For the creatively irresponsible, a career as a lounge singer has its distinct advantages. For starters, you get to flaunt those funky blue tuxedos with such abandon. Add to that the free drinks and the invitations to all those barmitzvahs, and it would seem that your career choice is as good as made.

Those preferring a more sedentary life, however, might prefer to write for one of the cheaper tabloids. Imagine getting paid to make up stories about how visitors from the planet Kolob made illegal campaign contributions to Gore’s election campaign, and then getting to doctor the photos. Vacations? Who would need them?

But there’s another profession out there-for those who can manage to gag their howling consciences– that leaves both lounge singers and tabloid columnists wondering if they shouldn’t have listened to their mothers. I’m referring, of course, to the pop psychologist.

When all the data are in, a career in pop psychology is the most coveted profession by the creatively irresponsible . The pay is good, the work days short, and best of all, there are few boundaries to hinder when those creative juices start flowing.

Take, for instance, the fellow who invented primal therapy. Somehow, he manages to convince responsible adults-like the guy watching over that little nest egg of yours–that the solution to their problems is to cry out to their mommies and daddies (who, incidentally, aren’t present). When mom fails to answer (she’s so insensitive), the frustration culminates in a very undignified temper tantrum . And for the privilege of having someone supervise his tantrum, your broker forks over a considerable pile of dough. Ever wonder why those commissions were so high?

Primal therapy is all in good fun, of course. But sometimes pop therapy can have consequences that are more evidently tragic. Take ten-year-old Candace Newmaker, whose adoptive mother allowed her to undergo “rebirthing therapy” so they could bond better. Candace was wrapped tightly in a flannel blanket and surrounded with therapists who used pillows to simulate contractions. Though she cried for air, the therapists wouldn’t release her, and Candace died of asphyxiation in her own vomit . Besides building a gallows for the lettered fools who caused Miss Newmaker’s untimely death, how does one respond to such things? I presume we ought to get in line behind the broker at the Primal Center to release some angst.

Spoiling the Egyptians? One wonders how long it will be before the idiocy of the “mental health professionals” zeniths, and they ‘fess up that they really don’t have a clue what they’re doing. Thankfully, there are signs that this day isn’t too far off . But for now we must continue to be afflicted with reports of their abuses. Ironically, as bankrupt as all those secular psychologists are, for some silly reason, we have some Christian counselors lining up at their back door for methodological handouts . Under the banner of “spoiling the Egyptians” they take the theories and methods of secular psychology, integrate them with biblical truth, and viola! a new “improved” counseling paradigm.

Presumably, because “all truth is God’s truth” integrationism is the best of all worlds. But in our wacky world, all “truth” isn’t necessarily true. In fact, most of the stuff in the DSM-IV reeks suspiciously of brimstone.

This is not surprising, given that all counseling methodologies are based upon the counselor’s worldview. How the counselor answers questions like, “What is man?” and “What is his problem?” will inevitably affect his counseling. If he says man is a biochemical machine and “the mind secretes thought as the liver secretes bile,” and that man’s problem is chemical imbalance, then it is perfectly consistent for him to prescribe a chemical solution for anger, guilt, or whatever. And if he thinks that man is an animal and his problem is wrong conditioning, then why should we be surprised if he employs behavioristic methodologies in counseling?

But is man really just an animal or a sophisticated sack of chemicals with all the attendant problems? The Bible speaks infallibly on these questions, and the mental health pundits simply don’t like the answers. What is man? God tells us that man is made in the image of God, and there is a fundamental distinction between him and the animals (Gen. 1:26-28). What is his problem? God tells us man is screwed up because he is in rebellion against the Most High. But God doesn’t stop there–He provides a solution. There is mercy for sinners who cling to Christ in repentance and faith. What’s more, there is genuine hope for Christians to change as they put on righteous behavior and put off the deeds of darkness by the sanctifying power of the Spirit (Eph. 4:25-32). Right solutions proceed from right presuppositions. And that is why the methodologies of secular psychology are so dangerous-they are houses built upon the sand.

The good news is that God in His kindness has provided everything we need for life and godliness, and so there’s no need to wander the slums of psychology for answers. There are real solutions in God’s Word for crummy marriages, depression, and dead beats, and all the other horrible consequences of sin. The solutions amount to more than mere infallible advice given to impotent creatures-God gives us His sanctifying Spirit to will and to work for His good pleasure.

What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you? Is not the source
your pleasures that wage war in your members? (James 4:1)

Marital squabbling, like all other conflict, springs from ungoverned lusts. Mr. Smith has a fetish for the latest power tools, and so his fiscal goals clash with those of Mrs. Smith, who thinks children ought to wear shoes to school. This kind of pastoral problem is as common as flies at a church picnic, and usually as easy to squash.

But if money problems hover about a troubled marriage like flies, then sexual conflicts do so like mosquitoes–almost as common, and potentially a bit nastier. One form of sexual conflict that routinely descends upon couples, especially new ones, is the ol’ “Victorian maiden marries XXX film producer” problem. In other words, the husband and wife have vastly different sexual expectations. George wished he had married the sexual equivalent of Xena, Warrior Princess. And Eunice picked up her conjugal paradigm from the frozen foods section of the supermarket. And now here they are in your study, with flushed countenances and averted eyes, waiting for you to fix it.

Ultimately this problem, like almost every other marital problem, can be traced to the husband’s failure to lead. Indeed, even if it is the wife who is entertaining unbiblical notions and the husband is the pillar of orthodoxy (not likely), it is the husband who is to exercise a sanctifying influence. As in every area of obedience in the home, he is responsible to lead the family to greater and greater faithfulness.

Loving God with our minds
Worldlings (and many modern evangelicals by implication), believe God has a thing or two to learn about sex. But God is not mocked. Unbiblical notions of sex on both ends of the continuum are patently unsatisfying. Reject God’s counsel, and you are doomed to roam a sexual desert, trying to squeeze water out of rocks.

Given these things, couples have plenty of motivation to take their thoughts captive–informing their minds and consciences of God’s standard. But consciences, by design, turn as slowly as an aircraft carrier. As both husband and wife pursue biblical thinking about sex, what should they do until they are one mind?

Loving Neighbor as Ourself
The second greatest commandment applies nicely to the marriage bed. Each spouse should be selflessly seeking the satisfaction of their mate. “Do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others” (Phil. 2:4). This verse ought to be tattooed prominently on the forehead of all would-be-grooms. Generally speaking, men need remedial courses in selflessness –especially regarding conjugal relations. And in our scenario, that means several things. First, it means patience. As he and his beloved grow in their biblical understanding and practice of sex, he must be as patient with her growth as God is with his. This means not trampling over his wife’s conscience by asking her to perform sex acts against which her conscience cries out. This principle applies even to lawful sex acts (when the wife’s conscience is misinformed), but especially to requests springing from a lewd and unbiblical imagination.

Second, while he is patient with his wife’s progress, he is impatient with his own. He has a holy zeal to think God’s thoughts, and not Hugh Hefner’s, about sex. He is acutely aware of his deficiencies, and thus uses great alacrity and diligence to extract the knuckle out of his head. This will require a study of two things: his Bible, and his wife. A study of his Bible will inform him that God grants lovers great freedom within certain bounds. As Christians we should enjoy the freedoms while honoring the bounds.

But he must also make a study of his wife. God commands husbands to “live with {their] wives in an understanding way” (1 Peter 3:7), or more literally, to live with their wives, “according to knowledge.” In this, many of us have failed. Women are complex creatures, and men thick of skull–so this is a matter that requires close and sustained study. As we do, we will learn to approach our wives with wisdom and selflessness (see 1 Thess. 4:3-5), and lo! discover our wives to be warm and responsive women.

And now we turn to the wife. She too is required to look to her husband’s needs, without capitulating to bizarre and unbiblical requests. “Not looking out for [her] own personal interests” means understanding her husband’s frame. Generally speaking, his sex drive is higher, and thus it’s a good bet that sometimes he’ll be interested when she’s not. Selflessness for her means enthusiastically meeting his needs even if she is tired and out of the mood. Of course, if he is obeying 1 Peter 3:7, this scenario will occur less frequently.

Wives must look out for their husband’s interests and not only their own. But his interests can be looked after without violating the conscience. If the conscience is not biblically informed, then she should obey her conscience while working like the dickens to inform it biblically. She should not think she has the leisure to ponder these matters as if she were taking a stroll-in-the-park. She must love God with mind and body, and that means believing God’s word, and putting it into action without stalling.

In this way, though husband and wife differ greatly in their understanding, they are moving together at a rapid clip. And while they are closing the “sexual expectation” gap, they are exercising patience with one another and preferring the other to themselves.

Worship is a dangerous activity because it involves the meeting of men, who drink iniquity like water, with a God more perfect than light. In the words of the Puritan-of-the-forgotten-name, “We serve a precise God.” Far from the breezy, careless attitude that we impute to the Most High, God cares about the nuts and bolts of our worship. What we sing and how we pray and the order of it all is not indifferent to God. Accordingly, Scripture specifically commands us, when we enter the house of God, not to act hastily and offer the sacrifice of fools (Ecc. 5:1). Who are these careless fellows? Solomon leaves no wiggle room: fools are presumptuous men who reason that wrong worship offered sincerely is still acceptable to God.

If we pause to reflect upon that for a moment, this truth will sober us. The Bible tells us that there exists a class of people who enter worship, who act with haste and spontaneity and who never dream that their sincere attempts at piety are acts of evil for which Christ had to die. It has been said that sin is merely a perversion of something good. Sincerity is good. But America has made an idol of it.

We have done this, first, by equating spontaneity with sincerity. Careful planning is old mahogany and dim light, hotel carpet in the living room, stifling air and a fork for every course-even the soup. Careful planning is formal and formal things are rigid things, and stuffy things, and dead and impersonal things. And, after all, didn’t we all accept Jesus as our personal Savior? And is He not our Friend? Well, friends are about skylights, and decaf coffee, and convertible VW bugs, and personal relationships. And personal relationships are about informality, and intimacy, and starting sentences with “And.” True worship-sincere worship-can’t include all those formal things. It’s simply antithetical to genuine heart-religion.

So reasons the modern evangelical mind. And quite sincerely.

Yet, somewhere we have lost our way. Sincerity is good, for to act insincerely is to act hypocritically, and that is certainly wicked. Whatever we do, we ought to do it because we are convinced God requires it. But just because sincerity is necessary for right worship does not mean that it is sufficient for right worship. The absurd notion that all God requires for right worship is warm fuzzies radiating from a sincere heart has given birth to untold evil in the church.

Sincerity is good, but it is not a panacea that renders all actions righteous. The idolater who sacrificed his sons to Molech did so with sincerity. How else could he bear to look on while his sons roasted in the flames? But did the man’s sincerity suddenly make this repulsive and abominable act a pleasing and acceptable aroma to God? Could anything be more preposterous? Or take Nadab and Abihu, Aaron’s sons, who in their priestly office offered to God a little bit of spontaneity and innovation which the Lord “had not commanded.” There is nothing in the text of Leviticus 10 to indicate they did so in duplicity and hypocrisy. We have every reason to believe they were quite sincere. But their sincerity did not save them. Fire came down from heaven, and they were utterly consumed (Lev. 10:2). Again, sincerity is necessary for right worship, but it is not sufficient.

Now let’s make some application to our day. Across America millions will enter churches this Lord’s Day with good intentions. In fact, the charitable thing to believe is that no one comes with the express intention of doing evil. And yet nevertheless, there is a class of people who, though they sincerely desire to do the good, all they accomplish is evil (Ecc. 5:2). They act with haste in the house of God. Impulse and emotion dictate their actions, instead of the Word of God. They are sincere. Oh most assuredly yes. And they are zealous too. But their sincerity is not an informed sincerity, their zeal a “zeal without knowledge” (Rom. 10:2).

If we are to take this lesson to heart, then we cannot just assume that what we do in worship is right. We must think it all through deliberately with an open Bible in front of us so we avoid the errors of sincere men who are sincerely wrong. We must inform our sincerity and educate our zeal so that we act in worship just as God would have us to act. Sincerity is good, but it is “not good for (sincerity) to be alone.” She was created as a helpmeet. She was created to be wed to truth.

Introduction
Few things devastate the church as thoroughly as a compromised pastor. To be sure, no pastor is sinless, and indeed, each must model confession and repentance of sin to the flock. But some scandalous sins sully the white garment of integrity so badly that the reproach remains long after the sin has been forgiven. Satan knows this, and wages efficient warfare on God’s church by picking off pastors. In so doing, each blow has the simultaneous effect of four: Satan marginalizes an enemy officer (1 Tim. 3:2), compromises enemy defenses (Acts. 20:28; Tit. 1:9), demoralizes the troops with the betrayal, and worst of all, arms the enemies of God with an occasion to blaspheme (2 Sam. 12:14).

Most spiritual leaders stumble because they think themselves strong, but are not “strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 2:1). Thinking they stand, and failing to take heed, they fall (1 Cor. 10:12). But when a pastor takes a bullet, the whole church bleeds. And so pastors must be vigilant. With this in mind, we’ll devote the next few issues to taking heed to the three most common traps laid for spiritual leaders: money, glory, and women.

It is good to face temptation and prevail. But even better never to encounter temptation in the first place. After all, Jesus taught us to pray, “Lead us not into temptation. . . “ (Mt. 6:13). But the naïveté with which many pastors handle financial temptation invokes images of a cheeky white boy taking a midnight stroll through the back alleys of Harlem–they’re begging for a beating. So following are a few suggestions that might help pastors and their churches wise up.

The first way to avoid financial temptation, and you’ve heard this a hundred times, is simply to live within your means. Make a budget and stick to it. Avoid debt like brussel sprouts–it is a form of slavery that divides loyalties between two masters. As the weight of the stack of bills begins to bow the desk, the pastor will be frantic for new sources of capital. And by the time “Massa” starts calling to collect, he’ll be justifying behavior that his true Master forbids. The sin of fiscal impropriety is often heralded several years earlier by the sin of overindulgence. “Better is a clunky Datsun B-210 with righteousness, then a shiny new Land Rover with injustice” (Prov. 16:8). So when considering a purchase, distinguish between that which meets real needs, and that which strokes your ego.

Next, watch those taxes: take care with the manse allowance, be sure to report all honoraria, and only claim valid expenses. It is astonishing that pastors will sell their ministry, their people, and their Lord so cheaply. Want to write off a $50 meal that wasn’t quite a bona fide ministry expense? Do the math: if you are in a 28% tax bracket, you’ve just sold out your Lord for fourteen clams. Judas Iscariot came off only slightly better. Is fourteen bucks worth it? Is fourteen thousand?! Isn’t it better to take a loss rather than give opportunity for the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme? So when in doubt, either consult your accountant, or eat the expense. Integrity is a very fragile thing.

Third, practice generous giving. Not only is this a good model for the flock, but it also keeps your eyes where they belong–on a self-existent God who doesn’t need your money, and who Himself gives to all creatures their portion (Acts 17:24-25; cf. Mt. 6:19-34). So focus on God to meet your needs, and you won’t feel the need to massage the budget yourself.

And finally, don’t be short sighted. A little long-term planning now can help you avoid temptation thirty years from now. Many ministers–especially missionaries–neglect to observe the ant, and don’t put away funds for their autumn years. In light of this, if you are still within two years of your ordination, opt out of social security. Use these liberated funds, and others, to invest wisely. Families are primarily obligated to care for their aged, not the state.

Next, let’s address what churches can do to help their pastors avoid financial temptation. Churches must look to their pastors to model fiscal godliness. This presupposes, of course, that pastors have finances to manage. Many churches embrace the devil’s adage, “We’ll keep him poor, and God will keep him humble.” But this opens wide the door to temptation. When a man sees his children hungry and the desk piled with bills, filtching a loaf from the Safeway doesn’t seem all that wrong. But Jesus said “a worker is worthy of His wages” (1 Tim. 5:18), and the previous verse exhorts the church to pay teaching elders double (1 Tim. 5:17). Out of this they will be able to feed and educate their families, provide for their latter, less-productive years, show hospitality, and give generously.

Second, keep your pastor away from the dough. The pastor should never touch the offering, except to put something into it. Nor should he ever be given a clue that the Smiths are loaded but never tithe, and the Johnsons are not, but give sacrificially (James 2:1ff). Instead, deacons should handle the money, deposit of checks, etc. Similarly, the pastor should not be given signing authority on any accounts if it can at all be avoided. One cannot be accused of mishandling funds to which he has no access.

And a third way to protect your pastor from temptation is to require him to document and substantiate the validity of all expenses. Don’t be timid about asking respectfully pointed questions of him. Paperwork and pointed questions may seem like a pain, but they are as blessed as concertina wire around a mine field.

Sinners are clever, and so all thorn hedges can be circumvented. Ultimately, the best protection from financial temptation is the fear of the Lord.

ast issue began a multi-part series for this column – a series devoted to the taxonomy of pastoral sin. In so doing we have passed by the more common, household pests, and devoted ourselves to the leviathans and behemoths of pastoral iniquity – those large enough to destroy a household with one swoop of the tail. They exist in innumerable forms, but generally can be listed under one of three groups: greed, illicit sex, and pride. This issue and next we will look into the causes and consequences of pastoral vainglory.

“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.” (1 Pet. 5:8).

Peter here calls us to be vigilant, and a great place to begin is by taking heed to the context of the verse. Laying aside exegetical minutia, the reader will notice two obvious contextual cues glaring at him. First, Peter had just finished exhorting elders in verse four. And second, the call for humility pervades this section (v. 3, 5, 6). It is only then we are told the devil considers us the equivalent of ding-dongs and twinkies.

Peter is speaking to known sins of pastors, temptations they must regularly face. We must be vigilant because pride is as subtle as it is devastating. Indeed, most pastors do not begin their ministries with swollen heads, but rather stooped by a sense of their own insufficiency and wobbling under the weight of new responsibility. Yet with discouraging frequency the seasoning of experience often comes with the leaven of pride.

There are many underlying reasons why humble, godly men are transformed in time into bombastic, arrogant fools. One of them is the loftiness of their office. Preaching God’s Word is a glorious and mysterious calling. In it, God requires preachers to accomplish that which is, without His agency, an utter absurdity. Preachers are required to stand in the place of Christ and unfold the very oracles of God (Rom. 10:14; 1 Pet. 4:11). Perched at such heights the air can be rather thin, and the effect dizzying. The longer one remains there, the more persistent the notion that the authority flows from his person, and not from the Logos, the living Word who has spoken. Of course, no pastor I know would ever have the hubris to assert this publicly-the lie occurs in the secret whisperings of their hearts.

A related reason pride grows in the pastoral heart is when the work of the Spirit is falsely attributed to their own pulpiteering. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones has spoken eloquently about the “romance of preaching.” Preaching is not mere oration, for when biblical preaching occurs, the Holy Spirit is sovereignly engaged to work in whatever manner suits Him: to harden, dim, and deafen, or to soften, unveil, and open. Consequently, a preacher is simultaneously an active agent and a passive bystander. He cracks the text and clumsily attempts to aim the thing, and then he sits back and watches mysterious and marvelous things happen-things he can not honestly attribute to himself. Kingdoms rise and fall; troubled and broken marriages go on the mend; sullen and sour-faced teenagers find biblical joy; transients get lives, and atheists repent of their autonomous reasonings. In short, when the King’s word issues forth something worth watching always happens. But inexplicably, after years of watching Him work, some pastors begin to say with Nebuchadnezzar, “Is this not Babylon the great, which I myself have built as a royal residence by the might of my power and for the glory of my majesty?” In short, we grow arrogant at God’s blessing.

A third reason arrogance is a temptation for elders is the position of influence God has placed them in. We have already spoken of the influence of preaching, but there are other means God has given elders to shepherd His flock. A natural function of a pastor is giving biblical counsel to Christians struggling with sin. In this capacity pastors are exposed to enough transgression in people’s lives to choke an elephant, and some of it, if it weren’t so sad, would be ludicrous: “Mr. Smith, I think one reason your eye might hurt is that you’ve impaled it upon your shishkabab skewer.” In such situations, the pastor may be tempted to adopt the insincere thankfulness of the Pharisee, “Lord thaaaaaaaaaank you that I am not like this cheese ball sitting in front of me. ” But you and the Lord both know how blockheaded you are-so why indulge in sinful comparison? Rather, bind the wounds of the sheep, give him a whack with the rod, and send him scurrying back to the flock.

But the pastor’s counseling role goes beyond correction and rebuke. He’s also sought out-and quite rightly-as one well-equipped with a knowledge of the Word. This is helpful when one wants to know who the sons of God in Genesis 6 were, what seraphim are, and whether the Mariners will ever win the pennant. Decisions also require counsel: should Jones buy that time-share in Oahu?; is Graciela “the one?”; and are homeopathic remedies biblical? All this attention, all this hubbub, of which the pastor finds himself the center, tempts him to “think more highly of himself than he ought to think.”

Lying in pallor before us on the gurney, stiff with death’s chill, are the lifeless remains of a once blooming, vigorous pastorate. One glance at the corpse’s swollen head reveals the cause of death–he succumbed to the same ailment that got Diotrephes. He loved the preeminence.

Sexual and fiscal improprieties terminate ministries with the drama of a stroke. But though it often kills more slowly, love of praise is equally deadly-and more so because it is so average. But we should not underestimate the addicting power of applause. Long before crack cocaine, John Chrysostom’s wrote, “I do not know whether anyone has ever succeeded in not enjoying praise. And if he enjoys it, he naturally wants to receive it. And if he wants to receive it, he cannot help being pained and distraught at losing it. … Men who are in love with applause have their spirits starved not only when they are blamed off-hand, but even when they fail to be constantly praised.”

Understanding the threat, the sensible man of God readies his defenses, and looks to Christ. Christ was tempted in all things, including vainglory, and He conquered every time (Heb. 4:15). Accordingly, ministers who feel the weight of their charge will incline their ears every time their Lord tells them to “Beware.” He does so in Matthew 6:1, when He warns us to “beware of practicing our righteousness before men, to be noticed by them.” Here Jesus has identified a virtual minefield for the pastor, whose time is largely taken up with public exercises. He is preaching and teaching, He is leading and praying and counseling. In short, the minister cannot faithfully perform the duties of his office without sometimes “practicing his righteousness before men.” But the sin does not lie here, it lies in the purpose clause that is attached. “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men, [with the purpose that you might] be noticed by them.” Ministers are to practice much of their righteousness upon men, but none of it in front of them-to garner their praise. Paul seemed to have comprehended this, for he wrote to the Thessalonians:

So we speak, not as pleasing men but God, who examines our hearts. For we never came with flattering speech, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed-God is witness- nor did we seek glory from men, either from you or from others, even though as apostles of Christ we might have asserted our authority. 1 Thess. 2:4-6.

So one of the greatest firewalls we can put up against pastoral pride is to esteem the praise of men rightly, that is, not at all. We are to be God-pleasers, and not man-pleasers. We are to remember the only praise that matters is “Well done, thou good and faithful servant.”

Churches who ask pastors to serve as a lone elder set them in a precarious place, as do those which have token elders, men who come to meetings sporting the latest fashion in women’s undergarments. In either case, the pastor has no accountability, no restraint, no leash. God has not intended the church so to be governed. Each time elders are mentioned in Scripture, it is always in the plural. God intends a plurality of godly men to govern His people. So the “pastor-as CEO” model of church government is out. Rather, pastors should gather qualified men around them that are willing to put the kabosh on his silly ideas. And when they do, he must submit gladly. But they are more than rulers-they are co-shepherds. As such, he must delegate important aspects of the ministry to them. As he does, and the saints avail themselves of the care of a plurality of godly men, the minister will no longer see himself as indispensable.

Finally, those who would avoid pastoral vainglory must understand the manner in which they are to lead. Peter tells us we are not to bark orders at the flock, lording it over them like the Gentiles, but rather we are to lead by example (1 Pet. 5:3). This command obviously includes exemplifying all things godly, and this must include repentance. It is befuddling that some pastors are so appalled that some saint would have the temerity to accuse them of sin. But as those still struggling with the flesh, we will inevitably sin against members of the flock. When we are confronted, they should find us humble, approachable, and quick to repent. In this manner, we will not only prove to be examples to the flock, but we will keep ourselves from “the pride that goeth before destruction.”

Now Eli was very old; and he heard all that his sons were doing to all Israel, and how they lay with the women who served at the doorway of the tent of meeting. . . 1 Sam. 2:22
If it were to reason from practice to policy, the world might be forced to conclude that one of the standard perks of pastoral office-duly noted in the contract-is sexual favors from the communion-lady. Sexual indiscretion by spiritual leaders has reached such a height that the church has become a byword and an object of hissing among the nations. One survey of almost three hundred pastors reveals that 23 percent of them admitted to sexually inappropriate behavior, and 12 percent to sexual intercourse with someone other than their wife. Almost forty percent of this porneia occurred with ladies from church. The statistics are depressing, and one surmises that the reality is far worse. There is a glut of the sons of Eli in the church, and seeing it the world chortles, blasphemes, and tells itself “there is no God” (Ps. 14:1).

“The mouth of an adulteress is a deep pit; He who is cursed of the Lord will fall into it” (Pro. 22:14). Sex is an alluring and deadly trap for men, and particularly for pastors. Proverbs tells us that the house of the adulteress is really a morgue stacked with “many” and “numerous” corpses (Prov. 7:26-27). If one were to read some of the tags dangling from their cold, rigid toes, he would be shocked by names like David (the man after God’s own heart), and Solomon (unsurpassed in wisdom). And many of our contemporaries lie there. Of course there are the likes of Bakker, Swaggert, and Jesse Jackson, but there are also men like MacDonald, Cocoris, and Hocking. You may not like their theology-certainly it may not be as staunch as yours-but David’s theology was pretty fair, and yet he is among their number. And in any case, a sense of swaggering invulnerability is a sure sign that your toast is about to get burned: “Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12). Adultery begins with spiritual starvation. And though it may surprise the reader, pastors can be some of the most spiritually emaciated folks out there. Some pastors weekly lay out a feast from which they refuse to partake. When, in well-meaning rebellion, they neglect their own souls to care for the flock, they grow weak, drop their guard, and become a target. Defection from the honors of the marriage bed begins with a defection-slow and imperceptible-from God. And this defection occurs in the most innocuous of ways: neglect of the means of grace. Prayer slackens, and then abates entirely. Personal application of the Word gives way to the chug and clank of the machinery of sermon prep. And before long, the anorexic pastor gives up the charade entirely, and begins preaching exclusively out of his file cabinet. It is in this enfeebled state that he encounters the allure of the “foreign woman.” Given her substantial arsenal-oily speech, brazen eyes, flaunted beauty and a cunning heart-there is little doubt of the outcome. The shepherd has himself become a prey (Pro. 6:25).

Neglect of the means of grace is what begins marital defection. But there are other factors, and one of them is not pursuing your wife and being exhilarated with her love (Prov. 5:15-20). It is impossible to run in two directions at the same time. A man cannot pursue his wife and that of another man simultaneously. If one is tending one’s garden, and its beauty is conspicuous, why would he be tempted to dwell amongst the bramble across the way?

Another factor is that some men are simply naïve about the avenues down which some temptations travel. Pastoral counseling is one area. A “weak woman weighed down with sins and led on by various impulses” meets with caring, naïve, and touchy-feely pastor. They speak-necessarily-of her problems, sometimes probing deeply. He listens encouragingly. She senses his concern and reciprocates with effusive thanks and praise. Naïve pastor feels respected, begins comparing counselee favorably against wife (who is more apprised of his shortcomings), and the rest follows an established pattern: increased contact, personal sharing, small deceptions, excuses to meet together, ‘innocent” touching, larger deceptions, clandestine meetings, heavy petting, and then-we saw it coming–outright adultery. This road to Sheol begins so innocuously that by the time you realize you are on it, it is extremely difficult to arrest progress. As Charles Bridges says, “Dread the first step, and dream not that you can stop yourself at pleasure in her course.”

In the spirit of “dreading the first step” pastors should erect firewalls to protect themselves. The first precaution is guarding the heart, for “from it flow the springs of life” (Prov. 4:23). We must train ourselves to love the good and abhor the evil (Rom. 12:9). Applied to our topic, that means recognizing that, though our culture glorifies the adulteress, the Bible looks upon here as a monster. In addition to guarding the heart, there are the usual precautions: the glass door to the study, the cultivated emotional distance with women not your wife, and the blue-hair rule. The latter precaution is the policy that you will never be alone with any woman (other then a close blood relative), who is not sporting blue hair. This effectively excludes everyone but women old enough to be your grandmother.

If you are relatively new to Christ Church, chances are you probably have questions about our worship. Euphemistically speaking, it is for many visitors so . . . “different,” so . . . “regimented,” so . . . “Catholic.” Or it may even be that you’ve worshipped with us for quite some time, and the novelty of ancient worship has gone away, but you have forgotten why we do what we do. Either way, God wants you to worship with understanding. And so we have assembled some answers to questions you might (or ought to) be asking. So, why do we worship the way we do?
We’re glad you asked. Whether stated or not, every church has an “order of worship” or a “liturgy.” In many modern churches this order does not necessarily seem to be self-consciously thought through. But something as important as a meeting with the living God should merit some reflection. As we have studied the subject of the flow of worship, it seemed fitting to follow that suggested by the order of sacrifices in Temple worship.

“When more than one kind of offering was presented (as in Num. 6:16, 17), the procedure was usually as follows: (1) sin offering or guilt offering, (2) burnt offering, (3) fellowship offering and grain offering (along with a drink offering). This sequence furnishes part of the spiritual significance of the sacrificial system. First, sin had to be dealt with (sin offering or guilt offering). Second, the worshipper committed himself completely to God (burnt offering and grain offering). Third, fellowship or communion between the Lord, the priest, and the worshipper (the fellowship offering) was established. To state it another way, there were sacrifices of expiation, consecration, and communion.”

This quotation comes from an unlikely but broadly evangelical source-the NIV Study Bible (P. 150). It makes sense that when we worship the Holy One we first deal with our sin (confession), then we dedicate ourselves completely to Him (consecration), and finally God seals his covenant promises to us through communion.

You may have also noticed that the sacrificial system and our order of worship follow the order of salvation. First we are justified (sin offering; confession); then we are sanctified (burnt offering; consecration); and finally, we are glorified and have intimate table fellowship with God (peace offering; communion). Add a call to worship to begin, and a commissioning to send the saints out with, and you have our order of worship: Call to worship, Confession, Consecration, Communion, and Commissioning. This is often referred to as “Covenant Renewal Worship” because through this worship, God renews his covenantal promises to us, and we pledge our continuing love and loyalty to Him.

So is worship the same every week?
Only in the same way that dinner is the same every night at your home. Just because all the food groups are always represented and served in the same order doesn’t mean every night you have a salad, meatloaf and potatoes, and then cap it off with chocolate cake.

Why no children’s church?
There is a bit of irony at work here. In many modern churches, we are anxious to hustle the kiddies out to children’s church so the adults can worship in peace and without distraction. But then when we finally have gotten rid of them, we worship like children anyway, complete with hand motions accompanying our trite choruses. In contrast, we believe that God meets with his people, even the small ones, on the Lord’s Day. Not wanting to deprive our children of time with their God, we do have children’s church, but it is no different than our normal service in which we all seek to mature like little children. But given our current culture, where children (and adults) simply have very little practice sitting still, we all have to be patient with one another. Also, we have a mother’s room downstairs with a speaker so that those that need it can hear the service.

Why do we say the creeds and the catechism?
This is part of the “consecration” section of our worship. God tells us what to believe-with the creeds we say back to God, “this is what we understand You are telling us to believe.” More than intellectual assent, the creeds are our declaration of Whom we trust. We believe (trust!) the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: The Triune God.

Why do we kneel at confession and lift our hands while singing the Gloria Patri?
God made us with bodies, and he wants us to use them in worship. Kneeling and lifting up the hands are biblical expressions of worship (Ps. 95:6;1 Kings 8:54) . Kneeling-like prostration-is a posture associated with humility, reverence, and penitence. It is a posture appropriate for subjects before their King. Kneeling at confession expresses, with our bodies, our sorrow and submission to our Lord. Lifting hands is a posture of supplication and entreaty-think of your child lifting up hands to be held. At the end of our service we lift our hands up together as an expression of praise.

It all seems so formal. My God isn’t cold and aloof.
Amen! And neither is ours. Our relationship with God is unlike that which we have with any other. He is at the same time our Father and the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe; our Lord and Judge, as well as our Friend. But this Friend isn’t like any other friend we have. That is why the psalmist calls us to “Worship the Lord with reverence, and rejoice with trembling” (Ps. 2:11). Also, God calls us to do all things “properly and in an orderly manner” (1 Cor. 14:40)-and the context of this passage is corporate worship. In obedience to this, well-planned worship is our way of honoring and loving God. So our worship is somewhat formal, yes, but this enhances and does not inhibit our intimacy with Him.

What about this music! The hymnal doesn’t have time signatures, and sometimes it’s missing other standard musical notation.
Well the quirks of the Cantus Christi belong to our friends down at Canon Press. They think that the time signatures should be obvious. Whether or not that’s the case, we couldn’t do without the glorious music. If you hang around for a while, we think you’ll be spoiled forever.

Why don’t you sing choruses?
Your observation is correct, we don’t sing choruses, but focus rather on psalms and hymns. This comes from both theological and musical convictions. Theologically, many choruses are wanting in accuracy and depth. Even those that are accurate (like those which are simply singing Scripture) when taken as a whole body of work tend only to emphasize attributes of God with which our culture is comfortable (his mercy, love, and grace, for instance). While these are glorious, no doubt, and we love them too, God is also majestic, transcendent, just, unchanging, etc. Older hymnody, and especially psalm-singing, emphasizes all the perfections of God. They also emphasize something we just don’t see in modern worship music: antithesis. You are either with God or against Him. There is no neutrality. We see this in the psalms. There is the usual section churches sing about the faithfulness of God to bless His people. But then also in the psalm are verses speaking of the fate of those who refuse to love the Lord. These parts the modern church has edited out of its hymnody. We sing whole psalms because we want God’s inspired Word to shape our whole minds. So we sing not only the blessings, but the curses as well.

There are also musical reasons for our preferences. The hymns and psalms are more excellent and beautiful. They have rich harmonies and rhythms we just don’t find in most choruses. Generally speaking, Christians have not demonstrated as much skill in composition today as we did a few hundred years ago. And so we have found psalms and hymns to be the more appropriate medium to convey the rich perfection of God. While this is hard work, God calls us to sing skillfully to Him (Ps. 47:7). So though we aren’t there yet, we certainly are seeking to grow in skill and faithfulness.

Is our love of older music just a fad? An example of what C.S. Lewis calls “chronological snobbery”? Do we love old psalms and hymns merely by virtue of their age? Of course not. Beauty, and not age, is the issue here. And surely the church has some beautiful new music to look forward to that has yet to be composed. It just so happens that we are finding beauty in old music, and having a harder time finding it in contemporary compositions.

Wow, that was a bit more than I asked for. In any case, I find it hard to worship when the songs are so difficult to sing.
It’s true that many of these songs are difficult to sing. And some of the Genevan ones sound funny on the ear at first. But difficulty should not keep us from excellence. In fact, the preface to the Genevan Bible says, “All things are difficult which are excellent and fair.” Expressing God’s glory is surely excellent and fair, and so it shouldn’t surprise us that it is difficult. Worship is something to prepare for during the week-practicing the music so we can sing our best for our King.

We have found when the saints really apply themselves to learn this music that they are blessed. Their former notions of what constitutes glorious worship have been challenged and transformed, and they can never go back. So come to psalm sing and learn with us as we pursue all 150 psalms, and recover many of the magnificent ancient hymns the church has left behind.

After the prayer of confession, the pastor declares our sins to be forgiven. Isn’t that more than a little presumptuous?
That’s a good question, and gives us an opportunity to address the difference between faith and presumption. Presumption is assuming privileges you do not have. Faith, on the other hand, is grounded on real promises. We only claim that which God says is ours for the asking.

Applying this to confession of sin, our Father promises us repeatedly that if we confess and forsake our sins, he will forgive and heal us (1 Jn. 1:9; Prov. 28:13; Rom. 5:1 etc. etc.). The minister is simply to say what God says. So after we confess our sins, it actually would be arrogant for the minister not to declare our sins forgiven when God makes that declaration.

Why is the sermon so long?
Long is a relative term, isn’t it? Several centuries ago, you could easily find yourself listening to a sermon of a few hours in length. The listeners at the time had the mental stamina to listen and profit from that. Yet today, many modern churches have sermons half the length of our usual 40-50 minute sermon. Ironically, this seems to match the length of your average sitcom: 22 minutes without commercials. This seems to say more about the impact of television on our attention span rather than dictate an ideal length of sermon.

One reason for the length is there is so much to learn and know in God’s Word. When God spreads a table for His people, he does not present “California-cuisine” sized portions. You may have encountered them before: three green beans, a 2″ by 2″ piece of grilled chicken breast, a dozen or so grains of wild rice-and all of it ingeniously presented. Many sermons in modern pulpits are just like this, and though entertaining, it doesn’t make for robust spiritual health. Sitting for a long time under this preaching, God’s people begin to show their ribs. Now, there should be creativity and beauty in the pulpit, but never at the expense of nutrition. God’s people need milk and meat in the teaching-and that takes a bit of time.

It might help also to think of it this way. Where ever you are on Sunday for worship, the preacher is to speak, as it were, the very utterances of God (1 Pet. 4:11). In fact, historically, the consensus of the church has been that to the extent the pastor is accurately declaring the Word of God, to that extent it is the voice of Christ, and not the pastor, you are hearing. Herman Hoeksema explains this:

Well that changes things a trifle, doesn’t it? If it was announced that Jesus were speaking for forty minutes on Sunday at such and such a place, who wouldn’t flock to hear Him? The point is, He is speaking for forty minutes on Sunday-at your church. But are you listening for Him? Do you come with that sense of anticipation that God is going to speak to you this Sunday? If you do, would you mind if God “went a little over”? The thought would never cast the merest shadow on the threshold of your mind.

Why do you have communion weekly? Doesn’t that depreciate it? Kind of like having Thanksgiving every Thursday?
That depends how you view the Lord’s Supper. If it is merely a memorial, an opportunity to remember the sacrifice of Christ, then perhaps it should be celebrated less frequently (just as you only pull your photo album out once in awhile). But even this seems flimsy reasoning. Should we then have communion only once a year? Then it would be really special. We think a more biblical way to look at the Supper is that it is not only a memorial, but a means of grace. Through the Lord’s Supper we commune with Christ, are given Christ as bread from heaven, and somehow (mysteriously) we are strengthened spiritually. So we liken the Lord’s Supper more to the importance of eating three square meals, and less to paging through a photo album of past events.

I love the Lord, but haven’t been baptized. Why can’t I partake of the Lord’s Supper?
Think of it like getting married. You may love your intended before the wedding day, but you cannot go on the honeymoon until you say your vows. The wedding is a covenantal ceremony that changes your status from outsider to insider. Once inside the marriage, you have the privileges of marriage-but not before then. Baptism is a covenantal rite that formally acknowledges you as a child of God and grants you access to the privileges of the family of God. Just as you are born once, so you are baptized once. But that child gets dinner every time the family eats. So baptism is a sacrament of initiation, and the Lord’s Supper a sacrament of continuation. Baptism is an individual sacrament, and the Lord’s Supper is a community sacrament. So if you love the Lord, please talk to us about baptism, and then come to the Table.