‘Who am I?’ is an understandable question in a secular world. What can I say about myself? Am I the mere transient product of the forces of blind chance? Many young people are anxious over such questions. Therefore, the church and its teachers have for the last decade or so rightly responded to this question assuring Christians of their identity in Christ.

Many churches I come across see to be experiencing a lack of commitment compared with former years. This is seen in different ways. It could be the demise of the evening service. It often has a generational aspect to it. The faithful ‘never miss’ attenders are from an older age group while the younger married people are missing. It is seen in a lack of volunteers to take on responsibilities for the church like in children’s work or becoming an elder etc. It is also seen in a reluctance by many Christians to become church members – they like the fringe where they can hang loose.
My main message to pastors is that this lack of commitment in the church is not necessarily your fault. No doubt the devil likes to use this to tell you what a useless pastor you are. But actually, the bigger picture says something different.
One factor in this may be the increased pressures of modern life. Whereas jobs used to be 9-5 now they verge on 24/7. Another is the so-called therapy culture. People are encouraged to see themselves as frail and to prioritise looking after themselves and their families first.
The Century of the Self
But behind much of this is the fact that society at large is enamoured with individualism. Some sociologists speak of our times as ‘the century of the self’. Your life is yours. You’ve only got one life, live it for yourself (very different from Christian sacrifice). And this attitude has rubbed off on many Christians in the current generation. Today’s digital technology is very individual. In fact, very often ‘progress’ is calibrated in individualistic terms. ‘Personal’ means good (you’re in control). 
It is not that current society has no desire for community or interacting with others. It does. But it likes community with few or no obligations or responsibilities – being together at a rock concert, or the pub, or the online chat room. It is community which leaves the individual pretty much free. And of course, ‘freedom to be myself’ is deeply embedded motor of the sexual revolution. And the individualistic mindset which is in the cultural air we breathe, inevitably impacts churches.
We ought to be addressing this current individualism and teaching on it from Scripture – speaking into where our society is at present. 
Scripture and Individualism
My tentative summary is that Scripture seems to teach that though the individual is very important, the individual only finds true fulfilment in community. The Bible’s theme is of the significance of the individual in the service of community.
God
From the start of Scripture, we are faced with a God who reveals himself one God existing in three persons. The first verse of the Bible shows us that though there is only one true God, yet there is a plurality within God. In Genesis 1.1, ‘In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth’, the Hebrew noun for God (Elohim) is plural while the verb ‘created’ is singular – denoting one God.
When it comes to the initial description of the creation of human beings we read, ‘Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness,”’ Genesis 1.26. The words ‘us’…’our’…’our’ are prominent. Though this is sometimes interpreted as God announcing his decision to create humanity to the heavenly court of angels, it more naturally conveys a first hint of the trinitarian relations in the being of the one God. 
The rest of the Bible, of course, makes clear that the true God is Trinitarian, Father, Son and Spirit, one God (e.g., Matt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14). 
Humanity
The way the original making of mankind in God’s image is announced contains both the singular and the plural. ‘So, God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them’ (Gen 1:27). There is a poetic parallel; ‘He created him…he created them.’
The individual is very important. This is clear from the way that Adam first exists as an individual and has personal dealings with God (Gen 2:7, 16, 17). God addresses Adam as ‘you’, singular (vv. 16, 17). Adam enters the garden alone and is given his own task (Gen 2:15). Yet though the individual is important he or she is not meant to live in a relational vacuum. ‘It is not good for the man to be alone’ (Gen 2:18). A solitary Adam is ‘not good’. That phrase may seem somewhat jarring as we read Genesis. But if we have grasped God’s triunity, the ‘not good’ ought not to be unexpected. Being alone is not what God intends for human beings, persons in his image. It is only through being together with another and others (whether in marriage or wider society) that the image of the relational God can fully blossom. The human individual finds fulfilment of his or her true self in community. 
Now, of course, when we come to Genesis 3 things change. We find the devil appealing in a very individualistic way to Eve (Gen 3:6), with the result that with the coming of sin, community is shattered (3:12). Distrust, suspicion and accusation abound – even against God. Community with God and between Adam and Eve is fractured.
Jesus
Jesus frequently acts in such a way as not only to bless individuals, but to restore isolated outcasts to their place within the community of the people of God. Both the individual and the community are important. 
He deliberately seeks out the lost. Rejected but repentant Zacchaeus has a new heart for people and Jesus states that, ‘this man too is a son of Abraham,’ – he belongs (Lk 19:1-10).
The miracles of the Master accomplish the same goal. Lepers who must be kept quarantined are cleansed and so reinstated in society (Mk 1:40-45). The demoniac who lived alone among the tombs is restored to his right mind and sent back to his people (Mk 5:19). The isolated woman, embarrassed by her issue of blood which made her ‘unclean’ (Mk 5:32) is healed, confesses her faith publicly and is a ‘daughter’ (5.34) – part of Christ’s family.
Our Lord’s atoning death is, of course, legitimately seen as being for individuals (Gal 2:20), but also has a definite collective aim: Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her (Eph 5:25). The rebuilding of community is part of Jesus coming to undo and destroy the works of the devil.
The Early Church
The outpouring of the Spirit and the preaching of Jesus as ‘Lord and Christ’ results in the calling together of God’s new community – the church. This fledgeling assembly is marked by togetherness. 
Read More 
Related Posts:

The Bible speaks not of a marketplace but of a kingdom. We seem to have assumed and be practising a false paradigm. Is it true that the day of the ordinary local church is coming to an end? Or is the problem that the majority of Christians are running with an idea which is from the world not the Word of God?

The marketplace mentality is working against ordinary congregations.
A man walked into an auction and there he saw something he had always wanted. It was a parrot. He decided to bid for it. The price escalated. He would make a bid and then someone else in the room would top him. Eventually he secured the bird for £100. Then suddenly he realised he had not found out the most important thing. ‘Does the parrot talk?’ he asked the auctioneer. The man replied, ‘Who do you think has been bidding against you all this time?’
That silly story reminds us that a most widely held and influential picture of the modern world is that of a marketplace. Our contemporaries tend to see the world generally in terms of commerce. The whole of consumer society is predicated upon marketplace ideas. Shops have their sales. The internet has its offers. The workplace thinks in terms of a ‘jobs market’. The name of the game is competition in the context of personal choice.
The Marketplace of Churches
The truth is that there is now a marketplace of churches. This marketplace stretches across denominations and church ‘brands’. People are quite willing to switch and travel long distances. Churches are in competition for members.
Market forces are in play and that being the case, sadly, it seems that a number of those forces are working towards the destruction of local churches—churches where people live in fairly close proximity, where the congregation is intentionally aiming at being a family, and where every member has a responsible part to play in the life of the church. Such churches are finding things increasingly difficult to attract members. Many are fragile and dwindling. Thankfully that is not the case everywhere. But it is happening.
As I have contact with pastors around the country, repeatedly I hear the story of visitors who look at a church but don’t return, or of those who decide to come fairly regularly but hang loose and won’t get too involved. It would be wrong and foolish to dismiss churches where this happens as ‘bad churches’. In NT terms, many of them are in good spiritual health in terms of faith and love. But it seems that is not good enough. ‘I can’t find people who will take up responsibilities.’ ‘We need workers. At present we can’t really do any outreach.’ Those are just two recent cries from good gospel men.
So, what is going on? The answer is that the market and the market mindset is against them. The cards which make for the choices of Christian people are stacked against the ordinary local church.
The Christian Consumer
Think about the wider UK landscape. We live in an affluent society where there are many options for people. We can buy an amazing variety of goods and services from houses to hotdogs, from haircuts to holidays and more. The heart of consumer culture, which distinguishes it from say a communist society, is personal choice. With almost boundless scope, we can have precisely what we want (so long as we can pay). The dominant thought in people’s minds is, ‘where can I get the best deal for myself?’ Unconsciously that same mindset of personal choice has infiltrated the picking and choosing of many Christians regarding churches.
When it comes to preferences, what influences the choices of today’s people? Years ago, Francis Schaeffer explained that the direction of the secular consumer society is towards personal peace and prosperity. The whole of our technology is geared towards making things easier for us. The line of least resistance beckons powerfully to our contemporaries.
Does this same attitude express itself when it comes down to choice of church? Many of the population, including Christians, are under a great deal of pressure at work. They are likely to have a large mortgage to pay and a family to feed. They have to put in long hours during the week. So, when it comes to the weekend and to church what are they looking for? They are looking for an easy option. They are looking not so much to be challenged as to be uplifted and looked after.
I know I’m simplifying here, but that often boils down to four things. They are looking for: 1. A fun Sunday School which will mean that they won’t have to fight their kids to get them to church; 2. A gifted music group which gives splendid and uplifting performances; 3. A preacher who expounds a passage of Scripture in a lively and entertaining way, reassuring them of the love of God and not expecting too much by way of sacrifice; 4. A congregation with people similar to themselves where they can find a comfortable friendship group. This quartet meets their needs.
Read More
Related Posts:

It was the habitus [habitual behavior] of patient endurance that made Christianity both deeply disturbing and yet attractive to outsiders amid the turmoil, paganism and hurly burly of the first century.

What did the early Christians actually do?
In Evangelism in the Early Church,[1] Michael Green declares ‘A priority of the early Christians seems to have been to have personal conversations with individuals.’ But Green’s emphasis on every Christian being a personal evangelist got it wrong.
That is the claim of Alan Kreider’s recent investigation into the church of the first few centuries, The Patient Ferment of the Early Church: The Improbable Rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire.[2] In fact, the teaching given to Christians in those early days after the apostolic period contains no instruction in, or pressure to do, what we call personal evangelism. It seems that Green was assuming twentieth century evangelistic methods and trying to find a rationale for them which simply wasn’t there. In the NT there is no constraint put on ordinary believers to buttonhole their neighbours and confront them with the claims of Christ. Rather what we find is that Christians are to ‘make the most of every opportunity’ when their stand-out lives provoke questions from people (Col 4:5-6; 1 Pet 3:15). It is a responsive witness, not an aggressive one.
This also looks much more like what Kreider finds in the writings of early fathers like Justin, Tertullian and Cyprian and what has been discovered of ancient catechisms.
The church during those years not only withstood empire-wide persecution but grew remarkably. How did it grow? We need to ask that question. As we see the current state of the churches in the West, we must have wondered at some point whether we have been missing something vital—something which builds better churches in the long run.
I do not think that we should swallow what Kreider has to say uncritically. But it is worth pondering what he has found in his investigation of the sources.
Four Basic Elements
According to Kreider the early church grew through a combination of four things, all of which are counter-cultural, to a greater or lesser extent, to current mainstream evangelicalism. These were:

Patience—this virtue was centrally important to the early churches and early Christians. The first attribute of love, according to Paul, is that it is patient (1 Cor 13:4). Whatever the circumstances, patience reigned.

‘Habitus’—habitual behaviour. They took seriously that it was behaviour that spoke truly about what they believed. ‘We do not speak great things, but we live them,’ said Cyprian.[3] A ‘Sermon on the Mount’ patient generosity was to be the Christian’s default setting even under persecution.

Catechesis and worship—the churches committed to forming these habits of behaviour in their members. A thorough catechesis, which majored on a changed life rather than simply the acceptance of certain doctrines, was the way habits were nurtured. Deep engagement with God in worship provided the motivation in maintaining that changed life.

Ferment—they relied not on Christian activism, but on God’s invisible power to fulfil his plans, which was seen as not susceptible to human control. Kreider chooses the metaphor of fermentation because, though it is a relentless process, it is both unseen and not in a hurry. The churches were grown by the life of the Spirit not by thrusting evangelistic strategies.

These elements of church life don’t look very much like the exhortations we receive in our churches today. This should make us curious. It was the habitus of patient endurance that made Christianity both deeply disturbing and yet attractive to outsiders amid the turmoil, paganism and hurly burly of the first century.
Character Formation
Instead of making it as easy as possible to become members of the church, it was emphasized that to become a Christian meant committing oneself to a deep change of life. A course of catechesis before baptism and joining the church could take up to three years.
Read More
Related Posts:

Society has changed radically, even in the last five years. If Christians do not understand where all this is coming from and have not been taught to assess this movement biblically how will they know what to say? 

Why we need to open our eyes.
The Catholic writer Noelle Mering gives a helpful and succinct definition of ‘Woke’. She writes: ‘The term woke refers to the state of being alert and attuned to layers of oppression in society’. It is about being on the side of those who are or who see themselves as marginalised and discriminated against. Does that ring any bells for us? Surely, it reminds us of Jesus.
But then it gets subverted. While it began specifically and rightly with racism in mind, it has since broadened its scope to take in other areas where there is now commonly considered to be oppression – including questions of gender, transgender and sexual orientation. This becomes not just a mixed bag, but a can of worms for Christians. As just one indicator of how ‘Woke’ has been mis-focused, it is worth noting that although it is meant to be fighting for justice in society, as far as I know, it has little or nothing to say directly about poverty. The kinds of oppression with which it is concerned are quite selective in a 21st century, libertarian kind of way.
Why do pastors need to be teaching God’s people from Scripture on this subject? And why is it a very urgent matter? Let me give you three reasons.
Woke Power
The Woke agenda is now calling the shots in vast areas of our nation’s political, cultural, educational and working life.
That means that many of those in our congregations are having to confront ‘Woke’ issues in their daily working lives. Many Christians are expected, for example, to join in ‘gay pride’ week at the supermarket where they work. Is that okay? The pervasive influence of ‘Woke’ means that many parents are finding their children coming home from school having met up with a biological girl who is presenting as a boy – and vice versa. How is a parent to handle this?
Read More
Related Posts: