Here's Why You Should Read Christianity And Liberalism:

Sometimes, however, the modern objection to doctrine is more seriously meant. And whether the objection be well-founded or not, the real meaning of it should at least be faced.

That meaning is perfectly plain. The objection involves an out-and-out skepticism. If all creeds are equally true, then since they are contradictory to one another, they are all equally false, or at least equally uncertain. We are indulging, therefore, in a mere juggling with words. To say that all creeds are equally true, and that they are based upon experience, is merely to fall back upon that agnosticism which fifty years ago was regarded as the deadliest enemy of the Church. The enemy has not really been changed into a friend merely because he has been received within the camp. Very different is the Christian conception of a creed. According to the Christian conception, a creed is not a mere expression of Christian experience, but on the contrary it is a setting forth of those facts upon which experience is based.

But, it will be said, Christianity is a life, not a doctrine. The assertion is often made, and it has an appearance of godliness. But it is radically false, and to detect its falsity one does not even need to be a Christian. For to say that "Christianity is a life" is to make an assertion in the sphere of history. The assertion does not lie in the sphere of ideals; it is far different from saying that Christianity ought to be a life, or that the ideal religion is a life. The assertion that Christianity is a life is subject to historical investigation exactly as is the assertion that the Roman Empire under Nero was a free democracy. Possibly the Roman Empire under Nero would have been better if it had been a free democracy, but the historical question is simply whether as a matter of fact it was a free democracy or no. Christianity is an historical phenomenon, like the Roman Empire, or the Kingdom of Prussia, or the United States of America. And as an historical phenomenon it must be investigated on the basis of historical evidence...

 Is it true, then, that Christianity is not a doctrine but a life? The question can be settled only by an examination of the beginnings of Christianity. Recognition of that fact does not involve any acceptance of Christian belief; it is merely a matter of common sense and common honesty. At the foundation of the life of every corporation is the incorporation paper, in which the objects of the corporation are set forth. Other objects may be vastly more desirable than those objects, but if the directors use the name and the resources of the corporation to pursue the other objects they are acting ultra vires of the corporation. So it is with Christianity. It is perfectly conceivable that the originators of the Christian movement had no right to legislate for subsequent generations. But at any rate they did have an inalienable right to legislate for all generations that should choose to bear the name of "Christian." It is conceivable that Christianity may now have to be abandoned, and another religion substituted for it; but at any rate the question what Christianity is can be determined only by an examination of the beginnings of Christianity. The beginnings of Christianity constitute a fairly definite historical phenomenon. The Christian movement originated a few days after the death of Jesus of Nazareth. It is doubtful whether anything that preceded the death of Jesus can be called Christianity. At any rate, if Christianity existed before that event, it was Christianity only in a preliminary stage. The name originated after the death of Jesus, and the thing itself was also something new. Evidently there was an important new beginning among the disciples of Jesus in Jerusalem after the crucifixion. At that time is to be placed the beginning of the remarkable movement which spread out from Jerusalem into the Gentile world--the movement which is called Christianity.

About the early stages of this movement definite historical information has been preserved in the Epistles of Paul, which are regarded by all serious historians as genuine products of the first Christian generation. The writer of the Epistles had been in direct communication with those intimate friends of Jesus who had begun the Christian movement in Jerusalem, and in the Epistles he makes it abundantly plain what the fundamental character of the movement was. But if any one fact is clear, on the basis of this evidence, it is that the Christian movement at its inception was not just a way of life in the modern sense, but a way of life founded upon a message. It was based, not upon mere feeling, not upon a mere program of work, but upon an account of facts. In other words it was based upon doctrine.

Certainly with regard to Paul himself there should be no debate; Paul certainly was not indifferent to doctrine; on the contrary, doctrine was the very basis of his life. His devotion to doctrine did not, it is true, make him incapable of a magnificent tolerance. One notable example of such tolerance is to be found during his imprisonment at Rome, as attested by the Epistle to the Philippians. Apparently certain Christian teachers at Rome had been jealous of Paul's greatness. As long as he had been at liberty they had been obliged to take a secondary place; but now that he was in prison, they seized the supremacy. They sought to raise up affliction for Paul in his bonds; they preached Christ even of envy and strife. In short, the rival preachers made of the preaching of the gospel a means to the gratification of low personal ambition; it seems to have been about as mean a piece of business as could well be conceived. But Paul was not disturbed. "Whether in presence, or in truth," he said, "Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice" (Phil. i. 18). The way in which the preaching was being carried on was wrong, but the message itself was true; and Paul was far more interested in the content of the message than in the manner of its presentation. It is impossible to conceive a finer piece of broad-minded tolerance.

But the tolerance of Paul was not indiscriminate. He displayed no tolerance, for example, in Galatia. There, too, there were rival preachers. But Paul had no tolerance for them. "But though we," he said, "or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" (Gal. i. 8). What is the reason for the difference in the apostle's attitude in the two cases? What is the reason for the broad tolerance in Rome, and the fierce anathemas in Galatia? The answer is perfectly plain. In Rome, Paul was tolerant, because there the content of the message that was being proclaimed by the rival teachers was true; in Galatia he was intolerant, because there the content of the rival message was false. In neither case did personalities have anything to do with Paul's attitude. No doubt the motives of the Judaizers in Galatia were far from pure, and in an incidental way Paul does point out their impurity. But that was not the ground of his opposition. The Judaizers no doubt were morally far from perfect, but Paul's opposition to them would have been exactly the same if they had all been angels from heaven. His opposition was based altogether upon the falsity of their teaching; they were substituting for the one true gospel a false gospel which was no gospel at all. It never occurred to Paul that a gospel might be true for one man and not for another; the blight of pragmatism had never fallen upon his soul. Paul was convinced of the objective truth of the gospel message, and devotion to that truth was the great passion of his life. Christianity for Paul was not only a life, but also a doctrine, and logically the doctrine came first.*

*Machen, J. Gresham (2010-03-24). Christianity and Liberalism (pp. 19-23). Unknown. Kindle Edition.

We Need More Of Machen's "Warrior Children."

J. Gresham Machen's mother to Machen:

"I well know that you are in for a fight and that you will make enemies."

Some of Machen's writings:

"Despite the use of traditional phraseology modern liberalism not only is a different religion from Christianity but belongs in a totally different class."

"The Christian movement at its inception was not just a way of life in the modern sense, but a way of life founded upon a message. It was based, not upon mere feeling, not upon a mere program of work, but on an account of facts. In other words, it was based upon doctrine."

"Paul was convinced of the objective truth of the gospel message, and devotion to that truth was the great passion of his life."

" `Christ died'-that is history; `Christ died for our sins'-that is doctrine. Without these two elements, joined in absolutely indissoluble union, there is no Christianity."

"Modern preachers are trying to bring men into the church without requiring them to relinquish their pride; they are trying to help men avoid the conviction of sin.(The Chruch) is busily engaged in an absolutely impossible task-she is busily engaged in calling the righteous to repentance."

"The greatest menace to the Christian Church to-day comes not from the enemies outside, but from the enemies within."

"We are in a great fight, and we are fighting, I am convinced, for the unity of the church, not against it. The only trouble is that the fight ought to have been made twenty years ago before the disintegrating elements had become so powerful."

"This is the true order of Christian pedagogy-`trust in His redeeming blood' first, and then `try his works to do.' Disaster always follows when that order is reversed."

"That need of the soul from which Jesus alone can save is sin."

"Nothing is more characteristic of present religious conditions than the loss of the consciousness of sin; confidence in human resources has now been substituted for the thankful acceptance of the grace of God."

"Many persons are horrified by the use of a theological term; they seem to have a notion that modern Christians must be addressed always in words of one syllable."*

"If we face the real situation in the church and in the world, and decide, despite that situation, to stand firmly for the gospel of Christ, we shall be very likely indeed to find ourselves engaged in controversy. But if we are going to avoid controversy, we might as well close our Bibles, for the New Testament is a controversial book practically from beginning to end. The New Testament writers and our Lord himself presented truth in sharp contrast with error, and indeed that is the only way in which truth can be presented in any clear and ringing way."

"... if we are not going to abandon Protestantism and unite ourselves with the Roman Catholic Church, then we must inevitably admit that there are times when separation from an existing church organization is not the sin of schism but an inescapable and very solemn Christian duty."

"Last week it was reported that the churches of America increased their membership by 690,000. Are you encouraged by these figures? I for my part am not encouraged a bit. I have indeed my own grounds for encouragement, especially those which are found in the great and precious promises of God. But these figures have no place among them. How many of these 690,000 names do you think are really written in the Lamb’s book of life? A small proportion, I fear. Church membership today often means nothing more, as has well been said, than a vague admiration for the moral character of Jesus; the Church in countless communities is little more than a Rotary Club.... The truth is that in these days the ecclesiastical currency has been sadly debased. Church membership, church office, the ministry, no longer mean what they ought to mean.... we ought to face the facts. It will be hard; it will seem impious to timid souls; many will be hurt. But in God’s name let us get rid of shams and have reality at last."

"To pray for tolerance without careful definition of that of which you are to be tolerant, is just to pray for the breakdown of the Christian religion; for the Christian religion is intolerant to the core. There lies the whole offense of the Cross—and also the whole power of it. Always the gospel would have been received with favor by the world if it had been presented merely as one way of salvation; the offense came because it was presented as the only way, and because it made relentless war upon all other ways."

“Show me a professing Christian of whom all men speak well, and I will show you a man who is probably unfaithful to His Lord.”

“A Christianity that avoids argument is not the Christianity of the New Testament.”

“Souls will hardly be saved,...unless evangelists can say with Paul: ‘If we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel than that which we preached unto you, let him be accursed.’...every true revival is born in controversy and leads to more.”**

"Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers." (1 Ti. 4:15-16).

*Stephen J.  Nichols. J. Gresham Machen: A Guided Tour of His Life and Thought (Kindle Location 273,675, 681-682, 683-684, 685-686, 707-709, 740, 766-767, 879-880, 891, 895-896, 904-905,). Kindle Edition.


**(2012-05-13). Always Reformed: Essays in Honor of W. Robert Godfrey (Kindle Locations 944-948, 856-858, 666-674, 648-652, 655-656, 657-658, 659-662 ). Westminster Seminary California. Kindle Edition

Dr. Robert Reymond On Christianity And Culture

The problem in our day is twofold: On the one hand, we are seeing a waning confidence within Evangelicalism in the message of the gospel. In the United States—I can speak more authoritatively about the condition of the church there than I can about the condition of the church in Britain—the evangelical church shows signs of losing confidence in the convincing and converting power of the gospel message. Why else would preachers trade the bold and accurate proclamation of the Gospel in exchange for pragmatic managerial techniques to build the church unless they had lost confidence in the Gospel’s power to change lives and to transform society? That is why increasing numbers of churches hear and prefer sermons on family life and psychological health. We are being overtaken by what Os Guinness has called the managerial and therapeutic revolutions. The winning message, it seems, is the one which helps people solve their temporal problems and improve their self-image, and makes them feel good about themselves. In such a cultural climate, preaching on the law, sin and repentance, and the cross has all but disappeared, even in evangelical churches. The old gospel is not popular. So the church has become ‘user friendly’, ‘consumer oriented’, and the gospel is watered down to appeal to the consumers. As a result the church is being inundated with the plague of ‘cheap grace’, to use Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s expression. Today’s ‘gospel’ is all too often a ‘gospel’ without cost, without repentance, without commitment, without discipleship, and thus ‘another gospel’ and accordingly no gospel at all, producing at best ‘spectator Christians’, Christians in name only, all traceable to the fact that this is how too many people today have come to believe that the church must be grown.

On the other hand, we are seeing a waning confidence within Evangelicalism in preaching as the means by which the gospel is to be spread. Spirit-animated preaching is increasingly being viewed as outdated and ineffective ‘Bible thumping’. As a result, preaching is giving way, at least in the United States, to multi-media presentations, drama and dance, ‘sharing times’, innocuous sermonettes on self-esteem, and pathetic ‘how to … in three easy steps’ devotionals. So churches have borrowed techniques from the advertising industry to grow themselves. Telemarketing, in particular, has taken the place of personal one-on-one evangelism, and cell groups are now the darling of the church growth movement. And the infusion of the popular culture into many churches in the forms of applause for the church’s ‘performers’ and sappy contemporary music gives evidence of the diminution of those churches’ vision of God and suggests that in their eagerness to be relevant they have become only more and more desperate! Churches so infected, look to the multiplication of programs to bring about their growth; they sponsor conferences and seminars on every conceivable topic under the sun; they subdivide their congregations down into marrieds, singles, single-parent, divorced, thirty-something, twenty-something, teens, unemployed, child-abused, drug-addicted, and so on, attempting to arrange programs for them all. This preoccupation with the needs of individual ‘selves’ is so pronounced that the salient purpose of the church—to know and to worship God and to make him known in all his holiness and love to a lost world—is obscured by the ‘what can God do for me’ mentality of this ‘me’ generation. And while there is nothing necessarily unseemly in these attempts to meet the needs of these groups as long as these efforts do not diminish the primacy of biblical preaching in the life of the church, one might still justifiably wonder if the perception that this is what one must do in order to minister effectively in the twenty-first century is not in itself a manifestation of waning confidence in the universal appeal and power of the gospel. And once a person joins such a church, conventional wisdom has it, the church and the minister must meet his every felt need. Accordingly, the pastor/teacher in the United States has become more and more a manager, a facilitator, a motivator, even a ‘rush chairman’, promising the newcomer that all his needs will be met—everything but a herald of the whole counsel of God who marches to the beat of the transcendent Drummer, and this all because we are losing confidence in preaching God’s Word as the primary means for the growth of the church and the individual Christian.

What is the cure to this malady? A restored confidence in the Reformed doctrine of the sovereignty of God in salvation! When polished, self-confident, show-boat-type preachers, for example, draw attention to themselves by using music that appeals to the emotions, story-telling, hysteria and hype and appeal to their viewers’ ‘sense of self-worth’ in order to produce ‘decisions’, it is evident that they don’t understand the depravity of man, either their own or their audience’s, or they would not act this way. Why do we say this? Because a biblical understanding of the depravity of man and the necessity of God’s sovereign initiative in salvation produces abject humility in a preacher and the very antithesis of human self-confidence, namely, confidence in God alone.

Read 1 Corinthians 1:26–31 and let Paul instruct you anew that the truth of God’s election destroys human pride and removes all boast before God. Learn anew that only God can convert a sinner, that only God can grow a saint, that no one can boast in this matter of salvation because God does it all (see 1 Cor 3:5–7). Neither the preacher nor the convert can take any credit. Salvation is all God’s doing. ‘It is because of him that we are in Christ Jesus’ (1 Cor 1:30); ‘salvation belongs to the Lord’ (Jon 2:9). Accordingly, the church needs to be reassured that it can preach the simple, unadorned, unglamorized, unglittery gospel message of the cross, knowing that God will use it to save souls and build his church.

Then read 1 Corinthians 2:1–5 and let Paul instruct you anew that preaching does not need to be spruced up by the use of the finest Greek oratorical skills or modern communication methodologies. Neither does the gospel message need appended to it the philosophical cogitations of an Aristotle or an Aquinas or Freud’s analyses of human nature. And here we are bold to say that it is the Reformed theology alone which supplies the necessary theological underpinning which makes true dependence upon God in gospel proclamation possible. When will true reformation come to the church? I say with confidence that it will only come when through all our failures we ministers stop resorting to and relying upon our natural and oratorical skills and clever organizational techniques in order to force church growth and start preaching again with Spirit-animated power God’s simple pristine Word from another world to ours and relying upon God’s Spirit to do his work.

Martin Luther once said: ‘While I drink my little glass of Wittenberg beer the gospel runs its course and overthrows empires.’ Now that is truly the finest and most comforting thing I have ever heard said about beer. What Luther meant, of course, is that he understood that a man’s conversion is not something that can be humanly ‘induced’. He understood that he could not change the world. And he knew that once the seed of the Word is sown and watered, the new life comes into being only by stepping aside and letting God’s Spirit do his work. Therefore, after preaching Luther could cheerfully and trustfully step down from the pulpit; he didn’t need to go on incessantly bellowing and roaring across the countryside. He could joyously drink his little glass of Wittenberg beer and trust in God to work. In all too many cases today we do not sin by doing too little work. On the contrary, many of us ought to ask ourselves whether we are still capable in God’s name of simply trusting him to work. Take my word for it, dear brothers, you can actually serve and worship God by occasionally lying flat on your back after proclaiming the gospel and the unsearchable riches of Christ, getting rid of your everlasting need to produce, and simply trusting God to do his work.

None of this that I have just said here, of course, is intended to suggest even for a moment that Reformed preachers may use bad grammar or should be anti-intellectual or idle. If one were to draw such a conclusion from what I have said, it would indicate that he knows little or nothing about the content and substance of the Reformed faith, for anyone who knows anything at all about the Reformed faith will know that it is anything but anti-intellectual and a motivator to sloth. It demands the very best from us in every area of life. But what I do intend to say is that the Reformed understanding of the gospel with its biblical implicates of human depravity, unconditional election, particular atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance in holiness must not be watered down or ignored in the interest of church growth, and that it will only be when we unceasingly and uncompromisingly proclaim the message of ‘Christ and him crucified’ and the whole counsel of God that true reformation and true church growth will come to the church.*

*Reymond, R. L. (2003). The God-Centered Preacher: Developing a Pulpit Ministry Approved by God (180–185). Fearn, UK: Christian Focus Publications.

Do Christians "Eat Their Own"?

Sadly, the answer is that we can and have. Ironically we who have received the greatest extent of forgiveness- Christ took the judgment for our sins and we receive His righteousness- can be the most unforgiving and vindictive.

Numerous stories can be told of legitimate abuses in a local church. But let me pause here to qualify that these are legitimate cases. In other words the people abused have biblical grounds for making the case that a local church is being unforgiving, vindictive or whatever the specific issues are. These are not cases where someone attends a church and is offended that the church would preach sound doctrine ( Titus 1:9-2:1, 1 Tim. 6:1-5, 2 Tim. 2:1-7, 4:1-5; which offends many), rightly implements church discipline when needed (1 Cor. 5:1-5, 6:1-8, 1 Tim. 5:20) and rightly implements that the elders of the church are invested by God with authority (Heb. 13:17, 1 Pet. 5:1-5, 1 Tim. 3:1-7, 1 Tim. 5:17). These are not the people who are not offended by the church not centered around them and their individual felt needs and feelings. These people are not offended that the church is centered upon Christ and His authoritative Word and that corporate worship is not about the people receiving but giving our Triune God His praise and worship.

These people have been abused by the church have genuinely been sinned against by either the leaders or the congregation as a whole. I recall an instance when a pastor was caught in an immoral act and publicly repented and resigned as a result. His repentance was genuine. He asked the congregation to forgive him and desired to remain in fellowship with that local body as a member, and in no position of authority. However, many in the church couldn't forgive him for his sins and demanded he leave and if he didn't they would. The elders and the majority of the body handled that situation biblically and restored such a brother. But no doubt he was hurt by the stinging and biting vindictiveness of some in the body. This is a legitimate example of one who was hurt by some Christians. He, along with many others hurt by fellow Christians, could have griped and complained about how "unloving" and "unforgiving" and "abusive" Christians can be. He didn't.

 Local churches are marred and imperfect. Elders will sin, fail and hurt people. Likewise, so will the congregation. But the church is still the bride of Christ and He loves her. He doesn't cast her away because she isn't yet perfected. The Lord gave His life for her knowing she would not be perfect this side of eternity:

25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish (Eph 5:25–27). 

If this is the case, and it most certainly is, where do so- called Christians get the notion that they are free to insist that the church overall and most Christians "eat their own?" Why do they seek to minimize the local church and convey the idea that because she is imperfect and very bad, very, very bad and to be avoided? By what authority do they make such assertions both explicitly and implicitly?

Therein lies the hear of the matter- authority. Many of these people, when you strip their arguments and objections from their emotional and sentimental clothing, will find that it really boils down to a rejection of divine authority. Specifically, divine authority coming through leaders in a local church, whether preached or practiced. Couple that with much confusion and ignorance on biblical concepts like love, forgiveness, grace and so forth, and you will find that many of these accusations and assertions are subjective and personal preferences- influenced by liberalism and how the world defines such concepts- of how they think a church should be and function. In fact, many of these accusers would not even know how to identify the marks of a true local church. They would struggle with how the Belgic Confession of Faith explains the marks of a true church and that a a false church:

Article 29: The Marks of the True Church

• We believe that we ought to discern diligently and very carefully, by the Word of God, what is the true church-- for all sects in the world today claim for themselves the name of "the church."

• We are not speaking here of the company of hypocrites who are mixed among the good in the church and who nonetheless are not part of it, even though they are physically there. But we are speaking of distinguishing the body and fellowship of the true church from all sects that call themselves "the church."

• The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head. By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church-- and no one ought to be separated from it.

• As for those who can belong to the church, we can recognize them by the distinguishing marks of Christians: namely by faith, and by their fleeing from sin and pursuing righteousness, once they have received the one and only Savior, Jesus Christ. They love the true God and their neighbors, without turning to the right or left, and they crucify the flesh and its works.

• Though great weakness remains in them, they fight against it by the Spirit all the days of their lives, appealing constantly to the blood, suffering, death, and obedience of the Lord Jesus, in whom they have forgiveness of their sins, through faith in him.

• As for the false church, it assigns more authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God; it does not want to subject itself to the yoke of Christ; it does not administer the sacraments as Christ commanded in his Word; it rather adds to them or subtracts from them as it pleases; it bases itself on men, more than on Jesus Christ; it persecutes those who live holy lives according to the Word of God and who rebuke it for its faults, greed, and idolatry.

• These two churches are easy to recognize and thus to distinguish from each other.

For the ones that yell "Christians judge too much!" (implying the church) the Belgic Confession of Faith's marks of a true church is too restrictive. It is too narrow, authoritative and too exclusive; thereby it is too "judgmental."

A major problem is that many Christians have this false notion that Christians are not to "judge." They are quick to shout "judge not!" in reference to Matthew 7:1; without understanding what the text means. They are not so quick to quote the words of our Lord in John 7:24- "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” They also neglect the words of Paul, who actually pronounced a judgment an a sexually immoral man and demanded the congregation at Corinth implement it, "For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord (1 Co 5:3–5).

To be sure his point was to restore the sinning brother. He goes on to exhort the congregation to forgive when repentance is demonstrated and restoration sought. He writes in 2 Corinthians 2:5-11, "Now if anyone has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some measure—not to put it too severely—to all of you. For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything. Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. Indeed, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, so that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs." 

That is the divine mandate, and thus the biblical model, for how unrepentant and open sin is to be handled in the Lord's church. But to even implement such discipline in a church would be to invite the accusations of "unloving," "mean,"  "unforgiving," and "judgmental." After all,  it is claimed, "we need to love them back." Which really means that we need to ignore the sin and hope that the person repents as a result of our "loving acceptance" of them. But to ignore sin in Christians's lives is to despise the holiness and glory of the God you claim to know.

Yes I am aware that Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners. Even though that is a slightly different issue (evangelism), He still called such people to repentance from sins and faith in Him-

27 After this he went out and saw a tax collector named Levi, sitting at the tax booth. And he said to him, “Follow me.” 28 And leaving everything, he rose and followed him. 

29 And Levi made him a great feast in his house, and there was a large company of tax collectors and others reclining at table with them. 30 And the Pharisees and their scribes grumbled at his disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” 31 And Jesus answered them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 32 I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance (Lk 5:27–32).

Not only do so -called Christians reject the authority of God's written Word; as preached by His under-shepherds and submitted to by all His people. They also seem to think and believe that God's greatest concern is people and their feelings. When in fact God's greatest concern is for His own glory ( Ps. 106: 7-8, Is. 43-6-7, Ez. 20:14; 48:9-11, Eph. 1:3-14, Ro. 9:14-23).

When it comes to the local church many people are more concerned with how one "feels" in a church rather than God's glory in a local church.

I have my own problems with how much in bad shape the church is at the moment, but for very different reasons and of which these accusers demonstrate. But I have no right, nor authority to abandon her, nor to encourage fellow Christians to avoid a local church in favor of being a "member" of the universal church.

Tragically the church does "eat her own" at times. That needs to be repented of. Yet, one will never find a perfect local church, just like one will never find a perfect family; no one is in favor of rejecting or minimizing or doing away with the concept of family because of the flaws within families.

"19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. 

26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb 10:19–31)." 

Doug Wilson's Primer On Worship

A few months back a good friend and brother in our church gave a box full of Wilson's book A Primer On Worship And Reformation (also available on Kindle) and I've finally gotten around to reading it. This little book (only 76 pages) is worth the time and read. In typical Wilson fashion he can speak poignantly with humor.

The following are some quotes from this book:

The Church in our nation is in a bad way. This comment is not directed at our moribund quadrant—the ever-relevant liberals dozing off irrelevantly in their ecumenical corner—but rather at the vibrant and active section that we call modern evangelicalism. Now of course there isn't a problem with activity per se, but in the conservative and evangelical wing of the Church, vibrancy and activity always seem to cluster around cash registers. This is not written with a sense of ironic detachment; we understand ourselves to be covenantally united with the modern evangelical church. We do not just attack these corruptions; we also confess them. Because we have confessed them, and continue to confess them, we do not hesitate to call for the thorough reform of the contemporary Church, root and branch. And in order to avoid spiritual confusion, this reform must concern itself first and last with the reform of the worship of God...

It is far too easy to preach against the sins of others, or attempt to bring about a Reformation that was necessary for another era. We do need a Reformation in our day, but this means we need to be forgiven for our sins. And this means, in its turn, that we must repent of our sins. But how will we hear without a preacher? And how will they turn red and embarrassed without a satirist?

Making all necessary adjustments for the changes in time and place, the modern evangelical Church, eyes fat as grease, bastion of born againism, is fully as corrupt as the Church prior to the Reformation. And this is not a back-handed way of praising the Church prior to the Reformation. When a people have given themselves over to a lie, the scriptural pattern is for God to give them over to more lies, so that they might learn to eat their own cooking. The further into the delusion we go, the starker the evidence of such delusion is, and the more difficult it is to get anyone to see what has actually happened. And on those occasions when someone will admit that there are "excesses" out there, it is still glibly assumed that these excesses are scattered around the periphery of modern evangelicalism. And thus, we heal the wound lightly, saying peace, peace, when there is no peace. This idolatry is right at the heart of our identity as modern evangelicals. We have sold out the faith for a buck. The one thing in our favor is that we made a bigger profit than Judas did. And, unlike Judas, we keep what we get...

The Church, when compromised, always tends to adapt itself to the surrounding and prevailing idolatry...

These are curious times we live in. At least the money changers in the Temple were selling animals that the law required to be sacrificed. We modern evangelicals set up shop in the Temple in order to sell blasphemous T-shirts, concerning which Moses said nothing at all. Why not have a post-it note left on the cross, with Jesus dashing off a message thereon about how He has gone off to see His dad? "Be back soon!" Why would any Christian object to this? Oh, I don't know. Fear of God maybe.

And then there are the Veggie Tales. What is the issue here? That would become abundantly clear if someone seriously suggested a Veggie Tales version of Beowulf, or Lord of the Rings, or Prince Caspian. Modern evangelicals are reverent of everything except their religion. Just try to picture Aragorn as a cucumber. What does that do to the ethos of the thing? Or imagine Aslan as a beet. "We couldn't do that! It would wreck the story!" I see. Apparently, as far as modern evangelicals are concerned, the Bible doesn't have a story to wreck.

There are only three options, which reduce actually to only two. One is to attack the folly. The weapons may vary—sermons, satire, conversation, books like this one, or prayer—but the target must always be to topple the idols. The other two options amount to just one. Join in with the wickedness, or simply suffer it gladly...

The great argument advanced today in favor of such seeker sensitive worship is that we have to present the gospel to today's unbeliever in a way that is relevant to him. But the word relevance, though it has a fine dictionary definition, really has to be understood as the battle cry of modern unbelief. This is not because the word itself is objectionable, but because liberals and their modern evangelical cousins have freighted it with a hidden system of weights and measures—in which the world, and not Scripture, determines the content of our faith and practice...

There are at least two kinds of irrelevance. One is the irrelevance of offering a bicycle to an oyster. But there is another kind of irrelevance entirely, and that is the practice of setting forth the gospel of light and righteousness to those who love their darkness and iniquity. We are commanded to be irrelevant in this second sense. We are called to worship God in a way that is pleasing to Him, and to which unbelievers will be attracted only if God moves them in a sovereign and mysterious way...

We sinned our way into this mess together, and we must repent of it together. Our individualism has hidden the nature of our corporate sin from us, but it is a corporate sin nonetheless. American Christians need to start repenting of their strengths and virtues. We need to repent, specifically, of our man-centered gospel and our man-centered response to that gospel. We will soon discover that this repentance must begin in how we worship God. If it begins there, it will soon affect everything else—from the shelves of our local Christian bookshop, to our evangelism, to our observance of the Lord's Day, and so on.

We will come to church expecting the Word to be thundered, not suggested. We will come to the Table weekly in order to be strengthened, fed, and nourished. We will give ourselves to the demanding task of learning hundreds of new (to us) psalms and hymns. And we will learn that the pronouncement of "Ichabod" over the American Church was premature.*

*Douglas Wilson (2008-11-06). A Primer on Worship and Reformation: Recovering the High Church Puritan (Kindle Locations 46-53, 66-69, 69-77, 87, 103-110,  107-110, 120-122, 132-135, 136, 136-139, 860-864, 865-867). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.

Weekly Dose Of Lloyd-Jones (On Godliness)

I wonder why it is that the whole idea of the godly man has somehow or other got lost amongst us? Why is it that Christian people are not described as ‘god-fearing’ people?

...The Church has been trying to preach morality and ethics without the gospel as a basis; it has been preaching morality without godliness; and it simply does not work. It never has done, and it never will. And the result is that the Church, having abandoned her real task, has left humanity more or less to its own devices.*

*Sargent, T. (2007). Gems from Martyn Lloyd-Jones: An Anthology of Quotations from 'the Doctor' (128). Milton Keynes, England; Colorado Springs, CO; Hyderabad, AP: Paternoster.