daveingland.com   about church relevance, culture, life, community, & transformational faith

Are you excited? Outreach magazine just published their compilation of the top 100 largest churches in America. While I’m glad that people are still gathering in masses to worship the one true God, I find myself scratching my head at why anyone would want to glorify the church in this manner.

The sad fact of the matter is that there are pastors out there that will inflate their attendance numbers so that they can run with the big boys. They are immersed in the numbers game. They seek to grow numerically in order to confirm their status within the kingdom of heaven. In the minds of many senior pastors is the misconception that a growing church is a healthy church.

However, when polled most senior pastors will say that they are not interested in numbers, but instead they desire to see many to come to know Christ as their Lord and Savior. That’s a noble thing, but at the same time many encourage people that were previously baptized in a church already to come forward and be baptized in their church, thus inflating the numbers of salvations and diminishing the scripture in Romans 10:9 which clearly states:

That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

I guess contrary to the word, confessing once isn’t enough?

We are taught not to envy or covet, yet we see statistics like this glorifying the local church and putting them on a pedestal because of the number of attendees they draw. When health and numerical size are used as factors to determine “success” in the church, how can a pastor not want to seek credibility for what God is doing in their church in the same fashion? It can cause us to see our numbers diminish within the smaller church because people are flocking to the mega-church because the music is so professional or they have more technology and staff in their children’s ministry and then believe that God is working in the mega-church, but abandoning us in the smaller churches.

I believe that God is working through the mega-church model to see people come to honest professions of faith in the Lord, with transformed lives making a difference in their community as the result. My criticism isn’t on the mega-church, but it’s on the glorification of the mega-church. Look closely at the image above or click here to see the whole list of the top 100 largest churches. It’s not just the top 100 churches listed, but they are ranked in order from largest to smallest and there is also the name and photo of the senior pastor and in addition to that, there is even a link to books that some of the pastors have authored. Sorry, but this just brings the kind of attention to the pastor that rewards him for obtaining such high status on lists like this. Somehow, it just doesn’t seem like such a godly thing for pastors to be recognized in this way or worse yet, to see them strive for such notoriety.

As I write this, I think the thing that gets me most is the notion that it’s all about attendance and not about transformations and loving others. As many of you know, I’m excited about the missional church movement. Not only the missional church ethos, but of the nature of the missional church to be more organic and empowering others to lead and disciple communities based on visions God gives them to be pastors and ministers of the gospel. What about the missional church that honors God through the Greatest Commandment and the Great Commission and sees itself being reproduced throughout the city or the world? If a mother church grows to 200 in attendance and then starts reproducing itself by sending missionaries/pastors out to lead others and disciple them in the ways of Christ, only to see this repeating itself time and time again, isn’t this the way of the first century church? The mother church may ebb and flow and never break the 200 barrier by intention, yet be responsible for seeing 20,000 come to know Christ and carry on his mission through daughter churches and other ministries. Should they be off the radar screen or not viewed in as high a regard as the mega-church of 10,000 members that lands on the list of top 100 churches? I don’t think so. Is having a congregation of 12,000 meeting in one building a better definition of outreach than having groups of 1,000 people meeting in 12 different buildings? Again, I don’t think so.

We should not be working to receive our rewards here on earth. Pastors can say that who am I to write about this when God is the one sending people to their church and they are just doing their best to shepherd his people. Okay, I’m with you on that. However, what about the inverse of this? How about when your mega-church of 10,000 people and 40 staff members sees its attendance drop to 5,000 in less than a year. Do you believe that God has his hand in moving the sheep to another shepherd, or do you go into panic mode and start cutting programs and laying off people and doing all you can to figure out how to get your attendance numbers back up to justify the big building and church campus?

Church attendance numbers in no way portray the effectiveness of outreach or seeing people come to know Christ for the first time. They do not accurately reflect the health of a church, nor the genuine nature of those that gather. A mega-church of 10,000 in attendance on Sundays, but 90% of the congregation is from church hoppers is not deserving of being more highly regarded than a church of 50 that live the mission of Christ everyday, drawing in people that may take years of living in a community of faith before they actually take the step of faith to put their trust in Christ eternally.

[At this point I feel a disclaimer is in order. I'm not envious of the mega-church or their pastors. I have not had any negative experience from serving or attending in mega-churches.

I have a great respect for the calling and vision of every pastor on the top 100 list of largest churches!

Those that know of my work in the ministry know that I speak highly of Pastor Craig Groeschel and participated with LifeChurch.tv in their One Prayer campaign last July. I have read and been blessed by several books authored by Andy Stanley of North Point. I'm amazed at what it took to see Bill Hybels ask for a raw and unfiltered assessment of Willow Creek through surveying their members and then responding in revolutionary ways to change the course and direction of their ministry in order to see true discipleship and transformation occur.

I am encouraged when I see how the Reveal study that was done by Willow Creek is causing local churches to take a look at what they are doing and why they are doing it. When things like this surface not because of diminishing numbers, but because of lack of discipleship and mission it can only be a positive step that deserves recognition. Most of my friends within ministry are pastors of larger, non-denominational churches with seeker-sensitive services. I love and respect each of them and sometimes feel they are better-suited to ministry than I am because of the larger resources at their disposal and their big faith to serve and make a difference. Again, I'm not in opposition to the mega-church model. I just think we are flirting with danger and temptation when we in ministry and those in the media begin putting so much attention to only those with larger attendance numbers. Bottom line is that I love the church and I love God and I pray daily that the church will start working to be more unified and seeing the love of Christ personified in cities all over the world. I just believe that in our humility we should seek to have God get all the glory and for people to see Jesus and not be awestruck by the celebrity status that pastors are being encouraged to embrace. It's a dangerous thing and we've already seen the enemy take too many people out of their calling to see the gospel reach the ends of the earth.]

Church envy…is it godly?

During the past few years there has been a lot of discussion about the emergent church. Now it seems that many have not been happy with the way the emergent church has moved to and have re-branded themselves as missional.

Is the missional church just another form of the emergent church? To that I say, yes and no. Just as the emergent church has its various ways with no single unifying factor defining it, the missional church is not in complete agreement either. However, there is a big difference in the way I see the emergent and missional churches.

A key focus on emergent churches is the experience. What does one feel when in an emergent environment? How can the church become a sensory experience? I admit that I was taken with this style of church for a couple of years as it seems like a way to connect with those outside of the church and in opposition to “religion.” They weren’t connecting in the more-traditional or seeker sensitive church so why not give them a place to experience God through making it seem more real and less judgmental? It made sense to me until one day I was hit with something. What about the gospel? Was the emergent church bringing awareness to the gospel in a way that lives were being transformed or was it simply paving a way for people to have their needs met in a Christianity tailor made for the season of life?

I have nothing against those in the emergent church or those called by God to serve in that capacity. I don’t believe the emergent church to be leading people down the wrong path any more than I believe the purpose driven or seeker sensitive church is misleading. God’s vision for his church is bigger than any of us can imagine and the isn’t to do it in only one way; instead the key is to make the focus on God and to live in unity and love. If we do those two things God will take care of the rest.

With that said, how can the missional church be the same as the emergent church? Simply put, the missional church requires an experience. However, where the emergent is about creating an atmosphere that brings about an experience, the missional church is all about experiencing something because of what we put into it, not what is presented to us. Additionally, the missional church will connect with those that aren’t connecting with the traditional Sunday consumeristic experience. Those that aren’t looking for a church with programs that cater to their needs.

The more I prayed about leading an emergent church, the more I believe that I received clarity on the true nature behind God’s vision for the church he was calling me to. It wasn’t about engaging people in an experience so they could feel God’s presence and come to know him more. It was about being a real and relevant place that people wanted to engage in every day. A place where Jesus could be made known without someone having to purposefully step foot into a building on a Sunday. It was about having a meaning and a purpose that stretched well beyond the borders of modern Christianity. To spell it out, this was a place that no building or program could summarize. It’s a place that can only be found deep within the heart and soul of a person. This is what led me to come to find the missional church.

Every church has a vision and mission statement. However, most often the mission of a church is to grow and be healthy and to see others come to know Jesus as Lord and Savior. The mission isn’t really a mission, but instead it is more like a mantra. We at XYZ Church want to disciple others and cause them to live out the Great Commission is basically what it comes down to. Is that bad? Absolutely not!

For me though, mission cannot be fulfilled unless it is a part of who one is. It is taking like-minded people and getting them united in a cause. In my case, the cause that should unite the church is loving God and loving others. We can show we love God by coming to a church building and lifting up our worship to him. We can show others that we love them by creating a great Christian children’s program for their family or teaching them how to be good stewards of their finances or how to stay married for life. For me though, I believe I can show God I love him by keeping his commands and I can show others I love them as Jesus loves them by going to them and not trying to attract them to me.

In my mind the missional church is about worshipping God through our daily lives and sharing the love of Christ with others in ways that have nothing to do with attracting people to a church building or connecting them with some great program. As Jesus did, we need to hit the streets and show the relevance of our faith in Christ and our genuine love for our fellow man. We should give sacrificially and engage in community and pray together and spend time studying and heeding God’s Word. In essence, to me, the missional church can simply be defined as a church that follows the model of the Acts chapter 2, first century church.

It can be a house church, mega church, internet church, college campus ministry…it cannot be defined by it’s look or it’s people. It can only be defined by Jesus and continuing his mission to see the kingdom of heaven upon earth. Jesus didn’t do things to draw people into his church. He went from town to town administering love and kindness and forgiveness to all that had eyes to see and ears to hear. He did not discriminate his message based on culture or profession or social status. His love was enough for all in 30 AD and it is still enough for all in 2008 AD. Why not go out and show the world that Jesus loves them and wants to use his people to share his love of them? Why must we call the world to come knocking on the door of our church instead? Jesus was about making those in the establishment feel uncomfortable, but at the same time he called upon his disciples to feel uncomfortable. Is a transformed life, dead to sin, going to matter much to a dying and hurting world if that transformation is only visible in a comfortable theater style seat with professional sounding music and polished speaker delivering a sermon on Sunday. A transformed life will be empowered through the Holy Spirit to speak eternal love into someone’s life if we go out and meet them where they are and not cast judgment on them. A transformed life will bring glory to God when lives outside of Sunday services are touched, yet no one mentions a church by name and uses it as propaganda. When we as Christ’s church offer to a free gift of bottled water to people because we want them to be hydrated and healthy, yet there is a big XYZ Church label on the bottle, is it really a free gift? Is it really about God’s love or the church’s love?

I don’t know how long the emergent church will continue or what the future holds for it. I love, pray for, and learn from many of my emergent church brothers such as Dan Kimball & Erwin McManus. However, I do know that the missional church isn’t something that came about as a way to try and make Christianity relevant in a post-Christian world. Missional church is just a modern expression of the first century church and it’s about time we got back to our roots of living life for the glory of God and believing that Christ will make this a better place the spirit of love he gives us through the indwelling of his Holy Spirit within us.

Missional churches are starting to gain momentum, which is a little odd to me since they were in existence back in the first century following the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.

To help clarify a little on missional churches and explain why I believe this movement is relevant, I’ll be posting my views this week as they relate to the Scriptural and cultural relevance of missional churches. The posts this week will reflect my opinions as I have come to understand them through prayer and study. I don’t profess to be an expert on the missional church nor am I completely comfortable with churches being categorized with terms such as missional, emergent, seeker-sensitive, mega, postmodern, giga, traditional, organic, attractional or whatever labels people want to use to describe something that was intended to be unified and loving. However, it is my hope that my posts this week will help explain some of the details of what makes a church missional and how this aligns with my vision for the local church.

To help get up to speed on the missional church be sure to spend some time here. From the Friend of Missional website, let’s start the discussion with an excerpt of what they state the missional church is not:

• A missional church is not a dispenser of religious goods and services or a place where people come for their weekly spiritual fix.
• A missional church is not a place where mature Christians come to be fed and have their needs met.
• A missional church is not a place where “professionals” are hired to do all the work of the church.
• A missional church is not a place where the “professionals” teach the children and youth about God to the exclusion of parental responsibility.
• A missional church is not a church with a “good missions program.” The people are the missions program and includes going to “Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
• A missional church is not about a new strategy for evangelism.
• A missional church is not missional just because it is contemporary, young, hip, postmodern-sensitive, seeker-sensitive or even traditional.
• A missional church is not about big programs and organizations to accomplish God’s missionary purpose. This does not imply no program or organization, but that they will not drive mission. They will be used in support of people on mission.
• A missional church is not involved in political party activism, either on the right or left. As Brian McLaren wrote, we need “purple peoplehood” — people who don’t want to be defined as red or blue, but have elements of both.

I’ll start posting next on what the missional church means from Jesus’ perspectives and why this ancient form of “church” is so refreshing and relevant to some. I’ll also be explaining my view on why I believe that missional and emergent are very different words and why postmodern is becoming an irrelevant term.

Father God, may you grant me the wisdom to aid in the discussion and convey clearly about what is being called the missional church. May my words glorify you and may they speak to those that think church is something out-dated and irrelevant. Let this movement bring about hope and joy as people all over the world connect and exemplify your love for all people and come to know the saving grace of Christ for all eternity. May the results help to bring unity to the vision of your church in ways that honor you Lord. In the name of Jesus, amen.

I am reading a lot of reports that show myspace as having more subscribers, but that Facebook is fast becoming the social network of choice. I think a lot of this coincides with the emergence of web 2.0 as Facebook fits within the parameters of web 2.0 much better than Myspace.

For me, they are vastly different forums and they each serve separate purposes:

Facebook-

• clean and consistent feel so no surprises
• consistency leads to a generic sense of place with no real individualistic identity
• allows one to get info quick and run off to the next task
• better suited for networking with others than facilitating relationship building
• links very seamlessly with blogs such as blogger, typepad, etc.
• for whatever reason it has gained more respect and credibility from adults (adults are more inclined to link to a facebook profile page rather a myspace profile page
• can’t send links to friends advertising your facebook (friends need to search for your name and then have to be accepted by you before they can see your full page)

Myspace-

• very personalized - lots of creative freedom for background images, different layouts, fonts, etc.
• blogs and categories used by many that don’t want to maintain a blog and social networking account separately. includes notifications to friends on myspace of new posts and encourages feedback.
• more standardized for chatting and messaging. intended to be an experience and to allow us to live life connected with others though photos, bulletins, blog, im, polls/surveys, etc.
• can be used for advertising and promotion of events since direct URL access is available (i.e. www.myspace.com/mybirthdayparty)
• promotes a better sense of community because of the interaction

Because of certain relationships I have built in the past 3 years on myspace, I still maintain a blog and engage some agnostic and atheist friends in discussions. I say hello and offer encouragement to people around the world and they do the same for me. However, I found that over the course of this year I have spent much less time trying to stand and be technologically creative and captivating on myspace. I went back to the generic profile with a white background. In essence, my myspace profile is beginning to look similar to my facebook profile.

Facebook can be quite distracting to me at times with all the applications that can be added. I’ve been able to do away with most of those things. I’ve linked my facebook profile to this blog and have been networked to people though it. There is no myspace badge which allows that. I’ve noticed too that most pastors my age or younger are promoting their Facebook profiles so this allows me to network with other people that are planting churches or considering planting churches. That has been interesting for me However, I still find way less interaction with people through Facebook. It seems very informational and not so much relational. In a fast-paced world this makes sense and its simplicity is appreciated. It just seems a little impersonal.

So, in conclusion, I utilize Facebook to network with people and get glimpses of their daily lives and thoughts and they do the same towards me. I send updates and photos from my cell phone. I even just added a Facebook toolbar to Firefox so I can share my browsing experience with my Facebook network. Facebook is a great tool for this aspect of social networking. However, I still believe that there is a place for Myspace and the relationships that I can maintain and the new ones I can create through the more personal interaction through its way of social networking. I don’t think either will consolidate things to replace the other with one social networking platform that is the king of internet interaction. So for now, I’ll maintain the blog and Myspace and Facebook.

Anything you’d add to this or care to comment on?

It’s amazing to me that through a simple question so much information can be found through study and research in order to confirm an answer. I was asked the following question by a Korean friend:

What should be our attitude toward multi-cultural church? Should we seek it out or just build a church without actively seeking it?

As someone that has way more experience on this subject than me, I contacted DJ Chuang and got some insight from him, which he posted on his blog to illicit feedback from others to help as well. Then I started finding that through following blog links that this is a subject discussed a lot within the Asian-American context. As an Asian-American, this interests me a great deal. It seems that there is quite a lot of debate on the issue of having segregated Asian churches in the US or whether we should strive to be an amalgamation of one body within one homogeneous church.

For me, I really feel more comfortable in a multi-cultural church. I want church to be about loving God and loving others and being in-service to my fellow man rather than being served. I feel like being in an ethnic church makes it more about one’s heritage rather than about serving others. In a Korean church, the context of the message is going to be presented in a way relevant to the culture of Korea. Food will cater to Korean taste buds. So, what if God sends a Mexican family to a Korean church? Well, maybe they will connect, but most-likely I think they will feel out of place. Even if they connect, the church is probably so inwardly focused on reaching other Koreans than unchurched Mexican, Caucasian, African-American, Argentinian (etc.) people with the saving grace of Christ for both the Jew and the Gentile, that they will miss out on connecting others to the church and subsequently to the gospel of Christ.

One thing that puts me up against a lot of others in ministry is that I believe church was never intended to be safe and comfortable. The minute it is, where do we need to seek Jesus? If the church is feeling all warm and fuzzy then why would they want to venture out and attract those unlike them to be a part of their community? Jesus called upon the disciples to be challenged and always learning and growing. They were put in situations so risky that at times their life was dependent on whether or not they would be willing to die for their faith in Christ. I don’t think we can truly comprehend this idea in modern-day America.

Looking at the church and it’s amazingly rapid growth under oppression and persecution, it causes me to wonder something. They are Chinese and don’t really have options to worship in multi-cultural churches, but if religious freedom came about, I’m wondering what would happen. As a country that just hosted 200+ nations for the Olympic Summer Games and is reaching out to the US, Middle East & Europe and adopting some of our cultures into their way of life, would they really want to be just a church to the Chinese?

If we are to expect the kingdom of heaven to reign here on earth, will there be ethnically separated churches on that day? Are their segregated streets with segregated worship spaces in heaven? I seriously doubt it! So, we might as well realize that Christ has only one bride and it has nothing to do with our birthplace or skin color. It has to do with our love and faith as we set out in the journey to follow Christ.

For more thoughts, some of which go against my thoughts in this post, take a look at:

• Churches should stay segregated: http://waynepark.wordpress.com/2008/08/07/churches-should-stay-segregated/
• I could write pages and pages on this: http://www.randplaty.com/2008/08/06/i-could-write-pages-and-pages-on-this/#more-223
• Does a multi-cultural church need to be intentional?: http://www.djchuang.com/2008/does-a-multiethnic-church-have-to-be-intentional/
• Asian-American churches…the wave of the future?: http://www.randplaty.com/2008/07/26/asian-american-churches-the-wave-of-the-future/
• In class today: Mosaic Church: http://nextgenerasianchurch.com/2007/10/16/in-class-today-mosaic-churches/#more-352
• Why many Amerians prefer their Sundays segregated: http://eugenecho.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/why-many-americans-prefer-their-sundays-segregated/

Scott Williams, campus pastor of LifeChurch.tv NW Oklahoma campus asks in his blog, “is diversity taboo to talk about in your team or organization?” Also, “how diverse is your church?”

As I prepare to wrap up my season leading services at a predominantly Korean-American church and begin the journey of being a Japanese-American pastor planting an intentionally diverse church I am getting feelings of misunderstanding. To some, there is a need for ethnocentric ministries to help keep individual cultures alive and well in the US. While I agree there should be some ministry that speaks to people that may have English as their second language, I think it makes the church more about one’s culture and less about God’s kingdom. Are we to minister to people based on race or are we to be light and salt in a world that doesn’t know Jesus?

When we get to heaven, there will no longer be a Chinatown, or Little Italy. It is a kingdom made up of disciples of Christ all worshipping the Lord in one voice with one love. If the kingdom of heaven should be made here on earth, then shouldn’t we cross ethnic boundaries and worship in one language with one heart to see others come to know what we know–Christ died for the world to be saved, not just me and not just you.

It would be so sad to know that diversity was a taboo subject in the church today, even though I know that the church is one of the most-segregated places in modern society.

Pastor Scott shared a thought provoking scenario. What if the world were reduced to just a population of 100 people. Keeping the ratios exactly as they are today, what would earth look like? Here is the result:

• 57 Asians
• 21 Europeans
• 14 from the Western Hemisphere, both North and South
• 8 Africans
• 52 would be female; 48 would be male
• 70 would be non-white; 30 would be white
• 70 would be non-Christian; 30 would be Christian
• 89 would be heterosexual; 11 would be homosexual
• 6 people would possess 59% of the world’s wealth and all 6 would be from the U.S.
• 80 would live in substandard housing
• 70 would be unable to read
• 50 would suffer from malnutrition
• 1 would be near death; 1 would be near birth
• 1 (yes only 1) would have a college education
• 1 would own a computer (an he/she would be blogging LOL)

Are you surprised? Are you affected? Will you help change the world through seeing Christ known in the hearts of the 70% of people that do not know him already? Will you band together in love to help see malnutrition become a thing of the past? Would you encourage young students to stay in school so that more than 1% of the world’s population can be educated to be better equipped to be leaders of the nations in the future?

Well, if you’re Tim Stevens, executive pastor at Grainger Community Church, you rejoice that there must be those in that group that are new believers or unbelievers.

When I first saw the stats of Grainger’s Reveal survey on Tim’s blog post it kind of threw me. Grainger is well-known for being a relevant church at the forefront of cutting edge stuff. They must be baptizing and discipling tons of people. Well, I’m sure they are, but in a church of 5,000 people on any given Sunday to know that they are attracting a lot of people to explore their faith is pretty great.

It just shows that different methods are being used to reach people and that God will be glorified through it all. People come to know Christ in different ways and their paths to the truth come about in various stages. One can’t expect that someone that wants to know the Lord personally may automatically believe the Bible to be fully true and without error or contradiction. For me though, I believe that engaging people in a missional environment where they have the chance to see lives changed through the power of the Holy Spirit will lead people to want to believe passionately that the Bible is relevant and truthful as they see things unfold in front of their eyes that mirror things they read in the gospel.

Whether missional or attractional, churches will still struggle with balancing what to do for both the believer and non-believer and it is open dialog such as what Tim Stevens is doing that will help us all obtain the goal of one day seeing the kingdom of heaven on earth.

Another post by Craig Groeschel on the Swerve blog calls pastors to preach the gospel every time. In his “10 ways to Make Your Spiritual Invitation Stronger” post, he lists these action steps:

1. Truly believe in the power of the gospel to change lives.
2. Recognize that not everyone is saved (including some people who have been members of your church for years).
3. Hate sin. Explain repentance. Preach Christ.
4. Don’t promise a better life. Promise a better eternity and the Holy Spirit to lead you through this life.
5. Preach as if this is someone’s only chance to hear about Christ. It might be.
6. Present the gospel in every message.
7. Call for a decision.
8. Trust that the Holy Spirit has already been at work in someone’s life.
9. Believe people will be saved.
10. Worship God when they are.

Isn’t it amazing that this is a call to pastors? Seriously, shouldn’t we all get this before we accept a call to preach? Well, we should, but we don’t always do this. In particular, I have been to services where decisions are never given. The messages are delivered specifically to those that believe in Christ already. Same with the gospel message. Many services have messages based on scripture on how to be a good parent or good steward of your finances or give money when times are tough to be blessed, yet they never touch on the gospel of Christ’s saving grace.

Another important point here is that I think a lot of pastors don’t really consider that they may have only one chance to connect with someone. God is infinite and he may use several people to call on someone to be saved, yet the road may stop with you. You may be the last hope of seeing someone come to know Christ. Is that reflected in your preaching?

One of the advantages of starting in youth ministry is relating to the statistic that 70% of teens that have been part of a church will leave and never come back once they go to college. That is 7 out of 10 students that will walk away from their faith and choose the world over the kingdom of heaven. If I know time is short, then I know I have take advantage of every opportunity. In the end, I am not perfect and I have failed at times. If I truly believe the gospel has the power to change lives, I must preach it every time for the sake of seeing one more person experience transformation through the power of the Holy Spirit.

If we can’t confirm through our own examples from the pulpit that the gospel as has the power to transform lives and that we trust the Holy Spirit has moved before us to soften hearts, how can we expect those in the seats to believe it and live it? Doesn’t the world deserve our best effort to preach the gospel and Christ crucified every time we speak? Are we to be agents of change in revolutionary ways to spread the love and gospel of Christ or should we resort to messages of having better lives for ourselves without repentance and belief that the gospel saves?

This is my act of obedience I must live by and hope that there is still time to see more lives eternally affected through the kingdom of heaven. Romans 1:16-17 will be on my devotional list this week and thanks (as always) to Pastor Craig Groeschel for challenging me and helping to strengthen my faith and ministry! May my ministry come to reflect what God put in my heart every Sunday, rather than what will cause people to like me or consider me to be a better preaching pastor. The transformation must start with me.

Craig Groeschel hit home once again in his list of 10 reasons why people won’t invite others to follow Christ. His number one, and one that I completely agree is the top reason, is fear of rejection. Working in sales most of my adult life before following Christ and entering the ministry, I saw this fact everyday. Imagine people that choose a job that requires them to make a sale in order to earn commission or not get paid, yet being so afraid of rejection that they never asked for the sale? They would explain all the great things about the item/service yet never ask the prospective client to buy. In the world known as the kingdom of God, why should we fear such rejection? If God wants someone to accept an invitation from us, it will happen. If His plan calls for different timing, then so be it. Are people that refuse our invitation refusing us personally or are the refusing God/Jesus/Christianity/Church/Bible?

Craig’s number 10 on the list is powerful and I believe it should have been placed higher on the list (assuming it is chronological). That point is that some Christians won’t extend an invitation to others because they don’t really believe the gospel themselves. It shouldn’t be the case, but this notion is definitely true for a lot of people that may not admit it with their lips, but do so through their actions. I’ll comment more on this in my next post.

Read the whole list of ten reasons at the Swerve blog here.

I follow a lot of what is going on in the church today, particularly here in America. One thing I am getting tired of is church leadership slandering other church leaders. At the center of a lot of this is political. Take a look at the forum Rick Warren hosted last weekend at Saddleback Church here. One of the things I admire about Pastor Gregory Boyd of Woodland Hills Church in Minnesota is that he gets it and isn’t afraid to talk about it.

As Christians we should be focused on the work of the kingdom of God and not about promoting political candidates or political agenda. Is it our job to polarize Christians through our political positions or are we to show the world that it is through love that others will know we are Christ followers as in John 13:34-35.

In his blog, Boyd comments:

“In my view, followers of Jesus are to be concerned with everything Jesus was concerned with – and Jesus was obviously concerned with more than people having a relationship with himself.”

What are some of those things? Well, for one Pastor Boyd speaks about racism:

Jesus revolted against racism by the countercultural way he treated and spoke about non-Jews , so his followers are to revolt against all forms of racism.”

Boyd states that, “Jesus was a revolutionary on social issues, so his followers are to be revolutionaries on social issues.” However, he concludes with these profound remarks:

Jesus was a radical social activist, so his followers must be the same. It’s just that Jesus never once placed any trust in the government of his day to address social issues. He rather just addressed social issues by how he lived and taught. So too, we who are Jesus’ followers are to place no trust in government to address social issues. We’re simply called to address them by how we live.

Following Jesus’ example, we’re to place our trust in the power of the cross – the power of self-sacrificial love – not the power of the sword. We’re to trust the power of Calvary, not Caesar. And this is why I believe those who spend their time and energy trying to control the political arena “in Jesus’ name” are profoundly missing the point. Our job is to love, serve and sacrifice for sinners – not argue about passing laws against them. For we are to know that, whatever sin we see in others, our sin is much worse (Matthew 7:1-3)”

Obviously there are many that refute what Pastor Boyd speaks about. However, isn’t the scripture clear on this that Jesus called his followers to be examples of their faith? If we live by the sword we die by the sword. If we live by love, we are keeping with the Greatest Commandment and it is through our love that world will know we are Christians.

Here is some video of Greg Boyd speaking on this a bit for the CNN series God’s Warrior’s: