Reflection on: Seeking Revival

Last week, I sent a copy of Incessant Theology to Rev. A. Howell, my wife’s grandfather to whom the book is dedicated, and he sent me back a card thanking me for it. He mentioned in this card that he thought my book would be very useful in this time when ‘many are seeking revival’. This got me thinking; is revival something that happens because people seek it? Or is it something that happens because God wills it to happen?

Option A) Does God decide to being about revival and so send a fresh ‘wave’ of the Holy Spirit upon the church? The church isn’t particularly seeking or wanting revival, but the event/s is/are so overpowering and so clearly ‘of God’ that they soon get on board and enjoy a fresh period of seeing many come to faith, many come into the church, many healed and many return to Christ.

Option B) The church is unsatisfied with what they are experiencing at the moment; few or no people coming to Christ, few or no healing, people leaving the church, etc. In light of this, they cry out to God to change the tide and after days or months or decades or praying and fasting and heartfelt prayer, they begin to see revival.

The problem with discerning which of these is the case is that there isn’t a Biblical map for ‘revival’. To ‘revive’ something means to give life back to it where there had ceased to be life. You can revive someone who has drowned; you can’t revive someone who is fully alive.

In the Bible, although it ends with Revelation depicting a troubled time for the church, the church is ultimately vindicated because Christ is victorious. Acts and the epistles show us that churches can need tweaking (or a good metaphorical kicking), but we don’t see any examples of churches needing to be revived. Jesus in Revelation 2:5 tells the Ephesian church that is they don’t return to the ‘love that had at first’ then He will take away their lamp stand. Does this point to a sovereign ‘if you don’t do or not do X then I’ll end your church for you’?

Bethel Church in California talk of wanting to raise up ‘a generation of revivalists’. This heavily implies that revival is based on something that the church does in order to convince God that revival is worthwhile. I am uncomfortable with this idea, as it puts the ball squarely in our court as needing to do something or be something in order to get God to act. This is both quite contrary to the nature of the Gospel (we cannot do it on our own and NEED God to intervene) but also leaves us with the question of ‘how do we go about it?’ There is no Biblical precedent for how to ‘seek revival’, so it leaves us somewhat in the dark.

However, the other option is that revival is something that happens every now and then (‘once every 70 years I was once told’) and that we have to just wait until God thinks it’s a good idea and sends revival. In which case, why worry about it? This gives us with a woeful view of the situation, essentially leaving us saying ‘Revival will come when it comes. This might be in our lifetime, it might not, but who cares? Maybe this generation is a write-off in God’s eyes.’ This view of God puts His sovereignty at odds with His Biblically revealed character; a God of love who wants His children to come home.

Could the right answer not be ‘both’? Can we implore God to send revival, but at the same time trusting that He knows best? Surely this is the nature of prayer; I ask my heavenly Dad to act, trusting that He will act in the way He sees best, even if I am baffled as to His reasoning. The very essence of the word ‘revival’ means to give life back to something. This does not have an implication of going forward into uncharted territory, nor of something that is a continual state, but rather of going back to something that has previously been given. The Community; the Spirit; the Word (note the alphabetical nature of this list; we cannot say that one is of more worth than another) If we love people, believe the Bible and follow the Spirit then revival will come, one way or another.   

Reflection on: Incessant Theology

I’ve written a book! Available from 27th June 2014 in paperback or ebook format, ‘Incessant Theology’ is an exploration of everything the Bible says about the Holy Spirit.

It really stems from when I was at college and was trying to write about the Holy Spirit for my dissertation. I would go to Christian bookshops or look online and be disappointed at how little theological material there was about the Holy Spirit. Being naturally inclined to seek to solve a problem rather than complain about it, I set about mapping out an exhaustive theology of the Holy Spirit. That was in April 2011, and now, more than 3 years later, the finished product is ready for release.

The book breaks down the 300 references to the Holy Spirit into 10 thematic chapters, each focussing on a particular aspect of who the Spirit is and the kind of things He does;

- The Spirit is a gift and brings gifts

- The Spirit empowers, enables and equips God’s people.

- The Spirit reveals and empowers teaching and preaching.

- The Spirit brings about God’s attributes covenants, and future plans.

- The Spirit leads, instructs and compels.

- The Spirit fills and indwells.

- The Spirit creates, is fully God and makes personal, independent decisions.

- The Spirit convicts, converts and strengthens the Church.

- The Spirit inspires.

- The Spirit is with you.

It is my hope and prayer that this book can help bring Christians who are cautious of anything claiming to be ‘of the Holy Spirit’ and who question the Spirit’s Biblical validity into conversation with Christians who have no issue with the Spirit but might not know the full extent of how Scripture talks of Him.

Please get in touch if you've read the book, and please also leave a review on the website you got it from.

Reflection on; why I have chosen to stop eating meat from mammals

Over the last month or so, I have found myself less and less happy eating meat. This has come about for several reasons, which happen to have come about at more or less the same time. The first of these reasons is in response to the horse-meat scandal, which has left me with little confidence that what I am eating is what it says on the package. This seems to be way more wide-spread than the public initially thought, and while there is no certainty that all meat has been tainted, the lack of certainty in what I’m eating has left me feeling that I’d rather not take the chance. I believe that part of the problem has been the refusal for the public to be willing to pay an appropriate price for the meat we eat, and so requiring a meat lasagne to cost no more than £2 will mean that there has to be compromises. The public, myself included, have created a monster, and now we’re afraid this monster will harm us.
 

Secondly, in the wake of the horse-meat scandal I watched two or three documentaries about the treatment of animals, in this case horses, which are farmed for our consumption. How these animals are treated, particularly towards the end of their lives, didn’t sit right with me, and while I am under no illusions that my not eating beef, lamb and pork products will change the meat industry, for me to partake of these products would weigh heavy on my conscience.
 

Thirdly, I recently watched this YouTube video about the overpopulation of the earth. In it, several aspects of overpopulation are analysed. One such aspect (about 37 minutes in) is that there wouldn’t be enough food if the population kept on increasing. However, the video explains that just over 50% of grain that is grown is actually made into food to be eaten directly by humans. Another 20% goes to make biofuels, but the remaining 30% goes to feed livestock which is bred with the specific intention of being farmed for their meat. Now, of course all livestock needs to eat, but the demand the meat market puts on farmers necessitates that many more cattle will be born than are necessary. I realised that if the whole world did not eat meat, this would increase the amount of grain which would be available to humans by 60% (from 50% to 80%). Given that according to www.stophungernow.org one in seven (about 14% of) people in the world will go to bed hungry tonight, having this extra grain available would effectively end world hunger. Again, my conscience compels me to do something about this if I can. In case you haven’t figured out the maths, one person in seven is more than one billion people, which is the equivalent of every single man, woman and child who live in the USA, Brazil, the UK, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, Austria, Iceland, St. Lucia, the Cook Islands and Vatican city combined going hungry every night. I think this is wrong.
 

Fourthly, I like animals. I grew up by the sea in England, and as such I didn’t get to see animals every day in the same way I would have gotten to had I grown up in a rural village. I am sure that this is part of why I appreciate animals the way I do. I find them fascinating, and I regularly enjoy going to zoos and the likes just to watch them. It occurred to me that it was somewhat hypocritical to say that I appreciate watching a cow and yet I would think nothing of eating a cow for my dinner later that day.

Fifthly, meat is expensive. Or at least, good quality meat is expensive. I have taken recently to eating Quorn mince in spaghetti bolognaise, and there is almost no difference in taste, but there is a significant difference in price; approximately half the price of minced beef. Price alone would not have been a convincing factor, but on top of the other reasons listed above, it makes sense to choose the cheapest option.
 

Finally, and what was really the nail in the coffin, a recent study reportedon the BBC news website linked an early death with eating more than 20g of processed meat per day. Processed meat is meat that is kept edible by using salt and preservatives. When I realised that the two slices of processed ham I was having in my sandwiches daily amounted to more than 20g, I had to question whether what I was eating was best for my health.
 

Now, I am an evangelical Christian. I believe in the inspiration of the Bible and that it is the basis on which I should make my moral decisions and chart the direction of my life. Acts 10 describes the apostle Peter as seeing a vision of a sheet containing all kinds of animals, and being told by God to ‘kill and eat’. Peter refuses, saying that he has never touched anything that is unclean, but God rebukes him telling him not to call ‘unclean’ what God has called clean. This is an indicator that no meats are unclean for the Christian. While I believe that, and I am convinced that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with eating meat, I do believe that the way animals are farmed is immoral and convenes the charge given by God to Adam in Genesis 1:28-30 to have steward the earth and as such I am abstaining from eating mammals.
 

You may well ask, “why only mammals? Why not all meat?” There are two reasons for this. Firstly, I am on a journey with this. Two months ago I would have chosen a juicy sirloin steak over anything vegetarian. However, now I don’t feel in a place where I could do this with a clean conscience. I may abstain from all meat in the future. Secondly, I identify more with mammals than I do with birds or fish; they are more similar to humans and as such I feel like to eat their meat is more of a moral issue than eating chicken or salmon. I do not eat KFC, because of what I saw in this video, as well as the health implications, and when I eat chicken I insist on free-range and ethically farmed animals. Eating fish is a different kettle of, well, fish. Provided they are well-treated and that the process of catching them doesn’t endanger other sea life or abuse fish-stocks, I am happy to eat fish.
 

I am not being evangelistic about this; I believe this is an important issue, but I will not be actively trying to get others to follow in my footsteps. Rather, I hope that people will be better-equipped with the information about the impact of eating meat, and will come to their own conclusions, whatever they may be.

100 Word Review of "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel

In this, the first of Lee Strobel’s books, he retraces his personal investigation into the credibility of the New Testament documents, as well as the validity of Jesus’ claims of being the Son of God. Drawing on his skills as an investigative legal journalist, Strobel cross-examines a dozen experts on a breadth of questions. This is an outstanding book, thorough yet readable, and serves as an excellent reminder that the Jesus Christians worship is rooted in history, as opposed to just being a theoretical deity. I defy anyone to read this without being encouraged or challenged in what they believe.

100-word review of ‘Total Church’ by Tim Chester & Steve Timmis

‘Total Church’ is an appeal to refocus church around the Gospel and community. Chester & Timmis make some useful observations, but I’m not sure who the book was written for, as the point they’re arguing was won several decades ago. Furthermore, they have omitted the role of the Holy Spirit, beyond administrative duties, from their treatise. Their assertion that the Bible equals the Gospel is erroneous, and there was an unpleasant air of arrogance about the book. That said, it does contain some welcome insights and caused me to evaluate my faith and practise. A provocative book, as it claims.

Reflection on: Consuming the Church

I love my wife. Marriage is, according to the Bible, when two become one. This means that I have a connection to her on all levels; I am happy when she is happy, content when she is content; grieved when she is grieved. If you were to come to my house and bring a gift, enjoy my chat, share a meal and spend a pleasant evening with me, but spent a good portion of the time saying how much you resented my wife, how she was unpleasant, where her failures are and pointing out where she needs to improve, I would not be inviting you back.

And yet many Christians take this approach with the Church. We love Jesus, we praise Him, we rejoice in His salvation, but so many people divorce the Church from her husband, and feel it’s appropriate to relentlessly run her down.

I suspect that this is a relatively modern occurrence. Since the advent of the internet, it is possible for people to take from a Church without being part of that Church; be that by sermon downloads, music sampling or live streaming, you can get everything that a Church has to give without needing to give anything back. The internet also provides people who have no natural voice about a subject with a platform from which to present an opinion about things (like me right now).

Now, the internet can be used for great good, or for great ill, but I submit to you that the preceding is one of those great ills.

The Church is not above criticism, and you are free to join or not join any Church that you wish, but if you are coming to the Church as a consumer and never a contributor, you have no right to make any comment about that Church. She belongs to Christ, not to you. If you don’t like how a Church on the other side of the town or the other side of the world does things, or what they believe, or what they preach, or how they worship then the answer is simple; don’t go! Stop downloading, stop listening. What you cannot do is attack a Church to which you don’t have a heart connection. It’s the coward’s way of addressing problems. And, are you so unbelievably arrogant as to think that just because a Church is not doing something ‘your way’ that they are doing it ‘the wrong way’?

“I believe in the absolute inerrancy of Scripture, I do not believe in the inerrancy of my interpretation - or yours either.” – Rick Warren

There are two people in my marriage, and if you’re not one of them or unless you’re invited to, you have no right to make a comment about how my marriage is conducted (unless, of course, there are illegalities or dangers). It’s the same with the Church; unless you are a member of a Church family (and Church is family– if it’s not you’re doing it wrong) you cannot and should not comment on their business. You haven’t earned that right, and taking pot-shots at a Church or a denomination to which you have no connection is wrong, and ugly, and needs to stop.

“Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honour.” Romans 12:10

Western Christianity is so influenced by the consumer culture in which it finds itself. But the Church is not something to be consumed, it’s a body of people who love the LORD, who are connected to Him and to which people are connected, not a set of meetings to which people attend. If you have criticisms of a Church, be brave enough to address them with the leadership. If you aren’t brave enough, keep your comments to yourself. Either way, pray for the Church, because she belongs to Christ and He loves her and gave His life for her (Ephesians 5:25).

100 word review of 'It' by Craig Groeschel

Anyone who is familiar with the YouVersion Bible app has tasted the fruit of Craig Groeschel 's work with LifeChurch.tv.  In this book, he defines and explains 'it' as the blessing of God on a church's or leader’s ministry, and explains what, in his experience, this looks like. I didn’t like this book for the first chapter or two, because Groeschel 's style can be off-putting - he can come across as trying too hard to be cool  - but the book grew on me, and Groeschel offers some helpful insights into what can make a church vibrant and enjoyable.