You Shall Not Surely Die

graphic by www.danspulpit.com (click to enlarge)

The cleverness of his video and the clamor of his defenders give the impression of a newness to Rob Bell's latest folly, but there's nothing really new about it. As Sean Lucas has pointed out, the church has seen this kind of thing before.

And even when it comes to Bell himself, there's nothing new here. Rob Bell's heterodoxy on the Bible and the atonement isn't new. His vague but deadly confusion of the gospel isn't new. Even his technique of teaching his heresy through questions then teflon-coating himself later with more orthodox sounding statements (that never correct the heresy) isn't new.

So, this idea that the jury's out until you read the book, or that you have to speak to him or read it before you can critique the video is bogus. What may surprise you is just how old Bell's view is.

Eve Was Deceived

Most of us have known that for so long that we don't marvel like we should. Unfallen, perfectly created, obedient, wholehearted-for-God Eve was deceived. Adam wasn't, 1 Tim 2:14 tells us, but Eve indeed was. She thought she was doing the right thing when she took the fruit. She thought she was doing the right thing when she gave some to her husband.

Has God Really Said?

You have God's words. But you might not have God's meaning.

That's the idea behind Satan's first clever attack. Here's a being that can talk. Hmm... that's different from the animals.

And it knows the words of God. Maybe it's testing me to see if I will be faithful. Maybe it's sent from God to see if I've been paying attention, and if I'm really following with a whole heart.

I know the words, but maybe I haven't gotten the meaning. Maybe this creature is here to help me.

The Big Lie

You shall not surely die. It seemed a direct contradiction of what her husband said that God had said.

Adam had explained to her about that wonderful tree of life, that sacrament of their covenantal agreement with God, that testified with each bite to the lavish provision and love of God in giving them all of their life, all of their pleasure.  And Adam had explained to her about the one non-negotiable term of the agreement: you shall not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And Adam had explained the consequence: in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

The punishment sounded so dreadful! And, we don't know whether it was Adam or Eve who had come up with the idea that God had said not even to touch it. But in Eve's mind--remember, she was deceived, rather than willful here--it must have seemed so inconsistent with everything else that she knew about God. Really? Die? But God is the One who has given us life. God is the One who has given us every tree that is pleasant for the eye. God is the One who has given us every tree that is good for food. God is the One who has given us the very tree of life!

Still, the Word of God is the Word of God, so we must not eat, or else we will die. But, what if this is really a question of hermeneutics? What if "you shall surely die" isn't a statement about what will happen to us, but God's rhetorical attempt to get us to advance spiritually? [if you've listened to Rob Bell, that sounds familiar, doesn't it?]

And what if the one who showed this to you was undeniably impressive, almost as if a messenger [angel] from God with just the light [an angel of light?] to rightly understand God's strange statement that "you shall surely die"? Perhaps he would distinguish himself as unlike the beasts of the garden by being able to talk. Perhaps he would come with some secret knowledge of God that would make all that dying stuff go away.

But in order for her to be deceived into thinking "you shall not surely die" didn't mean that there was such a thing as divine wrath for disobedience, a perfectly intelligent, perfectly righteous woman would have to have a pretty good reason to understand it differently.

The Big Lure

This is where Genesis 3:5 makes Genesis 3:4 plausible for a godly woman to believe. Eve knows that she and Adam exist to image God in the creation. The first words that ever rung in her perfect ears were, "this at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh." Her uniqueness, her purpose in creation was clear: complement and complete your husband as the only creatures in all of creation who bear the very image of God.

So, perfect-hearted Eve would want more than anything--more than anything--to image her God.

For God knows that when you eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God. What if eating the fruit was a way to fulfill my God-given purpose? What if it was a test? What if the warning about death wasn't because death would actually happen but rather a test to see if I love to image God more than I love even my own life?

Right now, my eyes are closed; I cannot see His purposes. But when I eat, then my eyes will be opened. When I eat, I will be like God. And I will have served Him by attaining, through faith, to a new level of imaging Him in the creation.

Eve was deceived.

Her sin in the fall was not willful, as Adam's had been. She actually thought she was pleasing God. An angel of light had appeared to her and convinced her that God was not as hard as she had supposed Him to be; she had simply misunderstood His words.

You shall not surely die.

The Original Trajectory Theology

So you see, using Vimeo may be new. And the hipster glasses. And the edgy jitter, that creepy motion in the video that attempts to knock you off balance visually, as his questions knock you off balance theologically and spiritually. That stuff might be new.

But the trajectory theology--that wonderful new thing with which Rob Bell is supposedly saving us from our atonement-obsessed selves--that's not at all new.

What's trajectory theology? It's Rob Bell's doctrine of Scripture. It's the idea that truth isn't found in the mere grammatical content of the words of Scripture, but that God was doing something "bigger" with the Bible--that He was using the Bible words to initiate a trajectory in which His dealings with man, and our understanding of Him, would combine with our increasing understanding of what Scripture means (as opposed to what it actually says). There's plenty on the net about Bell's trajectory theology. Google it.

I started this article  by saying that Rob Bell's ideas are older than we think. Any believer who hears someone say, "has God really said?" and then follow it with "you shall not surely die" should be thinking, "hmm... where have I heard that before?" Yes, Bell's ideas are literally as old as sin.

I honestly don't know if Bell is deceived. It seems to me that the most charitable thing is to hope that he is. The greater grief in Genesis 3:1-6 isn't that Eve was deceived; it's that Adam wasn't.

So, whether or not Rob Bell is deceived, I write this article in the hope that you, dear reader, will not be.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (ESV) Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

That, dear Rob, is how to be one of the few innumerable multitude like grains of sand on the ocean shore.

People Who Think They Are Christians but Aren't

I have a young pastor friend from an Arminian background who has been reformed by Scripture (with the help of good books and men) within the last few years. It's very exciting for me to interact with him, because everything is being reexamined under the lens of the Bible now; nothing is off limits. So worship, pastoral care, preaching, discipling--as he discovers these things again for the first (biblical) time, he's bringing me along by making me rethink them all as well.

His most recent question had to do with something he came across in Lloyd-Jones's Preaching and Preachers: people who think they are Christians, but they are not. My friend wanted to know: is there really such a category of person? and how, pastorally do we deal with them? Just what is the reformed (biblical) view of conversion?

The following is my response:

I think that a careful reading of some of the "in vain" passages in Paul's letters does indeed make the point that many who are named saints, and who believe themselves to be converted, have been called such "emptily"--and go to Hell. Also to the point on this are those people who claim to be Christians (note the "in Your Name," stressed by word order, not once but three times), and who do many thinks that they consider works of service and witness unto Christ, and yet who perish. And of course there are the warning passages in Hebrews, and those who do not endure in Revelation, etc., etc.

Probably the easiest, most recent treatment of conversion that I would recommend is Piper's Finally Alive.

The Puritans wrote much on what they called "gospel hypocrites" (someone who understood the gospel, and thought themselves converted, but were self-deceived, and should have known so by their actions and by their attitudes toward sin and the law, among other things).  I think that the best thing I ever read on this topic was The Almost Christian Discovered by Matthew Mead. There was one written about the same time by Thomas Shepard, called The Parable of the Ten Virgins (or something like that).

Pastorally, let me give you this counsel: follow the model of 1 John. It is next to impossible to differentiate between a gospel hypocrite and a struggling believer (as the Heb warning passages demonstrate). So, it is helpful that there is a letter in the New Testament that has as its stated purpose to give the believer assurance (1Jo 5:13). So point them... you know that you are converted because you love God, you love Christians, you love God's commands. And if they say, "but I fail," that is very different than saying "but I don't." The answer to "but I fail," is 1Jo 1:7-10. The answer to "but I don't love..." (any one of those three: God, believers, the law) is 1Jo 1:5-6. That's the person that you then tell to ask God to change his heart and grant him repentance, and you too must pray for such people.

The last of the three (love to law) is the most helpful test, practically, to me, although the first of them (love to God) is the strongest love.  This is because I think it is easier to deceive oneself that we love God, or even that we love our brother (notice the specific examples, however, of what genuine love to the brother looks like--John won't let us off the hook so easily).  However, there is many a sourpuss who thinks that the pool of acid that oozes out of his pantlegs everywhere he goes is the "love of the law." Such a person should be pressed with whether or not he has (or even desires) any fruit of the Spirit.

In addition to the three "loves" that God works in the heart of the converted, 1John refers often to the 1 great doctrine that God convinces the mind of the converted: "that the eternal Son, God Himself, has come in the flesh, died, risen, and is returning in a glorious resurrection body, and that we shall see Him face to face." Everyone that hopes thus purifies himself. So, if there is someone who doesn't love God's law, there may be a doctrinal problem: not that they don't get the "logic" of the gospel, but rather, they are not convinced of the reality of it. Those who are convinced that we are going to see the resurrected Jesus from our own resurrected flesh love the commands of God, both for the opportunity to please Him, and for their usefulness in sanctification, as we pursue glory.

So, I guess this answer isn't entirely comprehensive, but: 

yes, it is a biblical reality that there are many who think themselves Christians now that will curse God forever from the flames. But if you suspect that to be the case with someone in your congregation, I would suggest starting out by trying to minister assurance to them, and allow the tests for assurance to expose them to themselves. (it is generally unhelpful to tell someone that is indistinguishable from a struggling believer: "I don't believe that you're converted." If the elders, collectively, are forced to make such a public statement at the end of a discipline process, so be it)

I hope this helps,

James

So, pastor, do you just ignore that there are congregants whose lives are inconsistent with their professed faith in Christ? And, dear struggling Christian (or self-deceived child of wrath!), won't you please put yourself under the revealing microscope and healing balm of 1John? If you are struggling, you need some gospel therapy. If you are self-deceived, you had better find out now!

Continually Facebook

1Thessalonians 5:17 commands us, "Continually Pray."

At various times in my life, I have puzzled over what that means. Recently, Joel Beeke told the story of a maid who had been waiting upon some pastors/theologians, who were confounded by this very question. When they asked her, she said something to the effect that when she served them bread she prayed that God would nourish her; when serving them drink, that He would give her the water of life; when cleaning, that He would remove all filth from her.

That's a good idea. There's a reason that God has filled His Word with simple everyday illustrations of immense spiritual realities. But as an explanation of 1Thess 5:17, it's just not that satisfying.

Well, Facebook to the rescue. Really? Yes. But not in the way that you might think. Something happened this morning that was a mixture of challenge, inconvenience, and concern. And my first reflex was, "I should post that to Facebook." You see, I have some friends who would be intrigued by the oddness of it, others who would sympathize with me, others who might know something and suggest it, still others who would help me, and even others who would pray for me.*

And it struck me. At the best times in my spiritual life, these were all things that I continually related to my Father, and to my Savior, and to the Spirit... not to Facebook.

I told Him when something odd happened, because it was His providence to me (Eph 1:11), and I enjoyed relating to Him that I recognized His hand in my life (Ps 139:16-18).

I told Him when something was challenging, because I knew that He cared for me (1Pet 5:7), and  that He commands me to let me know about such challenges (Phlp 4:5-7), and even because I know that every demonstration of my inability is a glorious display of His ability, and another lesson in absolute dependence (2Cor 12:7-10).

I asked Him for help first, because I knew that ultimately all help must come from Him (Ps 124:8), and because His is all the help we need (Rom 8:31-32).

I loved to share my life with Him, because it was a constant delight that union and communion with Him was the story of my life (Jn 6:56, Jn 15:4-5, Jn 17:20-26, Gal 2:20, Rom 6:3-8. Rom 8:17).

So, Facebook to the rescue. And I do indeed plan to post this to Facebook! But Father first. And Christ first. Are you in a dry season spiritually? Might it be in part because your life is better characterized by "facebook continually" than by "pray continually"? Is it possible that where experiential union and communion with Christ ought to be, you've been duped into accepting a counterfeit union and communion with 1134 friends (even with believers, with whom we're commanded to fellowship)?

This has, of course, been a temptation and a problem for all Christians. But our "friendships" with others were never meant to be so comprehensive. This level of communication, and interaction, and dependence, and mutual delight ought to be enjoyed with The Friend who sticks closer than a brother, with our Beloved of whose I am and Who is mine. In earthly relationships, the closest analogy is the honeymoon.

Married couples cannot honeymoon forever. Someone has to earn the bread, and someone has to bake it. But that's just it; you can honeymoon forever with Christ. He is never otherwise occupied such that He hasn't the time or attention for you, and He is always with you--you needn't move a muscle or open your mouth to communicate or commune with Him.

With such sweet fellowship so constantly and immediately available to you, dear Christian, why is it that so many of us are better described by "facebook continually" than by "pray continually"? Oh, let us strive for the latter!

I am my Beloved's, and my Beloved is mine!

*not that there's anything wrong with having friends pray for you--but really, if you go to them before you go to Christ, how is the spirit of that any different than the idolatrous praying to saints of the Roman Catholics?

My Little Investigation Into The PCA's RUM

For the past few months, there have been some disgruntled voices concerning the Mississippi Joint Committee on Campus Work (MJCCW). MJCCW is a committee set up by Covenant, Grace, and Mississippi Valley Presbyteries to oversee the RUF works within their bounds. Now, I’m not going to get into the nitty-gritty of what has happened within these presbyteries and concerning MJCCW, but as a member of Mississippi Valley Presbytery (MVP), I am concerned about what is and has gone on in the past months. So, following our February Stated Meeting, I decided to investigate some things (via the RUM offices in Atlanta), and I came to a few conclusions. Please note that these are not necessarily the thoughts or actions of MVP. I am saying these things as an individual.

First, here are some things I found out that I didn’t know before and that you may not have known before:

1. How are RUF ministries started and funded? Your typical RUF is started when a Presbytery decides they want an RUF at a particular college or university. The Presbytery puts funds aside for that ministry to start. Presumably, churches within that Presbytery give as well. After about 40% of the funds are raised, they are ready to hire an RUF minister. After the man is hired, he reaches out to his network (individuals and churches) seeking help financially for his salary and ministry expenses.
2. Does an RUF ministry have to have all the funds determined by a set budget to start? No. It is understandable that in the first year or so it will be more difficult to get off the ground, and the RUM offices in Atlanta help in such cases. However, the need should drop as time goes on and as alumni are able to give. That is another source of raising finances: alumni.
3. If an RUF minister is directly affiliated with RUM in Atlanta and not under the oversight of Presbytery groups like MJCCW, are there administrative costs that he has to pay to RUM Atlanta? Yes. Each RUF minister has to give $800 per month out of their ministry expenses (not salary) to RUM Atlanta. What is the $800/month ($9600/yr) used for? Of the $800, $600 is used for administration costs like audits, keeping books, etc., and the other $200 goes to RUM Atlanta.

I thought this was a steep number for the average RUF ministry, so I asked if men struggle keeping the ministry going financially. Some do, but there are procedures in place to focus more time and effort on fundraising, if there are difficulties. I also asked how many RUF ministries had ceased to exist or closed down due to finances. I was told that four had, though three of those are back up and running again. The other one, Marshall University, is still closed.

Second, I have some questions on the ‘best’ way to do the work of campus ministry (financially and governmentally).

1. Does it make more sense for the Presbytery or General Assembly to be overseeing campus ministries? I guess I should clarify that each RUF minister is still under the oversight of a Presbytery, but I guess this is a question, “Does RUM Atlanta have a hand in everything or anything?” If the Presbytery has oversight, then why do funds go to Atlanta? Why isn’t the Presbytery handling all the administration costs? Isn’t it their ministry, or is it RUM Atlanta’s?
2. What is the best way to fund RUF ministries?  Let’s first ask whether it is more appealing for a potential giver to give to RUM Atlanta, of which their gift goes to some far off college/university on the other side of the nation that they have never been to nor long to go, or for a potential giver to give to a local group (known as the Presbytery) who will give to colleges and universities you are familiar with? I’m from Illinois, so I will use my state as an example. Is it going to be more appealing to me to financially give to help start up an RUF ministry at the University of Illinois or to give to RUM Atlanta where it could go to, say, the University of Arizona? I love my people, don’t I? I love the Fighting Illini. Of course, I want to give locally. Of course, it is going to be easier to raise funds locally then nationally. So, my conclusion is that a Presbytery or Presbyteries joining together should decide how to start and fund RUF ministries within its or their bounds. Of course, in the PCA, most Presbyteries decide to go with RUM Atlanta. Yet, those with Presbyteries leading the way, like MJCCW, are able to start more RUF ministries because more funds are raised, and there are less expenses. Within three presbyteries, there are 13 RUF ministries including small colleges/universities like Delta State University, Rhodes College, Belhaven College, Mississippi College (a Baptist school), the University of Tennessee (Martin), and even community colleges: Holmes Community College and Hinds Community College. Can RUM Atlanta go after the small schools? I guess that is the Presbytery’s decision.

2011 39th PCA General Assembly: Overtures 3-5

You can find Overtures 1 and 2 discussed here.  Overture 5 is a request to divide the Korean Eastern Presbytery into two presbyteries (Korean Eastern and Korean Northeastern).  Overture 4 from Nashville Presbytery seems pretty understandable.  It asks to delete “c. his views in theology, and d. church government.” from BCO 19-11 as it regards the transfer of interns from one presbytery to another.  The obvious reason for asking for this deletion is the fact that when one becomes an intern in the first place they are not asked their views in theology nor in church government.  Overture 3 then is an alternative funding plan for the Administrative Committee.  You can read about this overture here.

Practical New Age Pastoral Theology

Here is your example of New Age, Postmodern theology worked out in real life for real people.  It gives no answers and leaves people with uncertainty and no hope for the future. This type of theology is wrong not only for those reasons, but because it plainly is not true.  But God is true, Jesus is true, and true answers come from His Word, the living breathed out Word, found in the Bible.  The answer for this man is to come to Jesus and be forgiven.  Atonement is possible.  Jesus forgives!  Jesus saves! Jesus gives rest for the weary! 

Do We Sin When We Dream?

The Whole Works of the Late Reverend Thomas Boston (Vol. 2), Pg. 70.  He speaks about dreaming and if we sin in our dreams.

But some may say, What is to be thought of men's dreaming that they are breaking God's commandments, e.g. profaning the sabbath-day, swearing, lying, &c. while really they are fast asleep, are not doing so, nor opening their mouths, &c.?

Ans.... No doubt it is sin, and will damn thee if it be not pardoned, and washed away by the blood of Christ. For, (1.) The scripture condemns it. Hence the apostle, Jude 8 speaks of filthy dreams that defile the flesh. (2.) The consent of the heart unto sin, the delectation that it finds in it, makes a man guilty; and the soul is always a rational agent, and this consent is given to these temptations in sleep. (3.) A man when awake thinking what he doth is sinful, though upon the matter it be not, yet it is sin to him; .e.g. a man taking his own goods, which yet he thinks are another man's, is guilty of theft before God: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. So is it in this case, (4.) As these things arise from corrupt nature, so readily they follow on some such motions that people have been taken up with when awake, or from a loose, carnal, and secure frame. They are looked on as sinful by tender consciences. (5.) As men may do something pleasing to God in a dream, so may they do something to displease him, 2 Kings iii. 5. (6.) The law impressed upon the heart is designed to keep it even in sleep, Prov. vi. 22. 23. When thou sleepest, it shall keep thee. For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light. But ye may say, What if a man has been watching against these things, praying against; them, &c. and yet in sleep falls into them? I answer, It is still sinful, in so far as the heart complies with the diabolic suggestion; and the truth is, by grace temptation is sometimes resisted in sleep, as well as when we are awake.

2011 39th PCA General Assembly: Overtures 1 and 2

The gate has now opened and we are driving towards the 2011 PCA GA.  There are already now two overtures submitted for this year.  Overture 1 is for dividing up Central Carolina Presbytery into three different presbyteries, it goes before MNA so I will make no comment here.  Overture 2 is from South Florida Presbytery and deals with term limits of the Stated Clerk of GA and the Coordinators of the four major committees.

Overture 2 states,

Overture to Amend RAO 4-9 — To set term limits for Coordinators of Program Committees and Stated Clerk

Whereas, the PCA has enjoyed God’s favor and grace for nearly forty (40) years, and

Whereas, the PCA has been blessed with very Godly, capable and competent men to serve in various leadership positions in our four (4) Program Committees and office of the Stated Clerk, and

Whereas, there has been a stated desire by two General Assemblies in the 2006 and 2010 Strategic Plans to see “Increased Involvement” and new leadership in the PCA, and

Whereas, the members of the Church of Jesus Christ possess, by God’s grace, certain and specific, yet varied gifts and talents which are to be used for God’s glory and are beneficial and edifying to the greater Body of Christ, and

Whereas, Scripture instructs the Church of Jesus Christ to enjoy and make the best use of the varied gifts and talents within the Church (1 Cor. 3:21–23; 10:31; 12:7, 21; 14:12, 26; Eph. 4:11–16; Col. 2:19), and

Whereas, there comes a time in the life of all organizations that a change in leadership is both needed and beneficial, and

Whereas, a regular change in leadership can be the means to identifying and raising up men who have been blessed of God to serve his Church, and

Whereas, the present reading of RAO 4-9 requires the annual nomination and election of the Program Committee Coordinators and Stated Clerk; and

Whereas, this annual nomination and election has become pro forma in that the General Assembly has always accepted the nomination and election of the Coordinators and the Stated Clerk; and

Whereas, men called to these positions should have a measure of certainty with regard to their status; and

Whereas, it would be advantageous to the Church to have the assurance that qualified men serve the Church for a specified term of service.

Therefore, the South Florida Presbytery overtures the 39th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America to amend the Rules of Assembly Operation (RAO) 4-9 to set term limits for Coordinators of our Program Committees and the Stated Clerk.

And further, if RAO 4-9 is adopted as amended, that the implementation of this provision would not affect those presently serving as Coordinators and Stated Clerk (the so called “grandfather clause”), but take effect upon the nomination and election of men not presently serving in these positions.

Amend RAO 4-9 with the following deletions (strikethroughs) and additions (underlined)

The four program Committees shall nominate for their respective Committees annually a coordinator for election by the General Assembly for a term not to exceed five (5) years, and may nominate him for election by the General Assembly to a second term not to exceed five (5) years, after which he is not eligible to be nominated or elected as coordinator. The Administrative Committee shall nominate annually a Stated Clerk for election by the General Assembly for a term not to exceed five (5) years, and may nominate him for election by the General Assembly to a second term not to exceed five (5) years, after which he is not eligible to be nominated or elected as Stated Clerk. If the nominee has not been examined by the Theological Examining Committee, such an examination must take place prior to the election when it is a first time employment. A new coordinator shall assume office at the end of the Assembly meeting, or at such time thereafter as designated by the General Assembly.

If amended RAO 4-9 would read:

The four program Committees shall nominate for their respective Committees a coordinator for election by the General Assembly for a term not to exceed five (5) years, and may nominate him for election by the General Assembly to a second term not to exceed five (5) years, after which he is not eligible to be nominated or elected as coordinator. The Administrative Committee shall nominate a Stated Clerk for election by the General Assembly for a term not to exceed five (5) years, and may nominate him for election by the General Assembly to a second term not to exceed five (5) years, after which he is not eligible to be nominated or elected as Stated Clerk. If the nominee has not been examined by the Theological Examining Committee, such an examination must take place prior to the election when it is a first time employment. A new coordinator shall assume office at the end of the Assembly meeting, or at such time thereafter as designated by the General Assembly.

Adopted by South Florida Presbytery at its stated meeting, January 18, 2011Attested by TE Michael C. Woodham, stated clerk

"We Ought To Hate It With A Deadly Hatred" by JC Ryle

"You who love the Lord, hate evil!" Psalm 97:10

How much we ought to hate sin! Instead of . . .

  loving it,

  cleaving to it,

  dallying with it,

  excusing it,

  playing with it--

we ought to hate it with a deadly hatred!

Sin is the great murderer, and thief, and

pestilence, and nuisance of this world!

Let us make no peace with it!

Let us wage a ceaseless warfare against it!

A Lazy Minister! - Spurgeon

"Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care . . . not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock!" 1 Peter 5:2-3

We preachers must be examples to the flock. He who cannot be safely imitated, ought not to be tolerated in a pulpit!

Did I hear of a minister who was always striving for pre-eminence? Or of another who was covetous? Or of a third whose life was not always chaste? Or of a fourth who did not rise, as a rule, until eleven o'clock in the morning?

I would hope that this last rumor was altogether false. An idle minister! What will become of him? Does he expect to go to heaven? I was about to say, "If he does go there at all--may it be soon!" A lazy minister is a creature despised by men--and abhorred by God!

I said to a farmer, "You pay your minister such a small amount! Why, the poor man cannot live on it!" His answer was, "Look here, sir! I will tell you the truth--we give him a good deal more than he earns!"

It is a sad pity when that can be said; it is an injury to all those who follow our sacred calling. We are to be examples to our flock in all things. We are to excel . . .

in all diligence,

in all gentleness,

in all humility, and

in all holiness.