we are to reach the nation.

I know, like and respect John but have never (as far as I know) heard of Andrew before today.  But I want to say that I'm completely with Andrew on this.  His reflections on what John says are very clear, while John himself isn't being particularly helpful.  Here's some random thoughts why:


First, his follow-up post contains the statement 'Many of the ordinary local churches [that I have visited or am in contact with] have expressed their feeling that event based and invitational evangelism has involved a lot of effort for little return.'


Oh, dear - how awful.  Because it's not what the New Testament teaches, is it?  The New Testament teaches that proper, God-approved evangelism is a little bit of effort for a lot of return, doesn't it?  No, hang on - wait a minute!  It doesn't teach that at all; sorry, my bad.  The parable of the sower explicitly teaches that evangelism IS a lot of effort for little return.  And the apostle Paul walked, struggled, prayed, wrote, suffered, was stoned and imprisoned - that was a lot of effort.  And the churches he founded were weak and contemptible.  A lot of effort, Paul - a little return.  What's that you say?  'Unless a seed falls into the ground and dies...'?  You'll never reach the nation like that.  If you go into that town Paul you'll be stoned and left for dead - and the only 'converts' you get will be a major disappointment.  It's a lot of effort for very little return.  Find a better model, I implore you.


Second, John's contrasting model is that of Julian Ribera - the 'Julian' in the quote - a fine man, doing a fine work in the difficult community of Moulescombe in Brighton.  There is no way I want to criticise Julian, OK?  Fine man, fine work.  BUT - by his own admission, the church there is unlikely to grow beyond 40-50 people.  One could argue 'you'll never reach a nation like that...'  More seriously, John extols the advantage of 'alternative models' without being very explicit as to what they are, look:  

• I do think that the NT pattern of evangelism is primarily to take the gospel out from the gathering of God's people into the public sphere wherever people are (and that will also vary in different cultural contexts). "Preaching" (i.e. heralding the gospel) almost invariably happens outside the church gathering in the NT - whether to the crowds in the open, in the market square, in the synagogue, or in individual encounter. One of the key features of the 18th Century evangelical revival was the Whitefield and Wesley took the gospel out of the church and to the people. I don't necessarily think that "open air" is the way to achieve this today...

So - open air was a primary NT method that worked in the days of Whitefield and Wesley but 'isn't necessarily... the way...today'.  And neither is 'attractional evangelism' - so what is?  As far as I can see, he doesn't tell us.  

Thirdly, though he's (in effect) arguing that the ways we take for granted 'don't work', he doesn't define what 'works' means in this context, or point us to any examples of churches that are using other models that do work.  Where are there flourishing churches, growing by conversions, that don't use the 'attractional' model - and what are they doing?  We need to be told.

Fourth, John doesn't acknowledge the possibility that a vibrant preaching ministry might actually draw - in the long-term - a congregation.  It's at least possible.  If you want to see a crowd next week, I don't know how to help you.  If you want to see a crowd in ten years, try getting a good, committed preacher who'll work at it.  (I know - it's really difficult, especially since so many of them are now stuck in offices in the FIEC different places...)  

Fifth, John tries to make a case on very little Scriptural evidence.  Andrew deals with some of this, but here's another point.  Though John seems to prefer 'open-air' - even with his reservations - I think I'm right in saying that there isn't a single example, in the New Testament, of open-air preaching once a local church is formed.  Can anyone show me one?  Now, I'm not therefore opposed to open-air preaching.  My only point is that we need to be careful what we think we're demonstrating from the New Testament when there isn't that much evidence to go on!

Sixth, John suggests that Anglicanism works better, which is a strange thing for the FIEC Supremo to say.  He does, honest:  

• I agree there are counter examples, but these tend to be in major cities and student centres, and in Anglican situations where the church still has an automatic role in the community. This is why "Back to Church Sunday" works for Anglican churches, but not most free churches.

Oh dear - again.  What's the Bishop's phone number - does anybody know?

Oh, THERE you are...

This is a story I heard a long time ago and have been trying to find for ages.  I've got it now courtesy of The Wanderer, so thought I'd put it here so that it doesn't get lost again.

Dr. Alexander Whyte loved to tell of a commercial traveller named Rigby who, when in Edinburgh, used to stay at the Waverley Hotel, and, on Sunday, always made his way to St. George’s. He could not preach and always found it difficult even to discuss spiritual themes with others. But before leaving the hotel for the church he always looked around for somebody whom he could invite to accompany him. One morning, on approaching a man with this invitation, he received something like a rebuff. The stranger at first refused, but finally consented, and was so moved by the service that he asked Mr. Rigby to go with him again in the evening. That night, at St. George’s, he found Christ. Next morning, in the course of his business, Mr Rigby chanced to pass the home of Dr. Alexander Whyte. Acting on a sudden impulse, he made up his mind to call and tell Dr. Whyte of his experience on Sunday. Dr. Whyte was deeply moved. “I thought,” he said, “that last night’s sermon fell very flat, and I have been feeling very depressed about it. But what did you say your name was?” Mr Rigby repeated it. “Why,” exclaimed Dr. Whyte in delight, “you are the man I’ve been looking for for years!” He then went to his study, and returned carrying a bundle of letters, from which he read such extracts as these: “I was spending a week-end in Edinburgh some weeks ago, and a fellow commercial called Rigby invited me to accompany him to St. George’s. The message of that service changed my life.” “I am a young man, and the other day I came to hear you preach, at the invitation of a man called Rigby, and in that service I decided to dedicate my life to Christ.” Dr Whyte went on to say that twelve of the letters were from young men. of whom four had already entered the ministry.

Evangelistic Preaching - again

Here's another quote from Roger Carswell

"Thirty years or so ago churches did away with the Sunday evening gospel service.  In the last five to ten years, we have been doing away with the evening service.  I fear we are losing gospel preaching altogether.  A fine personal worker said to me recently that if he wanted to take people to hear the gospel in a church, though there is fine Bible teaching all over town, he would have to take them to a Brethren Gospel Hall, as it is the only place where the gospel is preached.  I would love to see a return to gospel preaching*, gospel services - whether on Sunday evening, morning, afternoon or during the week!  Then we may again discover evangelists in our churches."

* Me too, Roger.  Me too.

All religions lead to God, says evangelist

Here's the full quote:

"Let us remember that all religions do lead to God - all people will eventually meet God at the throne of judgement.  Only Jesus brings people to God on the throne of grace.  Only Jesus brings us to God the Father.  So it is crucial that everyone hears about the Saviour, before they meet Him as their judge." (Roger Carswell, in his April newsletter).


So - what are you doing to tell them?

Has Peter Masters lost it?

My regular reader will know that I have, once or twice, blogged about Peter Masters.  This week, I was teaching my bi-annual session on 'Evangelistic Preaching' at the FIEC's PfS Course.  It's immensely popular - with me, anyway.


Each time, I recommend the evangelistic preaching of Peter Masters as a good example of how it should be - along with some resources from the Tab.  This year, I thought I'd better have a listen to a recent example.  After all, he is no longer a young man: has he lost it?


So, I went to the Tabernacle Website, found the video of last Sunday evening's sermon (November 6th, on Galatians 2:20) and settled down to listen.


Has he lost it? Er, no. To be honest.  He does look a little frailer than I remember - and he's far too much hair to be decent in a man that age... but his preaching was excellent.  Really very, very good - especially the introduction.  No hesitation in recommending the PfS students to go and have a listen.


I gave a different lecture on evangelistic preaching recently at WEST, to a very fine, friendly bunch of students.  Word came back to me that few - if any - agreed with me that it ought to be a regular, weekly, feature of a pastor's ministry.  It bothers me, that: what hope for the nation if good men stop preaching evangelistically?

Why wouldn't a Christian witness?

Christians are often lampooned for their evangelism. Here's a different view from Penn Jillette, who is himself a committed and dogmatic atheist - but does at least get the point.

Beam me up, Deacon

A phenomena that hasn't yet made much inroad in the UK is that of using technology to 'broadcast' the sermon from a popular preacher into other congregations miles - many miles, maybe - away. One church in the US is apparently considering a 'satellite' congregation in, er, Scotland. I do hope they know about time differences.

The idea is a congregation meets together under its own 'service leader'. They have their own music, readings, notices etc - and then, at a predetermined time, the video screen goes on and they all listen to the sermon. Usually a well-known preacher is preaching it, at that moment, to 'his own' congregation. It's no different, a mega-church may argue, from what's been done for years, with folks in 'overflow rooms' watching the sermon on screen. It's just that now the 'overflow room' is further away!

Not everybody's happy: Dan Phillips for example asks

• Think about this. Christianity Today reports that, in 2002, 2000 clergy were looking for jobs. In 2009, 5000 clergy were looking for jobs. Yet let one personality become popular, and what do churches do? Beam that one personality to multiple locations. Hm... are the two phenomena related?

My guess is there may be some correlation, but probably not a lot.

Actually, the phenomena isn't that new, only the technology. What was once technologically impossible became possible but expensive, then easy and cheap. But there have always been preachers whose ministries have attracted crowds. Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones, Daniel Rowland - many, many others. And there have always been folks who thought that they should get rid of the crowds! 'Send them away! There are struggling churches nearby - let them go there. Or let them plant a church; it's wrong to have that big a crowd.' When I was a pastor with Grace Baptist Churches, I heard it suggested that any church bigger than 50 was sinful. (Naturally, it was suggested without any Biblical warrant - there isn't any - and by a man whose church had never got anywhere near 50!)

Should such men do anything about it? Well, many do - Spurgeon for example planted many churches, often sending them a preacher he had trained himself. Yet the Tab continued to be full.

Here's a man who is being blessed under a particular ministry, and is actively involved - as a result - in the work of that church. Should we insist he go somewhere where he finds the ministry to be less of a blessing? On what ground?

'For the sake of the Kingdom!' someone cries. 'That's the ground.' OK - but how do you know that the Kingdom will prosper if that man's blessing decreases? Why are you so sure that the Kingdom will not prosper more if one church grows large and is able to do many things that small churches - even working together - cannot easily do? I grant that 'the Kingdom' is all-important. But why are we so sure that a lot of weak churches are better for the Kingdom than a few big ones?

My own church is middle-sized, rather than large: 250 or so on a good morning (it used to be higher, but we've planted a second congregation.) And I've had a man say to me 'It's time you sent some of your people to help a struggling cause.' But the one time we tried to do that, the 'struggling cause' didn't want it. I offered to try and lead my church to a) send them a preacher that I knew they already liked, b) help support him financially, c) encourage a team of people to come with him and help in the work. But the small church's leadership weren't interested.

Actually, I can conceive of why that might be. An influx of Moordowners would have been enough to give them the majority vote in church meetings. They could have changed anything they wanted, to make it more like Moordown. (Or less, depending on who went, of course.) And if you're tempted to say 'Gracious and spiritual people wouldn't do that,' - well, it depends. If they honestly thought that 'the way we do things' brings more glory to God than 'the way they do things', then of course they would. And anyway, if a struggling church is going to stop being a struggling church, something has to change - probably quite a lot of 'somethings'.

What's this got to do with 'beaming preachers'? Quite a bit, I think.

Suppose Pastor Jones has a remarkable ministry and people are already crowding into his church, while others are listening over the internet regularly. And two hundred miles away a group of people, who all listen to Pastor Jones, live in the town of Drysville. They've discovered that when they give recordings of Pastor Jones to their neighbours, their neighbours listen and get converted. So they all begin to meet together on Sunday morning. One option is to call a pastor to serve them. But someone suggests 'beaming in' Pastor Jones, at least for a little while. What should be the great principle that guides them?

Surely it's this: would a resident pastor be more effective, or less, in building up the saints and reaching the lost? They may decide 'less', and arrange to beam in Jones.

Mind you - I would hope it would only be a temporary expedient: for there's more to being a pastor than preaching.

Wounded in the house of my friends? #2

See yesterday’s blog for an introduction to this. Now, now – don’t be lazy. You only have to scroll down a little bit.

3. Sermon or lecture Once, argues Murray, ‘lecture’ in preaching circles meant what is now meant by expository preaching. Lloyd-Jones called his work on Romans ‘lectures’, but ‘conceived the contents of his Ephesians series as ‘sermons’ and anyone comparing… can quickly see the difference.’

Well, yes – OK. There are different types of sermons, different purposes in mind, differing congregations, even. Yet (as Murray readily acknowledges) Lloyd-Jones’ ‘Ephesians’ series proceeded consecutively through the whole book. Nothing is proved – or even indicated – by this point, I think.

4. What helps the hearer most is best ‘At the end of the day, the best preaching is that which helps the hearers most, and in that connection the track record of the consecutive ‘expository’ method is not impressive.’ The danger is, Murray says, that the preacher becomes only a commentator; and ‘a sermon needs a text as the basis for a memorable message,’ especially if the preacher is not to introduce a whole series of ideas into the sermon and lose clear, over-all lessons.

The weakness here though is that Murray is criticising badly-done expository preaching and using it as a reason to call the very form into question – except in the hands of a favoured very few. In simple logic, that isn’t adequate: the remedy for poor preaching of any type is to improve it.

And the passage reads as if there are no dangers associated with ‘the other’ type (or types). Of course, Murray knows that there are. For example – a text may become a pretext: it may be ‘expounded’ in such a way that has no reference to the context at all. Spurgeon himself was not immune from this danger! (Nor was Lloyd-Jones: his sermon on ‘Revival’ in the midst of his Ephesians series is inspiring, but not warranted by the context.)

Too many tyros have tried to preach verse-by-verse through major books of Scripture with near-disastrous results. It is arguable that this is one of the reasons why ‘reformed’ preaching has, in more than one place, been criticised as ‘heavy’ or plain ‘dull’.

Well, indeed; I remember suffering a series of verse-by-verse expositions of Jeremiah! But the preacher saw eventually that it wasn’t a good idea. It may be, however, that reformed preaching is criticised as ‘dull’ because too many reformed preachers are ‘dull’ – or, indeed, are not really preachers at all. Is there any evidence that they would be less dull if they abandoned the consecutive method?

5. The best ‘fit’ for evangelistic preaching ‘Evangelistic preaching does not best fit the ‘expository’ mode; in fact, where the ‘expository’ is exclusively used, true evangelistic preaching to heart and conscience commonly disappears.’

There’s some truth in the ‘fit’ argument – though I suspect that where evangelistic preaching has disappeared other factors weigh heavier. (‘But there’s never an unsaved person there’). In fact, many preachers haven’t a clue how to preach evangelistically. They’ve no idea what interests the unbeliever, or how to excite a proper interest in the unbeliever, or how to get hold of an unbeliever’s attention before the sermon ‘proper’ begins. (I remember overhearing a surgeon say to a patient, ‘You need an operation or you’ll die; but I can’t operate on you while you’re behaving in this way, otherwise you’ll die on the table and that will damage my reputation.’ Brutal – but the patient listened to every word that followed!)

However, there’s another side to the ‘fit’ argument. Some parts of the Bible are written with an evangelistic purpose. John’s gospel is the supreme example: ‘these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name,’ (20:31). Frankly, if a man is preaching from any part of John’s gospel and cannot see the evangelistic application, he either does not understand the passage or does not understand the gospel. Or take the Acts of the Apostles: Lloyd-Jones' last evangelistic series of the Westminster years was on that great book. He treated it very differently from 'Romans' or 'Ephesians' - but it was consecutive and expository, passionate and clear. Choose the passage/book right, and consecutive exposition is a superb way of preaching evangelistically.

So, is Iain Murray right to sound a caution? Yes, I think he is. We’re not to be slaves to method. We have to be prepared to find out what ‘works best’ for us – and best helps our hearers. We have to consider the possibility that we ourselves might be ‘dull’ and ‘heavy’. And certainly we have to make sure that every sermon we preach can stand alone: as Iain D Campbell says on the blog referenced yesterday, ‘At last, I know that I am committed to two things: to a stand-alone sermon, and to a Christ-exalting sermon. The first is necessary because it is just possible that someone may wander into church, not having heard the gospel before, and hearing it now for the first and last time. In that case, it will not do simply to refer to last week's sermon, or anticipate next week's. Each sermon must be a study in itself, a complete unit, which can be transported out of the church and into the life of the hearer.’

But I think Murray overstates it. The thing the church needs most is good expository preaching. It doesn’t have to take as long as Lloyd-Jones typically did – see here, for example, to discover how another preacher did it.

Above all, let us labour to be both accurate and passionate, whether we preach consecutively or not. Years ago I taught a preaching class and asked ‘Which is most important in a sermon – to be sound, or to be interesting?’ Everyone of them thought ‘sound’ was more important. I disagree – to be sound but boring borders on criminal. Both are equally important.

Peter Masters: evangelistic preaching

I don't want to go on and on about this. And I'm not doing this just because my Saturday blog about PM got more comments than I'd had for weeks. Well, not just because of that. But go here, and scroll down until you find the sermon 'Living by human sight or spiritual light' - from June 13th this year. Listen to it, or watch it.

Note how he takes one simple spiritual truth - that we need faith not sight - and spends thirty minutes on it. Note how he illustrates it. Note his (very occasional) humour. Note the warmth of his delivery. Note the gentleness with which he speaks directly to the unconverted.

There's a lot of truth in here - and Calvary especially, of course. But he doesn't try to cover everything; he doesn't labour anything, and there really is just one point to the whole sermon.

It's one I picked at random. It would be amazing therefore if it were his best, or his worst. But it is very, very good.

I think I'm going to listen to some more. Why don't you?

Seven Good Things about Peter Masters

PM has been criticised quite a bit in the blogosphere recently, some of it fair, some of it not so fair. No-one is perfect, no-one is beyond criticism. But we're not to be unbalanced, and certainly not to be untruthful. Therefore, here are seven things about Peter Masters that, in my own opinion, are causes for thanksgiving.

1. Personal graciousness. I know very well that he does not always 'come across' as gracious in his polemic messages and articles. But the fact is, I met Dr Masters only once, more than thirty years ago at one of the very first Tabernacle Summer Schools. I found him warm and welcoming, shy and self-deprecating - in a word, gracious. My friend Jonathan Hunt tells me that he is still the same, and I've no reason to doubt that. Thank God for his personal graciousness.

2. Passion for souls. When he went to the Tabernacle in the 70s, it was in a very poor state numerically. He set about changing that not with a ministry that drew believers from other churches but with robust evangelism. His work with Sunday Schools, his production of evangelistic materials in new and attractive formats, his determination that his congregation should be a working, soul-winning congregation, his regular evangelistic preaching - all of this is witness to a passion to see the Lord Jesus Christ glorified by the salvation of sinners.

3. Evangelistic preaching. Evangelistic preaching - a regular, weekly gospel sermon - is very much out of vogue today. Various arguments are produced against it; but the biggest reason, I'm convinced, why men do not do it is that they do not know how to do it.

Peter Masters has both argued for evangelistic preaching and modelled it for forty years or so. His book 'Physicians of Souls' (and there's another edition, called 'Physician of Souls'- note the difference) is, quite simply, brilliant. Every pastor/preacher should read it and attempt to imitate it. Masters' evangelistic preaching has produced an audience for it (I mean, unconverted people come); and it has produced fruit, with hundreds converted during those forty years.

4. Consistent ministry. Have you noticed how, every few years, new ways of growing congregations are produced? Some of them are better (more effective, or more Biblical, or both) than others; but one thing is sure: chopping and changing every few years will never work. Peter Masters knew what he wanted to do, and has done it consistently, and fruitfully. We've reason to be grateful to God for that; he has shown that the gospel without frills is still powerful under God.

5. Robust Calvinism. Like Spurgeon, I'm a Calvinist because it's a nickname for Biblical truth, not because of any particular fondness for the Reformer. So, I think, is Peter Masters. His Calvinism, like Spurgeon's, provokes and sweetens and empowers his evangelism, rather than restricting it. He has shown (again) that Calvinism really can build an inner-city congregation even in the 20th/21st Centuries; that it can be preached evangelistically, and that it does build up the souls of the saints. Thank God for that, too.

6. Willingness to innovate. I think the Tabernacle was the first Reformed ministry to make use of posters on the Tube. Superbly illustrated in cartoon-style by Lawrence Littleton Evans, they were brilliantly contemporary, gently provocative and successful in getting people to hear the gospel at 'The Tab'. Some years ago when we asked permission to do our own leaflet based on a 'Tab' poster called 'Why not hear the gospel?', the permission was readily and warmly given. Then again, Masters' own magazine-style evangelistic booklets were innovative and clear. Everybody's doing them now; but they weren't then.

7. Stand against charismatic issues. Masters has consistently warned against the dangers of charismatic doctrine with its supposed gifts and revelations, and has been one of the very few prominent evangelicals to do so. Most non-charismatics seem content to stay aloof and stay silent, and even to criticise cessationists. Masters has argued theologically and Biblically for the temporary nature of the sign gifts and has done so convincingly. Indeed, I abandoned my own charismatic views at the Tab Summer School I mentioned earlier under the compelling arguments presented (on that occasion) by Stuart Olyott. To this day I know of no other significant Reformed conference that has taken this line. Our charismatic friends lose no opportunity to promote their views (and rightly so, since they believe it to be the truth of God); but on this side of the debate, we try to stay neutral. Masters has not stayed neutral, and for that I am grateful to God.

Lloyd-Jones on Authority in Preaching

There was an old preacher in Wales about one hundred and fifty years ago who was invited to preach at a preaching convention held in a little town. The people had already assembled, but the preacher had not come. so the local minister and other leaders sent a maid back to the house where the preacher was staying to tell him that they were waiting for him and that everything was ready. The girl went and when she came back she said: 'I did not like to disturb him. He is talking to somebody.'

'Oh,' said they, 'that is rather strange, because everybody is here. Go back and tell him that it is after time and that he must come.'

So the girl went back again and again she returned and reported, 'He is talking to somebody.'

'How do you know that?' they asked. She answered: 'I heard him saying to this other person who is with him, "I will not go and preach to those people if you will not come with me."'

'Oh, it is all right,' replied the ministers. 'We had better wait.'

The old preacher knew that there was little purpose in his going to preach unless he knew of a certainty that the Holy Ghost was going with him and giving him authority and power. He was wise enough, and had sufficient spiritual discernment, to refuse to preach until he knew that he had his authroity, and that the Holy Ghost was going with him and would speak through him. You and I, however, often preach without him, and all our cleverness and learning, and all our science and all our apologetics lead to nothing because we lack the authority of the Holy Ghost.

(From'Authority' by DM Lloyd-Jones, IVF, London 1958 page 88)

Lloyd-Jones: The Authority of Preaching

From the beginning of his ministry to the very end, Lloyd-Jones was an evangelist. His wife claimed that no-one understood him who did not realise that he was primarily an evangelist. It was his practice, every Sunday evening, to preach 'the gospel' - that is, to use his gifts to apply the passage he was dealing with to unconverted hearers.

His series on the Acts of the Apostles (begun 10^th January 1965) was his last evangelistic series as pastor at Westminster Chapel, being brought to an end in 1968 (February 25^th) by his illness and subsequent retirement, when he had reached Acts 8 and the story of the Ethiopian Eunuch.

In one of these last sermons, Iain Murray says ('The Fight of Faith' page 581), his main theme ‘was that Philip could speak with authority because Scripture is a revelation from God, containing good news from heaven.’ Murray then quotes Lloyd-Jones,

‘I have no other authority as I stand in this pulpit. The authority of the cults is the authority of experience… That is not the case here. This is exposition of the truth and we have no other authority. My dear friends, let me put it as plainly and as simply as this: standing in this pulpit tonight on the 28^th of January 1968 I am doing nothing different from what Philip did with the Ethiopian eunuch.’

The three sermons following this, in February of that year, Lloyd-Jones preached from Isaiah 53, which Philip explained to the Ethiopian in Acts 8. This brought his evangelistic ministry at Westminster Chapel to a close.