american christianity ™

Why R12?

Frank

So I’ve been mentioning all week I’ll be hosting a “virtual small group” starting Monday going over the book Living on The Edge. You may be asking yourself, why me, why you, why here, or why now?

I’ve already given some background on why me, but I’ll dig deeper as we go through the studies.

Why you? Well, chances are if you’re taking the time to visit my blog, given its theme and topics, you have some passion for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That makes you the perfect person to take this lesson and spread it to your own small group, house church, congregation, ministry leadership, neighbors… you get the idea.

Why here? Well, this isn’t only one place this will be happening. You can also follow me on Twitter for more topics for reflection, Facebook for more discussion (sorry I don’t give that one out, but if you want to follow me, leave me a message and I might hook you up), and the LOTE Facebook page for even more discussion. There will be more on that tomorrow or later this evening.

Why now? Well, that’s the important question. This book came out at the beginning of the year, but I’ve had the original R12 study guide for a year now. I figured right after Easter is the perfect time for a spiritual ‘rebirth’ and that gave me time to get a head start on the discussion. But on a larger scale, why now, is because the American christianity (TM) is hurting. Faith is dwindling, the Gospel is watered down, corruption seems rampant, and our focus is not where it should be. In fact, Living on the Edge commissioned a study by the Barna Group to dig deeper into this.

I want to share some numbers that should keep you up at night if you’re in love with Christ’s bride:

  • 81% of those calling themselves Christians said spiritual maturity is “following all the rules”
  • Half of churchgoers don’t know how their own church defines a “healthy, spiritually mature follower of Jesus”.
  • Only 21% of Christians described their relationship with Jesus as a sign of their own personal spiritual maturity, 14% living a moral lifestyle, 13% being involved in spiritual disciplines.
  • A minority of churches have a written statement outlining the expectations of spiritual maturity and they often define this by what people do, not what they believe.
  • Outside of the Barna study, an anecdotal example Chip gives is someone he knows was traveling and speaking at different congregations. He asked fifty pastors what it means to be a disciple of Jesus. Only one was able to give a coherent answer. Everyone else gave a vague version of “a follow of Jesus”. When asked further what that looks like, answered varied as the numbers show above.

The fundamental question I will be asking throughout the study of this book, what does a disciple of Jesus look like? Chip often says the mission of his ministry is to help “Christians live like Christians.” I think that is a purpose we can all get behind. If that’s your desire, if that’s what you long to see in your church and in the Church Universal, come back Monday as we dig in to this great study.

Love Without Hypocrisy

Frank

The theme of this week’s blog carnival is another Fruit of the Spirit, kindness. While the word “kindness” by itself didn’t inspire any immediate thoughts, two Scriptures kept coming to mind:

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:34-35)

“Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.” (Romans 12:9)

We call ourselves Christians, but do we show it with our love? This is where kindness comes in. It’s easy to fake kindness by being cordial and polite. But the kindness described in Galatians 5 comes from the heart. It is sincere, without hypocrisy. (The literal translation of “sincere” in Romans 12 above is “hypocrisy”) And that kindness can only come rooted in love.

So again I ask, can the world recognize us as Christians by our love, by our kindness? A couple recent examples remind me that by in large, the world recognizes us a Christians not by our love but by our cynicism and hate. Michael Hyatt blogged yesterday regarding Tiger Wood’s apology. Several people have asked me what I thought of it and I honestly replied that I didn’t see it and I didn’t care. The cynic in me knows that this apology was scripted and the press conference was a PR stunt. Do I forgive him? Does it matter? But Michael puts it in its proper, Christian, perspective. We need to forgive, regardless. He broke his advice into these parts: 1, resist the temptation to judge; 2, accept the apology at face value; 3, believe in the possibility of change; 4, extend mercy and grace; and 5, pray for transformation. That is how I want to be treated with regards to my own sin, I should extend the same to others. To paraphrase Thomas a’ Kempis in The Imitation of Christ, “Remember that the worst of someone’s sin against you is nothing compared with the worst sin Jesus has already forgiven you of.”

Anne Lang Bundy boldly brought up another example of the wrong example Christians set- how we treat homosexuals. Regardless of you opinions of same-sex marriage, the nature of homosexuality, or even personal experience, you have to admit that some facets of American Christianity (TM) treat homosexuality wrongly. The proper response in sincere love? Anne breaks it down as 1, love; 2, remember that we all sin; 3, remember that Jesus forgives all sin (but one); 4, give grace that not everyone has the same faith or biblical knowledge to deal with their sin; but 5, when they do, we need to address it; and 6, in case you forgot, love.

Those are just a couple of examples. I’ll be back later today with part 2, looking inside our church walls.

Love Without Hypocrisy

Frank

The theme of this week’s blog carnival is another Fruit of the Spirit, kindness. While the word “kindness” by itself didn’t inspire any immediate thoughts, two Scriptures kept coming to mind:

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:34-35)

“Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.” (Romans 12:9)

We call ourselves Christians, but do we show it with our love? This is where kindness comes in. It’s easy to fake kindness by being cordial and polite. But the kindness described in Galatians 5 comes from the heart. It is sincere, without hypocrisy. (The literal translation of “sincere” in Romans 12 above is “hypocrisy”) And that kindness can only come rooted in love.

So again I ask, can the world recognize us as Christians by our love, by our kindness? A couple recent examples remind me that by in large, the world recognizes us a Christians not by our love but by our cynicism and hate. Michael Hyatt blogged yesterday regarding Tiger Wood’s apology. Several people have asked me what I thought of it and I honestly replied that I didn’t see it and I didn’t care. The cynic in me knows that this apology was scripted and the press conference was a PR stunt. Do I forgive him? Does it matter? But Michael puts it in its proper, Christian, perspective. We need to forgive, regardless. He broke his advice into these parts: 1, resist the temptation to judge; 2, accept the apology at face value; 3, believe in the possibility of change; 4, extend mercy and grace; and 5, pray for transformation. That is how I want to be treated with regards to my own sin, I should extend the same to others. To paraphrase Thomas a’ Kempis in The Imitation of Christ, “Remember that the worst of someone’s sin against you is nothing compared with the worst sin Jesus has already forgiven you of.”

Anne Lang Bundy boldly brought up another example of the wrong example Christians set- how we treat homosexuals. Regardless of you opinions of same-sex marriage, the nature of homosexuality, or even personal experience, you have to admit that some facets of American Christianity (TM) treat homosexuality wrongly. The proper response in sincere love? Anne breaks it down as 1, love; 2, remember that we all sin; 3, remember that Jesus forgives all sin (but one); 4, give grace that not everyone has the same faith or biblical knowledge to deal with their sin; but 5, when they do, we need to address it; and 6, in case you forgot, love.

Those are just a couple of examples. I’ll be back later today with part 2, looking inside our church walls.

What Were They Thinking?

Frank

Surely by now you’ve heard of the 10 American Christians who were arrested in Haiti for child trafficking. The story goes that the children’s parents gave the children up in hopes of a better life. These “missionaries” acted in good faith, believing they were doing the right thing. In fact, this same sympathy drives the popularity of foreign adoptions by American Christians- the idea that adopting a child out of a “godless” country to raise him or her in a Christian home is an effective form of evangelism. When the earthquake hit Haiti, it was not surprising that one of the first concerns was of the orphans left behind, just as it was for the Indonesian tsunami.

But there is a right way and a wrong way of “saving” these children. I just watched an interview with a woman from a local adoption agency that was in the process of arranging for the adoption of Haitian children before the earthquake. When that news broke, this woman took the first flight she could to Haiti to ensure the safety of these children. The group that went to Haiti from Lifechurch in Pennsylvania, went because of the orphanage they supported there. The group from Idaho however, had no prior experience, no existing relationships, and no required paperwork. Like I said, they went in good faith, but ill prepared.

In classic evangelical terms, what would Jesus do? I think of Matthew 9, “Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness. When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.” (Mt 9:35-36) Here, Jesus went to where the needs were. He did not remove people from their needs, but he stopped there to meet their needs.

This is a tragedy, no doubt, and it is encouraging to see the millions of dollars raised for relief. But once the Red Cross leaves, once the US military leaves, once the donations stop coming, there will still be a need. If you are so concerned about the welfare of the children in Haiti that you would spend your life savings to get there to save a few, then you should stay there. Save them by rebuilding homes and schools. Stay there to feed them. Stay there to care for them. Because stripping children away from their parents is not saving them. My first link above had some statistics that are telling that the updated article doesn’t- nearly two thirds of Haitian children attend schools operated by Christian organizations and a majority of hospitals are Christian-run. That is meeting the need. Jesus “went” to meet the need. We should be so bold as to do the same. If hopping a flight to Haiti is out of the realm of possibility for you, look around your own city, your neighborhood, your schools. Find a need and go and meet it.

What Were They Thinking?

Frank

Surely by now you’ve heard of the 10 American Christians who were arrested in Haiti for child trafficking. The story goes that the children’s parents gave the children up in hopes of a better life. These “missionaries” acted in good faith, believing they were doing the right thing. In fact, this same sympathy drives the popularity of foreign adoptions by American Christians- the idea that adopting a child out of a “godless” country to raise him or her in a Christian home is an effective form of evangelism. When the earthquake hit Haiti, it was not surprising that one of the first concerns was of the orphans left behind, just as it was for the Indonesian tsunami.

But there is a right way and a wrong way of “saving” these children. I just watched an interview with a woman from a local adoption agency that was in the process of arranging for the adoption of Haitian children before the earthquake. When that news broke, this woman took the first flight she could to Haiti to ensure the safety of these children. The group that went to Haiti from Lifechurch in Pennsylvania, went because of the orphanage they supported there. The group from Idaho however, had no prior experience, no existing relationships, and no required paperwork. Like I said, they went in good faith, but ill prepared.

In classic evangelical terms, what would Jesus do? I think of Matthew 9, “Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness. When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.” (Mt 9:35-36) Here, Jesus went to where the needs were. He did not remove people from their needs, but he stopped there to meet their needs.

This is a tragedy, no doubt, and it is encouraging to see the millions of dollars raised for relief. But once the Red Cross leaves, once the US military leaves, once the donations stop coming, there will still be a need. If you are so concerned about the welfare of the children in Haiti that you would spend your life savings to get there to save a few, then you should stay there. Save them by rebuilding homes and schools. Stay there to feed them. Stay there to care for them. Because stripping children away from their parents is not saving them. My first link above had some statistics that are telling that the updated article doesn’t- nearly two thirds of Haitian children attend schools operated by Christian organizations and a majority of hospitals are Christian-run. That is meeting the need. Jesus “went” to meet the need. We should be so bold as to do the same. If hopping a flight to Haiti is out of the realm of possibility for you, look around your own city, your neighborhood, your schools. Find a need and go and meet it.

Feeding The Political Stereotype of Christians

Frank

If it’s not clear by now, my politics are mostly conservative though I like to think of myself as a moderate. I don’t like extreme stances on any political topic, recognizing the political process is designed to force compromise. And few things make my blood boil as much as the mixing of politics and religion, as if voting a particular way makes me more Christ-like.

One issue that is always right in the center of the politics/religion debate is abortion. Another is… guns. Guns? Well, didn’t you know the Bible Belt holds a holster? (insert laugh track here) When either of these topics come up, the Left almost always overreacts, regardless of whether religion is involved. But if you mix both of these with religion, you can imagine the reaction in the Main Stream Media and even more so on teh internetz. And both issues have come front and center recently.

First, a week ago ABC “broke” the news that a supplier of gun sights to the military has been encoding Bible versus in their serial numbers. I watched the news clip and I didn’t get it. An example serial number would look like AOOCX32JN8:12 (taken from this photo). So you’d have to actually look for the serial number, care enough to read it, and notice the scripture verse at the end. To a Christian, the reference would be obvious with the abbreviation-number:number format. But to a non-Christian, it would be gibberish. And I say “broke” the news because as was quickly pointed out, this really is old news. Though there are several concerns: one, if the weapon falls into the hand of an enemy (in this case, Islamic terrorists) it would send the message that yes, the Global War on Terror is a “Holy War” (which it is, by the way, on one side anyway); two, that this is offensive to the non-religious; and three, that this violates the Separation of Church and State .

One and two don’t hold water because they would first have to find and recognize the “code” and I highly doubt that would happen by accident. This did come to the media’s attention because of number two however. Not because someone noticed the Scripture, but because he heard others talking about it, which caused him to make the argument of number three. Yes, the Federal Government purchased the sights, but a company supplied serial number, logo, or anything else does not represent the government, only the company. It’s not as if there is a law that only Christians can use this weapon. Of course the media was quick to inflame the issue by noting the irony of using a gun with a Scripture reference to kill Islamic extremists. Of course, the point could be made without making pot-shots. (Funny, when I bookmarked this to use in my blog, there were only a few comments. As of this posting there are 168 while most posts on this particular blog average less than 10) And even if you legally prevented the company from putting whatever they want on their product, you cannot prevent a soldier from carving anything into his stock, painting the nose of a bomber, or writing a message on a bomb like “say hi to Allah for me”. And if you think that doesn’t happen, then you are willfully ignorant of the reality of war.

The other recent news is of an “anti-abortion” ad starring Tim Tebow for the Super Bowl. If you want to see an example of overreacting, just read the comments from the Women’s Media Center. I personally love this gem, “By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers.” I wonder if they consider the benign ads by “the Church of the Latter-Day Saints, you know, the Mormons” to be homophobic after the backlash against that church after California’s Prop 8? The National Organization of Women called the add “demeaning” even though the context given is actually celebratory of life. I wonder if they consider a baby shower, a christening, or infant baptism to be demeaning against someone who is pro-choice or has had an abortion, because it seems as though this ad is in the same context. Anyway, I appreciate CBS for sticking to their guns. But I don’t know if the can withstand another week and a half of political pressure. Of course, this news wouldn’t have even caught my eye if it wasn’t for the broad-brush headline “Women Oppose Super Bowl Ad”. You’d think if these organizations speak for all women, they would be just as outraged by GoDaddy ads. But that would be asking too much.

So what does this have to do with our personal walk as Public Christians? First, there are some whose devotion to the NRA is as strong, if not stronger, than their devotion to God. That is a real temptation that should be resisted. Second, we also have to resist the temptation to elevate celebrities to idol-like status as Tim Tebow has become. (This ad would have never been greenlit if not for his involvement) Yes, he’s a missionary. Yes, he’s pro-life. And as a football player, he has as much right to endorse his “product” as Payton Manning does DirectTV. But at the same time, we should pick our battles carefully and stand on our own convictions, not those of the Christian celebrity du jour.

“I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16) The shrewd part we seem to have figured out. Now we just need to work on our innocence.

Feeding The Political Stereotype of Christians

Frank

If it’s not clear by now, my politics are mostly conservative though I like to think of myself as a moderate. I don’t like extreme stances on any political topic, recognizing the political process is designed to force compromise. And few things make my blood boil as much as the mixing of politics and religion, as if voting a particular way makes me more Christ-like.

One issue that is always right in the center of the politics/religion debate is abortion. Another is… guns. Guns? Well, didn’t you know the Bible Belt holds a holster? (insert laugh track here) When either of these topics come up, the Left almost always overreacts, regardless of whether religion is involved. But if you mix both of these with religion, you can imagine the reaction in the Main Stream Media and even more so on teh internetz. And both issues have come front and center recently.

First, a week ago ABC “broke” the news that a supplier of gun sights to the military has been encoding Bible versus in their serial numbers. I watched the news clip and I didn’t get it. An example serial number would look like AOOCX32JN8:12 (taken from this photo). So you’d have to actually look for the serial number, care enough to read it, and notice the scripture verse at the end. To a Christian, the reference would be obvious with the abbreviation-number:number format. But to a non-Christian, it would be gibberish. And I say “broke” the news because as was quickly pointed out, this really is old news. Though there are several concerns: one, if the weapon falls into the hand of an enemy (in this case, Islamic terrorists) it would send the message that yes, the Global War on Terror is a “Holy War” (which it is, by the way, on one side anyway); two, that this is offensive to the non-religious; and three, that this violates the Separation of Church and State .

One and two don’t hold water because they would first have to find and recognize the “code” and I highly doubt that would happen by accident. This did come to the media’s attention because of number two however. Not because someone noticed the Scripture, but because he heard others talking about it, which caused him to make the argument of number three. Yes, the Federal Government purchased the sights, but a company supplied serial number, logo, or anything else does not represent the government, only the company. It’s not as if there is a law that only Christians can use this weapon. Of course the media was quick to inflame the issue by noting the irony of using a gun with a Scripture reference to kill Islamic extremists. Of course, the point could be made without making pot-shots. (Funny, when I bookmarked this to use in my blog, there were only a few comments. As of this posting there are 168 while most posts on this particular blog average less than 10) And even if you legally prevented the company from putting whatever they want on their product, you cannot prevent a soldier from carving anything into his stock, painting the nose of a bomber, or writing a message on a bomb like “say hi to Allah for me”. And if you think that doesn’t happen, then you are willfully ignorant of the reality of war.

The other recent news is of an “anti-abortion” ad starring Tim Tebow for the Super Bowl. If you want to see an example of overreacting, just read the comments from the Women’s Media Center. I personally love this gem, “By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers.” I wonder if they consider the benign ads by “the Church of the Latter-Day Saints, you know, the Mormons” to be homophobic after the backlash against that church after California’s Prop 8? The National Organization of Women called the add “demeaning” even though the context given is actually celebratory of life. I wonder if they consider a baby shower, a christening, or infant baptism to be demeaning against someone who is pro-choice or has had an abortion, because it seems as though this ad is in the same context. Anyway, I appreciate CBS for sticking to their guns. But I don’t know if the can withstand another week and a half of political pressure. Of course, this news wouldn’t have even caught my eye if it wasn’t for the broad-brush headline “Women Oppose Super Bowl Ad”. You’d think if these organizations speak for all women, they would be just as outraged by GoDaddy ads. But that would be asking too much.

So what does this have to do with our personal walk as Public Christians? First, there are some whose devotion to the NRA is as strong, if not stronger, than their devotion to God. That is a real temptation that should be resisted. Second, we also have to resist the temptation to elevate celebrities to idol-like status as Tim Tebow has become. (This ad would have never been greenlit if not for his involvement) Yes, he’s a missionary. Yes, he’s pro-life. And as a football player, he has as much right to endorse his “product” as Payton Manning does DirectTV. But at the same time, we should pick our battles carefully and stand on our own convictions, not those of the Christian celebrity du jour.

“I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16) The shrewd part we seem to have figured out. Now we just need to work on our innocence.

What was Old is New Again

Frank

“What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” (Ecclesiastes 1:9)

We’re at the heart of the Christmas season, which means we’re in the thick of the “War on Christmas” and are inundated by the overreaction to this “war”. For some reason we think our circumstances are unique. We look around and think our culture’s morals are worse than they have ever been. And we are hyper-sensitive to criticism or even just contrary opinions. And for some reason, the image we often portray is that of the 1950’s white picket fence America where ‘Christians were Christians, and non-Christians were too.” But not long after this utopia was the upheaval of the 1960’s. Darn hippies.

Tuesday night ABC aired A Charlie Brown Christmas, the second-longest running Christmas special on Network Television (beat out by only a year by Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer) which first aired in 1965. I’m not ashamed to admit we bought the box set of Charlie Brown holiday specials a year ago and we’ve already practically worn them out. My children are quick to run up and press play after any movie finishes, but sometime the menu screen isn’t the ‘top menu’ but is the menu for Special Features. These Charlie Brown DVDs are an example of this. So they come running in wanting me to fix it, because what 4 and 2 year old wants to watch a “making of…”?

The first time this happened I was surprised as they were talking about the negative backlash they received for having the nerve to quote scripture (Linus’ famous reading of Luke 2). Producer/director/and snoopy actor Bill Melendez tried to talk Peanuts creator Charles Schulz out of including the scripture. CBS executives were hesitant to air it. And the public response was as expected.

This was in 1965. It could be argued we have much greater freedom today when we televangelists can be found on multiple channels, political pundits on both sides of the aisle who aren’t afraid to reference their religion, and movies such as The Passion of the Christ being commercial successes. Yet we still feel this insecurity whenever anyone has a different opinion than what we consider “mainstream Christianity” which some of us believe should dominate our culture and every facet of society.

For those of you fighting in the latest go-around of the War on Christmas, hearken back to 1965 (or 1968) and remember than “nothing is new under the sun.”

What was Old is New Again

Frank

“What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” (Ecclesiastes 1:9)

We’re at the heart of the Christmas season, which means we’re in the thick of the “War on Christmas” and are inundated by the overreaction to this “war”. For some reason we think our circumstances are unique. We look around and think our culture’s morals are worse than they have ever been. And we are hyper-sensitive to criticism or even just contrary opinions. And for some reason, the image we often portray is that of the 1950’s white picket fence America where ‘Christians were Christians, and non-Christians were too.” But not long after this utopia was the upheaval of the 1960’s. Darn hippies.

Tuesday night ABC aired A Charlie Brown Christmas, the second-longest running Christmas special on Network Television (beat out by only a year by Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer) which first aired in 1965. I’m not ashamed to admit we bought the box set of Charlie Brown holiday specials a year ago and we’ve already practically worn them out. My children are quick to run up and press play after any movie finishes, but sometime the menu screen isn’t the ‘top menu’ but is the menu for Special Features. These Charlie Brown DVDs are an example of this. So they come running in wanting me to fix it, because what 4 and 2 year old wants to watch a “making of…”?

The first time this happened I was surprised as they were talking about the negative backlash they received for having the nerve to quote scripture (Linus’ famous reading of Luke 2). Producer/director/and snoopy actor Bill Melendez tried to talk Peanuts creator Charles Schulz out of including the scripture. CBS executives were hesitant to air it. And the public response was as expected.

This was in 1965. It could be argued we have much greater freedom today when we televangelists can be found on multiple channels, political pundits on both sides of the aisle who aren’t afraid to reference their religion, and movies such as The Passion of the Christ being commercial successes. Yet we still feel this insecurity whenever anyone has a different opinion than what we consider “mainstream Christianity” which some of us believe should dominate our culture and every facet of society.

For those of you fighting in the latest go-around of the War on Christmas, hearken back to 1965 (or 1968) and remember than “nothing is new under the sun.”

Tool Shed

Frank
It is that time of year to dust off your Sunday best, wake up a little earlier, and go to church for maybe the second time of the year (the first being Easter). You go to hear Christmas carols, watch a performance, or to satisfy your parents that you’re home visiting. You wish people Marry Christmas and probably have your house decorated with a tree up. You may even be done shopping using the guise of Santa. Why do you go? What do you hope to get from it?

That may sound cynical, but in a country where roughly 80% of Americans call themselves Christians “only 3 out of 10 twentysomethings (31%) attend church in a typical week, compared to 4 out of 10 of those in their 30s (42%) and nearly half of all adults age 40 and older (49%).” (from a 2003 Barna survey) A more frightening way of looking at it is that Barna considers those who only attend church at “Christmas or Easter, or for special events such as a wedding or a funeral” unchurched. This number of adults is a striking 34%. (from a 2004 survey)

So I don’t buy the label “Christian”. Which makes it hard to define “church” in a traditional way. We often define our religion based on how we were raised, and not necessarily our personal doctrine. In fact, doctrine is often secondary as we become a culture where “church shopping” is becoming more and more prevalent. So what is your church and why there? Is it the people you meet (look at how homogeneous your congregation likely is- income level, race, age)? Is it the worship (how relevant are you)? Is it the dynamic preaching (aren’t Jesus’ words the “same yesterday and today and tomorrow“)? Is it the parachurch ministries/activities (are you salt and light)?

But it is usually one of the above that motivates us to attend the church that we do. It should be all the above. But we need to check our expectations at the door. Perhaps you’ve heard the cliche “church isn’t about what you get out of it but what you give to it.” Instead of doctrine, theology, or polity; worship, relevance, or relatability; church is not what it looks like or what it does, but what we do as Christians in its name. For me, church is not a place of worship, it is a tool shed. Full of different tools to suit our different talents for us to use to the glory of God.

It’s too easy to rely on church leaders and think only of what we get out of church. But the Bible does not call us to just show up every weekend (or when it’s convenient). Instead we are called to use the talents we’ve been given to grow Christ’s Church. “Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man’s gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his[b]faith. If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.” (Romans 12:4-8) and “It was [Jesus] who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.” (Ephesians 4:11-13)

Note the ends and the means. God gives us talents and Christ appoints us to roles so that the Church may be united and mature. The goal is not church attendance, spirit-filled worship, or dynamic leadership. It is attaining the fullness of Christ.

You can read a diversity of definitions of church through this week’s blog carnival. To each who post, they are using the tools they get through their church to use the internet to bring unity to the Church. Let this motivate you to rummage through the shed and find the tool that fits you.