Counseling 101

/ Dennis Griffith / 3 Comments

As a kid I watched Bob Newhart nearly every Saturday night.  In fact, because of him I briefly thought it might be cool to become a psychologist, and do counseling for a living.  But that idea soon faded. After further thought I wondered if it would be something I was particularly suited to do. So how ironic is it that, as a pastor, a fair portion of my time is spent in counseling?

While counseling can be very, very rewarding, when those I work with seem to make progress, at other times it can be very frustrating. I wonder if I am helping at all.  My nature is to assume there is something I am missing, some insight I am overlooking, some sage advice I am failing to offer.

So, I was excited when I ran across this video of Bob Newhart counseling a client. He shows me how to be clear and focused when addressing a persons issue, and how to be direct in his counsel. Watch and learn:

While this sketch is funny, and does represent how some pastors and church leaders occasionally feel, David Powlinson, of CCCF, offers some poignant insight about the difference between Bob Newharts methods and the objective we should embrace in the church.

Thoughts About the Resurrection

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

That the resurrection is an essential aspect of Christianity seems to me to be a ‘no brainer’.  But recently I had a dialogue with an individual who does not share this view.  As I have thought about that dialogue I have come to realize that this person is not entirely wrong, though still, I think, confused.

Let me explain.

The resurrection is necessary to Christianity. Without the resurrection we would have no assurance that the death of Christ satisfied the justice of God.  We would have no way of knowing if Christ’s death paid the price of the debt of our sin or not. We would not know if he was a mere man or not.  Therefore, we would live, at best, with a presumptive hope, but no faith, no actual trust, that we had been reconciled to God. 

Actually, had Jesus not been raised from the tomb we would have serious reason to doubt anything positive had happend at all, since Jesus predicted his own resurrection. (See Matthew 12.40-41 & Luke 11.29-32).   Had he not raisen, he would have been shown to have been wrong.  And as good as he may have been otherwise, had he been wrong about this he would not have been perfect.  In fact, he would have himself been guilty of sin by making claims about himself – and about God – that just were not true. (That’s called blasphemy.)  And if he had sinned, even in this one instance, he could not have been God.   And if Jesus is not God, and was in fact himself a sinner, he could not reconcile us to God.  He would not even have been able to reconcile himself to God!

So, without ther Resurrection there is no Gospel.

The resurrection is so essential to the Christian Faith that the Apostle Paul wrote:

If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.  More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead… If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

Clearly the Resurrection is an aspect of the Gospel essential to Christianity.

Why, then, you may ask, did I say that the person who does not consider the Resurrection to be an essential part of Christianity is “not entirely wrong”? 

What that person sees, I suspect, is the beauty of the life and teaching of Christ. Even if the resurrection had not occured, the life Jesus lived, and the life that lives in conformity to his teaching, is beautiful.  That is somethng I have to concede. And in that sense what some might call Christianity, even without the resurrection, has value. 

The Christian Gospel is not only the promise of forgiven sin, but also the promise of the power to grow to become more Christ-like. In other words the Gospel includes the power, subsequent to being forgiven, to live a more and more beautiul life. These truths are like two lanes of the same highway.

Sadly, it seems too many who call themselves Christians are willing to embrace the saving grace of the Gospel, but fail to take seriously – who don’t even really desire to adorn themselves with – the beauty of a life lived in accordance with the model & teaching of Jesus.  And I suspect that glaring absence is what leads some to embrace, what I will call, a Gospel-less Christianity.  

If some are willing to accept that Christianity can be salvation apart from a correspondng holiness, I suppose it is not diificult to understand why others would assume it OK to accept morality without a corresponding redemption to also be Christianity.  Both have simply divided the highway.

But that is as far as I am capable of going with this thought.  Because beautiful or not, Paul is right, Christianity without the resurrection is futile. It is a mere fragment, and not Christianity.  Christianity is the whole revelation of Christ. It is the whole Gospel, or it becomes something entirely different. To pick out bits and pieces is inauthentic, even if well-intentioned. 

Let me illustrate it this way: If my house is disassembled for some reason, and someone attempts to rebuild it using materials from the orignal, yet does not use all the material, and build it according to the same design, it is not my house any longer.  It may have many of the same pieces, but it is not the same thing.

Likewise, a Christianity rooted in the moral principals and example of Christ, but that does not include the redemption accomplished by Christ through his death and resurrection, may look nice, but it is not Christianity. 

The resurrectionis essential.

But while I was thinking about this, something struck me.  What Paul is emphasizing in 1 Corinthians 15 is not only the resurrection of Christ, but the promise of the resurrection to come.  It is the promise of our resurrection!  In fact, it could be, should be, said, that our future resurrection is an essential element to Christianity.  

That’s just awesome!  It is the promise of Heaven!

Hard Grace

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

“Even though we are now in faith, the heart is always ready to boast itself before God and say: ‘After all, I have preached the law, and lived so well and done so much that surely He will take this into account ‘.  

We even want to haggle with God to make Him regard our life, but it cannot be done. With men you may boast: ‘I have done the best I could… If anything is lacking, I will still try to make recompense.’  But when you come before God, leave all that boasting at home.  Remember to appeal from justice into grace. 

But let anybody try this and he will see and experience how exceedingly hard and bitter a thing it is for a man who, all his life, has been marred and has worked righteousness to pull himself out of it with all his heart, to rise up through faith in the one mediator.

I myself have been preaching and cultivating it through reading and writing for almost twenty years and still feel the old clinging dirt of wanting to deal so with God that I may contribute something so that He will give me His grace in exchange for my holiness. Still I cannot get it into my head that I should surrender myself completely to sheer grace. 

Yet I know that this is what I should and must do.”  

– Excerpted and edited from Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians

Wisdom Wanted

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

  

I’ve been reading – and re-reading – through Proverbs the past several days.  I have no specific aim in doing this. I have just sensed I am lacking wisdom and perspective.

Billy Graham has said that, in addition to whatever else he was reading at the time, it was his pattern to read five Psalms and one chapter of Proverbs each day.  Then, at the beginning of each new month, he would begin again reading through the Psalms and Proverbs.  According to Graham: Psalms “teach me how to get along with God;” Proverbs “teach me how to get along with my fellow man.”

It sounds like sage counsel to me.

Some Thoughts of Worship

/ Dennis Griffith / 2 Comments

  Worship is an oft-misunderstood term.  Many Christians think of worship as entertainment which is meant to please them. But worship is meant to focus on God, not on us.

If we examine closely the practice of worship in the Old & New Testaments we find that worship is first of all an offering of praise to God. That’s why we come together for the worship service.  Who are we serving?  We are serving the God who is “the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted”. (Isaiah 6:1) He is the One worthy of our worship.

Of course, when we truly worship God, when we understand Who we are worshipping; when we offer him our best, we may very well enjoy the experience.  Like Isaiah, we may experience his healing touch, freeing us from the bondage to our sins, soothing the aches and pains in our bodies, and comforting us about the emotional scars from our broken and strained relationships. These are the effects of simply living in a fallen world.   Who would not enjoy such soothing? Other times we are simply awed, and left breathless, by the glimpses we experience of God’s glory.

But we must keep in mind that the process God uses to bring healing may not always be comfortable. He often exposes our sin, just as he did to Isaiah. (Isaiah 6.5-8) In fact, as Jacob experienced, the healing God brings may at times leave new scars. But these scars are marks and reminders of God’s grace – a grace that is far better than the absence of scars.  So it is important to remeber that when we experience God in worship we can enjoy his presence even if we feel discomfort.  

Worship is about God – offering him the glory due him.  But it is not as if we gain nothing in the experience.  By his very nature and purpose God is changing us, transforming us to become more like we are intended to be.  Experiencing worship is part of that process.

Odyssey of Church Outreach

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

Outreach and evangelism are among the most important responsibilites the Christian has to his/her community. They are also perhaps the most intimidating. 

A friend of mine, who is not a pastor, took over the the outreach ministry of his church. He was aware at the outset that this ministry was in need of an ovehaul.  During the ‘heydays’ in this congregation most of the growth occured through transfers from neighboring churches experiencing turbualnt times. The church had never really cultivated a healthy outreach/evangelism ministry.  And recently this church had itself just emerged from a prolonged period of conflict. Consequently, little effort had been made in a few years to reach out to the community. Mere survival and self-preservation had been the prevailing mindset.  But the dust having settled, many in the church had been developing a renewed interest in their missional responsibility.

One of the first things my friend did was to take an informal survey of other members of the congregation.  What he found was somewhat unexpected.  Many of the members expressed a genuine willingness to reach out to the community.  This part was as he suspected.  But what surprised him was the nearly universal sense of inadequacy that the church members felt.   They would be willing – even anxious – to reach out to their neighbors.  They just didn’t think they knew how.  So they had never taken any initiative.

I don’t think this is an uncommon problem.  I remember my own experience.  As a Junior at the University of Tennessee the director of Athlete’s in Action, Doug Pollock, was mentoring me.  He suggested it was time I learned to do evangelism.  The idea of actually introducing others to a vital relationship with Jesus was exciting.  But it was also overwhelming.  Consequently I was paralyzed by the thought.  (I learned, by coercion – which I don’t recommend. Eventually, though, I faced my fears and began more freely sharing my faith – with varying effectivenss.) 

I also remember reading about the amazing beginnings of the Calvary Chapel movement. In the early days the founder of the movement, Chuck Smith, faced a congregation laced with fear of evangelism. He recognized this as a very common issue in most churches, and for most Christians. He also thought about the approach most pastors – including himself – employed to combat the paralysis: Guilt.  But as he re-diagnosed the problem a different solution came to mind.  He realized that the primary problem most people experienced was not a lack of desire, but a lack of confidence.  Guilt would not remedy this problem, only compound it.  Instead he realized that outreach needed to be modeled and taught. Smith believed that when the people grew in confidence that they would neither dishonor God nor destroy friendships in the process, evangelism would become natural and common.  And he was right! 

KEY CONCEPTS

Two key concepts to remember concerning evangelism are Intellectual and Incarnational. 

Intellectual deals with the content of the faith, an awareness of people (including ones self), and to some degree an understanding of the methods employed.  (Methods may not be the best word, because it seems to connote a formula. That is not my intention. But I’ll elaborate on methods in another post, which I hope will bring some clarity.) All of these things are important for effective evangelsim.  It will likely take the average person a little work to develop a competent grasp of these things. But while the old saying is true: “nothing worth doing is easy”, these things are not as complicated as many seem to think.

Incarnation means “in the flesh”.  It is used uniquely of the person and ministry of Christ. But it is also applies appropriately, I believe, to the followers of Christ who are commissioned to carry on his work on earth.  Jesus himself said: “As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” (John 20.21) 

Jesus’ statement requires us to ask oursleves: “Just how did the Father send Jesus?”  When we understand the answer to that question we have a picture of what Jesus intends for his followers, his church.  And without trying to oversimplify the doctrine of the Incarnation, we must understand that fundamentally it means the Father sent Jesus “in the flesh”. (See Philippians 2.5-8, John 1.14). Or as Eugene Peterson wonderfully puts it: “The Word became flesh and blood and moved into the neighborhood.”

While it is important to recognize that Christ is unique in his Incarnation, and that there are aspects that cannot be replicated, it is also important to recognize that he has conferred an incarnational mandate upon his followers. We are commissioned to live and proclaim our faith in our neighborhoods.  Media may provide some helpful tools in the work of evangelism, but it is no substitute for living out our faith in the midst of both other believers and non-believers.  To do what Jesus commissioned us to do, to act as Jesus acted, we must “move out into the neighborhood”. We cannot stay behind the fortress-like doors of the church and simply invite select people to visit us there.

OBSTACLES

The two “I’s” – Intellect & Incarnation – are import, inseparable, and inconvertible.  Understanding these concepts is a good start. But we also need to be aware that there are obstacles that need to be addressed if we want to experience frutiful evangelism, and have effective outreach from our churches

In the couse of subsequent posts, I  will address six common obstacles that hinder Christians, and churches, from effectively

1. Lack of Understanding of the Gospel

2. Prayerlessness

3. People Blindness

4. Outdated Methods

5. Timidity

6. Motives

Sad Day in the PCUSA

/ Dennis Griffith / 4 Comments

We’ve seen it coming.  It has become more iminent with each turn of the calendar page.  But somehow, perhaps naively, I had hoped it would never arrive.  But at the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA (not to be confused with the PCA) commissioners voted to strike the language from their constitution that reflects the Biblical prescritions regarding sexuality.  Now both sex outside the bonds of marriage and homosexuality are officially acceptable practices within the PCUSA. (see article.)

I don’t want to be prudish, nor the guardian of some past Victorian era.  My dismay is at the sheer rejection of Biblical authority.  I am hardpressed to understand how any group can call itself a Christian church, yet blatently disregard God’s Word. 

I am also a bit peeved because most of the country makes no distinction between the PCUSA and the PCA, of which I am a member.  To most people, and especially in the part of the country where I live, a Presbyterian is a Presbyterian.  Their action will tarnish the image of our church.

I am reticent to say this, but I think the time has come for the Christians to abandon the PCUSA.  If you are a member in the PCUSA it is time you asked the leadership in your congregation where they stand. If the church wants to stand on Biblical authority, then you need to urge them to leave the denomination – join those who are joining the EPC.  If your church will not start the process of leaving, then I think it’s time for you to leave that church. Why? Because if you are a Christian, your church has left you. And more important, the PCUSA has left Jesus.

A Team Approach to Effective Church Ministry

/ Dennis Griffith / 3 Comments

As a Presbyterian minister I am keenly familiar with committees.  While committees are a familiar staple in churches of almost any flavor, we Presbyterians especially like to have everything done ‘decently and in order’.  This makes the committee structure seem almost inherently appealing to our ecclesiastical DNA.  But to be honest, from time to time I find myself asking “Why do we need committees?”  Are there not any other options?

PORTRAIT of a COMMITTEE

Let me sketch a synical picture:

The old cliche’ seems all too true: “A committee is a group of people who take hours just to keep minutes.”

Let’s be honest. In most churches, some seem to equate frequent meetings with effective ministry.  Yet, in those same churches, others avoid serving on committees just so they don’t have to go to meetings. True?

The typical committee will gather on occasion to discuss some particular matter.  (Frequency of meetings vary, and is seems to be decided by how much the chairperson likes to attend meetings. Food to be consumed during the meeting is optional.)   Usually the meeting officially opens with some perfunctory prayer (not real worship or intercession), and is followed by a lot of chatter.

Committee members are not often experts about the subject they are discussing, nor necessarily even students of the related issues.  Nevertheless, there rarely  seems to be any lack of opinions.

There has to be a better way.

What if, in a particular church, each ministry simply had a director?  A director would be someone with a growing knowledge (expertise?) and who senses a passion for, and even a calling to, a particular ministry or work.  What if such a person were the one to set the direction & pace?  Would we still need to have committees?

OBJECTIONS

I know there are objections to such a notion. Among them might be:

1. People would not have a voice. They would feel no ownership, and therefore might not participate or support a ministry.

2. There is a need for a shared work load.

I’ve heard both, so let me take a moment to address these concerns.

1. People would not have a voice, and might not participate or support the ministry.

I suspect that this is probably true in some cases.  If the leadership of the church (in Presbyterian cirlces meaning the Session, or Elders) appointed a person or persons, but did not open it up to anyone who wanted to volunteer, there may be some objections. But where this is true I think it reflects a more fundamental problem than the presence or absence of a committee structure.

What does such an attitude say about the people and their respect for the leadership of the church?  In such situations, it seems to me, there is at least one of three issues undermining the overall health of the church: 1) the leadership may have a history of being inept; 2) more common, the people in the church have a seriously deficient view of the role of leadership; 3) and worst of all, people are sinfully rejecting the God-ordained leadership of the church.

The presence of any one of these conditions undermines the possibility of an effective ministry.  And these conditions reflect a far more serious problem than the lack of a committee, or even the lack of a ministry.  If leadership is rejected because of incompetence or a history of unqualified leaders, then the church must ask itslef why such leaders were ever elected, or allowed to be appointed, in the first place. If people are rejecting and rebelling against a qualified leadership that God has put in place in that church, then ultimately the people are acting against God himself.  In either case the church has sin that needs to be addressed. No structure will compensate.

Now, let’s assume that the problem is the unwillingness of the people – or the unwillingness of a visible small group of people – to follow the direction of godly leadership.  Do we really want to establish (or perpetuate) a committee system just to appease people in their sin? (NOTE: I am not saying that having a committee structure is sinful, just asking if appeasement is sufficient reason to operate that way.)

2. There is need for a shared workload.

This is a very valid point. Most ministry is too cumbersome to be accomplished alone.  This is especially true when the leader is employed in another vocation.  He/she has responsibilities to honor God through work in that field, and responsibilites to those who work with him/her at that business.  On top of that there are family priorities, not to mention service to the community.

Time is a precious commodity – and a limited one.  I suspect that is why so many Americans are willing to simply write a check. More money we can often find, but time is a little scarce.

Because of time limitations it would be difficult for most people to lead every aspect of a multi-facted ministry.  It would be even more difficult to develop the level of expertise in each area that would facilitate effecitveness.  The work load needs to be shared.

TEAM APPROACH vs. COMMITTEES

To me the TEAM approach seems to be a much better idea than traditional committees.  Committees may be very helpful when reviewing the work of someone or something. Different perspectives can enhance understanding and perceptions.  But this is not the same thing as getting something accomplished.

Teams are composed of a group of individuals with a shared commitment and shared goals.  Each member of any team has a specific position to play, a particular responsibility. The whole team depends upon each person to perform his/her job to be effective.  This requires that each person becomes an ‘expert’ or advanced ‘student’ of their respective position.

Each team may have one person who is the organizational leader, like a coach or captain. (This would be the Director I mentioned earlier.) But it takes every person on the team to know what they need to do and how to do it to succeed.  When each person does their job the team “wins”.

Now, what if we applied more TEAM concept than traditional committees to the ministries of our churches? A few things come to mind:

1. Effectiveness

Team members would be clear about what they were attempting to do, and how their efforts were contributing to the success of the whole; and ultimately to the advancement of God’s Kingdom.  No one would be on the team without a specific responsibility.  This is not always the case in the traditional committee structure.  Many times a committee is composed of a represntative sample from the congregation merely so every part of the church has a voice.  People do not always have specific ongoing spheres of responsibility. They have no particular area where they provide informed insight, only opinions.  Meetings can get bogged down trying to come to some consensus of opinion, rather than experienceing the synergy that occurs when each member performs a vital part.

2. Retention

The lack of clear responsibility and ineffectiveness are perhaps the two primary reasons people decline to serve on committees. No one wants to put in time and effort if they are unsure of what they are trying to accomplish, or if they see no accomplishment for their labors.  But if members have clear job descriptions and see thier work contributing to something bigger than themsleves, I suspect fewer people would resign from the various ministries of the church.

3. Unity

There is less room for division or conflict when each member knows his/her role and the role of the others.  And if conflict does arise it will be much easier for all to recognize the source.  Either, 1) someone is not doing his/her job, thus causing stress to other team members; or 2) someone is overstepping thier bounds, disrespecting or even hindering another team member is his/her responsibility.  (Should such a thing happen Matthew 18 & Galatians 6.1-2 can be applied to bring about reconciliation.)

4. Community

These teams provide an opportunity to develop relationships.  A shared task binds people together.  This would have to be intentional.  Team members are not only interdependent, but can offer themselves into voluntary accountability, much as is generally expected in small groups.  (Roberta Hestenes has written a short booklet about this called, Turning Committees Into Communities.)

Conclusion

Maybe it is merely a matter of semantics.  Maybe we simply need to raise the standard bar for our committees, rather than reinvent our structures.  But It seems to me that moving more toward this approach would produce more effectiveness in the work of the Kingdom. Maybe even more than that, as I look at some of the possible outcomes of such an approach, it might be an opportunity to better reflect the Kingdom within our churches.

Keller Kiosk

/ Dennis Griffith / 1 Comment

 Christianity Today has published an interesting interview with Tim Keller of Redeemer Church in New York City titled, Tim Keller Reasons With America.  If you have enjoyed Keller’s writing or teaching you may appreciate the insight behind his philosophy and ministry.  Or, if you are one who may be a little curious about this guy who is so frequently cited and quoted in Evangelical cirlces, this interview might be a good introduction.

On another front, from Justin Taylor, at Between Two Worlds, I have learned that Keller has a new book due out in October.  The new book, The Prodigal God, will describe and define Christianity in light of the parable of the Prodigal Son.  Having heard Keller teach on this topic, it should be radically profound. I am looking forward to the read.

The A-to-Z of the Christian Life

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

“The gospel shows us that our spiritual problem lies not only in failing to obey God, but also in relying on our obedience to make us fully acceptable to God, ourselves and others.

Every kind of character flaw comes from this natural impulse to be our own savior through our performance and achievement. On the one hand, proud and disdainful personalities come from basing your identity on your performance and thinking you are succeeding. But on the other hand, discouraged and self-loathing personalities also come from basing your identity on your performance and thinking you are failing.

Belief in the gospel is not just the way to enter the kingdom of God; it is the way to address every obstacle and grow in every aspect. The gospel is not just the “ABCs” but the “A-to-Z” of the Christian life.

The gospel is the way that anything is renewed and transformed by Christ — whether a heart, a relationship, a church, or a community. All our problems come from a lack of orientation to the gospel. Put positively, the gospel transforms our hearts, our thinking and our approach to absolutely everything.”

– Timothy Keller

Share this:

The Gospel & Parental Sin

/ Dennis Griffith / 1 Comment

Last week I became rightfully angry at one of my children. (I won’t say which one.)  But in my anger I sinned against him. (Okay, the ‘him’ narrows it down some.) I had neglected the counsel of King David, who wrote: “In your anger do not sin.” (Psalm 4:4)  In my reprimand I was way too harsh.

A few moments later I went back and apologized. While remaining firm about his offense, I told him my offense was even worse and asked for his forgiveness.

Things are normal now.

I am sure I am not the only parent who has crossed this line. In fact we all do. And we may wonder what the lingering effect will be on our child, and on our relationship… 

At such times we need to remind oursleves of the hope of the Gospel.

I appreciate C.J. Mahaney and, right now in particular, a very brief message of his I stumbled across this week titled: The Gospel + Parental Sin.    C.J. discusses our moments of failure as parents, and how the Gospel relates.

If you, like me, ever cross the line as a parent, I recommend taking the time to hear what C.J. has to say. (Run time = 2:39)

Making a World of Difference

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

“What will it take to change the world – to really change it for the better?”

Ron Sider asks that question in the Introduction to his book, Living Like Jesus.  And his question resonates with me. It has for a long time – long before I heard Sider aksing it. 

I grow bored and frustrated with a faith that simply exists to perpetuate itself.  It has never seemed to me to be the faith I see in the Bible.  The early disciples of Jesus turned the world upside down! Jesus came to reclaim the world that is rightfully his.  Somehow, isolating oursleves while singing “When the Roll is Called Up Yonder” does not seem to match God’s purpose for his church.

The church of Jesus Christ is intended to be an expression of what the Kingdom of God is and will be.  We are called to be influencers in a world that is corrupt to its very core.  (See Matthew 5:13-16 & Jeremiah 29:7)

And we are to be influencers while recognizing that we have been infected by the very corruption of sin that is continuing to devastate the world around us. We are not immune. But we are in remission because of the blood of Christ. (See Romans 3:25 & Hebrews 9:22) 

Such an understanding shapes our attitdes as we do what we are called to do. Knowing that we are not superior, but are totally dependent upon the grace of God in the blood of Christ, we are humble and compassionate toward the world we are called to serve.  And knowing that our only hope is God’s grace, we glorify God through thankfulness to him and dependence upon him. 

Sadly, I see too may churches, and too many Christians, who have chosen to isolate themselves from the world they see as polluted.  They have no intention of trying to influence it, only to escape it. 

This seems foolish to me for a number of reasons.

First, it is directly disobedient to God’s intention for his people (See Genesis 12:2-3).  The motive for this disobedience may be the understanding that we are not immune to the corruption of sin. It is therefore an act of self preservation; it is an attempt to avoid becomming infected.  But it is still disobedience to God.  And it is a lack of functional faith that he will preserve his people.

Secondly, self preservation is misguided because, as Romans 3:23 shows us, we have all already beeen infected! We can hide if we want, but it will do us no good.  The infection is already inside the camp!

Finally, worst of all are those who isolate themselves and live as if they think they are immune to the effect of sin. These are self-righteous separatists. If they are impervious to sin, why isolate themselves? Such people make no positive influence on the world that I can see.  And frankly, because of their wrong view of themsleves and their direct disobedience to God, I am not sure I really consider them truly Christian! (However, I don’t get a vote.)

So I wrestle with the question: How can we make a difference? How can we change the world? How can we influence it toward what God intends it to be?

Sider offers an answer to his own question:

“I think the answer is simple: It would take just a tiny fraction of today’s Christians truly believeing what Jesus taught and living the way Jesus lived.”

I think Sider is right.

Siders book elaborates on practical ways we need to examine our lives, and ways our lives are to reflect the life & teaching of Jesus.  It revolves around what Sider labels Characteristics of a Genuine Christian: 

1. Genuine Christians embrace both God’s holiness and God’s love.

2. Genuine Christians live like Jesus.

3. Genuine Christians keep their marriage covenants and put children before career.

4. Genuine Christians nurture daily spiritual renewal and live in the power of the Spirit.

5. Genuine Christians strive to make the church a little picture of what heaven will be like.

6. Genuine Christians love the whole person the way Jesus did.

7. Genuine Christians mourn church divisions and embrace all who confess Jesus as God and Savior.

8. Genuine Christians confess that Jesus is Lord of politics and economics.

9. Genuine Christians share God’s special concern for the poor.

10. Genuine Christians treasure the creation and worship the Creator.

1l. Genuine Christians embrace servanthood.

This list alone is worth the price of the book. 

I think much good would come if we sincerely reflected on these premises.  How much more if we began to humbly acknowledge that often we have been negligent in many of these areas, and began to act on them in accordance with the teaching and life of Christ?

I suspect we would see our influence grow; that our influence would be viewed as a positive thing.  I suspect we may even see Proverbs 11:10 come to life:

When the righteous prosper the city rejoices;  When the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy!

Prayer is…

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

 

Prayer…is a confessing of impotence and need, an acknowledging of helplessness and dependence, and an invoking of the mighty power of God to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves… God means us… to recognize and confess our impotence, and to tell Him that we rely on Him alone, and to plead with Him to glorify His name.

It is His way regularly to withhold His blessings until His people start to pray.

–J.I. Packer, Evangelism & the Sovereignty of God