Should Jonathan Ross be sacked?

So, after offensive and insulting, crude and vulgar phone calls to actor Andrew Sachs, Russell Brand has resigned, the controller of Radio 2 (Lesley Douglas) has resigned, and Jonathan Ross is suspended for twelve weeks without pay - costing him, some estimate, one and a half million pounds. The affair has dominated the news for almost a week; here are my thoughts.

1. Many have expressed surprise at the prominence this story has been given in a day when we're fighting wars, facing financial crises and on the verge of the US election. Well yes; perspective is important. But we shouldn't think that, because these other things are happening, anything goes on our radio shows.

2. It's been repeatedly said that there are different views of what is tasteful. True enough - but what Ross and Brand did on this occasion is actually illegal.

3. One thing that has surprised me is the attention given to whether the item should have been broadcast at the expense of whether the phone calls should have been made. Of course, broadcasting the program compounds the offence and makes the producers guilty as well as the presenters. But even if the producers had blocked the program, the calls had still been made. Ross and Brand would still have needed to be dealt with.

4. The BBC has repeatedly made the point that only two complaints were made on the day and a further three in the week following. The tens of thousands of complaints only came after the newspapers got involved and may well have been made by people who didn't hear the program. Well, again - true enough. But so what? Many people of taste and decency simply wouldn't listen to a Russell Brand radio program; they know what they would be likely to hear. As is often pointed out, we do have an 'off' switch on our radios. What is significant is that a number of those who did listen, and presumably do like Brand, were still offended. Those of us who did not listen are still entitled to express our outrage (or our approval for that matter) once the matter is brought to our attention.

5. It has been repeatedly said that these men are paid to be risqué and that comedy must continually push out the boundaries. But no-one has asked: why? Sure, comedy is in danger of becoming anaemic. But the idea that the boundaries need to be 'pushed out' takes for granted either that there ought not to be any boundaries or that there ought to be boundaries but the present ones are too restrictive. Pushing at boundaries will continually lower standards, it will never raise them; it will make more and more outrageous and filthy material acceptable.

6. This is just what can be seen to have happened here. Again, the point has been made that Radio 1 listeners, by a 2:1 majority, approve of the program - or at least did not find it offensive. Yes; and who are Radio 1 listeners? By and large, the younger set. The set that have grown up used to the crude and offensive style that Ross is apparently so proud of. Of course these folks are not going to be as offended by a further lowering of standards: their base line was lower to begin with.

7. David Cameron has not covered himself with glory by his intervention. Is it two years ago now that Ross interviewed Cameron and quizzed him about his masturbatory fantasies? Cameron should have left the interview at that point. Yes, he would have been lampooned for it. But he would have made the point that some things are not simply 'unacceptable' but also that they are not going to be accepted. Ross might - just might - have seen some writing on the wall. For Cameron to criticise now is like saying 'I knew the stable door was open and the horse would bolt eventually.' You should have shut it, man!

8. It's been interesting to see Chris Evans, plainly upset about Ms. Douglas' resignation, choosing his words very carefully. That is not a skill he is renowned for! But the BBC website quotes him 'We don't feel like we've been picked on undeservedly. It was a huge mistake and we all wish it hadn't happened.'

9. Has Mark Thompson - Director General of the BBC - gone far enough, or should Ross be sacked? I find that a difficult question to answer. On the one hand, Ross is genuinely talented, his shows command large audiences (and the BBC has a duty to bear that in mind) and this is only one incident. On the other hand, this is not only one incident (Ross has been warned before, and Thompson has said that Ross should consider this his final warning); Ross made the most offensive remarks on the program and it's strange that he should therefore be the one to keep his job; and - in the end - the only way to prove that 'no-one is above the law' (as Thompson said) is to, well, prove it. However, I suspect that the BBC has gone as far as it could without risking a massively damaging lawsuit from Ross himself. And even for Ross, a £1.5million loss is going to be painful.

10. So, on balance, yes Mark Thompson - well done. But please, now, don't rest on your laurels: do watch this man. Please ensure that the boundaries of comedy are pushed - back. It won't mean that nothing beyond 'I love Lucy' will be acceptable; but if it did, that would be preferable than where we seem to be heading.

David Tennant to leave Doctor Who




David Tennant announced yesterday, after four years playing the role of one of only two men to be known simply as 'The Doctor', that he would be leaving the role at the end of next year. The BBC has not yet announced who his replacement will be. I am, however, in a position to drop an exclusive hint to readers of this blog, following an interview and screen test two weeks ago (pictured).

The new role will fit in perfectly with pastoral ministry since I will be able to leave after the Sunday evening service, spend a few months saving the planet (again), and still be back in time to take Elaine out for coffee on Monday morning.

Max Hastings: Evangelicals are ‘stupid people’

Commenting on McCain’s chances – ever-decreasing, it seems – in next week’s presidential elections, respected journalist Sir Max Hastings says in Monday’s Daily Mail ‘McCain has still got the support of the God nuts. These include, dismayingly, many senior U.S. Army officers. For years, the U.S. Air Force has been a stronghold of Christian evangelicalism. American soldiers, alas, have caught the same disease. Many battalion staff meetings now start with prayers. Few ambitious career officers dare refuse to sign up for the Christian agenda. Most of them are solid for John McCain. Yet there are nowhere near enough soldiers, or evangelicals, or rich oil men to get this increasingly beleaguered old warhorse into the White House… To put it bluntly, the Republicans have become the party of America’s stupid people.’

He goes on to argue that a McCain victory, if it happened, would mean ‘more of the same’ – and includes among that ‘perverted religion.’ Since the only religion he has mentioned is Evangelical Christianity, it seems that – for Hastings – evangelicalism is perverted religion.

Hmm. I’m not qualified, by any means, to say whether Bush’s presidency has been ‘brutish’ and ‘a disaster’. On the other hand, I’m not aware that Hastings is qualified to comment on evangelicalism, or religion at all.

Let me grant straight away that evangelicalism has its odd-ball side: think of snake-handlers, tele-evangelists and ‘God wants you rich’ preachers. But just as Hastings wouldn’t want us to dismiss all journalists because of the existence of the Daily Sport, so we have a right to quibble if all evangelicals are dismissed because of some idiots and rogues. Come on, Max – you know better than that. (In case you don’t, look for example at Al Mohler, or the much-respected work of our own John Stott over many decades.)

Perverted religion? Evangelicals are Christians who take the great Christian creeds seriously. That may be wrong of us (I don’t think so – need you ask?) but it is hardly ‘perverting’ the Christian religion to do so.

And wasn’t it Obama who was exposed mid-campaign as sitting regularly under the ministry of a preacher of racial hatred?

A gentle introduction to the art of time-wasting (part 1)

Before I begin, a particular welcome to Jonathan Hunt who, it seems, actually has his blog set to let him know when I've blogged. Good on yer, mate, and good morning.

Question: Should pastors visit their flocks?

Answer: Of course they should. But not in the way that most pastors do!

Much pastoral visitation expected by the church member and performed by many pastors is a time-wasting exercise that actually undermines the true work of a pastor. But it need not be so!

To explore this, I propose to examine what the Scriptures say about the role of pastor-teacher, and the way these roles are often divided – the elder, we are told, is to be a pastor and a teacher. I propose then to show that this is not how the Scripture sees it – instead, the elder is to pastor by teaching.

A look at the work of Richard Baxter in Kidderminster (1647-61) will then help us see how this can be done.

Finally, we may glance at one or two contemporary attempts to apply Baxter's work.

OK? Let's go.

1. Scripture and the pastor-teacher
We may rightly trace the beginning of the role of pastor, or shepherd, to the Lord Jesus Christ himself, the good shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep (John 10:11). Of course, there are unique, redemptive aspects to the work of the Lord Jesus, but the following things drawn from John 10 about the shepherd’s work seem to be clear and transferable.

a) The purpose of the shepherd’s work is salvation, in both its narrow and broad aspects. On the one hand, Jesus is the man who enters by the gate (verse 2) and he is the gate himself – ‘whoever enters through me will be saved,’ (verse 9).

b) Knowing the sheep is essential to the proper functioning of the shepherd: ‘they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognise a stranger’s voice,’ (verse 4); ‘I know my sheep and my sheep know me,’ (14). Of course, there is here a reference both to election and effectual calling, which are unique to Jesus; but we have no cause to bypass the surface meaning.

c) The shepherd’s work is done, at least in part, by the means of words – hence Jesus’ emphasis on the voice (3,4,5,16,27).

I would not maintain that we could derive a pastoral theology from this chapter alone, and to attempt to do so would leave my selection of the above elements open to a charge of arbitrariness. However, from what we learn in the rest of Scripture we can turn back to this passage and learn how the Lord Jesus functioned (and functions!) as pastor of his people.

Next in the developing theme of pastoral ministry we need to consider the call (or re-instatement) of Peter, also in John’s gospel (John 21:15-19). After the appalling fall of Peter by the fireside, and the glorious shock of the resurrection of the man he had disowned, we can only image Peter’s despondency, and the grace of the Lord Jesus in giving him this new commissioning is often commented on. For our purpose, we need to notice again three things.

a) the motive or even qualification for the work Peter does is not, primarily, love for the people he will serve but love for the Good Shepherd himself: ‘Do you love me?… Feed my lambs… take care of my sheep… feed my sheep.’ This is important for a number of reasons. First, the sheep often behave in unlovely ways, and the pastor may be tempted to ask ‘Why should I still serve them?’ The answer is not to be found in any liberalised or rose-tinted anthropology, nor even in a confidence in their improvement by grace, but in the faithfulness of the Lord Jesus Christ. Second, the weakness of those called, like Peter, to be under-shepherds; often, the plain fact is that we do not love our charges, and we never love them as we should.

b) The work to which Peter is called: he is to feed, and to take care of, the flock of God.

c) The Lord Jesus graciously gives Peter a warning of the cost of such under-shepherding. As the Great Shepherd lay down his life for his sheep, so Peter himself will be called to die in the service of that flock (18-19). In the Western world such radical pastoring is, happily, rarely demanded; but the existence of this word to Peter rebukes those of us who are tempted often to cavil at smaller sacrifices. The words of Wesley
‘To spend and to be spent for those
Who have not yet my Saviour known…’
reflect no more than the proper attitude of an under-shepherd in Christ’s flock.

It is to the rapidly-expanding church in Acts that we must next turn in pursuit of the Biblical model of the pastor. Once again, it is Peter who is centre-stage here. After the Spirit is poured out at Pentecost, Peter delivers the first sermon of the new era, and three thousand people respond to his powerful message and are added to the church that day (Acts 2:41). That is not the end of the growth; ‘the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved’ (2:47); by 4:4 there are five thousand (male? The Greek is ανηρ) believers. In both chapters 3 and 4, Peter’s preaching ministry is in evidence again.[1] In 6:1 the number of disciples is still increasing, and in 6:7 the number of disciples in Jerusalem increases rapidly. This rapid increase led to a crisis in the church, and a restriction enforced by defining the ministry of the apostles.

The occasion is the discontent of the Grecian Jews over the distribution of food (6:1). The twelve apparently recognise the validity of the complaint, but declare that I is not their work to wait on tables; seven men are therefore chosen who will liberate the Twelve to ‘give [their] attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.’

Following this, and perhaps following on, the Pauline letters reflect the existence of two ‘offices’ in the early church – that of elder and that of deacon.[2] It is easy to show that the elder, the overseer and the pastor are three ways of referring to one office. There is disagreement though over whether there were two ‘kinds’ of elders – the teaching elder and the ruling elder, 1 Timothy 5:17. I will take the view here that while in any team of elders there may be some who are more gifted in one way than in another, yet there is one ‘kind’ of elder, not two, and that ‘μαλιςτα’ is better taken as ‘namely’ rather than ‘especially’.[3]

The key text in Paul is Ephesians 4:11, ‘It was he (Christ) who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers.’ It is widely recognised that Paul deliberately did not say ‘some to be pastors and some to be teachers’ precisely because the pastor is the teacher: so Christ gave some ‘to be pastor/teachers’ we might say.

Let us consider that for a moment. Lincoln will only go so far as to say that pastors and teachers
were overlapping functions, but that while almost all pastors were also teachers, not all teachers were also pastors. Whether the two functions were performed by a single individual with a particular local situation may well have depended on what gifted persons were present in that situation. The one definite article is therefore best taken as suggesting this close association of functions between two types of ministers who both operate within the local congregation.[4]

O’Brien agrees but is a little stronger: ‘All pastors teach (since teaching is an essential part of pastoral ministry,) but not all teachers are also pastors.’[5] However, since both agree that all (or almost all) pastors were teachers, their reservations need not concern us here. Hodge[6] takes issue with Calvin, who divided the two into distinct offices, thus:
The thing is well nigh impossible. The one function includes the other… It was however on the ground of this unnatural interpretation that the Westminster Directory made teachers a distinct and permanent class of jure divino officers in the church. The Puritans in New England endeavoured to reduce the theory to practice, and appointed doctors as distinct from preachers. But the attempt proved to be a failure. The two functions could not be kept separate. The whole theory rested on a false interpretation of Scripture. The absence of the article before [teachers] proves that the apostle intended to designate the same persons as at once pastors and teachers.’[7]
And Hendriksen[8] deals with the objection that
this non-repetition [is not] sufficient to prove that one group is meant
by adding
we have a parallel in 1 Timothy 5:17b, where mention is made of men who, in addition to exercising supervision over the flock together with the other elders, also labor in the word and in teaching. These shepherds and teachers are one group.

It is my contention that not only are they one group, only one function is being described: they pastor by teaching.

Before we turn to that, let us look a representative example of an evangelical where the opposite assumption is made: that one man is the pastor/teacher but sometimes he pastors and sometimes he teaches; and in fact a man may be ‘a good pastor but a poor teacher’, or ‘a good teacher but a poor pastor.’

For that example, the excellent Derek Prime seems to make this assumption when he writes[9]
Shepherding and teaching should not be separated. Preaching and pastoral work help each other. Visiting enhances our preaching in that it helps us to appreciate how our fellow believers think, their problems, and their temptations.’

Indeed, while he is critical of it, his view of pastoral work seems to leave open the charge of Huckleberry Finn who, when asked what pastors do in their visiting, answer
‘Oh, nothing much. Loll around, pass the plate – and one thing or another. But mainly they don’t do nothing.’[10]

However, we should exempt Prime from too much stricture, since he lists the goals of pastoral care as:
Feeding the flock, the proclaiming of the whole will of God, the presenting of every believer perfect in Christ, the preparing of God’s people for works of service, and equipping them to be fishers of men… What is important is not how many visits we have achieved, but how effective they have been in furthering these objectives.[11]

In other words, for Prime at least a part of his pastoral visitation is taken up with teaching.

Visiting the sick
Perhaps the area which most spotlights the disjunction between the Biblical work of the Pastor and the expected work of the Pastor is that of visiting the sick. It is taken for granted by most congregations, and by most pastors, that those in the flock who are unwell need to be visited, and need to be visited by the Pastor. When pastors are asked for the Biblical basis of this work, it is customary for them to answer in terms of caring for the flock, or knowing the people.

There is, as far as I can see, no suggestion anywhere in the New Testament that the Pastor/elder will visit those who are unwell, with one exception. There are surely two reasons for this. One is, as I have attempted to demonstrate, the Pastor’s work is that of teaching; he is the pastor-teacher and it is just as accurate to call him ‘Teacher’ as it is to name him ‘Pastor.’ To put it as plainly as possible, when he is not teaching, he is not pastoring. But those who are unwell are not generally in a position or mood to be taught. The second reason is that it undermines the work of the ‘ordinary’ Christian, the non-elder. Again, it is James who says ‘Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress,’ (1:27). This verse does not mention the visiting of the sick[12], but it does make it clear that there are needs within the church, needs of support and encouragement, which the body of Christ is to meet. But it is not the Teacher who is to attempt to meet those needs.

One of the more positive things within the church of Christ over the last few decades has been the re-emphasis on body ministry. However, even within so-called ‘charismatic’ churches, not everyone feels they have a ‘supernatural’ gift, and a proper understanding of 1 Corinthians 12:30 (where the form of question in the Greek requires a negative answer) makes it clear that this is so. What, then, are believers to do? They are to care for one another in their affliction. Let us imagine a lady recovering at home after some serious operation. What is it she needs? She may need company, and someone to pray with her. She may need help in managing the children during her illness; she may need help with housework, with cooking or even with finance. All of these things can be done by any Christian believer; they do not require one to be ‘set aside’ for that work. Yet if the concept is accepted that what they need is a visit from the Pastor, those other things are more likely, not less likely, to be neglected. Hence, sick-visiting may actually undermine the work of other Christians, and give the unbelieving world fewer opportunities to say ‘See how these Christians love one another.’ Hence, Philip Jensen’s words[13] ‘There is a real place for this ministry, but it is not the pastoral ministry.’

Are there exceptions to this rule? As mentioned earlier, there is certainly one Biblical exception, and there may be other practical exceptions.

The biblical exception is found in James 5:14,15: ‘Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up.’ Here, the person who is unwell takes the initiative and sends for the elders; but the purpose is not comfort and company, nor friendship or pastoral counselling: it is the Lord’s healing. This is a quite specific exception, and need not detain us.

There may of course also be practical exceptions. Though I have said ‘those who are unwell are not generally in a position or mood to be taught’, the ‘generally’ is important. Someone suffering from a life-threatening illness may be asking deep questions, and need a visit from a Teacher competent to answer them and encourage him. A Christian struggling with long-term illness may find her mind turning more than ever before to the age-old question of suffering and the problem of evil: that is natural and may require pastoral (that is, teaching) help. Or a young and otherwise healthy young man ‘laid up’ with a broken leg may be a perfect candidate for evangelistic visiting.[14] However, the point stands: the Pastor is visiting, under these circumstances, in order to teach. He has not done any pastoral work unless he does teach – or, at the very least, make future teaching possible.

To be continued...

References

[1] Peter also appears here as a miracle worker – 3:7, for example. It is beyond the scope of this project, but I do not deal with miracles because of the conviction that these are ‘signs of the apostles’ (2 Corinthians 12:12, c/w Acts 5:12) and so have no part in on-going pastoral ministry. But Peter was not only an apostle, he was an elder (1 Peter 5:1) and that aspect of his work continues in the contemporary church.
[2] Some query whether ‘deacon’ was an office at all, but this need not concern us here
[3] See T.C. Skeat, ‘Especially the parchments’ in Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 30, pt. 1, pp. 173-177
[4] Andrew T Lincoln, ‘Ephesians’ (Word Books, 1990), page 250
[5] Peter T O’Brien, ‘The Letter to the Ephesians’ (Eerdmans 1999) page 300
[6] Charles Hodge, ‘Ephesians’, Banner of Truth 1964 page 226
[7] ibid., page 226
[8] William Hendriksen, ‘Ephesians’ Banner of Truth 1972 page 197
[9] Derek Prime, ‘Pastors and Teachers’ Highland Books 1989, page 122
[10] Quoted in Derek Prime and Alistair Begg, ‘On being a Pastor’ Moody 2004, page 149
[11] Prime, op. cit., page 123
[12] though ‘distress’ (thlipsis) could conceivably include distress caused by sickness
[13] Philip Jensen, ‘A Ministry that Changes the Church’ Evangelical Ministry Assembly 1986, tape 3
[14] Jensen, op. cit., after saying ‘I never visit the sick’ goes on to list these particular exceptions.

Almost time for another post; hang on in there!

Abigail Benfold (4)

Abigail Benfold (3)

Abigail Benfold (2)

Abigail Benfold (1)

Elvis is alive and well and singing in... Wimborne







Always the greatest Elvis fan in the world, I looked forward keenly to seeing Lee Memphis King perform at the Tivoli Theatre in Wimborne last Friday. I'd seen LMK on the BBC's 'World's Greatest Elvis' (he came third; he was robbed) last year and knew his voice and performance were good. But I didn't quite expect what we got.

The show deliberately 'tackled' three periods of Elvis' career. First, LMK took us through the early years, with stunningly accurate vocals. Then, a quick change of costume into black leathers and a re-creation of the '68 Comeback Special. When the interval came I turned to Elaine and said 'His voice is just perfect for that era' - and it had been, with 'One night with you' and other classics sounding as near to Elvis as I could imagine.

But then, after the interval, the Las Vegas years. LMK was in a red jump suit, not the usual white. Still accurate though; white was not Elvis' only colour. He'd lost some weight, I thought, since the TV competition - or maybe it's just that TV famously adds ten pounds. At any rate, he looked good, 'quite like' the original. Then he began to sing.





I know what Elvis sounds like; I've been listening to him for 35 years. He sounds like Lee Memphis King. (Odd name, by the way; but I guess just 'Lee King' would suggest that water was running out somewhere...) He sang 'My Way' exactly as Elvis did: a deep, rich, Southern voice that suits the song far more than Sinatra's nasal New Jersey twang ever could. When he sang - at the end, as always - 'Can't help falling in love', he could have been miming to the King himself (but he wasn't; it was live).





But the highlight of the show - as so often in the Vegas years - was 'Suspicious Minds'. The atmosphere had been growing; the sense of being at 'an event' had mounted. Inevitably, large numbers took to the aisles, just to get closer to the stage. Just as Elvis had, LMK reached down, shook hands - but didn't kiss anyone - and the vocals never faltered. Never: perfect.





After thirty years, I've begun to suspect that Elvis is probably dead... and if he isn't, he's 73 years old, so I'll never get to see him live and in his prime. But that's OK; there are videos of his classic concerts, and - for live performances - there's Lee Memphis King to Take Care of Business.

An open letter to Adrian Warnock

Dear Adrian,



I confess I find your blog stimulating and frustrating in about equal measures. Stimulating because of your high view of Scripture and God's Sovereignty, your commitment to substitutionary atonement and your awareness of what is going on in the Reformed world and the Charismatic world alike. Frustrating because of the ease with which you accept reported miracles and your failure, repeatedly, to address some hard questions that you would, as a Christian psychiatrist, be in a really good position to consider. And I keep reading, because perhaps one day...


Then today you throw out a challenge: you publish a provocative quote from Lloyd-Jones where he accuses those who identify Spirit-baptism with conversion of 'quenching the Spirit', and you ask us to tell you what we think. Okay, then - I'll try.


I share your admiration for 'the Doctor' - what a man he was! What a preacher! I trained for ministry at London Theological Seminary which, as you will know, was set up by Lloyd Jones and some of his associates. The Doctor was still alive when I began there, and I had opportunity to discuss his views on Spirit-baptism with some of his closest acolytes (I do not mean the term unkindly).


Firstly Adrian, I think it might help if you could accept - in your heart as well as in your blog! - that the Doctor was never a closet charismatic. He knew personally Pentecostal/Charismatic leaders from probably three generations or more. He respected many of them. But he was never, apparently, convinced by them. Though his views on Spirit-baptism were certainly closer to yours than to mine, bear in mind: he did not draw the same practical conclusions as you have done. Ask yourself why. And ask: is it fair to quote Lloyd-Jones regularly as if he were 'one of you'?


Second, it's worth pointing out that within the Principality of Wales today there are Christian leaders who knew and respected Lloyd-Jones enormously and who agree with his views on Spirit-baptism and claim to have known that baptism. There are also others who knew and respected him enormously but disagree with his views on this point. As far as I'm aware, there's no obvious difference at all in the fruit of these men's ministries. It does not look as if either group has grieved the Spirit more than the other.


Thirdly I think it is worth asking whether LJ is likely to be right on this point. I mean: is it at all likely that an evangelical man who is genuinely trying to follow what the Scriptures say (or: what he believes the Scriptures say) may, by doing that, be quenching the Spirit who inspired the Scriptures? And not just that: quenching the Spirit in a uniquely powerful way ('There is nothing, I am convinced, that so 'quenches' the Spirit...')? I am afraid the Doctor is using a technique here similar to the 'shout loud because the argument is weak' one so beloved in preaching stories! He attempts to use theological fear to stop us looking carefully at what he says the Scripture says.


Fourthly, you know how rarely the phrase 'baptism in the Spirit' (or anything like it) is used in the New Testament. Once in each of the gospels; once in Acts. Those five relate the same incident. Then, once in 1 Corinthians 12:13. That's it. Now, 1 Corinthians 12:13 plainly refers to conversion; LJ admits as much but argues that since this is 'baptism by the Spirit' not 'baptism with or in the Spirit' it is plainly something different. Baptism with the Spirit, he says, is something the Lord Jesus does; baptism by the Spirit is something the Spirit does. What he does not face up to, however, is that the Greek in each case is the same: en pneumati. There is simply no ground in the original for the distinction the Doctor makes. Which rather queers his case - for if the clearest reference of all is to conversion, we are surely justified in allowing that to help us answer what 'Spirit baptism' means in the other cases. It is a basic rule of hermeneutics that the clear texts illuminate the not-so-clear.


Over the years I've thought a great deal about this. I have no doubt that LJ had a powerful and fresh experience of God after arriving at Westminster, as his biography shows. His passion for God, and his yearning that others should know God as he knew God, seems to have influenced his exegesis here in unwarranted ways.


Finally, one more thought. As you know, Adrian, Lloyd-Jones used 'baptism of power' as a synonym for 'baptism with the Spirit.' But even a cursory look at his own life would suggest that his greatest power was at Aberafon, before the Westminster experience - not after.


More could be said; but I must run.


Sincerely,


Gary

Terry Virgo at the FIEC

The invitation by FIEC Council to Terry Virgo to address them in January has caused great surprise and not a little consternation to some. I am a cessationist – that is, I believe that some of the miraculous gifts of the New Testament era were only for that era alone. Nonetheless, having met Terry himself and talked at some length to him, I’ve enthusiastically supported that invitation. Here’s why.

Firstly, Terry is an evangelical; that’s not a surprise, but it needs to be said. Terry Virgo could (and would) enthusiastically sign the FIEC basis of faith. Like me, he’d want to say ‘That’s not all I believe; but yes, I believe that.’ There’d be no hesitation, no ‘crossed fingers’, no mental reservations. I know some people are not happy that the FIEC has never excluded charismatic evangelicals – but, whether they like it or not, it never has.

Secondly, Terry has taken a strong stand on penal substitutionary atonement. Since Steve Chalke and Tom Wright, that has become a hot issue in some ‘evangelical’ quarters; but it is the foundation and bedrock of our faith. If Christ were not punished by the Father for my sins in my place, then I must one day bear that punishment myself and the gospel has no good news for me. Terry has responded to the new liberalism with the same appalled horror, and the same strong convictions, that we share. That is why, I suspect, he has recently been invited onto the Council of UCCF, and why he is a major speaker (along with John Piper and Don Carson) at next year’s ‘New Word Alive’ conference. Sometimes, we just have to draw lines in the sand; and we need to be careful where we draw them.

Thirdly, he is fine preacher, and leader of one of the UK’s most successful church-planting groups. The only New Frontiers church I have visited certainly preaches the gospel; I’ve no reason to assume that the others do not. Yes, they will do some things that I would disagree with; but so do some FIEC churches! If FIEC wants to church plant to the nation, it’s worth at least asking if there’s anything we can learn from New Frontiers? How, for example, do they do their training? What areas do they target and why? What ongoing support do they give to the church planters? If we don’t agree with the answers we hear, we can ignore them. But if we do, we can learn.

Fourth, Greg Haslam, a pastor from a New Frontiers Church, has recently become pastor of one of the FIEC’s most famous historic churches, Westminster Chapel, London. Surely a greater understanding of one another would be a good thing?

‘All that may be true,’ says someone, ‘But what about apostles? Doesn’t New Frontiers claim that Terry Virgo is an apostle?’ Yes, they do. But they may not mean by that what you think they do – and surely Christian integrity means we should try to understand what someone says before we criticise? As I understand what they are saying, they argue that ‘apostle’ has at least three references in the New Testament. It is used of the Lord Jesus in Hebrews 3:1. It is used often of the Twelve, a unique original group (e.g. Mark 3:14). Terry’s own website says of them ‘…the original Twelve called by Jesus were obviously unique’. I believe that too! But thirdly, they point out that the word is sometimes used of others, too – Barnabas, for example (Acts 14:14). They see this as a ‘type 3 apostle’, and believe it is what is referred to in Ephesians 4:11 – ‘apostles of the churches’ rather than ‘apostles of Christ’. So the full quote from Terry’s website reads ‘Although the original Twelve called by Jesus were obviously unique, the ascended Christ, as described in Ephesians 4, continues to give to His church apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.’ I may think they are wrong – I do! But it is hardly heresy, and it is either dishonest or ignorant of us when we say ‘Terry Virgo thinks he’s an apostle like Peter.’ If we were more honest and said ‘Terry Virgo thinks he’s an apostle like Barnabas’ it would be more accurate and – surely? – less offensive.

I recognise that some of our brethren feel that they and their churches have been hurt by New Frontiers. We have to realise that struggling churches are often keen to blame somebody else ! But if there is more to it than that, surely that’s a reason to open dialogue? Isn’t forgiveness and reconciliation between brothers an important part of what we believe and strive for?

I look forward to meeting Terry again, and to hearing what he has to say. I hope you will pray for our session together, that great good may come out of it for Jesus our King.

Gary Benfold
December 2007

Eldership, the preacher, and presuppositions

Preaching recently through Titus, I was teaching (again) on the role of elders, as set out in the New Testament. That led to the comment that I was focusing too much on their teaching role and not nearly enough on their pastoral role. It gave me opportunity to set out in some detail what I believe preachers ought to do – here it is. I began by asking ‘Is that criticism right?’

It’s a good question. Perhaps I can best try and answer it by giving you a little insight into what the preacher’s job is. He starts with the belief that the Bible is God’s word: God has spoken, and he has spoken in his word. Everything the Bible says is true; but not everything we think the Bible says is true. Only what it really does say. And everything the Bible says is binding on us – though we must understand it properly, or else we will find ourselves trying to make sacrifices at a Temple in Jerusalem that hasn’t been there since AD70.

Not only that: the Bible is not only true in everything it says, it also tells us everything we need to know for our walk with God; how we are to conduct our personal lives, what kind of churches we should be, what baptism is, what the role of ministers and deacons and church members should be – all of it. We don’t need outside sources – especially tradition, otherwise known as ‘the way it’s always been done’; the Bible is true, and it is authoritative, and it is sufficient. And the preacher’s job is to take that word as it is, explain its meaning, apply it to the people, and motivate them to live by it.

And all that would be straightforward, were it not for the blinkers we all wear. I mean by that the assumptions – the presuppositions – that we bring to the text. Let me give you a couple of examples.

‘You are Peter, (the rock), and on this rock I will build my church.’ The Roman Catholic assumes that that text teaches that the Pope is the supreme leader of the Christian church. Ask a knowledgeable Catholic why he believes the RC church is the true church, and he’ll quote for you Matthew 16:18. But it’s an assumption. If you know your Bible and your history, you can argue for ages and make little progress. You can point out that Jesus used two different words for ‘rock’; he said ‘You are Petros and on petra I will build my church’ – and ask whether it’s not at least possible that Jesus meant ‘They call you the Rock, but it’s on a different kind of rock that I’m going to build my church.’ You can point out that there’s no evidence in the New Testament at all that Peter had any primacy over the other apostles. You can point out that the Roman Catholic church believes that Peter was bishop in Rome at the time Paul wrote the letter to the Romans – yet Paul names at least 29 people that he sends greetings to, and none of them is Peter. At the very least, that would be astonishing bad manners from one apostle to the chief apostle – isn’t it at least possible that Peter wasn’t in Rome at that point – and in fact was never church leader in Rome? No; Peter was bishop of Rome and the church is built on him. So you can ask: even if all of that were true, where does the text say anything about any of Peter’s successors? If Peter was the leader of the apostles; if he was bishop in Rome; where is there any suggestion that Peter’s successors were to be leaders of the world-wide church? But no: Matthew 16:18 tells them that the Pope is supreme.

It’s not that they’re being deliberately awkward: it’s the power of presuppositions. Breaking them down usually takes a great deal of time and patience.

It isn’t only Catholics, of course. I’ve known some Anglicans, who used the AV, insist that their church is more Biblical than the Free Churches because the Anglican church has bishops. Every time they read the passages about Bishops, they thought: ‘That’s right. We’ve got them.’ Even though the texts that mention bishops – episcopoi, overseers – make it clear that each congregation has at least one and probably more than one, so they’re not what Anglican mean by bishops at all – they couldn’t see it. Their presuppositions blinded them to what the text actually said.

And it isn’t just them, either. It’s us, too. We all have presuppositions. It’s really easy to spot other people’s, and fiendishly difficult to spot our own. But the preacher has to be careful: he comes to the text with presuppositions, and he preaches on that text to the congregation and asks them to believe it is the word of God. And Scripture is; but his presuppositions are not. So what’s he going to do?

He’s going to work at it. He’s going to know that he’s not infallible; he’s going to read and read the passage he’s preaching on and any other that bears on the issue. He’s going to consult the original languages if he can; certainly he’s going to consult the commentaries. He’s going to talk regularly and often to other preachers – not just those who agree with him, but those who are Anglicans if he’s Free Church, and vice-versa. He’s going to debate these things; he’s going to do everything he can to expose his own presuppositions – to himself! Sometimes, he’s going to get into the pulpit and say ‘you know when I said such-and-such? I was wrong – here’s how I know, and here’s what I should have said.’ And he’s not going to feel threatened by that, or that he’s making himself look stupid: what he’s doing is modelling his subjection to the word of God, and that’s likely to be as valuable as his preaching.

Presuppositions are one reason wise churches set men aside to teach; they don’t just use anyone who is prepared to devote whatever spare time he can find to ministering the word. Paul told Timothy to ‘diligently labour… to divide the word of truth rightly.’ Diligently labour – it’s hard work, time-consuming work and it has to be done, otherwise the preacher will misuse Scripture, misguide others, and answer for it before a very strict God on the day of judgement: ‘Let not many of you be teachers, my brothers, because you know we who teach will be judged more strictly.’ Topical sermons – ‘Four steps to a successful prayer life’ or ‘Five ways to stay happy though married’ can be produced very quickly; they’re the sermon equivalent of a TV dinner – taken from the freezer, popped in the microwave and served piping hot, but still a plastic substitute for the real thing. Real food takes longer; real sermons take work.

But wait a minute; hearers, not just preachers, have their presuppositions too. They may well judge a sermon or a preacher not on the basis of whether it or he deals faithfully with what the text says; they may judge on the basis of whether their own presuppositions have been agreed with.

Take this matter of elders. We all know some elders. Maybe you like them, and value what they did – naturally, you’re going to assume that they’re the model for eldership. When you hear eldership preached on, you’re going to look for your friends to be described. Or maybe you don’t like the elders you know, and don’t appreciate their work. You assume they’re wrong – and therefore you expect a sermon on eldership to criticise them and point out their shortcomings. If it doesn’t, it’s all too easy to assume the preacher has got it wrong.

What I’m doing as we look at this subject is simple: I’m trying to see what the text says, without letting my presuppositions – or yours – get in the way. If I’m missing something, it ought to be easy to show me: ‘Gary, you didn’t deal with that phrase in the text. Aren’t you missing something important?’ But any statement like ‘I think elders ought to do this…’ has to be backed up with Scripture.

Let me hone in even further. For a moment, let’s ask: what do the Scriptures say Christians should do? We could list a thousand things: but it would include things like this. Who comforts the bereaved? The ‘ordinary’ (so-called) member of the congregation – 1 Thessalonians 4:18. Who visits the sick? The ordinary Christian: (see Matthew 25:35-36 and James 1:27) Who bears the burdens of those who are hurting? The ordinary Christian ‘Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ,’ (Galatians 6.2).

Doesn’t the elder do those things? Of course he does – he’s a Christian too! But those things are things he shares with everyone else in the church; they’re things he does because he’s a Christian, not because he’s an elder. The things that he does by virtue of his being set aside to the eldership focus around teaching: he is the pastor/teacher (Ephesians 4.11) – and the main focus of his teaching, according to that verse, is to get everybody else out doing the work of the ministry.

Now, that’s a longer introduction than some sermons, but it is important.

Alistair Begg on Friday (nearly)
Back much later than I anticpated, we're still looking at Begg's words to preachers. I hope that this one helps establish the blogging habit!

3. The story-teller. This man has convinced himself that since everyone loves a good story and since people tend to be less inclined to follow the exposition of the Bible, he will develop his gift of storytelling to the neglect of the hard work of Biblical exposition…

4. The entertainer. Too often these days one is invited to preach with no thought given to the preacher being part of the worshipping throng. Instead he is invited to relax ‘backstage’ until it is time for him to ‘do his thing’. .. I do question the rightness of such a procedure…. There is a marked difference in perspective between the joyful solemnity I recall in the vestry of Charlotte Chapel, Edinburgh, in the final moments before it was time to mount the pulpit steps and the ‘go get ‘em’ camaraderie in many churches today, the latter being more like a locker room sixty seconds before the kickoff.

Alistair Begg on Friday

Like John MacArthur, Alistair Begg is a fine and faithful preacher. A Scot now ministering in the US, Alistair is a particular help, in my opinion, to British preachers. His Scottish reformed heritage is very clear, while his preaching is both contemporary and colourful. There are few men as faithful to Scripture who are as consistently listenable! Daily broadcasts of Alistair's ministry from the Truth for Life radio program can be found here , while Alistair giving an update on his health (he has recently been treated for prostate cancer) can be heard here.

This first extract is from his little booklet 'Preaching for God's glory' - and I'll be back next Friday with a continuance of this.


In our day the expositor of Scripture has been eclipsed by a variety of sad substitutions. We will consider a few.

1. The cheerleader. This well-meaning fellow has a peculiar need to be liked and accepted. Whatever the context of a particular message, he is going to be positively inspirational. A good Sunday for him is one where his people laugh a lot, are affirmed and affirming, and go away more self-assured than when they arrived. Whether they were confronted by the truth of God’s Word or humbled by God’s presence is largely lost sight of in a quest for wholeness that replaces a concern about holiness. Such an individual often leaves the teaching of the Bible to small groups or home studies. The preacher’s task, he feels, is to ‘pump them up’ and prepare them for the daunting week that awaits them as soon as they leave the building.

Sadly, in such a case the sheep leave stirred but without being strengthened, and when the sugar fix provided by the mil-shake sermon has worn off, those with any kind of spiritual appetite wander off in search of more substantial food for their souls. The proper work of the preacher is thus not done.

2. The conjuror. When we hear the congregation declaring ‘Wasn’t it amazing what he got out of that?’ we should not immediately assume that the news is good. When the preacher refuses to do the hard work of discovering the actual meaning of the text in its context, and when he divorces discovery and application, just about anything can be conveyed – and often is!

MacArthur on Monday: When it’s time to go to war

From time to time I plan to include some quotes here from John MacArthur’s works; MacArthur is one of the doughtiest champions of truth in our day, as well as one of the most compelling. Read and enjoy!

Jude’s words stress the pressing urgency and the absolute necessity of the Truth War: ‘I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith’ (vs. 3). The expression ‘contend earnestly’ is translated from a strong Greek very epagonizomai, literally meaning ‘agonise against.’ The word describes an intensive, arduous, drawn-out fight. There is nothing passive, peaceful, or easy about it. Jude ‘exhorted’ them – meaning he urged and commanded them – to wage a mighty battle on behalf of the true faith.

Jude himself says he felt the necessity to write this command. He employs a verb that speaks of pressure. In other words, he sensed a strong, God-given compulsion to write these things. He was not writing them because he took some kind of perverse glee in being militant. He was not responding to a momentary whimsy or personal anger. This was critical, and since the writers of Scripture never wrote by human self-will, but only as they were moved by the Spirit of God (2 Peter 1:21), the extreme urgency of Jude reflects the sovereign influence of the Holy Spirit and therefore also the mind of Christ.

We thus have an urgent mandate from God Himself to do our part in the Truth War. The Holy Spirit, through the pen of Jude, is urging Christians to exercise caution, discernment, courage and the will to contend earnestly for the truth.

Notice what we are supposed to be fighting for. It is not anything petty, persona, mundane, or ego related. This warfare has a very narrow objective. What we are called to defend is no less than ‘the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.’

Jude is speaking of apostolic doctrine (Acts 2:42) – objective Christian truth – the faith, as delivered from Jesus through the agency of the Holy Spirit by the apostles to the church. As he says in verse 17: ‘Remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.’

Notice: no one discovered or invented the Christian faith. It was delivered to us. It was not as if someone mystically ascended into the transcendental realm and drew down an understanding of the truth. We don’t need an enlightened guru to open the mysteries of the faith for us (cf. 1 John 2:27). The truth was entrusted by God to the whole church – intact and ‘once for all.’ It came by revelation, through the teaching of the apostles as preserved for us in Scripture. Jude speaks of ‘the faith’ as a complete body of truth already delivered – so there is no need to seek additional revelation or to embellish the substance of ‘the faith’ in any way. Our task is simply to interpret, understand, publish, and defend the truth God has once and for all delivered to the church.
(From ‘The Truth War’ by John MacArthur, pages 74/75)

I'm hoping - really hoping - to do some serious blogging in the near future, with some input from various worthies. While I get that underway, here's a chapter from 'Reach out for him' - an evangelistic booklet by me, available from Day One.

Will there be a judgement?
‘… he has set a day when he will judge the world by the man he has appointed…’ (Acts 17.31)

When many people think of God, they think of a rather kindly old gentleman who could never be angry. The truth, though, is both better and worse than that!

It is better, because God’s love is greater than we could ever have guessed – great enough that he sent his Son, Jesus, to die in our place. ‘God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.’[i]

It is worse, though, because God’s holiness is so great that we needed him to send his Son. Let me explain.

While we know we are not perfect, we do not really think our imperfections matter very much. But the Bible calls them sin, and insists that sin is so serious God must judge it: ‘the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men.’[ii] Sin is serious enough to bring God’s wrath. The place where God’s wrath is felt most painfully – and eternally – is hell.

It surprises many people to discover that Jesus spoke a great deal about hell. Many of the common descriptions of hell – a place of torment,[iii] a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth,[iv] a place of outer darkness[v] – actually come from Jesus himself. He knew he needed to warn us all how serious our sin is, and the imagery he uses is terrifying.

In fact, Jesus also told us that he would be the Judge: in the end, it is up to him who goes to heaven and who goes to hell.[vi] Judgement is a fearsome thing, for hell is real and we have all sinned.[vii] Happily, heaven is real, too – and forgiveness is possible for us all because Jesus died. Jesus said ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.’[viii]



[i] John 3:16
[ii] Romans 1:18
[iii] Luke 16:23
[iv] Matthew 8:12
[v] Also Matthew 8:12 – this familiar phrase is from the Authorised Version.
[vi] Matthew 25:32
[vii] Romans 3:23
[viii] Matthew 16:28

Why I am not a charismatic

Because I read my Bible...

You see, it happened like this. I was saved in August 1973. In September that year, I went off to University - one of the oldest and most elite academic insitutions in the country (Bradford). There I met lots of other Christians and began to go to an Elim Pentecostal church. Everybody - but everybody - seemed to be speaking in tongues. It seemed like a good idea... so I began to pray for it. I got lots of guidance (apparently you can be taught this supernatural gift) and, eventually, I began to speak in gibber... er, the tongues of angels.

Straight away I knew that I was now spiritually superior to those of my friends who didn't gibb - er, speak in tongues. And deep down, that bothered me; if a gift was genuinely of God, I thought, it shouldn't make me feel superior. So I began to wonder. I don't think it took more than ten days for me to decide my own experience was spurious, and I gave up g - er, you know.

Now I'm not daft enough (and wasn't daft enough even then) to think that my false experience meant that everyone else's experience was false, too. But it did open the possibility up in my mind. I read one or two books - Signs of the apostles, for example. But mostly, I read my Bible. And the gifts in the Bible just didn't look like the gifts in the Elim church.

I really wasn't impressed by the 'prophecies'. I mean, there are prophecies in the Bible, right? And they're pretty dramatic. And they're accurate. The prophecies I heard weren't even interesting.

But it was really 'tongues' that got me. Why was the most prolific gift the one gift that couldn't be tested, I wondered? I mean, my friends told me that some gifts of tongues were human languages, and some were the languages of angels (1 Corinthians 13:1). But I only heard the ones that - well, weren't human. Why? Could it be that all these people were fooling themselves?

And anyway, I understand English. I'm pretty good at it. I know a figure of speech when I see one. 'Though I speak in the tongues of men and of angels' didn't read like a prescription to me, or even a description; it read like a sarcastic comment: 'I don't care if you speak Latin, French, English and Klingon - or even Angelish - if you don't have love I don't want to know.' But my friends were ever so, ever so excited about speaking Angelish, and I couldn't understand it.

And then, of course, the 'tongues' in the New Testament were never Angelish. They were always human languages - someone even pointed out to me, eventually, that the languages (tongues) spoken in Acts 2 were all named. Angelish wasn't any of them. Hmmm.

And so I kept reading my Bible, and kept watching. I realised that though the 'gifts' being used in the church were given the same names as the gifts in the New Testament, that was all they had in common. I realised that I could call myself Elvis Presley, but it wouldn't make my voice the real thing. The only problem left: where were the gifts today, then?

It may have been as late as 1977 that I discovered the answer; Stuart Olyott explained to me what 1 Corinthians 13:10 meant, and it made sense. I know this is a controversial passage. Hey, those who are in the wrong find any Scripture passage that proves they're wrong controversial! If you already believe that 'the gifts' are being exercised in the church, perhaps 1 Corinthians 13:10 might not persuade you otherwise. But when you've already realised the truth - well, that's different.

Nearly 30 years later, I'm still persuaded. There were sign gifts - foundations for the whole church. Once the foundations were laid, those gifts were no longer necessary. I've never - not even once - seen anything 'enough like' a New Testament sign gift to make me wonder if I might have got it wrong. And I watched with fascinated interest while the Pyromaniac asked for one well-attested prophecy that the Charismatics had got right. The rude people slandered him; the polite people challenged his exegesis. (You can read about it starting here and here) None of them gave the answer he'd asked for. QED, as they never actually said in my geometry lessons.

Signs and wondering about back-ache

On Sunday I went to a charismatic church. A local church had a special afternoon meeting, an internationally known and respected charismatic leader was preaching, and so it was a rare opportunity to see what really goes on. Not a lot, actually; it was a disappointment.

We were told that gold dust might materialise; it didn't. (I was glad about that; it would have been such a shame to be caught out without my dustpan and brush). There had, however, been miraculous manifestations of gold tea-leaves in one of the hotels over the weekend. Hmmm.

The singing was unexceptional; not good, not bad. The preaching was fine - up to a point. We were treated to a reasonable exposition of John 14, complete with quotes from Hendrikson. Jesus' promise not to leave them as orphans was fulfilled not by his resurrection, nor by the (still future) return in glory, but fulfilled by the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost. OK so far. Therefore Jesus was present in the church to do exactly the same as he was in the days when he walked with the disciples - an inference Hendrikson doesn't draw and would, I think, deny. Therefore, said the preacher, today he's going to heal those with back-ache: specifically, lower back pain with shooting pains down the leg and the sciatic nerve.

Over at Pyromaniacs (here, for example - where Spurgeon is being quoted - and don't miss the 'comments' section) the boys occasionally defend a cessationist position, and are lampooned for it. From time to time they issue a challenge: please, someone, show us a miracle. It's a fair challenge, surely? If Jesus is doing the same in the churches today as he did when he walked the earth, show us. Back-ache? Where's that in the gospels?

Please note: Sunday's experience was not a back-street charismatic church with a poorly-trained leader. The speaker was one of the big guys, one of the most respected men in the movmement. And all he could offer was back-ache relief.

Adrian Warnock should know better; he's a doctor - a psychiatrist in fact. But he doesn't - see here. The healing of anxieties and a stiff shoulder - what will Jesus do today? Indeed, what will he do!

What's the problem? Suggestion, that's what. Hypnosis can do all of this; hypno-therapists offer it in your high street. We don't need to invoke miracles and the power of Jesus to explain any of this - and Adrian, in particular, should know it. Where's the healing of those born blind, please? Where are the lepers being cured? Where's the raising of the dead - if Jesus is present in the church to do exactly what he used to do?

Over the years I've ridiculed charismatic meetings for their 'God is telling me somebody here has back-ache' pronouncements. Sometimes, I've felt guilty about that. But I cannot begin to tell you how unimaginably disappointed I was on Sunday to discover that my friends still haven't moved beyond it.

But worse than that - and please don't tell anybody, will you? - it actually made me wonder (for a short while) if the Christian faith is true. I mean, there has to be more to it than this, surely? And if it did that for me, what does it do for others - that is, for those unbelievers who don't leave their discernment at the door?

OK; let's try that again. You'll find here all the proof you ever need that Spurgeon was a Calvinist.