Opening Session – Wednesday Morning
March 5th, 2008
(By Nathan Busenitz)
NOTE: Various blogs have been citing this post as if it is a transcript. It is not. It is a summarized paraphrase of the session, not a verbatim account of what was said. The MP3 will be available shortly after the conference.
Anticipation is high as the opening session of the Shepherds’ Conference begins. The weather today is amazing, sunny and in the mid-70s. Some three thousand men, pastors and church leaders from around the world, are crowding the patio and squeezing their way into the Worship Center.
It is exhilarating to see so many faithful brothers together in the same place. The conference is not only bursting at the seams, it is also bursting with energy—and the energy is infectious. You can see it in the smiles of the men who have come, and on the faces of our staff and volunteers. Its effects are felt everywhere—the fellowship is a true foretaste of heaven.
The service begins with the resounding singing of a choir made up of students from The Master’s Seminary, and culminates in a glorious anthem sung by Jubilant Sykes. For those of you who have attended a Shepherds’ Conference, you can understand what the singing and music here is like. For those of you who haven’t, it’s hard to adequately describe without excessive hyperbole. The most spectacular part is not the singing from up front, but rather the congregational numbers. As the attendees join their voices together in unison, the effect is nothing short of electrifying. Heavenly would certainly be an appropriate adjective.
Dr. MacArthur begins his address by noting that he hopes to set the tone a bit for the conference. He makes a reference to last year’s title, and states that this year his session will address: why every true Calvinist must embrace a biblical ecclesiology and reject church growth theory. The title for his message is, “How Christ Builds His Church.”
Our notes will now reflect a summarized paraphrase of his remarks:
If a person believes that God is sovereign in salvation, that Christ will build His church, that the Father will draw everyone whom He has chosen, and that Christ will receive all whom the Father draws and will keep them and raise them on the last day—the question is, how does church growth theory fit into all of that? God has already determined who will be saved from before time began. Furthermore, the Lord has fully propitiated the just anger of God over the sins of the elect by suffering in full the righteous judgment of their sins. The death of Christ was an actual payment for sins, not a potential one.
Since the Lord has determined His church, bought His church, regenerated, justified, and sanctified His church—this is all a supernatural work. It is also true and revealed in Scripture that this supernatural work is not apart from means, through which God does His work and in which we all participate. It is nonetheless, the Lord who is doing the supernatural work and it will not fall short one soul.
As the Lord builds His church, by what means does He do it? And has He revealed the means to us? If we are the undershepherds of Christ, called to be the human instruments by which Christ builds His church, then we need to understand how it is that He does that. We need to get in line with the divine pattern.
There are many ways to build “The First Church of the Tares,” behind which Satan is the real power. It can be done very effectively, it can be big and enduring. The gnostics, the Roman Catholics, the liberals, and the cults have all done it—and they are still around. The Church of the Tares is actually bigger than the Church of the Wheat. And today, those calling themselves “evangelicals” are also doing it. There are churches all around the country where tares gather together and call themselves churches.
If you want to take a shot at competing with the rest of the “tare-pastors” on how to get a large group of tares into a building each Sunday, there are plenty of strategies to do that.
But if you want to build the true church, the wheat, in the way that God commands, then we must discern how Christ builds His church, and how it is that we are to be part of that.
The answer is not vague or obscure. When you ask how it is that Christ builds His church, the answer is not hard to find. In fact, it is so clear and inescapable that we are bound to follow what He commands.
If you are caught up in the church growth mentality, trying every devise to increase numbers, I want to throw the gauntlet today and ask you to make a choice: If you want to build the church of the tares you’re on your own; but if you want to be part of Christ’s work of building the church, that is a different thing altogether.
Christ said He will build His church, and the book of Acts describes how He did that. The book of Acts was given to us to show us how Christ built His church, not in theory but in reality. This is exactly how the Lord went about building the church that He promised He would build. Interestingly, the book of Acts provides the greatest story of church growth in history.
Acts 2:39 is a key verse in this regard, underscoring the sovereign call of God and the generational impact that the Gospel has. It is a preview of how the church that Christ built extends across ethnic and generational barriers.
When we start in Jerusalem (Acts 1), we have 120 people. By the end of Acts 2 (v. 41), we are up to some 3,000 souls. Within hours, the church goes from 120 to 3,000. Then, in verse 47 we see that the Lord was adding to that number day by day those who were being saved. In Acts 4:4, the number of men is listed at about 5,000. In 5:14, many more multitudes are being constantly added to the church. Acts 6:7 notes that the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, including priests. This pattern continues throughout the rest of the book of Acts.
There is great attention given in Acts regarding how the church grew. It is beneficial for us to go back and identify the components that produced this great growth. This is the first generation church. What are the elements that resulted in this incredible growth. What characteristics mark the church that Christ builds?
* * *
1. It is marked by a transcendent message.
This is so obvious that it may actually embarrass some of you who have abandoned it. The agency that produces salvation, through the power of the Spirit, is the Word of God. Salvation comes by means of the Holy Spirit using the message – it is a singular message. Any other message or gospel is damning.
This message must be a transcendent message – meaning that it transcends all languages, cultures, social statuses, contexts, everything. At this time, cultural identity was very fixed. There was no “global village.” There were hard lines drawn between different cultural groups. Yet the gospel transcended all of these. Those differences had no effect on the message.
Jesus said in Matthew 28 to go into all the world and preach the Gospel. In Acts 1, Jesus explained that the power of the Spirit and the power of the Gospel is all that is necessary to reach the ends of the earth. Then in Acts 2:8, the disciples preached that message in the various languages of those who had come during Pentecost. They could proclaim the same message to people from many different countries and it had a powerful impact. It was a message (as evidenced in Peter’s later sermon) of sin, repentance, and faith in Jesus Christ.
Whether the gospel was preached to Jews or to Gentiles, the message did not change. And all those whom God had chosen, responded to that message in faith.
The apostles went out with an absolute disdain for contextualization. The modern drive for cultural contextualization is a curse, because people are wasting their time trying to figure out clever ways to draw in the elect. Contextualization is “zip-code ministry.” The message of Jesus Christ, on the other hand, is transcendent. It goes beyond its immediate culture or sub-culture. It crosses the world, and ignores the nuances of culture. It never descends to clothing or musical style, as if that had anything to do with the message of the Gospel.
Does your message ignore the trends and superficial icons of culture, and bring heaven down in its transcendent reality? Can you take your sermons and preach them anywhere?
The Lord built His church with straightforward gospel truth. The Corinthians, for example, were upset that Paul was not more contextualized. But Paul didn’t care. The Old Testament prophets, John the Baptist, and even Jesus were out of sync with their culture. But it did not matter.
* * *
2. It is marked by a regenerate congregation.
The church of Jesus Christ is an assembly of true believers. To call an assembly of non-believers a church is outrageous. There is something deeply wrong with pastors who assemble a large number of non-believers and then call it a church. It is not church growth to attract non-believers to a building.
In the early church, church growth was about a regenerate congregation (Acts 2:42). They were committed to the apostles teaching, to the ordinances, and to prayer. They were doing what real churches do — “all those who believed were together” (v. 44). And the result was that God was constantly adding to their number.
You may have heard about Willow Creek recently changing its philosophy of ministry. They repented of their previous church growth strategies which they’ve realized don’t work. They are now coming up with new ways to collect non-Christians and call it a church. But that’s not a church. The Lord defines His church as an assembly of regenerate believers, true worshippers, gathered for true fellowship and the practice of spiritual disciplines. It is a far cry from what goes on in the “non-church” today—where events are designed to appeal to non-believers rather than to strengthen true Christians.
* * *
3. It is marked by a valiant perseverance.
The church does not, as its primary objective, seek to be popular in the world. Jesus said that those associated with Him would be hated by the world. We understand that all who live godly in this present age will be persecuted. The church knows that in its true expression, it offends sinners (through the gospel).
But it is also true that the world does esteem certain aspects of Christianity—such as the integrity, virture, and care that characterizes a true church. There is a sense in which non-Christians do see the effects of the church as lives are transformed by the gospel (cf. Acts 5:13). There is a platform for evangelism based on the credibility of your life (as the gospel is seen in the lives of those in the church).
But alongside that general esteem or respect (for the evident power in our lives), they ultimately resent us for the message. The resentment and rejection comes for the truth preached and proclaimed. The message is a damning and judgmental message (cf. Acts 2:36, 38).
It is not enough for the world to like us because we are nice people and good citizens. They must also know the message—even though the message itself (when preached faithfully) will inevitably offend and be rejected by many. This is seen throughout the book of Acts as the apostles indict sinners with their message.
It is not enough for us to be nice people and hope the world will like us. We can’t back away from the idea of sin, righteousness, judgment, hell, and God’s righteous law in our evangelism. We must not shrink back from the true gospel, which clearly teaches that those who are unbelieving will face God’s eternal wrath. That message will not be popular, but it is the true message. Preaching it will result in hostility and persecution. And the early church suffered for it (cf. Acts 4:3–4; 5:18).
No one wants to talk about persecution today because they are afraid it will inhibit church growth. But in Acts, persecution had the opposite effect with regard to the true church. The true church is not inhibited or deterred by persecution. Even the threat of death cannot stop the church. We do not need to mitigate the cost of becoming a Christian.
* * *
4. It is marked by an evident purity.
The biggest danger in the early church was not persecution. It was, instead, that (because there were so many signs and wonders attracting people) unbelievers might come to church for the wrong reason, and thereby be a polluting influence in the church.
The church was therefore in danger of being leavened by the world. So the wonder of it all (which was beyond any light show, rock band, or skit) had to be offset by the fear of the Lord. There had to be such a deadly dread and fear that unbelievers would not quickly go into the church, and thereby be tares among the wheat (cf. Acts 5:1–13 and Ananias and Sapphira). Ananias’s example sent a message to anyone who thought they could live any way they wanted and find a home in the church. The church must live in holy fear of God’s righteousness. But that is a far cry from the atmosphere promoted in church growth circles today.
The flow of church growth in recent history started with meeting people’s social needs, then with meeting their psychological needs (“felt needs”), and now with connecting to their sensual needs—laughing at crudeness and at the base elements of culture.
Worldliness is anything said or done that appeals to the flesh. Those who teach the Word of God must not pander to the flesh. Rather, we must take the high ground, grieving over the sins of their people rather than leading them in fleshly thoughts.
* * *
5) It is marked by a qualified leadership.
Again, the trend is against this in the church growth movement. Spiritually unqualified people with little or no accountability are leading the church. But in Acts 6, the apostles looked only for those who were spiritually qualified to serve in the church. They were not looking for men with business savvy or entrepreneurial experience.
They wanted men who were full of the Spirit and the Word, who could effectively lead the people of God. The result was that God continued to add numbers to His church. All of this happened through the power of the Holy Spirit.
There is also clear instruction in the Scriptures of the kind of churches that the Lord rejects, contained in Revelation 2–3. Five out of the seven churches are condemned and fall under the judgment of Christ. Ephesus had no love for Christ – it was not driven by consuming love for Christ. Pergamum was tolerating error and heresy. Thyatira was comfortable with sin. Sardis had programs but had no life. Laodicea was the church at room temperature. The Laodiceans were lukewarm, upsetting no one, and Christ said He spit them out of His mouth.
Christ also said that He stands at the door and knocks. That is not a verse about salvation. It is a verse about whether or not there is room in your church for Him, the Lord of the church.
Nathan,
Either you take superb notes (and very fast) or you had access to John’s manuscript. Thanks for the summary!
Steve,
Thanks for the comment. Actually, these are just notes … no transcript.
I’m certainly no Tim Challies — but we’ll do the best we can this week. (I’m sharing the load with two other guys — Nate Williams and David Morris.)
Thanks,
NB
Thank you for this, the feed went down on me throughout the session so this was very helpful. I wonder when the mp3s will be available? (I hope its not too soon to ask that)
SDG,
Carla Rolfe
Good stuff and great is your reward in the kingdom for sharing these notes.
I look forward to having the notes before me as I listen, kind of like subtitles that will help reinforce the material.
Gracias and sola Gratia,
Gunny in Texas
Nathan
Thanks a ton for your notes…I’m here at the conference & couldn’t keep up with the Doctor. Great notes – are you (& pals) going to do this for all the main sessions?
If so, please keep posting them!
Thank you for all you & the rest of the GComm staff do for the equipping of fellow pastors, to the advancing of His Kingdom!
your brother in Christ
chris bruynzeel
Thanks for the summary Nate.
What a great message to begin the conference with. Disappointed I missed it. I will be logging in to see the live stream of some later sessions, but like Carla, I can’t wait for the MP3s to be available.
Thanks again for all your hard work and faithful service.
Thanks Nate for the notes.
As I posted before I was never able to watch video or hear the audio feed because of constant interruption.
I hope, like Carla, to get the mp3 as soon as possible. I am going to try again tonight to get the live stream.
Last January? or maybe Feb. I was able to live stream the Ligonier Conference. They used a different company than you all are using.
I have to say that with their stream I never once lost the feed and the video quality was superb.
Just thought I would share that with you.
Being a woman I count it a privilege to be able to watch.
I am also hoping to spot some of our elders who are there.
I Just want to let Nate and Jesse know that I am getting the audio feed of Tom Pennington with No interruptions. I still can’t get the video but I am happy with anything!
Victoria
Nathan,
I had the honor of attending 2 years ago. Watching the live feed tonight took me back to that time. Please thank Pastor John and all the men who made this possible for those of us who aren’t able to be there in person.
Eddie
Just thought I should comment that I just finished streaming MacArthur’s Wednesday evening session, both video and audio, seamlessly, all the way from Australia. This was the first session that I tried to stream, but if there were any issues during previous sessions, then I think they have sorted them out.
I found MacArthur’s quote on contextualization to be out of line…
Nathan…
Do you know what he is meaning when he speaks of this? I wrote an article on the correct way to contextualize, and believe that either MacArthur is either throwing the baby out with the bath water, or is confused on what contextualization is…
Seth McBee – yeah. I have to agree – what’s that even supposed to mean? I find it incredibly irresponsible for him to put his own concerns into the mouths of the apostles, as though his concerns would self-evidently have been their own. The entire Bible is an example of contextualization from the beginning – and anyone unfamiliar with ancient Near Eastern culture (for example) is going to require a lot of explanation to understand what it’s talking about. The Gospel of John sets Jesus off against Stoicism with the “logos” terminology. God became a working class 1 C. Jewish man in a slum of the Roman Empire. And on and on. The Gospel is contextualized from the very beginning.
The idea that the church could somehow “ignore culture” and engage in a “culture free” ministry borders on the nonsensical. What does culture-free music, language and clothing even look like? The absence of culture is the absence of humanity. All that to say “Bringing down heaven” would probably look more like Revelation 5:9-10 and 1 Co. 12:13, with diversity in unity and a blend of cultures than the kind of global quasi-communist sounding vision of “anti-culture”. It also ignores just how culture shapes our supposedly “culture-free” church.
Sharad…
You might like this post I wrote because it deals with John’s use of the term logos…which was, in it’s own right, contextualization
here is that post:
What is Contextualization?
Hi Seth and Sharad,
I added a note at the beginning of the article just to clarify that this post is not a transcript (but rather my own paraphrased summary). So you’ll have to wait for the MP3 to really get precise quotes.
- NB
Thanks, Seth. I’ll take a look. Thanks, too, Nate – I understand that this isn’t a verbatim transcript – I was just taking your summary to be an accurate report reflecting the substance of what he actually did say.
Seth and Sharad,
One more thing: John clarified his views on contextualization in greater detail during the Q&A session on Thursday afternoon. We’re not blogging it, but when the MP3 comes out, we will transcribe John’s answer here on Pulpit.
Just wanted you to know.
NB
thanks Nate…I just wish that Dr. MacArthur would have made that dinstinction up front, if there was a distinction…
Wow, I wish that the words and terminology and acts of someone like Mark Driscoll would come under such analyzation and scrutiny. I wonder if Piper defined “contextualization” if it would have been more seriously considered?
K. Hays,
Actually there are whole groups of people dedicated to scrutinizing the words, acts, terminology, personal life, hidden motives and personal menu preferences. When someone is influential enough to have their opinions carried into churches with all the authority of the local leadership it can cause division and affect the church’s mission. If someone were to object to an outreach project or cause controversy because of these kinds of comments, it’d hardly be nit-picky to expect someone influential to be careful about how they characterize unfaithfulness to Gospel ministry.
Regarding the question of contextualization. Reading through the above summary of Dr. Mac’s comments, it seems clear to me he’s speaking strictly of the Gospel. The Gospel message is most assuredly a-cultural – or, as Dr. Mac states – “a transcendent message”. I sat under Dr. MacArthur’s teaching for several years and I assure you he is very aware of the contextual setting of the Scriptures as a whole – and takes great pains to teach his congregation about that setting so we could fully grasp the depth of the teaching.
Without having heard his actual sermon in this particular instance, I can bet that his point was that too many churches are watering down or doctoring up the basic gospel message to make it acceptable to the people group they are reaching out to. For the most part, I see the emphasis on sin and repentance left out – it makes people feel bad and when people feel bad they won’t warm the pew and share from their wallet. But sin and repentance is the key foundation for true salvation and the church as a whole, in my opinion, MUST get back to that “stumbling block” message of the WHOLE gospel and leave the numbers and dollars up to God.
Christ never made it easy or comfortable for people to embrace the gospel message – why should we?
that should read “. . . preferences of Mark Driscoll. When someone . . .”
I think that’s an interesting distinction, Deborah.
The right “contextualizing” is the type that brings us back to the context of the passage of Scripture. We should be seeing the text through the eyes of the original readers. The wrong “contextualizing” is the type that seeks to bring the passage of Scripture into our context. We shouldn’t be striving to understand the text based on our own preconceptions.
Disclaimer: I’m speaking strictly in regards to interpretation. Please don’t accuse me of saying that we should apply Scripture in preaching and teaching to our present situation.
Correction:
…of saying that we shouldn’t.
Mike.
I am not sure what you are getting at.
I believe that we are to take the gospel truths…namely…1 Corinthians 15:1-4 to start…and make sure people understand what that means.
We use the context and culture that we find people in to help us in the application of the Gospel truth, so that they will know the original intent of the message.
This is exactly how Paul did it in Athens in Acts 17 and also the use of the term Logos by the apostle John in John 1. They were not watering down the message, but bringing the message to an understanding of those that they were speaking to. This is vital.
So to just speak of the Gospel and not take into account the culture we are speaking to is in some ways like only speaking about Christ’s deity and never speaking about his humanity.
We need to preach the whole counsel of God and one of those “counsels” is understanding whom you are preaching to. Again…the foundation of the gospel (1 Corinthians 15) will not be changed in any way, but the helps in understanding it may…
Jesus and the apostles did it this way through their entire time on earth. (The good shepherd, the vine and the branches, logos, the unknown god, use of OT and patriarchs for the Jews, etc.)
Seth,
I disagree that we need to use the context and culture that we find people in to help them understand the original intent of the message. That is primed for eisogesis.
We need to use the context and culture of the message to help people understand its original intent. That’s the interpretation part of study. When we’re applying it to people’s lives, showing how this text that transcends culture makes a difference to them, then we take their situations account. But if we use people’s contexts to interpret the message, then the message is a slave to the culture, and there are as many interpretations as there are cultures.
I don’t have time to explain why right now, I’ll get back later, but I don’t believe that’s what Paul did in Acts 17, nor Jesus in His incarnation and parables, and neither God in His use of anthropomorphism.
They(Willow Creek)are now coming up with new ways to collect non-Christians and call it a church.
What are the new ways they are using? I haven’t heard anything about this.
In reading all these comments reminds me of 2Tim. 2:14.Knowing full well that Rom. 1:16,17; and 10:17 are true and leaving up to God what He will do when the Gospel is given. That frees me up from whether to contextulize or not!
I’am not up to mp3 yet, will the complete conference be on CD?, and will I be able to get copies of it?
Mike…
You would have a lot of ground to make up to prove exegetically that Paul was not doing contextualization.
Also…you would have to explain why the apostle John uses the term Logos, to describe Jesus, as the term was well known to be a Greek term to describe the one who controls the universe…
check out what the TDNT says about the term logos:
Although little used in epic,32 λόγος; achieved a comprehensive and varied significance with the process of rationalisation which characterised the Greek spirit. Indeed, in its manifold historical application one might almost call it symbolic of the Greek understanding of the world and existence.
Theological dictionary of the New Testament.
1964-c1976. Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (4:77). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
But even through all this I am not arguing for changing the message one iota like some emergents would contend. Only the way in which we explain the message to them.
I would love to discuss this further if you want to come over to Contend Earnestly
Gentlemen,
I’m sure it is not your intent, but you seem to have left out the Holy Spirit. No one has mentioned that it is the power of the Holy Spirit in our preaching that overcomes all cultural and even language barriers. He is the interpreter. Go back and read The Life of David Brainerd or John G. Patton or others. They did not need “man’s wisdom” because the weapons of their warfare were mighty to the pulling down of fortresses. Their intercessory prayer, perseverance, and preaching was used of the Holy Spirit to convert whole tribes of darkened savages to Christ.
Matt B.
I assumed that was a presupposition when talking with other Trinitarians.
One doesn’t need to fully articulate their entire theology on ecclesiology to discuss specific matters…
To assume we leave out the Holy Spirit is a bit strong, don’t you think?
Thanks for the summary, Nate! Very good stuff – looking forward to the mp3s.
ps – are you ever going to post the lecture notes for your session at last year’s ShepCon? Still holding out hope you’ll get them up. =)
Thanks Nate
what an opportunity you are giving to all of us who dont have the opportunity to participate
Nkhumbuleni ,South Africa
Once you are in Christ, we receive His eternal life (no begining). I find smart Christians are often Calvinists. They all say we have a free will to walk by the Spirit, but we didn’t have a free will to enter that relationship in the first place. HMMMMM. Does Christianity promote arranged marriages? Calvinism does. Think about it.
Agree with this; am attending church now with preacher trained at Master’s Seminary. Hope you’ll visit our Calvinist site TheAmericanView.com and comment, pls. God bless you all — and He does when we OBEY Him. JL.
JLof@aol.com
JOHN LOFTON / RECOVERING REPUBLICAN
For more than 35 years John Lofton has covered national politics and cultural/religious issues as a journalist, nationally-syndicated columnist, TV-radio commentator/analyst and political advisor.
• Editor, “Monday,” the weekly, national publication of the Republican National Committee, 1970-73.
• Nationally-syndicated columnist for “United Features” Syndicate in more than 100 papers nationwide, 1973-80.
• Editor, “Battleline,” monthly newsletter of The American Conservative Union, 1977-80.
• Editor, “Conservative Digest” magazine, 1980-82.
• Columnist, “The Washington Times” newspaper, 1982-89.
• Program-host/commentator, “America’s Voice,” a national cable TV network in all 50 states, 1998-99.
• A commentator on the “Mutual Radio Network;”
• An advisor to the Presidential campaign of Pat Buchanan;
• Author of a monthly column on the Federal bureaucracy for Howard Phillips’ “Conservative Caucus.”
• Has written articles for the NRA magazine “America’s First Freedom”; Gun Owners Of America.
• Communications Director for Constitution Party Presidential candidate Michael Anthony Peroutka in 2004.
• Co–host with Michael Peroutka of “The American View” radio program nationally-syndicated by “Radio America.”
John Lofton has given numerous speeches before various groups, Liberal and Conservative, including Liberty University/Bob Jones University. He has appeared on every major TV/radio talk show (including the Comedy Channel’s “Daily Show”/“Politically Incorrect”) to debate every imaginable kind of anti-Christian goofball — and some who are unimaginable but who do, alas, exist. And he never went to college which is why he is so smart. He can be reached at: 16111 Jerald Road, Laurel, Maryland 20707. Phone: 410-760-8885; cell phone: 301-873-4612; email: JLof@aol.com
Thanks Nate–
I think Deborah Thomas stated things perfectly!
A. Within scripture itself, contextualizing is important.
B. To appeal to culture, one can not contextualize and it compromises God’s Word.
So– Driscoll sits in the B. category and Piper?, Mohler, and Dever have jumped on his bandwagon? (Acts 29..)
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Christ builds His Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against! Neither will the machinations of men who seek to lead many away from the narrow path unto themselves for gain, for such are going in the way of Korah, and have been set aside for destruction.
In so many ‘churches’ the culture has been given such a place that it is near impossible to distinguish the flock from the world. How very sad, yet foretold by our Lord for these days. When the Sword of Truth discerns the inmost thoughts of it’s hearers, and the flesh is convicted unto repentance and salvation the church has been faithful to the Lord. Yet, when the pulpit opines all things other than the Word no man is convicted or brought to the rebirth. How sad.
Thanks so much for Pulpit Mag it is a blessing to me!