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 

The Big Evangelism Mistake

 

(Yet) another book on evangelism

My inbox tells me that yet another "must-buy" book on evangelism has come out. 

I yawn.

Why?

Because I've probably heard (and read) it all before? 

Not really, we are all learners. 

No...

Because a couple of times every year a new book comes out attempting to stir the pew to evangelism.

But evangelism is the gifting of a few unique and special people who are called to that role.

So the danger is that books like these only create a wave of evangelical guilt-trips rather than a flood of true believers.

I yawn most of all because the calling of every believer - to make disciples - is largely ignored by evangelicalism.

Some of God's people will be called to be evangelists - people who can go from zero to Gospel in a bus journey, or spend time explaining the Good News like Philip to complete strangers.

All of us, on the other hand, are called to be disciple-makers.

What we need are books with titles like:

"You can be a disciple-maker"

"Everyday Discipleship"

"Discipleship made easy"

"Discipleship 101"

"Discioleship for Dummies"

 Let me explain...

Discipleship for All (not Evangelism for All)

Every believer is called to be a disciple-maker. How come? The command of Jesus in Matthew 28 falls on the whole church not just on the Eleven. 

How do we know?

Look at the Great Commission: 

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. ¹⁷ When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. ¹⁸ Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. ¹⁹ Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ²⁰ and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. (Matthew 28)

 Jesus cannot be speaking only to the Eleven because:

• there was no way that 11 men could take the Gospel to the world
• the promise Jesus makes - to be present to the end of the age - only applies to people who would live beyond the age of the disciples
  

 The Great Commission applies to every believer.

What is Discipleship?

Discipleship is far easier, and infinitely more difficult than evangelism. The former fact will encourage us to start, the latter challenge explains in part why it is not in vogue.

If we had asked the 11 what Jesus meant by "make disisples" there is no question as to how they would have responded. "Go and do for the world what Jesus has just done for us in the last 3 years."

And what was that? Invite a few friends on a spend-alot-of-time-with-journey with you. 

Not hit them with the Gospel and run. 

Not invite them to some religious meeting. 

No, befriend them, do life with them, eat with them, talk to them, help them, teach them by life as well as lip. As you go along, month by month, year by year, opportunities will come up to talk in the most natural way about things eternal.

On the one hand discipleship is so much easier than evangelism. Be yourself.  Prepare a meal, befriend them, take them for coffee. On the other hand it is far more costly because of the time and energy committment required. 

Jesus basically poured 3 years of his life into...?

...twelve men!

Why do we hear virtually nothing about disispleship today?

There are at least four reasons the practice of discipleship is all but unknown today.

First, the western church in many respects looks more like an academy than the band of Twelve who followed Jesus around, or the New Testament church. The academy is all about teaching sessions rather than "doing life" with. Teachers don't really want to hang out with their pupils do they? The university model discourages disipleship.

Second, because of the cerebral nature of western evangelicalism, the heart aspects of the Christian faith - such as loving people and spending time with them -  are naturally disregarded. You will find that mainly-mind-people are rarely heart-people.

Third, spending lots of time with people - is this too costly for western Christians?

Fourth, discipleship will mean we must burn the idol of numbers. Because if Jesus only managed to disisple 12 men in 3 years, we're likely to be able to disciple only a handful of people over the span of our whole lives.

The tragedy - and irony - is that by focussing on evangelism and overlooking discipleship we neglect the single greatest means of church growth. If every Christian prayerfully committed to discipling just - say - 5 - people their whole lives, the church would grow exponentially and Jesus would return, very soon. 

So I shan't be buying the latest book on evangelism but end with a challenge to my readers: Who in your world could you begin a prayerful journey of disipleship with?

AI Art

"Draw one person following another"

(As you can see, AI is no good at discipleship either: From the image above, AI must think I am talking about stalking, which of course I am not.)

Is Christianity Blind Faith?

One advantage of a minor injury

Stuck in Minor Injuries for two hours yesterday turned out to be a blessing. Because I took with me "A Brief History of Thought" by the frenchman Luc Ferry.

If you want a short - and honest - introduction to secular philosophy this is your best bet. And though simple does not always sell, it has turned out to be a best seller (at least in Luc's native France).

Unlike most 'history of philosophy' books this one is written for the man in the pew. Ferry isn't writing to impress high-falutin peers but trying to help Joe Bloggs. It's a rare trait in an author, and refreshing wherever it is found. 

It's worth giving you a summary of his idea before turning to our question...

Philosophy is about Salvation from Death

Perhaps unexpectedly, Ferry tells us that both Religion and Philosophy have the same aim - to save us from death. 

Death is the greatest enemy of mankind he says.

Religion, he contends, overcomes death by promisingeternal life beyond the grave.

Philosophy can't buy into heaven, so works on how to remove the fear of death.

This is what salvation means for the two different camps.

"...the quest for a salvation without God is at the heart of every great philosophical system..." (page 12)

I have personally never come across a more honest admission by a philosopher - that death or fear of death is the real, honest, deep motivation for all human philosophy.

Where paths diverge

It's the next step where Ferry goes wrong.

He argues that Religion (everyone is lumped together) demands blind faith in order to achieve salvation, whereas philosophy relies on "our own resources and our innate faculty of reason." 

Time and again he suggests that philosphers use their reason, but religious people just believe stuff.

And that may be true of religion in general, but not so for Christianity.

Christianity rests of Evidence

I can only think that Luc Ferry has never met a true Christian. 

I can only think that he has derived his whole impression about Christianity from the organised religion we see on the telly. Large ornate buildings, people in fancy dresses,  smoke, bells, incense, that sort of thing. 

He can't have ever met or spoken to a real Christian or come across a real Christian community.

And that made me think, there must be 1000s of people who are ignorant - I use that word kindly - of true Christianity. 

Even clever people like Professor Luc Ferry. 

Because Christianity is evidence-based. 

Take the central claim of Christianity - that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, early Sunday morning. The New Testament goes out of its way to "prove" this happened:

• the tomb was empty
• many people spoke to him and saw him in person for 40 days
• Jesus' disciples were not expecting him to rise (they should have been but they were slow to learn), therefore they had no reason to spread a 'lie'
• in fact the disiples are among the most sceptical, at least initially
  
• the whole church was founded on this miracle - if Jesus' dead body was discovered that would be the end of Christianity
• millions of Christians have been persected, tortured and martyred because they believed this miracle, which proves that Jesus is more than a mere human, he is God. Why die for a lie?
  

The central miracle of the Good News is based 100% on evidence.

Take another example. The Bible repeatedly declares that God created the universe. 

And today we are learning that unaided TIME + CHANCE + NATURAL LAW are wholly insufficient to account for:

• the radical complexity of living things, (for more on this one Google Stephen Meyer).

• the rise of mind from matter, (Google Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos)

• the remarkable fine tuning of the universe, which is required for human life on planet earth (nowhere else in the universe could I sit writing this without a space suit)
  

When the Bible says "God created the cosmos" it does not expect us to believe that asseryion blindly. We expect to find divine Signatures everywhere in craetion - and we do.

When the Bible claims that God has revealed himself in the Person of Jesus Christ, that Jesus is God in human form there is proof: the miracles he performed.

Christianity is no enemy of reason. 

And philosophers are not the sole champions of reason. 

What about supernatural faith then?

The problem with philosophers is not that they use their minds too much, their error is that they trust their minds too much. This is a cardinal difference between the philosopher and the Christian.  

Christians are convinced that since we are creatures we are profoundly limited in our ability to see or work out the whole picture. 

We are also convinced that every human faculty - including our intellects - are twisted and fallen.  

Which means we cannot trust our minds. They are tiny. And they are twisted. 

We could paraphrase a line from Simon and Garfunkel's The Boxer, "Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest," to "a man believes what he wants to believe and disregards the rest." 

Since our minds are both finite and twisted we need revelation from God if we are to understand both the cosmos and ourselves.

We need the Bible.

This "map for life" can be checked up on in many places. Through archaeology, history, personal experience and science. Whenever we're able to 'prove' things in the Bible with this limited external evidence they always turn up true.

So then, when we come across things in the Bible for which there is no direct evidence (such as heaven), we can say: "the map has proved trustworthy where it could be checked up on, it's bound to be trustworthy where it can't."

We use such reasoning in everyday life. 

(I say there is no 'evidence' for heaven, but fascinating studies into near death experiences (NDEs) are convincing many medical people that mind can exist without body and that these experiences seem to indicate unusual qualities of such existence such as timelessness).

What room then for the supernatual gift of faith?

Our minds are so darkened that evidence alone will never convince someone to believe in Jesus Christ. (Though sufficient evidence is there.)

The divine gift of faith is needed to bring common sense to reason, to bring light and restore the mind's broken, sinful and prejudiced reasoning faculties. 

Faith is supernatural. It is one of the gifts - in a whole package of divine gifts - which enables our broken skeptical proud minds to think correctly. 

And allow us, now in true humilty, to accept the truth. 

AI Image: Luc Ferry - by vanceAI

Steuart Smith - the Relentless Pursuit of Anonymity

 

 

Who is this Man?

Last week I went to see one of my favourite bands - The Eagles - on their very last concert tour, The Long Goodbye. 

Parked on the right hand side of the stage (I say parked because he did not move around very much) and dressed in dark attire was an awesome guitarist by the name of Steuart Smith. 

Steuart who?

Exactly. 

Unlike his extrovert counterpart, Joe Walsh, who was dressed flamboyantly,  Smith is restrained, conservative, but immensely gifted with technical brilliance. (He begins the lead break in Hotel California, for those in the know.)

As you do, I googled Smith and discovered that though he has played with the Eagles for two decades he has never become "an Eagle." There have been calls to make him an Eagle but he doesn't want to become one.

Weird. 

Why not?

The Relentless pursuit of Anonymity

Reading further on the web (and relying on more than one source in that dodgy world) I discover that Smith wants to stay in the shadows and eschew the trappings, or should I say, the madness of, fame.

He has few fans and "just wants to do the work, free of the fame that usually attaches." 

There is something very attractive about this pursuit of obscurity. 

 What is fame?

In our topsy-turvy world, almost nothing is prized more than "fame:" the desire for lots of people to know about you, your talents, your qualifications, your gifts.

The desire for fame, we should start positively, arises out of the fact that made in the image of God we know, deep down, that we are unique and noble creatures.

But this knowledge has now been polluted and twisted.

Human fame can be an attempt to usurp God's place. For he alone is worthy of being known across space and time. 

Fame may sometimes arise out of a twisted lack of self-confidence that seeks human approval.

Fame may arise out of naked greed - for with fame often comes wealth.

Fame may arise out of selfish ambition - we want to "get ahead" and climb whatever ladders are before us, whether secular or ecclesiastical. 

Fame may arise out of pride - we want to be known above others.

Fame and the Christian

Fame in the Christian might be justified by some in two ways: "I want the Gospel to be known" or "I want truth to be known rather than error." But since fame always involves (almost always involves) a single individual, these two justifications always result, in effect, in the exaltation of a single man or woman.

And so we must say that fame, a modern form of idolatry, or self-idolatry, is always a sinful pursuit for a believer... 

...because only God is worthy of glory

...because we have nothing to boast about since all we have comes from God

...because the greatest New Testament saints were hated and despised in their day, not loved and adored. Think of the team of dogged enemies that followed the great apostle Paul around, rubbishing both him and his message

... because no human can handle the effects of fame (no-one [= no-one])

... because fame twists every human being in a myriad of ways

... because we should not be interested in what men say, only in what the Lord thinks

...because we might end up dishonouring Christ should we fall, like the conveyer belt of ongoing big-shot preachers are doing

... because people may turn us into all-singing, all-answering Christian gurus who they perceive have the answers to every question (which we couldn't possibly have)

...because inevitably we will end up compromising the truth to keep numbers high. (I have heard mega-church insiders say how the staff are told to keep all controversial subjects out of the big show. The worship of numbers and the love of truth are mutually exclusive).

How to pursue the grace of Anonymity

There are many ways to do a 'Steuart Smith' in the kingdom of God.

First, we must remember that what men think of us is irrelevant in the eternal scheme of things. What really (and only) matters is what God thinks of us now and what he will one day say at the judgement seat. This applies both negatively  and positively.

Second, to orient our worldview away from fame, we ought to avoid judging any one / any movement / any church by numbers. Developing a healthy number scepticism will prevent number-puja from infecting our souls.

Third, reject calls to be "a friend" on Facebook from people who are total strangers to us. Having a thousand friends is just an illusion.

Fourth, do not place a "follow" or "subscribe" button on your blog so that you can't gain followers. (I put an end to future subscribers on this blog when it reached 9, 2011)

Fifth, actively pursue low numbers. For example, try to spread out views / hits across multiple platforms so that any one of the platforms on its own appears a small number. So, for example, if you stream your Sunday church services, do it across two platforms rather than on one which the others point to and thereby increase its value. In this scenario each number will seem smaller.

Sixthly, and above all, remember that we serve before an Audience of One who will one day be our gracious Judge.

So we should work towards pleasing Him, not men.  

As well as there being a modern sin of popularity-lust, we need to rejoice in the modern grace of earthly anonymity.

What is the Church's main battle today?

 

No-one knows

The truth of the matter is that none of can tell where the most important battle lines of our day lie.

This is because for all we know we may be so immersed in our greatest errors that we are utterly immune to them. 

This is the only way to understand, for example, the Magesterial Reformers of the 1500s, who could not discern the error - a rather fatal one with hindsight - of church-state union. Using worldly power to wield Gospel influence! Forcing their spiritual reformation with the power of magistrates - and if necessary the sword!

(Tragically they did not listen to the Anabaptists who saw through this humongous error.)

Only time and history will reveal the true battlelines of our day.

We can make a stab at a guess. 

And when we do, I'd suggest three.

The first is our obsession with numbers, whether bucks, hits or bums on seats. This preocupation twists almost everything in Western Evangelicalism, from an apathy towards real-world small-group discipleship to a skewing of who or what is important (the only rule is "count the numbers" to figure out what's best). It may prove to the the most damaging inafutuation of our age.

The second candidate is an unholy alliance with the academy. This results in churches which look and feel much like a branch of the local uni; pride; spiritual cataracts preventing us from discerning the supernatural; and artificial linguistic barriers to reaching ordinary people with the Gospel. This boastful fascination with all things scholarly may prove to be the downfall of evangelicalism.

The third must be anthropology - what is mankind?

Christology, Soteriology, Anthropology

I don't know where the following insight came from, but it is very helpful:

If the battle front in the first few centuries was Christology (Who is Jesus Christ?), and the war leading up to the 1500s was Soteriology (How can we be saved?), the conflict we are facing today is most probably Anthropology (What is mankind?)

And there are four fronts in this contemporary "Who are we?" skirmish:

1. The Species Conflict

In this conflict the issue at stake is how humans relate to the animal kingdom. Are we just another animal, or are we radically unique, alone made in the image of God?

The pincer movement in the world attempts to raise the status of animals while simultaneously demoting humankind. The least new-found achievement in the animal kingdom (most often some new "tool-use") is touted as evidence of continuity between us and animals. 

("Tool-use" is one of the most deceitful uses of a word one could conceive of because the "tools" animals use are not the complex drills, lathes or chisels we use but bare sticks and ordinary stones).

2. The Gender Conflict

The idea that gender is fluid from male at one end of the spectrum to female at the other. This against the clear Biblical (and common sense) truth that gender is defined by body anatomy and the make up of all our cells. 

3. The Sexuality Conflict

The notion that all sex is permissible (provided no-one is 'injured') against the clear Biblical (and biological) truth that the only righteous place for sex is within the marriage of one man with one woman.

4. The Gender Role Conflict

The idea that there is no distinction in role between men and women. Against the clear truth of Scripture that while men an women are equal in worth and salvation there is an order between them which should be maintained - and seen to be maintained - in the church and the home.

Will the church win this Battle?

We can't be sure the western church as a whole will win this battle. The church in other parts of the world is proving more steadfast. 

For sure there is evidence (Steve Chalke is the classic case in point) that compromise on number 4. leads quickly and directly to compromise on number 3.

My own concern is that a wide-ranging revisionist attempt on number 4 is now taking place in the evangelical church - though that will be hotly disputed - which could easily lead to a watering down of the other 3.

Time will tell. 

Only Gospel priorities and constant and prayerful vigilance will keep us from apostasy.