Should Tax policy seek to maximise Government revenue? (Or -- following Laffer and Rahn et al -- is a higher growth path better for the long term?)

One of the policy debates of recent decades was whether key economies were so overtaxed that reducing tax rates would actually increase tax take. 

Famously, US Economist Arthur Laffer drew a sketch on a table napkin in 1974 (I gather, now on display in a Museum) and changed the terms of public policy debate:

The basic idea behind the sketch is hard to dispute: at zero tax rate, Government revenue would be zero. However, anarchy is notoriously destructive, so some government is needed to defend the civil peace of justice and provide basic services that will not otherwise be adequately provided. Also, beyond a certain point, rising tax rates create an ever-growing dead-weight on the economy, diminish productivity and eventually become counter-productive. 

A debate followed, as to where the peak was, and so where major states were relative to that peak. 

(More on that later.)

This discussion, however, overlooks a key point: SHOULD government revenue be maximised (especially in the fairly short run)?

For, in the long run, it is growth that creates room for improved and increasingly widespread prosperity.  That is, long before revenues peak and fall, economic growth rates will peak and fall as the dead-weight effect overwhelms the benefits of having a tax-funded government. 

So, we come to the linked Rahn curve, perhaps best seen in a composite chart:

It is obvious, then, that pushing the size of government too far will hamper long-term innovation, investment and prosperity. Even more obviously, there will be a hotly contentious debate as to where points A and B are, and on whether economies are at points like C.  Such has redoubled force in our region, as Caribbean nations need growth and adequate revenues to carry out government services that are valued by the public. 

To get an idea of the long-term impact of even seemingly small differences in growth rates, let us ponder what would happen to $1.00 after 50 years at growth rates relevant to how fast economies might reasonably grow:

A lesson.

Of course, real world economic growth is notoriously variable and averaging 2 - 3% can be hard. In recent years, much of the Latin America-Caribbean zone has struggled to run more like 1 - 2% than 2 - 3%:

We need growth, for ourselves and for our children and for posterity beyond. This means that we have to face the government dead-weight question and we must work to build a reasonable, responsible consensus in the public interest. Likewise, we have to build an entrepreneurial class and long-term investor confidence. Growth comes in the end from successful, competitive enterprise. Another point where we must work long and hard to build consensus.

Government leaders, government-owned independent and social media leaders, educators, pundits and even parsons, I am looking straight at you. This is mission-critical for the Caribbean. The seven mountains of influence -- and yes it is not just useful for missiology -- must come together around a credible growth agenda:

Lurking, too, is the quality of government services question: is the government delivering good value for money? (And, across the Caribbean, a lot of people will say: no. Sadly, too often, for cause.)

Quality of services, of course, will be tied to the rate at which government piles up dead-weight on the economy.

This is a context in which we hear of an ideal: private sector-led, growing and inclusive economies.

A great-sounding ideal, but obviously harder to achieve than to describe in a clever turn of phrase. Not least, because investor confidence is often low and for cause would-be investors fear being viewed as cash-cows to be mercilessly milked or outright expropriated. And, if there is a tax cut (especially one suspected to be of short duration) investment in jobs-producing activities may be the last thing to rise. Some may want to grab the windfall and run (through a dividend or executive bonus etc), others may invest in office equipment not factory floor equipment (guess who carry more influence), and more. Broken trust in a society is intangible but very real.

So, the first key take-home lesson is that there is such a thing as too much government for the long-term good of a country. Where, once the political balance has shifted towards a large government with services and support that significant voting blocs become dependent on, it can be very difficult to pull back from that level, even if Government indebtedness -- such levels as a rule come with heavy deficit financing -- begins to spiral out of control. In short, it is easier to avoid a hole than to climb back out again.But, it may be very hard . . . and, tellingly in a democratic polity, unpopular . . . to resist the pressure.

Second, there is also too little government, providing we have services of adequate quality (starting with policing, courts, public health services, regulation of utilities etc).

Third, we must ponder the need to save, innovate and invest, leading to sufficient growth that tomorrow is better than today. 

Fourth, we are therefore facing a need to see to adequacy of services and to adequacy of growth. Where, it is possible to be overtaxed with even good government. Where, too, if government is bad enough, the dead-weight effect kicks in a lot earlier and feeding in more money will make things worse. And if there is significant graft, corruption, fraud, etc, that too can feed a destructive spiral. Hence, the vital importance of transparency and good law enforcement for so-called white-collar crimes.

H'mm, that reminds me of the concerns of donor agencies that we have to have enough capacity that aid does not get wasted or -- worse -- aid can be counter-productive. 

All of this is of double force for cases such as Montserrat, where the whole economy has been propped up for many years through grants in the aftermath of a massive natural disaster. It is clear that keeping a viable community going, restoring critical infrastructure and an adequate level of services, building up capacity and addressing improved governance all must be addressed. Addressed, at the same time as a credible economy transformation and development programme is put in hand to shift the dynamic to private sector-led, inclusive, self-sustaining growth that leads in time to an economy where a reasonable (but frugal . . . we cannot afford gold-plated approaches) level of government services is not a dead-weight on the local economy.

Calculations suggest, twenty years at 4 - 6% p.a. GDP growth while a tight rein is kept on net growth of the government services sector would do it. The obvious targets for sparking growth are:

•  upgrade of a seaport starting with a breakwater, 
• upgrade of an airport, 
• restoration of fibre optics cable connectivity, 
• development of geothermal energy, all tied to 
• development of a new town, 
• growth of the tourism sector, 
• digital services, 
• financial services and the like.

(If you are interested, here is a ten-year timeframe Economic Growth Strategy plan. Also, as a power utility is a natural monopoly (centred on the distribution network) and we must recognise that geothermal energy is a highly specialised form so that we will need to call on specialists. For good governance they need to sit in key decision-making positions in the Board room, hire, slander and fire at whim will not work. Across time, we should enforce a programme of technology transfer and capacity-building so that local control and management can eventually take over with low risk of a breakdown. While we are at it, it is a commonplace of economics that a monopoly utility can be effectively regulated in the public interest, balancing interests of shareholders, customers and the public. Indeed, in the EC, regulation of banks, credit unions and the like through the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank gives us a useful side-light. Electricity, water, telephony and digital access are as important as banking and stability of our money supply.)

Montserrat is of course an extreme case due to a volcano disaster forcing evacuation of 2/3 of the land and loss of most key infrastructure, but a less drastic form of this same picture obtains across the Caribbean. We need to balance adequate, good government, social welfare, health, education and growth.

But, what are the levels?

People can be all over the map, and while figures don't lie, liars can figger.

However, I found an interesting analysis out of Bulgaria.

Dimitar Chobanov and Adriana Mladenova  argue, based on OECD statistics and theoretical considerations:

The evidence indicates that the optimum size of government, e.g. the share of overall government spending that maximizes economic growth, is no greater than 25% of GDP (at a 95% confidence level) based on data from the OECD countries.  In addition, the evidence indicates that the optimum level of government consumption on final goods and services as a share of GDP is 10.4% based on a panel data of 81 countries.  However, due to model and data limitations, it is probable that the results are biased upwards, and the “true” optimum government level is even smaller than the existing empirical study indicates.  Optimal government size is also, of course, influenced by the quality of a government.

In the detailed argument, they write:

The research studies using various empirical techniques and different sets of countries conclude that the optimal government size (total government spending as a share of GDP) is between 17% and 40% of GDP, and the mode of the estimates is in the range of 20 to 30% of GDP, much lower than the current government share in most developed countries.  In 2007 the OECD average of total final government expenditures is 40.4% of GDP, while for the Euro area the average is 46.2% of the GDP.

 I have seen others go all the way up to 70% for the revenue-maximising level, which is higher than the growth maximising level.

The take-home lesson is clear enough, however -- especially where typical governments in our region are going to be less efficient and effective than those that are in OECD countries. 

We should be dubious about a government that runs beyond about 25% of GDP, and should consider carefully indeed on whether we can sustain such a level. Nor should we be naive that governments in our region will be adept at managing utilities and big "commanding heights of the economy" enterprises. Instead, we should seek to provide reasonable, ever improving but frugal core services, and we should be pushing capacity building and investments.

 To do so effectively, we need capable and willing partners. 

Pioneering, public-private partners, twinning initiatives, partnerships with universities and with business incubators. Where, tourism is important, there may be energy resources (such as geothermal energy) and where the digital sector is going to be vital. Nor should we neglect opportunities to bring technology to bear on agriculture.

All, much easier said than done.

Of course.

But we need to at least start by talking seriously about such matters. END

Faith, discipleship and mission -- from hit or miss confusion to coherent thought/ theology/ theory to informed action

One of the most striking "world in a nutshell" short notes in scripture is in Acts 11:26b: " . . . it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians." [AMP]

A world in a nutshell, in the immediate context of the strengthening of the church in Antioch. 

Let's look again, taking the context of the conversion of Cornelius and company as further background:

 Ac 11:¹⁹ So then [since they were unaware of these developments] 

[--> i.e. the conversion of Cornelius and company, and the descent of the Spirit on them before they were baptised, forcing the church to recognise that the heart of conversion is coming to that penitent trust in God termed faith, and the implication that one need not first become a Jew to be saved by Christ. Note, AMP is augmenting to explain.] 

those who were scattered because of the persecution that occurred in connection with [the stoning of] Stephen

 [--> c. 33 - 35 or 36 AD]

 traveled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, without telling the message [of salvation through Christ] to anyone except Jews.

[--> Here, we see a first wave, in effect settlement by refugee Jews, who shared the gospel with co-religionists, likely in connexion with Synagogues and living as a counter-culture enclave among the pagan culture of a major city of the Roman Empire (and before that the Seleucid Greek Empire). This extends the sharing to fellow Jews in Jerusalem, to the new context.]

  ²⁰ But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who came to Antioch and began speaking to the Greeks as well, proclaiming [to them] the good news about the Lord Jesus.

 [--> Radical innovation, and likely c 42 - 45 AD, marking a second wave. The culture-gap to pagan culture was bridged, likely by reaching out not only to full proselytes but the circle of God-fearers who did not fully enter into the Jewish culture, then moving on to the wider community. Note, this was led by hellenistic Jews, who were already cross-cultural and likely had absorbed the impact of the conversion of Cornelius and co. This would trigger decades of controversy, but would also open up the Gentile Mission. We must not despise legitimate innovation in the Church, nor should we be found trying to undermine and resist the work of God..]

  ²¹ And the hand (the power and presence) of the Lord was with them, and a great number who believed turned to the Lord [for salvation, accepting and drawing near to Jesus as Messiah and Savior].

[--> Notice, evidence of Divine favour, manifested in numerical growth from a new and previously unreached segment of the community.]

  ²² The news of this reached the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch.

 [--> A delegation of one, well-chosen.]

  ²³ When he arrived and saw the grace of God [that was bestowed on them], he rejoiced and began to encourage them all with an unwavering heart to stay true and devoted to the Lord. ²⁴ For Barnabas was a good man [privately and publicly—his godly character benefited both himself and others] and he was full of the Holy Spirit and full of faith [in Jesus the Messiah, through whom believers have everlasting life]. And a great number of people were brought to the Lord.

 [--> Further numerical growth, marked by a key quality: they were brought to the Lord.]

  ²⁵ And Barnabas left for Tarsus to search for Saul; ²⁶ and when he found him, he brought him back to Antioch. For an entire year they met [with others] in the church and instructed large numbers; and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians. [AMP]

 So, now we see the year of strengthening that set the base for Antioch to send out Barnabas and Saul on the first Gentile Mission, and that church then became a major centre of the Faith for centuries -- an embassy of the Kingdom. Thus, we come to the Antioch timeline:

That timeline is already a challenge to churches stuck at outreach to the culturally very close and growing slowly in numerical terms. 

We here see also, that a pivotal theme is that of identity: " . . . it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians."

The primary identification is discipleship under Jesus, the secondary one is that such disciples were given a handy label (likely originally not meant as a compliment . . . ) when it was realised by the wider community that they were distinct: Christians. Beyond, lies the third collective identity: church --

Message: living character comes before labels.

Second message: when something distinct comes into being or awareness, labels are needed to help us think and discuss.

Third message: labels should not be separated from the underlying character.

Fourth message: when we have lost understanding of labels, we need to go back to the roots to more correctly understand.

Fifth message: sometimes, the substance becomes lost or confused or adulterated, leading to the label losing its original force.

Sixth message: this may mean that the label and the substance are both out of proper order.

Seventh message: under such circumstances, renewal is needed.

Indeed, some cases are so extreme that we see Jesus locked out of his own church, knocking and asking to come in:

Challenge: renewal, in the community of the church in fellowship with our Lord, is an urgent necessity today.

In this context, we need to clarify faith, discipleship and mission, to spark renewal and renewed dynamism. 

Faith here being penitent trust in God through Jesus the prophesied and fulfilled messiah, crucified and risen as Lord. Discipleship, being the transformed way of life followed by one who is a student and follower of Christ in the community of the faithful. Mission, speaking to the mandate he gave to his disciples, the discipling of the nations as his body the fullness of him who fills all things. Where, the churches of Jerusalem and Antioch are prototypes and examples that we must always refer to to see what the authentic character is like. Do we measure up?

These are all deeply challenging, calling us to life and work and worship under the mission of the church:

In this context, I have done more web searching and I am troubled by our failure to appreciate the fullness principle of Eph 1:17 - 23 and 4:9 - 24: Jesus came, descending and ascending in order to fill [thus, transform] all things. Where, the church is his body, the fullness of him who fills, i.e. discipleship is inherently global across our lives and is by nature transformative in impacting the facets of life and community, both in the church and the wider society.  Yes, now in partial measure (likely as a counter-culture community in the wider society), ultimately in perfect completion at his coming. 

Why is that so hard to accept?

Do we not see that as people repent, are renewed, are revived, this will have an impact on the surrounding society and as this spreads globally, the world? That, once there is a critical mass in a given community, the impact will transform the community? That, such can properly be termed, reformation? 

That, such can be aptly summarised:

If you want, let's set out a framework for discipleship again:

Let's remember Daniel 2:

 We are and must be embassies of the eternal kingdom of God.

Focussing on the Caribbean, all of this leads to recognising the two tidal waves challenge (which is now very evident):

In turn, this challenge calls for recognising that communities are structured in recognisable ways, which for many purposes can be described using the seven mountains of influence + business as usual vs alternative model:

And yes, I have continued to see sharply dismissive language coming from Christian leaders. I simply repeat that the above framework is a handy way to focus on the key challenges we have to face as we consider how to disciple the communities and nations in our region. 

This then naturally brings to bear the challenge of prophetic leadership calling the community to repentance and reformation, similar to say Paul in Acts 17 in Athens:

And in a community and region that in a previous generation was far more consciously Christian but is now being impacted by lukewarmness within and de-Christianising and Islamising agendas from without, a significant part of that leadership will have to be corrective, calling us back to the four R's. That is going to involve worldviews analysis and critique, thence a strong commitment to addressing issues that affect the community as a whole and where it is heading based on signs of the times:

 That will call for taking unpopular stances instead of going along with the march of folly of the day:

 And yes, this implies carrying out and wholeheartedly supporting traditional apologetics but it also is far broader,. For we have to address worldviews and powerful cultural agendas. Francis Schaeffer's pioneering work is a start:

Where, too, we have to face a particularly ugly aspect -- apostasy:

All of this points to educational initiatives to strengthen our churches and their members. Here, is a suggested framework, for an Associate Degree level programme that can be based in churches in communities across the region using modern web-based technologies:

 Then, too, that can mobilise us for the mission to the world beyond the Caribbean (and especially to the 10/40 window):

At this stage, we have in outline a global mission vision and strategy.

Something that is sorely lacking in our churches.

So, can we pause, re-think, set aside needless quarrels and cruel barbed dismissals (the language I have seen used to target people who may have errors but also have valid points deeply troubles me) then set about the challenge we face? 

Knock, knock, knock . . . 

Could that Jesus be knocking at the door? END

Towards a counter-culture, transformational discipling strategy: "evangelism" vs "evangelisation" through embassies and ambassadors of the Kingdom of God

Pardon some fair comment that may go slightly over the top (but which is necessary to break through resistance):

We evangelicals sometimes tend to reduce the church's discipling mandate to a heavy priority on "evangelism," often "simplifying" Christian commitment to little more than assent to the say-after-me sinner's prayer based on a Sunday school story level familiarity with the life and death of Jesus (too often with little emphasis on the theology of the resurrection). Discipleship -- typical "follow-up" classes notwithstanding -- is then too often detached almost as though it were an advanced subject that is hard to understand and explain.

I think something is wrong here. 

And no, it is not that I am setting up a strawman caricature. 

Well do I remember when it first hit home that I did not really understand what it meant to be a disciple of Jesus in any coherent, confidently biblically rooted and soundly informed framework. I could not properly, crisply and correctly explain key words such as faith, repentance, worship, holiness -- and of course, discipleship. Certainly, by contrast with how I could readily describe, explain and apply concepts and terms in math or science. I could not identify phases of development, transformation, maturation, much less measure myself against them. 

All, seemed to be a vague mush.

And for nearly twenty years I had lived and breathed in solidly evangelical church circles. 

Where, I could hardly find books that were on target to help me. (Until, I ran across Derek Prince's Foundation Series, but that is running ahead of the story. [BTW, while there are many resources online today, finding what is truly helpful can be a challenge.])

But, I knew whom I believed and was persuaded that he was able to keep what I had committed unto him against that day. (And yes, that's a hint that theologically rich hymns were a great help.)

So, I realised I needed to learn and grow, then as much as it lay with me to do so, reach out to help others. 

By 1984, I had some answers and had done some early writings as a Christian student. Then, I was asked to do a workshop presentation for the first CONECAR, held on my then home turf, UWI Mona Campus. At that time, it meant: Congress on the Evangelisation of the Caribbean. (If you are in a dead hurry or want some specifics now-now-now: In later years, I would develop materials for cell leaders and for discipleship foundations (also, for evangelism meetings, basic apologetics etc [see reference page here]) and did a 4R's renewal series in Caribbean Challenge by invitation. More recent work is in and around this theology 101 course based on the Nicene Creed framework.)

Let me pause and put up a GIF on the 4R's framework (which are at the root of my thoughts on transformational discipling strategy):

. . . and another on foundations (which uses Daniel 2 and the Seven Mountains framework to set up the Heb 6:1 - 2 six principles that are the framework for sound discipleship . . . notice the eschatological, Kingdom of God intervention, Christocentric, Biblical context in which the six principles are laid out):

While I am at it, let me put on the table also this slide on Nebuchadnezzar's dream:

. . . and Clarence Larkin's "prophetic foreshortening" illustration of eschatology:

Let me add, on a broader view of our discipling mandate:

Thus, we see a key, self-reinforcing, naturally growing transformational cycle:

Where, Peter summarised the growth dynamic:

 Growth is phased:

Such leads to a characteristic pattern, a four-point balance found in mature Christians (NB: Ac 11:26b ". . . it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians") and in mature churches that cannot be imitated naturally:

This brings up the Antioch timeline/mission-focus challenge:

You will readily see that I believe in the power of critical mass to trigger cultural transformation (also, outreach to the globe), and that Christian Discipleship naturally progresses in this direction. 

But of course, the Acts and many other scriptures make it clear that

a: Spirit-filled revival is in a race with devillish riot in any community, and that 

b: which of the two prevails at a given moment depends on the way we respond to or reject and resist the gospel. 

This is where the broader term, evangelisation, comes into its own: responding to the gospel unfolds from repentance and renewal to revival and reformation, at least as a counter-culture (and foretaste of the ultimate future) within the wider community. That is, when ambassadors of the Kingdom of God come to a community in the midst of rebellion against God (which will as a rule be culturally entrenched) the gospel implies a transformational alternative represented by the church that emerges as an embassy of the Kingdom of God. 

In that context, 2 Cor 5 takes on great force:

 2 Cor 5: ¹⁴ For the love of Christ controls and compels us, because we have concluded this, that One died for all, therefore all died; ¹⁵ and He died for all, so that all those who live would no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and was raised for their sake.
 
¹⁶ So from now on we regard no one from a human point of view [according to worldly standards and values]. Though we have known Christ from a human point of view, now we no longer know Him in this way.

  ¹⁷ Therefore if anyone is in Christ [that is, grafted in, joined to Him by faith in Him as Savior], he is a new creature [reborn and renewed by the Holy Spirit]; the old things [the previous moral and spiritual condition] have passed away. Behold, new things have come [because spiritual awakening brings a new life].

¹⁸ But all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ [making us acceptable to Him] and gave us the ministry of reconciliation [so that by our example we might bring others to Him], ¹⁹ that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting people’s sins against them [but canceling them]. 

And He has committed to us the message of reconciliation [that is, restoration to favor with God].

²⁰ So we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making His appeal through us; we [as Christ’s representatives] plead with you on behalf of Christ to be reconciled to God.  

²¹ He made Christ who knew no sin to [judicially] be sin on our behalf, so that in Him we would become the righteousness of God [that is, we would be made acceptable to Him and placed in a right relationship with Him by His gracious lovingkindness]. [AMP]

Here, I also wish to highlight Eph 4:

4:⁹ (Now this expression, “He ascended,” what does it mean except that He also had previously descended [from the heights of heaven] into the lower parts of the earth? ¹⁰ He who descended is the very same as He who also has ascended high above all the heavens, that He [His presence] might fill all things [that is, the whole universe]).

  ¹¹ And [His gifts to the church were varied and] He Himself appointed

some as apostles [special messengers, representatives (--> ambassadors of the kingdom)], 

some as prophets [who speak a new message from God to the people], 

some as evangelists [who spread the good news of salvation], and 

some as pastors and teachers [to shepherd and guide and instruct],

   ¹² [and He did this] to fully equip and perfect the saints (God’s people) for works of service, to build up the body of Christ [the church]; ¹³ until we all reach oneness in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God, [growing spiritually] to become a mature believer, reaching to the measure of the fullness of Christ [manifesting His spiritual completeness and exercising our spiritual gifts in unity].

  ¹⁴ So that we are no longer children [spiritually immature], tossed back and forth [like ships on a stormy sea] and carried about by every wind of [shifting] doctrine, by the cunning and trickery of [unscrupulous] men, by the deceitful scheming of people ready to do anything [for personal profit].

¹⁵ But speaking the truth in love [in all things—both our speech and our lives expressing His truth], let us grow up in all things into Him [following His example] who is the Head—Christ.

¹⁶ From Him the whole body [the church, in all its various parts], joined and knitted firmly together by what every joint supplies, when each part is working properly, causes the body to grow and mature, building itself up ^[b]in [unselfish] love.

¹⁷ So this I say, and solemnly affirm together with the Lord [as in His presence], that you must no longer live as the [unbelieving] Gentiles live, in the futility of their minds [and in the foolishness and emptiness of their souls], ¹⁸ for their [moral] understanding is darkened and their reasoning is clouded; [they are] alienated and self-banished from the life of God [with no share in it; this is] because of the [willful] ignorance and spiritual blindness that is [deep-seated] within them, because of the hardness and insensitivity of their heart.

¹⁹ And they, [the ungodly in their spiritual apathy], having become callous and unfeeling, have given themselves over [as prey] to unbridled sensuality, eagerly craving the practice of every kind of impurity [that their desires may demand].

  ²⁰ But you did not learn Christ in this way! ²¹ If in fact you have [really] heard Him and have been taught by Him, just as truth is in Jesus [revealed in His life and personified in Him], ²² that, regarding your previous way of life, you put off your old self [completely discard your former nature], which is being corrupted through deceitful desires, ²³ and be continually renewed in the spirit of your mind [having a fresh, untarnished mental and spiritual attitude], ²⁴ and put on the new self [the regenerated and renewed nature], created in God’s image, [godlike] in the righteousness and holiness of the truth [living in a way that expresses to God your gratitude for your salvation]. [AMP]

It is clear that an embassy of the kingdom is -- or at least, should be -- a counter-cultural, transforming centre, an outpost and foretaste of what will be in perfect fullness at His Second Coming.

Going back up to vv 9 - 13, we see Jesus coming as messiah, descending and ascending in order to fill (thus, necessarily, transform) all things -- there is nothing that escapes his Lordship, his resurrection power and the impact of his gospel, his Spirit and his church which (per Eph 1:17 - 23) is "his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way." 

In this context he sends his primary ambassadors [apostles, i.e. church planting, civilisation-reforming missionaries], and with them prophets [who provide visionary insight and leadership to help understand times, signs and the call of God in a given time and place], evangelists, pastors and teachers who equip us for us to fulfill our calling and service in the body of Christ. 

While I am at it, let us address another gap. We routinely quote Eph 2:8 - 9, but what does v. 10 teach?

Let's see:

Eph 2: ⁸ For it is by grace [God’s remarkable compassion and favor drawing you to Christ] that you have been saved [actually delivered from judgment and given eternal life] through faith. And this [salvation] is not of yourselves [not through your own effort], but it is the [undeserved, gracious] gift of God; ⁹ not as a result of [your] works [nor your attempts to keep the Law], so that no one will [be able to] boast or take credit in any way [for his salvation].

  ¹⁰ For we are His workmanship [His own master work, a work of art], created in Christ Jesus [reborn from above—spiritually transformed, renewed, ready to be used] for good works, which God prepared [for us] beforehand [taking paths which He set], so that we would walk in them [living the good life which He prearranged and made ready for us]. [AMP]

We are called to a life of good works, including service through our particular gifts as members of the church, the body of Christ, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. (See Eph 1:17 - 23.)

It is in this context that we can better appreciate the seven mountains of influence model as it helps us understand the race between revival and riot in a given community at a given time:

There is a dominant worldview and agenda, shaped by balance of power and by dominance of ideas in a community. Thus, we see how prophetic, visionary, intellectual and cultural leadership by the embassies of the Kingdom of heaven and ambassadors of the kingdom 

. . . put on the table the sounder alternative (thus, we see a counter-cultural strategy) of reconciliation with God 

. . . leading to his blessing for the nations if they will receive the Seed of Abraham:

Gal 3:¹³ Christ purchased our freedom and redeemed us from the curse of the Law and its condemnation by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs [crucified] on a tree (cross)”— ¹⁴ in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might also come to the Gentiles, so that we would all receive [the realization of] the promise of the [Holy] Spirit through faith. [AMP]

So, here is our stark choice in the Caribbean (and wider world) today:

repentance, renewal, revival and reformation, leading to salvation, blessing and transformation

vs:

rebellion, devillish riot, delusion and chaos through a march of folly leading to ruin.

The wise choice should be obvious. 

But, it cuts across our sinful rebellion against God. And, if the Laodicean Church is anything, it is a warning that we can lock Jesus out of his own church.

So, we stand grimly warned. What will we do?

If not now, then when? If not here, then where? If not us, then who? END