Despite the nonstop coverage, I guess that most of us struggle to make much of the BBC Business Correspondent, Robert Peston’s illuminating analysis of all things economic! Some of us may even be under the impression that the ‘Credit Crunch’ is what Alistair Darling has for breakfast! But for many of us, the words ‘derivatives’, ‘hedge funds’ and ‘sub-prime mortgage’ have now become familiar, if not welcome, additions to our vocabulary. Joking aside, few of us will be left unaffected by the economic recession. And sadly some of us may have to face the harsh reality of unemployment. What’s certain is that none of us is immune from recent events in the world’s stock markets. But what are to think about the current financial crisis?

I’ve delayed commenting because I didn’t want to come out with something instinctive and trite from which I’d need to walk back in subsequent posts. These are my best thoughts at the moment, few if any are original. And although I’m very proud of my ’B’ grade in ’A’ Level Economics I profess no expertise whatsoever in the subject of financial analysis! They are therefore little more than the reflections of a Christian trying to find a biblical perspective on what’s going on in God’s world. 

As I’ve read a few things [Al Mohler, Paul Grimmond, Bill Muehlenberg, Brian Rosner and Carl Trueman] I’ve wondered whether the biblical concept of idolatry might be as good a way as any to make sense of things. I then read some stuff from Brian Rosner and felt vindicated.

As I’m sure we remember, an idol is essentially a God substitute. It’s a created artefact that’s taken the rightful place of God in our attention and affections. It’s the thing we believe can provide us with the experience of our version of heaven for which we so long. And so it becomes our functional saviour and the thing to which we offer worship, obedience and sacrifice. Associated with whichever idol we’ve chosen is a religious system involving the holy places and those who conduct the rituals of worship, the High Priests. Underpinning the whole thing is an evangelistic mission that seeks to keep our love of the idol on the agenda. And so, I wonder whether the following four observations might help us chart a way through the treacherous waters of financial analysis?

1. The functional saviour that we believe can deliver the heavenly experience is the free market economy. We might not express it in those terms, but that’s what’s going on. In the past, people used to regard God as the self sufficient, inexhaustible, mysterious, benevolent and all-powerful source of what we need for an abundant life. But that old religion has now been displaced by the worship of the capitalist economic system. And so, as one person put it, ‘If people in the ancient world worshipped sticks and stones, today everywhere can be found the worship of stocks and shares’. And so the economy is revered and afforded sacred status and any criticism of the capitalistic ideology is regarded as blasphemy. Many are absolutely convinced that capitalism is the thing that can save us.

2. The heavenly experience for which we so yearn is material wealth. To be wealthy is to have attained salvation; poverty is hell from which we must be delivered. The purpose of life is simply to be wealthy. In plain denial of Jesus’ words in Luke 12, many are committed to the idea that salvation is found in the abundance of our wealth and possessions. And so the meaning of life is described in economic terms. We’re valued only to the degree in which we participate in the economy system. This means that the stay at home Mum, the unemployed, the unemployable or the homeless are viewed with sympathy, at best or derision, at worse.

3. The high priests are the only people that properly understand the intricacies of the financial markets. They gather together in the financial institutions where they pour over their sacred writings in the financial press, like the Financial Times. Laymen might try and get our heads round what’s going on by reading the popular literature like the supplements in the Sunday papers, but for most of us it‘s nothing more than incomprehensible mumbo jumbo! If it’s true that many have yet to find someone who can explain the truth of the gospel in language they can understand, the same could be said of the financial world! 

4. The evangelistic mission of this false religion is propagated through advertising. This marketing endeavour could simply inform us of the merits and benefits of a good or service. If that was all that it did, it would serve a valuable purpose. But advertising seeks to tap into our insatiable appetite for more. Apparently the average American watches about 85 different television advertisements every day! Every single one of them has one unrelenting message; you’re life is imperfect until you accumulate the good and services that we’re promoting. Cultivating contentment and thankfulness against such a barrage of unhelpful visual stimulation requires godly determination. 

Conclusion

And so, given recent events in which this idol has been stripped bare, it ought to be apparent that worshipping the economic system is an exercise in futility. The free market economy is nothing more than the creation of human hands and therefore it cannot save. We don’t need to get rid of it; it’s still the best way of doing things. Just don’t expect it to do what we hope that it will; provide salvation.

Some of us may have become secret devotees of materialism, worshipping at the altar of the economic system. And so, this is a good time therefore to do the following two things; first, to repent of our willing greedy participation in the perpetuation of this senseless idolatry and secondly, to redirect our trust and hope for the future to the God who has promised to save us.

Oh my life, we actually decided to do something! True, we’ve not actually done anything, yet. But we’ve said that we will. And that’s better than nothing!

I’ve been faithfully attending Reform conferences for longer than I care to remember. For a restless reformed hot head like me, it’d be fair to say that they’ve been disappointing! In addition, ever since we planted CCB in the Diocese of Southwark I’ve been attending Reform Southwark. I wanted some allies and there weren’t too many of those going around at the start! I enjoy going. It’s a gathering of some of the great and the good of authentically biblical Anglicanism. There are men there that I count as good friends and others that I regard as leaders to be followed. But we specialise in letter writing. Angry ones. To the Bishop. Who ignores them. Every now and again we do something. Like an irregular ordination. And that rustles the feathers. And then we, or the wider constituency, produce something, like the covenant. And that wins widespread approval. But we’re not known really for action, at least most of us aren’t. Occasionally someone brave or reckless does something, others then jump on the bandwagon and countless others express their support. But it’s rare. Too rare for some of us. I know that the ecclesiastical political process can be slow. I’m sure that we need to go through the appropriate hoops. But I can’t help feeling that the Diocese of Southwark has little to fear from the mighty collective political will of the conservative theological constituency south of the river. This may be about to change.

I’ll be honest, and indiscreet, there were times this conference when I questionned the ability of Reform to bring change. After all, how could an organisation unable to get the audio-visual stuff to work be involved in effecting change in a denomination! It may be a wild stab in the dark, but I’m guessing that the churches that we represent aren’t exactly at the cutting edge of employing new technologies in our gospel ministries. The OHP might be viewed as a liberalising step towards cultural accommodation!

I enjoyed many parts of the conference; seeing mates, being taught by someone else who’d done the hards yards of preparation and being challenged by David Short’s courageous principled stance in the Diocese of New Westminster. Most of it was really good, not all of it. But most of it. I almost lost the will to live in the day one session on Women Bishops. It wasn’t David Phillips‘ fault. He was on top of his game and actually managed to make some painfully involved legislative procedures appear almost engaging. But for all his protestations that there’s still the opportunity to walk the General Synod back from its decision to go ahead with the Consecration of Women Bishops, it felt like rearranging the cutlery on the Titanic. The General Synod made it clear that it does not want Evangelicals like me in the Church of England. It is very unlikely that any ministry candidate that we put forward to a Bishops’ Selection Conference would be approved if he thinks that the Bible prohibits women from exercising oversight. In effect, the vote at General Synod closed the door to the next generation of Evangelical Ministers.

Rod Thomas, the Chairman of Reform, came to my rescue in the afternoon with his talk on the strategic path forward. The full text of his talk is here. The Telegraph picked up his words here and the Times here. Ruth Gledhill commented on her blog. Riazat Butt, from the Guardian, doesn’t get it quite right here. Words like ‘breakaway’ and ‘defect’ slightly miss the point. And for the record, I’m not against homosexuals! Clumsy at best disingenuous at worst.

Rod identified three key developments took place this summer

1. We saw a crisis of leadership in the Anglican Communion as the Archbishop of Canterbury failed to persuaude his Bishops to follow his lead on proposals for Women Bishops and Lambeth made not one iota of difference to the fissures in the Anglican Communion.
2. We saw what an Anglicanism united in the gospel and dedicated to mission could look like. GAFCON showed the moral resolve and courage to put into place a the alternative structures necessary to provide for theologically orthodox Anglicans.
3. We saw the intolerant face of liberalism when General Synod took the decision to pursue the Consecration of Women’s Bishops and effectively close the door to classical evangelicals. 

In response to the develpoments this summer Rod suggested that two things must happen; growing gospel fellowship and the development of alternative oversight. Seeking alternative oversight need not be as confrontational an act as everyone fears for the following reasons.

1. The need won’t apply to everyone. Solid Bishops need our support not our opposition. And some of us have them. Not us, but some do.

2. The Church of England already accepts that alternative oversight is needed because there are circumstances when a ‘flying Bishop’ can be provided.

3. It can provide a positive way forward and one that the Church of England could accommodate. The C of E is sused to the existence of religious communities. They exist outside the Diocesan authorities. And they get to choose their Bishops. Brilliant, Reform could become a religious community!

Rod then challenged us with these words, ‘this is not a time to be timorous. The fact that so many across the world could be brought together in such a short time at Jerusalem and achieve so much should surely encourage us to aim high, here in England‘.

To achieve that he suggested that we need to do four things

1. Educate our congregations because they may not understand what’s going on in our denomination. They may not have perceived that we have two religions in unhappy co-existence; the religion of the word and the religion of the world. When the debates are distant, Bishops are so nice and the issues so complicated it’s tempting to just plough on with our preaching series in Colossians. But if we’re to expect support from our churches, we have a responsibility to put them in the picture. To this end a forthcoming commentary on the Jerusalem Statement should help. 

2. Co-operate with others in forming the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans in the UK. Reform will not accomplish this on its own. We need others. And they are there and willing. And we can do so without compromising our integrity or biblical faithfulness.

3. Maintain our determination to keep pressing ahead as we seek reform. We need to press for change both inside and on the edge of eth structures. We need to take a lead and seek to bring others with us.

4. Disseminate our aims and invite others to join us. As Rod said, ‘As we move towards the development of a Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans and despite the fact that the very emergence of this fellowship indicates the reality of two religions within Anglicanism, we want to insist that we are not setting up a separate ecclesial organisation. Rather, we are a fellowship operating within a wider federation. And as a fellowship we seek to reach out to whoever wants to be a partner in the gospel. We must win friends to the cause‘. 

He closed with these words, ‘There are many question marks about what all this will mean in terms of our institutions. But the New Testament is remarkably free of institutional recommendations. It may be that our affections have to become increasingly oriented towards confessing Anglicanism rather than the Church of England per se. We do not know what the future holds in that respect. What we do know is that we are called to be faithful to the Gospel and to organise ourselves accordingly’.

For a considered reflection on the conference you’ve come to the wrong place. Try John Richardson’s blog for that. For the young, reformed and restless; gear up, ‘cos we’re good to go, the bullets in the chamber and I think the boys with their fingers on the trigger are finally prepared to pull it! The future of evangelicalism in the Church of England just might have turned a corner.

I didn’t get to vote on these on Wednesday. I wanted to get back home for my kids’ swimming lessons at the local pool. Underastandably, my five year old daughter gets freaked when the water is higher than her mouth. In those circumstances Mummy just won’t do!

Here are the three resolutions put before the Reform Conference. 

1  This conference welcomes the outcome of Gafcon, pledges the support of Reform for the resulting initiatives, and calls on evangelicals in the Church of England to show more courage in promoting the gospel and resisting unbiblical teaching.

That’s a hearty ‘amen’ from me.

2  This conference recognises that when bishops accommodate themselves to unbiblicalteaching, they deny the faith and therefore abandon their sees.  In these circumstances it is vital that alternative oversight should be provided.

Yes please, count on my vote.

3  This conference calls on the House of Bishops to recognise that pursuing the General Synod Resolution on the preparation of legislation to allow the consecration of women bishops will permanently damage and narrow the Church of England unless full legislative protection is given to the ministry of those who cannot with integrity go along with this development. We urge the House to present alternative proposals to the General Synod so that greater generosity of spirit can be displayed.

Nice touch with the use of the word ‘narrow’. The self professed broad church is apparently not broad enough to welcome us classical evangelicals.

Three terrific proposals that get my full support.

Vaughan Roberts, Rector of St Ebbe’s Oxford, was at his brilliant best as he charted a clear path through the rocky waters of unity, co-belligerency and secondary matters. This was the talk at the recent Reform Conference that I was most looking forward to. I wanted help in understanding the partnership that we’d undertaken within the GAFCON movement and the proposed Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans. My first impression of the Jerusalem gathering at GAFCON was that we were a broader constituency than I’d imagined or hoped for. All the usual suspects were there; classical evangelical friends from the Southern Hemisphere and so on, but there huge numbers of people who we’d never met or heard of. In reality once we started working together and chatting in our groups and informally over meals we discovered that there was much more in common than appearances might have suggested. It wasn’t the case that those who dressed like an Anglo-Catholic background necesarily were; they just loved purple dresses!

In his talk, Vaughan identified three dominant groups within the Church of England eager for reform. Of course these are generalisations and therefore all the usual caveats apply, but nevertheless it’s helpful to identify these three main streams within those who long for change within the Church of England.

1. The pragmatists
The pragmatists have a knee-jerk reaction for opportunity. They tend to see things in political categories. On the one hand, there are some who are cautious about GAFCON because they worry that any political involvement with GAFCON will harm our opportunities within the formal structures of the Church of England. They fear that any alignment with GAFCON will rock the boat and deny us the opportunities that favourable Dioceses can provide in terms of buildings, staff and so on. On the other hand, there are those who are enthusiastic about GAFCON because they recognise that the Dioceses have the potential to severely handicap growing evangelical ministries. They have a more negative view of what to expect of the Diocese, they don’t expect any concessions to be forthcoming. And so any new organisation willing to provide alternative Episcopal oversight is to be greeted with wild enthusiasm. They contend that now is not the time to be asking awkward questions about GAFCON. It’s better than what we’re used to and so don’t kick up a fuss. 

2. The pietists
The pietists have a knee-jerk reaction for unity. Their instinct is to affirm and not to challenge or criticise. Any movement which contends for the truth is therefore open to suspicion. Often they can be in broad agreement with the ‘contenders’ on the issue, it’s just that they don’t like the chosen methods of contention. And so there are some charismatic evangelicals who are nervous about Reform because they’ve been too harsh and hard line with their opponents. In addition, they’re also nervous about GAFCON because they fear that the Diocese of Sydney, and Peter Jensen their Archbishop,  might be orchestrating things from behind the scenes. And many of them have been deeply wounded by negative comments made by a few in Sydney on the charismatic issue 20 years ago.

3. The purists
The purists have a knee-jerk reaction for truth. These types are delighted that so much of what GAFCON affirms is confessional Anglicanism. However, there are some who worry that the new alignment is far too elastic. Quite rightly the ‘hot prots’, in particular current student friends from Oak Hill, question the wisdom of ‘jumping into bed’ with a broad coalition of Charismatics and Anglo-Catholics in our desire to be free from the tyranny of revisionist liberalism. They to know whether we’ve jumped out of the frying pan of unbiblical Anglicanism into the fire of compromised co-belligerency!

Being the true Anglican that he is, Vaughan argued that everyone had a valid point of view, that he thought all three groups were right and that we needed to listen to them all! That man will be a Bishop one day. Perhaps sooner than he thinks if the Reform proposals are enacted!

The purists are right because the truth matters and therefore our unity must be evangelical not ecumenical. We can’t have elastic limits to our unity. GAFCON should be supported since it recognises that we have those limits already in the formulary documents of the Church of England.  

The pietists are right because unity matters and therefore we must pursue agreement on the fundamentals and accommodate differences of opinion on secondary matters. Vaughan warned that he fears that this is a massive danger for us. We’re so tribal. And therefore, we must work hard to preserve our unity and not fight over non-essentials.

The pragmatists are right because this is the time of opportunity and therefore we must work together with others in a loose alliance on a whole range of different issues. Vaughan used the image of a convoy of ships travelling in the same direction to explain how we can be associated with those of a slightly different theological emphasis as we press ahead towards the reform of the Church of England.

The one book which Vaughan said that he found most helpful was J.C. Ryle’s ‘Principles for Churchmen’. It may be time to dig that out. But in the meantime Vaughan’s summary is just what’s needed.

This was a great way to start the conference. Jonathan Fletcher, Vicar of Emmanuel Wimbledon opened the Reform National Conference with an exposition of Nehemiah 8.

He reminded us that first and foremost we’re working for the spiritual reformation of the nation. Our principal concern is not political activity per se but the spiritual renewal of the country. He suggested that Nehemiah’s reforming activity in the newly re-populated city of Jerusalem demonstrated that there were three necessary ingredients of any spiritual reformation.

1. The recovery and reading of God’s word

Jonathan pointed out that throughout the chapter there’s evidence of serious attention to and honouring of God’s word. There was a tremendous emphasis on understanding (2&3). The teachers went to great lengths to make sure that people could get their heads round what was being said. Jonathan commented that his hunch is that many of us are paying lip service to the ministry of the word but we may lack confidence in the word of God to effect deep change. We may be distracted by structures, programmes and so on and failed to give ourselves wholeheartedly to the preparation of Bible teaching. Jonathan said that in contrast to his days on the staff at St Helen’s, when he would regularly sit under Dick Lucas’ ministry, he is now rarely moved when he heard the word of God being preached. He put the fault firmly at the feet of those who preach and handle scripture and accused us of weightlessness in our preaching. He urged that we pursue the Luke 24 experience, so that our hearts might burn within us in response to the word of God. He’s got a point. We need to recover and read God’s word.

2. Remembering and rejoicing in God’s goodness

The people began by weeping and rejoicing but there were then told to stop (10). They then celebrated the most joyous of the three feasts in Judaism; the Feast of Tabernacles. Later on in Nehemiah there’ll be rigorous self examination but at this stage they remembered how good God was. They had experienced a second exodus, having been brought back from the Babylonian captivity and returned to their Promised Land. In the same way, Jonathan reminded us that God has been very good to us. Our hearts must go back to that first Good Friday and rejoice. But also God has also been very good to us in our country since then through the reformation, the evangelical revivals and so on. We need to remember and rejoice in God’s goodness.

3. Urgent and penitential prayer before God’s awesomeness

The book of Nehemiah is infused with prayer. As Nehemiah turns to prayer in chapter 9, he oscillates between God’s goodness and the people’s sinfulness (9:26f). Jonathan reflected that his experience of being at GAFCON was wonderfully joyous, it was free from triumphalism and there was tangible prayerful dependence on God. But he feared that we may have been a little light on repentance and penitence. He encouraged us not simply to point the finger at others in the Anglican communion but recognise that we’re part of the problem and approach God in penitence (9:32). God forbid that we be those that preach yet do not pray. We mustn’t simply leave this to a few intercessors. One of the key ways to ensure that we’re praying is to seek the recovery of the prayer meeting and prayer triplets. We should long to belong to praying rather than growing churches.We need to be urgent and penitential before God’s awesomeness.

Conclusion

To see the recovery of spiritual life in the church of England we’ll need to have confidence that God’s word will do the work, the joy of the Lord will be our strength and our penitent and urgent prayer is absolutely necessary.

Went to a talk by the Bishop of Southwark, Tom Butler this morning at the Southwark Diocesan Evangelical Union (DEU). I know, but it was Monday, I was tired and my brain wasn’t going to work on anything more taxing! Attendance at these sorts of meetings is not always the best use of time. But I wanted to hear what he had to say on Lambeth, GAFCON and the recent General Synod vote on Women to the Episcopacy. Stay with me. Church politics isn’t everyone’s cup of tea but this is where significant decisions are made that have a huge impact on the future of evangelicalism in the Church of England.

It’d be fair to say that the Co-Mission Initiative, of which the church I pastor is a member, has not always seen eye to eye with our Diocesan Bishop. It’s not personal; it’s a matter of principle. We’ve taken issue with his failure to distance himself from a House of Bishops’ statement on Civil Partnerships in which the Senior Clergy of the Church of England gave their tacit approval of immoral sexual activity. That wasn’t really the type of leadership that we were looking for! We also think he’s anything but helpful in encouraging the type of missional church planting needed to reach the city with the tremendous news of the gospel. As a result, we’re currently in ‘temporarily impaired communion’ awaiting his repentance, retirement or removal from office. I’m not fussy, I’d take any of them!

The talk was supposed to be his considered reflections on the Lambeth Conference. But given his audience he demonstrated his political adroitness and did little more than tell a few storiesabout queues and a cat. We’ll coem to that later. It was like looking at someone’s holiday snaps, but less interesting because he’d left the slides at home. I came away absolutely convinced that if our great city is to be reached with the gospel then looking to the Diocese is an exercise in futility. Words cannot express how utterly depressing to think that this is the man we’re looking to for help in gospel ministry. But the truth is that I gave up on the Diocese a long time ago. Theologically and missiologically we’re in very different places and in all honesty because he profoundly disagrees with our theology he wants no part in spreading it across South London.

I wasn’t expecting much but I wasn’t prepared for what met me at the DEU. It wasn’t the Bishop that was most disappointing, it was us. Let me explain.

We were ancient. With very few exceptions we looked like a waiting room for the cemetery! We were the leaders of the evangelical constituency from the Diocese of Southwark. And we were old and grey. We’re the guardians of the gospel, charged with the responsibility of contending for the truth, promoting the gospel and training the next generation of church leaders. And we were ancient. The average age had to be well over 55. I was one of the youngsters and I’m nearly 40! Whilst I may take a slightly more nuanced line than Mark Driscoll’s recent comments to the Diocese of Sydney on the need to raise up much younger leaders, his point was never better illustrated than in our meeting. The nature of the meeting might be self selecting but I fear that we’ve taken our eyes of the ball of finding and training some youngsters who can give their twenties and thirties to the gospel.

We were broad. The writing was on the wall when the Chairman, Gary Jenkins used the expression ‘from across the evangelical spectrum’. It sent shivers down my spine. Evangelicalsim has morphed in the last few years. And that’s not good. Liberal evangelicals and classical evangelicals aren’t on a spectrum, we’re separated by a chasm. We’re barely on the same page let alone reading the same Bible. How can we both be evangelical and have different views on penal substitution and sexual morality? We can’t, and it’s nonsense to suggest that our differences of interpretation legitimate what is little more than reinventing the faith. There’s real and substantial difference between us. And I fear it’s irreconciliable without deep and heartfelt repentance. The heat and hostility shown towards those of us who refuse to compromise but instead pursue a path of principled action gives me little hope of converegence. It doesn’t matter how many conversations we’ll have, we’re on different theological trajectories.

We were weak. It may well be that the best tactic in that situation is not to say anything at all. That was the decision made by the staff team from one large evangelical church. They may have been right. But I’d like to have seen some more opposition to a few things that the Bishop said. I didn’t say anything and I probably should have done. I found the wisdom of my seniors convenient. But in reality I was weak. Things had been said that Jesus would have taken issue with and I just let it go through to the keeper. I figure Jesus would’ve taken a monumental swing. He’d have connected as well! If we don’t register our utter opposition and sense of betrayal at the revisionist agenda of the liberal wing of the Church of England that he represents, we only have ourselves to blame as the Church of England continues to travel in a direction away from biblical truth.

The Bishop told a story about his time at Canterbury when, in a quiet moment of solace in the Cathedral cloisters, a cat jumped up onto his lap and started purring. He started stroking it and then it unexpectedly turned round and bit him. He concluded that this was a parable for the Lambeth Conference. But I came away from the meeting thinking we were like the compliant cat that rolled over onto its back and let the Bishop tickle our tummy. I’m hoping for some bite at the Reform Conference starting tomorrow. I’ll keep you posted.

As part of my research for a recent sermon on church planting I came across this article by Tim Keller. Keller is the Senior Pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church, New York. You can find the article here.

In the article he identifies five principles for initiating a church plant. I’ve reworked and commented on them but essentially they’re his observations.

1. We need to live in the community
We need to live near or close by the community of people that we’re trying to reach. That’s especially true if we’re a ‘neighbourhood’ rather than a ‘network’ church plant. [Network church plants are non-geographical specific churches constituted of an eclectic gathering of commuting individuals, like TBT or St Helen’s]. But the point is that if we don’t live in the neighbourhood then we we’re unlikely to know the community or their issues. And so we won’t know the people and we won’t know how to help them. This will have a massive impact on our missional effectiveness. Keller uses the incarnation as theological justification for our responsibility to live in the neighbourhood. Whilst it’s undoubtedly true that Jesus did not commute from heaven to earth to bring us the news of salvation, I’m uncomfortable of trying to locate a binding church planting principle on such unique grounds. I’m more comfortable saying that I think it makes sense to live in the community!

2. We need to learn the community
If we’re going to serve the community in which God has placed us then we’ll really need to understand the issues that people face. We can approach this in one of two ways. The informal way is to ‘hang out’ with the people who live there and listen to what they have to say. The formal way is to plunder the demographics information, study statistics and read the census information. Something like a community survey project is a hybrid of the two and a very attractive option. But when carrying out this research, we’re simply trying to find out what makes people ‘tick’. We want to know what type of people live in the neighbourhood in terms of their racial affiliation, their socio-economic background and so on. We want to know what their aspirations are so that we can identify and critique the idols that have captured their affections. We want to know with what set of assumptions they approach life since that will govern their decision making and their prejudices. And we want to know what they feel about religion. If we get this right we’ll have a better chance of engaging them and not simply missing them with the gospel.

3. We need to link gospel ministry to the community
We need to create a contextualised ministry model that takes account of who we are and where we’re church planting. Whilst the principles of word ministry driven church planting are unchanging, the patterns we employ can be flexible. Therefore we would not expect word ministry on an urban priority area in Peckham and a lunchtime city based meeting to look the same. We need to be wary of slavishly following the ministry patterns of the sending church without paying sufficient attention to the contextual situation in which we’ve been planted. That’s a massive temptation because those patterns are familiar and presumably we’ve seen them work! But we need to give thought to the ways in which the gospel will best be presented to the people in our context.

4. We need to love the community
We need to recognise that God has placed us in a local community to love and serve the people of that neighbourhood. The conviction that we’re there for others and not for the church, that it’s all about Jesus and not about me is fundamental. Unless these convictions are deeply held those who lead church plants will question their competence and their worth. We don’t church plant simply because we want to do something meaningful with our lives. We do it for others. If the church plant doesn’t take off as we’d like it to then it can lead to bad patterns of ministry. Keller says that, ‘In your own personal ministry you will tend to over work, deal poorly with criticism, worry too much about attendance, giving, and signs of success, and be less than a good and gracious model of a gospel-changed life‘. I’d say he’s right.

5. We need to launch in the community
There are two main ways of launching a church plant in the community, each has its own strengths and weaknesses. The first is the ‘top down’ approach, where the sending church launches with a large group of people in a new location. This is the default planting strategy for our theological constituency. This church plant works best where the leaders have good preaching gifts. The advantage of this way of planting is that a sizeable church will ‘make a noise’ and ‘a crowd attracts a crowd’. Therefore, it may gather new attendees quite quickly. The weakness of this type of plant is that there’s a great tendency to simply replicate the mother church, paying insufficient attention to the geographical locality in which its situated. The second way of planting is the ‘bottom up’ approach where the sending church puts a leader and a much smaller contingent into the new area. This type of plant works best with leaders who have strong evangelistic gifts. The advantage is that much of the growth will tend to be evangelistic rather than transfer growth. The weakness of this approach is that it will fail to attract Christians moving into the area who want to see something happening. It may also put an unbearable burden on the church planter who feels under pressure to balance the finances. There are, of course, other approaches to church planting including a hybrid of the above but these two delineate the two most common approaches.

Sitting at the back of church, as I do in the evening congregation, I couldn’t help noticing the effect the late arrival of a handsome bloke had on some of the single women! To be fair to them, they were being playful. But it highlighted the fact that for many of them they still believe that life will really begin when they get their bloke. I’m sure that’s not something limited to the single women, the blokes struggle as well. But they don’t seem to face the same contentment issues as the girls. Perhaps they know that the statistics are weighed in their favour. There are more single Christian women than men. I’m pretty sure it’s not because the blokes are more godly. We’ve got some great girls with real Christlike character. But they still struggle with the situation that the Lord has given to them. That’s why I’m grateful to anyone prepared to comment on this issue. Step forward the lovely Ros Clarke! This is an article from her very brilliant pen on the issue of singleness. It carries credibility because she’s single.

Finally got round to it. Been on the ‘to do’ list for a while now. I’m talking about listening to Tim Keller’s reflections on raising kids in the city. You can find it here.

The first thing that struck me was that this isn’t an attempt to expound the Bible. There’s not a single biblical reference in the entire talk. That doesn’t mean that it’s wrong, or that it’s heretical. It simply means that the Bible is silent about where we decide to raise our kids. And he recognises that. He argues that the motivation for being in the city has to be more posoitive than negative. In other words since the Bible doesn’t say that we have to live in the city, we mustn’t attempt to bind people’s consciences. I think he uses the phrase ‘we have to trap people with the joys of being in the city!’ And so Keller’s reflections are in the realm of wisdom. 

His central thesis is that, in general, the city is a better place to raise the kids. It won’t be right for everyone. It won’t be right for every kid. But, on the whole, the city is not only a possible place to raise a family, it’s a better place.

He acknowledges that three factors make it a hard place to rasie kids. First, because of the prohibitive cost of everything you’ve got less disposable income to invest in your family. Secondly, he talks about the ‘physical logistics on the front nine’ make it harder to get round the city with small kids. In others words transporting small kids in the city can be a real pain. But after that, the ‘back nine’ is a real joy. Thirdly, the educational terrain is complex and hard to navigate since there are so many options and so little cash!

That said he then lists eight counterbalancing factors that sway the pendulum in favour of staying put and not giving flight.

1. The kids will grow up thinking that they live in the real world rather than growing up in the suburbs and straining at the leash to get to the real world. Of course everywhere is the real world but they don’t think like that. The city is where it’s at and they know that. That’s why they want to escape surburbia as soon as they can. But if they grow up in the city they know that they live in the real world.

2.  The kids grow up knowing that you have a real faith. They want to believe that your faith is disconnected to reality. But they can’t do that if they know that you’ve had to work out your Christian discipleship in the real world.

3. The kids will grow up and become self reliant, independent and confident because nothing freaks them out. As a country boy who went to sixth form with mates from the city and then moved to the ‘big smoke’ in his mid twenties, I’ve got to say he’s absolutely right on that one.

4. The kids grow up being adept at handling diversity. Most surbuban white kids don’t grow up with Muslim neighbours and Afro-Caribbean mates. But you do in the city. Their breadth of cultural engagement will far outweigh the kids who grow up out of town.

5. The kids grow up being pushed into family. The city is a relationally intense environment. It ‘forces’ families to spend lots of time together. The commute is less, the house is smaller, there aren’t any fields to escape to. It all adds up to lots of ‘face time’. If you’re into relating with your kids, that’s a good thing.

6. The kids grow up with Christian role models. In the suburbs kids grow up with a peer group. But do you really want them learning about the faith from their teenage mates? On reflection, not really. In the city they get to their teenage years and they see the Christian life being modelled by credible ‘trendy twenties’ whom they respect. In the suburbs they get to see the Christian life being lived out by guys with kids. But who grows up wanting to be like their Dad! In the city they don’t have to.

7. The kids grow up facing the issues. They’ll be exposed to a whole range of ethical issues a long time before the suburban or rural kids. Because London is like a massive University Campus we get to go to College with them before they’re even old enough to apply! They’ll come across homosexuality, drugs, alcohol, crime, sex and so on and we’ll be with them when they do. Unlike the parents in the suburbs who live out there to escape from it.

8. The kids grow up without the pressure to conform. The city is so accommodating of diversity that it’s hard to think of a fad, fashion or obsession that it wouldn’t tolerate. And so the kids get to grow up being themselves, without having to become a carbon copy of others.

I’m not saying that it’ll be easy, but I’m persuaded. You?

In his recent sermon on Relational Evangelism, Pete Matthew, our new assistant pastor at Christ Church Balham, drew our attention to an article by Jamie Whyte. I decided to read it. I’m glad that I did. It’s a great article. Here are some thoughts.

1. Real believers really exist

Whyte refuses to believe that there are people who describe themselves as Christian who actually, really and truly believe the fundamentals of the Christian faith. He says,

I am not shocked by the persistence of religious belief in the West because I do not believe it exists. It is simply not possible for people who know as much as modern Westerners do to believe in the central tenets of Christianity or the other major religions.

It is possible. It’s actual. I pastor a church where we really do believe that God exists, Jesus was the incarnate Son, salvation was accomplished through his death and resurrection and that this life is not all that there is. We really do exist. We’re not faking it. We may be mistaken, but that’s another issue. But we really do believe what the Bible teaches.

2. Christianity doesn’t defy belief

If I’ve understood his argument correctly then it goes something like this.

assertion 1: ‘I’m an atheist and I don’t believe that there’s any evidence for God’.

assertion 2: ‘You’re a Christian and you don’t agree with me’.

conclusion: ‘You must be thick’.

Sophisticated, isn’t it?!

Obviously Whyte doesn’t put it in quite the same way! He writes, 

‘if something defies belief, a good starting position is not to believe it. That is my position. I am not shocked by the persistence of religious belief in the West because I do not believe it exists. It is simply not possible for people who know as much as modern Westerners do to believe in the central tenets of Christianity or the other major religions’.

Christianity doesn’t defy belief. We’re not required to suspend our mental faculties to come to a settled confidence in the existence of God. Christianity challenges unbelief. It does so because there’s every reason to go where the evidence is pointing. And the evidence is pointing us toward the existence of God, a Redeemer and life beyond the grave. 

3. Faith is reasoned belief not wishful thinking

Whyte has to account for the persistence and prevalence of religious belief. Because he’s committed to the idea that no one can be so stupid to believe that it’s true, his answer is to say that we must be unconsciously deluded. He writes,

‘Of course, religious assertion persists. But there are many reasons for saying religious things other than actually believing them. Most often, I suspect, people are expressing their hopes rather than their beliefs - substituting “I believe” for “I wish” in the unconscious endeavour to convince themselves’.

I’m not aware that I’m an unconscious self deluded muppet who unknowingly commits gross hypocrisy. But that’s the thing about being unconscious, isn’t it? You’re not aware. It’s neat but it’s not nice. And actually it’s wrong. Most people are Christian because they’ve been convinced that their previously held convictions were wrong and they’re big enough to change their minds. When people say that ‘I believe’ and they mean ‘I wish’ Whyte calls it Christianity. But we call it superstition. We should be Christians because of the evidence, not in spite of it.

4. Christian policy should be different

Whyte wants to try and explain why religion continues to persist in the American political arena. His answer is that it’s just for show. He might be right. But the reason he says that it’s just for who is that there’s no discernible difference in unbelieving political policy and believing political policy.

‘American politicians obviously do not really believe that we have immortal souls. And they know that voters do not believe it either. They know that, contrary to popular mythology, a politician who approached policy from a truly Christian perspective would be considered an unelectable lunatic’.

I think he’s on the money about being perceived as an unelectable lunatic. But that’s not the issue. The issue is that it’s a completely unfair criticism to make of most American politicians and especially of the two Presidentail candidates. Neither McCain nor Obama belong to explicitly Christian political parties. And America is not a theocracy. I agree that were a Christian party to be elected then there ought to be a distinctive flavour to their policies. But there isn’t. So don’t nail them for failing to make whatever private theologically informed views they may hold into explicit public policy. Any politician operating in a secular liberal democracy needs to be realistic about what influence they can have in the political process. If American were a country full of Bible believing, Jesus loving Christian men and women who wanted to organise the country along Christian principles then things would be different. But they don’t and no one who wanted to do that would get elected.

4. We don’t live like we believe

This is where the article really hits home. At this point, he’s really got a point.

The real test for genuine belief is not what people say, but what they do. To believe something is to be disposed to act upon it. The vast majority of Western Christians fail this test.

He also says,

‘Yet the expected behavioural difference is not to be observed. The vast majority of Christians display a remarkably blasé attitude toward their approaching day of judgment, leading lives almost indistinguishable from those of us open non-believers. Put simply, they fail the behavioural test for belief’.

His point is that if we really believed what we say we believe then it’d show in the way we behave. He’s right on the money, isn’t he? There’s a credibility gap between what we say and what we do. And he’s got a point. In one sense, that’s an accusation that’ll always stick because Christians will always be imperfect works in progress. But just imagine what progress we might make if we narrowed the crebility gap just a little bit.

It’d be worth asking, ‘what should be different in the way I live if I really believe that God is there, if Jesus is my Lord and heaven is real?’

Conclusion

And so as irritated as I was by Whyte’s atheistic attack of Christianity I find I’m more irritated by his unerring ability to convict me of my practical unbelief. I need to believe everything the Bible teaches with such deep conviction that I’m prepared to act on it.