Church

What If We Omitted Gospel, Community, or Mission?

/ Dennis Griffith / 3 Comments

The refrain from an old song says: “Two out of three ain’t bad.”  But would this be true for a church, or a Christian, who incorporates 2 out of 3 of the core values: Gospel, Community, Mission?

Consider these thoughts, framed as a mathematical equation:

Gospel + Community – Mission

If we have a Gospel Community, without the mission or ‘sent’ aspect in our DNA, then we become a church that is all about ourselves.  We may love the gospel, and love that the good news has impacted our minds, and even desire to live that out with other people like us.  But living as ‘sent ones’ to our neighborhood seems too difficult.  When this happens a Christian ghetto surrounds the church, and an “us vs them” mentality is created.  This misses the entire point of the “go” in Christ’s great commission. (Matthew 28.17-21)

Such communities of believers are often very good at living as gospel families.  They take care of each other well: they provide for one anothers’ needs, and they draw very close to one another. But the lack of  engagement with the world, and and absence of multiplication,  is  vividly evident.  Sometimes such an inward focus is even worn as a badge of honor, since it may be believed by our isolation we are not being ‘polluted’ by the world.

Such communities usually have a heavy emphasis on bible studies, men’s groups, women’s group, children’s programs, etc.  The groups will usually have an “open invitation” to those on the outside. But because they don’t believe they are “sent” to their community, they rarely see disciples made of the un-churched people around them.   Numerical growth typically comes from like-minded people moving into their area, or through having children, or stealing the members from other churches that may offer fewer activities or which may be going through some turbulent times.  Rarely will they be faced with the general public pushing into the Kingdom, because they never engage general public with the gospel message outside the walls of their church building.

The overall goal is usually to prompt a great understanding of the Word and theology, but it is often intellectually gluttonous and missionally starved… because the reason for the Word and theology is to drive us to glorify God and show us our role in God’s redemptive drama.  If it’s not being used towards that end then it’s being misused.

Continue reading →

Broken-Down House: Living Productively in a World Gone Bad

/ Dennis Griffith / 1 Comment

I began reading Paul Tripp’s Broken Down House earlier this week. I had read it before, or rather I should say I skimmed it before, but did not take the time to allow Tripp’s poignant insights to resonate in my soul.  I raced through it last time, getting the general gist, but not digesting much in the way of spiritual nourishment.  That’s a mistake I am carefully avoiding this time through.

In Broken Down House Tripp uses the analogy of a home in serious disrepair as a reflection of our life in this world.  In the video above he introduces the themes he writes about.

Embracing the Brokenness of Your Church

/ Dennis Griffith / 1 Comment

This post by Tim Locke of Grace Community Church in Bridgewter NJ so captures the truth of a much needed lesson, I post it here below.

***

Embracing the Broken Church!

“I don’t feel comfortable inviting people to our church,” he said. “Why not?” I asked. “Our music isn’t upbeat enough, our people don’t sing out and the whole thing falls flat. Our people aren’t friendly. We don’t have a dynamic kid’s program. We aren’t very community-oriented.” He didn’t say all this but he and others have shared these concerns with me and other pastors that I hang with.

More and more people are leaving their small, limited churches to attend large, super-sized, mega-churches. And if they don’t leave, they spend their time comparing their church with others and complaining about what they want but don’t have.

Sometimes a parishioner gets a dash of spirituality and pushes the church to change. Maybe they fight to see the worship changed, maybe get a new minister, maybe a new program. Eventually they’ll probably end up leaving, but at least they can take the spiritual high ground and say things like, “Well I tried to get the church to change but they just weren’t interested.” So they leave after writing “Ichabod” over the door posts of the church (1 Samuel 4.21).

Continue reading →

Two Contents, Two Realities

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

Francis Schaeffer said: “there are four things which are absolutely necessary if we as Christians are going to meet the need of our age and the overwhelming pressure we are increasingly facing.” These four things are two contents and two realities:

The First Content: Sound Doctrine 

The Second Content: Honest Answers to Honest Questions 

The First Reality: True Spirituality

The Second Reality: The Beauty of Human Relationships

Each link above will take you the substance of the respective  Contents and Realities. I am convinced they are worth consideration.  Why? Because I believe Schaeffer was right when he wrote:

[W]hen there are the two contents and the two realities, we will begin to see something profound happen in our generation.

4 Possible Paradigm Shifts for the 21st Century Church

/ Dennis Griffith / 1 Comment

I am not sure in what context or venue he said this, but billionaire financier Warren Buffett is credited with having noted:

“In a chronically leaking boat, energy devoted to changing vessels is more productive than energy devoted to patching leaks.”

Whatever the initial context, there is much wisdom in this insight that can be applied to any endeavor that is no longer functioning.  This includes the Church – especially the mission of the church.

To deny that the Church as a whole has a declining influence would be naive.  While this lack of potency is not the case overall, as Christianity is exploding in many parts of the world, especially in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, it is almost unarguably true of the Church in the West, including the USA.  The declining percentage of those attending weekly worship, and empty rooms that used to be filled with people gathered for prayer meetings, reflect Buffet’s imagery of “leaking boats”.   No question change is needed.

Yet what is subject to change?  Should everything be up for grabs?  There is no lack of suggestions and examples of what people are changing in the name of reigniting the church. And many have increased the attendance of their respective congregational gatherings using a variety of techniques. But is mere pragmatism really the answer? If it “works” is it of God? Is having more butts in the pew (or whatever kind of seat) equal to making more disciples? After all, some of the techniques employed by “cutting edge” congregations are raising some eyebrows – not to mention raising some ire.

I do not recall which of his writings I read it in, (I think it was Building a Bridge to the 18th Century,) but Neil Postman pointed out that not all inventions are actually to our advancement.  Postman says that for something to be an advancement it must meet an actual need.  While Postman was speaking of technology, the same principle applies to institutions, including the Church.  (I know some will object to identifying the Church as an institution, insisting that the Church is “organic”. But in one sense it is. It was “instituted” by God…  Marriage is also an institution “instituted” by God.  But that does not mean my marriage is stoic and stodgy and inorganic.  Marriage and Church are both “organic” and “institutions” at the same time – or, when at their best, organic institutions.)

OK. Back on track…

While some novel ideas are showing clear evidence of drawing crowds, one question must be asked: “At what expense?”  In other words, what might we be sacrificing, what would we forfeit, for the sake of increasing numbers?

It is vital that we remember Psalm 127.1:

Unless the Lord builds the house,
those who build it labor in vain.

When I consider Postman’s concern along with this truth, I cannot help but thinking that while some innovations unquestionably advance attendance, those not in accord with God’s blue-print do so at the expense of not actually being the Church.  I do not know what such a congregation is, but God says all their creative efforts are in vain. To be church we MUST be built by God, and upon God’s design.

Now, I do not want to be suspect of being an ecclesiastical Luddite.  I am not against creativity, innovation, or change.  I agree with Buffett that energy expended constantly patching leaks would be better spent on changing to a new vessel.  But Buffett’s illustration does not imply changing modes entirely. He does not say, for instance, that if your boat leaks then buy a car.  He suggests we renew our mode.

For the Church this means that we reaffirm what it means to be a Church. We must do this in every detail: doctrine, church government, misson. We do not just employ trendy organizational practices, and then teach the Bible, and call it a church. We embody everything God says a church is – and has always been.  And then we take a look at where the leaks are coming from, and what is causing them.  Then, and only then, do we consider possible innovations in our methods.

In short, I believe we must consider innovations, but that we must only employ those that are consistent with all that it means to be Christ’s Church, of which Jesus is the Head.

In line with this premise, Felipe Assis has made a few paradigm shift suggestions for the future of the church that I find intriguing and promising, and worthy of consideration:

1. Incarnation over innovation

2. Environments over processes

3. Movement over expansion

4. Flat over hierarchical

Assis develops these premises at Redeemer City to City.  To read his assessments and explanations click: Part 1, Part 2

10 Warning Signs of an Inwardly Obsessed Church

/ Dennis Griffith / 1 Comment

Researcher Thom Rainer warns of signs of a church that is so inwardly focused that it has ceased to be the church of Jesus Christ and has become, at best, a museum to (assumed) past glories, in which the membership makes up the board of directors.   Rainer writes:

Any healthy church must have some level of inward focus. Those in the church should be discipled. Hurting members need genuine concern and ministry. Healthy fellowship among the members is a good sign for a congregation.

But churches can lose their outward focus and become preoccupied with the perceived needs and desires of the members. The dollars spent and the time expended can quickly become focused on the demands of those inside the congregation. When that takes place the church has become inwardly obsessed. It is no longer a Great Commission congregation.

In my research of churches and consultation with churches, I have kept a checklist of potential signs that a church might be moving toward inward obsession. No church is perfect; indeed most churches will demonstrate one or two of these signs for a season. But the real danger takes place when a church begins to manifest three or more of these warning signs for an extended period of months and even years.

1. Worship wars. One or more factions in the church want the music just the way they like it. Any deviation is met with anger and demands for change. The order of service must remain constant. Certain instrumentation is required while others are prohibited.

2. Prolonged minutia meetings. The church spends an inordinate amount of time in different meetings. Most of the meetings deal with the most inconsequential items, while the Great Commission and Great Commandment are rarely the topics of discussion.

3. Facility focus. The church facilities develop iconic status. One of the highest priorities in the church is the protection and preservation of rooms, furniture, and other visible parts of the church’s buildings and grounds.

4. Program driven. Every church has programs even if they don’t admit it. When we start doing a ministry a certain way, it takes on programmatic status. The problem is not with programs. The problem develops when the program becomes an end instead of a means to greater ministry.

5. Inwardly focused budget. A disproportionate share of the budget is used to meet the needs and comforts of the members instead of reaching beyond the walls of the church.

6. Inordinate demands for pastoral care. All church members deserve care and concern, especially in times of need and crisis. Problems develop, however, when church members have unreasonable expectations for even minor matters. Some members expect the pastoral staff to visit them regularly merely because they have membership status.

Continue reading →

Contextual Asessment Starter Questions

/ Dennis Griffith / 4 Comments

One of the greater frustrations I have experienced in the church I serve has not come from the people within the church as much as it has from well intended (I presume) outsiders and fringe folks who espouse a missional approach. This is surprising because I want to embrace a missional approach. But much of the advice I repeatedly get is to make implementation without regard for the context of the culture in which our church is set, and without regard to the understanding of the people that have long been within the church.

The models that these well-intended Christians admire (and the models these folks have often reminded me are far different from what I have to-date effectively implemented) look a lot like those models I read about from cutting edge missional churches in Seattle, Dallas, and Metro Atlanta. They are excellent examples of missional thinking put in practice. And it is exciting to read about what God is doing in those cities. But I don’t live in any of those places. Nor, obviously, does anyone who regularly attends our church.   Nor do any of our neighbors that God has put us here to love.

So, in short, the reality is that much of the well intended criticism I receive is by those who desperately want to be missional, but whose advice is not really so much “missional” as it is the imposing of particular personal preferences on a people through practices and structures.  The irony is that their advice is just as much driven by their own personal preference as are the practices of the “Traditional Church” these folks rail against.

One of the primary marks of missional is to actually exegete the culture where you live and worship.  It requires an understanding of the real values, the faith shapers and influencers, and the idols that may offer peculiar obstacles to the gospel specific to ones own area.

The question is, then, how to determine what those factors may be in a particular community or region.

Continue reading →

Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics – An Interview

/ Dennis Griffith / 1 Comment

I am not a fan of Diane Rehm, by any measure.  Not only do I find her views unpalatable, her voice grates my ears.  But as I was driving to an appointment today I clicked the NPR preset on my JEEP radio and in the matter of seconds had my attention arrested by the discussion between Rehm and her guest, New York Times columnist Ross Douthat.  Earlier this week Douthat released a book provocatively titled Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics.  This book was only on my “To Read” list – or at least, it was on the list to put on my list, but now it on my “Definite Read” list.

I have no doubt that there are areas of doctrinal difference that I have with Douthat, but as I listened to him make his points and respond to Rehm and some of her regulars, I could not help but nod in agreement.   Douthat offers some astute cultural observations that, being missional, I cannot ignore.

To listen to today’s interview click: Bad Religion

5 Causes of the Decline of the American Church

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

Previewing Ross Douthat’s new book, Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics,  which hit bookstore shelves yesterday, Tim Keller draws five observations about the causes of decline in the American Church.

As Keller notes:

In his second chapter, Douthat attributes the change to five major social catalysts that have gained steam since the 1960s…

Here are the five factors:

  1. First, the political polarization that has occurred between the Left and Right drew many churches into it (mainline Protestants toward the Left, evangelicals toward the Right). This has greatly weakened the church’s credibility in the broader culture, with many viewing churches as mere appendages and pawns of political parties.
  2. Second, the sexual revolution means that the Biblical sex ethic now looks unreasonable and perverse to millions of people, making Christianity appear implausible, unhealthy, and regressive.
  3. Third, the era of decolonization and Third World empowerment, together with the dawn of globalization, has given the impression that Christianity was imperialistically “western” and supportive of European civilization’s record of racism, colonialism, and anti-Semitism.
  4. The fourth factor has been the enormous growth in the kind of material prosperity and consumerism that always works against faith and undermines Christian community.
  5. The fifth factor is  that all the other four factors had their greatest initial impact on the more educated and affluent classes – the gatekeepers of the main culture-shaping institutions such as the media, the academy, the arts, the main foundations, and much of the government and business world.

I find these observations significant. As God’s missional people, it is important that Christians recognize not only the reality of the decline of our influence within our culture, but the specific contributing factors.  Simply wishing things were the way they used to be won’t accomplish anything.  It is akin to sticking our heads in the sand.  But when we discern what is going on in the world around us, a number of signs direct us toward ways we may address the causes,  both directly and indirectly.

Read Keller’s entire article: Redeemer City to City

Pay Attention!

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

In his book, Joy Unspeakable, Martyn Lloyd-Jones notes:

Pay attention!

I am certain that the world outside is not going to pay much attention to all the organized efforts of the Christian church.  The one thing she will pay attention to is a body of people filled with the spirit of rejoicing.  That is how Christianity conquered the ancient world. It was this amazing joy of these people.  Even when you threw them into prison, or even to death, it did not matter, they went on rejoicing; rejoicing in tribulations.

Perhaps we would be wise to recover this attitude.  It seems to me, many of our contemporaries spend too much energy griping about the world, and about lessened stature in the estimation of the culture.  But if we recover the joy that should be an inherent attribute of our faith,  perhaps we can regain our effectiveness as redeeming and preserving agents in this world.

Lost Art of Discipleship

/ Dennis Griffith / 1 Comment

Sometimes we need to face up to difficult questions. Michael Horton, in his book The Gospel Commission, asks some really tough ones that every church, every church leader, every church member needs to ask themselves:

Instead of reaching the lost, are we losing the reached? Or are those reared in our own churches being truly reached in the first place? Do they know what they believe and why they believe it? Are we making disciples even of our own members – our own children – much less the Nations?

I honestly wonder if making disciples is even really the goal of many Christians or churches.  Some are apathetic and/or complacent. Some seem to think taking the time to instruct people in sound doctrine (what we must believe about God and Man) somehow gets in the way with mission.  Some are so contented in their own activity and busyness for the Lord that they sense no need to spend time with the Lord. And many seem to be satisfied with sheer increase in numbers.

Perhaps the task of making disciples seems daunting.  But Jesus gave good news to those who are willing to reclaim this priority:

  • All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. …And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28.18, 20)
  • But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1.8)

He provides his authority, his power, and his presence to all who endeavor to make disciples.

The Scandal of American Evangelicalism

/ Dennis Griffith / 6 Comments

I was not there, but I am now wishing I had been, at least for R.C. Sproul Jr.’s address.   The Layman Online reports that Sproul prophetically challenged those gathered for 2012 Ligonier National Conference “… about the true scandal of the evangelical mind.”

Developing his message from 1 Corinthians 1.18-31 Sproul briefly outlined the Christian faith, and emphasized the Unity of those within the faith.  He then contrasted the unity of Believers with the perspective of Christians “by those outside of the room – the Greek, the Gentile…” reminding his hearers that “the story [the Gospel] is a scandal. It is foolishness. It is a stumbling block.”

This is an important reminder.

As Sproul elaborated:  “Paul wasn’t just saying they don’t get it.  Paul says, ‘they don’t get you!’ They think you are foolish … They won’t take you seriously.” And those in the evangelical church perceive this distaste and displeasure.

So we see that the unbelievers around us don’t get us, and don’t appreciate the Gospel.  This should be no surprise. This is as God said it would be.  But here is where what Sproul said really begins to carry weight:

“What scandalizes me is that this truth scandalizes us … that we, who embrace this Gospel that is an offense to the world, are offended that they are offended by us!”

I think this is so true.  Despite the fact that we are told that we will be despised and rejected, we seem surprised.  We don’t like it.

“Evangelicals grouse and complain. They go on television to complain about how they are presented on television. We want to insist that Paul is wrong – and not just Paul, of course. This is the wisdom of the Holy Spirit here … The text says ‘this is how the world will see you.’”

The greater scandal is not that we are “scandalized” by the worlds rejection but how many seem to respond:

“Some Evangelicals not only fight back and argue against it, We insist on our rights and worse of all we begin to adapt. We begin to reshape ourselves and our story. We diminish the stumbling block and, to establish our credibility, we begin to rewrite the story.”

“If we are Emergent… We say it is just our story. You have your narrative. We have our narrative. All God’s children have their narrative … You don’t need to be scandalized. I just have a different story, and I’m not sure about my story. Will you let me into your cool club?”

“If we are Seeker-sensitive, then we take the story and remove the sharp edges of talking about sin and judgment and wrath because people don’t want to hear about that.”

I won’t go into much more detail. Instead let me encourage you to check out the whole story at The Layman Online. They have done an excellent job of chronicling Sproul’s message.  But I do want to share one more of Sproul’s observations, related to the laments listed above about some common responses:

“When we remember the Gospel – when we remember our own salvation – we remember the necessity of resting in His provision. In our sanctification, we are called to have our heart, mind and soul rest in His wisdom.”

And this is also true of our mission.

The primary aim of our mission is to extend the Gospel of the Kingdom. To do this we must faithfully proclaim the rich, deep, truth of the gospel in all it’s dimensions.  Our hope is that this message will impact many, many people.  BUT we must be clear, and we must regularly remind ourselves and one another, that we cannot make the hope of impacting many people the priority over faithful proclamation.

I am afraid many are inverting these priorities.  The measure of success, in such cases, is numbers of people at the expense if gospel fidelity.  So we embrace either the Seeker or Emergent approach Sproul mentioned above, or something of a similar ilk.   But when we are willing to accept a gospel that is not complete, or even necessarily accurate, we then are preaching a different Gospel than the one that is faithful to Christ.  Success may be apparent, but as Paul warned, if anyone is preaching a gospel different from the one the Apostles preached they are “perverting” the gospel. What they are preaching is “no gospel at all”.  (Galatians 1.6-9)

If what is preached is not faithful to Christ, then it follows that the mission cannot be of Christ.  We may want to offer it to him, but it is not his mission. Christ is the King. He dictates the message, the means, and the motive.

So if such mission, mission in the name of Christ but without the genuine message of Christ, is not really mission for Christ, then who is it for?  Us. For our own sense of importance; For our own apparent success in the eyes of those around us;  Perhaps even, we think and hope, so that God will be pleased with us.  But regardless of the motive, such motive for mission is not so much for God’s glory as it is for selfish ambition. (See Philippians 1.17, Philippians 2.3)

What Sproul suggests about our sanctification, that we must “rest in his provision”, must also be applied to our mission ambition. We must rest in his provision of pure gospel and gospel power.

When Helping Hurts

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

With the re-emergence of ministries of mercy by Evangelicals have also come definite challenges.  I am delighted that this trend of compassion continues on the upswing. But I am also aware of both the theological and practical dilemmas that inevitably face anyone who is engaged in such outreach.

The video above in an interview with two highly qualified mercy ministry experts, Brian Fikkert and Steven Corbett. I don’t know much about Corbett, but it was my privilege to get to know Brian when he was establishing the Chalmers Center.  (Brian’s son was also on my daughters first soccer team. )  And Brian, along with a few of his colleagues, were instrumental in helping the church I then served to develop our ministry among the poor in Walker County Georgia.

In the video Fikkert and Corbett discuss the premiss behind their excellent, must-read, book: When Helping Hurts.  They address practical and philosophical dimensions of such issues as cultivationg dependency, etc.

Gauging Your Church’s Temperature

/ Dennis Griffith / 8 Comments

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in Life Together, talks about looking at our churches through critical lenses:

If we do not give thanks daily for the Christian fellowship in which we have been placed, even where there is no great experience, no discoverable riches, but much weakness, small faith, and difficulty; if on the contrary, we only keep complaining to God that everything is so paltry and petty, so far from what we expected, then we hinder God from letting our fellowship grow according to the measure and riches which are there for us all in Jesus Christ.

In a tremendous and much needed post, titled On Constantly Taking Your Church’s Temperature, Jared Wilson expands upon Bonhoeffer’s insights, applying them to the contemporary church. Rather, Wilson applies them to ambitious pastors and zealous church members who are overly critical about their own local congregations.

As Wilson relays, Bonhoeffer also said:

When a person becomes alienated from a Christian community in which he has been placed and begins to raise complaints about it, he had better examine himself first to see whether the trouble is not due to his wish dream that should be shattered by God; and if this be the case, let him thank God for leading him into this predicament.

If this advice was followed not only would the Church be better off, but so would the very ones who put themselves above it.  If we followed Bonhoeffer’s perspective we would be regularly reminded:

  • that God is in control of all things, including where we participate in church life;
  • that God loves the church – in all sizes and forms, and various denominations – even with all the obvious flaws and shortcomings.
  • that God works out all things for his glory and the good of those called according to his purposes (Romans 8.28);
  • and that even being part of a congregation with flaws and weaknesses; one that has a long way to go before it even approaches impressiveness…  God can use even a church like that both for his glory and for the spiritual maturation of those who love others and participate in the life of such a congregation.

This does NOT mean that the local church is beyond criticism. But it does mean that the same principles that apply to interpersonal relationships should be applied to our churches. “Speak truth in love”, would be one important example.  (See Ephesians 4.15; 1 John 3.18) In other words, if (when) criticism is warranted it MUST be compelled by love for others involved and/or by love for the church corporate.  Criticisms should not be leveled simply because the church is not measuring up to our preferences or supplying us the status/identity we desire.

Somehow that has been forgotten or ignored. From stories I hear, and the statistics I see, about the prevalence of church hopping, it seems we have somehow elevated fickleness and selfishness to being spiritual virtues.  That’s a sad thing.

When the urge to criticize seems too strong to resist, whether valid or petty,  consider these questions for reflection that Wilson offers :

1. Am I disappointed my church isn’t more like Jesus, or that it isn’t more like me?

In the diversity of the body is a diversity of callings and passions. It is not fair, nor gracious, to expect the other members of a body to carry the same individual callings or passions as others. If the problem is disobedience to a clear biblical command, that is one thing. If the problem is disinterest in your interest, that is another.

2. Is the problem a matter for church discipline? Is it an issue of gospel-denial?

Rebukes are for sin, not for disappointment. If your church affirms the gospel but denies emphasis on your area of concern, don’t make a federal case out of it.

3. Can you rehearse the blessings and benefits of your local body as easily as their flaws and failings?

If you are constantly unhappy there and cannot shake envy for the wish-dream, it is better for you to leave in peace than to stay and grumble.

4. Do you see others’ faults more readily than your own?

The answer to this question, for nearly all of us, is yes. So it is with great caution and great desire for grace that we ought to make the faults of others our business. Your church has a long, long way to go, no doubt. Every church does. But so do you.

Let me conclude by admitting I understand the temptations to be critical of the local church. I was once one of those pastors who was easily irked by the inadequacy of the congregation God had entrusted to my care.  While I would not admit it aloud, I viewed the weaknesses and lackings of that church as hindrances to my aspirations to do great things for God.  But what was even more true, and what I wouldn’t admit even to myself, was that deep down I really viewed the church as an obstacle to my own glory.  In short, I despised what Christ loved – and gave his life to claim.  (NOTE: Despise does not mean “hate”; it means “not feeling something is worthy of affection”.)  God prospered the ministry in that church, but something greater was lacking.

In his grace, and in time, God revealed to me the ungodliness of my perspective.  He showed me that the love of Christ is demonstrated in giving oneself to something that is unlovely, inadequate, and even often unappreciative.   He reminded me that this is how he has loved me – and continues to love me.  He also taught me that to be godly is to love whatever God loves, and that to be  Christ-like requires giving myself to what might to others seem unworthy.  But while God delivered me from myself, I can at times sense the old me – the one who desperately wants to gain glory for self  – thinking about making a comeback.  I hear him talking at times, often through the words of others unimpressed with the people I serve.  Fortunately, I have learned to ask myself questions like those Jared Wilson poses.  In fact, such questions provide me a means of progress toward Christ-likeness.

I hope many will take a few moments to read Jared Wilson’s post.  He offers a much needed corrective to a Christian culture more infected by consumerism than many of us want to admit.  In it’s place Wilson shows us the essence of gospel-driven ministry and church membership.