Torben Søndergaard is a Danish evangelist who champions a movement called “The Last Reformation”. Distinctive things are healing of people in the streets and instantly baptising them, (by immersion) wherever water is available, on evidence of repentance and faith. Torben is very impatient with the traditions and structures of even reformed and evangelical churches. He considers that we should get back to the Bible and especially to patterns for church life discerned in the Book of Acts.
What follows is an assessment of his book “The Last Reformation Back to the New Testament model of discipleship” (2013) and of a more recent “The Last Reformation Movie”
Some may object that I am being judgemental, against the teaching of Jesus to “judge not that you be not judged”, but I do seek to follow 1 Thessalonians 5.21 “prove all things, hold fast to that which is good, abstain from every form of evil” We are called to rebuke and admonish each other, not to demolish but to build each other up. Some of the things Torben says need to be heard and considered; other things cause concern.
I begin with positive things in his teaching, with some comments in reaction.
He has some challenging things to say on how (p 15) finances, power and control still matter a lot to the church today. One cannot deny that “Hierarchy can be a secret comfort zone for proud people who actually love to rule over people.” (p 207)
He is rightly stringent on seeker friendly approaches (p 31) “Why do we keep inviting speakers from big churches abroad to come and speak, when we have no idea how people in their churches are living?” and tells the story (but not substantiated with evidence) of a seeker friendly church that had removed the cross from a wall because it had provoked some of the people who had visited. (p 103)
He is strong on the theme of how you live as a Christian. (p 33) “… the way that you live on a Friday night shows much more about your life with God than how you live on a Sunday morning. In the same way what comes out of your mouth on a Saturday night better shows what is inside of you than what you say in church on a Sunday morning.”
I identify with his own past motivation (pp 67 ff), honestly expressed, “an unhealthy drive to see my church succeed”.
He critiques tithing as an Old Testament practice (pp 81-83) and is right to say that the New Testament norm is cheerful giving without limits.
Discipleship is his big theme in the book (p 171)
“You do not become a disciple by sitting, year in and year out,
just listening to teachings. You become a disciple when someone takes you by
the hand and says, “Come, follow me.” It is about being together and sharing life.
It is about being taught by more mature disciples with whom you spend time. A
disciple is someone who makes others into disciples. As disciples, we should learn
from those who are more mature how to live out the Christian life on a daily basis.
Learn how to be a husband or wife, raise children, look after the house and
home, give and reach out to each other, etc. This principle actually applies to all
areas of life, not just to sharing Jesus and praying for the sick. We have to begin to
build biblical fellowships, fellowships that make people into
disciples, because that is what Jesus has commanded us to do.”
My only query about this quotation is that the disciple maker should better say “Come follow me, as I follow Jesus”, not simply “follow me”.
Torben believes rightly that the church should have a “flat structure” (p 195)
“… we really should submit (Ephesians 4.21) to each other, not to a leader who
lives very far away and doesn’t even know how we live day by day.. We have
need for a flat structure that can set people free - free to hear God for
themselves and take responsibility for their own lives. … We’re all brothers and
sisters, and the head of the Fellowship is not the pastor or leader, it’s Jesus Christ.”
But this raises questions of how to deal with the many scriptures which speak of submission to leaders. Presbyterians, for example, have always believed that “the sole King and head of the Church is the Lord Jesus Christ” and have held that conviction in a system where ministers and elders are themselves to be in collective submission to a “higher court”. Is his “flat” structure too “thin”? To whom does Torben submit in the Lord?
Among wise insights is (p 199) an account of how pastors become stressed. “If the church grows, the pastor is good. If it doesn’t and the people have problems, then it’s also the pastor’s fault. It’s impossible to live like that in the long term and it was never God’s plan in the first place.”
He also comments perceptively (p 205) “We don’t need a dark room with a candle or emotional music or anything like that if the Holy Spirit is truly there.” I simply wish the makers of “The Last Reformation” movie had followed that and not used highly emotive (and to me highly irritating) background music.
As I move to more negative comments a quotation from the Westminster Confession of Faith which is a classic statement of reformed teaching from approximately 450 years ago may set a framework for why I differ on many issues.
VI. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture, unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.
This is saying that Scripture is the supreme standard to guide what we believe and how we live. There should be no other additional supreme authority, whether as some Pentecostals/charismatics (though not all) believe by fresh revelation, nor as the Roman Catholic Church teaches by tradition. Tradition is not wrong in itself - the question is can the “tradition” be justified from Scripture?
The writers of the Westminster Confession and many other leaders and teachers across the churches also held that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. In other words, things like creeds and confessions, belief in God as Trinity, meeting for worship on Sunday, using “church buildings” patterns for worship services, leadership structures, may not be explicitly set out in Scripture but can be justified on scriptural principles.
I find it interesting that among those who say we should go back to the Bible and reject all (often called “man made”) tradition are both people with a very liberal theology and advocates of the cults. I do not think that Torben denies the Trinity but his formula of baptism, based on the practice of the Book of Acts and not on Matthew 28.19 rejects the Trinitarian formula “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. His impatience with structure and tradition, perhaps arising in part from a poor experience of the State church in Denmark with formal and nominal religion, may lead him to reject too much. There is a particular issue on whether or not in his dvd teachings he rejects original sin. (This is not dealt with in the book.) In his critique of infant baptism he seems to arrive at what he says about original sin because of the undenied fact that a baby is not capable of repentance. Yet many Baptists, who also reject infant baptism, would be absolutely clear that all are born in original sin. It would be great to have him affirm clearly this important biblical truth.
Another matter concerning baptism also illustrates his straight back to the Bible, rejecting all tradition, approach. This is the practice of immediately baptising people who have professed faith in Jesus. Certainly that was the practice in the baptism recorded in Acts, yet from early times churches of all types have insisted on a process of teaching of new converts before baptism (“catechesis”). That has been done in order to avoid as far as possible someone being baptised who has not truly repented. It is an example of “Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word”.
A couple of minor corrections before I make my closing comments.
John Wesley lived in the eighteenth not the nineteenth century. (p 11)
I think he gets the context wrong on p 16 quoting Luke 12.51-53 as about divisions among Christians when it is more likely to be about the division that comes to a family when some follow Jesus and others oppose the new believer.
At p 35 he says we do not find in the Bible that there is a “long conversion that will take many years”. This I think is typical of an impatient desire which many feel in our time to see quick results. I find it interesting in the revival among Samaritans in John 4.38 that Jesus cautions the disciples and comments “others have laboured and you have entered into their reward”. The biblical evidence, and the evidence from much cross cultural mission is that conversion may be both quick and “long”. The work of prayer and consistent loving Christian lifestyle must not be dismissed. To take an example, there are mature Christians today who came to faith “quickly”through the Billy Graham campaign of the 1950s and 60s. There were many others who put up their hand or went forward and are sadly nowhere spiritually today, which illustrates that disciple making is a long process, as I am sure Torben would agree.
At p 188 Torben interprets Revelation 2.15 that Jesus hates the teaching of the Nicolaitans as that “Jesus hates the teaching that certain people rule over laymen”. In actual fact, we do not know for sure who the Nicolaitans were - my best guess is they were a Greek version of the followers of Balaam. He makes an exegetical leap too far from the basic meaning “conquerors of the people” to say that Jesus is targeting the clergy-laity divide of later times. We do need to listen to Torben’s critique of controlling clergy and passive laity - the very thing that the Reformers’ teaching of the priesthood of all believers also addresses. What critics of traditional churches with their power structures ignore is that there can be control and abuse of power even in a “flat” structure. Even within the pages of the New Testament there were leaders with wrong attitudes such as Diotrephes who “loves to be first” in 3 John 1.9
This leads me to conclude with the more serious criticisms which are not so much to do with the practice of street healings and evangelism with instant baptisms but about Torben’s rejection of traditional church worship patterns and leadership structures.
He rejects the typical worship pattern of many churches and recommends “just let the Spirit guide without a programme” (25). “Much of what we do in the church nowadays cannot be justified by examples from the Bible, but is based solely on church culture and traditions.” 26 I would rewrite that sentence: “What we do in the church nowadays must be justified by Biblical principles, and must not be based solely on church culture and traditions, which are always to be used with discernment - proving all things, holding fast to that which is good, abstaining from every form of evil. [1 Thessalonians 5.21]” The model of worship without structure may seem appealing. I enjoy a meeting I attend on a monthly basis where we worship in a circle with people contributing songs, prayers, short teachings, but I appreciate that style of worship alongside a more structured form - it does not need to be either/or. In the 1970s in Northern Ireland I knew some who were impatient of old style denominations and formed “Christian Fellowships” with a more free flowing style of worship. I am amused and intrigued to hear of some enthusiastic proponents now worshipping in “main line” churches with strong liturgical traditions and structures.
It is not a matter of either free flowing worship or a traditional structure. The latter can be restrictive and deadening, the former frustrating because it may be the case that what is being shared is not the Holy Spirit speaking from the Scriptures but “private spirits” to use the Westminster Confession’s terms, people speaking their own thoughts and ideas, however “spiritual”.
In matters of leadership Torben’s right concern about passive laity paying a pastor to “hear from God, which in reality you are called to do yourself” (90) drives him to an extreme where he states “In all my years as a Christian I still haven’t experienced the need for anyone to check up on me. No one has ever reminded me that I don’t get to live in sin any more. No one has told me that I should remember to read my Bible or that I should remember to come to meetings.” The classic rejoinder to that is surely Hebrews 10.19-25 and in particular 24-25 to stir each other up to love and good works and not to “give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another”. The writer to the Hebrews affirms that the law is written in our hearts and that we have a great high priest and need no other mediator but nevertheless he does exhort a process of lovingly checking up on each other. He holds together what Torben seems to separate.
There is a need for teachers in the church, not too many as James warns (James 3.1) There is a need for people to act as Philip did with the Ethiopian official and help him understand what he is reading (Acts 8.30). It is right that some be set aside from other work and paid in order that they may teach in a sustained way. This brings dangers of pride, authoritarianism, cynicism but the best teachers will facilitate and enable, not create dependency but rather the attitude for which the Bereans were commended who searched the scriptures to see if these things were so. (Acts 17.11)
If the Last Reformation brings people to faith whom the traditional churches do not reach, we should rejoice. But to dismiss several centuries of church life and experience is bordering on arrogance.
What follows is an assessment of his book “The Last Reformation Back to the New Testament model of discipleship” (2013) and of a more recent “The Last Reformation Movie”
Some may object that I am being judgemental, against the teaching of Jesus to “judge not that you be not judged”, but I do seek to follow 1 Thessalonians 5.21 “prove all things, hold fast to that which is good, abstain from every form of evil” We are called to rebuke and admonish each other, not to demolish but to build each other up. Some of the things Torben says need to be heard and considered; other things cause concern.
I begin with positive things in his teaching, with some comments in reaction.
He has some challenging things to say on how (p 15) finances, power and control still matter a lot to the church today. One cannot deny that “Hierarchy can be a secret comfort zone for proud people who actually love to rule over people.” (p 207)
He is rightly stringent on seeker friendly approaches (p 31) “Why do we keep inviting speakers from big churches abroad to come and speak, when we have no idea how people in their churches are living?” and tells the story (but not substantiated with evidence) of a seeker friendly church that had removed the cross from a wall because it had provoked some of the people who had visited. (p 103)
He is strong on the theme of how you live as a Christian. (p 33) “… the way that you live on a Friday night shows much more about your life with God than how you live on a Sunday morning. In the same way what comes out of your mouth on a Saturday night better shows what is inside of you than what you say in church on a Sunday morning.”
I identify with his own past motivation (pp 67 ff), honestly expressed, “an unhealthy drive to see my church succeed”.
He critiques tithing as an Old Testament practice (pp 81-83) and is right to say that the New Testament norm is cheerful giving without limits.
Discipleship is his big theme in the book (p 171)
“You do not become a disciple by sitting, year in and year out,
just listening to teachings. You become a disciple when someone takes you by
the hand and says, “Come, follow me.” It is about being together and sharing life.
It is about being taught by more mature disciples with whom you spend time. A
disciple is someone who makes others into disciples. As disciples, we should learn
from those who are more mature how to live out the Christian life on a daily basis.
Learn how to be a husband or wife, raise children, look after the house and
home, give and reach out to each other, etc. This principle actually applies to all
areas of life, not just to sharing Jesus and praying for the sick. We have to begin to
build biblical fellowships, fellowships that make people into
disciples, because that is what Jesus has commanded us to do.”
My only query about this quotation is that the disciple maker should better say “Come follow me, as I follow Jesus”, not simply “follow me”.
Torben believes rightly that the church should have a “flat structure” (p 195)
“… we really should submit (Ephesians 4.21) to each other, not to a leader who
lives very far away and doesn’t even know how we live day by day.. We have
need for a flat structure that can set people free - free to hear God for
themselves and take responsibility for their own lives. … We’re all brothers and
sisters, and the head of the Fellowship is not the pastor or leader, it’s Jesus Christ.”
But this raises questions of how to deal with the many scriptures which speak of submission to leaders. Presbyterians, for example, have always believed that “the sole King and head of the Church is the Lord Jesus Christ” and have held that conviction in a system where ministers and elders are themselves to be in collective submission to a “higher court”. Is his “flat” structure too “thin”? To whom does Torben submit in the Lord?
Among wise insights is (p 199) an account of how pastors become stressed. “If the church grows, the pastor is good. If it doesn’t and the people have problems, then it’s also the pastor’s fault. It’s impossible to live like that in the long term and it was never God’s plan in the first place.”
He also comments perceptively (p 205) “We don’t need a dark room with a candle or emotional music or anything like that if the Holy Spirit is truly there.” I simply wish the makers of “The Last Reformation” movie had followed that and not used highly emotive (and to me highly irritating) background music.
As I move to more negative comments a quotation from the Westminster Confession of Faith which is a classic statement of reformed teaching from approximately 450 years ago may set a framework for why I differ on many issues.
VI. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture, unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.
This is saying that Scripture is the supreme standard to guide what we believe and how we live. There should be no other additional supreme authority, whether as some Pentecostals/charismatics (though not all) believe by fresh revelation, nor as the Roman Catholic Church teaches by tradition. Tradition is not wrong in itself - the question is can the “tradition” be justified from Scripture?
The writers of the Westminster Confession and many other leaders and teachers across the churches also held that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. In other words, things like creeds and confessions, belief in God as Trinity, meeting for worship on Sunday, using “church buildings” patterns for worship services, leadership structures, may not be explicitly set out in Scripture but can be justified on scriptural principles.
I find it interesting that among those who say we should go back to the Bible and reject all (often called “man made”) tradition are both people with a very liberal theology and advocates of the cults. I do not think that Torben denies the Trinity but his formula of baptism, based on the practice of the Book of Acts and not on Matthew 28.19 rejects the Trinitarian formula “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. His impatience with structure and tradition, perhaps arising in part from a poor experience of the State church in Denmark with formal and nominal religion, may lead him to reject too much. There is a particular issue on whether or not in his dvd teachings he rejects original sin. (This is not dealt with in the book.) In his critique of infant baptism he seems to arrive at what he says about original sin because of the undenied fact that a baby is not capable of repentance. Yet many Baptists, who also reject infant baptism, would be absolutely clear that all are born in original sin. It would be great to have him affirm clearly this important biblical truth.
Another matter concerning baptism also illustrates his straight back to the Bible, rejecting all tradition, approach. This is the practice of immediately baptising people who have professed faith in Jesus. Certainly that was the practice in the baptism recorded in Acts, yet from early times churches of all types have insisted on a process of teaching of new converts before baptism (“catechesis”). That has been done in order to avoid as far as possible someone being baptised who has not truly repented. It is an example of “Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word”.
A couple of minor corrections before I make my closing comments.
John Wesley lived in the eighteenth not the nineteenth century. (p 11)
I think he gets the context wrong on p 16 quoting Luke 12.51-53 as about divisions among Christians when it is more likely to be about the division that comes to a family when some follow Jesus and others oppose the new believer.
At p 35 he says we do not find in the Bible that there is a “long conversion that will take many years”. This I think is typical of an impatient desire which many feel in our time to see quick results. I find it interesting in the revival among Samaritans in John 4.38 that Jesus cautions the disciples and comments “others have laboured and you have entered into their reward”. The biblical evidence, and the evidence from much cross cultural mission is that conversion may be both quick and “long”. The work of prayer and consistent loving Christian lifestyle must not be dismissed. To take an example, there are mature Christians today who came to faith “quickly”through the Billy Graham campaign of the 1950s and 60s. There were many others who put up their hand or went forward and are sadly nowhere spiritually today, which illustrates that disciple making is a long process, as I am sure Torben would agree.
At p 188 Torben interprets Revelation 2.15 that Jesus hates the teaching of the Nicolaitans as that “Jesus hates the teaching that certain people rule over laymen”. In actual fact, we do not know for sure who the Nicolaitans were - my best guess is they were a Greek version of the followers of Balaam. He makes an exegetical leap too far from the basic meaning “conquerors of the people” to say that Jesus is targeting the clergy-laity divide of later times. We do need to listen to Torben’s critique of controlling clergy and passive laity - the very thing that the Reformers’ teaching of the priesthood of all believers also addresses. What critics of traditional churches with their power structures ignore is that there can be control and abuse of power even in a “flat” structure. Even within the pages of the New Testament there were leaders with wrong attitudes such as Diotrephes who “loves to be first” in 3 John 1.9
This leads me to conclude with the more serious criticisms which are not so much to do with the practice of street healings and evangelism with instant baptisms but about Torben’s rejection of traditional church worship patterns and leadership structures.
He rejects the typical worship pattern of many churches and recommends “just let the Spirit guide without a programme” (25). “Much of what we do in the church nowadays cannot be justified by examples from the Bible, but is based solely on church culture and traditions.” 26 I would rewrite that sentence: “What we do in the church nowadays must be justified by Biblical principles, and must not be based solely on church culture and traditions, which are always to be used with discernment - proving all things, holding fast to that which is good, abstaining from every form of evil. [1 Thessalonians 5.21]” The model of worship without structure may seem appealing. I enjoy a meeting I attend on a monthly basis where we worship in a circle with people contributing songs, prayers, short teachings, but I appreciate that style of worship alongside a more structured form - it does not need to be either/or. In the 1970s in Northern Ireland I knew some who were impatient of old style denominations and formed “Christian Fellowships” with a more free flowing style of worship. I am amused and intrigued to hear of some enthusiastic proponents now worshipping in “main line” churches with strong liturgical traditions and structures.
It is not a matter of either free flowing worship or a traditional structure. The latter can be restrictive and deadening, the former frustrating because it may be the case that what is being shared is not the Holy Spirit speaking from the Scriptures but “private spirits” to use the Westminster Confession’s terms, people speaking their own thoughts and ideas, however “spiritual”.
In matters of leadership Torben’s right concern about passive laity paying a pastor to “hear from God, which in reality you are called to do yourself” (90) drives him to an extreme where he states “In all my years as a Christian I still haven’t experienced the need for anyone to check up on me. No one has ever reminded me that I don’t get to live in sin any more. No one has told me that I should remember to read my Bible or that I should remember to come to meetings.” The classic rejoinder to that is surely Hebrews 10.19-25 and in particular 24-25 to stir each other up to love and good works and not to “give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another”. The writer to the Hebrews affirms that the law is written in our hearts and that we have a great high priest and need no other mediator but nevertheless he does exhort a process of lovingly checking up on each other. He holds together what Torben seems to separate.
There is a need for teachers in the church, not too many as James warns (James 3.1) There is a need for people to act as Philip did with the Ethiopian official and help him understand what he is reading (Acts 8.30). It is right that some be set aside from other work and paid in order that they may teach in a sustained way. This brings dangers of pride, authoritarianism, cynicism but the best teachers will facilitate and enable, not create dependency but rather the attitude for which the Bereans were commended who searched the scriptures to see if these things were so. (Acts 17.11)
If the Last Reformation brings people to faith whom the traditional churches do not reach, we should rejoice. But to dismiss several centuries of church life and experience is bordering on arrogance.
