David’s Tent: Personal Impressions

At short notice, I booked a day pass to visit David’s Tent on Friday - my first time at the event. David’s Tent is (wait for it) a non-stop 72-hour Christian worship event, taking place on the Wiston Estate in Sussex over the August Bank Holiday weekend. 

The majority of delegates camp on site. I attended as a day visitor. When not inside the worship tent, those attending can relax in the beautiful location at the foot of the South Downs, visit the resource tent, chat with friends, attend one of a light programme of workshops and talks, sit around the fire pit or sample the varied street food options from the onsite vendors. There is also a children’s programme and a youth programme running all weekend.  

So, as a newbie, what were my first impressions of David’s Tent?

The Church is a Wonderful Thing

Being among thousands of Christians from across the UK was a powerful reminder of the glorious multi-coloured nature of the church of God. There is really nothing on earth like the church in all its diversity. Worshipping together with brothers and sisters of different races and cultures, I was reminded that, in many of our communities, the local church is the most racially integrated society in town. We are perhaps not always aware of this aspect of who we are - and it should be a cause for celebration. 

Emerging from Lockdown is a Process

The last time I had been in a large crowd was at the Memorial Stadium in January 2020 (Bristol Rovers drew 2 -2 against Coventry City in the 3rd round of the FA Cup, since you ask). I had not attended an in-person church meeting of more than six people since March of the same year, and as we all know, a lot has happened since then.

I needed to initially spend some time simply looking around and getting used to the novelty of the event. I’m not a great Christian conference attender, so there was a lot of adjustment I needed to do just to get used to the crowds, the sound and the sight of over a thousand people actively engaging in sung praise and worship.  

Biblical Prophecy is Very Powerful 

2800 years ago, while predicting the coming of the Messiah, the Hebrew prophet Isaiah announced that as Christ’s rule extended in the earth,

“the Sovereign Lord will make righteousness

    and praise spring up before all nations.” 

I am not sure whether Isaiah had any knowledge of the British Isles. If he did, it would have been of windswept desolate islands far to the north where the inhabitants worshipped the sun (rarely seen!) and where human sacrifice was a feature of their pagan religion. 

Fast forward a few millennia and, here in England’s green and pleasant land, thousands of inhabitants of these isles had gathered for a non-stop 72-hour festival of worship to the God of Israel whom Isaiah served. There are many ways of understanding this phenomenon. One way is to see it as a fulfilment of ancient biblical prophecy concerning the Kingdom of Christ. Understood in this way, David’s Tent is a tangible illustration of the tremendous formative power of the prophetic word of God. Isaiah’s words not merely predicted Christian worship throughout the Gentile nations; the spoken word of God was itself the ultimate creative force that caused these realities to come into being. 

A Spirit of Devotion

The idea of thousands of people paying money to attend a four-day event whose focus is non-stop praise and worship to God is both ludicrous when viewed from a secular perspective, and also glorious when seen through the eyes of Christian faith. 

The spirit of devotion that must underpin such an enterprise was wonderful to sense. I was reminded of the extreme love of the woman in the gospels who poured out very expensive perfume onto the feet and head of Jesus as an act of pure devotion. Her worship was criticised by some at the time as being wasteful, the money spent on the perfume being capable of helping poor people with practical material needs. Yet Jesus affirmed her act of worship as “a beautiful thing”.

I was struck by this same spirit of devotion to Christ represented at David's Tent. This was manifest not only in the big tent itself but in the volunteer team members who so warmly greeted my wife and I when we arrived and made us feel welcome as first-time attendees. My sense was that a free ticket to the event was not the ultimate motivation of these beautiful young people who choose to stand for hours in a field miles from the main activities doing nothing other than welcoming car drivers and showing them where to park. It felt as if they saw their practical service as a form of worship to God, every bit as valid as the sung worship taking place within the huge tent.

I found this very heartening.

A Well-run Event

The event itself seemed well-thought-through. Various groups of musicians and singers took turns to lead the worship in the big tent, which I estimated could probably hold up to 3,000 people. 

There was some limited seating at the back of the tent but the rest of the space was open. People stood, sat, kneeled or lay prostrate as they engaged with the worship. People entered and left the tent continuously during the worship sessions over the four days. I was surprised to learn that the worship went on all night with a quieter acoustic set. The worship musicians faced inwards on the square stage, effectively facing away from the congregation, emphasising that this was not a performance event but a shared act of worship. 

There was plenty of physical space at the event. A good supply of street food vendors meant little obvious queuing. The portable toilets were pristine - not a sentence I have had the occasion to write before. Mind you, it was day one. 

The Need for Training in Biblical Theology for Contemporary Christian Worship Leaders and Songwriters 

I found the content of the worship songs to be of varying quality. Kingdom Choir were magnificent. Apart from that, I was disappointed at times with lyrics that spoke very little about the attributes of God himself. With so much rich truth revealed in the Bible about the person and nature of God, it seems such a shame to omit this rich vocabulary in favour of more prosaic lyrics that speak of ourselves and our individual felt needs and responses.

More seriously, many of the songs evidenced a low level of engagement with the meat of biblical truth. Lyrics were often abstracted from their biblical and theological contexts in ways that I found superficial and unhelpful. Specifically, songs describing “love”, “power”, “faithfulness” and “grace” frequently included little explicit reference to the person and work of Christ, the Incarnation or the nature of the new covenant.   

In my five hours on site, I heard only one song that referenced the Trinity (at least all three-in-one got a mention) and one song that centred on the death of Christ. This particular song steered clear of the biblical teaching of the death of Christ as a substitute for sin, and its lyrics seemed to rest upon a moral influence theory of the atonement. More Abelard than Anselm, for those who are into this sort of thing. 

I heard the Bible read only once during the sessions I attended - a reading that consisted of one verse from Psalm 21. At various points, I felt that we were drawing near to God into a shared experience of his manifest presence, as if heaven were touching earth. I suspect that had someone read Revelation 5 at such a point, the congregation may indeed have been helped to “draw near” without any further exhortation. 

All of this matters of course, not least because of the didactic function of song in the church. If we are taught what to believe and how to apply it partly through what we sing, and if worship songs can and do have a formative role in our beliefs, values and actions, then it is imperative that such songs are deeply embedded in biblical teaching, language and themes.

Being encouraged to believe that “I will never be lonely” and that “my cloudy days are past” (as two of the song lyrics claimed) seems to me not to serve young believers very well. Such a belief does little to prepare them for lives that will be characterised by various degrees of suffering as an integral part of their Christian discipleship. 

Lou Fellingham and Stuart Townend are two examples of outstanding contemporary British songwriters whose worship songs are sung around the world. I appreciate that they may not be available for every Christian event but I was struck by the need for their gifts to be multiplied and passed on. At the very least, I would hope that the current emerging generation of worship leaders and songwriters might spend the next year studying and internalising Martyn Lloyd Jones' Eight Commentaries on the Book of Ephesians as a first step in their commitment to creating songs that are more biblical in their language and theology and thus more helpful and more edifying for the church.     

Where are the Fathers?

Those I saw at the event were mostly young - I would estimate in their twenties - though this of course may simply be another version from an oldie of, “Don’t the police look young these days.” I would estimate that females outnumbered males inside the tent by about 60 % to 40 %.

On the Friday night, of the seven worship leaders taking part, five were women. The Friday night session was hosted by an American woman and I heard an interview with a woman (while the equipment was being rearranged on stage in between sets). David’s Tent is certainly not a place where women’s voices are marginalised.

All of which left me with an unanswered question: where are the fathers? I may of course have simply missed them (while out getting a Thai green curry, for instance), but the low numbers of visible senior male role models, combined with the lower numbers of men present overall at the event, left me somewhat concerned.  

A Christian feminist response, of course, may argue that men have had quite enough of the leading roles for too long and that, any short-term imbalance in the opposite direction is merely a necessary corrective. Perhaps. Or perhaps we need to do some more deep thinking about what it means and looks like for men and women in Christ to truly complement each other in the church’s work, worship and service in ways that enable all believers - male and female - to grow together into “the full measure of the stature of Christ.”

Something More Important Than Covid

I was somewhat conflicted at the decision of the organisers of David's Tent to require certification of either full vaccination or a recent negative covid test in order to be admitted to the site. Temperatures were also taken on entrance to the tent itself. Though I perfectly understand the health and safety arguments in favour of this approach, I am generally very nervous about the drift toward covid certification for any purpose beyond international travel and a limited range of medical roles. Certainly, at a local church level,  it does seem to me deeply problematic that we would ever exclude a fellow believer from in-person fellowship on the basis of their (private) medical record.

That said, with many of those attending being under 18, and thus exempt from the certification requirement, and with full vaccination not offering 100% protection against catching or transmitting Covid-19, I was aware that we were not in a totally covid-secure environment (even if such a thing exists outside a lab.) With singing being associated with a high risk of transmission, and with a couple of thousand unmasked people being together in the tent (albeit with some open panels and a mild breeze flowing through), it was impossible not to recognise that the very act of worship together in this way carried risks.   

Christians should never be casual or indifferent to death or suffering - in themselves or others. Having said that, I have been reminded during the pandemic of the description of the suffering and overcoming church described in the book of Revelation in conflict with the devil: 

They triumphed over him

    by the blood of the Lamb

    and by the word of their testimony;

they did not love their lives so much

    as to shrink from death.

Avoiding death at all costs (at least among citizens in rich nations) has been the driving force behind the world's pandemic response. While Christians must not endorse or contribute toward a culture of death, we also affirm counter intuitively that there is something worse than death: namely, death without God. By not loving their lives so much as to shrink from death, the early Christian believers could endure a range of terrible events, including plague, warfare and state-sponsored persecution from a perspective of faith and faithfulness to Christ. 

Although I have no desire whatsoever to catch this dreadful disease, and although I will continue to take reasonable precautions to avoid it, when worshipping together with fellow believers on Friday, I was reminded that there are certainly worse things than catching it - and even worse things than dying from it.  For the Christian who has received eternal life as a gift through faith in Jesus, we do not face death and dying in the same way as the secular person does. Death is an enemy - but in Christ it is a defeated one and believers look forward in certain hope to the resurrection of the dead, the renewal of the cosmos and the restoration of all things in Christ.  

The late John Wimber was asked why, while carrying life-threatening illness in his own body, he continued to place himself under strain by travelling the world teaching, healing the sick and equipping believers to do the same. I recall him saying once in his characteristically pithy way that he would, "rather die doing this than stay at home waiting for that." As I stood among the crowds at David's Tent worshipping our great God, I confess the thought did cross my mind: if I had to go, I wouldn't mind going like this.

A Question

When attending any event for the first time, a question will often be. “Would I go there again?” In the case of David’s Tent, my answer is, “Given time, opportunity and circumstances, probably yes.” It does not attempt to be an event that is going to directly equip believers in gospel outreach, mission, kingdom work and service or in being salt and light in a secular society. But for what it is - an extended opportunity to lay aside other things and draw near to God in devotion and adoration -  it is a welcome opportunity for personal and corporate renewal. Despite the shortcomings of the event, the opportunity for such a focused retreat and opportunity for renewed devotion to Christ is to be welcomed, especially after a year like the one we've all had. 

   

Public Wisdom as a Gospel Pathway

How can Christians effectively tell the good news of Christ among a post-Christian culture as it emerges shell-shocked from a global pandemic?

In the Book of Proverbs, we are introduced to the striking female personification of Wisdom, who may help us answer this important question. Wisdom, we learn, is a very public-facing figure:

Does not wisdom call out?

    Does not understanding raise her voice?

 At the highest point along the way,

    where the paths meet, she takes her stand;

 beside the gate leading into the city,

    at the entrance, she cries aloud

From Allegory of Wisdom and Strength by Paolo Veronese, c. 1565

Wisdom in the Bible is not merely an inward-focused attribute, for contemplative mystics who have withdrawn from public life. On the contrary, she is making her voice heard for all people, believers and otherwise:

“To you, O people, I call out;

    I raise my voice to all mankind.

 You who are simple, gain prudence;

    you who are foolish, set your hearts on it.

 Listen, for I have trustworthy things to say"

Every day, millions of people conduct a Google search starting with the phrase, "how to...." Whether the request is about mental health, self care, practical skills, or more philosophical issues, the search at its most fundamental level is a request for Wisdom. As our battered societies start to emerge from the ravages of Covid-19, our neighbours, colleagues, business owners and elected officials are asking one basic question that is taking many different forms: how do we move forward? 

Biblical Wisdom is practical. In fact, it could be described as applied knowledge. Christian believers who have allowed their lives to be shaped by such Wisdom have much to contribute in a society that is asking practical questions. Without being arrogant or boastful, the truth is that our Christian faith has been teaching us Wisdom for living - for handling money, for relating to other people, for looking after a family, for promoting human flourishing, for working effectively. This is not to claim that Christians are sinless and perfect; but, as we have followed Christ for years, we have found that we have learned some important life lessons.   

Wisdom even has things to say to politicians and those in government:

"Counsel and sound judgment are mine;

    I have insight, I have power.

 By me kings reign

    and rulers issue decrees that are just;

 by me princes govern,

    and nobles—all who rule on earth"

Sharing such practical Wisdom, when asked, can be very helpful for others, including people of no Christian faith. If done with humility and gentleness, we may be of some service to our neighbours and colleagues. There is a sphere of public Wisdom which is applicable to all peoples in all places at all times; it is not exclusively for Christian believers.

If we are asked about how we learned these life lessons, it is not a huge step to say simply that whatever we have learned that has helped us navigate the challenges of life, we have found it in Christ. Wisdom actually invites us to make such a connection:

“The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works,

    before his deeds of old;

 I was formed long ages ago,

    at the very beginning, when the world came to be..... 

 I was there when he set the heavens in place,

    when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep...

     Then I was constantly at his side.

I was filled with delight day after day,

    rejoicing always in his presence,

 rejoicing in his whole world

    and delighting in mankind."

The personification of Wisdom was present at the creation of the heavens and earth, participating alongside the Creator with joy. 

Our neighbours are largely resistant to abstract concepts. Sharing the Good News should not be primarily about announcing disconnected theological propositions. Often we fail to communicate from the outset because we announce ideas rather than introducing a Person. 

The early followers of Jesus, all from a Jewish background, and all very familiar with the verses we have been looking at from the Book of Proverbs, had a particular understanding about the Personification of Wisdom. The apostle Paul refers to

Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

On another occasion, Paul writes to a group of Christians in the Greek city of Corinth, reminding them that,

[Y]ou are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

Wisdom is found in the Person of Christ; in living by Wisdom, we are living in the Way of Christ. When we share Wisdom with others, we are sharing in part the Person of Christ. By implication we are inviting people to walk in His Way. Wisdom in this sense is Good News. 

The New Testament seems to have this in mind when it describes the ultimate reason for the church's existence:

His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.

A battered society does not need celebrity psycho-babble. It needs sound judgement, practical actions that promote the common good. Followers of the Way of Christ can demonstrate and make known this Way of Wisdom. Many want to find it. 
 

  

Coronavirus and the Churches: Time to Pivot Again

At the end of March, hundreds of British churches switched overnight to running online Sunday services in response to the national lockdown imposed by the Government. The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on churches was sudden and dramatic.

At the end of June, as the lockdown begins to gradually be lifted, has the time come for British churches to pivot again? Not this time back to congregational Sunday services - which remain banned under the terms of the emergency powers granted in the Coronavirus Act 2020 - but to much smaller expressions of church, meeting outdoors. With groups of six in England (or eight in Scotland) now being able to gather outdoors at a social distance, is it now time for churches to put their energies not into Zoom meetings but into multiple face-to-face gatherings in much smaller numbers?

Photo by Nandhu Kumar from Pexels

The case for a rapid pivot to smaller expressions of church could be made on several grounds:

• The people of God desperately need face-to-face fellowship. From the point of view of pastoral care alone, most Christians and church leaders would agree that it is desirable that we see each other in real life in order to enjoy fellowship. Where this has not been possible, we are grateful for tools of technology that can at least provide some measure of human contact. The ideal, however, remains a gathered church in person - the body of Christ in the flesh (so to speak). Where two or three gather in his name, Christ is present in the midst.

• The opportunity is safe and easy to implement. Just as creative minds were quickly able to apply practical solutions to running online Sunday services, we can now quickly move to weekly small gatherings of church members outdoors. These can take place in parks, gardens, on beaches and in the urban environment - anywhere outdoors where people will not be competing with traffic. We can limit the numbers and maintain social distance so that the gatherings are safe and comply with the law. A typical church of 100 members could expect to launch between 10 and 15 such groups next week. 

• Traditional church services may not be possible till 2021. Research is showing that indoor groups of people are high-risk for covid transmission. Activities such as singing and physical contact increase this risk further. Pubs and nightclubs are high-risk environments; church services are not far behind in terms of their capacity to spread the virus between members. The outbreak in Korea was initially centred around a church. In Germany, churches have been able to partly reopen but congregational singing is banned (!) Against this backdrop, are church leaders genuinely committed to running Zoom services for another 12 months or more? And if a vaccine is never found, what then? Do we have a plan for socially-distanced indoor church services that provide the level of fellowship that Christians need or want?

• Small groups at their best can be effective in disciple-making. In his compelling book John Wesley's Class Meeting: A Model for Making Disciples, Michael Henderson demonstrates the genius of the early Methodist movement in its ability to transform the lives of urban working class members who had been largely neglected by the established church. At the heart of this process was not only public preaching but a highly-developed ecosystem of close discipleship centred on the class meeting. It is fashionable in some middle-class churches to downplay the small group. The reality, however, is that there has never been a gospel-centred movement in modern British history that has made disciples of the urban poor as effectively as early Methodism. It is interesting that Wesley's class meetings, gathering weekly for fellowship, personal accountability and mutual instruction, were limited to six members each - the same number currently permitted to gather outdoors in England under current lockdown measures.  

• Small groups would benefit from input from equipping leadership. Just as the Jerusalem apostles taught 'publicly and from house to house', the small expressions of church that could start outdoors tomorrow should be accessible and accountable to those with gifts to teach, equip and serve the members. If there were no longer a need for church leaders to be planning, running and evaluating online services, could their time and energy not be better spent visiting a small group most days to support and give input? Again, in a church of 100 members, a full-time leadership team of two could realistically visit the 10 to 15 small groups almost every week if they wanted. The modern Wesleyian circuit rider already exists and is probably sitting in an office planning the online Sunday service. A pivot to a radical small group model would be possible, if there were a will to do it. 

• Small groups can sustain mission. I would not suggest that these groups of six to eight should try and replicate church services; nor should they be focused on the seeker. But, by nurturing the believers and providing fellowship and accountability, they can help to sustain Christians in their ongoing life as witnesses for Christ in their homes, families, streets and places of work. These opportunities are multiplying during the current pandemic.  There is no reason of course why those with the gifts to do so could not also start small groups for seekers that meet outdoors at a social distance. 

• The summer months provide a window of opportunity. Although June is looking a bit sketchy weather-wise in Britain, at least we are not yet facing the pandemic in January. By starting an outdoor small group ecosystem now - this week - churches can refine and learn best practice while it is still dry-ish. We can then also plan creatively for the autumn and beyond. Two principles that may help this process are time flexibility and creativity. As the weather turns, groups should plan to meet between rain showers or on dry-ish days, rather than being restricted to a rigid weekly time slot. This of course is easy to do with only six people. We can also learn from pubs which have responded to the ban on indoor smoking by implementing new ways of defining 'outdoors' through the legal and judicious use of gazebos and awnings.   

I'm ready to pivot. How about you? 

The Priority of Teaching in the Household Style Church

Ask many Christians, especially church leaders, about "house church" and sooner or later you will hear concerns raised that such churches are prone to being weak on bible teaching. Some criticisms will go even further and portray such simple expressions of church as potential hotbeds of heresy.

The reality is however that household-style churches, if they are understood and operating according to principles set out in the New Testament, actually have the potential to be centres of strong bible teaching and learning.

Here's what I mean.

In any midsize or large local church there will often be a number of gifted bible teachers and preachers. Some of these will be elders or leaders in the church - indeed, one of the apostolic requirements of an elder is that they must be "able to teach". In practice, however, many of those with this ability will not exercise it very often - at least not outside of individual pastoral situations. A typical church will have a weekly Sunday morning service, with bible teaching and maybe an evening service as well. There may be a midweek bible study group - though in many churches these have been replaced by home groups lead by church members - and there may be occasional courses, conferences or one-off events at which the bible is taught. Some churches, following a pattern established in north American churches, may also have a Sunday School - meaning an adult biblical education programme supplementary to the main weekend service.

In such a church setting, the total public/group teaching work of the church may amount to no more than a few hours each week. 

This reality raises a number of issues. One of them is a practical question: if a pastor or church leader is only preaching once a week (at the most), what are they meant to be doing the rest of the time? The answer varies from church to church, but in my own experience of being in full-time church leadership for twenty years, non-preaching time often consists of some or all of the following: 

• preparation and study; prayer; 
• meeting individuals; 
• attending planning meetings; 
• strategic thinking; travelling; 
• troubleshooting; 
• interfacing with the wider community; 
• practical acts of service; 
• emails and other administration. 

The question is, are the church's teachers and pastors meant to be doing these tasks? Or are these activities the result of a church system that unwittingly minimises bible teaching and elevates organisational management? 

When the early apostles were arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin, they were accused of having filled Jerusalem with their teaching. How had they managed to leave themselves open to such a charge? 

The Book of Acts tells us that the pattern of the Jerusalem church was to meet in the temple courts (the large setting) and in homes for more intimate fellowship, meals and breaking of bread. What is often missed, however, is that the early apostles taught in both settings - the large and the small. 

Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Messiah.      (Acts 5:42)

Let's try a maths exercise. Luke (assuming he wrote Acts) records that the number of men in Jerusalem who believed in Jesus at this time was around five thousand. The text makes it fairly clear that this figure did not include women and children. Let's speculate that this number of men represents a total church population of at least 15,000 people. Let's then speculate that an average Jerusalem home could accommodate about thirty people at one time.  If the total number of believers (including children) were equally divided between such homes when they met, we would discover about 500 "house churches" in Jerusalem in the middle of the first century. None of this is provable through historical means of course. It is a thought exercise resting on a number of suppositions. 

The twelve Jerusalem apostles are portrayed in Acts as spending their days teaching about Jesus in the temple courts and from house to house. In a typical week, therefore, if each apostle visited a house church every day, they might have taught publicly about Jesus at least seven times a week - in addition to any preaching they may have done in the larger temple court setting. This amounts to a total of at least 84 teaching sessions a week in Jerusalem by eye-witnesses of Christ and his resurrection - over 4,000 interactive sermons a year. If we compare this figure with a possible number of home churches of 500, we could envisage a scenario in which each house fellowship received a teaching apostle approximately every three to four weeks. 

This level of apostolic teaching (if it bears any relation to what actually took place) may help shed some light on the claim that the apostles had filled Jerusalem with their teaching. I wonder how many contemporary home groups or house churches are fortunate enough to receive that level of apostolic input in a typical year. I suspect very few. 

The thought exercise outlined above does not prove anything historically. It merely illustrates the fact that, if those with the gifting and calling to teach the word of God were released to do so as the primary activity of their working week, there is no inherent reason why such teachers, apostles, pastors or prophets could not be actively and fruitfully deployed in small household style churches if they moved around between them on a regular basis. Such a model actually allows for more bible teaching from those able to teach rather than less. By contrast, the current system of larger Sunday services, with all their inefficiencies of size, resource and administration, leads inevitably to less bible teaching, as those primarily gifted and called to do it find themselves spending time on maintaining an organisation rather than equipping believers in their homes and places of work.  

Church history actually gives us a working model of such a system of widespread decentralised itinerant bible teaching. Early Methodism, under the leadership of John Wesley, had a very well-worked-out system of such teaching with ministers assigned to several local "societies", "classes" (groups of about 6) and "bands" within a geographical area or territory.  

Many of these itinerant preachers and bible teachers were commissioned by Wesley not by the official Church of England to which they nominally adhered in the movement's early years. The effective use of such itinerant ministers went hand-in-hand with the growth of the Methodist movement - from around 15,000 people in the 1780s to 130,000 a decade later and around one million within 50 years of its founding. 

One writer of Methodist history notes that:

“Moving to and fro, the itinerant was a bond of union between the societies in the circuit, and his appointment in several circuits with the passing years knit them together in the connexion of which he was the representative. The system helped also to secure uniformity in teaching and administration......His doctrine and discipline and those of his predecessor and successor had been derived from Wesley and the Conference. To these he and they were all amenable. Different times and conditions may necessitate modifications; but for securing the unity. homogeneity, and happy co-operation of a new, scattered, varied, and rapidly-growing community, perhaps nothing better than the itinerancy within the circuits and from circuit to circuit could have been devised. Wesley's preachers had the mobility of Wyclif's itinerating poor priests and laymen, or recalled the Friars of the Middle Ages without their hampering vows.”

Decentralised models of church (call them "house church" if you want) both require and facilitate the emergence of bible teachers who focus on that activity as a priority, without the encumbrances of a settled organisational model of church congregations and Sunday services. 

A Pilgrim's Progress: A Few Thoughts on Sunday's Gathering

A Pilgrim's Progress: A Few Thoughts on Sunday's Gathering

Anyone want to do some of this?

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

The DNA of the Church

What I do believe, however, is that the New Testament contains a revelation of Jesus Christ and His church. As we say repeatedly ... the church of the first-century was organic. And that organism we call the church has the same DNA today as it did in Century One.

What are some of those features which are native to her DNA? Features like the headship of Jesus Christ (He alone is the Head of the Body), face-to-face authentic community, the every-member functioning of the Body, mutual submission, the family nature of the church, the priesthood of all believers, etc. ... I sometimes call this "the organic expression of the church," "gathering in NT fashion," "meeting first-century style," or "NT-style church."

Frank Viola

Urban Church Planting

Thoughtful piece by David Broodryk on David Watson's blog on the dynamics of urban church planting - especially looking at the important question of what "is" a church.

The concluding definition Broodryk offers, after considering the dynamic of smaller homogeneous groups which might be considered too small and unstable to be described as churches in their own right, is as follows:

“Church is the collection of baptized believers in the Lord Jesus Christ in a given locality (city or network), who gather regularly (in one group or several) for the purposes of worship, discipleship and nurture, and who depart those gatherings with the intention of obeying all the commands of Christ, in order to transform their families, communities and cities.”

There are omissions in this definition, of course. One addition I would want to make straight away is to add the phrase "who have received the Holy Spirit" after the phrase "Lord Jesus Christ" and before the phrase "in a given locality." I would also make the intention of the believers' obedience more explicitly focused on the glory of God, with any attendant cultural impact as secondary.

I appreciate, having said this, that Broodryk is not writing a theological treatise but a summary that addresses the specific and limited question of whether a church has to meet all-together in order to truly be a church.

Very interesting article, in my opinion.

Why Good News to the Poor is Not Enough

Many churches and Christian organisations have, over recent years, rediscovered their God-given mandate to serve and bring good news to the economically disadvantaged, both in their locality and further field.

Thankfully, the idea that such acts are a distraction from the gospel is now rarely heard in Christian circles, as local churches support night shelters, drug rehabilitation projects, food programmes, education support and a myriad of other good works which seek to demonstrate the presence of the Kingdom of God through words and actions.

Welcome though these developments are, they are insufficient to either address the needs of those who are disadvantaged or to fully express the nature of the rule of God in the earth.

The same Lord who was anointed with the Spirit to "preach good news to the poor" was also mandated to bring a rather different message to the rich.

The materially wealthy, according to the gospel accounts, will find it "hard" to enter the kingdom of God, are sent away empty by God, and are to be overlooked by Jesus' disciples when they organise social events.

If that were not bad enough, the Son of God explicitly pronounces judgment upon the wealthy: not only does he pronounce the poor as "blessed", but, in Luke's account of the Sermon on the Mount, he proclaims "woe" to the rich - this term being drawn directly from the writings of the Prophets when they announced God's judgment on individuals, groups or nations.

A church pastor recently shared his concern in discovering that two adjacent neighbourhoods in his city, both of which contain church members, had significantly differing rates of average life expectancy. Those living in the poorer area were likely to die nine years earlier than those in the wealthy neighbourhood next door.

It is questionable how far this gap can be addressed by only meeting the needs and empowering those at the bottom of the economic scale, without also addressing the income and consumption levels of those at the top.

The gospel, it seems to me, calls us to focus on both.

Is Arsenal FC Like the Local Church?

Watching Arsenal's impressive second half come-back against Barcelona in the quarter final of the UEFA Champions League earlier in the week, I got thinking about the nature of the local church (as you do).

The link was formed in my mind as I thought back to former Arsenal successes, both domestic and European, and considered what we mean when we say things like, "Arsenal won the Premier League in 2003-04". Stay with me, this will all tie up with our understanding of the local church in due course, I promise.

Very few of the players who battled Barcelona this week took part in Arsenal's unbeaten Premiership campaign in 03-04. The stars of that season were such luminaries as Patrick Vieira, Robert Pires and Theirry Henry, now all playing for other clubs. Despite this discontinuity within the team, the club's success that year are widely regarded as forming part of the success of "Arsenal" today, even though few if any of today's players took part in it.

This means that when we talk about Arsenal's footballing record, we are actually talking about the record of the club as an institution, rather than of the specific 27 players who make up the first team squad this season.

When we talk about a local church, especially when we talk about its history, we also tend to be be describing that church as an institution rather than as a current collective or congregation.

When we say "This church has a history of sending out missionaries around the world", for instance, or, "This church has been a centre of strong preaching for generations", we are clearly talking about the institution of that church rather than the 180 adults who make up the current membership. This is despite the fact that missionaries may still be going out from it or that preaching continues to be strong.

My question is, is such a concept valid when thinking about the nature of a local church? Can a local church be conceived of as an institution that transcends the lifetime of its current members? Or, by definition, is a specific church only capable of existing in the present? What do we mean when we say, "This church has been here for 100 years?"

We can answer this question in several contrasting ways:

1. We can assert the historical continuity of a specific local church. Christ Church in the City of Boston, for instance, is a example of a local church that describes itself as having existed continuously since at least 1723.
2. We can assert the continuity of a specific local church if it was founded during the lifetime of any of its current members.
   
3. We can assert the continuity of a local church as long as it has had the same leadership/constitution/building/name or denominational affiliation.
   
4. We can assert the continuity of a congregation for a generation but describe each successive generation as representing essentially a new church (even though it may call itself by the same name).
   
5. More radically, we can conceive of the local church as existing only when it meets; by this definition, each new gathering is essentially a "new church".

I have noted elsewhere on this blog that the late John Wimber offered the opinion that a specific local church should only see itself existing for "about twenty years or "a generation".

Was Wimber correct? And if so, does this "new church" create itself naturally through the passage of time or does it need to be "re-planted"?

The fact that many of the local churches we meet in the New Testament are quite new makes it quite challenging to answer these questions conclusively from the example of these churches.

But, as we shall see in a future post, there are at least some hints in the NT of how we are to approach this subject - which is not ultimately about history and semantics but about the essential nature of the church, the body of Christ on the earth.

Happy Birthday Terry Virgo!

The Leaders Poole: Happy Birthday Terry Virgo!

Matthew Hosier expresses appreciation for Terry Virgo. I agree wholeheartedly with everything Matthew has written.

I would add one other quality that commands my respect.

Terry is very generous. Especially with his own money. He is, to quote something I have heard him say several times, "seriously committed to hilarious giving."

Happy birthday Terry.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Why is church so dull? A psychotherapist diagnoses the Sunday ritual. - By Stephen W. Simpson - Patrol Magazine

Why is church so dull? A psychotherapist diagnoses the Sunday ritual. - By Stephen W. Simpson - Patrol Magazine

Painful honesty with a glimmer of hope for the future.

"As much as postmodern evangelicals bandy about the word “community,” our gatherings have changed very little. Stylistic alterations might add some hipster flair, but the focal point of the liturgical week remains theater. A dozen or so people perform for a few hundred that sit, stand, kneel, pray, and sing on command. We squeeze real community into the gaps, between events with a hierarchical structure."

"In the first century there was still teaching, prayer, and worship, but the early church was about community. Paul’s letters paint a picture of people living together and collectively figuring out what it meant to follow Christ. The authority of the leaders and teachers wasn’t a forgone conclusion. They were in dialogue with their congregations. Paul himself often had to defend his position of authority and many of his letters are part of an ongoing doctrinal debate. You get the sense, however, that even theological issues were somewhat secondary. The focus was a meal, not a class or a worship service. Some early Christians enjoyed the community meal so much that Paul had to tell them to tone it down because they were partying a little too hard."

"How can we expect our leaders to be authentic when theater is the center of our religious week? No one is drawn to such a job unless they enjoy power and attention."

"In my fifteen years as a psychotherapist, I have encountered few human systems so consistently dysfunctional as church staffs....When we rely on the talents and titillating vision of one man instead of the slow, silent life of community, it’s easy for people to get hurt."

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Emil Brunner on the Nature of the Church

“In the last 50 or 100 years New Testament research has unremittingly and successfully addressed itself to the task of elucidating for us what was known as the „Ecclesia‟ in primitive Christianity—so very different from what is to-day called the church both in Roman and Protestant camps. . . . This insight—which an unprejudiced study of the New Testament and the crying need of the church have helped us to reach—may be expressed as follows: the New Testament „Ecclesia,‟ the fellowship of Jesus Christ, is a pure communion of persons and has nothing to do with the character of an institution about it; it is therefore misleading to identify any single one of the historically developed churches, which are all marked by an institutional character, with the true Christian communion.”

Emil Brunner

Doing Church Differently

In my opinion the time has come to do church differently. I am convinced that we must shift our focus from highly programmed ministry to developing Missional/Transformational Communities that are formed as a seamless organic whole. These types of communities are rare and difficult to visualize because we have moved so forcefully to programmatic ministry in the last half of the previous century.

Alan Andrews, recently retired President of the Navigators, U.S.

source

Transition Culture, Community and the Local Church

This article should be read by everyone concerned with communicating the gospel and planting churches in Britain.

Although written to explain the phenomenon of the Transition Movement (the grass roots environmental network that seeks to explore ways of enabling local communities to adapt to a post-oil environment) , author Jay Griffiths also provides an insightful description of urban life in C21 Britain - the culture many of us are called to minister into.

The article provides insight into one of the crucial "felt needs" (not to mention actual needs!) of modern society: the need for community.

Whatever else we think of the nature and practice of the local church, I'm sure that most of us would feel that fellowship ought to be one of its key components. My own view is that fellowship is also at the heart of how we communicate the good news: the medium becomes the message. We model what we speak - of God's redeeming love and the creation of a new humanity in Christ.

Invaluable reading as a discussion starter for those committed to seeing the local church engage effectively with the un-churched majority around it.

Among the many quotable insights from jay Griffith's article:

• Many people feel that individual action [on climate change] is too trivial to be effective but that they are unable to influence anything at a national, governmental level. They find themselves paralyzed between the apparent futility of the small-scale and impotence in the large-scale.

• At a government level, I find I’ve shrunk, smaller than the X on my ballot paper.

• We speak of economies of scale, and I would suggest that there are also moralities of scale.

• Community morality involves a sense of fellow-feeling, is attuned to the common good, far steadier than individual morality, far kinder than the State.

• The fact that they were trying out an idea without being able to predict the results has a vitality to it, an intellectually energetic quality, a profound liveliness.

• William Morris spoke of the gentle social-ism that he called fellowship: “Fellowship is life, and lack of fellowship is death.”

• Many people today experience a strange hollow in the psyche, a hole the size of a village.

• In this extreme isolation, we don’t interact except with the television and the computer. We’ve lost something, and we don’t know what it is, and we try to fill it with food and alcohol and shopping but it’s never filled—what we’ve lost is our connection to our community, our place, and nature.

• The colonial powers practiced the policy of “divide and rule” ... but in contemporary society there is a more insidious policy of “atomize and rule.” The world of mass media fragments real societies into solitary individuals, passive recipients of information.
  

• Although the French Revolution announced that it stood for three things, only two of these (Liberty and Equality) have survived in political parlance while the third, Fraternity, has been made to sound both quaint and unnecessary.

• We are ineluctably and gloriously social animals. We want fellowship.

• Celebrity culture is an opposite of community, informing us that these few nonsense-heads matter but that the rest of us do not. Insidiously, the television tells me I am no one. If I was Someone, I’d be on telly.

• Celebrity culture is both a cause and a consequence of the low self-esteem that mars so many people’s lives. So, the unacknowledged individual is manipulated into a jealousy of acknowledgment, which is why it is so telling that huge numbers of young people insist that when they grow up they want to be a celebrity.
  

• We all need acknowledgment (but not fame). We all need recognition (but not to be “spotted” out shopping). We all need to be known, we need our selves confirmed by others, fluidly, naturally. A sense of community has always provided these familiar, unshowy acts of ordinary recognition.

Comments, please.

How Long Should a Local Church Last?

I've only heard it stated publicly twice.

The first time was by the late John Wimber when he said (on his church planting tapes, if I remember rightly) that, in his view, a local church should probably see itself lasting about 20 years before it either closes or undergoes such substantial and fundamental change that it, in effect, becomes a new church.

The second time I heard it was today when Steve Timmis, leader of the Porterbook Network and Western Europe director (or something equally impressive) of the Acts 29 Network, made the following statement on his twitter profile:

"Every church is 'designed' for a specific culture & generation. It has a 'sell-by' date which, if ignored, leads into institutionalism."

I must confess, I have not thought a great deal about this issue so I will throw it out to the blogosphere in the hope that someone has done some Biblical thinking on it and can provide some guidance on where to begin in responding to this concept of the alleged time-sensitive nature of a specific local church.

Meanwhile, I'll try and get some further clarification from Steve Timmis about why he believes this.

Seeker Friendly, New Testament Style (Part 1)

Debates about the extent to which church meetings are or should be accessible to the uncommitted or casual visitor have occupied a great deal of attention in Christian circles in recent years.

It is interesting to note within the context of this debate how little space has been given over to analysing how the new testament church actually understood the issue. Instead, an assumption is often made that a desire to be accessible to the un-churched outsider is an entirely new preoccupation, unknown to the early church. The reality however is quite different.

Paul's Corinthian correspondence, while focusing on the life of the church itself, also has an eye on those outside, as we shall see in a series of forthcoming posts on the subject.

Responding to Adrian Warnock on Measures of Leadership

Adrian Warnock has posted this week on the subject of measures of gifting and knowing your role as a leader. Since the views expressed in the post are widely held among Christians - the passage is a particular favourite of cell churches, for instance - it seemed appropriate to respond to it and invite readers to consider another perspective on the passage and its application for today.

The passage in question is Exodus 18.

Adrian's arguement, if I have understood it correctly, is that the Exodus passage refers to different measures of leadership capacity that different people possess ("leaders of 10's , leaders of 50's, " etc ) and that church leaders today should be aware of their measure of leadership gifting and seek to operate faithfully within that specific sphere or measure.

My problems with this interpretation are several:

1. The men in Exodus 18 were essentially judges not pastors or elders. The words used to describe them in the NIV are "officials" (21) and "judges" (22). They are called "leaders" in verse 25, but this term is immediately qualified in the same verse by again referring to their role as "officials" and "judges". Moses is here setting up a system of law enforcement - more a police force than a church leadership team.

2. The view that the different roles these judges occupied were based on their "differing capacity for leadership" is stated but not proven from the text. The passage itself does not actually tell us what basis was used by Moses for selecting some to be officials over 10 and others to be officials over 1000. It is an assumption that the different roles were based on "capacity" but not a conclusion that arises naturally from the text, which merely states that men were appointed to these roles.

3. It is entirely possible that Moses made these appointments based not on measures of gifting but on age or on family or clan ties. Anyone reasonably familiar with middle eastern cultures in the past or present would not find that sentence as shocking as those of us raised in a modern, urban and western environment. Of course, I am not claiming that this was the basis for Moses' decisions - I am merely illustrating that "gifting" is not a necessary way of understanding the passage as it is not referred to at all within it.

4. Adrian assumes the validity of the "number one" leader model for local churches and basis his application of the passage on that assumption. His application includes the following : "Sadly we fail to realise that not every godly Christian leader should aspire to be the so-called "number one" leader of a church." I would respond that it is surely preferable that no godly Christian aspires to such an un-biblical role.

The phrase "number one" is virtually always placed in inverted commas when used in a Christian context, as I have done in this sentence. Such usage highlights the inherent problem with the term. We feel it to be an inappropriate phrase because we claim to believe in servant leadership rather than hierarchy in church life; at the same time, our use of the term reveals that, in fact, we do believe in hierarchy in the local church. Hence the inverted commas, as a way of trying to have our leadership cake and eat it.

Who was the number one among Jesus' apostles after the ascension? The vision caster? The most gifted public speaker? Actually, it was the the one who had always been the greatest - namely, the least of all.

Adrian does, of course, make a valid point, which I agree is implicit indirectly in the passage, that leaders should not assume more of themselves than is realistic. Perhaps Paul had something similar in mind when he exhorts us to "not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you." The context of this passage in Romans 12:3 does have to do with gifting in a broader sense - not whether I am a "leader of 50" or not but whether my gifts include teaching, being a mercy-giver, prophesying or leadership, all of which are to be used to serve the body of Christ and build others up.

Don't Forget Mystery

In the church of my dreams, the Bible is central and speaks with "final authority on all matters of faith and practice" (to quote a document from the Baptist church of my youth). Such a valuing of the Scriptures will inevitably lead to teaching from the Bible that is doctrinal in nature. So far so good.

From this can arise the desire for a "systematic" theology that covers all aspects of Biblical revelation and attempts to draw together the different strands of Bible truth into a comprehensive whole. Affirming that Scripture is not internally contradictory and assuming that all strands of Biblical truth can be harmonised, we can then develop a system of belief that attempts to explain all - a kind of Biblical equivalent of the scientist's search for a Grand Theory of Everything.

This desire is, of course, understandable and at one level is to be welcomed. It does, however, have its risks. One problem that can emerge in a church or movement committed to expounding Biblical truth is that its understanding of doctrine can become overly formulaic and can fail to recognise that in the end, all doctrine ends in mystery.

When we say that "God is love", for example, we are saying something that at one level appears reasonably clear and able to be understood (to the mind made alive by the Spirit). But at the same time, we are also staring wide mouthed into the most profound mystery of the universe, a mystery that makes the unraveling of the human genome appear child's play.

Although the words of Scripture are sufficient, they are not exhaustive. They do not tell us all that can be known, only that which we need to know for our salvation and for living a godly life.

Perhaps Paul had something similar in mind when he confessed that "we know in part" and when he portrayed this present life as "looking into a dark mirror" or (as other versions put it) "seeing only dimly". Because so much attention has been spent in recent decades explaining that these verses in 1 Corinthians do not refer to the cessation of spiritual gifts with the closing of the canon of Scripture, we have perhaps not been as careful to explain what they actually do mean.

In context, Paul is saying that all of our current knowledge about the things of God is limited - not incorrect, just limited. It is like the knowledge that a child has about the world around him - simplistic, basic, lacking depth or rigor. "Now", says Paul, "we know in part."

What is Paul's response to the reality of our current childish knowledge compared to our future adult knowledge of spiritual things? Does he abandon doctrine? Not at all. Rather, he emphasises love: And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

In the church of my dreams, doctrinal teaching is important. But it is to be set forth with a healthy dose of humility and a recognition that at present we're just kids talking about big stuff that we don't really get. This being the case, we adopt humility in our dealings with each other, and we make great efforts to think, speak and act lovingly towards all those who belong to Jesus Christ, even with those who don't agree with our view of the Millenium.

Colin Crouch, Post Democracy and Grass Roots Church Movements

My guess is that when Colin Crouch, Chair of the Department of Social and Political Sciences at the European University Institute in Florence, penned his short but absorbing book Post-democracy he was not anticipating that it would, in part, inspire thought about the nature of the Christian church.

When reading, however, I was struck by one paragraph that seemed to have a direct application to the idea of the church as a movement rather than an organisation.

Against the backdrop of the numerical decline in the manual working classes in Western societies and, as Crouch sees it, the related decline in mass concerted political action emanating from those social groups, he notes one movement that has bucked the trend of growing political passivity in recent years: namely, the rise of the feminist movement. Alongside the green movement, it has, says the author, "constituted the most important new instance of democratic politics at work" in recent decades.

The paragraph that struck me as having something to say (indirectly) about the church was as follows:

"Starting with small groups of intellectuals and extremists, it [feminism] spread to express itself in complex, rich and uncontrollable ways, but all rooted in the fundamental requirement of a great movement: the discovery of an unexpressed identity, leading to the definition of interests and the formation of formal and informal groups to give expression to these. As with all great movements, it took the existing political system by surprise and could not be easily manipulated. ... It is characteristic of a true major social movement that it takes a confusing and sometimes contradictory multiplicity of forms."

Those of us who have a longing to see a mass movement of Christian life which significantly effects the social and cultural landscape of our communities and nations, may wish to reflect on these ideas:

1. Mass Christian movements often start at the fringes and are easily dismissed or ridiculed in their early stages. While we look back with awe at, say, the Wesleyan movement of the C18, we do well to remember that in origin it was quirky and led by a small band of prayerful extremists.

2. A great movement requires the "discovery of an unexpressed identity". While we can rejoice wholeheartedly in the recovery across the Christian church in recent years of an appreciation of the grace of God in regard to the believer's righteous standing in Christ, his freedom from condemnation and law and the power of the new birth to deliver from slavery to sin, there is perhaps yet "more light" to be shed on the implications of this truth for our corporate life together. The discovery that, since I am in Christ, I am one with you if you are in Christ and that, when we meet together, Christ himself is present with us, no matter how few in number we are, is a truth whose power is, perhaps, waiting to be fully realised.

3. This discovery, that we the church have a shared identity and shared life waiting to be fully expressed beyond our current experience of church meetings and organised events could, according to Crouch's model, lead to the "defining of interests." Our interests as Christian believers include encouraging one another to grow in God's grace, caring deeply for one another and sharing our lives together in fellowship. Our interests include living holy lives for the glory of God.and seeking Christ's Kingdom in our lives, our families and in wider society . Our interests include a detachment from worldly priorities and a longing for the "appearing" of Christ at the end of the age when we shall be united with him forever. Our interests also include a desire to make Christ known to others by word and deed and to seek the advance of his kingdom throughout the nations.

4. The discovery of these interests could lead, in turn, to the formation of groups that give expression to them. Groups of believers who meet to pray, to feed on Christ through his word and through the sacrament of the Lord's supper, to share our lives together and to care for, teach and encourage one another. Groups where we learn from God's word and where true discipleship takes place which shapes everything about us. Groups which non-believers attend and in which they witness supernatural occurrences as the Spirit of Christ distributes gifts and manifestations to build up the members. Such groups might vary in size, in time and frequency of gathering and in numerous other secondary matters. I know what you're thinking - it sounds bit like the church we read of in Acts.

5. Such a movement could take existing systems by surprise. A system that has for so long been leader-centric could find that anyone and everyone is hosting and starting groups without asking for permission. We could find that, just as unnamed believers fleeing persecution first took the gospel to Antioch and into the Gentile world (see Acts 11), we could today see ordinary believers who have regular full-time jobs in offices, schools or factories breaking into new people groups with the good news in our multi-cultural cities and that new churches are appearing who sing the praise of Jesus Christ in Somali, Arabic and Polish. Although we may think we would rejoice in these untidy developments, we may in reality find ourselves nervous about these uncontrolled events, in similar ways to the reaction of European Catholicism 500 years ago when the reformers promised to translate the Bible into the common languages and place it in the hands of ploughmen and weavers to read and obey as their conscience taught them.

6. The fact that such a movement cannot be manipulated indicates how different it is from other structures that may exist within a society. In particular, such a mass movement is in nature quite different from a corporation or a firm, particularly as they increasingly exist in the Anglo-American economies. Such firms, which tragically (to my mind) some churches have sought to imitate, have a product or products, streamlined delivery and marketing systems, multiple layers of managers and highly powerful senior executives, the CEO being at the top of the organisation. All of which can make them efficient but also controlling.

Let me speak plainly.

I see a growing movement of believers developing outside of traditional church structures - and even outside of "new church" structures. Some of these believers are discouraged. Others are weak. And some, frankly, have significant gaps in their theology and practice. Most of them love the Lord Jesus but have fallen out of love with their previous experience of doing church. Many are longing for a way of being the church together that is highly relational, flexible and "in life".

I also think that those with gifts of leadership, teaching, pastoral care and apostleship would do well to serve these scattered believers with the word of God and with their gifts.

I'm reminded of the advice that Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones gave to the late Henry Tyler, a founding elder of what is now Church of Christ the King in Brighton. After finishing Bible college, Henry, who I knew personally, was considering taking on the pastorate of a Baptist church. Lloyd Jones urged Henry to "stay among the house churches" that were emerging in the 1970s and to teach them the word of God.

A similar phenomenon is emerging today. I hope that those outside this emerging movement who are leaders have the wisdom of Lloyd Jones as they look on and consider their response.

I have written a review of professor Crouch's book here.

The Gospel, the Church, the Culture and the Mission

As fools yearn to play Hamlet (paraphrasing Packer's introduction to Knowing God), so I have longed to write a post about the gospel and culture.

This, however, is not it.

As a fleeting dip of the toe into the water, however, may I refer readers to a recent post by Brother Maynard over at Subversive Influence. His topic is the "men in church" thing, which, if I have time, I hope to write about as well. The theme, however, provides the writer with the opportunity to explore the issues of "contextualisation" of the gospel compared with "incarnation" of the gospel.

It's a bit late in the day and I don't really get it all. But I think he raises some good questions about the dangers of seeing the gospel as a product and the world as our target market. I don't know many people who use that language as such, but I observe quite a lot of actions that show that this kind of thinking is quite influential.

Which, of course, does not mean it is right.