Book Review- Culture Shift:The Battle for the Moral Heart of America

Culture Shift: The Battle for  the Moral Heart of America by R. Albert Mohler Jr. . (Multnomah Books, Colorado Springs, 2008,2011).  185 pages reviewed.

Culture Shift is a thoughtful and challenging collection of essays written by the author that address numerous areas of cultural interest. Addressing “shifts” in the moral view of issues like the law, political correctness, terrorism, education, evolution and others, Mohler offers an informed perspective on the changes occurring in how Americans view these issues. The book, written from a Christian worldview, addresses culture “head-on” and gives insights worthy of consideration for thoughtful Christians. Mohler brings a historical perspective and writes as a “balanced advocate,” meaning he advocates a Christian worldview and response, but is careful to present culture accurately…and does not shy away from “weaknesses” in the traditional “Christian” position on issues.

This is not a minister’s “rant” on the demise of culture; rather, it is a thoughtful analysis of culture, influence, and the Christian’s responsibility. The tone is cordial. The assertions are gracious. The assumptions are limited and well documented.

As a pastor, I picked up the book as part of my research for an upcoming project. It has stimulated my thinking and inspired me to action in a couple of key areas of my work. I recommend the book to professional minister and lay person alike. It sounds a clarion call to action without taking an alarmist tone.

Thank you Dr. Mohler! An asset to my library.

You can purchase a copy from Amazon HERE.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book for free from WaterBrook Multnomah Publishing Group for this review as part of their blogger’s book review  program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 <http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html> : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Book Review: Why Men Hate Going to Church, by David Murrow

Why Men Hate Going to Church, by David Murrow  (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2005,  2011). 239 pages.

One of the indisputable facts about church leadership is the fact that (as a whole) the church is not as successful in reaching men as it is in reaching women. Murrow addresses this matter “head-on” in his book and looks for reasons WHY this is (and subsequently how to address the disparity…if one believes it should be changed).

There were a number of key observations that caught my attention…as a pastor, and as one who desires to see men grow to become all that God designed for them to be. First…he noted that there is a great deficit of African-American men in the Church, yet they comprise some 90% of converts from the United States to Islam…and the overwhelming number of them as adults (p.27). This demonstrates that these men are not less “spiritually minded; rather, that there must be some feature in Islam that is more “attractive” (or as Murrow seems to argue…a feature in Islam that is less unattractive than in the church).

Another observation that Murrow makes in many different ways…in the fact that within the church there is an overwhelming disparity between the genders when it comes to who serves/leads and how decisions are made. He notes that the men who excel in the church do so by exhibiting characteristics that are “softened masculinity.” [Now I write this as a man who leads in the church, so I promise you it is not self-serving.] Men (with a few exceptions) who excel do so by softening the rugged “edge” that men have as an innate characteristic and thus by appealing to the senses of the women. Concern for “feelings” and “unity” are placed above vision and mission. He cites as an outworking of this a perversion of the biblical image of Jesus…where He is transformed from a manly carpenter to an effeminate peace activist who simply values love and peace above all else.

Now before you conclude that Murrow is just on a rant (which I think he embraces at parts in the book)…he offers some suggestions and a plethora of indicators that one can use to examine an individual congregation. Further, he offers insights from churches that tend to focus on reaching MEN and are doing it well. (He notes that those who do so…also see increases in women and children.)

Critically speaking, I think that Murrow draws a few shaky conclusions from his observations. I certainly can see how he arrives at his conclusions, but some of them seem to be based in an a priori argument. Still, I found the book to be engaging, thought-provoking, and instructive. It will serve me well as I continue to seek to reach men and women with the Gospel. Overall, I agree with most everything that he says and would encourage church leaders, ministry leaders, and students of human psychology to read and consider his observations with an open mind. I found my time “well-spent” in reading this book.  

You can purchase a copy at your local bookstore or through Amazon HERE.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Thomas Nelson Publishers as part of their BookSneeze.com <http://BookSneeze.com> book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 <http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html> : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

A Point of Clarity: LDS and Rhetoric

With the leading Republican nominee being a professing and active member of the LDS (Latter Day Saints/ Mormon) church, we are hearing significant interest by onlookers as to how evangelical Christians view the faith system. While I have personal reservations about the “motives” of the questions, the topic is important enough to speak to it…because discerning Christians should always be able to “give a defense” for what we believe (1 Peter 3:15).

The underlying question is whether we, as believers, should support a candidate who is not an evanglical Christian. It is a strange questions since no one asks if a person is faithful as an evanglical. Is it more “dangerous” or “unsavory” to have a candidate who is non-evangelical…or a “baptist” who can’t define what “is” is? Truthfully…we need to move the conversation beyond the labels and see what a person believes (worldview), how that affects his/her decision making, and then exercise STEWARDSHIP over what God has entrusted to us as Christian believers with a fundamental right to vote.

HERE is a helpful comparison page on some of the major differences between Historic Christianity and Mormonism. (NOTE: Just because something is historic doesn’t make it right or wrong. Be willing to examine the doctrines themselves and compare them to the Scriptures. If they are correct, then embrace them.)

HERE is a great article written by Dr. Ed Stetzer who is a “mentor at a distance” to me. [By that I mean that his work has been helpful and we have met a couple of times. I read his books and require them for reading in the classes I teach on subjects like church planting and missions. Ed and I do not exchange Christmas cards...but I would if he would send me an address   ].

One of the most helpful parts of Stetzer’s article is the call for clarity on the language we use. To use the term “cult” (which we are hearing and will be hearing more if in the days ahead) is to invite empassioned responses. (Images of Waco or Jim Jones come to mind). Since this is not the goal of well-intentioned commentators or even pastors like me, it is more useful to grab a term that communicates our goal.

MAKE NO MISTAKE, I do not believe that the teachings of the LDS Faith are consistent with the Bible. I do not believe that people who hold to the orthodox teachings of the LDS church are “believers” as the Bible speaks of believers and therefore I do not believe that the LDS faith teaches or experiences Salvation as it is described or promised in the Bible. So…I do not believe that members of the LDS faith are “Christian” as we use and understand the word (since it communicates by definition that one is a “follower of Christ”). You cannot rightfully claim to be a follower of Christ and not follow Christ in His life and teachings. Jesus spoke differently of Himself than the teachings of the Mormon church portray.

At the same time, I would argue that the teachings of Mormonism are moral, in the same way that Islam and Buddhism or even some others are moral. What we know though is that religion is not a utilitarian tool to foster morality. It is a system that teaches people how to relate to God in truth. I can legislate morality but I cannot legislate a relationship with God.

My charge to you who read along here…don’t fall into the trap of using incendiary words that do not further the conversation. Don’t get drawn into a soundbite that ultimately hurts the cause of Christ. Here is what Christ wants from you and me as an ultimate goal…that we would faithfully proclaim the gospel in a way that exalts God, reconciles men, and doesn’t erect artificial barriers to salvation.

At the same time…let’s not be so “flippant” in our use of words that we lose the meaning of what it is to be a “Christian.” The United States is not a Christian nation. 80% of Americans are not Christians (though they would claim to be even though they have no biblical connection to Jesus). Someone is not a Christian simply because he says so. One is a Christian if he follows after Christ.

Lest I be misquoted or misunderstood: Do not read this and think that I “hate” mormons. I love them. I have friends who are in the LDS church. We disagree about Jesus but our children have common interests and we relate to one another. I always desire for them to be changed/converted/saved and to follow Jesus as Lord. I do not apologize for that. I desire that because I love them. Further, I do not feel superior toward people in the LDS church or any other faith system. Were it not for the grace of God and the love and care of people in my life who told me the truth about Jesus, I would be just as separated from God as every non-Christian on the planet…and that is the majority. I do not see myself in an elitest way; rather, I see myself as a servant of Christ and therefore, an agent of the Kingdom and a friend to those whom Jesus loved and died for. As such, I serve others…even (and especially) those who have yet to experience the love of Christ in the same way I have.

The Meaning of Being MISSIONAL as a believer and as a Church

Missional is a buzz word in Christian circles and I am rather fond of its use. Like all words or concepts, its meaning can be watered down or even lost without periodic clarification. It is not enough to know what “missional” means, but also what it means when I use it.

One of the guys who has helped me shape my thinking is Dr. Ed Stetzer of Lifeway Research and also one of the teaching pastors at GraceLife Church (a church plant). I love Ed’s writing style and the content is “spot on.” (Perhaps it is that northern style in him that I love. He tells the truth, in love, and allows others to wrestle with its implications.)

Having served as a church planter and as pastor of two different established churches, I have a strong desire for churches to be “on mission” or “missional” in their approach to ministry. But…what does that mean?

To be missional means to think and act as a missionary in the culture we live in. It is to choose activities that further us toward the goal of accomplishing the Kingdom mission, while rejecting those activities that hinder such accomplishment. Above all…it means to actively and intentionally engage the culture with a contextual presentation of the truth of the gospel.

I don’t mean simply inform them of the presence of the gospel, or to argue for the necessity of the gospel. I mean to present the gospel in perfectly understandable terms so that they can make an informed decision to accept or reject the gift of God in Christ Jesus.

Here is a link to an article (one of many) that Stetzer has written on CONTEXTUALIZATION. It is a powerful and succinct definition of what it is to make the gospel accessible to others.

One observation about it that connects this to “missional,” Paul not only contextualized the gospel…but he did it on purpose. He intentionally engaged others, studied them, then presented the gospel to them in a way that was not easy or comfortable for him…but was essential for their understanding.

It sort of reminds me of the old Bill Hybel’s principle that I call the “barbecue first principle.” (You have not earned the right to inquire or share about eternal matters until you have at least shared a meal with someone. If you don’t know their children’s names, how will they ever believe that you care about their eternity?)

If we truly care about people in our community, doesn’t it make sense to get to know them well enough that we earn the right to share our story and HIS story? If that means changing our approach or our lifestyles to become more relatable…shouldn’t we do that IMMEDIATELY and INTENTIONALLY?

Who are you investing in? Who are you getting to know…on purpose…with the intent of sharing with them about your journey as a believer and the amazing love of God?

So what’s up with “change”?

I have been thinking on the subject of “church” for quite some time now….but the class I teach on Sunday night has precipitated an in-depth study into church and (most recently) a re-read of a great book, Nine Marks of a Healthy Church.

One of the questions I have been wrestling with relates to the “psychology” involved with a church that is changing.

Many pastors struggle with “change” at a church. It is difficult to “sell” change to a congregation and many guys get frustrated and leave. Change though, is necessary for a church to survive (ask any church which has a median age of 65+ today…in ten years if you can still find them). It is also necessary for a church to thrive.

I personally have a great deal of faith in the church. I think the church in America is still viable. I do not see it as it is seen in a great number of European cities. I think a lot of hope still exists for the church…and with proper adjustments…it can truly magnify the Name of Jesus on a wide scale basis.

So, as I have been considering the psychology of a church…I have been acutely aware that many folks in churches are resistant to change. They don’t like it. They resist it. They hate it. They want to turn back from in…even if it means using a filet knife in creative ways on the one bringing the change about. Why?

No one wants to go back to 3 channels on their TV. No one wants to have dirt roads to travel on in cities or to be without a cell phone (ok…maybe the cell phone.) The reason is, I THINK, because we (leaders) have not connected the reality of change with its purpose. We simply want to change and want people to embrace change…and we fail to focus on the reason for change.

A church changes (or if you will allow me) focuses on being INTENTIONALLY MISSIONAL in order to more effectively communicate the gospel. A church seeks to use relevant forms of music in worship to connect the dots for those in the assembly who do not yet know Jesus. A true worshipper can worship Jesus with any form of music (and I might argue…in nearly any language), but an outsider needs help connecting the dots. This relevance is part of the mission, it in not the mission.

I read this AM an article in a series by Dr. Ed Stetzer…one of the thinkers and practitioners that I learn from. Here is an excerpt:  

Trouble starts with cultural relevance when we misunderstand its importance. Sometimes we believe being relevant means being missional, but it doesn’t. The truth is we can be culturally relevant and ultimately go nowhere in helping people know Jesus or serving Him on mission. Relevance is an implication of mission, and a tool for the mission, but it is not the goal of the mission. Making disciples through the spread of the gospel is the goal. If cultural relevance is our goal, the Gospel is demoted and we lose confidence in its transforming power and necessity.

That is a telling quote and makes me want to say, “Get out of my head, Ed!”

We are to be relevant because it furthers the gospel. We ought to build bridges in our city because it furthers the gospel. We ought to help people with practical studies on marriage, finance, and child-rearing because it connects the dots and demonstrates that there is a God who loves them and has already provided for them…and will bless their marriages and finances when they realize that He alone is entitled to Lordship!

Apart from the gospel enterprise though…change is ridiculous. If we go through the pain of change simply to be different and never seek to win our neighbors, countrymen, and global citizenry to Christ…we are ultimately ignorant of what is truly important.

What should we do? Proclaim the gospel in culturally relevant ways.

What should we not do? Delay the change. (I say delay…because for a church to refuse to change continuously…is for a church to delay the change for about 50 years.) What will eventually happen however, is the church will die and someone will turn the building into a liquor store, and antique shop, or an office building…and then change will come.

I encourage you to read Ed’s Article in its entirety here…and then share your thoughts with me. I truly am interested in what you think.

Contextualization and the Gospel Mandate

It is not enough for a Christian to know the gospel…he must be able to share it in such a way that it will be understood and the hearer can respond. This is the idea of contextualization and how it intersects with the Great Commission.

Ed Stetzer, missiologist and President of Lifeway Research, wrote an interesting piece recently on this subject. (Those who know me realize that I think a lot of Stetzer and his approach to missions. His influence in my ministry and approach to evangelism/missions is clear and I am more effective in my ministry because of his influence.

In this piece on contextualization, Stetzer illustrates why we must contextualize when communicating the gospel. He states:

Most of us are familiar with the classic party game, Pictionary. The “artist” gets a name of a person, place, or thing and he has to draw the picture so that his team can guess it, without ever using any words to help. Imagine if I was playing a game of Pictionary at a party. I am assigned to draw the person President George W. Bush. So, in efforts of simplicity and speed, I draw a picture of a bush. I’m playing with a pretty quick crowd, so they guess it right away. “BUSH!!!”

They’ve partially got the answer, but not all of it, so it doesn’t count. So, I start pointing at the bush and make hand gestures, moans, and grunts (but no words). I use my hands to say, “that’s right, but more.” Again, the crowd is smart, so they can see the clue has something to do with a bush so they start guessing. “Tree!… Plant!… Green!… Photosynthesis!… Oxygen to carbon dioxide!… Krebs Cycle!” (I told you they were smart.) Now, they’re getting way off base, but I can’t say anything, so I just keep pointing at that bush. I point at it harder and harder and keep gesturing and grunting and, at this point, I’m getting mad.

The others never get it. I know what it is. I know they should know it. It is so obvious. But they don’t.

I get frustrated, and yet, I never gave another clue.

Too often, I think this is what many evangelicals look like in the twenty-first century. For example, many today in American culture want to talk about “spirituality,” but are unfamiliar with the gospel and not warm to the idea of spiritual absolutes. Some well-meaning Christians hear the spirituality talk and want to move people to the gospel, but the unexplained theological language and the old evangelistic approaches that were targeting a different worldview amount to noise that leaves the hearer in the dark trying to guess. It’s like we, as believers, start communicating through our gestures and grunts, but they don’t get it. We wind up giving clues that lead them in circles, and not to the truth. We know the answer, and we want them to know the answer, but we just can’t make a solid connection.

Without contextualization, the words and arguments we use can amount to ineffective clues.

To be effective then at communicating the gospel, we must understand our audience, identify the obstacles that exist to “grasping” the message, and then communicate the message in accordance with our new information. This is a NECESSITY and is biblical as well as practical.

Helping others understand so that they can respond to the truth of the gospel is critical and it must be approached differently today than in the past. Notice Stetzer again:

It’s one thing to know the gospel, but it’s another to make the gospel known. And making the gospel known is more complicated in America today than it was in decades past. Less people today have a general Christian orientation, or even a shared Judeo-Christian ethic. This means concepts (truths) like sin, death and hell cannot be assumed. So when we want to communicate the gospel and deal with categories like God, man, Christ and faith we must not only know them well, but also how to effectively make them known to the people God has sent us. Knowing where to begin and how to explain the truth to particular people are issues of contextualization.

You can read his entire article from his website HERE. After that, drop back by and share your thoughts, concerns, or fears with “contextualizing the gospel.”

Thoughts on Competition… (part 3)

This is an attempt to answer the 2d question/observation in my article on Competition. You can read part 1 or part 2 by clicking the links.

#2, How does our understanding of purpose/mission affect our context/environment as we present God’s view?

This question has experienced far more controversy in our modern church culture than it should. Most of the controversy is due to preference and change (or the aversion to change). It has very little to do with the missional principle.

Simply stated: when Jesus spoke to farmers…He used agricultural analogies speaking in terms that were familiar to those he desired to communicate with. When speaking to fishermen…likewise. When rebuking Pharisees, He did not speak of Greek literary figures, but used the terms and context that connected with His audience.

Defining the purpose of the church is too broad for this application…so we must look at the components of the church’s activities and address the context of each. For instance, if the vision is that believers join together for Sunday morning worship to be instructed in the Scriptures and encouraged in fellowship with God and one another, then the context will reflect an environment conducive to that end. The end result should be then, that encouraged and instructed believers would then go out into the world to “live out their faith” and bear witness of Christ to all of their friends and neighbors.

Part of the issue though…is that the context of the church today in culture. Many, if not most, in our culture (speaking of the modern, western culture of America) prefer to explore the spirituality question in a context of anonymity. In other words, they prefer to hear and take in the information, experience the community, and then ask their own clarifying questions before making decisions of faith. As such the “Invest and Invite” strategy of evangelism is more attractive than the one-on-one confrontational approach. Stated differently, it is often more comfortable for the witness and the recipient to generate dialogue and then invite someone to experience the “church” as it (the church) answers some particular need in the recipient’s life.

Now, I did not design the culture to work this way. It just does. I can’t change it to be something different. It just is. All I can do, is think like a missionary and contextualize what I do to connect with the culture.

5 practical considerations on how to do this.

• I need to be careful to explain what is going on and why it is happening. In other words, I need to never assume someone is “tracking” with me. I need to assume (if anything) that this is their first time in church and among God’s people.
• I need to avoid or explain clearly “church language.” [Note, this is why I don’t refer to every man in the church as “Brother ____.” It confuses newcomers…and even creeps them out a bit I am told. When it doesn’t, it reinforces to them that they are not “one of us,” but are outsiders…since they don’t know the language.]  This became very clear to me a few weeks back. I was playing golf with three realtor types. They were discussing some changes and using real estate terms. They all tracked with the conversation, but I was more lost than my golf ball in the lake . Occasionally they would clarify for me what they were saying by using “layman” talk. I was thankful…but still a bit confused, since while I knew the words they were using, it was not my context.
• I need to reduce obstacles. Like language, there are a number of things that we (church people) can erect that impede the process for others exploring the “church experience.” My goal is to eliminate all unnecessary obstacles, so they have the maximum opportunity to encounter Jesus. This includes such popular subjects as “how do I know my children are okay in the back,” parking up close, signage, greeting teams, worship folders, screened announcements, etc. One of the most difficult to swallow…I don’t make them step out of anonymity (YET) to ask a question, receive prayer, or make a decision to progress in their spiritual journey.
• I need to aim for attractiveness. I am not attractional (meaning that what we do in itself draws unconnected people like fans to a sporting event) in my approach…but I do know that it is not enough to simply not offend. I must give people a reason to come back. They need to experience a “value add” when they visit. What I communicate should answer a question they are asking…even if I helped generate the question in their minds.
• I need to make their next step easy and obvious. For first time guests, the next step is obviously a second visit. To make that easier, we give them a gift before they leave, promise not to pull a drop-in for Monday night visitation, send a letter, and have a LIFE Group contact them that week to thank them for their visit, offer to answer questions, and invite them to come again.

Now I have only addressed a Sunday AM service (because it is my primary teaching time as pastor. I engage with more people at this time than at any other times in the week.); however, the principle is applied in all contexts. My “discipleship training” (Sunday PM has a different context. LIFE Groups have a different context. Fellowship events and “Family Time” have a different context.) I have to contextualize the environment to reflect my audience and my purpose for each event.

What do you think about this observation? Should we be sensitive to “environments” in planning for our churchwide events…or other contexts?

Thoughts on Competition… (Part 2)

A couple of days ago, I posted an article which is available HERE on defining our competition. While my particular context is church (and I write from that perspective), the applications and principles are far-reaching.

This is part #2 and addresses the first of three implications/questions I want to explore:

#1, How does our understanding of purpose/mission affect those we choose to lead in our ministry?

People pursue their passions. Period. Whatever a person’s passion is…whether he/she wants to or not…he/she will pursue that automatically. Why is this important? This being said, we must choose leaders who passionately live and breathe our purpose…or more accurately, God’s purpose.

If a person has a belief that the purpose of the church is primarily to teach those already inside the walls, he will do so without thinking. Evangelism will burdensome because there is no passion stemming from purpose. If a person thinks that the mission of the church is to reach a lost and dying world…he will default to evangelism in almost every situation. Discipleship is a strain. (Note: by extension…missions and an approach to mission is treated in the same manner.)

This is why it is critical to understand what the PURPOSE of the church (and more specifically) our church is. Once we know…we MUST put leaders in place who are passionately committed to that purpose. You can’t fake it and be successful. You have to really have a burden for it.

Two points of application:

Once we understand God’s purpose and have selected (or discerned God’s selection and affirmed) a leader, we must ensure that he can build a team that shares the passion and vision. If you are not passionate about the leader’s vision…you have to pursue it to become passionate…or leave. I know that sounds harsh…but to be passionate for a competing vision AND to be in a role of leadership that competes with the overall leader…is to create chaos, hurt the organization, and stifle growth. Recognize that if you are not “IN,” then you are “OUT” and you are influencing others to join you. Ultimately, this leads to discouragement.

Second, If you are a leader , you have to know and define the PURPOSE clearly and then require that everyone who leads…embrace it. Not every church has to be a cookie-cutter model of the next one; however, you cannot have multiple vision casters in a church casting competing visions. This sort competition does violence to the purpose and causes everyone to fail. So, as a leader, do the hard thing. Try to bring your leaders to a point of honestly buying into/ owning the vision. If you can’t or they won’t…set them free. Replace them with those who are in sync. This doesn’t mean they are bad leaders or bad people…simply that they are not the right fit for the present organization.

What is crucial is that those in the organization know where it is going. This is best accomplished when all of the voices with influence are affirming the same vision. Each leader sees his area of responsibility through the lens of the overall vision. Every decision in every level must bolster and support the overarching vision for the organization. If one cannot do that, then he should step aside from leading. If he can support the vision outside of leadership, then he should. If not, he should find another organization that shares his vision and go there. Life is too short to do anything else.

What are your thoughts?

Book Review: Killing Cockroaches by Tony Morgan

Book Review: Killing Cockroaches. Tony Morgan, (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2009) 235 pages reviewed.

Killing Cockroaches is the product of Tony Morgan’s work on the subject of leadership and observations of life. Much of his work has appeared in various forms on his blog www.tonymorganlive.com or in some other similar format. Each section is short, direct, and intentionally transparent. Morgan is the Chief Strategic Officer (a strange title for a “church staff guy”) at NewSpring Church in Anderson, SC (www.newspring.cc ).

Morgan’s conversation style and quick wit makes the book an easy and entertaining read. His insights serve to cause the reader to pause and consider “cockroaches” in his own life. As a pastor, I enjoyed the book. It reminded me about the tyranny of the urgent and how often I can lose sight of the big picture and get caught up doing something less meaningful.

I recommend the book to any leader, but especially those who lead in the context of church. The questions that Morgan asks will cause you to argue with the book…only to pause, raise a white flag, and look at the issues which were already in front of you.

Bravo Tony!! An incredible resource and well worth the time and money I invested to learn from you.

You can purchase a copy from Amazon HERE.

Thoughts on Competition…

So, I am in the process of reading Tony Morgan’s Book entitled Killing Cockroaches(review forthcoming) and a thought he has surfaced several times has taken root in my head today. The thought relates to competition.

As far as “the Church” goes…or for that matter, my church, “who is our competition?”

Some negate the question declaring that Jesus is Sovereign and Supreme…therefore there is no real competition. (This is a philosophical response…and I think…even a bit naive or “cowardly”). Others say…”Satan is our competition.” I think is correct…but how do you compete against him? Do you seclude yourself in a prayer meeting and ask God for victory? (NOTE: I am not against prayer. I am for prayer. I also think that the Scripture teaches us to defeat Satan in the application of our faith.)

Others would say that our competition “practically speaking” is the other churches that draw on the same “base” of Christians in a particular community. For these folks…growing a church is about being faster, flashier, or more appealing than the next church. (This seems a bit “wrong-headed if you really believe that the Kingdom of God is more than one church and is also the point).

The fourth answer…which I want to address, emanates from our understanding of purpose. Our competition consists of those people, things, activities, and “draws” in the “culture” that scream for the time and attention of those we seek to reach.

If our PURPOSE as the Church is to move faithful people from one church to another church…then we engage in ministry planning and strategy from one particular direction. If, however, our PURPOSE is to move disconnected (unchurched or non-Christian) people from wherever they are into a community of fully devoted followers of Christ…then we strategize and design ourselves to catch their attention and we COMPETE with whatever is presently keeping them from connecting in our community.

We need to answer three key questions over the next couple of days:

• How does our understanding of purpose/mission affect those we choose to lead in our ministry?
• How does our understanding of purpose/mission affect our context/environment as we present God’s view?
• How does our understanding of purpose/mission affect the questions we try to answer with our ministries?

Here is what I know…those whom I desire to reach will not allow me to change the questions/concerns of their hearts to something I want to address. They require me to connect with them and answer their questions. If I want to address my questions/concerns…I have to get them to have the same ones.

Love to hear your thoughts…especially as we progress in the conversation.