Tag Archives: Sin

The Love of Christ Constrains

Posted on by
Reply

Changes can be subtle and subtle changes can be wrong. A wise Christian once said: “Wisdom is the ability to distinguish ‘right’ from ‘almost right’!”

One such subtle change, which has had a terrible impact on Christianity, has to do with the love of Christ. “Now”, you ask, “how can the love of Christ ever be wrong?” As the above saying suggests, it can be wrong when it is almost right.

The problem has come about and is seen in a one–sided love. The love of Christ is that in which the Christian basks. It is the love of Christ that has set the Christian free. In these views, the love of Christ is only a permissive love that enables the Christian to do what he enjoys most.

Is this view of Christ’s love correct? The answer is, no. Whilst the love of Christ gives to the Christian many wondrous benefits and incalculable riches, autonomy is not one of them. By this we mean that Christ did not set us free to a vacuum where we are self-determining kings. On the contrary, Christ’s love set us free to serve God. Jesus’ love set us free so that we could be priestly-kings in His Kingdom, in order to serve Him faithfully and fully.

Missing from the Christian’s view of Christ’s love in our day is the concept found in the hymn, “For the might Thine arm”, which states, For the love of Christ constraining.” As a child growing up, I remember this phrase being used. Christians spoke freely of the fact that Christ’s love constrained.

As individualism has made inroads into the Church, I no longer hear this phrase. Rather, as alluded to earlier, Christ’s love is now simply viewed as a permissive element in which Jesus smiles upon any and all activities of the Christian.

Such should not be the case. The love of Christ should constrain us. The love of Christ should motivate us to obedient action. Likewise, the love of Christ should dissuade us from disobedient actions. The love of Christ should be everything to us. It should be our health and happiness.

Thus, we must ask, “How can we be happy, if we mock the love of Christ?” Someone close to me married an unbeliever. When challenged, their response was, “Do you not want me to be happy?” Our response to that was, “If you are a Christian, how can you be happy when you disobey Christ?”

The love of Christ is a two-way street. Christ’s absolute love to us should be reflected in our love for Him absolutely. This means that we must appreciate and understand the infinite cost of Jesus death; the incomprehensible depth of the statement, “loved before the foundation of the world”; and the implications of, “you are not your own but have been bought with a price – therefore glorify God in your body!”

We simply cannot say that we are encompassed by the love of Christ, when we walk in disobedience to Christ. We cannot say that Christ is our all in all, when we do not love Jesus absolutely by absolutely keeping His commands. Inane concepts like, “God looks at the heart” simply do not suffice. Yes, God does look at the heart. He looks at the heart to see if it is genuinely filled with the love of Jesus, His beloved Son. God looks at the heart to see whether or not the works that come forth are those of outward show or those constrained by the true love of Christ.

Consider Jesus words to the Church at Ephesus: “But I have this against you, that you have left your first love” (Revelation 2:4).

These Ephesians were good. They could spot a heretic at one hundred paces. They could rightly divide the word of God. They had sound doctrine. What they did not have was a genuine love for Christ. This is not to say that they did not love Jesus in any way. Rather, it is to emphasise the fact that spotting heretics and having right theology became an end in itself. They did not learn to eradicate falsehood so that Jesus would be honoured. They did not learn doctrine so that Christ would be glorified. Rather, these elements became an end in themselves.

Brethren, please let the love of Christ constrain us in our day. Give up the radical disobedience of self. Give up the false idea of doctrine for doctrine’s sake. In all our actions, let us be conscious that we act for Christ and His glory. Let us be constrained to action and from action on the basis that we love Jesus and that it would break our hearts irreparably to cause Him any hurt.

The modern view of permissive love is a false view. Christ’s love constrains, and rightly so. How could we not give our all for Him who held nothing back from us? Jesus love for us saw Him forsaken of God, hung on a tree, cursed by His own creation, despised of man; all to purchase a people for God. How little a thing is it then, that the love of Jesus be allowed to govern every word, thought, and action of His people.

May the love of Christ constrain us completely to an obedience which magnifies and glorifies our beautiful Jesus!

Sin: A Disgrace

Posted on by
Reply

It is an unfortunate reality of our day that the doctrine of Sin has been pushed to the side and labelled as “unpalatable”. Sin should never be treated this way. Sin, in the form of a doctrine and belief, should be kept firmly before our eyes.

Does this seem strange? To some it might. Through the influence of psychology Christians have tended to “shy away” from anything that might be damaging to a positive view of self. The problem with this concept is twofold. First, it is based in secular philosophy and reasoning. Second, as a consequence, it is at odds with Scripture.

Through the fall, man became a sinner. Man is not a sinner because he sins. Rather, he sins because he is a sinner. In other words, we are not labelled because we mess up. We mess up because sin is our inherent nature.

If we jettison this belief and pay it no heed, what are the consequences? They are grave! They are dire! They are destructive!

The late bishop Ryle rightly said that we can never truly appreciate the wonders of Christ’s sacrifice for sin until we understand the depths and depravity of sin. Even as redeemed people, we should be on guard against sin and its unholy consequences. This we cannot do if we refuse to acknowledge that sin exist.

How many of us would drive a car at highway speed with our eyes closed? None! We understand that unless our eyes are open it is impossible to avert tragedy by navigating our way around obstacles. So it is in the Christian life. If we do not acknowledge sin and our inherent weakness, then we will be involved in a collision with tragic consequences.

Proverbs 14:34 states: “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.”

Whilst reading the Scriptures the reality of this text was brought home to me. I read of David’s encounter with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11). It is absolutely tragic! Absolutely. Reading it brought me to the edge of tears.

Here is David. He is God’s man. David is God’s king. He has just been promised an everlasting kingdom and descendants forever upon his throne. From these lofty heights we plunge to David the Adulterer, Murderer, and Exile. David’s household is ravaged. David’s throne is savaged. David’s concubines were ravished. Why? All because David wanted to reach out to a little ewe lamb that was the property of and precious to another!

David not only sinned, but he did what most sinners do – he attempted to hide his sin thereby aggravating the situation. Scripture states: “The thing that David had done was evil in the sight of the Lord” (2 Samuel 11:27). God could not be fooled.

This is tragic enough. However, when we analyse this episode even further, we have to ask, ‘What did David hope to gain?’ From the outset he was told that Bathsheba was married (v 3). Even though “the woman was very beautiful in appearance”, that should have made no difference. David already had wives. Consider this statement regarding David’s wife Abigail: “the woman was intelligent and beautiful in appearance”. If we take Scripture seriously, we must see that David already had one wife of considerable beauty. So why did David act this way?

The answer is Sin. David had become proud and arrogant. He had taken the blessing of the Lord to mean that he could do anything without consequence. David was wrong! David found out that Sin has dire consequences. This one act of desire nearly destroyed David and his kingdom. We must also remember that the child of this illicit union died under judgement.

David made many mistakes in this episode of his life. However, they are all traceable to one flaw – David failed to heed God’s word! David disobeyed Deuteronomy 17:17 – he multiplied wives. He disobeyed Exodus 20:14 – he committed adultery. He disobeyed Exodus 20:13 – he committed murder.

What is the antidote? The Psalmist stated it succinctly: “Thy word I have treasured in my heart, that I may not sin against Thee” (Psalm119:11).

As fallen creatures, redeemed by Jesus, we still suffer from the weakness of the flesh (James 4:1). To shut our eyes to this fact is to court danger, horrific danger. The Psalmist studied and treasured God’s word. That Word not only taught him of righteousness, it, by contrast, showed him sin and warned him against that path.

Friends, remember David’s fall. See the outcome of this sin. Let it be etched vividly into your mind’s eye. One false step cost David dearly. It may not have cost him his salvation, but it robbed him, his family, and his country of peace, harmony, prosperity, and blessing.

Brethren, please do not shut your eyes to sin or its consequences. Treasure God’s Word in your heart as the only means of making sure that we do not replicate David in this matter and thereby bring upon ourselves and our families great calamity because we have sinned against the Lord.

Know God. Know your enemy. Stand firm!

Of Revolving Prime Ministers and Moral Decay

Posted on by
Reply

Most Australians have awoken today to the news that we have a new Prime Minister. This makes five Prime Ministers in about the same number of years – even if for some it was their second time. Welcome to the world of revolving Prime Ministers and moral decay.

What then will Malcolm Turnbull, the latest offering of the revolving door, do positively for Australia? The answer is, “Nothing of substance!”

First, let us look at the political hypocrisy, deceit, and lies that have accompanied Malcolm Turnbull into the top job. We have heard much in the media that former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, could not unite the Party. This very day, Julie Bishop, Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, has tried to justify her rebellion by citing this divide. Says she, “I did what a deputy (leader) has to do and that is to reflect the views of the party,” … “Tony asked for six months to turn it around and unfortunately that hadn’t happened. “It became obvious to me that the majority of the party had lost confidence in Tony (and) I informed him as is my duty as deputy.” “Through that time, nobody wanted Tony to succeed more than I (but) the vast majority of the party room had lost confidence in him.”[1]

Next we encounter the words of Malcolm Turnbull himself: “Heading in to work as Prime Minister designate this morning, Mr Turnbull said he was getting on with the job. “There has been a change … but we are a very, very strong government, a strong country with a lot of potential and we will realise that potential by working together.”[2]

Okay, Abbott is out because he created a divide in the party. Julie Bishop speaks of the “majority”, indeed the “vast majority”, that were dissatisfied with Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull states that the Party will now prosper by “working together”, which seems to imply significant unity. Yet, when we look at the vote it was only 54 – 44 in favour of Malcolm Turnbull. This, my friends, is neither a majority, a vast majority, nor is it unity.[3]

Please explain to me, then, where the gain is to be found? We have swapped one embattled leader for another. I could almost guarantee you that of the 10 votes that separated the two candidates, there would be a significant number who have voted for change for change’s sake in the hope that something better may eventuate – for themselves!. After all, Malcolm Turnbull has already been the Leader of the Liberal Party and he was ousted because of his dismal performance. One commentator, on last night’s edition of The Drum, noted that, when he led the Party, Malcolm Turnbull’s numbers were far worse than Tony Abbott’s.

My concern here springs from being an old guy who has heard all of this rhetoric before and seen firsthand how these close votes end in tears. As a child, sad to say, I grew up in a congregation that was divided between the “good” guys and the “bad” guys. The “bad” guys won votes by single figure margins and men crowed about “majorities”. Then their plans and desires turned to dust before their eyes. They became bitter. They slandered and maligned. They undermined. What was the outcome? That congregation, in excess of 100 at that time, barely exists today. The divide continued and brought disgrace to Christ’s Church with constant infighting and bickering.

A secular example? Just look back a few years to the Rudd – Gillard saga. Starting in 2006, Kevin Rudd toppled Kim Beazley 49 – 39.[4] In 2010, Julia Gillard challenges Kevin Rudd. When the writing is on the wall, Rudd chooses to resign rather than stand for re-election.[5] In 2012, Kevin Rudd challenges Julia Gillard because of dissatisfaction with her performance. Gillard beat Rudd with a 71 – 31 vote.[6] In March 2013, Simon Crean and others are concerned at Labor’s fortunes. They agitate for another leadership spill. Julia Gillard calls for the spill in a hope to end the infighting. Again, Kevin Rudd is touted as the challenger. In a repeat of history, however, he realises that the numbers are not with him and he refuses to put up his hand.[7] Then, a paltry 3 months later, June 2013, Kevin Rudd challenges for the leadership and dislodges Julia Gillard with a 57 – 45 vote.[8]

When you look at these numbers, you can see that from Kevin Rudd’s earliest days, the party was divided and that he never enjoyed a majority of support.[9] The clearest margin out of all of these changes belongs to Gillard’s so-called “midnight coup”. Her numbers were far better than Malcolm Turnbull’s numbers, yet she could not overcome the subterfuge and undermining processes of the dissenters. What then makes us think that Malcolm Turnbull’s fate will be any different?

To add weight to our argument, you need to be reminded of history. You will hear that Tony Abbott pipped Malcolm Turnbull at the post by one vote in the 2009 leadership spill. This is true, but it is not the complete picture. Malcolm Turnbull was the incumbent. He was challenged and the spill occurred. What is rarely spoken about is that the initial vote was between three candidates, Malcolm Turnbull, Tony Abbott, and Joe Hockey. In this poll, Abbott was the clear victor by 9 votes (35), followed by Turnbull on 26 and Hockey on 23.[10] Note this please: Malcolm Turnbull, the incumbent leader, only survived being eliminated from the race by three votes.[11] It is only once the second round of polling was completed that the famous won by one scenario comes to the fore with Abbott on 42 and Turnbull on 41. The clearest explanation of this result is that, once there man was out, two-thirds of Joe Hockey’s supporters abandoned their desire for change and opted to stay with the status quo and one-third backed their instinct for change; but I digress.

The main point here is that Malcolm Turnbull, as leader of the Liberal Party, was not able to unite that party. The figures showed then and they showed again last night that he still does not have the majority support of his Party, despite his and Julie Bishop’s rhetoric.

Therefore, questions about legitimate gain must be asked. How does the hypocritical justification for knifing a sitting Prime Minister, given by the Leader and his Deputy, assure us of better things ahead? Mr Turnbull’s speech did not outline any concrete policies; he just trotted out slogans – again in a hypocritical fashion.

This begs the questions: Are we just witnessing another egocentric display as we did with Kevin 07? Having failed to secure a real majority, will Malcolm Turnbull govern correctly or simply aim for the opinion-poll popularity contest? Will we see him affirm any position in the hope that it will make him acceptable to all and sundry?

Second, the reason that Malcolm Turnbull will not deliver any significant change has to do with ego over morality. The problem with governance in this country has to do with the fact that it is no longer moral. When was the last time you heard a politician of any persuasion speak of morality? When did you last hear any candidate speak up and say that the fundamental problem with our nation was not “health and education”, but morality?

It is at this point that these two factors coalesce. Malcolm Turnbull does not have a majority in the Party. From my perspective he is not generally accepted by the public. Thus, his primary goal is going to be ego and or popularity.

The direct application of this is that morality, particularly God’s morality, as the necessary panacea for this nation will be sidestepped yet again in favour of ego or popularity. Instead of governing according to morality, ethic, and principle, Malcolm Turnbull will govern for himself and his own personal benefit or he will govern in a manner that seeks to make his Party popular, neither of which will benefit this country one iota.

We saw the politics of ego in the former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. His comeback had nothing to do with the people of this country. It was all about Kevin. If he had been sincere, he would have stayed on after his Party’s defeat. If he were absolutely convinced that he was the best man for the job, he would have stuck to the task. His capitulation simply showed that his aim was payback and his name in lights. Consequently, we need to ask as to whether or not we are in for more of this grandstanding via the politics of ego; a political enterprise that will only further impoverish our nation.

What then of opinion-poll popularity politics? In this sense, I do have sympathy for Tony Abbott. Many are critical of his performance, yet few seem to spread the blame. The previous Labor government was almost ineffective over its six years of reign. Policy after policy bled this nation dry. Whilst Rudd and Gillard bickered, Australia failed. Tony Abbott then wins the election and immediately faces a barrage of hostility for no other reason than he has a Romanist leaning and therefore has a few morals to guide his conscience. Instead of the elected members getting on board to bring change and move the country forward, they stalled, blocked, and grandstanded; Palmer practicing the politics of ego par excellence. To his credit, Tony Abbott stood his ground and refused to simply make policy in order to be popular. Now that Malcolm Turnbull is in charge, and there seems to be distinct lack of Biblical morals to guide his conscience, we have no reason to expect that anything but popularity will drive Liberal Party policy.

If this eventuality transpires, then we are in for a torrid time as a nation. Julia Gillard clung to power (ego) by making deals with a few Independents (popularity). That combination then set this nation on a futile and destructive course as true governance was derailed in order to indulge the whims of those with whom bargains had been struck in order for her to stay in office. One notable lowlight was the vote on homosexual union. Julia Gillard’s lust for power introduced the possibility of a reprehensible evil being made legal in this country. Whilst Parliament voted that proposal down at that time, it nonetheless fuelled the fire so that this distraction has continued to dog parliament. Ever since that vote, Tony Abbott has come under personal attack for his refusal to compromise and has had to fend off constant criticism in regard to this issue, which is really a non-issue.[12]

It is important that we understand this point. Popularity and ego has tied this particular weight around the neck of the Federal Parliament of this nation. Popularity and ego have meant that we have not been rightly governed now for nearly three terms of Parliament. When popularity and ego are combined with a minority leadership, and an immoral minority leadership at that, then chaos and debacle can be the only outcomes.

Malcolm Turnbull is pro homosexual union and a republic, just to name a couple of points. He has a very liberal attitude to moral issues and even today has spoken of looking forward and cutting the ties with the past. In short, he is concerned with being all things modern, which by definition means that he sees no place for God in government and morality in politics. (How did he make it to the leadership of the supposed conservative Party?) It would, therefore, be of no surprise if these issues come to the fore very soon in order to either distract the public while he attempts to make ground or introduces them in order to make ground.[13] Either way, we will see the politics of ego, popularity, and minority (disunity) continue to ravage this nation.

What is needed to restore this nation is the application of God’s morality. We need to see right and wrong restored. We need to see justice. We need to have a parliament that guides and protects, not one that simply affirms. We need to remember that a nation’s health can only be measured in terms of its obedience to God, not by its bank account or balance of trade figures.

We have quoted Proverbs 14:34 often of recent – Righteousness exalts a nation but sin is a disgrace to any people. We quote it again because it is the essence of our nation’s health. Whilst our elected officials continue to deny the necessity of morality and righteousness for our nation’s wellbeing, we can only plunge deeper into sin. Plunging into sin can only increase our disgrace.

Our moral decay is the only explanation as to why the Prime Minister’s office is currently equipped with a revolving door. Moral decay is why we are shamed constantly by backstabbers who seek the top job for their glory and not God’s. For the naysayers, I merely direct you to the histories of Rome and Israel.

Footnotes:

[1] http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/emotional-julie-bishop-defends-her-decision-to-turn-on-tony-abbott/story-fn5tas5k-1227527662827?sv=33eb56284952ab31cc6de47d0fb36d40. Emphasis added.

[2] Ibid. Emphasis added.

[3] Julie Bishop secured her position with 70 – 30 vote, which is a bit more in keeping with what one would term a majority.

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party_leadership_spill,_2006.

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party_leadership_spill,_2010.

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party_leadership_spill,_2012.

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party_leadership_spill,_March_2013.

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party_leadership_spill,_June_2013.

[9] The objective lesson here seems to be that the Labour Party settled for Kevin Rudd as the best in a bad bunch, hence the numbers. It seems equally true that with regard to Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull that the Liberal Party has done exactly the same thing. This is what happens when there is no clear cut leader for people to rally behind. It means that the man out the front must always be looking over his shoulder and second guessing himself. In such an environment, it is not a wonder that people do not succeed. The sad reality is that these political “fat cats” retire on their super-doper pensions and superannuation packages while the average Australian is bankrupted by their profligacy.

[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Australia_leadership_spill,_2009.

[11] It is worthy of note that, looking at percentages, Malcolm Turnbull only garnered 31% as the incumbent leader. This means that on the first round of voting, 70% of his party was willing to see him go. By comparison, only 54.5% of the Party deemed that Mr Abbott was worthy of an invitation to retire.

[12] This is a non-issue in that Parliament voted that homosexual union should not be legalised in this country. It is constantly raised by agitators in order and only in order to destabilise and distract.

[13] The issue of homosexual union is an interesting one. It seems that Malcolm Turnbull has given assurances that there will be a plebiscite at the next election. This then is not a policy change. It is the same tactic that was proposed under Tony Abbott’s leadership. So, if this issue dies down it shows that there has been hostility, rancour, directed toward Mr Abbott and that this issue has been used as a shoe horn to lever him out of office – and this no doubt by some within his own Party. It will also be interesting to see whether or not the Cabinet stops leaking with this change of leadership. If both happen, it is a sure sign that Brutus is alive and well in the Liberal Party.

Of Shepherding Shepherds (Pt. 4)

Posted on by
Reply

(Rebuilding Esteem and Belief in Eldership: God’s Authority)

5. God’s Authority:

The next relevant aspect in regard to the Office of Eldership is that these men, being instituted by God, act with God’s authority. This point is critical, yet it is overlooked and often despised today.

To drive this home, let me ask this related question, “What makes preaching powerful?” The moderns will tend to answer this question by focusing on personalities, oratory, word skills, and dynamism. The orthodox and Reformed Christian will answer, “Authority!”

Why does the preacher preach? He is commissioned to that task. What makes the preacher’s voice or words any more relevant, convincing, or convicting? The answer is power through authority! To be specific, it is Jesus’ authority. The preacher is commissioned of God, thus, when he speaks, he speaks with the very voice of Christ. This it is that rouses dead hearts and brings rebellious hearts to heel. This it is that pierces seared consciences and makes them responsive. This it is that makes the Christian yield to sound counsel.[1]

Please understand, it is authority and authority alone that marks the preacher as different. Nothing else! He has no special quality in and of himself. His words are powerful because the Holy Spirit works through him so that his voice is Christ’s voice and his words Christ’s words.

In the same way, the commissioned elder rightly wields God’s authority. That which sets his administration apart – his rule, counsel, deliberations, intercession, and judgements – is not his qualities as a person[2], as such, but the fact that he speaks and acts not only with the authority of God, but as God Himself.[3] This means that the elder must be humble in his use of this power, but it equally means that we who sit under the elder must be humble so as to submit to God’s authority administered through the elder. The relevance of this for pastoral care is almost unfathomable, however, fathom we must.

  1. The Word of Authority: This is to say, as we have suggested, that the elder speaking as elder is speaking authoritatively in the name and as an ambassador of God. This means that his counsel immediately stands above the counsel of others. It is not to say that it is necessarily different in kind, rather it is different in degree. Where one may readily dismiss a brother with a hasty, “That’s your opinion!” one cannot do so with the elder.
  2. The Action of Authority: The above aspect is made all the more pertinent when we look at the concept of discipline. In Matthew 18 we note that the issue begins among the brothers. It then extends to the brethren as witnesses. At this point, we observer the difference in degree. The brethren may have sound counsel, but it goes unheeded. However, when the issue is escalated to the Church, to the elders, the ballgame, as they say, changes. Now the Word is spoken with Christ’s voice and authority. It is backed by the possibility of severe punishment and eternal consequence, all of which are sanctioned by Christ Jesus. Here, the counsel changes from a positive suggestion to an ought!
  3. The Need of Authority: This then leads to the crux of the matter. Man is spiritually dead. Man can only be brought to life by the Divine command issued by the commissioned man. Illustrative of this is the text in which Ezekiel commands the dry bones to live.[4] Equally, as God’s children, we can still, in varying degrees, fall into sin and become hardened to the things of God.[5] In such circumstances, we too need the voice of authority to command us to awaken and repent. So it is that often the difference is not in the quality of the counsel given, but in the authority with which it is given; not kind, but degree. Importantly, it must be understood that we need the authoritative voice.[6] Sound counsel is not enough. Sound counsel given authoritatively is what is most necessary.[7]

Let us take these points and transfer them to the real world. Bill Bloggs, Christian and local member of the Church, goes to a Christian counsellor. Let us grant that the counsellor is indeed sound. He counsels Bill to leave his sin. Session after session he pleads with his brother to forsake this sin and be reconciled to Christ. Bill refuses. What next? The counsellor has no ability to sanction Bill. The counsellor does not possess the keys of the Kingdom. The counsellor has no juridical power. The counsellor cannot cast him out of the Church for his rebellion. In point of fact, the counsellor cannot even truly implement the process of Matthew 18.

Moreover, depending on how the counsellor operates, he could not take the matter to the Church, even if he desired to do so, because he would be in breach of privacy laws enacted by the State. In some cases, there would even be other factors in play that protect Bill’s indiscretion from finding its way to the Church.

In another scenario, Bill’s rebellion and unrepentant heart may lead to depression. As the counsellor has no other means at his disposal, he is left to simply medicate the symptoms. Bill is left in his rebellion and the consequences of that rebellion are simply masked by the application of medicines.

Therefore, we need to grasp the serious reality that when we step out from under God’s order and authority, we step into impotency. The so-called ‘Christian counsellor’ may counsel, but in the end he is impotent. The counsellor only has as much authority or power to realise change as the so-called patient will give him or the State allows. Thus, it is the sinner who effectively sits in the pilot’s seat and guides his craft to the destiny of his choosing. He hides behind State protections and only allows inputs to the craft’s control column that will not alter his desired course. The counsellor, Christian or otherwise, is ineffectual in these circumstances.

Now, as we have noted, some will find this difficult, but that does not alter the truth of the matter. If we look around us, we will already see that counsellors, Christian and otherwise, are being constrained by the secular laws under which they operate. This has clearly come to the fore in regard to those who counsel homosexuals. In some instances, and increasingly so, those whose counsel to homosexuals is “forsake the practice” are being shut down or muzzled. The State has defined the air corridor – effectively conjoining itself to the rebellious sinner/pilot – and in so doing does not allow inputs to the control column that would see the craft deviate from its course—even though it is evidently heading for a mountain. Thus, the counsellor bound to obey the State must bow to his master’s will; even the so-called Christian counsellor.[8]

Equally, we must address the sinner and state boldly that they too, in seeking out the uncommissioned are placing themselves in a position of impotency. They are walking away from the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth[9] in which they can actually find help, power, strength, forgiveness, and reconciliation.

Brother Posthuma rightly noted that some seek out the counsellor for anonymity.[10] This is understandable, but only to a minute degree; for we must ask as to the point of anonymity, if it also means impotency. Could it be that the anonymity sought is a guise in which one can soothe the troubled conscience without seeking a real remedy to the problem? Why would a person suffering from an ailment and supposedly seeking a cure, turn away from a medical centre simply because they were known at that clinic? Why seek out the backyard quack for the sake of anonymity when such action could prolong your suffering or lead to greater harm?[11] In point of fact, being known may lead to better, swifter, and more compassionate treatment.

The only genuine reason for anonymity is the fear of shame. After all, you only seek out a medical doctor anonymously if you have a medical condition or are in need of medical assistance because you are fairly certain that the condition arose out of a spurious circumstance.  Similarly, you only seek out a counsellor anonymously when your spiritual circumstances are a result of spurious activities. Consequently, the whole counselling phenomena has, at its root, a faulty and unBiblical premise.

The reality is very simple. In turning from God’s order, we turn from God’s power and authority. As such, we turn to the impotent and embrace that which can never truly bring us the genuine help we need.

More coffee on the newspaper? If so, we are not sure why. Let us be frank. In Psychiatry, it is well known that many of the problems are medicated, not healed. People are forced to exist in a drug induced state in order to function, and that term is used very loosely. Medication is used because there is a fundamental inability to deal with the core issues. This is the impotency of which we speak. There is no God-empowered command that causes the dead to live and the rebellious to heel. There is no worldview that rises above. No hope on the horizon that can be given – particularly from the secular standpoint.

Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that we grasp the importance of the fact that the elder operates under God’s commission and with His authority. The elder operates within the Biblical worldview and thus gives God’s answers to the troubles of this world. These attributes are not known to the secular counsellor, even the Christian counsellor, for at some point, they seek to introduce another worldview that conflicts with the Biblical worldview.

As an example, you would not go to a witchdoctor for advice, would you? Yet, the secular science of psychology comes from the same poisonous root. So why do we give it credence simply because it comes from a university? What makes this theory or view of Man more acceptable than the one outlined by God in His Word?

Friends, it is here that we come to the pointy end of the stick, for the essence of our contention, as we have noted, comes down to a clash of worldviews and to these two questions:

a) Will we faithfully accept what God says about Man and His creation as it is revealed in Scripture or will we seek out another worldview, another wisdom that is more acceptable to us in our circumstance?

b)  Which man will we choose to counsel us—the man who stands with God’s authority and administers wisdom according to the Biblical worldview or will we seek out the man of compromise who seeks to supplant God’s wisdom with the wisdom of fallen Man; baptised though it may be?

Footnotes:

[1] It must also be remembered that in the Biblical covenantal paradigm, counselling and preaching can also legitimately harden a person in their rebellion so that God’s judgement is proved just (Psalm 51:4; See also Exodus 9:16 and Romans 9:17 as a practical example). God’s word is, as it always has been, both life and death. It is to one the aroma of life; to another the stench of death (2 Corinthians 2:15-16). It is for this reason that much of the modern Church Growth theory should be despised and rejected. The truth does not in every case bring life. Sometimes it brings death. The only sure, categorical, and absolute statement that we can make in regard to God’s Word proclaimed is this: So shall My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it (Isaiah 55:11).

[2] This is not to say that personal qualities are not important; they are! Biblically, the office of elder is only open to those who have certain, proven character traits. The point here is that we do not elect a good man, but a righteous man. We do not elect a smart man, but a wise man. We do not elect the popular man, but the godly man. We do not elect the rich man, but the spiritually wealthy man. We do so, on God’s command, so that, once in office, these traits are subject to and magnified by the power of God’s Spirit. Such a man becomes a powerful instrument in God’s hands because he is blessable; he is a worthy instrument through which God will work. As such he stands in God’s stead and should not be trifled with.

[3] Some may doubt this. If so, please turn to Exodus 16:2&8. There you will see that Israel grumbled against Aaron and Moses and in so doing they grumbled against the Lord.

[4] See Ezekiel 37:1ff.

[5] Hebrews 3:8-11.

[6] Is it not for this very reason that we are urged to attend upon the preaching of the Word in constancy. We are in absolute need of hearing God’s word – Christ’s voice – proclaimed with His full authority.

[7] It may be an oversimplification, but it is worth remembering that Man is a subordinate being to God. Thus God was right to give the Ten Commandments and not the Ten Suggestions or the Ten Helpful Pointers.

[8] It is worth noting the power of secularism at this point. Many pastoral care positions that are now advertised require that the applicant be eligible for enrolment in a Psychological Association or some such. This requirement alone generally rules out the Biblical counsellor and therefore puts the pressure on this group to undertake further studies so as to be “approved”. In essence, these situations effectually force a compromise. It also sees the field heavily stacked in favour of Humanism.

[9] 1 Timothy 3:15.

[10] Volume 61, No 7; 8 Feb 2014. Pages 166.

[11] A pertinent example, here, is that of abortion. At every step along the way it was argued that legalising abortion would do away with the need for backyard practitioners who were causing pain and death. Yet, legalising abortion did not resolve this problem. The very same argument was once again paraded in the recent discussion over the abortion drug RU86.