I guess I was expecting everyone to be a Mark Driscoll clone. Expecting everyone to be young, restless and reformed… So I was pleasantly surprised… yes there were plenty of ‘missional’ stereotypes there (lots of iPads!) but it was warm, welcoming and gospel-centred.

Steve Timmis (Acts29WE director) describes it as…

“A distinctively gospel-centred network planting distinctively gospel-centred churches.”

This felt true. It didn’t feel like they were trying to clone Mars Hill in the UK. But were seeking to plant indigenous, culturally appropriate churches. Neither was there a big push for reformed / complementarian / charismatic or any other brand of theology. I wouldn’t have minded if there was and we’re aware of the theological convictions of Acts29, which on the whole I share. It was simply Gospel-Centred.

There wasn’t a denominational bias, and no pressing theological agenda, simply a desire to reach people where they are with the gospel.

I was around for two main talks JD Greear speaking on the uniqueness of Christ and Steve Timmis on ‘The Gospel’ both from Romans. Both were biblical, passionate and practical. Also was great to hear music from Soujourn and Mike Cosper speaking on Christ-like ‘stories’ in the arts.

Timmis made a particularly helpful point, as it seems ‘missional’ has become it’s own Christian sub-culture there is a need to rediscover words like ‘evangelism’, which is surely what being missional comes down to!

For those looking to be involved in church planting or simply looking to go to a good quality, heart-warming conference I’d highly recommend what’s going on at Acts29WE! It’s a great place to come and hear some different voices too – if I was to critique another conference I went to recently it would be that the voices were too similar (but I won’t do that!).

On a side note… a special thanks to Reuben Hunter who paid for my ticket. Probably the most generous church planter I know.

• A council worker who would work on a Sunday
• The ruling against prayers at council meetings
• The gay B&B case

Whatever the rights and wrongs of these cases, one thing is clear, a Christian’s conscience and beliefs are treated with little value by society and are legal systems.

This has of course been highlighted this last week as campaigns are launched ahead of the ‘consultation’ on ‘gay marriage’. It would be well worth signing the petition here to support the ‘Coalition for Marriage’.

We’ve been getting into the book of 1 Peter at church recently. Peter speaks a fair bit about persecution, not really the being thrown to the lions kind, but rather the persecution of an indifferent society. Peter’s recipients are facing everyday battles as Christians with unbelieving spouses and bosses and feeling alienated in the culture they live in – every day 1 Peter seems more and more relevant.

Now here’s where perspective comes in. If you’re Pastor Nadarkhani, or any other Christian living in an Islamic state then you do face the lion-like persecution. The latest news is that the Pastor has been sentenced to death for converting to Christianity.

“The world needs to stand up and say that a man cannot be put to death because of his faith”

Let’s campaign for the rights of a Christian conscience and values in our country. But let’s keep persecution in perspective. Pray for Christians around the world not fighting for laws but for their lives.

Appropriate that today is the day that the church remembers Polycarp. A second century Bishop, burned at the stake for refusing to worship the Roman emperor. His final words…

 “Eighty and six years I have served him. How then can I blaspheme my King and Saviour? Bring forth what thou wilt.”

We would all agree that a move to appoint women as Bishops, Vicars, Priests, Elders, Pastors, whatever you want to call them is a progressive step. It is a step forward in as far as it brings the church in line with the prevailing view of the society that we live in. However, I would argue that it is a step away from how God calls his church to be led and is therefore regressive.

‘Masculine Christianity’

Following on from John Piper’s recent conference on ‘Manhood‘, there has been plenty of talk suggesting that Piper is advocating a ‘Masculine Christianity’, to say that the Christian faith is slanted towards men, a male-bias in God if you like. Now you could make a Biblical case for this if you really want to, but that’s not actually Piper’s point. His point is that Christian ministry should have a masculine feel because it should be led by men.

You can twist this to essentially say that Piper is being sexist or you can take it for what it is… a call for Godly men to take the lead in the home and in the church. A call echoed throughout the Bible, especially in the epistles.

No Complements here

It’s sad that today ‘Complementarian’ is seen as a bit of a dirty word, even among evangelicals. This view of the roles of men and women in the home and particularly in the church is coming under increasing attack from those of an Egalitarian persuasion who cry ‘equality’! Those who take a complementarian view are increasingly regarded as sexist and patriarchal (ie. out of touch), while some even draw comparisons of this position to being racist.

But the Bible knows nothing of equality between the roles of men and women in the home or church, there is always distinction, not one better than the offer but difference. When it comes to Salvation there is nothing but equality, we are co-heirs (1 Peter 3:7), and there is no distinction (Gal 3:27).

Egalitarians are blurring God

One well-known blogger said that “the Holy Spirit is genderless”… not in my Bible (John 16), and also that “Piper’s arguments lacking in trinitarian theology”. The problem as I see it with much egalitarian thought is precisely that, it lacks trinitarian theology.

What if there is ‘discrimination’ in God. What if there is equality in the nature of the persons of the Triune God, but difference in their roles, and subordination between the persons. If that were that case then it would make perfect sense for that to be reflected in God’s creation.

So if you say there is no distinction, no subordination between men and women, then you end up believing that it’s not true of God either… which isn’t great, because the Bible teaches that there is.

Fallen Leadership

I’ve heard sin related two arguments recently concerning male leadership: 1) Male Headship is a construct of a fallen world which the cross reverses and 2) Why should I submit to a sinful person?

Male Headship is pre-fall. We see this in Genesis 2. There is order, man is created first, then woman (v.18). The woman is created from the man (v.22). The man exercises authority over the woman by ‘naming her’ (v.23). It’s also worth noting that two disputed passages on Male Headship (Eph 5 and 1 Tim 2) both directly refer to Genesis 2 rooting the teaching on Male Headship in the context of pre-fall order.

On point 2, Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians 11 both show that Male Headship is a derived authority, we submit to fallen human leaders because they derive authority from Christ. By submitting to human authorities in home, church, government, workplace we are submitting to Christ the perfect one.

Bible over Pragmatism

We get that most people in the church and in society generally are moving to an egalitarian position. We get that it’s not helpful to have comparisons drawn to the church being like the MCC or Apartheid. We get that feminists don’t like us. We get that there’s plenty of frustrated women in the church because they feel their gifts are overlooked… good reasons perhaps for a pragmatist to change their view on the issue.

But we’ve got to let God rule his church through his word, not simply pragmatism that bends to the shape of the culture. I’m afraid I’m yet to be convinced that the Bible is egalitarian when it comes to the roles of men and women in the church and the home… sure in salvation, definitely in being image bearers, and certainly in gifting and godliness, but not in seems in role or position.

Actually I went to a fairly large, well known church in Brighton, but one of their ‘sites’. I wanted to experience ‘Multi-site Church’. It seems to me that multi-site churches are a fairly recent American important initiated by large church growth combined with improvements in technology.

It’s something that in different forms is used by the churches of a number of leading Pastors, including John Piper, Mark Driscoll and Tim Keller. Here ‘the Resurgence’ blog asks the question: Are Multi-site churches Biblical? - whatever the answer, I’m not too bothered. I can see good biblical and practical reasoning for multi-site churches, which also has many similarities to a more traditional ‘Minster Model’.

For me the bigger question is that of video preaching, for which I was given two reasons; 1) to share as widely as possible the preaching gift of the lead elder and 2) to free up other leaders to focus on community and pastoral care. These seem like good and right reasons, but I remain unconvinced.

On the first point. It seems to me that something of the power of the preaching gift is lost through the medium of DVD, not to mention being a week behind the main site. The video and audio is good quality, projected large, but you can’t engage with the speaker. Within this I wonder if there is sufficient focus on training new preachers and encouraging elders to be preaching and teaching, that is their role after all. Some call it ‘specialisation’ of elders, personally it seems like a bit of a cult of the preacher.

As for the question of community and care, again the point seems valid. However, I’m convinced that the best preachers are also those who are thoroughly committed to their pastoral role. Spending time with people is going to shape how we apply and direct God’s word. Which is why the specialisation argument just doesn’t work… elders need to be pastoring, not just through preaching and not just through care.

I like the idea of multi-site, one church, sharing resources, reaching more people. But I don’t like video preaching. A better model I feel is the one used by Redeemer Presbyterian Church, multi-site but with live preaching from a preaching team on the same passages.

But here’s the point, and why it’s a very relevant question. What if you’re deaf?

My instinct would be to say the deafness is a disability, there’s a sense in which being deaf is to be incomplete – ie. you can’t hear! Then of course this ability will be restored in the New Creation, in our perfect bodies. Now this happened to come up recently, preaching recently at a local church of which around 10% of the members are deaf. I was given Isaiah 35 as the text, which talks about the deaf being healed… awkward!

After having the debate about when we should expect this healing that is promised to happen, another discussion came about. You see, some in the Christian deaf community, don’t believe that they are ‘physically incomplete’ or ‘disabled’, they believe that this is how God has created them to be. Which I think we would want to concur with, to a point. The issue is that some go on to say… therefore I will be deaf in heaven too… so presumably will speak BSL in heaven?

I’d always have thought it an irrelevant question, but it’s actually massively practical and pastoral if you work with deaf people. You can appreciate the point that some in the Christian deaf community are making, but I think scripture is clear that we will be made complete and healed in the New Creation. We will receive perfected, resurrection bodies, deafness is surely only one symptom of a fallen, broken body. One that nonetheless will be healed and restored.

There’s lots of interesting questions surrounding the New Creation. I think the idea of knowing one another, and communicating with one another, seems very plausible and could probably find implicit warrant for in the Bible. I’m struggling to think of specific verses to justify this view. Thoughts?

I guess for me I first came across Hitchens through programmes like Question Time. His outspoken support for the Iraq war made him stand out on most panels. Whatever you thought about his views at least they were his, he never trotted out any party line, he was a model in free thought and speech. He was a master in this arena, who could debate with the best and always come out on top, a brilliant word-smith and provocateur.

In 2007 he shifted his focus a little perhaps, and took on God. He published his book ‘God is not Great: How religion poisons everything’. A book full of the usual rhetoric, but also a clear underlying hatred for Religion and especially the three Abrahamic faiths. While the tone of the argument was a little off, and some of the ‘scholarship’ questionable, it served to promote lively debates and perhaps challenges people of faith in a different way – it was a popularised version of Anti-Theism.

For me, I’m grateful to Youtube! A chance to watch Hitchens debate theologians and others from all around the world. Most of the time he picked on pretty stupid opponents who were easy targets, but there were some good debates: like with William Lane Craig, Alistair McGrath, John Lennox and Doug Wilson. The debates with Wilson are perhaps the most interesting as unlike the others Wilson and Hitchens engaged in much discussion, correspondance, they wrote a book together and went on tour together. You might even think they became friends despite massive ideological / theological differences.

What seemed to swing the debates in Wilson’s favour to the point of really challenging Hitchen’s understanding was his commitment to unswervingly teaching the truths of the Bible, yet trying to articulate them simply. I’m sure Hitchens died in unbelief, so we should grieve, God does not rejoice in his death (Ezekiel 18:23). Yet we can also thank God for using him to provoke the debate, to get people thinking, and I’m grateful for Doug Wilson in helping him think too!

In Memoriam: Vanity Fair | Richard Dawkins | Doug Wilson | New Statesman | Nick Baines | Peter Hitchens

For me, in memory of Hitchens I shall watch the DVD of his debates with Doug Wilson – Collision.

Large defence budgets? UK troops killed in foreign lands? The inevitable civil wars? These seem a high cost enough, considering it’s not exactly a political system that we’re all entirely thrilled with!

But what if the cost was religious freedom? You don’t have to be religious to believe in religious freedom, in fact in most places where there’s little freedom of religion there’s no room for Atheism either… you’ll have to go Communist for that.

Everyone seems really up for the idea of getting rid of Middle Eastern dictators, well some anyway. The good thing about dictators is they usually provide stable government and a middle of the road approach to religion – in the cases of Gaddafi, Ben Ali and Mubarak. Most of whatever else they do is somewhere on the bad side of things.

The reality of a Middle Eastern Democracy is not a secular liberal state that we’re in many ways blessed to live in. But rather will inevitably veer towards an Islamic state, run by the clerics and their supporters. It will be a balance between moderates and fundamentalists with no place for religious freedom. The deposition of the dictators leaves a void for the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood to step forth – how would you like them as a coalition partner?!

Unfortunately, Rowan Williams isn’t always the best at saying the right things at the right time. However, he’s right on the BBC website. Religious freedom, and specifically the treatment of Christians is perhaps not the only, but certainly a key ‘litmus test’ for the success of the Arab Spring.

I fear that while many in the West will celebrate what’s been happening this year in the Middle East, as a victory for Democracy, free speech and human rights. The reality is that for many Christians and other minority faith positions there will be less Democracy, and less rights. The power goes to the majority and the minority suffer – welcome to Democracy!

For more information about what’s happening to Christians in the Middle East and beyond visit the Barnabas Fund.

• Historical – in Isaiah’s day
• Christological – in Jesus’ day
• Eschatological – on the final day

Plus, the tension we live in now. Experienceing some fulfilment now through Christ but how ultimately these verses aren’t fulfiled till the New Heavens and the New Earth. Anyway, a lady in the congregation who was big into healing asked me:

…if we believe are sins are forgiven now, why should we not think we are healed now (with a view to Isaiah 53:5)?

Which seems a fair question. Why do we believe one is fulfilled now, but not the other? Or maybe you do? I’m not a cessationist, well maybe a little, but whatever you believe about healing today, it seems fairly clear that the promise of healing, of all being completely healed (as in Isaiah 35) just isn’t fulfilled until the New Creation.

Now as this lady pointed out, it would be wrong to base our views of healing purely on experience. People not being healed can’t prove that it shouldn’t happen now. She’s right, we need to base our views on the Scriptures.

While it’s evident that God can and does heal today, I can’t see that this is promised for all today this side of the New Creation. But are my sins forgive today? Well, yes clearly those who trust in Jesus have their sins forgiven -today! Am I free from sin today? Well no I’m not, I experience that, and the Bible explains that reality – eg. the conflict in Galatians 5.

My sins are forgiven today! But I won’t experience complete freedom from sin until the New Creation.

My body is healed today! But I won’t experience complete freedom from illness until the New Creation… until I actually receive my new body!

In this way the promise of forgiveness and healing is very real for today. But in both cases can only be ultimately completed in the New Creation.

It’s a shame really. They’re model believers – Luke 1:6 tells us that they’re ‘upright in God’s sight’ and ‘observe all God’s laws blamelessly’. On top of that they’ve been waiting and praying patiently, praying for a child and for the child who will come to save (Luke 1:13), in the end their prayers are answered, and both come, one after the other.

In Luke 1 we see three characters who are silent. First we see God. Silent for 400 years, no words, no prophets, no miracles, and no messiah! Second Zechariah, who despite word from an angel, declaring his prayers to be answered, is silenced for his unbelief. Thirdly Elizabeth, who secludes herself for 5 months waiting to see if the news has come true. But when she does speak, her words are gold.

Luke 1:25 - “The Lord has done this for me,” she said. “In these days he has shown his favor and taken away my disgrace among the people.”

We know that this baby John is a forerunner for Jesus, he comes as the Elijah figure (Malachi 4:5-6) who proceeds the coming of the Lord. But Elizabeth’s words too are prophetic of what is to come…

• A Miraculous Birth
• God showing his Grace
• God ridding us of our Disgrace

A time to focus on Jesus’ coming, and his coming again. I wanted to try a post a few Adventy and Christmasy bits over the next two weeks. Here’s the first…

It’s one of the consistent messages of the Christmas angels… “fear not”… in his Advent hymn ‘Come thou long expected Jesus’, Charles Wesley calls us to sing… “From our fears and sin release us”…

Fear is not an uncommon feeling, especially when confronted by an angel! But the Bible seems to take a rather dim view of fear… more a case of a lack of trust in God. Consider the fear of the Disciples in John 14. Uncertain about the future, scared of what will happen to them, fearful of life ‘without Jesus’. Yet Jesus speaks words of comfort to them. You don’t need to fear and here’s three reasons why from John 14:1-6:

1. Jesus will return – not just returning, but coming back to take us to be with him! There seem two be two certainties about Jesus’ return… that it will happen, and you don’t know when… so get ready! If you want… Jesus is like a boomerang (thrown properly)!
2. Jesus has prepared a place for you – I love the picture of the Father’s house, with loads of rooms… and there’s a personal invite to you, and a place prepared waiting for you. Jesus, in his death and resurrection has reserved a place for you there!
3. Jesus is the Way – if you’re following Jesus then you’re on the right road to be with God forever. We can trust, that even though following Jesus can be tough, he’s the Way, the only way to be with God forever.