If you just read the last couple of posts it would seem that I’d be against the idea of church planting in a city or that a church in a city will have little or no influence. Don’t be too hasty in your conclusions now.

First of all, I do think cities matter and I do think they’re strategic and they can influence culture at all sorts of level. I’ve previously written here that,

“It’s hard to argue with the strategic importance of cities so I’m not really going to try. Cities are the economic powerhouses, the places where arts, commerce, law etc are all at their most innovative and generally they’re the hub that connect the regional spokes. They also have the greatest concentration of people. You can’t ignore the cities.”

For all those reasons the church should be fully engaged in city mission. Cities often have the greatest concentrations of wealth and deprivation, power and powerlessness, homogeneous elites and multi-cultural under classes. The church should be and is there.

As a family we’ve been called, for the first time, to embrace a city- and a capital city at that. Stockholm will be, for both my wife and I, the first city we’ll have ever lived in for any prolonged period. Stockholm is the biggest and most influential city, not just in Sweden but in Scandinavia, all the things that are true about cities are mostly true about Stockholm.

I’m not sure I need to bless those reasons with a deeper more ‘biblical’ one, I think if we’re honest the Bible offers a mixed account of cities. There is the good city (Zion) and the evil city (Babylon, Rome, New York take your pick). Cities are centre stage (Jerusalem) and are often ignored (Bethlehem & Nazareth). Does it matter, really, that the biblical story starts in a garden and finishes in a city? I’ve never yet heard a decent answer to the question, ‘so what?’

If God chooses foolish irrelevant people to shame powerful wise people (1 Cor 1:27) and chooses Bethlehem over Jerusalem then it’s not exactly out of character for God to start revivals in places other than cities (Hebrides, Wales for example) or for God to build monumental movements in cities that bless the nations.

Now, every now and then there may be a need for a pendulum swing towards cities or back to rural areas each situation calling for men and women of faith and courage. But it’s arguably a tougher call to respond to the anonymity and isolation of remote village ministry than it is to move into the densely packed cities.

Whatever influence we and the church we’ll be involved in has, will only come, as it always has done, from the power of changed lives – from people who seek first the kingdom of God and love that God heart, mind, soul and strength.

Yesterday I asked whether church planting in the middle of cities made any sense. Today I want to reflect on where in the UK should you plant a church if you want to influence the cultural, intellectual, political life of the nation.

Now I’m not entirely sure that the project of the church should be seek out to influence these areas, I think it is a by-product of well discipled disciples but that’s another post. So let’s assume that you did want to influence in all the above areas, where should you plant a church?

On my list, London comes third and a distant third at that. If you want to shape the influencers then really you need to be in Oxford and Cambridge and heavily investing in student ministry. For the record I didn’t get anywhere close to being able to go to Oxbridge, I mostly blame this on not being clever.

The facts seem to be inescapable, despite only having 1.5% of the British student population this 1.5% has a disproportionate effect on British national life.

Since 1945 86% of British Prime Ministers were educated at Oxbridge. In 2012 65% of the Cabinet were educated at Oxbridge. In 2004 81% of High Court Judges and Law Lords were educated at Oxbridge (plus 80% of leading barristers and 50% of solicitors at our biggest law firms).

What about the media and business? 56% of journalists went to Oxbridge and even in business 39% of FTSE 100 CEOs went to Oxbridge.

We might want to change that, but this is the current reality. So just being in Oxford or Cambridge isn’t enough but instead strategically investing in reaching students.

Of course you could go further back and see where the majority of Oxbridge students come from and focus on Eton or Harrow or some other fee paying public school, only to discover as a result that we’re not exactly going into the highways and byways. So Oxbridge looks to be a safe bet for some time to come and of course there are lots of excellent churches in both those cities.

It’s here, though, at the formation of strategy that the goal of cultural influence looks slightly suspect. Even if Paul did target cities and even if some early converts came from the elite the church was much more diverse than that. Paul put as much effort into converting slaves as slave owners, servants as much as masters. Seeking top down influence has never been the best of strategies historically for Christianity. Ground up on the other hand, well that’s a different story.

Andrew Wilson recently restarted the debate about the strategic focus of cities (see also here) which has caused me to reflect on the question, why cities? It seems to me that of all the reasons suggested it’s the one about influencing culture that I think stands out.

As increasingly we live in a post-Christian, pluralist and secular society, Christians are asking the question how do we influence for the good the society and culture we live in. Without the coercive power of government (like say Saudi Arabia) or political weight (like say America) and with tradition and history a spent force, how can we affect our culture?

Much of the way we have responded to this question is encouraging, for example the Everything conference or a renewed interest and investment in apologetics and public theology. However, it seems to me that how we’ve connected this to church planting may be a case of two plus two equals a number that is not four.

Let’s take, oh I don’t know, say a church in the City of London and then ask some questions based on some of Andrew’s observations.

1. We’re there because the people live there. Well, no you’re not. The City of London only has a resident population of around 11,000 which is not as many as Kingsteignton, Devon. True more than three hundred thousand people work there but they are not there when the church is there.
2. There aren’t enough churches in the city. No, that’s not true either. The City has 40 traditional churches and a host of new churches making it massively over represented.
3. We’re there to influence the culture. Maybe, maybe but given (1) you have to ask if that’s the best place.
4. The influencers live here. Statistically that’s not likely, unless you count the Queen.
5. If you want to influence a nation you need to be in the city. Well, in the UK, there’s a much better argument for saying if you want to influence a nation you need to be in Oxford. Or Cambridge. That’s it.
6. If you want to build a big church you need to be in the city. Hard to argue with this one, if you’re in the middle then everyone can get to you.
7. Lots of deprivation? Oh come off it.
8. Multi-cultural? Not in your borough.
9. It is cool. Got me there

This might come across as a cynical city church bashing but not really. I’m just trying to illustrate that the strongest argument and weakest argument is its location. By being in the middle people are pulled in because in cities people are more willing to travel, and the nature of cities mean people often have more attachment to the middle than they do to the area they actually live in.

Of course picking on the City of London is an easy target and it’s actually surrounded by densely populated boroughs, although they may have very different feel and needs but I’ve used it as an example to have a discussion on this city focused strategy.

Is there no point in being in the middle, is it an exercise in vanity? Hardly. Gospel churches of substance anywhere can be a force for good and renewal in our cities, but I am saying that the issue of life in a city is far more complicated than we imagined. Influencing a city or a nation is also not as straightforward as simply planting a church in the city centre.

First it was Carl Trueman and now Andrew Wilson is following my lead about the not-quite-so-important-importance-of-cities. Andrew lists 13 reasons put forward for the strategic importance of planting churches in major cities and then proceeds debunk almost all of them. Here they are and places where I’ve said the same thing (albeit not quite as sharply or wittily!)

1. The people live there.
2. They are under-represented by Christianity. (I wrote here “…maintains that cities are underserved by the church and I’m not sure there’s evidence to back that claim up in the UK. While they may not be ‘served’ enough they are unquestionably better served than towns, suburbs and villages in the UK where in many places the church has all but disappeared. Take my suburb for example 20,000 people and 200-250 believers.”)
3. Culture flows downstream, from cities to surrounding areas. Andrew challenges the notions of all areas in a city beng equal when it comes to creating culture. In this post, Creating Culture, I question the priority of that as a biblical goal.
4. Cities are vitally important in the biblical story. Not as important as you might think and the record is a bit mixed, as I wrote here, “God does seem to spend a lot of his time judging cities such as Babel (Gen 11:8), Jerusalem (Is 1:21 e.g.).”
5. Paul targeted strategic cities in his mission. Here I quote Morna Hooker who says, “Look at a map, and you will see the immense distances travelled by Paul – and though he walked along the roads built by the Romans, which made travel much easier that it had once been, he could not travel from Philippi to Corinth, in a day. He would have found it necessary to stop in smaller towns and villages along the way – and I cannot imagine Paul staying the night anywhere without sharing the good news with everyone he met.”
6. Jesus focused on the city of Jerusalem. I put this question (not very articulately I must add) to Tim Keller when he spoke to Newfrontiers leaders about cities, I asked, ‘how does what you say fit given the fact that Jesus ignored the city except to go and die in one?’ Slightly more politely I wrote, “Jesus’ mission and strategy virtually ignored cities for the whole of his three years of public ministry.”
7. Influencers live there. Well, they also live in other places too.
8. If you want to influence a nation, you need to be in a city. Well, that’s not the only way to go…”to culturally win a region you first needed to win the city. Militarily of course the opposite is also true. Capture the countryside and the cities will starve. Biblically, cities are important but then so are places like Nazareth.”
9. Cities make it easier to build big churches, and building big churches is important. OK, I haven’t said anything about this but I did lampoon it a bit here.
10. Jeremiah called upon Judah not to live in the suburbs but move into the city. Nope, didn’t spot this one either.
11. Cities are the most multicultural parts of the UK. Or this one.
12. The greatest deprivation exists there. Or indeed this one.
13. Cities are cool, and you know it. Yeah, that’s true. I used to live in Shrewsbury and I’m about to live in Stockholm. When it comes to cool the city wins by a country (should that be city!) mile.

The irony in all this is that when I attacked all this harping on about cities I was living in a suburb of a medium sized town. Now I’m about to move to a city and a capital one at that. I will probably use all those points at some point or other because when it comes to church planting, leaders are often sales people because we want to persuade people to come to our city and impressing them with the importance of the city is a tried and tested way of doing that.

I’m going to be in Stockholm because that’s where God has called me, but I hope that through the generosity of this church, churches will be planted in the towns and villages all over Sweden and Scandinavia.

1. Why don’t Americans recycle? Good question answered in a graphic
2. Is church about the superstar pastor? You’ve got to hope not.
3. Easter is already an age away but here are some photos of how Easter is celebrated around the world. Beautiful and bizarre.
4. This is the church and consumerism almost at it’s worst. It’s church as game show.
5. Talking of photos, here are 30 from inside North Korea. How long can this state carry on like this?
6. Here’s one more graphic for you. Which country has the largest stash of gold? No real surprises who’s at number 1.
7. Last one…and it will take an hour of your time. David Platt preaches on death-defying mission

Does technology shape your lifestyle?

I use a lot of technology. I like my old secondhand smartphone with its apps and I’d like to upgrade. I like my laptop and blogging. I like messing around with design and new browsers, I like Twitter, Google+ and to a much lesser extent facebook. I like sending emails, talking with friends on Skype, sharing music on Spotify. I use Evernote to keep track of my life. I like our new compact digitial camera which records the life of our family. I like watching DVDs and listening to music on my iPod shuffle when I go running.

Every day I use what we call ‘technology’ not counting all the other ways and more old fashioned technologies that I use like microwaves, cars, electricity, books even! When all is said and done, I’m heavily reliant on technology and probably increasingly so.

However a while ago I read a couple of articles from Evernote and the language they used just stopped me in my tracks. They talked about their partners who ‘are helping to bring the Evernote lifestyle to more people’ and then they called their forums the Evernote Lifestyle forums. That was it and it stopped me dead in my tracks. A lifestyle.

I use technology but is it my lifestyle? If it isn’t what is? Just to be clear, your lifestyle is the result of all the things you do to give yourself an identity, make sense of the world and respond to the circumstances of life.

So, I go running and that influences what I eat, when I eat, when I wake, what clothes I buy and so on. What I want is a healthy lifestyle where I am fit, in good shape, healthy and active. That’s why I run. I might want that active lifestyle for a variety of reasons – for me it’s a mix of wisdom, pleasure and vanity.

For others we get our identity and sense of belonging from the technology we use and how we use. It’s most obviously seen in the cultural capital that Apple has. It would be hard to deny that the only reason people buy Apple’s is for the function, it’s also likely to be in part the image. I would like to show myself as a cool, creative type – chances are there’s an Apple product lying around.

But what does it mean to have a Jesus lifestyle? How much does the person of Jesus shape the way I live, the way I act, the way I speak, the things I do compared to say my running, reading or over active interest in technology?

Apostles can be something of a controversial subject in evangelical circles today and the reason is simple. Some people think there have been no more apostles since the 12 and Paul and some other oiks have arrogantly called themselves ‘apostles’ or ‘apostolic’ (which is nearly as bad).

Yet it seems that the idea of apostles today has a broader range of support from many different sources. Here are just a few:

Archbishop of York John Sentamu described Rowan Williams as ‘God’s apostle for our time.’ You might not agree with that assessment, but that’s not the point. Sentamu is saying, that Williams performed the role of an apostle to the Anglican church and as Archbishop, that’s probably as it should be.

From a completely different angle, read this interview with Tim Catchim who is co-author with Alan Hirsch of The Permanent Revolution. In particular note what he believes about apostolic ministry.

“…it is the apostolic person and vocation that provides us with our most missional form of ministry. They are the ones most likely to cross geographical and cultural boundaries with the gospel to establish innovative and sustainable expressions of the ecclesia in unbroken soil. Without this pioneering form of ministry, the church will likely not break out of it’s current pattern of only reaching a minor segment of the cultural and socioeconomic landscape in the West. We need all five ministries…and the apostolic in particular, if we are going to meet the adaptive challenge of missional extension in our time and place.”

Then there is this interview with David Devenish (I’m currently reading his book on apostolic ministry Fathering Leaders, Motivating Mission) who in about 15 minutes lays out his convictions for ongoing apostolic ministry even though I would suspect that there would be some significant differences in style at least between Hirsch and Devenish.

Then from Sheffield Paul Maconochie refers to former leader Mike Breen using the ‘A’ word.

All this is to say that from a variety of different places the language of ‘apostleship’ is being used and rediscovered alongside (hopefully) the gift itself.

Speaking personally, this is a journey of discovery. I think each leader has to recognise someone’s gift as apostolic or not, it’s no good being told by someone else that so and so is an apostle. Bully for them. Trust needs to be earned and I think the apostolic gift if it is to mean anything must be relational not institutional. You can’t fill in an application form for ‘apostle’.

For us, here on a mission to church plant in Sweden, I see myself as being sent by a local church and by a family together on a mission but that family is an apostolic one. There are men who God has gifted to build churches across geographical boundaries and carry them with him into further mission together and we are happy to serve with them in building a movement of churches in Scandinavia and beyond.

When I was growing up our family attended an evangelical church. We knew it was because it was in the name. Broadstone Evangelical Church was even a member church of the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches. The name was later change to Broadstone Baptist Church because it was felt no one outside of the church really knew what an evangelical was but had a better idea what a baptist was.

The situation is no longer like that because no one inside the church really knows what an evangelical is partly because lots of people believing quite different things in quite different ways all claim to be an evangelical. We even have helpful books that try to determine What is Evangelicalism? I have had a number of web based conversations where I’ve found it a struggle to recognise what was being claimed as evangelical.

Carl Trueman writes,

“I am not persuaded that [evangelicalism] actually exists as anything other than a loose network of non-ecclesiastical institutions (professional societies, seminaries, publishers etc.).  Thus, terms such as `liberal evangelicalism,’ `generic evangelicalism,’ `open evangelicalism,’ and `confessional evangelicalism’ all run the risk of mistakenly assuming the real existence of a sort of Platonic ideal of `evangelicalism’ in which they each participate.”

and

“Evangelicalism, at least as a doctrinal movement as opposed to a network of institutions, does not possess any real existence beyond the imaginations of those who have a vested interest in the idea.”

Evidence of such fractures in evangelicalism was last seen most clearly in the debate about hell. Two examples, Al Mohler highlights some keys pieces from a Time article that spell it out and on a more popular level, blogger Adrian Warnock writes about Bell being an ‘evangelical insider’ and the clear implication is that one cannot be an evangelical and think as Bell thinks. For some these differences mean we can’t work together. John Piper expresses this view (in what I thought was a good explanation of a poorly thought through tweet) about his ‘farewell Rob Bell’ comment. The Word Alive and Spring Harvest parting of ways in the UK would be another example.

This sense of the word evangelical being hijacked is alive on both wings. So Kurt Fredrickson (HT: Doug Paul) writes,

“I am an evangelical, and I have been robbed” and essentially complains that the narrow right wingers are defining the term for the rest of us.”

Yet on the other side of things Randy Alcorn wonders, does the word evangelical mean anything any more? and says,

“I am increasingly concerned that the “big tent” of evangelicalism is rapidly becoming so big that the term “evangelical” is now almost meaningless.”

Alcorn concludes with the question many are asking,

“is it reasonable to suggest that there is a point where if you no longer believe that the whole Bible is true, and you deny core truths evangelical Christians historically believed, it is misleading and even nonsensical to continue to call yourself an ‘evangelical Christian’?”

All this is to say that how we answer or even try to answer this question could be the biggest theological debate of the next twenty years.

Sometimes in the web you come across things all back to front. So I first read Mike Breen’s response to ‘Why I don’t believe in Christian accountability’. Then I read these quotes by Dietrich Bonhoeffer posted by Mark Meynell. Finally I read the original article by Mike Foster who is giving up on the word accountability.

In church leadership I’ve often come up against the issue of accountability both for me personally and the requests of others. It’s often been something everyone felt we should have, no one really did have and when they did have t, no one liked it! The resulting situation was usually unsatisfactory. So I understand the concerns that Mike Foster has.

However, the response by Mike Breen is good and worth reading. Accountability shouldn’t be sin management. Which it all too often is.

“It’s not management of sin, it’s the development of wisdom. The whole of Matthew 7 is about accountability. If you’ve heard the word, you ought to do something about it.

I think it’s incredibly harmful to boil accountability down to a list of things we should/shouldn’t do. That’s behavior modification and sin management, not faith in our Lord Jesus!”

Instead as Bonhoeffer says, this act of confession can be a means by which God’s love and grace comes to us, we understand and receive forgiveness and are helped in our struggles and weaknesses.

“Does this mean that confession to a brother is a divine law? No, confession is not a law, it is an offer of divine help for the sinner”

He rightly counsels us against it being a pious act of duty, a mistake I have often made or some weird badge of spiritual progress.

“Confession as a pious work is an invention of  the devil. It is only God’s offer go grace, help and forgiveness that could make us dare to enter the abyss of confession.”

For what it’s worth, accountability works best when there is real genuine friendship. Not mates and buddies but trust, deep affection, a sharing of lives. The one to whom you share with is trusted and is known. Secondly, we’ve all got to know God’s grace. If one of you doesn’t really believe he’s a sinner. Don’t bother. Good deeds can still be filthy rags, we all approach God with a keen sense of our need for grace. Lastly, I’m not accountable to my friend, I don’t owe him a confession or an inside track on my heart. I am accountable to God. The other person, becomes the means by which I am reminded that Jesus paid for my sins, that His grace picks me up and can help me.

Today is the best day of my year every year. Better than my birthday, better than my kids birthdays, better than holidays, better than our anniversary, better even than Christmas Day.

My entire faith hinges and rests on the foundation of this day. Good Friday is not good if the resurrection never happened. Jesus would be dead, forsaken and abandoned. I would be helpless and hopeless and either still at the mercy of a righteous God or merely waiting for my atoms to return me to the dust. Neither offers me much meaning or hope. Not so the resurrection.

Why? Because the tomb is empty, the grave has not been robbed but has been left. Because a man who was crucified is alive. Because God raised Jesus from the dead. Today is a day of magnificent celebration the sign to the universe that freedom is coming, it is compelling, it is convincing.

Why? Because of the significance of this day I know that death will not have the last word, because of this day sin will not defeat me but has itself been defeated. Because of this day I am alive, I am free, I am forgiven, I am rich, I am healed, I am clothed with grace and am full of hope.

• Rob Bell on the resurrection
• He is Risen
• The resurrection is key
• Resurrection bullets
• Tom Wright on the resurrection

There are certain branches to Christianity that tell you that the Christian life is always victorious. What they often mean by that is there will be no suffering, no illness, no failure. Glory to glory, as the saying goes. No room in this scheme of things for depression, gloom, sadness, sickness, defeat.

Of all the days in the Easter calendar, today is the most forgotten; it is the day between. Good Friday we pause and remember the cross and Easter Sunday we celebrate with joy the resurrection but Saturday….well we’re not quite sure what to think about that.

It reminds me that there are days when victory doesn’t seem close (even though it is), that God doesn’t seem all-good or all-powerful (even though He is), that the sun won’t shine and I may not laugh again (even though it will and I will). Today the tomb is not empty, today Jesus is dead, today the soldiers still stand outside the tomb and the Jesus movement has come to a crashing and crushing stop.

Some days that’s just the way it is and to pretend otherwise would be foolish at best. My loved one is sick, my child rebellious and sinful, my circumstances difficult and unmoving, my church unhelpful, my soul dull and lifeless. Sometimes that’s just the way it is.

The Christian hope in the here and now is not that every day the sun will shine or that I will become rich, my house a mansion and my life perfect (although one day it will be), but that in the here and now whatever happens God is good, is almighty, is here and that in the day of mourning there is comfort, in the day of sorrow there is peace, in the day of darkness there is hope that the light will shine again.

We live in the hope that even though we die, death will be defeated, we live in the hope that the pain of this life will pass away and all things will be made new.