The Rich Fool

This wasn’t really the point of yesterday’s sermon, and it doesn’t really tie in with this week’s discussion at The High Calling on David Platt’s Follow Me, but as is par for the course with my mind going a hundred different directions at once this jumped out at me and I wanted to share.

Yesterday’s sermon was on greed and used the “Parable of the Rich Fool” taken from Luke 12:16-22. Reflecting back on David Platt’s other books, and how we often relate to evangelism as a harvest, consider this paraphrase:

Then he told them this parable: “The church of a certain pastor yielded an abundant harvest. He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place for all these people to meet.’

“Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my church and build a bigger one, and there everyone can meet. And I’ll say to myself, “Your church is plenty big, enough to pay for itself for many years. Take it easy- make church comfortable- eat, drink, and be merry.”‘

“But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will take care of your church that you prepared for yourself? Who will take care of the fruit of your harvest?’

“This is how it will be with whoever builds a kingdom for themselves but is not rich toward God.”

Crazy Radical Following

There was a brother in my fraternity in college who had a signature move. During a meeting, he’d set his chair in front of him, place one foot up on the chair, and lean over his knee shaking his head saying, “Bros, this guy just doesn’t get it.” Sometimes he’d affirm the positive, that someone actually did get it. And more than a dozen years later, whenever I think of someone “getting it” or not, I picture him, arms rested on his knees, serious as a heart attack.

When I first started checking out these newfangled things called “blogs” and this new website called YouTube, I encountered Paul Washer. Missionary, evangelist, status-quo shaker-upper. His videos condemning the American church (TM) floored me. And I pictured my friend saying “he gets it.”

That was several years ago, and few authors/pastors/preachers have made my eyes pop out like he has since. And then I read Crazy Love. Without catching a breath, I read Radical. And again I picture my friend saying, “they get it.” Roughly the same time, Francis Chan stepped down from leading his megachurch because it had become more about him and less about Jesus (how many Christian celebrities are willing to do that!?) and David Platt upset the whole Southern Baptist Convention by calling the Sinner’s Prayer “witchcraft“.

Trouble makers. Making the rest of us nominal Christians look bad.

Last night I was talking with a brother about how our fellowship of churches have been leapfrogged by other churches in online media, social networking, and even doctrine. This weekend I watched the live stream of the Verge Conference where Chan, Platt, and others spoke on the theme of “making disciples” and I put my foot up on a chair, leaned over my knee and told my friend that there are a lot of voices out there that get it. They are ringing a bell that we have stopped hearing because we’ve been ringing it so long.

I mentioned in my last post that I’m not able to get around to Platt’s Follow Me or Chan’s Multiply; there’s just too much on my plate right now. But that doesn’t mean we can’t discuss it. I encourage you to head over to The High Calling and follow the discussion Laura Boggess is leading this week. These books might tell you what you already know, or you might disagree with them completely, but I believe the discussion needs to be had.

Truth in Advertising

In the aftermath of James MacDonald’s recent Elephant Room, the focus has been on T. D. Jakes and whether he affirmed the Trinity rejecting his Oneness background, about whether Mark Driscoll pushed him hard enough, and that no one challenged him on the Prosperity Gospel. There were other sessions, or “conversations” however that are worth following up on that had nothing to do with the latest Internet-driven evangelical celebrity fracas.
One in particular caught my eye. “With a Little Help From My Friends” The session is described as follows:

Is there a future for denominations? Will networks simply replace them, or will they reinvent themselves? What can denominations offer that networks of churches cannot? Describe the health of world missions and missionaries as you see them serving around the globe. Is the model of sending missionaries through a mission agency still effective? Or is church planting through healthy churches the way to go? Is there a lack of accountability plaguing most missionaries? How can that be changed? How does para-church help or hinder the local church in world missions?

Of course there hasn’t been any controversy over this topic, so other than some random quotes I picked up on Twitter, I haven’t heard anything more about it. And that’s a shame, because this is a very relevant topic for our churches today.

Attendance in traditional denominations has been on the steady decline for a number of years (decades in some cases). Church planting networks, like Acts 29, are all the rage as are missional networks like Verge. In the meantime, American Christianity (TM) continues to follow the trends of megachurches, where a church is known more by the books the pastor sells than the doctrine they actually teach.

But is this anything new? In the 60s/70s the fear was campus ministries and other parachurch organizations were going to replace denominational churches. The campus ministry movement didn’t replace denominations, but instead forced them to evolve.

I’m personally interested in this topic as my own church, sprung out of a traditional denomination transformed by the campus ministry movement, recently shed its denominational structure in place of a “co-op” where churches maintain their autonomy, but there is coordination with respect to conferences, publications, and world missions. Sounds a lot like a network, doesn’t it? But is that the right model?

When I first came across Acts 29 I was intrigued by what they were doing. But it took a lot of digging to find out anything specific about their doctrine. At best I found out it was started by Driscoll, which led me to Mars Hill to dig into what they believe. Yet another case of a megachurch being known more for its pastor than its doctrine.

Consider the standard online “statement of faith” pulled from a local church:

  • The Bible came into existence through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and is God’s complete revelation to man. It is inerrant and has supreme authority in all matters of Faith and conduct.
  • There is one living and true God, eternally existing in three Persons, The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit. These three are identical in nature, equal in power and glory, have precisely the same attributes and perfections, yet execute distinct but harmonious offices in the work of providence and redemption. Deuteronomy 6:4; 2 Corinthians 12:14
  • God, the Father, is an infinite personal Spirit, perfect in holiness, justice, wisdom, power, and love. We believe that He hears and answers prayers and that He saves all who come to Him through Jesus Christ.
  • The Lord Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God who became man without ceasing to be God. He accomplished our redemption through His death on the cross, and our redemption is made certain through His bodily resurrection from the dead.
  • The Holy Spirit came from the Father and the Son and convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment. The Holy Spirit indwells every Christian, seals them until the day of redemption, and is our present Helper, Teacher, and Guide.
  • Man was created in the image and likeness of God but through sin became alienated from God, acquired a sin nature, and came under the judicial sentence of death.
  • Salvation is the gift of God offered to man by grace and received by faith in Jesus Christ as both Savior and Lord. Genuine faith will manifest itself in works pleasing to God.

But does that tell you anything? Would it describe your church? Chances are, it would describe any traditional church. Yet it doesn’t tell me whether they are Charismatic or cessationist, follow Calvin or Zwingli, are Reformed or Restoration.

You’re probably asking what does that have to do with the question above regarding denominations and networks? Personally, I think denominations are stuck in traditions- doctrinally and culturally, and are destined to die unless major changes occur. But… at least you know what you’re going to get. When I drive by a First Baptist Church, I know what that is. When I drive by a church called Spring of Life Church, I have no earthly idea.

But is the only value in a denomination truth in advertising? What do you think?

Hate Religion but Love Jesus?

When I first saw this YouTube video via a link on Facebook, it was less than a day old and had a little over 100,000 views. As I write this, it has been viewed 6.5 million times. I guess he struck a chord.

His point isn’t anything new and falls in line with the current anti-organized religion trend that is sweeping through Christianity right now. It hits on some of the themes of Michael Spencer’s Mere Churchianity (of which I did a chapter-by-chapter discussion). The package is clean, hip, and resonating. But is he right?

Right after I saw it on Facebook, I wanted to “share” it to my friends too. But I wanted to see what this guy was all about first so I went to his YouTube channel. And his other videos just didn’t sit right with me.

So I’m curious what you, my readers, think of this video. Is he right? Do you agree?

Personally, I think God is anti-religion too. I think He makes that clear in the Old Testament prophets. But then the Word of God also tells us that “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” (James 1:27) So I think it’s dangerous to offer up a blanket statement that “I reject religion” when the Bible tells us that there is a religion that God himself accepts.

An interesting comment on the YouTube page for this video: “Anyone else see the irony of people arguing whether he’s right about religion being different than Jesus and shouting at each other that the other opinion is wrong? I think his point has just been proven.”

So what do you think:do you hate religion, but love Jesus, or are you striving for the one True Religion that God finds faultless?

Pro Choice (but not like you think)

Just when you think the lightning-rod of politics and Christianity couldn’t get any more polarized, I saw this headline “Pastor’s Wife: Counseling freed Haggard of gay urges”. Of course, I left homosexuality off yesterday’s post as the other issue that does Christianity more harm than good when muddied with politics. But this article wasn’t what I expected when I clicked the link. It discusses Gayle Haggard’s new book chronicling her coping with her husband’s homosexual infidelity and “recovery”. The headline is a bit inflammatory because of the notion that you can counsel away homosexuality (or pray it away, and so forth). But the interview on the Today show heads this off as she states clearly, “That’s not true for everybody. That’s his story.”

It also brings up an important point about love, heterosexual and homosexual: it is a choice. This goes back to my distinction between lust and love– lust is selfish while love is sacrificial. This goes beyond the notion of love being the same as a feeling of affection. We choose to love our spouse, our children, our lovers, etc even while they drive us crazy because it is a choice. We may not “feel” love when we are most hurt, but we have to choose to continue to love those who hurt us. That is independent of sexuality. I would hope both gay and straight could agree on that point.

Gayle is a great example of this, choosing to love and not reject her husband regardless of fidelity or sexual identity. That trait is rare these days (another headline today: John Edwards and wife formally separated) and is hard for so many to understand. One justification for divorce is attempting to advocate for the children- that it would be better to be raised in a broken home than in a loveless one. But again, love is a choice. Maybe it would be better for a child to be raised in a broken home than to be raised in a home where one or both parents intentionally choose to be selfish and not love.

Back to sexuality, there are homosexuals in committed heterosexual relationships. Why/how? Because they choose to be. This is another example that is so hard for many in the world to understand but I cannot express it enough, love is independent of sex. I think if more embraced this view of love, many of the prejudicial barriers between Christians and homosexuals could be broken down.

Maybe we need a refresher of 1 Corinthians 13:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails.

-1 Cor 13:4-8

Pro Choice (but not like you think)

Just when you think the lightning-rod of politics and Christianity couldn’t get any more polarized, I saw this headline “Pastor’s Wife: Counseling freed Haggard of gay urges”. Of course, I left homosexuality off yesterday’s post as the other issue that does Christianity more harm than good when muddied with politics. But this article wasn’t what I expected when I clicked the link. It discusses Gayle Haggard’s new book chronicling her coping with her husband’s homosexual infidelity and “recovery”. The headline is a bit inflammatory because of the notion that you can counsel away homosexuality (or pray it away, and so forth). But the interview on the Today show heads this off as she states clearly, “That’s not true for everybody. That’s his story.”

It also brings up an important point about love, heterosexual and homosexual: it is a choice. This goes back to my distinction between lust and love– lust is selfish while love is sacrificial. This goes beyond the notion of love being the same as a feeling of affection. We choose to love our spouse, our children, our lovers, etc even while they drive us crazy because it is a choice. We may not “feel” love when we are most hurt, but we have to choose to continue to love those who hurt us. That is independent of sexuality. I would hope both gay and straight could agree on that point.

Gayle is a great example of this, choosing to love and not reject her husband regardless of fidelity or sexual identity. That trait is rare these days (another headline today: John Edwards and wife formally separated) and is hard for so many to understand. One justification for divorce is attempting to advocate for the children- that it would be better to be raised in a broken home than in a loveless one. But again, love is a choice. Maybe it would be better for a child to be raised in a broken home than to be raised in a home where one or both parents intentionally choose to be selfish and not love.

Back to sexuality, there are homosexuals in committed heterosexual relationships. Why/how? Because they choose to be. This is another example that is so hard for many in the world to understand but I cannot express it enough, love is independent of sex. I think if more embraced this view of love, many of the prejudicial barriers between Christians and homosexuals could be broken down.

Maybe we need a refresher of 1 Corinthians 13:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails.

-1 Cor 13:4-8

Feeding The Political Stereotype of Christians

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

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.

Making Jesus Popular

That was on a sign at a construction site for a new megachurch being built. Really. But popularity was never Jesus’ goal on earth. Just a sample (I love Biblegateway!):

All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. -Matthew 10:22

Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. -Luke 6:22

The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that what it does is evil. -John 7:7

If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin. He who hates me hates my Father as well. If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’ -John 15:18-25

Yet we try so hard to be “seeker sensitive” or to be “relatable” or “relevant” instead of being radical. We dress a certain way, we incorporate multimedia into sermons, we have bands playing contemporary worship music (or cheesy pop music) instead of letting the Gospel of Jesus stand on its own.

Many flock to Saddleback Church because of Rick Warren. Thousands fill the old Alamo Dome to hear Joel Osteen. Celebrity also draws people. The fastest growing church in America is that of American Idol winner Kris Allen. Coincidence?

Once upon a time in my church, growth was used as a “sign” of God’s blessing and that if the church wasn’t growing at an incredible pace then there was something wrong. Spirituality soon began to be measured with numbers. If you weren’t constantly bringing visitors, you were chastised. So begins the pressure to be popular.

But it is not supposed to be this way. Not to say a church that’s growing old and withering on the vine is ok, but we need to check our motivations and ask if we’re compromising the message of Jesus for the sake of attendance. We need to remind ourselves of what was prophesied about Jesus:

“He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.” (Isaiah 53:2b-3)

Making Jesus Popular

That was on a sign at a construction site for a new megachurch being built. Really. But popularity was never Jesus’ goal on earth. Just a sample (I love Biblegateway!):

All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. -Matthew 10:22

Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. -Luke 6:22

The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that what it does is evil. -John 7:7

If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin. He who hates me hates my Father as well. If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’ -John 15:18-25

Yet we try so hard to be “seeker sensitive” or to be “relatable” or “relevant” instead of being radical. We dress a certain way, we incorporate multimedia into sermons, we have bands playing contemporary worship music (or cheesy pop music) instead of letting the Gospel of Jesus stand on its own.

Many flock to Saddleback Church because of Rick Warren. Thousands fill the old Alamo Dome to hear Joel Osteen. Celebrity also draws people. The fastest growing church in America is that of American Idol winner Kris Allen. Coincidence?

Once upon a time in my church, growth was used as a “sign” of God’s blessing and that if the church wasn’t growing at an incredible pace then there was something wrong. Spirituality soon began to be measured with numbers. If you weren’t constantly bringing visitors, you were chastised. So begins the pressure to be popular.

But it is not supposed to be this way. Not to say a church that’s growing old and withering on the vine is ok, but we need to check our motivations and ask if we’re compromising the message of Jesus for the sake of attendance. We need to remind ourselves of what was prophesied about Jesus:

“He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.” (Isaiah 53:2b-3)