How does God change lives?

 The means of divine influence

In this blog I ask the very simple question, "How does God change the lives of his people?"

The ultimate means of divine influence is impossible to discern: who can tell the mysterious working of God in the human soul? 

For sure the Word of God together with the Spirit of God play the central and pivotal role. Through the Word we are regenerated and sanctified.

For that reason preaching and prayer is rightly prized in any genuine Bible-believing church.

The Word made flesh

But for many reasons we have neglected - to our great loss - another, but very much connected, means of divine influence: the influence of one believer upon another.

The starting point for understanding this "means of influence" is God's example: the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.

The Word could have stayed in heaven.

The Word could have written books and sent them to earth.

We could have heard the words of God merely through letters on a page or a voice from afar.

But, no, the Word became flesh.

The Word came in person, flesh and blood person. 

And through, not merely his words but also his life, the disciples were transformed.

So much that enemies observing His influence on the disciples noted that these UNSCHOOLED men had been lectured by been WITH Jesus (Acts 4:13).

Enemies knew the power of just being with Jesus.  

The power of example.

The power of life, of word working through life.

Jesus did not ask his disciples to show up once a week to a sabbath lecture. He lived with them week by week and through not only his words but the example of his life, he taught them.

Life (as well as lip).

Living example (as well as words).

Our obsession with the academy

Today, because of our proudful obsession with the academy, with the verbal, with the written, with the textual, we have neglected the incarnational means by which lives are in practice changed, actually transformed.

Place a young Christian in a church community - how does he or she grow? We say "come to the Sunday Sermon, read your Bible, come to the midweek Bible Study."

Words, words, words.

And then we wonder ten years down the line why their lives, Monday to Saturday are largely untransformed by the Gospel. 

No life was ever transformed by sermons.

Alone.

Lives are transformed in living community within the body of God's people.

(Oh yes, where faithful preaching and teaching takes place too.)

This is what Jesus meant by his command "make disciples." He meant "do for the world what I have just done for you over the last 3 years, namely spend many long hours with the next generation of believers, living a godly life before them and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."

Charter for a more incarnational Christianity

If we are to recover a truer Christianity, this is how it might look:

Think apprenticeship model not university model. Take the apprenticeship model as your example. Plumbers are not trained by placing them in an institution, but by watching a master plumber do his day work.

Therefore do not put all your eggs in the verbal basket. If a pastor spends all his time in his study and little time with real people his impact will be cerebral and minimal. (Actually, he will, by default, be influencing them profoundly into his own personal (non)incarnational philosophy: they will pick up that Monday to Saturday they may live as they please and only Sunday religion really matters.)

Does this mean preaching does not matter? Not at all. It means that there is more to communicating a message than mere words. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

Live a godly life yourself. Those who you disciple will, by God's grace, rise no higher than you. This may be precisely why discipleship is out of fashion today? Older Christians don't want young believers getting too close to their lives. After all, who knows what they might find? Not to mention the nuisance factor.

Focus on just a few people. Forget numbers, focus on a few. Forget one-mile-wide-and-one-inch-deep religion (as famous as that variety may make you) and opt for one-inch-wide but a world-transforming mile deep true Christianity.

Spend all sorts of time with those few. Time over meals, walks, coffees, whatever. 

Ignore climbing the proud ecclesiastical ladders of evangelicalism (which all ride off big numbers). Of set purpose eschew ecclesiastical ladders which breed off the big numbers that make any real influence an impossibility.  

Don't be deceived by big-number claims. Time and again folk will boast that such and such person has influenced "a generation" of people. It's a lie. If Jesus did not manage to influence more than 12 (11) nor will you - or the big evangelical guru. Oh, yes they may read a book of yours, hear a sermon, but the incarnation teaches that real and lasting influence requires much more than mere words.

So be content with influencing just a few.  Jesus was content with just 12 (11) over 3 years. You and I will struggle to disciple twelve people well the whole of our lives. Settle for just a few and look to your heavenly reward not to earthly fleeting fame.

Suppose, just suppose we said to one another that we would be content with to disciple say 3 people the whole of our lives. The next generation of believers would multiply by a factor of 3...

...the following by 9

...the following by 27. 

You get the picture.  

Religion changes no-one.

Discipleship changes the world.

Ready for Reformation Day?

Reformation Part A - Luther, Zwingli, Calvin

The Reformation in Europe is traditionally dated from the day Martin Luther nailed 95 suggestions for discussion to some door in Wittenberg.

And for sure that was a significant date, October 31st, 1517.

Through great reformers such as Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, much truth was recovered. Centuries of dead tradition, Roman Catholic superstition and heresy were swept away; Gospel truth was restored.

Reformation Part B - Conrad Grebel, Felix Manz

But there is a good case for celebrating another date - 8 years later - as well.  Tuesday 21st January 2025  will be the 500th Anniversary of Saturday 21st January 1525. And on that Saturday something profound took place: a few adults got baptised in Zurich. Here's one account of the event:

“After the prayer George of the House of Jacob stood up and asked Conrad Grebel for God’s sake to baptise him with the true Christian baptism upon his faith and knowledge. And when he knelt down with such a request and desire, Conrad baptised him, since at that time there was no ordained minister to perform such a work.”

Doesn't sound like much to write home about? 

Until you realise that this was the very first known/recorded New Testament church gathering separate from the state in Europe for many centuries.

Until you realise that this gathering broke the perverse 1000 year old connection between church and state.

This one simple baptism signalled the determination of a new band of reformers called the Radical Reformers (nick-named the Anabaptists by their enemies: anabaptist means "baptise again" referring to the fact that they had already been baptised as infants). These believers wanted to form proper New Testament churches outside the control of the corrupting influence of the unbelieving state - just like the New Testament churches.

The Reformation was meant to be an attempt to restore the European Roman Catholic Church back to the Bible. ("Everyone" in Europe was a catholic in those days because State and Church were one.)

But great figures such as Luther, Zwingli and Calvin laboured under a blind spot so big it curtailed anything like the completion of their work.

All of these big name reformers used the powers of the local secular magistrates to push through their reforms, hence we call them "magisterial reformers." (Nothing to do with majesty - a common homophonic misunderstanding).

Zwingli, for example, waited until the council leaders in Zurich - who were not necessarily believers - agreed with the spiritual reforms he was urging. And only if/when these men agreed with his reforms did they pass into law. In this way the dangerous connection between church and state was continued.

Zwingli did not feel the need to act independently of the state, because in his mind the two were one: this was perhaps the biggest spiritual blindspot of this era.

Along came men like Conrad Gebel and Felix Manz in Zurich who argued that the church and state should be totally separate - just as they are in the New Testament.

And so on Saturday 21st Janaury 2025, a few Christians got baptised in a house in Zurich - and this simple act established the first known/recorded proper New Testament church that was separate from the state for centuries in Europe. (And unleashed a torrent of persecution upon them).

(At the end of this blog I list some sources if you wish to find out more about the Radical Reformers aka Anabaptists).

Reformation Part C - us, today

It is a great - but all too common - mistake to bind ourselves to Reformation A or B. To imagine that all the reformation that needs to take place has already taken place in the past. To line our bookshelves with their holy tomes and lock ourselves into the delusion of thinking we're safe, we're "Reformed."

The basic warning of Church History is that the church - however you define it, whatever tribe you find yourself in, is always drifting away from Scripture. That includes the tribe we are in. 

That includes Bible-believing conservative reformed evangelicalism. 

Us. You. Me.

It then remains to discern how the church today needs reforming in the light of Scripture.

To be sure the answer to that question will be as unnerving to us as Luther was to the Catholics of his day.

Here are seven reformation theses we need to sellotape to all our church doors today:

1. The end of Celebrity Christianity. That churches and church leaders should do everything in their power to pursue annonymity in this world and have an eye only to the Court of heaven in the world to come.

2. The end of number worship. That numbers, whether sales of books, congregation size, subscribers or number of hits, should no longer be used as any metric of truth or Gospel success.

3. The reintroduction of deep discipleship. That every believer and church should seek to make disciples in the same manner that the Lord Jesus and the apostles made disciples, to wit, by deep and extensive nurture of a few converts, rather than the illusion of discipling lage numbers.   

4. The end of the CEO pastor. That the office, no less offensive than pope or priest, namely the CEO Pastor, should be abolished. This imposter office is the man or woman who has very little to do with individual sheep in the flock but instead acts as CEO to a sprawling entourage of underlings whom he directs from his ivory palace. 

5. The end of the mega-church. That since the office of CEO pastor is to be abolished so too the babelesque churches - monuments to human pride - they preside over. The church can then return to the pattern of the New Testament - small churches scattered around and connected to one another by an Invisble Head.

6. The end of the new scholasticism. To abandon the ambition of pastors to be known for their scholastic achievements, and the practice of books and sermons to be informed more by the dictates and passing fads of the academy than for the edification of the ordinary believer.

7. A recovery of the doctrine that suffering is the mark of true greatness. That as the apostle Paul (following his Master), had a reputation for suffering, as the chief evidence of his apostleship, so today men and women ought to be judged not by their degrees or supposed ecclessiastical achievements, often purely mythical, sometimes laughable, but by the number of their scars. Count scars not stats.

I am sure that more reforms than these are needed to return the church to the New Testament. But these would make an enormous difference to the Kingdom of Christ in the world today.

---------------------ooooOoooo--------------------

Resources on the Radical Reformation

The first step to knowing more about the Radical Reformation is to ignore, almost completely, what the Magisterial Reformers wrote about them. Virtually to a man these reformers spoke evil and slander about their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. 

And before we judge them for that sin we ought to remember, always remember, that one blind spot spawns another. If you believe that the state and the church are one, then you also will believe that the church can use the same means to get its way as the state - namely the use of force and the sword. (For this reason the statue of Zwingli in Zurich holds a sword and a Bible, and Zwingli himself died fighting in a real, not spiritual, battle). Force and hate was the order of the day in that unholy alliance called Christendom.

So step 1 is to discard the false and unreliable witness of the Magisterial Reformers.

Step 2 is to read a balanced account of the Radical Reformers and truthful biographies of their lives. Here are some examples:

Conrad Grebel: Founder of the Swiss Brethren (Harold Bender)

A History of the Anabaptists in Switzerland  (Henry Burrage)

Anabaptism in Outline (edited by Walter Klassen)

Step 3 is to go back to the primary sources and read what these reformers said themselves, their writings. You could read one of their short statements of faith, here. Thankfully there has been a resurgence of interest in these writers. There is a wonderful series called Classics of The Radical Reformation, 13 volumes, by Plough Publishing House. 

Volume 3 "Anabaptism in Outline: selected Primary Sources" is a great place to start if you are into primary sources.

Or you could save yourself a lot of reading and  get hold of Lost Reformers, a short 40 page summary of the Anabaptists written by myself.

AI image at start of blog: 

Draw Ulrich Zwingli talking to Conrad Grebel

Cherished Christmas Memories

 

However we celebrate Christmas, whether secular or spiritual, (child)ren are (always)often at the heart of it. Here are five childhood memories that spontaneously come to my mind. 

1960s KARACHI 

When I was a little child

 

The Muslim leaders of Karachi allowed an enormous Christian pageant to take place every Christmas. Stretching across parkland, "Joseph" and "Mary" on a real donkey made their way to Bethlehem. A "star" - presumably running along an invisible wire - went before "Wisemen" on real camels. Captivated we watched from an arena where loudspeakers told the familiar Bible story. 

 

What is rooted in my memory most of all are the hauntingly beautiful music and lyrics of a carol that floated over the Tannoy:

O holy night! the stars are brightly shining;
It is the night of the dear Saviour’s birth.
Long lay the world in sin and error pining,
Till He appeared and the soul felt its worth.
A thrill of hope- the weary world rejoices,
For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn!

Whenever I hear the next three lines, five decades later, it evokes those childhood memories and stirs my heart to worship:

Fall on your knees! O hear the angel voices!
O night divine, O night when Christ was born!
O night, O holy night, O night divine!

1970s ST PAUL, MINNESOTA

My first Christmas in the West, aged 10 

Moving to the eleventh year of my life, our family of eight arrived in St. Paul in 1970. We thought it would be a six month furlough in Southampton followed by six months in St Paul, before returning to hot dusty Karachi. (That was not how providence led us, and you can read the whole wonderful story in Lives Less Ordinary available from fishermanspress.com).

The singular memory from these two years was the astounding kindness of strangers. My father had been sent out as a missionary by Simpson Memorial Church in St Paul, but it had been over 12 years since he'd been back there. Older people had moved on, new people had arrived, would they remember those strange missionaries?

Not only did they remember, they were extravagantly generous to us. They fixed up a large house, provided a new large car and on our very first Christmas in the West as a family, lavished many gifts on we children.

The kindness of strangers: Simpson Memorial supported their missionaries so well that they provided home and board for a large family of eight for two years.

1980s WOLVERHAMPTON

Living in a church-planting home

 

In 1972 my parents were called to Wolverhampton as missionaries among the Asian population who had arrived in the West Midlands to work in factories. As the Lord blessed the work and it grew, the focus of my parents' attention turned towards their calling as evangelists. I recall nothing memorable from these busy gospel years.

Except that on one Christmas eve (we opened our presents on Christmas Eve - a custom derived from my father's German heritage) the six kids must have misbehaved at the Asian Christian Fellowship's annual Christmas Eve evangelistic meeting. So present-opening was postponed until the next morning. We were gutted.

1990s NORTH YORKSHIRE

When my children were little 

 

Jumping forward in time to when my boys were little and I was a newbie church pastor up North. 

 

Of all the memories of those days I vividly recall the wonder of my four children on Christmas morning. Yvonne would place a sack filled with little individual presents on each bed in the middle of the night. We would hear the boys early in the morning opening each gift with delight in their voices, telling one another of the gift they received. "Look what I've got!" "Wow!" "Just what I wanted!"

WORCESTER
Now my kids are grown up

Now that my children have grown up, Christmas wonder no longer revolves around children or presents but around the all-too-familiar stories of the incarnation. 

This year I have been struck by the radical faith, obedience and courage of Joseph and Mary.

Mary willingly takes on the role of mother of the Messiah, though it puts her reputation and her engagement to Joseph in jeopardy.

Joseph agrees to continue the engagement with Mary though it means taking on a child that is biologically not his own and potentially sharing in Mary's shame.

Their faith in God is revealed in their obedience to God's call on their lives which was communicated through his messenger-angels.

There are two main ways that faith in God is revealed. First, through prayer. If we believe the promises God has made we'll take them to him in prayer and ask him to fulfil those promises.

And second, if we really believe his Word we will obey it.

Trust and Obey, for there is no other way, to be Happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey.

Ai Image:

Draw Christmas Memories

USA Sabbatical Reflections

An American myself, I've just spent a two week sabbatical in the USA. Here are a few of my snap-shot reflections on a wonderful larger-than-life country.

Amazing Scenery 

Everything in America is BIG. Foot long cookies at Subway, one litre drinks at McDonalds, vast tracts of flat open space and ginormous canyons. We spent a few days in the canyon lands and were blown away not merely by the size and beauty of those places, but more by the glory of the Creator that they display.

One viewpoint for the Grand Canyon

Amazing Museums

We visited two unusual museums in Kentucky. One was called "Ark Encounter" - a life-size enormous reconstruction of Noah's Ark (yes we believe the ark and flood were real historical events). And then the Creation Museum, a short drive away.

American Christians do nothing in half measures and both museums are spectacular and well worth visiting. 

We admire the passion for the truth of God's Word of these good Christian museum folks.

Giant Christian Bookshops

Our good Michigan friends, Dan and Priscilla Lohrmann, took us to Grand Rapids to visit the large bookshops that Grand Rapids is famous for. (This is not the first time I have visited GR as a book lover.) This time we focused on a relatively new publishing powerhouse, RHB (Reformation Heritage Books), which has grown tremendously over the last few years.

Lo and behold, the man who runs the press came from the UK and we had a happy time sharing stories and memories of churches and Christians known to both of us.

A Home-Schooling Reflection

I cannot say how characteristic this trend is of the whole USA but many Christian parents home-school. They are weary of the liberal agenda preached as unquestioned dogma; they are worried about their kids being paganised, so they have taken to teaching them at home. 

Vast resources abound in that great land to help home-schooling parents.

In the large Presbyterian church we attended 90% of the parents home school! When the children were asked to leave for their classes before the 40 minute sermon few kids went out. The parents want their kids to hear the Word from the youngest age possible. This made the sermon time a tiny bit noisier than perhaps in other churches, but without a dumbing down agenda, the kids were rising to the occasion.

------ooo------

I spent many long hours watching every news channel I possibly could over the two weeks; from FOX to CNN to MSNBC and everything in between. The remaining reflections are on US politics.  

Perhaps because I've lived outside the States for most of my life I can take a more balanced view? Who knows? You be the judge!

A Parochial Nation

The presidential elections may have skewed the daily output but my first "poltiical" observation was how parochial the news bulletins were. Almost all the coverage concerned US affairs. You would have thought that the world ended at the national borders of the USA. Rarely did I see news items covering even the major two wars raging across the world.

I often complain that the BBC in the UK is inward looking and turn to France 24 or Aljazeera to remind myself that there is a world beyond the land and interests of the UK. But the US news outlets are more parochial than the BBC. 

American friends, Sorry!

A Polarised Nation

Nothing is more clear to the outside observer! One channel is completely pro-Trump / pro-Republican and the next channel totally pro-Harris / Pro-Democrat, with no middle ground. 

One minute a paid pro-Trump anti-Harris advert is aired, the next moment it's time for a pro-Harris, anti-Trump advert! 

This may be the nature of a two-party political system but it makes for completely polarised positions and a throughly polarised nation. 

Those who support Trump can see no good in Harris and those who support Harris no good in Trump. 

Again, Sorry!

A More Honest Press

However - having channels dedicated to one party or the other, ironically, makes for a more honest or fuller Press. I well remember the 2016 Presidential campaign when Hilary Clinton stood against Trump. On this side of the Atlantic Trump was demonised and Hilary was idolized. We heard little or nothing evil of Clinton on the BBC. 

With the gloves off in the US, however, historical dirt along with historical fact on both sides is freely dragged up and shared.

During the recent presidential elections only the misdemeanours of Trump were heard here in the UK, but over there all the sins of Harris were also shouted from the roof tops. That was the unusual and even unexpected thing. I learned stuff about Harris that would never be whispered by our press, and frankly which I wish I did not know.

None of this should surprise us: all political leaders, both roughies and refined smoothies are sinners. 

Perhaps this point is more a reflection of the left-leaning press in the UK who have every motive to demonise Trump and overlook the sins of Harris.

Many Bible Believing Christians Voted for Trump 

the Republican Party

English folks are sometimes shocked when they hear that many good solid Bible believing Christians voted for Trump. In part that's because bad news about Harris is filtered by our left-leaning press.

Of course, these good Christian people were not really voting for Trump the man, they were voting against Harris the liberal, and for the less liberal agenda of the Republican Party. 

When Christians are choosing church leaders it is always character, character, character. On that basis Trump wouldn't get a look in (and most probably neither would Harris - or any other politician for that matter). But when voting politically for national leaders the dilemma often becomes a choice between the lesser of two evils. 

And on the scale of evil, many true Christians came down - resoundingly so it would seem - on the side of Trump as the lesser of the two evils.

Reflections on Trump

One final reflection...

From this side of the pond the most remarkable thing about the US elections was how on earth did a nation of 335 million people fail to field any better candidates than Harris or Trump? 

The answer cannot be that such candidates do not exist, the answer must lie elsewhere, in the process by which candidates are chosen, namely the influence of fame, money, nepotism, politics.... on the way appointments are made.

But why did Americans - who knew the weaknesses and sins of both Harris and Trump - choose to overlook the latter's sins?

Our American Airlines plane to Heathrow was in the air on Election Day. Every single poll predicted a very close election, almost all of them suggesting Harris would be the winner, except Fox News (that's right, pro-Trump). 

One famous US pollster, who has predicted the last 9 out of the last 10 correctly, plugged for Harris.

But as the final results came in, it became clear that Trump had won a resounding victory. The popular vote was close, 48.3% vs 50% but Trump now has all the levers of power at his disposal.

In spite of the numerous "damaging" law suits against him!

This resounding win has made me ponder why and with this I close my snapshot meanderings.

Why choose Trump?

Are many Americans weary of the anti-biology woke agenda? 

Are they weary of smoothies in power? People who seem to be outwardly refined but secretly wicked, if not in character, then in policies? 

Are Americans wanting a normal bloke, fallen as he may be, to govern them rather than a distant unrelatable "who is she?" smooth operator? Someone who speaks their mind and says what they themselves are often thinking in the leisure of their homes rather than someone who simply follows every wind that happens to blow through the global cultural zietgeist of the day? 

I don't know. 

And the Lord only knows how the next four years will turn out....

-----oooo------

Just a few of reflections before they fade from memory.

I came away refreshed by the sights and sounds of this great and vast land, thankful that the USA exists and thankful to God that she still exerts a powerful influence - most generally for good - in our troubled world.

I took a dozen books to read, but barely read a single page. That's a good sign.

And I say and pray most heartedly, "God Bless America!"

The Case for Small Churches

 

 Another prompt for this blog post

I was working on this blog when I heard the tragic news that yet another celebrity evangelical preacher has fallen from grace.

Just as embarrassing - and all of this in public gaze - the spectacle of fellow mega preachers who once supported him to the hilt now pedaling like mad upstream away from the dead corpse.

There is something deeply wrong with Bible-believing evangelicalism - and in part it is the idea that there exists such a thing as a super-star preacher.

We all need to be clear that the notion of celebrity preachers is unknown to Scripture. The only possible parallels would be the now-forever-gone capital-A Apostles whose only fame was infamy, whose popularity was slander, whose boast was suffering.

The notion of a big-name preacher is alien to the very nature of New Testament  Christianity.

Their mere existence is yet another reason to advocate a 21st century reformation which will sweep away all such folly - along with the megachurches where they camp out.

Here are 5 good reasons for advocating small churches. Which means, in practice that when a church gets too big - perhaps the 100ish mark or before? -  we plant new churches. 

1. Small Churches can be truly "family" 

Christian people belong to a new divine community where they are encouraged to view one another as brothers and sisters in a family. God is our Father and Jesus Christ our elder brother, and though the eternal family extends across all time, the local congregation is to be a genuine reflection of this family.  

Hundreds of times in the New Testament, God's people call one another "brother" or "sister."

A "family feel" of love and acceptance ought to be one of the most immediate and noticeable aspects of daily church life. "That's my brother, she's my sister."

But there is a number beyond which it is impossible to cultivate that kind of ethos and feel. "Strangers" or perhaps "acquaintances" becomes the more accurate moniker in such a large church.

If when we meet together the gathering is too big to cultivate or experience the notion of "family", our church is too big. 

2. All the churches of the New Testament were small

There was only one large church in the New Testament, the very first church of Jerusalem. 3000 were converted on the day of Pentecost, a number which grew to 5000. 

Why such phenomenal written-about sizes? 

One reason alone, to demonstrate the supernatural origin of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Not as a model for future churches but as a demonstration of the divine origin of the Church.

Not as a model. How can we be so sure?

We can be sure because God himself ensured the demise of the Jerusalem superchurch. He allowed persecution to scatter the members to the four winds to do what they were meant to be doing in the first place - be his witnesses to a lost world.

God engineered the 3000 converted-in-one-day church and then he permitted it to be scattered - forever. No more regathering of the Jerusalem church and no megachurches in the New Testament.

From one point of view its success was a mark of failure: the command was always to be witnesses to the ends of the world. What were they doing hanging around in Jerusalem for so long?

From that point in time onwards no numbers are mentioned in the New Testament.

From then on churches met in homes, only homes, which not only fostered the family feel, but limited the numbers by virtue of size.

How many people could the largest Roman villa hold? 

Not many.

3. The emergence of larger congregations is a direct consequence of "church" buildings

Church buildings were unknown in the first few centuries of the church. The Roman emperor Constantine, hoping perhaps to unite his empire through the use of the "Christian religion", began throwing money at the church encouraging them to build buildings. After all building stuff is how you build earthly empires. And a worldly emperor naturally reasons that building stuff is how the kingdom of God is also to be built. 

But the moment a building is conceived of, a seating size must be chosen. And now, instead of an organic relational size of congregation you end up with an ecclesiastical architect picking a non-relational seating size. And who is going to build with a seating capacity of 50? Will that few a number even be able to support the bricks and mortar upkeep, let alone a minister.  

So the existence of church buildings had an immediate - and negative - effect on church size, away from the family and familiar to the bigger and the organizational.

4. Small churches encourage the gifts of every member

The larger the church, the smaller proportion of its members serve. Indeed this is precisely why some people like big churches. They go to hide. They won't need to serve but find false comfort in the fact that they belong to the famous big ABC church led by the even more illustrious XYZ pastor.

But using our gifts to serve one another is a crucial aspect of Christian discipleship. Each of us is likened to one part of a human body whose function is essential for the well being of the whole, with no part redundant. 

Smaller churches encourage the use of spiritual gifts.

5. Small churches limit the fall of any one leader

The colateral spiritual damage caused by the fall of one of these big-shot preachers can be considerable, because of how many people they preside over. If churches were small, the damage of any one fall would be limited.

What to do with mega-pastors?

What then should we do with all our evangelical mega-pastors? We should urge them to do what the gifted apostles (their only possible parallel if we are looking for parallels) did and go preach from town to town and plant churches all over, getting imprisoned and beat up on the way. 

Just like Paul and just like his Master.

And thereby truly revealing their true greatness.

Not staying in some ivory palace to be worshipped and adored - now what does this sentence begin to sound like? - but coming down from their foolish man-made thrones into the humble places to preach the Gospel and suffer for the Gospel in the process. 

Why this blog will probably go unheeded

This blog will go unheeded, unless the Lord is pleased to use it, because everything in the evangelical world is wired for big numbers. 

This blog will go unheeded because what modern church wants to get smaller when, immersed in a celebrity culture, it means no fame or acknowledgement in this passing world?

Image: Do you remember "ToysRus?"

What does it mean to be a "Reformed Christian?"

 

The curse and blessing of labels

Although it would be good, we can't return to the first century when all Christians were just known as Christians. 

Over time a hundred adjectives have been added which define the precise tribe we belong to, from baptist to presbyterian from arminian to reformed.

It's a pity, but titles are now essential, for there are wolves in sheep's clothing; people who call themselves Christian by title but deny Christ in truth and life.

Reformed is a common label, "I am a reformed Christian" some will say. 

So what is a "reformed Christian?"

The narrow definition

The narrowest definition of reformed is claimed by those who hold to the doctrines recovered in the 1500s by reformers such as Calvin and Zwingli. Sometimes they summarise those doctrines with the title "doctrines of grace" and sometimes with the acrostic TULIP (Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace and the Perseverance of the saints).

At heart of this system is a passion for the majesty, sovereignty and glory of God.

The trouble with this definition of reformed is that it is locked in time past. While much truth was recovered by these reformers, they had enormous blindspots which prevented them from anything like full spiritual vision. 

Besides any doctrinal system developed by humans bears the hallmarks of their world for we are all deeply influenced by the culture of our day, not to mention our various upbringings.

There is no good reason to think that God's plan to restore truth to the church was restricted to these few men.

"God hath more light to shed from his Word."

A better definition

A better and broader definition of reformed is to include the heartwarming advances made in the same 1500s by the radical reformers called the anabaptists. Not only did they restore the idea of a church separate from the state (which we take for granted and so enjoy today) they were more concerned with the inner devotional life of the believer than the magesterial reformers (Calvin et al) whose writings tend to be cerebral, wooden and stiff.  

(Unfortunately you'll need to ignore all the comments made by Luther, Calvin and Zwingli about the anabaptists, because they were biased - to put it mildly. Instead, go to the 14 volumes of the series Classics of the Radical Reformation by Plough Publishing House and read the refreshing anabaptists for yourself).

The best definition

The best definition of reformed is claimed by those who while enjoying the reforms of the past are not locked into any century but look to restored light God has revealed in all centuries and are in a constant desire to reform today. 

The need to reform is never ending for Satan's attempts to lead the church away are persistent and relentless.

It is quite possible to be reformed in the narrow sense and to be utterly worldly because we are unware of the contemporary ways we have been/ are being led astray. 

There are many ways the church today needs reforming. The present evangelical church worships numbers and education for example. It is increasingly tying itself up in legal knots acting out of fear (as the world does) rather than being faith-ful and taking Gospel risks. On the gender front it is also drifting from the witness and example of the New Testament. 

There is a continual need for reformation. 

When we use the word "reformed" to describe ourselves, I suggest we aspire to this third, broad and better definition. 

AI Image:

"Draw the 16th century reformers in modern dress!" (fail!)

The Silent (but very loud) Majority Scriptures

Revisionism's Nemesis

You and I know, that in a blind panic to become popular and to escape persecution, large swathes of the western church (including parts who would call themselves 'evangelical') are engaged in a revisionist program to re-interpret the Scriptures.

Look folks, we all know that persecution is around the corner.

And we all know exactly where it is going to come from.

Not from our views of Jesus Christ, nor from our doctrine of salvation, but from our beliefs about mankind.

And so fearful of coming troubles - and also sometimes from a desire to look hip and cool - the church is accepting popular anthropology. But knowing it has a rather big Bible problem in doing so - some have decided to undertake a revisionist programme which will make the Bible say whatever the world is currently saying.

(Should the world come to its senses and accept biological fact one day, will the same revisionists eat humble pie and revert back to what the Bible actually teaches? We wait to see.)

In this new programme, the revisionists are taking the traditional so-called proof texts and trying to show that, all along, Scripture does not oppose homosexual practice, and that, all-along, women may lead churches.

However, unbeknown to them, hiding in plain sight is their biggest enemy: the rest of the Bible, the silent majority, the very loud silent majority. 

Case 1: Marriage

Take the issue of homosexual practice. There are around seven verses / Scripture portions which speak directly to this issue and "on the surface" "seem" to teach that homosexual practice is sinful.

Each of these texts is reinterpreted by the revisionists to make them say exactly the opposite to what the church has historically thought they meant. No mean feat. (And for anyone who has read these efforts, no material success either.)

The revisionists proudly pronounce Q.E.D. (Quod Erat Demonstrandum: "That which was to be demonstrated." We used to place these three letters - all too confidently!- after a mathematical proof.) 

The matter, they think, is settled. 

Just accept the new New. 

But not so quickly. 

Because not only are the revisionist interpretations easily proven to be ludicrously foolish (and you must read them to appreciate the intentional and deliberate use of the word ludicrous), the silent majority of Scripture stands against these fashionable new interpretations.

Everywhere in the Bible, chapter after chapter, book after book, testament after testament, marriage is assumed to be between a man and a woman. There are no other kinds of 'marriages.' Nowhere in big wide Scripture is it ever even hinted that anything apart from a one-man-one-woman relationship is God's intended will.

Better still (or worse if you are a revisionist), the Bible opens with a heterosexual marriage, Adam and Eve, and ends with a metaphorical heterosexual marriage (between the bride, the Church, and the groom, Christ Jesus). 

Indeed, if none of the Seven Scriptures were extant, we would still know, through and through, fully and completely - by the silent loud majority of Scripture - what God's will was.

CASE 2: Women in chruch leadership

Once again, the revisionists engage in their magic arts and before you know it, passages you thought taught that men should lead the church are turned on their eisegetical heads.

Q.E.D., etc., etc. 

But once again, in steps the Loud Voice of Majority Scripture. 

Not a single women leads a church in the New Testament. But lots and lots of men do.

Phoebe is a deaconess (Romans 16:1), Priscilla works alongside her husband Aquilla (Romans 16:3), the daughters of Philip prophesied (Acts 21:9), but not one single women is said to lead a church in the New Testament.

All the leaders are men, bar none.

Jesus could have chosen women to lead the church. He could have chosen 6 women and 6 men - he was radical in every other way. 

But Jesus chose 12 male apostles to found the church. 

Paul could have chosen women to lead the churches he planted.

But he didn't. 

Paul could have written in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, that women could become elders. But he talks exclusively about men being elders. 

From Matthew to Revelation, men, and men only lead the church. 

Once again, if we had no specific Scriptures on this issue (which we do), we would still know, clearly, loudly and repeatedly, that it is God's will that men should lead the church.

(Sisters in Christ play a monumental role in the kingdom of God, should anyone reading this blog think misogynally otherwise. Eldership is an exception to their amazing roles  - an exception, BTW, that also applies to most men because of the qualities laid down for elders.)

Thank God for the Majority Voice

If the Scriptures stated only once that homosexual practice was sin, or that men should lead the church, only once, it would suffice those who come before God's will with a humble heart.

But if none of those verses were present, the will of God would still be crystal clear, by the sheer volume of Scriptural testimony.

We ought to be thankful for the mighty majority voice of the Lord through his Word. He does not expect us to believe any truth on the basis of a few verses. He has given us an abundance of testimonies to his will and plan.

AI: Draw a shy person using a megaphone