Those who lament the declension of many among the present professed ministry should cry day and night unto the Lord to bless his people with pastors after his own heart. Let them also see to it that they walk wisely towards those they have. It behoves established believers to bear their testimony faithfully, but kindly, to young divines who are beginning to step aside; for it may be that a gentle word may save them. In grosser cases, firmness may be needful as to the matter of quitting an unfaithful, Christless ministry; or as to the removal of the false teacher.

Writing in 1889, after the Downgrade Controversy, Spurgeon wrestled with the question of unfaithful ministers and congregational accountability. Under the new modern theology, these ministers were using the language of historic Christianity, but redefining that language in rationalist and anti-supernatural ways. But how are churches to hold them accountable? As a congregationalist, Spurgeon believed that the congregation was the final authority in its discipline and doctrine. But again and again, Spurgeon watched unsuspecting congregations call modernist ministers, believing them to be orthodox, only to be corrupted by their teaching over time. So as important as congregational authority was, Spurgeon also understood that pastors play a crucial role in shaping the theology of a church through their preaching. All this created a dilemma:

QUIS custodiet ipsos custodes? So say the Latins. Shepherds may keep the sheep; but who shall pastorize the shepherds? A question of the weightiest import, both for the flocks and the pastors.

What is to become of anybody of Christians whose ministers are not loyal to their Lord and to his gospel? When a church has over it a man of whom it can be justly said that he shows no sign of ever having been converted, what spirituality can be expected to survive? When another preacher has one creed for the pulpit, and another for the private fraternal meeting, how can truth and honesty flourish in the community? When a third changes with the moon, and is not quite sure of anything, how can his hearers be established in the faith? We are not imagining cases; there are too many who answer the description. Evil in the pulpit is poison in the fountain. In this case we find death in the great pot out of which all the guests are to be fed.

What is to be done? Spurgeon offered three reflections:

We must look to the Great Shepherd

But who shall keep the keepers? There is the great difficulty. This is a task beyond the power of the church and its most valiant champions. We might do well to watch the schools of the prophets, that more of deep devotion and fervent piety should be nurtured there. We might do no more than our duty if we were more jealously watchful over every election of ministers in which we take part, so that none were ordained but those sound in the faith, and filled with the Spirit. Even for these things, who is sufficient? But if these were done to perfection, the plague might still break out among the teachers: their heads might be dazed with error, or their hearts grow chill with worldliness. We are thrown back upon him that keepeth Israel. It is well that it should be so. That which develops dependence upon God works for good.

All plans, however wise in themselves, and however effective they would be if we had to deal with honesty and truth, are baffled by the moral obliquity which is part of the evil. The men are not to be bound by creeds: they confess that such things are useless to them. Their moral sense is deadened by the error they have imbibed. They have become shepherds that they might poison the flock, and keepers of the vineyard that they might spoil the vines: if this was not their first motive, their course of action distinctly suggests it. There is no reaching them: they are bewitched and benumbed. Neither from within nor from without are healthy influences likely to operate upon them; we must carry the case to the great Head of the church, and leave it in his hands.

Read More