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.

There Has to Be a Better Way

I just finished leading a church through a vision retreat. We only had one and a half days and had a lot to cover. The church is very conservative and though all present were key coworkers and leaders, they were all at different stages in their thinking on the church. Most did want and hope for change, but how much and where? And, even when we agree on the need for change and can agree on what needs to be changed, it is still a lot harder to actually overcome the inertia to do it and then work on all the other areas that this change affects to stick with it over the longer term. It reminds me of a statement by Shaun King, former pastor of of Atlanta's The Courageous Church. He says:

"Political campaigns based on radical change win.  Books written about radical change sell.  Sermons on radical change boost Sunday morning attendance.  The idea and thought of change is exciting to people, but mistaking that excitement for an actual willingness on behalf of those people to change now or later could be a miscalculation."

I'm praying that this church will be able to actually make some significant change even if not radical. Whatever reservations I have are not so much a lack of confidence in that church as it is a general statement about all of us. It really is exciting to go to a conference or a meeting and be challenged with making great changes, but then you go home to "the real world" and there is just too much to distract. Maintaining the status quo may not be the best, but it is a lot easier and more comfortable to most people.

I'm still thinking about the discussion raised when Pastor King resigned from the Courageous Church several weeks ago. I'll quote him again, "Big buildings. Huge crowds. Few disciples. I'm not with it. It's inefficient and just doesn't feel right with my soul. This is not a rejection of big buildings or huge crowds, but an indictment on how few disciples are being made in the process of it all. A better way has to exist."

I've been coming to similar conclusions over the years where I work. We talk a lot about how we must impact society and that the church is a lighthouse to the community, but in reality, how much impact is the church having on their neighborhood much less on society. If it were just my church or the country I worked in, I would need to look around at local issues, and certainly that is a part of what must be done. But, the problem is pretty universal and that means that we also need to look at the whole model of "church" that we've been doing. We must go back and think further about what we are doing and why.


That means going back to the original mandate. I would say that what we call the Great Commission was not really a mandate for missions but a mandate for the church. This Great Commission is not referring just to one of the programs of the church raising money for people who "go." This is the mission of the church--to make disciples of all peoples. Certainly our first "target" would have to be those we are closest to, but the mission of every church is the world.

But, I've been saying that all along in this blog and I don't want to focus on overseas missions right now. Even if we overlook the "all nations" part, we still have to look honestly at the rest. How good are we at actually making disciples--not converts, not members, but disciples. I don't think we're doing very well at all.  I'm ready to really rethink our idea of what the church is, and I believe that we have to start from this "mission statement" for the church. If the mission of the church is to "make disciples," that means that we order all that we do around that statement. The ultimate question for everything that we do should be, "In what way does this help us to make disciples?" and, "Is this the most effective thing that we could do to make disciples at this time and with the resources that we have?" Of course, we also need to think about whether we are giving the "all peoples" part a strong enough priority in our work, but let's skip over that for the moment. Even if all we are looking at is the immediate circle of people we have contact with (relatives, friends, colleagues, neighbors), are the things we are doing really what is needed and are they the best way to accomplish what Christ has demanded that all believers do? One way to start on that is to go back to the beginning and look at the early church.

If you think about it, Jesus' mandate was audacious if not even a little ridiculous. Before Jesus ascended into heaven he had the small band of disciples gather together on a nearby mountain. There was the core 11 (Judas had betrayed him and was now already dead) and beyond them were maybe a few hundred more. They were ordinary people without a lot of education or money. They were fishermen, farmers, and even at least one tax collector. Probably most of them had never traveled beyond what is a daily commute for some of us. They knew very little about the world. They were out on the edges of the Roman Empire and Jesus' challenge was the world. That must have seemed unbelievable to even imagine that this group could do. But, not only that, when Jesus told them to make disciples of all nations (all peoples) that's about all he said. How should they proceed? Who should lead this movement? How should it be financed? I think that if I were there, I'd probably have said, "You've got to be kidding. You can't leave us with this and nothing else? How in the world can we even start on this?" You've got to give us a plan. You've got to be practical.

And yet's that's basically all that is recorded. Just do it. You figure it out. That's your mission. Get it done. It seems so radical, so huge, so impractical, and so skimpy. He does tell them that all authority in all the universe has been given to him--in other words, the outcome is already certain and he is already ruling. He does tell them that they will receive power when the Spirit comes down among them, but the strategy and planning are pretty open.

While that must have seemed scary and inadequate, at the same time, it is also freeing. There isn't a set plan beyond a few fundamentals. Other than those few things, it's all open. It means that we can be as creative and imaginative as we want and experiment as we see fit within those boundaries.

So, if we have some much freedom, why is it that all churches look basically alike? Yes, there are some huge differences in some areas and there are differences in theology, but they still look about the same (I'm talking about the "church" as a body and not about buildings, though that is true of buildings also). Some are liturgical, some free and open. Some are traditional (some even "ancient") and some contemporary. But beyond those surface things, churches still follow basically the same model.

If we have been given so much freedom, why are we still following the same basic models? And, especially when that the church is not keeping up and not fulfilling its mission, how is it that we are not crying out for change?

I want to explore that over a number of posts and hope that I can instigate some thinking and some discussion. I'm gathering a team to start a new church in the next year or so and I want the help. I don't want it to be just one more church. I want to go back to the beginning--both the original mandate and also the early church. We are in a different world than 2,000 years ago, but that doesn't mean that we can't learn from them. The growth of the church during those first few centuries was phenomenal. Some of the reasons for that don't exist today and can't be duplicated, but there still has be be a lot we can learn.

I'm listening. Let's talk.

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.