Pretty Is As Pretty Does

Dear Donald, Well, since you asked.... I saw you on the news criticizing John Kasich because you felt the way he ate pancakes was disgusting. You asked if we really wanted a president like that. Well, I saw the video of John eating his pancakes and didn't notice anything disgusting, but whatever, I guess that is in the eye of the beholder. But, then you asked, "Am I handsome?" Well, I know that was a rhetorical question, since you clearly knew the answer you expected, and you also criticized all the other candidates for not looking presidential, just like you did about Carly several months ago (whom I think is actually nice looking). Anyway, whether rhetorical or not, since you asked, I am going take that as an excuse to just answer anyway. You see, I have heard you called many things, but I can't remember ever hearing anyone call you handsome--well, except for you yourself. In fact, I've heard a lot of jokes about your hair, your facial expressions, your mannerisms, and your sprayed-on tan, that seemed to indicate that the person speaking thought the opposite of what you seem to think. In other words, they seemed to think that you were kind of strange looking if not actually ugly. Sorry to disappoint you, although I don't think you believe any opinion that differs from yours is valid anyway, so I guess you won't be disappointed to hear that. But, the thing is I hope that Americans don't decide who they vote for based on looks. Yes, many studies have shown that looks do influence us, but most of us at least try to make our primary judgment based on the candidate's ability to do what we expect of them and their views on the issues that are important to our country. The good news for you is that, even though I don't at all think you are good looking, I don't really care about that it won't affect whether I vote for you or not. Your views, your attitude, and your ability will, though. And yes, we do hear people talking about whether the candidates "look presidential" or not, but I think you have missed the point. The presidential "look" is not whether someone is handsome (or beautiful). The look is more of an attitude. Looking "presidential" means that one seems to know the issues and be well-versed on potential solutions, knows when to speak out and when to shut up, knows that the best way to get things done is not to run roughshod over everyone else but to work with people. It means one who doesn't act like a playground bully more focused on thinking up clever names for everyone else, and who doesn't think that the best way to get ahead is to hit everyone else harder than they hit you. Maybe the fact that you don't understand what "looking presidential" means explains a lot about you. You're working hard to be handsome and sound tough instead of working hard to learn the issues, take the job seriously, and learn that no one really builds themselves up by tearing others down. If you could learn that, you might look a lot better, despite your hair.

Grace, Being, and Grandma Grace

I remember a time when I was young (not to say that I'm not still young ;-) but I mean when I was really, really young, still on the verge of becoming a teenager), when I was looking at some old pictures with my Grandma Grace, my father's mother. I came upon one picture of a beautiful young lady looking so elegant even though wearing clothes which were very much out of style and a bit strange looking for my era. I remember a hat perched more on the side of her head than on the top and which, to my young eyes, reminded me of a high heeled shoe placed upside down. But, she was beautiful. I asked, "Grandma, who is that?" Her answer was, "That's me. I was still a teenager then."

I was quite surprised. It was hard to connect that young girl to my grandmother whom I had only seen as gray-haired, plump, and old. And, that's where I made my mistake, but not the one that you might expect. I answered, "That was you? Wow. You were beautiful." Now, I had always seen my grandmother as beautiful, but not like that teenage girl. I knew people got old and I was both surprised but also not really. I was more impressed than surprised. That girl was my grandmother?! This was really cool!

But, her answer completely caught me off guard. "No, that was not me," and then with a slight pause and a slight change in tone, "that is me. You've never seen me looking like that, but that's how I see myself when I'm not looking in a mirror and sometimes even when I am. I'm older and I don't look like that anymore on the outside, but that's still me. I'm still that same girl." The words rang in my ear and, became one of those few events you remember not just as a vague memory, but with a distinct sharpness. I can close my eyes and still hear her voice and see the subtle expression in her eyes.

I don't remember what I did after that. I don't remember answering her, maybe just looking at her and at the picture and saying again, "You were really pretty." I'm not sure I understood what she meant then, but I do remember that I couldn't get away from it. I kept thinking about it and I still think about it. She had no problem with me using the past tense to say that she 'was' pretty. But, she objected to me using the past tense to speak of identity. "No, that was not me. That is me."

I'm now about the same age as she was when I talked to her on that day. I too know the feeling of looking in the mirror and suddenly realizing that you don't look like you tend to imagine yourself. There are wrinkles that tend to be smoothed over in my own thinking (better than Photoshop). There is some sagging skin and I don't really understand where it came from and when it appeared. Sometimes I even think it is just that I don't look so good today. Maybe I'm too tired, so that's why the skin above my eyelids is drooping and there are some little bags below my eyes that aren't normally there. But, to be honest, I know it is the new normal and that's just how I look now and it will get worse if I live longer.

But, she's also right. That's not really me. Or maybe I should say, that's me but not any more so than those teenage pictures of me that are in boxes somewhere. They all 'are' me. Or maybe not.

I should not define myself by the way I look. Oh, it really feels good when someone says, "You're 60? You don't look like you're 60." It doesn't matter that they're probably just being polite, and Taiwanese are famous for those exaggerated compliment that everyone knows are exaggerated or sometimes just not true. But, when I hear it, I don't even think about the fact that it's probably just a polite compliment other than a fleeting thought. It still feels good.

But, I should not define myself by how I look. In one sense, maybe a better way to think of it is that neither of those pictures is me. They're just a passing view of the same thing that continues on. I am what I am, not just what I look like, like Popeye was found of saying ("I am what I am and that's all that I am."). It is the person who is something, not the external appearance.

We put a lot of stock on appearances. People shown pictures of various mean tend to label those who are taller as smarter, more successful, more capable. Women are judged just as well. Obviously in the real world, being good-looking is no guarantee of success and anyone who wants to be successful still has to work hard to get there, but it's still true that we make judgments based on appearances. I'd like to think that I don't, but I'm pretty sure that I do.  I should focus more on the person I am being rather than how I look. But, I should also be looking for the "person" in the one in front of me instead of what that person looks like.

Something else that strikes me from this is that even what we are is not based on what we can see in a brief acquaintance over a period of time, but on what the person is, what they are becoming, and what they can become. I've benefited from others who saw in me something that even I didn't see at the time and they were willing to spend time with me to help me become more than I was.

And, maybe that's the most important thing that comes from this random train of thoughts. There aren't many people who practice that. We tend to look at a person and judge their abilities and even their character based on what we see now. That's maybe practical, since how can we know what a person could become? And yet, some people seem to do it. They can see things in someone that others don't see. Maybe they're more optimistic. Maybe they're just more willing to take a risk and when someone fails to develop as they hope, they are just unwilling to assume that others will also fail. Maybe they refuse to see failure as final.

But, I also tend to see this as something fundamental to our faith (even if it is little practiced in our lives). We read that while we were yet his enemies, Christ died for us. That's certainly not just looking at the present person. Maybe we could say, "Yes, but he was God. He knew that he could make us into something else," but that still ignores the fact that he didn't die for those who would believe and would  follow him wholeheartedly, dedicating their lives to him. He also died for those who would believe but would struggle in their faith. He also died for those who would reject him outright and even actively fight against him having any role in their lives.

That's a point of theology that we know is true, but don't really take at face value. We tend to think that he died for all, but that it's only 'for all' in a different sense. He died for them theoretically, while still writing them off in his heart. But, that's not the picture we see of Christ who wept over  those who rejected him and would still welcome them and actively pursue them, even leaving the 99 behind to rescue the one who didn't follow him back to the fold.

And, that's the greatest challenge of all to me. We shouldn't write anyone off. Ever. Not until they are dead and even then, recognizing that we don't really know their heart, what happened in their heart, and how God will deal with them, or what mustard seed of faith might have been there that we couldn't see. We read also that even many who seem to be followers of God might not be, and that God will say to some (and maybe we would be shocked to find out who those are) "Depart from me for I never knew you." Might there also be some that we will be surprised to see there? We just don't know.

It reminds me of phrase in a sermon of C.S. Lewis. I quote a portion below:

“It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which,if you say it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree helping each other to one or the other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all of our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations - These are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit - immortal horrors or everlasting splendors.”

― C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory

We should be looking (in faith) at what those around us (and we ourselves) can be, instead of just what they (we) are. That is our faith. That is grace. And, that is what God has done to us. That is what it means to be Christian.

Ebola and the Church

At least something concerning the Ebola epidemic is pretty close to the top of every news program today. There is reporting on the facts on the ground in Africa, reports on the panic and even hysteria
that seems to be spreading among the general population in the US, There is a lot on how politicians are using that to further their own ambitions.

Ebola has been around for a long time--first noted in 1976--and there have been many outbreaks since then. But, the current epidemic has been going on since March. That's actually been a pretty long time, and it was reported in the news, but didn't get a huge amount of attention. It was over in a faraway place, a sad story, but these things happen. .

As it spread, there was some discussion about how to contain it from spreading and especially with international air travel being so easy. But, it was a theoretical discussion and it didn't occupy our attention other than a little, "What would we do if it did come over here?"

Then we had some Americans who were serving and caring for Ebola victims in Africa and who were eventually airlifted out. That started getting more attention and some even wondered why we would take the risk of bringing the disease here. Then, a man from Liberia was diagnosed with Ebola at a hospital in Dallas, and later two nurses who cared for him. The idea of closing out borders started getting a lot of traction, and some even extended it to Americans. Donald Trump (admittedly not known for tact, compassion, or a moral compass) tweeted in a series of tweets that the do-gooders should be left to do their good deeds, but if they get infected, then they would just need to "suffer the consequences." Ann Coulter, a prominent conservative pundit, wrote an article entitled, "Ebola Doc's Condition Downgraded to 'Idiotic'" criticising the doctor, the church, and missionaries for trying to save the world when America still had plenty of needs.

Criticism started building and certainly some of that was justified. We really weren't prepared. But, the criticism aimed at the nurses sounded a bit hypocritical and unfair. Now, politicians are trying to make points and show that they are strong and decisive leaders by imposing a blanket quarantine (later weakened somewhat, but only in the face of intense criticism). I don't want to argue that there is no need for any kind of quarantine, but the blanket nature and the rhetoric that makes pariah's of those who try to serve others is very discomforting. Governor Christi's visible contempt for the nurse who was the first to experience this is worrying.

"But," you might say, "what do you expect of a politician, a political pundit, or egotistical businessman?" Point taken. And, maybe the same could be said of the public.

But, what about the church? Where is the voice of the church?  Who is talking about this issue? Well, I'm not in the US right now, so maybe there is something coming from pulpits that I don't know about, but what I do listen to in podcasts or on Facebook (basically just family and church friends) is pretty silent, or (maybe worse) just echoing the same voice that we hear in the media.

Epidemics have changed the course of history, empires have fallen, and battles have been lost due to epidemics. Some of the ruined cities that archaeologists explore are thought to have been abandoned because of an epidemic. Historians blame the fall of the Aztecs and Incas on imported diseases. Some say that epidemics were a factor in the fall of the Roman Empire and some of those were brought back by soldiers returning from faraway lands to the east. In the Antonine Plague starting around AD 165, the death toll reached as high as 2,000 deaths per day just in the city of Rome. A later outbreak starting in AD 251 killed 5,000 per day at its height, and again, that's just talking about Rome itself.

Cyprian was the bishop of Carthage (an important Roman city in what is now Egypt) during the second plague. People were deserting the cities and fleeing to the countryside in huge caravans. The breakdown of social order and the chaos is pretty hard to fathom. It is something totally out of our experience and unimaginable (unless your a Hollywood script writer).

Of this plague we actually have some good records and the interesting thing is that there was a lot of comparison between the average citizen and the Christian. Christianity was still not accepted by Roman law and there was still serious persecution of those who proclaimed Christ. But, when the plagues came, the Christians really made their mark and they were noticed. It was noted that the Roman priests fled the city along with everyone else who could, but the Christians stayed behind and didn't just try to survive, they actively took care of the sick, those who were left behind by their families who had escaped. Many of the Christians died with them, and they weren't stupid. They knew the dangers and the high likelihood that they would die, but they served anyway.

Cyprian wrote of this in 251, and  seemed almost welcoming of the pestilence. He noted how horrific the disease was but claimed that only non-Christians had to fear it. He stated that this plague

"...examines the minds of the human race; whether the well care for the sick, whether the relatives dutifully love their kinsmen as they should, whether the masters show compassion for their ailing slaves, whether the physicians do not desert the afflicted…Although this mortality has contributed nothing else, it has especially accomplished this for Christians and servants of God, that we have begun gladly to seek martyrdom while we are learning not to fear death.  These are trying exercises for us, not deaths; they give to the mind the glory of fortitude; by contempt of death they prepare for the crown…[O]ur brethren who have been freed from the world by the summons of the Lord should not be mourned, since we know that they are not lost but sent before; that in departing they lead the way; that as travelers, as voyagers are wont to be, they should be longed for, not lamented…” (Mortality 15-20, 1958 ed.) [The Rise of Christianity, p. 81, par. 1-2]

But, it was just bishops who noticed. It became a topic of conversation as people branded Christians as "gamblers" while wondering how they could do this. And, this made a huge difference even long term. A century later the emperor Julian pushed to start other charities in an effort to match the Christians.  He wrote to the high priest of Galatia in 362 to push them to work to meet the moral standards shown by Christians, and he attributed the growth of the church to their “moral character, even if pretended,” and their benevolence toward strangers and care for the graves of the dead.” Indeed, at the beginning of the second plague, the church was still made up of people who were mostly of Jewish origin (estimated at 70%) and afterward the ratio soon was about half and half. 


Today, the church has lost its voice. It has become a part of the culture. It talks a lot about the degradation of the moral structure of our society and points to a list of sins that prove it and seem surprised when non-Christians don't hold to those same values (as if holding to a set of values were enough). We have retreated from society, circled the wagons around our faith, and fire at all those outside the circle.

We are not of this world, but we are supposed to be in it. We are not allowed to retreat into our own cocoon. And why is that? We have lost our first love, and that love is a love of Christ. No evangelical would want to admit that. We do love Christ! That's why go to church every Sunday. That's why we are willing to speak out on moral issues. That's why we give to the church, do good works, etc. But, the Bible challenges us to show it in actions, and the primary one is that we should be like Christ. I think that doesn't mean just that we use that to judge what we don't do. Jesus wouldn't steal, so I won't steal. But, what was the main characteristic of Jesus life--the thing that is repeated over and over. None of the gospels emphasizes how well Jesus followed the Law or any other ideas of morality. Certainly I am not to say that he was not moral (he was perfect), but that's not their emphasis. The emphasis is on his love--love for the disciples, love for people around him, and more than that, love for the world (a term John clearly uses to talk about the whole world system and sinful mankind). He loved and the result of that is grace towards the worst sinners and sacrifice for that world that was so against him and the kingdom of God.

We scream out against the world, when we should not be surprised that the world doesn't have our values. But, we don't show love.

Listen carefully the next time you hear about Ebola. You'll hear a lot about what we should do to protect our country, and  that certainly is important. The duty of the government is to protect its citizens. You'll hear discussions about medical issues by people who barely know the difference between aspirin and Tylenol.

But, how often do you hear people expressing, not just some horror that results in pity, but a real love and concern for the families destroyed, the devastation of communities, the orphans left  behind? Surely you will hear some, but then it moves on to the next topic. Where is the love for others? Love results in actions, produces a gracious heart, and leads to sacrifice. Who is willing to sacrifice, even a little time in prayer, a little money toward relief, a voice of reason to push for more done in Africa, much less one's time or one's life?

The early church was a persecuted minority, but they loved their neighbors. They applied Christian doctrine to their lives. They really believed that life was not about expanding their wealth and living more comfortably and it wasn't even just trying to survive. In fact, the survival they thought of was only in the eternal sense. They didn't fear death. They feared embarrassing their Lord.

I read an article a few weeks ago, in Slate by Brian Palmer. The author was at an Ebola consultation and heard it said, “MSF is the only group on the ground,” said one doctor, using the French acronym for Doctors Without Borders. “They are the only ones making any difference.” The congregation nodded in agreement. But, he notes that this is ignoring another group who were also at work, the missionaries. No one was even thinking of them, in spite of the headlines about the missionaries who had contracted Ebola while helping in Africa. He writes, "Missionary doctors and nurses are stationed throughout Africa, in rural outposts and urban slums. Rather than parachuting in during crises, like some international medicine specialists, a large number of them have undertaken long-term commitments to address the health problems of poor Africans." He goes on to talk about his discomfort with the missionary doctors, because of their connecting medical work with their faith, but also admits that this discomfort is due to his own bias. He admits that possibly his atheism has made him biased. "I'm not altogether proud of this bias--I'm just trying to be honest." 

The problem is, though he may have noticed, most of the world hasn't. Some of that is certainly due to the same bias that he admits, but could it also be that we really haven't responded with the massive support that we should have. Or, maybe it is because, even though there are missionary doctors and nurses willing to sacrifice, the church as a whole is not really speaking up. I'm actually not sure, but I do think that if we really had the mind of Christ, the world would not be able to ignore it. Emperor Julian couldn't help but notice, but we can easily be under the radar. 

Where is our influence? Where is our voice? Why isn't there a massive response to show love to our brothers?

Palmer goes on to state that the world should recognize and welcome the missionary doctors because there isn't anyone else who is really willing to stay for the long haul. He even suggests that we shower them with funds to help them out. Finally, he writes, with some irony, "As an atheist, I try to make choices based on evidence and reason. So until we're finally ready to invest heavily in secular medicine in Africa, I suggest we stand aside and leg God do His work."

It almost makes me want to say, "Amen." But, what I want to see is not that we stand aside and let God work. We need to step up and take up and engage in God's work actively and without fear. I'd like to make Mr. Palmer even more uncomfortable.

Who's The Man?

Jeff Hawkins replied to my previous post:

"Personality Cult leadership is a HUGE factor in the church today. Churches are built around a "man" and not THE Man, Christ Jesus. New Testament pattern of "plurality" in leadership is crucial...."

Jeff went on from there, but I wanted to focus on this topic first.

I certainly have to agree. A few weeks ago I turned on CNN as I was eating a snack and listened to Piers Morgan interviewing Joel Osteen and his wife. Besides all the problems with his theology and view of God, what struck me was how he was clearly the center of a church and a financial empire. While he talked about God, everything was really about him.

That is an extreme example, but, though maybe more subtle, not really all that uncommon. We don’t have to look far to see many examples of this and in fact, there are times in almost every church when you can at least see shades of this. In many churches, no one questions the pastor, and if they do, it becomes a huge and divisive issue. There is a Chinese saying that you might hear in a Taiwan church which roughly translates as “To be submissive is to be blessed (祝福就是夢福)”. In other words, we'll all be better off if we just do what the pastor says. Leaders lead, the rest follow.

But, is this really the way it is supposed to be? I remember a quote by Peter Jensen to the effect that God is sovereign and he does not delegate and I think that is true. It’s not that God doesn’t give us the privilege of serving and even the privilege of some kind of authority. The issue is what that means.

Do we really believe that we are sinners; that we really are depraved? Do we really believe that this sin nature has affected every facet of our selves? Or, do we think that this is somehow changed when a person becomes a pastor? I can't see anything in the Bible that would imply this and all we have to do is look at so many examples of “fallen” pastors to know that this isn’t the case. Pastors fall just like everyone else at times and it’s a bit disingenuous to think that this is because they are somehow not real or something like that. If we truly believe in a sin nature that is common to all, then no matter how good our intentions are, no matter how strong our faith is, we must keep that in mind. We are still sinners and if so, we cannot completely trust any decision or action that we (or others) make.

I don’t in any way mean that we should become suspicious people, no more than we should be suspicious or our own selves. But, maybe that’s a key to understanding the concept of servant leadership. We know that we ourselves are not always perfect (unless we are a bit psychotic). We know that our motivations are not always the best. We know that we make mistakes and some are big (and embarrassing). We know that we are not always completely honest. That doesn’t mean that we don’t trust ourselves (otherwise we wouldn’t argue our points so forcefully and defend our views or ourselves), but it does mean that our trust is tempered with reality. It means that we study “experts.” It means that we ask others’ opinions about things. We even define “smartness” sometimes by saying things like “smart people are people who know what they don’t know.” We know that we need other people to get by and make progress.

So, why would we build a church around a single man? In a sense, to the extent that a church does that, it is to that extent setting itself up for failure. But, even if we leave out the possibility of catastrophic failure, anyone time we give one person too much power or influence in an organization, we then limit that organization so that it can never grow beyond that person’s limitations. It will develop along the lines of his strengths and those are the things that may be most obvious in the beginning, but it will also build in his weaknesses. The longer this goes on, the more “warped” the organization or church will become.

I think that’s why we need to go toward a type of team leadership. That doesn’t mean that we lead by consensus or that there can’t be one person in charge. Those mistakes are recipes for failure or at least mediocrity. But, leadership is not absolute and untempered. It's not enough to say that the leader must depend on the Lord to guide him. Certainly that is true, but the reality is that no one ever fully depends on the Lord, and we need the help of others. A man who cannot follow has forfeited the potential to lead.

There are Bible passages dealing with this that I think we sometimes overlook or explain away. Paul includes in his exhortations on submission to authority the statement that we are to be submissive to one another. Even leaders have to submit. Jesus mentions the Gentile rulers who rule by authority and power and then tells his disciples that they can't do that. He destroys the argument "but I'm doing this for their own good" by a little aside that these Gentile rulers consider themselves to be acting out of benevolence. It's not enough to have good motivations. You can't be like that. He uses the example of a servant (who might have some authority over another servant, but still are quite limited) and then to make sure that we don't explain that away, he mentions the example of a small child.

We need to think seriously about leadership and what it means in the church. I'm afraid we've taken our own understanding of leadership and read that into the Bible. The problem is not just pastors who make themselves the center or who don't listen to others. The problem is maybe even more that this is what we expect and what we promote.

Children, especially in the society that Jesus lived in when he spoke to his disciples, were not allowed the room to express any of the traits that we would normally associate with a leader. But, Jesus told his disciples that they needed to be more like a small child and even that the more they took on the position of a child, the greater they were.


It may not make sense to us, but we can't dismiss it just because it doesn't make sense. These are the words of Jesus, not just the words of a disciple. He said it. Do we understand? The more we try to explain it away, or the more it doesn't make sense, the more it means that we are off the mark. Maybe we are clueless, but we need to look at this further.


Your thoughts?

This Could Be the Last Time

Last week I preached at a small church in Hualien on Taiwan's east coast. During the musical part of the worship service, the man controlling the PowerPoint for the songs stood at the side with his daughter in his arms (as you can see in the picture). He held this position throughout the entire musical part of the service, using the remote in his hand to control the slides but continuing to hold his daughter. I remember wishing that I could do that again with my own children.

I kept thinking about how tiring this must be. It's one thing to hold an infant, but this little girl is long past the "infant" stage. She must have been at least 5 years old and pretty heavy to hold for such a long time, but she also stayed still, content in his arms. I wondered if he could hold her for the whole worship service, and from there began to wonder how much longer before she got so big he couldn't do it anymore. It couldn't be much longer, as fast as kids grow. In fact, could this be the last time.

I remember holding my own children and how enjoyable that was, but I can't do that any more. They're as big as I am or bigger. I wondered when was the last time I held mine that way. There was certainly a "last time." However I don't remember when that happened. What would have changed if I had known then that it would be the last time to hold my son or daughter? If I had known, would I have held them tighter? Would I have determined that I could surely do it again? Would I have looked at them differently? Would I have cried?


But, I didn't know. It just ended at some point and neither of us knew that something had happened which was final and would never be repeated. It just ended. Maybe I didn't even think about it. Maybe they didn't want it anymore as they wanted to express their "grownup status." I don't know.


That is life. Sometimes we can realize that it might be the last time. When I was with my dad last fall, I knew that it could well be the last time I saw him alive. I hoped that I would be wrong, and we made plans to live with him when we returned this summer, but I knew that there was at least a great chance that he would not live that long. I did try to savor the moment, but yet afraid to do so fully because I didn't want it to be the last time.

But, more often, we just don't think in terms of last times or only times. We don't have any real idea except for some kind of theoretical possibility way back in the far recesses of our mind. So many things happen that are precious, but we never realize that they are unique, that they will not happen again, and that they should be savored and cherished. We just live and go on oblivious to the wonder around us. Life is common and routine when it should not be. It is a wonder and it is fragile.


I know that I will never hold my daughter like that again. She's grown far to big. My two sons are even further from that possibility. I can still enjoy the wonder of their presence again every time I see them. They are wonderful creations of God and I'm honored and blessed to be their father. I must cherish them and any time I can have with them.


And yet, the same is true for everyone I meet. We have been commissioned by Christ to make disciples. That commission was not given just to a few who would be preachers, pastors, or missionaries. It was given to all who are disciples--believers of Christ. We think there will always be that chance to be a witness. There is no rush is there? So, we go on with life and leave behind the urgency that there should be.

What if this is the only time we'll meet? If I meet someone on the train or bus, I probably know that this will be my only chance to at least give them a good testimony of what God can do and to tell them about the gospel of grace. But, of those that I do know--family or friends--I seldom think that way. I don't wonder when that "last time" might be. They could be hit by a gravel truck tomorrow, but it doesn't have to be that macabre. It could just be that they will move away, or that our relationship will grow further apart.


Can I recognize the urgency of the gospel--to tell people that there is hope in life after all, that there is a God out there (and right here as well) who is all-powerful and yet knows us intimately, who is thoroughly and fully righteous and yet is gracious to us. There is a God who saves people--not just from hell, but to give them life more abundantly in the here and now. There is a God who wants us to walk with him and how will always be with us until the end of this world. I have to admit, I don't think of that as urgent.


Maybe I should be thinking more like that. Could this be the only time. Could this be the last time? If it were, and if I knew that it would be, what would or should I do differently?

Afraid to Die?

Yes, I'm still alive. I'm back in Taiwan now, and with all the missed time while away for my Dad's funeral, I had a lot to catch up on. That shouldn't be an excuse since anyone can spare a few minutes a day to write, but I didn't. But, I hope to be back to writing regularly now.

A few months ago, an old friend asked to meet with me. He is facing a crisis in his life and that has caused him to think more about the meaning and reality of his faith. We talked a bit about what he is feeling and thinking and then he turned to me and said, "You know, I've been a Christian more than 20 years, but I've suddenly realized that I really don't know much about what I believe. Once I was baptized, I sort of stopped trying to read my Bible or learn more. I had made my decision to accept Christianity, but once I did, it seems like that was enough. I don't know God any better now than I did then and I'm finding it hard to deal with this crisis." He is now reading his Bible regularly and praying about entering seminary because he wants to know more and wants to be able to encourage others to continue to grow in their faith.

The following morning, in our devotional time at the office, a coworker shared about a lady who had given a testimony at his church the day before. She has cancer and said that she realized that everyone was trying to comfort her, but they didn’t have much to say that meant anything. Was God really in control, and did he really care as her Christian friends said? She realized that the Bible that the church had given her at her baptism many years ago had not yet been opened. She began reading it and now is giving testimony to others to continue to pursue a greater knowledge of God.

Then, I read something written by a young person after a former classmate had died suddenly. One thing that struck me was her statement that suddenly she was afraid to die. However, her fear of death was not because she wasn’t sure of God’s salvation and that she would be with him in heaven. Her fear was that she felt that she had not yet done anything except satisfy her own desires. She hadn’t led anyone to Christ and hadn’t really served Him.

Why is the church so focused on getting people baptized, but satisfied to leave them there. I remember a Taiwanese pastor telling me proudly how many people his church had baptized in the previous year, and I asked him how many of those were active in the church still and were growing in their faith. He looked puzzled and just asked why I had asked that question. “Because the Great Comission didn’t say that we were to baptize all nations. It said that we are to make disciples of all nations, and baptism was just one of the steps along with going and teaching them to observe all that I have commanded. That’s not just teaching, but teaching them to obey. It’s not just knowledge; it’s obedience. If we aren’t making disciples, we have failed in our mission.”

He thought for a few minutes and said, “I never thought about that. I just wanted to get them to heaven. Actually, I think only one is even coming to church regularly. I need to think about that”

Why is it that we stop so soon? Is our focus on just getting them a ticket to heaven a sign of our continued human-centric value system? We are so focused on saving people from hell, that we forget that God’s priority is something far more valuable, and that is a restored relationship with Him. God created man to know Him, to serve Him. We belong to God, but we have left him. He is not looking for believers; for the baptized. He wants disciples and we are cheating Him, ourselves, and others if we forget the rest.

So, why do we stop so soon? What should the church be doing differently? What should I be doing differently?  How much of a disciple am I?

My mission?

I don’t know when I heard the term Great Commission for the first time, but I’m sure it was early on in my Christian experience. What I do know is that it seemed to always be expressed as a directive to some individuals and that's what I assumed. It was normally a challenge to missions. Does God want you to be a missionary, or not? Does God want you to fulfill the great commission, or not? Should you go or should you stay?

I realize that I’m exaggerating a little, and making it a little more black and white than it usually is. Still, the  impression was, and often is, that this great commission is something that is given to individuals to carry out; and it’s a challenge for some of them to go, but of course not everyone. It's expanded sometimes to say that if you're not called to go, then you're called to give.

However, the more I have looked at it, the more I have come to realize that it is not individualistic at all. Those last few days before Christ ascended were spent not just with the 12 apostles, but with all of the key disciples who were committed to Him. This was the climax just as Jesus was about to ascend to heaven. The emphasis was not on the individual, but on this new body that was being called out. Jesus' focus was corporate.


My experience as a missionary has only emphasized this even more. I believe that we need to look at the great commission less in terms of the individual. It shouldn't be passive, waiting on whether God might be leading someone to become a missionary. Rather, we need to look at the Great Commission in terms of the church. In a sense, this is the founding purpose of the church. If the apostles were writing a constitution for the church as an organization, this probably would have been in the preamble as its purpose clause. The church exists to carry all this out. The church should see this as their number one responsibility–making disciples of all peoples.

Instead, the Missions program has been something that is extra, peripheral to the main ministry of the church. In many churches, the Missions budget is separate. It is set through extra pledges (faith promises) and extra giving. You can give to the missions budget as long as that comes after your tithe to the church. It's not a part of the church budget.

Some of that is changing. There already is less emphasis on waiting to see who God may call into missions, and then leaving that person to run around getting support from churches and individuals. But, we haven't gone far enough at all.

I think that the church should put more effort into thinking about what their role could be in making disciples of all nations, and then coming up with a strategy for how to do so. Of course, that is not just the overseas component that we often call "missions." It’s an overall plan that includes our neighbors, the people on the other side of the town, other nations and cultures across the sea. It's comprehensive. The key point is that the responsibility belongs to the church, and not just individuals. Missions and evangelism are certainly individual in that it is individuals who are the ones who are on the contact edge between the church and the unbelieving world. However, the individuals are part of a strategy, a vision and a mission of the church. We need to be less inward thinking and more outward thinking.

Missionaries can fall into a similar rut. One problem (issue) in missions is that missionaries are often independent and individualistic in spirit. It's easy for us to just drop into the mold of thinking about  "my mission" or "but, God called me here to..." Sometimes we can forget that we are all part of a team with our sending churches and our coworkers in the plan to make disciples of all nations starting in the part of the world where we have been sent.

But, the mission is far greater than any individual and it is far greater than any mission organization. Missionaries are sent and are part of the "mission" of the church.

Why am I Doing This?

Last Sunday morning, I was a guest speaker at the Syi-le Church near us. I know most of that congregation, but there's always a few that I don't know. As I was getting to the climax a man in the back raised his hand. It's not very often that you get someone wanting to make a comment during a sermon on Sunday morning worship. It happened when I was speaking at a retreat in central China, but in that case it was a young girl who had never been to any kind of religious service before and didn't know what was "proper."

I paused and acknowledged him and he made a comment that supported what I was saying, so that was pretty cool. I went on from there. A couple of minutes later, during a short pause, this man stood up again to make a comment, and this time he didn't bother with raising his hand. This one caught me a little off guard, but again it wasn't anything that was a problem, and it did follow with what I was saying. Probably less than a minute later, it happened again, but it was more than just a sentence this time. This continued at least another 5 -7 times, each time getting longer, and closer together. And, none was against what I was saying, but each time it made it harder and harder to bring it back to the point that I was trying to make as I concluded, and made it harder to come to the conclusion.

As you might imagine, I was not completely enjoying this anymore. It was making it really hard to concentrate and hard to conclude. I wasn't sure if he was a church member, or just someone who happened to walk in, so I wasn't sure what to do, but I can tell you one thought that started running through my mind and coming back when I had already dismissed it. I wanted to say, "OK, do you want to preach this, or should I?"

At that point, I had lost focus, and by that I don't mean just that I could not focus on my sermon. I had lost focus on what I was supposed to be doing. What bothered me was that I had lost control and didn't know how to get it back. But, what made me think I should be in control? The man came up to talk with me afterward, and it was obvious that he knew a lot about Christianity (unusual here in Taiwan) but it was just as obvious that he was not a Christian.

What does this have to do with the topic of the Great Commission, Mission, and the Church? Well maybe it seems like a stretch, but it shows how easy it is to forget the goal in order to just keep on doing what you think you should be doing. Preaching is for the purpose of influencing people. So, I am invited to speak in a church. when I speak. How is that I can so quickly get distracted from the goal--of influencing people, moving people--to start focusing on the sermon itself, the tool.

And, I think that's the case with many churches in relation to their mission's program. We go through the motions, but forget the goal. And, the church is judged on how many people came through their program rather than what influence they are having on the world that doesn't know God and on their fellow believers who want to know Him better. And, when we forget the real goal and substitute a program or a plan, we betray our cause and find that we have often done more harm than good.

The church needs to evaluate itself in terms, not of what they are doing, but why they are doing it.  It's people, not a program or a plan.