Spurgeon never forgot his own church. In his letters to them, we see the affection of a pastor for his people, his confidence in his elders and deacons, and his dependence on his people for their prayers. During his final trip to Mentone, Spurgeon committed to writing a weekly letter back to his people, updating them on his situation and encouraging them to persevere. These letters comprise Spurgeon’s final pastoral words to his people.[2]

The final weeks of Spurgeon’s life were spent in sunny Menton, in southern France. Throughout his ministry, he had gone there to recover from his various ailments and overwork. Now, in the fall of 1891, Spurgeon was there once again. Under the care of his wife Susie and skilled doctors, the congregation fully expected him to recover and return to London to continue his famous ministry at the Metropolitan Tabernacle. Spurgeon himself held on to this hope. But this was not to be. On January 31, 1892, Spurgeon went to be with the Lord.[1]
Throughout his ministry, Spurgeon wrote many letters to his congregation during his travels. Even when traveling abroad, visiting new places, and preaching before thousands, Spurgeon never forgot his own church. In his letters to them, we see the affection of a pastor for his people, his confidence in his elders and deacons, and his dependence on his people for their prayers. During his final trip to Mentone, Spurgeon committed to writing a weekly letter back to his people, updating them on his situation and encouraging them to persevere. These letters comprise Spurgeon’s final pastoral words to his people.[2]
Over the next four weeks, we will be publishing Spurgeon’s last letters to his congregation, beginning on December 24 and ending on January 14. While nobody expected these to be his last words to his church, they are a fitting conclusion to his pastoral ministry. In them, we see Spurgeon’s confidence in God’s power to build up the church and save the lost, even apart from his own ministry. We see his call for his people to persevere in the truth of the gospel.
Read More
Related Posts:

If relevance is based on cultural trends rather than congregational engagement—it’s easy to see how the organ can get pushed out the back door. However, if relevance is based on congregational engagement—the organ will beat out all other instrumental choices hands down.

Recently, my children and I watched the Atlanta Braves take on the Houston Astros in the 2021 World Series. As committed Braves fans, we’ve waited a very long time (predating my children’s birth) for the Braves to make it back to the fall Classic.
As we’ve watched the games each evening, one thing that I’ve noticed is something that transcends baseball. It has to do with music. Specifically, it has to do with the use of the organ as a ballpark staple. The Braves, along with a number of other MLB teams, have a staff organist who sits in a room high above the field and plays an organ during the game. And the organ is used for far more than “Take Me Out to the Ball Game.”
The instrument was first introduced into professional baseball back on April 26, 1941. A pipe organ was installed behind the grandstand at Wrigley Field, and during the game organ music echoed out across a baseball stadium for the first time. Soon the trend of a ballpark organist was one of the game’s most recognized players.
Matthew Kaminski (@BravesOrganist) who plays the organ for the Atlanta Braves selects pieces of music intentionally designed to keep the fans engaged in what’s happening on the field. During the fourth game of the 2021 World Series, Kaminski began playing “Rock-a-Bye Baby” as Luis Garcia came to the plate.
What’s the reason? It’s connected to the fact that the Astros’ starting pitcher has a very unique windup in his approach to the plate as a pitcher. It looks like he’s rocking a baby in a cradle-like position with his hands. So, this prompted Kaminski to call attention to that reality by using music which caught the attention of many fans—in person and on television.
Beyond the noticeable eclectic style of some organists who play for MLB teams, the real question is why does Major League Baseball view the organ as relevant while many local churches continue to view the organ as irrelevant? After nearly 80 years, more than 50% of MLB teams have a live organist at the ballpark and a good percentage of the other teams pipe in organ music through prerecorded musical pieces. Why has the organ fallen on hard times within the church?
The Organ Is Better Than the Band
In recent months, we have purchased and installed a new organ in our local church’s worship auditorium. In fact, I would urge you (if you’re a pastor) and your local church to do the same. You ask, what’s the big deal about an organ? The fact is, the organ as a single instrument is far superior than the modern praise band.
Read More

Under both the old and new covenants God has denied people office (and sometimes more) on account of things that are outside of their conscious control. Why? Because the offices in question belong to God and he may give them or forbid them to whomever he pleases for whatever reasons he pleases. That is inherent in his sovereignty…No one has any right or claim to any office or its honors, power, or remuneration in and of himself. Only if God has called him to it does he begin to have a claim, and he has it not for his own glory or temporal advantage but so that he might serve the church and benefit its other members.

Overture 15 (O15) has not received enough support from the presbyteries of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) to approve its intended change to the denomination’s Book of Church Order (BCO). With its failure the time is ripe to reconsider our conception of the nature of fitness for office, along with what terms have been used in the discussion and what internal constitutional arrangements should be pursued to prevent unfit men from holding office.
Prudence ought to govern all of our affairs, and Scripture testifies that prudence means that certain men are not candidates for the office of elder because they are new converts and are as such more likely to succumb to pride and fall away because of the office’s difficulties (1 Tim. 3:6). The temptation to pride is simply too likely and too destructive if it overcomes them to allow such men the office. Now sexual sin is conspicuous for its tendencies to wage war upon the soul (1 Pet. 2:11) and to undermine one’s sanctification (1 Thess. 4:3). It is an especially destructive sin (Prov. 5:1-13), and often in cases of apostasy it has a prominent part (Num. 25:1-2). Of sexual sins, that one with which O15 had to do (albeit in the stage of temptation, not active commission) is especially heinous in the sight of God (Lev. 18:22; 20:13), and destructive even of all civil decency and morality (Gen. 19:1-29; Jdgs. 19:22-30).
So far this accords with what O15 said in its ‘whereas’ statements. Where it went wrong was in its suggestion that self-description was the basis on which to disqualify men from office. The above facts about temptation and sexual sin being the case, prudence would seem to commend that men who experience the temptation to commit the sin in question ought to be deemed unfit for office so long as the temptation endures. At the least, such a thing ought to be deemed an open question. For if being a new convert (which is neither a sin nor a temptation) nonetheless unfits one for office because its circumstances will possibly lead to heavy temptation, then it is eminently conceivable that experiencing especially dangerous lusts – which unlike mere adverse circumstances is actually on the ‘temptations lead to actual transgressions lead to death’ sequence of Jas. 1:14-15 – ought to be similarly disqualifying, not least since it suggests the presence of very strong and well-developed original sin in one’s person, and tends to be accompanied by other grievous transgressions and internal desires.[1]
If it be objected that this is unfair to the men who experience the temptation in question because it would permanently bar them from office, and this in spite of otherwise showing personal gifts and godliness, then consider the following. It is not a sin to be devoid of a call to the ministry or to be providentially called to some other vocation (comp. 1 Cor. 7:17-24). It is not a sin to be a woman; indeed, it is a remarkably glorious thing. It was not a sin to accidentally acquire leprosy (Lev. 13:46) or have one’s private organs crushed (Deut. 23:1), or to be a Gentile or a member of one of the Israelite tribes that was not entrusted with the priestly office (Num. 16-17).
And yet under both the old and new covenants God has denied people office (and sometimes more) on account of things that are outside of their conscious control. Why? Because the offices in question belong to God and he may give them or forbid them to whomever he pleases for whatever reasons he pleases. That is inherent in his sovereignty (1 Sam. 2:7-8; Ps. 75:7; 115:3; 135:6; Dan. 2:21; 4:35). No one has any right or claim to any office or its honors, power, or remuneration in and of himself. Only if God has called him to it does he begin to have a claim (Heb. 5:4), and he has it not for his own glory or temporal advantage but so that he might serve the church and benefit its other members (Mk. 10:43-44; Eph. 4:11-13). And as God has seen fit, in his mysterious wisdom, to deny office to whole classes of people for things outside of their own doing (sex, familial descent, tribe, ethnicity, personal tragedy or physical ailments), it ought not to be thought a priori incredible that his church, acting under the guidance of his Spirit and in light of his word, may see fit to do likewise.
If it be rejoined that this is granted, but that the men in question show their fitness for office by being otherwise conspicuous for their piety, godliness, and spiritual gifts (what David Cassidy likes to call the “Sam Allberry Test”), then let it be rejoined that the church does not regard personal godliness, piety, or talent to be sufficient grounds for extending office to someone. All believers have spiritual gifts from God (Rom. 12:6-8; 1 Cor. 12:4-11; 1 Pet. 4:10-11),[2] as they are a household of priests (1 Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6). If it be said that nonetheless not all have the teaching gift, then let it be remembered that false teachers also have that ability and are often skillful in exercising it (Matt. 24:11); i.e., that possession of the aptness to teach is not a certain mark of fitness for office.
In addition, all believers without exception are to be characterized by personal piety and godliness and moral excellence (Rom. 12:9-21; Gal. 5:22-23; 2 Pet. 1:5-10). Such things are necessary in officeholders, but they are not sufficient, even when combined with a subjective, personal sense of call to office and with an external sense of call on the part of other believers – for experience shows that the internal and external calls are often mistaken. And let it not be forgotten that the PCA routinely denies office to men who are godly and gifted, and does so for a variety of reasons, from differing from our standards to not having the formal education that the PCA believes is necessary to discharge the office of teaching elder. All of which is to say that the suggestion that the church would be engaged in some sort of senseless cruelty[3] if she were to deny or remove from office men who experience certain temptations is not well-founded either in Scripture or Presbyterian polity.
You will notice that I do not directly mention the sin and temptation in view by name. This is because the clear testimony of Scripture commends us not naming it except sparingly and in absolute need. “Sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place” (Eph 5:3-4, emphases mine). “To others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh” (Jude 23). “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire” (Col. 3:5). “Flee from sexual immorality” (1 Cor. 6:18). “It is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret” (Eph. 5:12). “God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness” (1 Thess. 4:7). It needs but little comment that the sin in view is something that Scripture regards as filthy, impure, unholy, earthly, immoral, shameful, and prone to corrupt all that it touches, such that it is dangerous to our souls and displeasing to God to even talk or think about it. Rather, we are to flee from such things and instead set our minds on “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable” (Phil. 4:8).
One will notice further that my position here puts me to the right of many of the prominent opponents of the temptation in view. That is intentional. In many cases even the opponents of this thing have erred by allowing the debate to occur along the wrong lines and by too much using the concepts and terms of its proponents and normalizers. It should be deemed sheer lunacy to give office to people who are so grievously tempted by a desire to do what is heinous. Instead, even many of the opponents have gone out of their way to say that it is only the self-description to which they object, not the temptation.
Lastly, if it be doubted that my position that such temptations disqualify one for office is correct, answer this question: if temptations do not qualify in such a case, when would they do so? Never? But if one says that then it would follow that it would be reasonable and safe to ordain youth pastors who are tempted to pedophilia. And if one says on the other hand that temptations are indeed sometimes disqualifying one admits my position is correct (in principle) and raises some rather difficult follow-up questions. Who decides what temptations are disqualifying, and on what grounds? I have an answer to that: temptations to do what is contrary to nature and to do what is so displeasing to God that he names the sin in question by euphemisms (Lev. 20:13), uses it as a temporal judgment (Rom. 1:24, 26), and only lists historical examples of it while also describing how he punished those that committed it (Gen. 19:5-13, 24; Jdgs. 19-20; 2 Pet. 2:6; Jude 7), ought to be deemed disqualifying. But I am interested to see if anyone will dare attempt to make the case that a) some temptations disqualify; but b) the temptation to break Lev. 18:22 is not one of them – for I do not think that such a thing can be done absent violating the scriptural witness as to the utter depravity of the thing in view.
Tom Hervey is a member, Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church, Simpsonville, SC. The statements made in this article are the personal opinions of the author alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views of his church or its leadership or other members.

[1] The sin in question does not occur in isolation, and is frequently mentioned in combination with other sins (Rom. 1:29-32; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 1 Tim. 1:9-10).
[2] Even granting that some of the particular gifts listed in such passages (e.g. gifts of healing, 1 Cor. 12:9) have ceased, the point remains that God’s empowering grace is not limited to only a few, but is diffused throughout the church body.
[3]As was intimated by a ruling elder, Kyle Keating, in a speech at the 2021 General Assembly: https://byfaithonline.com/against-overtures-23-and-37/
Related Posts: