Old Paths Paved

[Note: This post is born out of the ministry in general. It is not a reflection of my personal struggle directly. Only indirectly as a father of 8 wonderful children.-JL]

We’ve all heard the stories of pastor’s children walking away from the faith. I remember reading a true story many years ago of a pastor sitting in his car, weeping for his 17-year-old son. This man was the pastor of a very large Baptist congregation in the mid-west. The congregation had grown from 120 souls to over 1100 in just under a decade. The congregation has just moved into a multi-million dollar facility, and as a gift, they gave the minister the new parsonage, title and all, as a thank you gift. The pastor himself was a charismatic personality, who’s excitement for the gospel often spilled over into the congregation. They had new programs, many church leaders, and a passion for the lost that few churches possessed. Outwardly speaking, this pastor had every reason to rejoice. But there he sat, weeping for his wayward son. He later confessed, “I would trade every trapping of my success for an opportunity to live my life over again. I would have spend more time with my children.” His children were now all grown, and almost all of them had left the God of their father. This story could be told countless times over in other towns and cities all over North America.

We all know that Pastor’s Kids (PK’s) are sinners like everybody else. We know as well that the child that leaves the faith, while surprising us, does not surprise God. Yet we cannot minimize the fact that there are often human elements that can be pointed to that, from our lateral perspective, have contributed to this sad event. As a father of 8, two of them now teenagers, I often stare at them, wondering what I can do to minimize the potential of this ever happening to us. First I can pray for them, pleading the promises of the gospel. I can be faithful in family worship, teaching their hearts and minds about sin, repentance and faith. But is there more that can be done? What contributes to some defections in PK’s. Here are my thoughts.

On a Pedestal

The truth is, when others sin, they are often forgiven of those sins. But when a PK sins, that sin may be forgiven, but seldom forgotten. PK’s live in a glass house with their parents. Everything that is said or done in that home becomes the talk of the church. Expectations are very high for PK’s because their father is the spiritual leader of the congregation. Many people even subconsciously view PK’s as an extension of the pastor himself, and therefore must be an example for all the congregation. This places incredible pressure on the PK. In many cases they are denied the right to be normal. So the reaction of the PK is often to resent the “perfection mentality”, and rebel against it in many outward ways. This is especially true for sons. The desire to be distinct from the identity of the father often propels the PK in the wrong direction.

PK’s need to be given the freedom to be kids. We cannot ever excuse sin in our children, but PK’s need the same range of grace that all other children enjoy. Some would say we need to lower out expectations. I rather think we need to have realistic expectations.

Suggestions:
1.Never place higher expectations on a PK than you do for your own children. This is a good rule of thumb.
2.Go out of your way to communicate these realistic expectations to the PK’s. It will lessen the inherent pressure of being a pastor’s kid.
3.Don’t ask a PK son if he is going to be a preacher like his father, or a daughter if she is going to marry a preacher. You might not like the answer.

Home Life

No Ear, No Time

Pastors are men who preach, and listen. Yet often while spending large amounts of time listening to others they do not listen very well at home. The bitter feeling often arises that “I am unimportant to my dad.” Or, “These people dominate so much of my father’s time he has no time for us.” The resentment is often directed at the church, not at the father. Again, resentment grows in the PK because there is no distinction between church and family, “our time” with dad, and “the church’s time” with pastor. Often, almost invariably, family time is stolen by the needs of the congregation and the family is expected to pick up the slack.

Suggestions:
1.Pastors should have one day set aside exclusively for his family, the only exceptions being real emergencies (i.e., hospitalization or death).
2.A pastor should take at least 3 weeks off a year and NOT preach elsewhere. He should be with his family in the pew, going fishing, hiking, and spending time just being dad.
3.Elders should monitor this closely, and make every effort to protect the pastor’s time with the family.

My Dad is Stressed

Nothing discourages the PK more about the church than the toll problems can take on the father. Kids see this almost as clearly as the mother, and far clearer than the congregation. “If this is what a church is, then I don’t want to be a part of one”, is often the mentality. More children have been turned off from church because of incidentals that have dominated his time. The pastor has enough on his plate caring for the spiritual wellbeing of the church. He does not need to be brought into silly debates like the speed of the organ or how loud it is, how the offering is taken, or which kids are running around after the service. It is amazing how many times people think that the pastor is the complaint department of the congregation. This, in part are what ruling elders are for.

Suggestion:
1.Only come to the pastor with spiritual problems. Never go to him thinking he is the umpire for every problem in the church. This adds to his stress level and has an adverse effect on the children.

Note to Pastor’s

Our family is a flock within a flock. Our first calling is to be the priest of our home, and care for the souls given to us. Congregations come and go, but our families will remain. 1 Timothy 3:4,5 says that one mark of an elder (also pastor) is that he “ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?).”

Take the same care for the souls of your children as you do for your larger flock. Parents are often the instrument by which a child is brought to saving faith in Christ. Listen to your children, take time for them. And when you see that your time is being dominated inordinately by outside things, speak to your elders and cut back. We can not save our children, but we can certainly reduce the number of outside influences that may impact our children’s view of the Church.

Above all, pray for your children, as I know you do. But more than this, show them that you also are a sinner in need of grace, imperfect, looking to Christ as the author and finisher of your own faith.

September 9, 1943

What are we to think about the multiformity of the church?

* Note: multiformity is in contrast to uniformity. Uniformity being an undivided church (denomination), and multiformity meaning many churches (denominations).

This is a question that give us significant insight into Kersten’s view of “other” denominations. Kersten begins with a reflection on Dordrecht, insisting that they were “one in confession, but not in form” (19). In other words, there were different flavors of reformed nationalities present, along with slightly different forms of ecclesiastical apparati, but this “multiformity did not prevent the united rejection of the Remonstants’ case and the preservation of God’s Word”(19). He goes on to say that, “it becomes somewhat different when they begin speaking about the multiformity of the church in one country. There, the church ought to be one, also in her revelation” (19). Kersten goes on to argue that the presence of many different denominations in one country is the result of sin. Does this mean that Kersten held to some form of the Establishment Principle (one country, one Church?). Interesting.

“Some say that their church is the only true church. But this is the vain exclamation, ‘The temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the the LORD, are these.’ Multiformity has now come into this world. Nevertheless, we must condemn it and grieve over it because of the sin that caused its existence” (20).  I could not agree more with Kersten’s concluding words, ” May the Lord arise, as in the days of old, and reunite His church on the firm foundations of the time-honoured confession, according to His Word.”

As a good friend of mine often prays, “Lord, wilt Thou bring together those that belong together, and heal the breaches in the walls of the Church.” May it be so.

March 10, 1938

“What are the significance and authority of church symbols?”

Kersten Answer: Church forms of unity are symbols. By means of these symbols the church officially expresses herself concerning the doctrine og God’s Word. Therefore, symbols are more than private writings, such as the confessional writings of Agustine, which are not numbered with the symbols of the Churches. As far as the Reformed Churches are concerned, the following are included: the Confession of Faith, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Cannons of Dort.

These symbols have authority. Those who assert that the symbols of the Reformed Churches of old are merely the work of man are not only mistaken, but reject what God has given His Church through the ages to confirm God’s Word. These are more than mere writings of man, although they are fully subordinate to God’s Word. They may not be compared with the Holy Scriptures as to authority, worthiness and immutability. Article 7 of the Confessions of Faith states emphatically that we may not consider of equal value with hose divine Scriptures any writings of men, however holy these men may have been. Nevertheless, those symbols have authority, because they are fully based on God’s Word. Whoever doesn’t agree with this or scornfully rejects these writings, does not belong in a church of true Reformed persuasion. It is to be feared that he (no matter how pious he appears to be in appealing to God’s Word alone) holds to errors that are uncovered by the symbols.

Whoever rejects the symbols, robs the church. What would he do without these symbols?Would she have to resume the fight with Rome, the Remonstrants, the Anabaptists, etc? Let us be on our guard that the false doctrine of our day doesn’t get the upper hand. Pious talk cannot stand up against that lie, but will be dashed in pieces on the symbols that are based upon God’s Word. I seriously advise you to read and study these writings. Our young people, in particular, must read them and hold fast to them.

Kersten is correct. In a day and age that seems to diminish the importance of church symbols (Creeds and Confessions), it is a good succinct reminder to us all. I would only add that the creeds are also symbols.

March 24th 1938

Essenes

Kersten begins this section on the Church by insisting that the Church is the visible congregation of God’s elect sustained by the Spirit and the Word (4). He then becomes more precise, “The elect alone belong to her; the reprobates never counted as her members” (4).  This comes in under the heading of church “Essence”, and Kersten no doubt, is defining the Church in her spiritual and true self.  Yet Kersten does not maintain a pure Church alone in her earthly manifestation. “It is beyond our scope to deal with the church in a broader sense. We only add that many live along with this outward revelation without truly belonging to the Church”(4). We in the Free Reformed Churches would not disagree with this statement, though we might word it differently. In the FRC, the visible Church, which is the manifestation of the visible Covenant of Grace is made with believers and their children. We reject, with Kersten, that the unregenerate are in the essence of the covenant by baptism, yet would quickly add that even the reprobate in the congregation are  recipients of outward, but not saving blessings. We would also insist that the promises of the covenant are the grounds upon which we plead for the salvation of our children. Yet the FRC maintains that the marrow or essence of the covenant is only realized by regeneration and conversion in our children.  Here is perhaps the first point of disjunction between the NRC and the FRC; Kersten begins with election, and we begin with the covenant. I’m sure we will elaborate on this doctrine (Covenant & Election) in more detail in another post. Having said that, we would wholeheartedly agree with Kersten when he states, “Therefore we many never consider all who belong to the visible Church to be living members” (8).  Kersten rightly rejects John De Labadi’s notion of a “pure church” on earth by stating, “The Church is to be considered as being internal and external”, and, “There is no visible Church without chaff” (13).

Marks

Kersten says that there are 2 kinds of marks of the Church, each with 3 sub identifiers:

1. Institutional or outward marks (faithful preaching, right administration of the sacraments, and proper church discipline) (13,14),
2. Inner being: (upright faith, true communion, and holy walk) (14).

I’m not so sure the “inner being” he is suggesting properly belongs to the subject of the marks of the true church, especially since our forefathers were speaking about her outward and objective manifestation. But I like Kersten’s emphasis on the need for vital godliness within the visible church.

Church Government

Kersten correctly defines Reformed church government in 4 points:

1. The Church is governed locally (consistory comprised of Pastors, Elders, Deacons).
2. Broader accountability in the classical form (classis and synod).
3. Local membership.
4. Church and State side by side, not one subservient to the other.

It is interesting to note that Kersten, being the “old pather” that he is, speaks of the Papal Church as the anti-Christ no less that 5 times in the first 13 pages (3,5,12,15,18).

I found myself in agreement with most of what Kersten has said regarding the Church of Christ. Thoughts?

I was given a copy of this newly released book by a member of my congregation. It is a series of questions and answers sent to Rev. G.H. Kersten (Gerrit Hendrik Kersten  6 August 1882 – September 6 1948 ), over the course of his ministry,  regarding many aspects of the Christian walk and the life of the Church. It is a fascinating read, front to back. For the first time in English, we are able to peer into the mind of one of the greatest Dutch theologians of the 20th century.  I have always appreciated Kersten for his bold stand for the Old Paths. I have read his Reformed Dogmatics, his Sermons on the Heidelberg Catechism, and a recently produced biography bearing his name. This book (IFF), translated and produced by the Reformed Congregations in North America is a more intimate look at the “nuts & bolds” of Kersten’s thought regarding the Church. As I am reading it, I am finding many intersections with our own Free Reformed heritage, and a few (but not many)  disparities. Because Kersten was an “old pather”, I think it would be helpful to outline this book, perhaps with a few comments, on his doctrinal and ecclesiastical positions. If there is no comment, it means that there  are either no disagreements as far as I see it, or the subject is a mater of things indifferent. Should be an edifying read.

By John Newton

Safely through another week,
God has brought us on our way;
Let us now a blessing seek,
On th’ approaching Sabbath-day:
Day of all the week the best,
Emblem of eternal rest.

Mercies multiply’d each hour
Through the week our praise demand
Guarded by Almighty pow’r,
Fed and guided by his hand:
Though ungrateful we have been,
Only made returns of sin.

While we pray for pard’ning grace,
Through the dear Redeemer’s name,
Show thy reconciled face,
Shine away our sin and shame:
From our worldly care set free,
May we rest this night with thee.

When the morn shall bid us rise,
May we feel thy presence near!
May thy glory meet our eyes
When we in thy house appear!
There afford us, Lord, a taste
Of our everlasting feast.

May thy Gospel’s joyful sound
Conquer sinners, comfort saints;
Make the fruits of grace abound,
Bring relief for all complaints:
Thus may all our Sabbaths prove,
Till we join the church above!

I’ll admit, I visit SermonAudio every day. Who can resist listening to some of the greatest preachers of our generation at the click of a button? Never before, in the history of the Church has there ever been such an abundance of good preaching at our fingertips. One of the greatest benefits of the digital world is the ability to download a sermon on your ipod, Blackberry, or whatever and listen to it on the go. Digital media and the Internet is also beneficial to shut-ins, those who can’t make it to Church on the Lord’s Day. How often I have personally been blessed by early morning walks, listening to a great sermon on my Curve ! The Internet, much like the Gutenberg printing press, has become a wonderful tool for the advancement of the kingdom of Christ!
And yet as I have pondered the blessings of the plethora of great material online, I have come to see a few pitfalls.

.

Temptation to Go Beyond

.

The pastor’s first calling is the flock set before him. Act 20:28 says, “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Lloyd-Jones discouraged the publishing of his sermons for reading for good reason. MLJ believed that each message belonged to his congregation, not the world (And if anyone’s sermons needed a wider audience, it was MLJ!). The message was designed for the edification, up-building, and conversion, of his flock, not for others. He argued (in Preaching and Preachers) that the sermon comes as a prayerful answer to the needs of a particular flock. It is a letter of love to them (as it were), from the Holy Spirit, by the agency of a personal pastor.

.

With the “on-line sermon” I think there is a temptation for the preacher to forget who the Lord has set before him. It opens up the real danger of thinking too much of one’s own ability, and succumbing to the notion that our pulpit ministry deserves a wider audience. Now it should be understood that certain men do deserve a wider audience simply because they are brighter lights who’s gifts should be shared with as many as will hear them. However, in my opinion there are many preachers on SermonAudio (for example) that ought not to be there at all. Their sermons are more a demonstration of weakness in the pulpit than strength. Yet because the technology is accessible, for some reason they feel it ought to be used so others can hear them. This comes, I believe, from an overinflated sense of self, and one’s own ability. The truth is, the Christian Church has been furnished over the centuries with “blue collar” pastors (I use such a term respectfully and I include myself in this category). We are not an overly gifted sort, but “we have this treasure in earthen vessels” (2 or. 4:7). This makes us useful in hand of the Lord, by His grace, in a very specific way. No, we are not the brightest lights in the preaching sky, but we have been entrusted to care as shepherds over a specific flock. And the Lord blesses this isolated work. What makes us think that others, beyond our sphere, need to hear our words? I refer back to Act 20:28 “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.”

.

Dissatisfaction in the Pew

.

From this consumeristic perspective stems another potential problem in my mind; the dissatisfaction that arises from the discovery of a truly gifted preacher. How many times have I visited with a member of some congregation, and heard him laud the preaching of an “on line” pastor and lament that his own was not more gifted. Imagine listening to Sinclair Ferguson or Ligon Duncan all week on the drive to work and then sit under the ministry of a “blue collar” preacher on the Lord’s Day? We should recognize that the “on line sermon” has the potential of slowly creating a palate for only the best in the pulpit. “Why can’t our Pastor preach with more fire and passion? Why can’t he plumb the depths of a passage like Rev. _______?” At this point we find a depreciation of the local ministry, and unwittingly, Christ’s own work among us. Further, it has the potential to encourage the hearer to find a better preacher than the one he now has (Church shopping), or worse yet, staying at home.

Am I suggesting we stop listening to the great preachers of our day? Never! We do however need to be able to identify some of the pitfalls of this technology as well as the blessings. Each congregation that has a pastor, has him by the will of Christ. As such, he is sent from God to you.

Just some thoughts. Have a great Sabbath under the pastor God has given you.

.

P.S

I know my own sermons are online. I have argued at length with my own consistory to not have them published, but I continue to lose the battle.

Derek A. Wilson, The Uncrowned Kings of England: The Black History of the Dudleys and the Tudor Throne (2005), p. 292:

[Robert] Dudley became increasingly worried by the activities of the Presbyterians who were endangering the progress of further reformations, splitting the radical wing of the church and making it difficult for him and his friends to fight for the cause at government level. Matters came to a head at Southam, Warwickshire, in 1576. One of the most important aspects fo the Puritan movement was the ‘exercises’ or ‘propheysings’: meetings of local ministers for mutual exhortation and Bible study, sometimes accompanied by public sermons. They were anathema to the queen and when complaints reached her about the behaviour of the Presbyterian ministers and gentlemen in Warwickshire, Elizabeth referred the matter to Dudley — Warwickshire was, after all, ‘his’ county. Dudley passed on Elizabeth’s protests to Archbishop Grindal and the Southam exercise was closed down. Dudley now found himself obliged to offer a defense to Puritan activists who accused him of deserting the cause.

…for the exercises which I have known and heard of in many places, there was never thing used in the Church that I have thought and do think more profitable both for people and ministers, or that I have more spoken for or more laboured in defense of, even from the beginning, especially where they are used with quietness to the conversation and unity of the doctrine established already and to the increase of the learned ministry…I fear the over busy dealing of some hath done so much hurt in striving to make better…that which is…good enough already that we shall neither have it in Southam nor any other where else.

Geoffrey F. Nutall, The Holy Spirit in Puritan Faith and Experience (1992), p. 77:

In the Congregational churches ‘prophesying’ thus came to be practised partly through the Separatist strain in their ancestry; but not only so. John Robinson refers twice to the Synod held at Emden in 1571 (the year in which the exercise arose in England), at which it was decreed ‘that in all churches,…the order of prophecy should be observed…and that into this fellowship, to wit of prophets, should be admitted not only the ministers, but also…of the very common people (ex ipsa plebe)’; in fact, Robinson claims ‘prophesying’ as ‘the practice of all reformed churches.’ The work in which he makes this claim, The Peoples Plea for the Exercise of Prophecy, against Mr. John Yates his Monopolie (1618), is the locus classicus for an early discussion of the subject.

Tom Webster, Godly Clergy in Early Stuart England: the Caroline Puritan movement, c. 1620 – 1643, p. 44:

Thomas Cartwright had, after all, defined the business of a conference in his Second Admonition, of 1573, drawing on Scottish and continental practice, but naturally rooting the practice in Scripture:
A conference I call the meeting of some certain ministers and other brethren…at some certain place as it was at Corinth…to confer and exercise themselves in prophesying or in interpreting the scriptures…At which conferences…any of the brethren are to be at the order of the whole, to be employed upon some affaires of the Church…The demeanors also of the ministers may be examined and rebuked.

1556 Genevan Book of Church Order:

Prophecy or Interpretation of Scriptures

Everie weeke once, the congregation assemble to heare some place of the scriptures orderly expounded. At which tyme, it is lawfull for every man to speake, or enquire as God shall move his harte, and the text minister occasion, so it be without pertinacitee or disdayne, as one that rather seketh to proffit than to contend. And if so be any contencion rise, then suche as are appointed moderatours, either satisfie the partie, or els if he seme to cavill, exhorte hym to kepe silence, referring the judgement therof to the ministers and elders, to be determined in their assemblie or consistorie before mencioned.

a. 1 Cor. 14:1ff.; 1 Thess. 5:20; Eph. 4:29; 1 Cor. 12:28-31

Charles MacFarlane and Thomas Thomson, The Comprehensive History of England; Civil and Military, Religious, Intellectual, and Social, from the earliest period to the suppression of the Sepoy Revolt(1861), Vol. II, p. 610:

His [King James'] hatred of the northern Presbyterianism, from which he had so lately escaped, and his readiness to identify it with English Puritanism, broke out at every stage of the contest. This was especially the case when Dr. [John] Reynolds, the chief of the Puritan advocates, reckoned the most learned man in England, ventured to propose that the clergy should be allowed to have meetings for prophesying (preaching) in the rural deaneries every three weeks; that such things as could not there be resolved might be referred to the arch-deacon’s vistation; and, finally, that all the clergy of each diocese should meet in an Episcopal synod, with the bishop for its president, where they might determine upon such questions as could not be decided in the inferior assemblies. But although this was the nearest approach to Presbyterianism that had been made throughout the controversy, and although it was little else than the modified system of church polity which James had been labouring with such pains to establish in Scotland, it was anything but palatable to the royal disputant, who sharply declared, “I will none of that: I will have one doctrine and one discipline — one religion in substance and ceremony.” “If you aim,” he afterwards declared, “at a Scottish presbytery, it agreeth with monarchy as God with the devil. Then Jack, and Tom, and Will, and Dick shall meet, and at their pleasure censure me and my council, and all our proceedings. Then Will shall stand up and say, It must be thus: then Dick shall reply and say, Nay, marry, but we will have it thus: and, therefore, here I must once more reiterate my former speech, ‘le roy s’avisera.’” Still fuming with the thought of Presbytery, he thus concluded his strange harangue: — “Stay, I pray you, for one seven years before you demand that of me, and if then you find me pursy and fat, and my windpipes stuffed, I will perhaps hearken to you, for let that government be once up I am sure I shall be kept in breath: then shall we all of us have work enough — both our hands full. But, Dr. Reynolds, till you find that I grow lazy, let that alone.”

Ever heard of “The Exercise”. Don’t be alarmed, your not alone. Under the heading, ‘For Preaching, and Interpreting of Scriptures, etc’, the Scottish First Book of Discipline (1560) states,

To the end that the church of God may have a trial of men’s knowledge, judgments, graces, and utterances; and also, that such as somewhat have profited in God’s word may from time to time grow to more full perfection to serve the church, as necessity shall require: it is most expedient that in every town, where schools and repair of learned men are, that there be one certain day every week appointed [to] that exercise which Saint Paul calls prophesying. The order whereof is expressed by him in these words: Let two or three prophets speak; and let the rest judge.

The famous Cripplegate Lectures preached in London, and lately republished in six large volumes, followed the pattern of The Exercise. During this event, one minister would expound a topic or text, and the rest would judge. There are several points of comparison between this phenomenon and the “Question Meetings” held in many traditional Reformed Churches. In the Question Meetings, after the Lord’s Supper, time would be given to the discussion of the means of grace, repentance, and holy living. The men of the congregation (be they layman, elder, or minister), would expound on some aspect of these truths in an informal setting. I have sat in on a few of these meetings in the Netherlands Reformed Congregations. They are very edifying. The aim of the Question Meeting was to open up to the seeker (in the Puritan sense), the marks of grace in the life of the believer, thus prompting good direction in self examination and setting Christ forth. The aim of The Exercise was the reverse. Scripture itself was to be expounded without any application. This is why it was an exercise. First Book of Discipline,

The interpreter in that exercise may not take to himself the liberty of a public preacher, yea, although he is a minister appointed; but he must bind himself to his text, that he enter not by digression in explaining common-places. He may use no invective in that exercise, unless it is with sobriety in confuting heresies. In exhortations or admonitions he must be short, that the time may be spent in opening of the mind of the Holy Ghost in that place.

After the exposition, a short debate would ensue discovering the merits of the exposition, “So every man must be given his censure” (This does not mean anything more that constructive criticism). If there was fault to be found, the exponent would be encouraged with necessary corrections.

The first reason this exercise was beneficial was to ensure that the minster could adequately analyze a text. Here lay the cardinal difference between the priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church and the Reformers- scriptural scruples. I think what can be said of the ignorance of the Roman Priests of Knox’s day can be reasonably transferred to the shoulders of the modern evangelical preacher whose emphasis is more on sense than of truth. Our modern Christian culture has, by and large, lost the art of “rightly dividing the word of truth” because they have not studied themselves “approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed” (2 Tim 2:15). Even in many Reformed Churches, sense has replaced sensibility, and a text is isegetically forced instead of organically rendered. The Exercise would help curtail this perennial problem.

A second reason for this exercise was to bring into the open those men who had the gift of expounding Scripture. John Knox was discovered exactly this way. Knox, much like Calvin was not pursuing public ministry, but was laid hold of by people who discovered his ability to expound the Word in public. For Calvin this was William Farel, for Knox, it was John Rough. To corner Knox, Rough went so far as to declare that the congregation had the powers of election over anyone they deemed had the gifts of the office of teacher. Like Farel, Rough proceeded to address Knox on behalf of the people, charging him not to refuse the calling. How many in our number have this untapped gift of exposition in our Churches?

A third function of this exercise was public instruction and edification. The First Book of Discipline sates, “the simple, and such as have somewhat profited, shall be encouraged daily to study and proceed in knowledge; the church shall be edified (for this exercise must be patent to such as list to hear and learn). The task of instruction could be distributed in the congregation creating several avenues of instruction. Often these men became elders or catechists (another forlorn tradition), edifying the people and helping the ministry of the Word. From 1560-1570 there was no move to bring “The Exercise” within the conciliar structure of the Church. In 1779 an overture from the Synod of Lothian requested that the order of presbyteries (Classis) be erected “in place where public exercises is used, until the time the policy of the Kirk be established by law”. This meant that The Exercise as a function of discovery within the local setting was no longer used for its intended purpose.

The Exercise, it could be said, has run its course. As the Second Reformation dawned in Scotland, and greater formularies and Confessions were written, our fathers quietly passed over “The Exercise” mentioned in the the First Book of Discipline. Perhaps this was for the best. However we still have this interesting anomaly in the Cripplegate Lectures of 1659-1686, well after the formal inclusion of The Exercise had been discarded. The Second Reformation divines still practiced it, albeit in a modified form. I guess I wrote this to point out the need to discover a man’s ability on the front end (in the congregation), rather than on the back end (after graduation from a seminary) where there is more pressure to accept a man based on pure academics and the amount of time and money invested in him.

Let me conclude with Lloyd-Jones’ though provoking words, “Preachers are born, not made. This is an absolute. You will never teach a man to be a preacher if he is not already one…If a man is born a preacher you can help him a little-but not much” (Preaching & Preachers. P. 119).