Sign In Sign-Up

Welcome!

Close

Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...

Yes, Please make this my home page!

No Thanks

  Don't show this to me again.

Close

Reformed.Faithweb.com

Today we see a glut of independent evangelical churches springing up all over the place, and, although most people in them would tell you that there are not very many of them, yet nearly every town of any size would have at least one of some persuasion or other somewhere in it. We, as true believers, must have a sober, realistic view of these churches, in order that we are not taken in by their apparent orthodoxy - after all, they are all "Bible-believing" churches, aren't they?

I write as someone who was converted through reading my Bible on my own, without any other "Christian" to usher me into their church to be indoctrinated straight away when still a "baby" in the faith. I now see this as a wonderful blessing from God as I look around the churches and can see some very entrenched people within them. I did, however, wander for many years. The first church I visited after my regeneration was a Unitarian church (well, I didn't know the difference then, did I?!), followed by a few years in Anglicanism, then Methodism, finally settling (I thought anyway) into a General (Arminian) Baptist church. I saw that the Bible was used here regularly (albeit the Good News Bible!) and so saw it as far better than the other churches I had tried, but still I was puzzled by some statements the minister would come out with, like, "Christ died for Herod's sin as well as ours." Also, I once saw a collage that the Sunday School children had made which contained pictures of people of all races and colours, with the slogan above it saying "God loves everybody."

I began to wonder whether these things were really true. At the same time I got to know some people from the independent evangelical church across town, who told me about the "Five Points of Calvinism." This was the first time I had heard about the different doctrinal positions of Arminianism and Calvinism, as they were just not mentioned in the other "believe-what-you-like-so-long-as-you-keep-giving-us-the-money" churches. Also, I found out that they had a Confession of Faith - a term I'd never heard of until then. I was intrigued and fascinated by this. I started then for the first time to seriously think about my faith. I was still an Arminian then (having been indoctrinated by it for ten years or so!) and struggled for about six months with Calvinism until one morning it all fell into place and I realised at last that I did not have free-will after all!

At this point I realised that I could not carry on at the church I was in, and had to move across town to this "Calvinistic" church. Many people tried to put me off, telling me that they were all miserable in that place and that they didn't join in with any other church and kept themselves to themselves, but I knew that if they had the truth, which I really believed they did (after all, it was the first time I was beginning to think about spiritual things seriously), then I must join. So I resigned my membership from the Arminian Baptist church and moved across town. I even had to be interviewed by the elders at the new church to see if I really had been born again! This was really exciting, and I passed the interview and was accepted into membership.

In my euphoria, I believed every word they said and was delighted with the new friends that I had made, although all the time I had a nagging doubt in my mind as to whether a church really could be this good on earth.

Now I could join in all the members meetings, and I started going to them. They were not unlike the ones at my previous church. Not much exciting happened for the first couple of years. However, after being there for some time, and after studying my Bible and continually praying that I may not be led astray, but always into all truth, I did of course start beginning to see the problems.

These became a lot sharper in my mind after a certain incident, which I will not go into detail about, when one of the church officers (who, by reason of office, had access into the upper echelons of the officers' meetings) suddenly criticised the elders about something that had happened in one of their meetings, and had threatened to resign. I couldn't believe at the time how this could be, as the officers always seemed such nice, joyous people who must be very godly men to be in the position that they were in. This incident brought the whole thing out into the open, and suddenly the members meetings were alive with these officers trying to defend themselves, and becoming very unreasonable, thus setting off antagonism amongst the members. The whole incident reminded me of the story of a Jehovah's Witness that I read about who was very zealous and eventually got a place in the top council of twelve at Watchtower headquarters in Brooklyn, only to find that there was nothing there apart from the Council continually issuing decrees to the rest of the organisation. He resigned and later became a Christian.

These events showed me clearly what had been at the back of my mind for a long time, namely that this was not the church I had thought it was. As long as you toe the line there is no problem and it is smiles all around, but as soon as someone steps out of line, or dares to criticise, the church puts on another face completely.

From this time onwards, I became very wary of what was going on, and if something was done or said in a members meeting that I didn't think was right then I would say something, rather than just sitting back and accepting it all. Several others were "awakened" in this way as well, and I can see nothing else but God's hand in it. This of course soon branded me as a "troublemaker" by those who toed the line (for the sake of peace and unity). This all came to a head when I complained to the elders for trying to change the voting procedure at one point to suit their own ends, when they knew the vote was going to be close. I was summoned in front of the elders and when I tried to put my point across, all I got was a brick wall - they were not going to budge for anyone. I now knew how that officer felt who tried to criticise them almost a year earlier.

These incidents are only the story of one particular person in one particular church, but through them, together with my continual Bible study and prayer, I have been made by God to see straight through the independent evangelical church system to see it for the sham it really is, and in this essay I intend to bring together a number of points in summary of my conclusions.

The Problem of Independency

All independent evangelical churches start somewhere. Some have a long history behind them, whereas others, probably most of the ones functioning today, started within the last few decades. The problem is with most of these independent churches that a vast majority have started somewhere at sometime by a church "split" (as opposed to being a deliberately "planted" church). The reason is not too difficult to find. When certain people get "fed up" with a church situation, like myself for example, it is such a simple thing to do in this pluralistic society to just stop going to that church and start one up of your own. Anybody can do this, it is dead easy. Having a few followers does help of course, and having a dominating personality to lead them helps as well. But is this the answer? The nearest town to where I reside, with a population of 16,000, had five independent "evangelical" churches within it at the last count (this included several charismatic churches). The town two miles away of population 5,000 had two more. All of these have been formed either because some people got fed up with others and so started up on their own, or some people "felt led" to start a church in a certain place, having very little previous knowledge of what was there already. This is nothing short of chaos and certainly not decency and order (I Corinthians 14:40). These churches cannot seem to realise that outsiders just see them as sects and ignore them completely. This defeats the object somewhat, as these churches spend most of their time in "outreach", trying to get people in!

On a wider scale, a well-known dominating leader can from time to time lead quite a few people out. Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones is a prime example. His views on independency and call to come out from what was seen as the "dead denominational churches" provoked quite a response amongst the evangelicals, who, looking back, would have been far better, in most cases, to have stayed in the denominations because now, a generation later, they could have had far more influence, as the liberals are now in rapid decline.

Many of them, at the same time, saw many abuses of paedobaptism in their "denominational" churches, and reacted against this by becoming completely baptistic. Thus they threw the baby out with the bathwater (as it were), thinking, wrongly, that baptism is a sign of having been born again, whereas it is a sign of being in the visible church, which is not the same thing. As a result, many people in the next generation that are now growing up in these new churches are no longer able to get their children baptised at all.

A situation had arisen in the church that I attended, where they had adopted a Confession of Faith based on the Westminster Confession but in modern language (after all people cannot be expected to understand what the words "thee" and "thou" mean!). The Confession has chapter 28 paragraph 3 changed to "immersion or dipping is the usual mode..." and paragraph 4 omitted completely! Also, the Pope is no longer the Antichrist (we don't want to offend our Roman Catholic brethren too much!) and chapters 22 and 31 are omitted completely as well for good measure! As though some members of a tinpot little evangelical church in the back of beyond know better than the Westminster Divines!

Another major problem with Independency is that the elders and deacons can behave like little Hitlers, and there is no way of getting rid of them. Not many of us should want to be in authority in the church (James 3:1), but these people claim they have had a "call" from God whereas in reality they just fancy themselves. They set themselves up (after persuading the members to vote for them with their dominating personalities and natural worldly charm) and have absolute authority over the flock, being answerable to nobody. They will make sure they keep their noses clean from gross misdemeanour so that they can never be removed, as there will always be a block of hard-liners in the church who, for the sake of unity, will always give them their support no matter what they say or do (thus worshipping the church officers rather than God). Hence these officers would always be able to win any vote of no confidence that may be put up against them. Indeed, most of these leaders tend to be professional men who know exactly how to deal with (i.e. manipulate) people after spending many years in their secular jobs on committees and in organising things. They are very adroit political manoeuverers. No wonder "splits" keep occuring in these churches as other little Hitlers get fed up with serving under someone else and set up their own little "empire" down the road.

The only answer to the scourge of Independency is Presbyterianism. At least then, men such as these would be accountable to higher bodies, even if these higher bodies themselves were corrupt.

Theological Problems

Let's face it, most of these churches today are downright mad, adopting the excesses of the charismatic movement to suit their own ends. God does not want us to be full of "joy", laying hands on everyone and telling them Jesus loves them, first and foremost because this is not necessarily true. In any case, people who behave in this way remind one of the girl possessed with the spirit of divination in Acts 16:17, who said "These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation." A very true statement, but issued in such a "mad" tone of voice that this can be nothing but a hindrance to the spreading of the one true gospel as outsiders would think that "religion" is for madmen only. These wicked people need to be rebuked or shunned accordingly. (Note that she brought her masters much gain by her soothsaying - so the "Health and Wealth" gospel really works!).

Other churches, which profess to be "non-charismatic" do not go in for the excesses of the charismatic movement, and indeed sometimes preach very much against it. However, they leave the door open to these things by believing along the lines of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones, namely that the spiritual gifts are still available today (although they don't exercise them themselves of course!). This non-cessationist view sounds sober enough, but it still treats the "mad-men" as though they were genuine believers, which they are not. All is in the name of tolerance of course.

The vast majority of these independent churches are grossly Arminian in their doctrine. This is especially the case for those churches that are charismatic, or are descended (or "split" from) a Brethren assembly of some kind. However, it is also the case in the churches that have the reputation of being "Calvinistic." All that the word "Calvinistic" seems to be used for today is as an amorphous term for "non-charismatic." The real meaning has long been forgotten.

Most people go to these churches for the social life. They do not go for the teaching. Hence their relative ignorance in spiritual things. So to keep himself in a job (as all these independent churches are self-financing) the preacher knows he cannot preach too much Calvinism from the pulpit in case it offends too many of them. So he ends up taking the line of least resistance giving the congregation what their itching ears want to hear. He preaches just enough strong meat to sound authoritative, and keep his flock nicely under his thumb without being too "hard" on them, the rest of the time telling them how important they are.

Another reason for the lack of discernment in these churches, and I am thinking particularly of the self-styled "Calvinistic" churches now, is the Banner of Truth Trust. The name "Banner of Truth" in these circles has become a touchstone of orthodoxy and people are taught in these churches from an early age that the "Banner" doctrines are right. This problem is quite an obstacle to overcome as many people are deluded by it. I began to see through their edifice when I saw the book "The Momentous Event" by W J Grier (An Amillenialist) and the book "The Interpretation of Prophecy" by Patrick Fairbairn (Postmillenial), both mutually exclusive doctrines, being published by the same publishers, who pride themselves on being a "Banner of Truth!" Another major problem with them is that many of their books have been heavily edited to suit their doctrine. Arthur Pink's "The Sovereignty of God" is the classic example, with three whole chapters and the appendices chopped out under the name of "minor revisions and abridgements." This is nothing short of deceit. Do not get me wrong, the Banner of Truth produce some good material, but we do not know how much has been edited, and so their books cannot be trusted. They must therefore be treated with discernment, and not blindly believed in everything they say.

The main stumbling block to the use of the Banner of Truth as the touchstone of orthdoxy is their false doctrine that God wants all men to be saved. This cannot be true without making God have two wills, a will that all men be saved and a will to save the elect only. This is not just one of those incomprehensible things that we cannot find out about God, like the Trinity. That is what they would say, and it sounds so pious, after all who are we to pry into the secret things of God? This however is a false humility, because the Trinity is incomprehensible but not a contradiction, whereas a God with two opposing wills is surely a contradiction (Job 23:13, John 6:39,40). The man in the pew cannot comprehend this garbled message he is getting from the pulpit, and so he always ends up taking an Arminian stance, as he rejects the part his natural mind likes the least, i.e. the doctrines of Calvinism.

I hasten to add at this point however that I am not against preaching the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15), but I am against it being preached as a sincere free offer to all, because not all who are going to hear are of the elect. (In fact it is not an offer at all, even to the elect, it is a command to all. The elect only will then be drawn to Christ, the reprobate will not).

If anyone casts the slightest doubt on all of this however, the Banner of Truth and their cohorts get their big guns out and print lots of bigoted "free-offer" articles in their magazine or in Evangelical Times. Failing that they will republish something like John Murray's "The Free Offer of the Gospel" or similar work. It is obvious that they are running scared, otherwise they would not get so angry about it. After all, we who proclaim the truth are a very small insignificant minority compared to, say, the Charismatics for example. There's no need to get that annoyed about us - unless of course their livelihoods are at stake, as they couldn't bear to think of the fact that they've been preaching a false gospel for thirty or forty or so years! Think of the embarrassment that would cause to such a well-loved, well-respected minister!! How many people's faith would collapse when they find out their hero has fallen! (Proving it to be no true faith in God at all but rather a faith in these men, of course). Our job, surely, is to humble ourselves before God and his Word in the Scriptures, and not to blindly believe any preacher or humanistic organisation beyond the amount of truth that they do produce. We must "try the spirits whether they are of God" (1 John 4:1).

Another "favourite" of these people is to pray for "Revival." As if this is the magic panacea that will cure all the ills of the church. After all did not Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones say that the last great hope for the church is revival? If the Doctor said it, it must be true! However, this is of course just an excuse for doing nothing. As long as we pray for it, and be earnest in prayer we'll be all right, after all, 'prayer changes things'! (as if the mind of Almighty God can be changed!). This hinders people from doing their everyday ongoing work for the church and it becomes a kind of "quick fix" instead. The 1904 "Revival" in Wales is one of their favourites. However, the Bible was not used at all in this "Revival" and old film of it shows the shouting and screaming that took place as something very akin to the antics of charismatics today. People who espouse charismania are right about it only being a repeat of what has happened in the past. For a sober critique on the phenomenon of "Revival" I can do no more than recommend the book "An Inquiry Into the Scriptural Character of the Revival of 1859" by William Hamilton, published by the Covenant Protestant Reformed Church, Ballymena, which is a breath of fresh air amongst so many useless, empty-headed books on the subject.

Behavioural Problems

So often in these churches, they quite rightly teach that the Christian should be different from the world, that is "in the world but not of the world," as they say. This is very true. I have no complaint with that teaching at all and I would that all the Lord's people were less worldly than they seem to be. However, it appears that many people in these churches have some very strange views on how different we should actually be.

I touched on this earlier when I mentioned the Charismatics and the girl with the spirit of divination, but even where people do have some sense of sobriety and can see the dangers of appearing "mad" and avoid that sort of behaviour, there are still some unchristian views about how we should behave.

It seems to me that three things are missing from modern day Evangelicals, namely:

1) The fear of God. Billy Graham has a lot to do with getting rid of this from the churches as he preaches a god who loves everyone and is our "loving heavenly father" and wants to bless us all (if only we let him!). God certainly loves his elect, whoever they are. However, the problem with this is that reality has been reversed. In this new system the unbeliever is the one who fears God because he is on his way to hell, and the believer is the one who doesn't fear God any more because he's been saved! So let's have fun (for Jesus) and be full of joy and bubble over with happiness no matter what our external circumstances, surely that is the best witness we can be to the world, isn't it? I'm afraid it is not. "Our God is a consuming fire" (Hebrews 12:29). "Fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28). It is the believer who is the one that fears God "And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation" (Luke 1:50). It is the wicked in whom "there is no fear of God before their eyes" (Romans 3:18, Psalm 36:1). It is the fear of God which keeps the believer walking in the way of God's commandments, and the lack of fear of God that does not inhibit the unbeliever from following his own evil ways (2 Corinthians 7:1; Ecclesiastes 12:13,14). Billy Graham is responsible for destroying the fear of God almost completely from out of the visible church, and he will be answerable on the Day of Judgment for this.

2) A broken spirit. Modern twentieth century psychology has invaded the church in force on this one. This tells us to be positive and to make sure we have all got plenty of "self-esteem". It is not wrong to have an ego, they say (so long as it doesn't get too big!). There seem to be more and more preachers exhorting their flocks to have this positive attitude about themselves. "We are fallen, but we are made in the image of God!" I heard one well known minister say once. This is nothing short of denying the doctrine of Total Depravity. Even most so-called "Calvinists" would say that there is a difference between Total Depravity (which they have to admit, because Calvin did!) and Absolute Depravity! This is absolute nonsense (as opposed to total nonsense!). We are utterly vile wretches, dead in sin and iniquity. That fact ought always to give us a sober view of ourselves. Yet it is hardly ever preached from the pulpit, other than as a passing remark in a prayer that we are all vaguely fallen and need forgiveness, that is.

This satanic evil philosophy of self-love is everywhere in the church as people think that true godliness is found in having a sort of confident air about oneself, "accepting ourselves (and each other) as we are" they would say. They would call this positive attitude about ourselves being "filled with the Holy Spirit." Again the outworking of this is to become full of "joy" for the Lord, as though this will impress people. The Psalmist says, "A broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise" (Psalm 51:17). If we have not this, I fear we are none of his.

3) Christlikeness. This being full of "joy" and extrovert "bubbling over" with joy is seen, for some reason, as the ultimate goal of the Christian to attain in full measure. However, surely our "goal" or "aim" is to be like our Master and Saviour. This is impossible in this life of course, but we should be wanting to be "conformed to the image of his Son" (Romans 8:29) and this is what we should be striving after. Yet many people have no idea what this means at all. They believe that if they feel "joyful" and put on an outward "caring" attitude they are being like the Master. There is no record in the Scriptures of the Master ever smiling or being joyful. The nearest we come is in Luke 10:21,22 where Christ is said to have "rejoiced in spirit." Over what does he rejoice? That God has hidden his truths (deliberately) from the wise and prudent and revealed them unto babes. That God deliberately passes some men by is a cause of rejoicing to Christ, and so it should be to us. No "burden for souls" here! Wicked, totally depraved man is justly condemned for his sins. This is all any of us can deserve, and we must praise God for perfect justice. The fact that God saves anyone is a cause of even greater rejoicing, of course. Yes Christ did not bubble and bounce his way through life, rather, he was known as "a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief" (Isaiah 53:3). And so should we be if we wish to follow him. This is the only real "caring" attitude. All other shows of "caring" for anyone are usually seen through very quickly indeed.

Practical Problems

I have already mentioned the problem of (untrained) leaders who fancy themselves or "feel called" to lead these churches. Few of them are properly trained, only some having been to a Bible College at all (most of which are grossly Arminian in content, and are just an excuse for a good time at the taxpayers expense), and that would usually have been only for a year or two at most. Hence it is not uncommon for a person no more than a few years in the faith suddenly to become the minister of his own church!

This causes problems later on as members of the congregation very easily become more spiritually aware than these people are (if these people are spiritually aware at all that is!), and this must eventually cause problems as friction is inevitable. It is an embarrassment for an elder, say, to have a lay person under their wing who is more spiritually aware than they are. The one thing the leaders like doing best is to keep people under their thumb all the time, being taught and kept in line by themselves. This is the lust for power that drives them. So someone who is more keenly spiritually aware is quite naturally going to have to look elsewhere other than their own church leaders for their spiritual food. Indeed this is the true Christian's lot in life, having to suffer "without the camp" (Hebrews 13:13), foraging for food (John 10:9). This will annoy the leaders of the church as they know that they have no control over such persons. They want control over everything in the church (including the "revival" when it comes!), and get very upset when they see themselves losing control, as people do not look up to them any more. This "rocks the boat," quite naturally without even trying to do so, and the leaders do not like it.

This brings me on to another subject, namely the emphasis on "love," "peace" and above all "unity," as if we should have "unity" at all costs. If Martin Luther had thought that way, we would still be in the church of Rome today! Unity is not something that we do, or try to achieve. It is there already, quite naturally, amongst true believers. Christ prayed for it to be there between his people (John 17:21-23), and so it is blasphemy to believe that Christ's prayer was to no avail! There are two things far greater than love and unity that I can think of, and they are truth and righteousness. These should never be compromised in any way, even for the sake of "peace" in the church. When the boat is rocked slightly, for whatever reason, the leaders, and hard-core supporters of the church, are in there straight away praying for love and for there not to be a "split," which, it seems, is the worst thing that could ever happen! Also, sermons on "love" and "unity" are preached, but all they really mean is to say to the offenders, "shut up, stop rocking the boat and fall back into line behind us!" Those who are not the ones seen to be the cause of the unrest will be most vehement that they are right and that the others should come back in line, whereas the ones who are, for whatever reason, not falling into line (and therefore labelled as the instigators of the unrest) are even more annoyed at the system for being so immoveable. People cannot be cajoled into toeing the line, the root cause of the problem must be sought and dealt with at source, even if that means resignations in the eldership.

These churches, as mentioned before, are, for most people in them, no more than glorified social clubs. They are nice, cosy middle-class family churches, where life is comfortable and the church is just a bit of a heavenly insurance policy (just in case!). Most people there do not hunger and thirst after the things of God in any way, they rather cling on to a gooey feeling they had once, a long time ago, which they can call their "conversion." This is a bit of a misnomer as true conversion is an ongoing thing, we are continually being converted. If what they mean is regeneration (being "born again") then that is an invisible event and is not felt straight away (c.f. natural birth). The gooey feeling in the heart "conversion" experience is something which these people cling to so vehemently. 300 years of "Evangelicalism" is partly responsible for this as signs of "conversion" were encouraged to be looked for. Originally this was from the right motive of examining yourselves, "whether ye be in the faith" (2 Corinthians 13:5). However, people turned this into looking to their emotions instead. The gooey feeling that they experience may or may not be their first awareness of their being in a regenerate state. If they are true believers, then it could well be the time that they were first aware of their regenerate state, and these people should be striving forward in their faith, working it out in "fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12), giving diligence to make their "calling and election sure" (II Peter 1:10). Otherwise it is probably nothing of the kind and no different to the kind of ecstatic feelings that can be whipped up by Indian gurus or whirling dervishes. All these people have is this gooey feeling to look back to all the time to assure them of their "salvation," and they then are simply told to "believe the promises" and they will be all right. This is dangerous stuff, as people could by these easy means be deluded into thinking they are believers when they are not. Most churches accept this readily however as it keeps the numbers up. Arminian "easy-believism" is very much to blame for this, as "becoming a Christian" is just a matter of going forward at a mission, being told, "Now you're a Christian, Congratulations!"

I have seen several people profess conversion in these churches, on the basis of having had a gooey feeling inside at a certain time, and indeed getting the whole church very excited about it (especially if they had lived a particularly profligate life beforehand), only to fall away completely some time afterwards, even having, in one case I can think of, an admission from the pastor that maybe he hadn't been converted after all (a few months earlier that same pastor was jumping with joy over the same person's so-called "conversion"!). As a result of this, and seeing many people keen to hear emotional testimonies but totally uninterested in spiritual things, I cannot help coming to the conclusion that very few of them have been truly regenerated at all.

This is confirmed in the fact that in these churches the "fellowship lunch" or similar event is far more popular than the Bible study. Any excuse is found to squeeze another "fellowship tea" into the calendar, and the Bible study is dropped at the slightest opportunity - it is always the first meeting to go when a special occasion arises. The conversation at these "fellowship lunches" is always totally unspiritual. No-one wants to talk about the sermon, or what God has done for them during the week, or what they are studying at the moment in their personal Bible reading. This proves beyond doubt that most people in these churches are only in it for the social life, thus worshipping and trusting in each other rather than worshipping and trusting in God. This will only lead to problems in the end, as human beings will always let us down.

These churches therefore prove to be very much man-centred (i.e. centred on our feelings) rather than God-centred. If we put all our trust in our feelings we can only expect disaster. This comes to the fore when people start saying things like "I feel God is leading me to do this," a totally unbiblical form of guidance, and indeed the main reason a lot of ministers are in power in these churches. The ultimate aim of the people in these churches is not the glory of God (which is what it should be) but the happiness of the individual believer. In other words, "I got a nice gooey feeling in my heart after singing that chorus, so it must have been a good time of worship!" If life is all about getting nice feelings then we are no better than the drug addict who believes exactly the same thing.

In opposition to this I merely state that God is "without body, parts and passions" (Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 2 Paragraph 1), and that he can only be worshipped "in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24). The present feelings-led churches must therefore be an abomination in God's sight.

This ignorance and unwillingness to hunger and thirst over the things of God has led to a false view of church growth. It is the numbers game that is most important today. All the efforts of the church are geared towards "outreach" and "bringing them in." Firstly, this is of course very much derived from the false doctrine that God wants all men to be saved, which I have discussed earlier. Even the few Bible studies that there are, all seem to be geared towards the "seeker." This is wrong. "Outreach" is like happiness. The more you pursue it the more you will not get the results you want. If, however, you pursue something else, something far more useful and worthwhile, then happiness is sure to come as a result. Similarly the "outreach" meeting will never bring results as the church can so easily be seen by outsiders as just existing to "get them in" and for no other reason. Indeed once they are in, the only thing they are taught then is how to bring others in. This is as bad as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the church is clearly seen by the outside world as nothing more than a weird religious sect, and rightly so.

The best form of "outreach" is to forget about the outreach meetings completely and concentrate on building individual believers up in the faith through teaching, Catechism classes and, above all, Bible study. Most people in these churches would appear horrified at this. Indeed one well-respected pastor said to his flock, in opposition to this idea, that "If the church doesn't evangelise it will die!". Forgetting, of course, that Christ said, "I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18)! The right way forward is for believers to be built up in the faith properly. As individuals in the church are being built up, so the church itself is being built up and the people in it will then quite naturally evangelise without thinking. Surely this is the best way of witnessing to the world, namely when our walk with God is so heavenly and our evangelism is so natural.

The usual type of prayer meeting in these churches is also a desperately unspiritual affair. I have mentioned the specific prayer meeting for revival above, but the false premise behind all these prayer meetings is that 'prayer changes things.' Also, I have heard it said so often that the prayer meeting is 'the most important meeting of the week' in the church. In these meetings, God is not addressed at all and most people get down straight away to praying for their list of complaints. "Oh God, why don't you do this, Oh God why don't you do that!" No wonder God does not listen, there is no humility there at all, and if they think they are being humble, it is a false humility which God cannot abide. The one thing that needs to be done is that everyone should humble themselves to the dust before a holy God. "God is in heaven, and thou upon earth; therefore let thy words be few" (Ecclesiastes 5:2).

The people who are always the most keen on having a prayer meeting are the ones who like to hear the sound of their own voices. Most others either don't bother going at all or only go because the leaders have drummed it into them that it is the most important meeting of the week and made them feel guilty if they do not go (emotional blackmail). I have been to these type of meetings for nearly ten years now, and I've never known a place where the spirit is quenched so much. I cannot pray properly in them at all. Oh yes, I can fit in with their way of doing things and saying things, but that is not heartfelt prayer in any way. If the spirit of true prayer is quenched that much, then there must be something desperately wrong somewhere.

Also the idea of an all-night prayer meeting or several groups promising to all pray in their own churches at the same time is nothing more than heathenish. God is not moved at all just because more people pray or the prayers are all at once. Baal worshippers would be proud of these ideas (1 Kings 18:26)!

Demonology is very much alive in these churches. It is a desperately wicked thing to believe that we mortals can understand "demon-possession" and be able to "exorcise" demons in any way. Yet there are some stupid and dangerous people, such as Arthur Neal from Torquay, who believe they can do just that. The casting out of demons is only mentioned in the Bible as being performed by Christ himself and the apostles for a short time. In fact people were completely taken by surprise about it when Christ came. "And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him" (Mark 1:27). We are not given any instructions in the Bible at all as to how we should "cast demons out" of people, and we should therefore leave well alone. Again this whole idea belongs to the erroneous notion the the spiritual gifts are for today. The only reason modern day churches, even "non-charismatic" ones, still cling to this ridiculous idea is so that the leaders of these churches can have some kind of (demonic?!) power over people a lot weaker than themselves. "For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts" (2 Timothy 3:6). One very well known so-called "reformed" pastor I know of used to have mentally ill people queueing outside his house as he used to hold some kind of group therapy sessions with them. He had (and still has) a kind of iron grip on these people, who melt at his every word. This demonic individual (there is no other word to describe him) is now the very well-respected principal of a renowned "Reformed" theological college!

Most of these churches do not have anything to do with the ecumenical movement, and I heartily agree with them. However, there now exists, more so in the next generation down from those who actually came out, a kind of spiritual pride about it. "We're Evangelicals!" A lot of people are in the church who think they are genuine Christians simply because they belong to an Evangelical church and they "came out," so they must be Christians! This is a dangerous trend and should be stopped straight away.

Another problem, touched on earlier, is the fact that although these churches do not have relations with churches in the ecumenical movement, they will have all kinds of relations with Charismatic churches, thinking them to be true Christian churches. This is just plain wrong, and again results from the false doctrine that the spiritual gifts are still available today. The more I see the Charismatics, and the direction they are heading, i.e. towards a man-centred, me-first religion, being led by the "spirit" (their feelings) rather than the Bible, the more I must shun them and flee away completely from them just as I must do so from a Roman Catholic church for example. Yes, true believers do exist in all these churches, but if they are true believers then they ought to be heading away from them. It is not up to the more mature believers to go to their churches and have ecumenical relations with them, rather the job of the more mature believers is to help them get away from such evil organisations.

Conclusion

What are we to conclude from these observations? Firstly, I have a word for those leaders in such churches as have been described, together with those who "toe the line" behind them, not thinking anything is amiss. I too was in your boat at one time.

I know that you will probably be offended at some if not all of the things I have said. I am sorry about that, but there is nothing I can do about it because it is, as God is my witness, the truth. Even if it wasn't the truth, you should still be willing to learn from what I have said by making sure that your church doesn't go down the path that I have described. The truly spiritual believers amongst you will at least begin to understand this. However, if on the other hand your anger is not abated and you will still not budge from your nicely entrenched position, then I feel sorry for you. To be entrenched is a terrible thing. "Here have we no continuing city" (Hebrews 13:14). We are only ever strangers and pilgrims on this earth looking for "a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God" (Heb 11:10). We are therefore not to be comfortable with this world and its trinkets because they are all vain and empty. That is just the Christian's lot. You might not like it. I do not like having no spiritual home that I can truly relax in down here, but that is besides the point. This is our lot and we are to accept it. It is for our good, if we are true believers.

Maybe you think my attitude is "unloving," but as I said earlier that is only because you don't want me to "rock the boat" but instead to shut up and "toe the line" so that your cosy little power base on this earth can be secure again. My concern is for the true church of God, not the empire of an expendable human being like you. If what I have said is the truth of God then I cannot keep it in, it is "as a burning fire shut up in my bones" (Jeremiah 20:9). "Repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent" (Rev 2:5). Therefore heed my warnings and "prove me now herewith and see if God will not open the windows of heaven and pour you out a blessing that there shall not be room to receive it" (Malachi 3:10).

I now have a word for those true believers who do not have a true Reformed or Presbyterian church to go to in their locality, after all it is your locality where you are called by God to be a witness. Firstly I would suggest that your first priority is to make contact with your nearest acceptable Reformed or Presbyterian church if there is one, otherwise make contact with other Reformed believers in your area. Meetings can be attended once a month or so at least, even if this does require a lot of travelling. Do everything under the auspices of a recognised Reformed or Presbyterian church if at all possible. This is your power base, and the place where you truly belong.

On a week by week basis, however, if travelling weekly to your power base is totally impractical, then I suggest that the local independent evangelical church is one of the best places you can go. This is because it will at least attract true believers to it, even though these people, like myself at one time, are pretty entrenched in the system. This type of church will attract true believers in their pilgrimage through life probably more than other churches because of their emphasis on the Bible, and it is here that we could be of the most use. All these true believers need is educating and, as a missionary, that is your job. Go to the Bible studies, get to know the people there, try to discern the true believers, those with a spark of spiritual life in them, and put a word in for the truth when you can. All you can do is sow the seed of doubt (i.e. truth!) in their minds and leave it there. Don't rush things, or be too heavy handed, after all some of these people are your brethren in Christ. That this will eventually cause trouble is inevitable. You will probably eventually be asked to leave. Never mind, your heart is not there anyway, so do not worry about it. You can then move on to the next tinpot little evangelical church up the road and do the same there!

If this sounds divisive, and it will to the person entrenched in such a church, I make it known that I am not out to "get" at independent evangelical churches at all, I am only interested in the truth of God being proclaimed wherever the opportunity arises. This is true evangelism! The reason I am concentrating on independent evangelical churches is simply because it is the particular subject I am dealing with here (go to a Methodist church if you want and do the same thing. They do not attract many true believers, that's all!), and because there is a particular air about evangelical churches which supposedly tells the world, and deludes many true believers, that they stand for the truth, and the Bible. I am merely out to show where they do not. They are not to rest on their laurels, there is a lot wrong with them, as I have tried to show here. I only hope and pray that people will take these criticisms seriously, otherwise there is no hope for these churches at all.