stillhaventfound.org

I think I should comment on my theological background early on in this series. But before that, I think the previous “Introduction” post made it clear that I’m not here to be the judge of New Creation Church. No man can do that and I’ve seen too many horrible posts on the Internet criticizing this or that Church. In another blog, I’ve had my salvation called into question because of my beliefs and while defending City Harvest Church against unfair accusations. I don’t know what to say about these ultra-dogmatic know-it-all Christians who think they’re God’s appointed “watchman” to point out every heresy in every Church whose beliefs are less than perfect according to their intelligent minds. I’ve seen too many of them around throughout my Christian life. Really, with Christians like these, who needs the devil?

I’ve already written about my views on dogmatism here. I believe in taking a doctrinal stand (if one has one - there’s nothing wrong with still searching!) and I will do so in this series. Yet I also believe in being open to learn because none of us is perfect. Having questions and criticisms are OK as long as its done in the right spirit and tone. Have no doubt, I will have questions and criticisms. But of course I believe in doing it in a constructive way. What I’ll write is just my humble opinion, which I’ll totally welcome constructive feedback on. I’m writing this series because I believe it may be helpful to some and also to myself (to clarify my thinking).

I see no need to rigorously defend New Creation Church from those who attack it because those who have it set in their minds that New Creation Church is a dangerous Church will not change their minds. However, I also don’t think any Church is beyond constructive criticism. I don’t agree with those who only attack churches. However, nor do I agree with those who are unwilling to listen to others or be challenged but have only a blind support for their Church or leader. Both extremes are wrong. We’re all imperfect. We all have much to learn from each other and from other Churches. So unfair critics as well as over-zealous proponents of New Creation will probably not like what I have to say.

So going back to my theological background. In a way, we all have a theological background and a theology. And that influences the way we think and evaluate beliefs and practice. Laying it all out will help you understand where I’m coming from. Another reason I do this is to show those who think that New Creation’s beliefs are totally new, unorthodox or heretical that this is not so - but rather a lot of what New Creation believes has actually been what Christians have believed in various theological traditions. I’ll talk more about this in future posts.

For now, I’ll mention some traditions or areas that have influenced me a lot in the last 12 years or so of my Christian life:

1) Pentecostalism / Charismatism: God changed me when I was about 16 in an Assembly of God Church. Since then, though I’ve varied in my acceptance of things charismatic, I would always have an affinity towards charismatic things. I’ll call myself a charismatic Christian any day, though I don’t accept the extremes of the movement. I acknowledge there has been a lot of abuses and extreme beliefs and practices. I acknowledge that many charismatics have a very shallow understanding of the Word of God. But I also believe that this movement has much to offer Christians. And seriously, most of the growing churches around the world today are charismatic Churches, which says at least something.

I believe in the spiritual gifts - tongues, healing, prophecy, etc. I believe that God still authenticates and blesses the preaching of the Gospel with signs and wonders following. I love the Vineyard movement (Third Wave) - at least when John Wimber was alive as I’ve not followed up on it much nowadays. I think it was a very balanced movement and it brought much balance to charismatic Christianity.

One thing I’ll say is that many Pentecostals, perhaps because of its roots in the Holiness-Wesleyan tradition, can be quite legalistic. And of course, I disagree with legalism in all forms.

When it comes to the Word of Faith movement, aka Health and Wealth or Prosperity Gospel, charismatics are perhaps the biggest critics of the movement. I think there’s much to learn from this movement, but a lot to avoid too.

2) The Reformation: After about two years of being enamoured by the charismatic movement and all things charismatic early on in my Christian life, I looked back into historic Christianity and discovered the teachings of the Reformation. I embraced the Reformed Faith and also some good Lutheran teachings (Law/Gospel distinction and Theology of the Cross). I was quite into Reformed theology. Till now, I think it’s probably the richest tradition in Protestantism and quite well grounded in the Word of God. A lot of what Christians believe nowadays have its roots in the Reformed Faith. So it’s a wonderful tradition, but by no means do I embrace everything in it. In some of my future posts, I’ll show that many (not all, because there’s a lot of disagreement within the tradition too) within the Reformed tradition (in the past and present) would definitely come out in support of the “grace” teachings in New Creation. Oh, and I’ll also say the same for Lutherans too.

A lot of Reformed folks are anti-Charismatic and of course I won’t agree with that. There is however a growing Reformed-Charismatic movement - those who are trying to embrace the best of both the Reformed and Charismatic worlds of Christianity. I would have described myself as a Reformed-Charismatic years back. However, now I’m not sure how Reformed I am. Nevertheless, this tradition has taught me a lot about God’s Word and theology.

3) Emergent / Emerging: A tradition I kind of (not totally) embraced a few years back was the Emergent / Emerging Church tradition. At one stage of my journey, it was the tradition I most identified with. I haven’t really followed up with it. But I embrace a lot of its distinctives like being non-dogmatic and open in one’s beliefs as well as a generally more left-leaning political disposition that will stand up for justice, the poor, the oppressed and the marginalized. The latter probably has its roots in Liberal Theology. I embrace Liberal Christianity’s pursuit of social justice without agreeing with its liberal theology. I also probably won’t agree with the extreme liberal side of the Emergent tradition.

[I mentioned “non-dogmatic and open” above because I hesitate to use the term “postmodern” as it’s open to so many different interpretations. Perhaps a more accurate term, though less well-known, is “critical realist”.]

4) Missions to the Unreached: I’m not sure which “tradition” this comes under. Maybe the Baptist tradition because from the little I’ve come across, it seems like the Baptists are the strongest in missions to the unreached people. Note: this is missions to the unreached. Charismatic Christianity is probably the fastest growing branch of Christianity in the world (and I believe the best and most biblical in the way they evangelize) but it seems that missions work that is specifically aimed towards the unreached people groups have been the domain of the non-charismatics - and perhaps especially the Baptists.

It’s funny because it’s perhaps also the Baptists which can be the most fundamentalistic, dogmatic and anti-charismatic Christians around. It just goes to show that no tradition has it all right!

Anyway, missions (especially to the unreached) has become a passion of mine over the past few years. It started here. Became stronger when I recently read Brother Yun’s truly amazing autobiography, “The Heavenly Man“. And again stronger when I read about Elizabeth Elliot’s biography of her husband Jim Elliot as well as her book about the five young missionaries who gave their lives to reach the unreached Auca Indians. I think there’s no greater call nowadays than to be a missionary to the unreached. Nor do I think there is any call more more urgent.

Nice work by Steve of Grace Walk:

I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. I didn’t ‘fall out in church’ as they say, but there was a very strong awakening in me of the importance of these issues in my life. I didn’t want to walk alone on this journey. Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals. (Barack Obama)

Obama has been my choice, of course. He’s still pretty much an underdog, but he’s definitely the candidate I can most identify with and support.

Jesus said whatever you do to the least of these my brothers you’ve done it to me. And this is what I’ve come to think. That if I want to identify fully with Jesus Christ, who I claim to be my savior and Lord, the best way that I can do that is to identify with the poor. This I know will go against the teachings of all the popular evangelical preachers. But they’re just wrong. They’re not bad, they’re just wrong. Christianity is not about building an absolutely secure little niche in the world where you can live with your perfect little wife and your perfect little children in a beautiful little house where you have no gays or minority groups anywhere near you. Christianity is about learning to love like Jesus loved and Jesus loved the poor and Jesus loved the broken. (Rich Mullins)

I don’t really follow Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) because I feel it promotes a very Westernized (read: affluent) view of Christianity. However, in the past month or so, I’ve got to know at least two radical Christians that can be said to be within CCM who actually challenged the compromised conventional wisdom of how Christians ought to live in this world. Rich Mullins is one of them. The other is Keith Green, whom I’ll blog about another time.

To find out more about Rich’s life, you can check out a documentary available on YouTube entitled Homeless Man (Part 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 4, 5 & 6)

I’ve been attending New Creation Church (NCC) occasionally for the past 7 years or so when I’ve been in Singapore - most of those years I’ve actually been overseas. However, over the past 2 months or so, I’ve been consistently attending New Creation. If I were to stay on in Singapore, I would probably continue to do so.

I’ve been thinking a lot about NCC and its teachings lately and so I hope to start a series of posts on the Church and its teachings and practices. New Creation is probably the most criticized and persecuted Church in Singapore and a lot of people do have questions about its teachings and practices. I hope to provide my own thoughts on the Church. But like every single thing written on this blog, I don’t claim to be perfect and all-knowing. I think I can bring to this discussion a lot of my past experiences and theological knowledge, but in no way do I claim to know it all. I’m not perfect, nor am I objective in my evaluation. No one is. We all come to the table influenced by our past experiences and biases. Some people don’t want to acknowledge that, but I do. So these posts will be written in an open, not dogmatic, manner. Of course since I’m attending the Church, I’m generally more sympathetic to its beliefs and practices. However, I believe I’ll also be critical - though hopefully in a constructive and good, not accusatory, way.

I’m not sure how many posts I’ll write in this series. It’s not going to be a very organized series as I just want to be free to express my thoughts in a random manner! The most popular article on this website is actually one I wrote about 4 years ago on New Creation. You can access it here:

Thoughts on New Creation Church - and Grace, Faith, Health and Wealth

That was written a long time back. I still hold to most of what I wrote, but may have changed my mind in some other matters. In this series, I’ll repeat some of the stuff written there, while adding others.

I welcome your thoughts and comments on what I write - be it negative or positive. I also welcome any questions you may have. Of course, I’ll be responding to it from my fallible perspective.

Steve McVey of Grace Walk Ministries is doing a great series on “101 Lies Taught In The Church Every Sunday”. A bit of an unfortunate title as it sounds like a series done by a fundamentalistic heresy hunter, but it’s actually not. It’s really all about grace and doctrines and beliefs related to grace. They’re all pretty good so far so go and check out his blog to view the ongoing series. Some good ones so far:

#1 - Salvation Is You Giving Your Life To Christ

#6 - Your Greatest Need Is To Love God More

#7 - The Answer To A Weak Christian Commitment Is To Rededicate Yourself

#12 - Grace Can Lead To A Careless Attitude Toward Sin

On the topic on hearing God’s voice, I just listened to Andrew Wommack’s series on How To Hear God’s Voice. It’s pretty good. Here’s his article and his audio teaching (downloadable mp3s) on the topic.

As a charismatic Christian, I’ve always been intrigued about hearing God’s voice. Charismatic Christianity has been a big part of my Christian life since I became a Christian about 13 or so years ago. I’ve attended charismatic churches, been to charismatic conferences and read lots of charismatic books and articles. I’ve seen before my eyes all things charismatic - healings, miracles and words of knowledge (or prophetic words or whatever you call it!) that have come true. And I speak in tongues everyday.

On the other hand, I’ve also immersed myself in a lot of non-charismatic Christianity. I was once (not now) very into Reformed/Calvinistic theology which gave me an excellent foundation in the Word of God. So besides hanging around charismatics, I also had many good non-charismatic friends. And I know how non-charismatics thought of charismatics and their practices. And also vice-versa.

Unfortunately, a lot of the criticisms non-charismatics have of charismatics are true. There have been a lot of excesses - especially in healing, prosperity teachings, prophecies and taking the Word of God lightly. On the other hand, I think there have been so many wonderful healings, miracles and true prophetic words that have blessed many lives. I’m a charismatic because I believe in all these. I believe God still works through all these. I have no doubt it’s God because I see lives transformed for His glory. I don’t understand non-charismatics who throw out everything charismatic. Because, anyone who does his research would know that there have been genuine healings, miracles and prophetic words. Now, it’s either that they’re of the devil, or they’re true and for today. There’s no way they can be of the devil for me because the fruits of these miracles and healing and all are that Jesus is glorified. The devil doesn’t do miracles to glorify Jesus. He can perform the miraculous, yes. But definitely not to bring glory to Jesus. Definitely not to make the recipients of these miracles more in love with Jesus! As Jesus said, a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand.

Anyway, back to hearing God’s voice. Whenever I see Christians calling out a word of knowledge for healing or speaking a word to another person which blessed the other person greatly (I’m talking about a specific word that they could only have gotten from God, not some general encouragement), I do stand in awe. Just as I stand in awe of the miraculous occurring - after all, the purpose of the miraculous is not only to bless the recipient, but also to bring glory to God as we stand in awe of his mighty works. Of course, I do realize that we should not crazily pursue signs and wonders. But there is nothing wrong with a healthy pursuit of these gifts from God, not forgetting that these are to bless people and bring glory to God, not to bring glory to oneself!

About 2-3 years ago, I attended a prophetic workshop at Trinity Christian Centre, a Pentecostal church in Singapore. The pastors talked about how we all can hear God’s voice and we needed to practice it (through trial and error) to improve our discernment of what’s truly of God and what’s not. And we had a whole lot of practice during those workshops! To say the least, it was quite scary for me. We were often grouped into pairs and told to pray for each other specifically. We didn’t know the other person so we had to try to hear what God was asking us to pray for the other person. Of course, a lot of us got a lot of it wrong and were embarrassed naturally! But that was to be expected. The idea was to practice and learn through trial and error.

I wasn’t too comfortable with it all, but I went along with it anyway because I do think it forced us to really start practicing and discerning God’s voice. Since that time, I guess I haven’t really practiced actively hearing God’s voice. Although, everytime I do see pastors accurately speaking a word from God to someone (for healing or whatever) that they could never have known without God speaking to them, it stirs up a desire in me to have a more intimate relationship with God like they have. I think that’s something missing in my walk with God, yet I didn’t know how to start. I guess I had also put off working on this desire because I’ve seen so many abuses. I have often wondered how different charismatics can hear from God, yet have such opposing theologies. For example, the two biggest churches in Singapore have quite opposing theologies regarding the grace of God, yet I know both are great churches blessed mightily by God and having senior pastors who truly love God and have a close relationship with Him. If God really speaks to them, why such different theologies? I still haven’t figured that out yet. But I think it just goes to show that we are still fallible and that we don’t hear God perfectly but are still influenced by our (theological) biases and filter God’s voice through our biases.

On Sunday, I bought a book entitled “Can’t You Talk Louder God? - Secrets to Hearing the Voice of God” by Steve Shultz at the excellent Heidi Baker event I attended. I finally decided to take that step to work on this desire of mine to hear God’s voice by reading up more about it. It was a simple book and I finished it in a few hours. Having finished the book, here are some of my thoughts:

1) God is always speaking to us, but we just don’t recognize it as God’s voice. When we have an impression to do something, this could be God speaking. When we feel peace about something, this could be God telling us something - e.g. this is the right decision. When we read the Bible and are struck by some verses, this could be God speaking to us. Of course, besides the above ways, God can speak audibly and through dreams and so on.

2) God speaks in our language and often into our thoughts. It’s not as though God speaks word-for-word and therefore if we don’t hear word-for-word, it’s not Him. I think I kind of always thought this (because of how some pastors portrayed it) and thus never thought that I could have such a word-for-word revelation in my life. But rather, most of the time he speaks into or through our thoughts - i.e we think those thoughts are ours but they are actually God. Of course, this means we need to discern what is of God and what isn’t of God.

A lot of times I hear people say something like:

Yesterday, God spoke to me. He said, “Keep having faith and you will receive what you ask for in the end.”

When I hear this, I think, “Wow, you mean God actually said word-for-word, ‘Keep having faith and you will receive…”. But now I know that it’s not God actually saying that word-for-word but rather it’s the impression and thoughts that came to the person’s mind that are from God. The actual words are words used by them based on the impressions and thoughts they have received from God. So if that same impression came to me, I may have worded it differently. Perhaps like,

Yesterday, God spoke to me. He said, “Continue to have faith. You will get it in the end.”

And a person during the King James English era who heard God speak the same thing would word it differently also. Again, it’s not that God speaks word-for-word, but through impressions and his thoughts put into our minds.

Andrew Wommack writes:

…communication with God is Spirit to spirit, not brain to brain or mouth to ear, the way we communicate in the physical realm. The Lord speaks to our spirits, not in words, but in thoughts and impressions. Then our spirits speak to us in words like, “I think the Lord wants me to do this or that.” The Lord doesn’t typically say “You do this or that,” but He will impress your spirit to do something, and then your spirit says, “I think I should do . . .” Therefore, we often miss the leading of the Lord, thinking it’s our own thoughts.

I kind of knew this already but I guess it was enforced to me once again as I read the book. Knowing that God has always been speaking and it’s not as though he speaks only word-for-word encourages me. Because I think I’ve heard God before. It’s just that I didn’t know it! So it’s time for me to be more discerning of His voice!

3) As mentioned already, most of the time, God speaks through impressions. Steve wrote:

Sometimes, I do mini-seminars on learning to hear the voice of God. I can boil an all-day seminars on learning to hear God’s voice into just three simple words. And here they are: “Follow your impressions!”

Of course he speaks through other ways too. But He probably speaks mostly through impressions to most people. God speaking through an audible voice is rare.

4) It takes a lot of practice and trial and error to improve one’s discernment of God’s voice. Practice makes perfect. From now on, I do hope to be more aware that God speaks through impressions. I think I have to dare to step out in faith too. We will not always be 100% certain that it’s God speaking but unless we step out in faith, we’ll never improve in our discernment. Stepping out in faith may lead to embarrassment. Sometimes, God may ask us to say something to somebody and we’re afraid because we’re not sure it’s God. But I think unless we’re willing to do the ridiculous, the miraculous won’t happen.

The paradoxical thing is that as we focus on hearing God’s voice and not our own, that’s when we have all sorts of thoughts coming into our minds which are from us! It’s also hard to keep quiet and listen to God. During prayer, it’s easy to talk and talk. But I think I need to spend more time just listening to God.

5) We hear God through our own filters. I mentioned this above already. But I think it’s important to state this again. Since we don’t receive words from God word-for-word, we actually interpret it through our own filters or lenses. Such may be theological or whatever. So God may speak to us about something but a Calvinist and Arminian may word it differently and because of their theological systems interpret the word according to their own system.

This is important to note because then we can understand why people of differing and opposing theological systems still claim to hear God’s voice. Surely, if they can discern God’s voice so clearly and easily, they would get their theology right and perfect and Christians who hear God’s voice would be one in all they believe! But God has specific purposes in speaking to us. It may not always be what we want Him to speak to us about. Or if He has spoken to us about our theology, our theological lenses and biases are so strong that it blocks His voice out. I think it just goes to show that we’re imperfect and fallible.

By the way, what I write in this point is my insight and what I think through my many years in both charismatic and non-charismatic churches, not what I learnt from the book.

6) Always be humble. If we’re imperfect and fallible in discerning God’s voice, we need to be very humble. There’s no place for going around telling people that “God said to me…” or “Thus saitheth the Lord”. Because, we can never be 100% sure. It’s better to say, “I think God’s told me…” or “I feel God telling me…”, etc.

I cringe whenever I hear leaders using the “God told me…” line. However, I also know that it’s a bit inconvenient to always put a qualifier on every word they feel is from God. Perhaps, to them it’s understood that this is what they feel and they’re not claiming 100% certainty. But I would rather them qualify their statements. If not, the result is that they may become too proud and people think that they’re so holy as they always get such clear words from God!

So anyway, I hope to spend 2008 seeking to improve in this area of my spiritual life. If anyone wants to share any of their thoughts, please do!

I was at a Christian conference last night and sang two worship songs (new to me) that caught my attention. One of them, I couldn’t really sing along with. The other, I could. It was hard for me to sing the first song because I felt I could not sing it with my heart as I could not agree with the lyrics. The second song was simply wonderful and the lyrics resonated deeply with my soul.

Exactly what lyrics did the two songs contain? While I can’t remember most of the lines, one line of the first song went “I’m taking up the cross daily” and another “I choose to stand for this generation.” The second song was all about Jesus’ beauty and worthiness and had a line (in fact, a few of them) that went “You’re worthy to be praised”.

So what’s wrong with the first song? To put it simply, it’s man-centered. The focus is on what I’m going to do for God and others. The second is God-centered because the song is all about how wonderful and worthy God is and what God has done for, or is, to us.

Maybe others can sing “I’m taking up the cross daily” with a clear conscience, but for me, I know that I’m not taking up the cross daily! I know that what I do is imperfect. I know that many times I do not take up the cross daily. So how can I sing that? Saying “I choose to stand for this generation” is slightly better. At least it’s not saying that I am currently and always doing so. It’s a choice. So I don’t have that great a problem with that line, but it’s still man-centered because it’s still about what man does or hopes to do for God. It’s almost like boasting and saying, “God I’m going to do this and that for you.” If we’re to come close to boasting in anything, if we’re to come close to constantly talking about something, should it be of what we do for God or what God has done for us? I definitely don’t want to go singing about what I do for God because what I do for God is so imperfect. I’m perfect and righteous and confident because of what Christ has done for me and I want to sing about that all the time! I want to sing about God, not me!

I don’t want to be too critical and say that those who sing such “man-centered” songs are in sin or whatever. Of course they are not. I just think that it’s better for our worship songs to focus on what God has done in the past, is doing, and will do for us, rather than what we did, do or will do for God. Why? Because when we talk about what God did, do or will do, He gets the glory. When we focus on what we did, do or will do, we’re mainly focusing on our works and we get the glory!

For example, say I want to tell you about my friend David. In the first scenario, I say:

David is so good. I was in debt but he loved me so much that he sold his house and helped me repay my debt. He is such a wonderful and kind person!

In the second scenario, I say (without telling you what David did for me):

I’m going to give David a treat tomorrow. I want to make him happy. I’ll book two seats at his favorite restaurant and treat him to a surprise dinner tomorrow! Oh, and on Saturday I’m going to help him wash his car…

In both scenarios, you’ll see David as someone who did something good. But in which scenario would David evoke greater praise from you? Most likely the first because you knew what David did. In the second scenario, you don’t really have a clue as to why I’m treating David.

I believe that songs (and sermons too) which focus on what God did, does and will do for us evokes greater emotions and praise from our hearts. Being reminded what Jesus did for us moves us greatly.

In a sermon on “The Inner Essence of Worship“, John Piper defines the essence of worship as satisfaction in God. He said:

Another implication of saying that the essence of worship is satisfaction in God is that worship becomes radically God-centered… If the focus shifts onto our giving to God, one result I have seen again and again is that subtly it is not God that remains at the center but the quality of our giving.

In worship, we should focus on God, not on our giving to God, because God is the object of our worship. If you’re a big fan of Tiger Woods, when you talk to your friends do you tell them what you’re going to do for him (e.g. “I’m going to mail a present to him tomorrow!”) or would you be more likely to tell them all about him and what he’s done? Even if you talk about both things, which would you spend more time talking about? Most likely, you’ll talk about him and what he’s done, rather than what you’re going to do for him. Doing that brings more “glory” to Tiger Woods and evokes awe of him in the those you’re talking to.

In an article entitled “Geoff Bullock changes his mind on worship” (from the magazine The Briefing), Bullock (writer of the popular song “Power Of Your Love”) is quoted as saying:

Worship is based on what God has done, not on what we do. Worship has nothing at all to do with what we have done and everything to do with what God has done… Part of our problem is that we assume Old Testament models of worship still stand beside the cross - which is the most absurd theology.”

Now, I understand why many lyrics have “I will (do something)” in them. Isn’t worship after all what we do for God in response to what God in Christ did for us? I think that’s true. There’s nothing wrong per se with singing “I will praise you”. There are many instances of that in the Psalms. However, as we look in the Psalms, we see how often what we do in response (”I will praise…”, “I will lift up…”) normally comes at the end of the Psalm. In the beginning, the focus is on God and what He has done, is doing, or will do. The greater emphasis seems to be on Him and what He’s done for us. What we do does come into view, but only in response to how wonderful God is. Therefore, I think the focus of our songs should be really on God and what He’s done for us, what he’s doing and what he’s going to do. This inspires heartfelt worship.

I don’t know about you, but everytime I sing about what God has done for me, I just want to praise and worship Him! Jesus died for my sins and yours. What can I give to Him but sing of his goodness!

To end, let me say that in the same way that I think it’s important to focus on God and His work in our songs, it’s important that we do the same in our sermons. It’s not wrong to exhort Christians to do things for God. However, the pattern in the Psalms for our songs (i.e. first on God and His work and then on what we do for Him in response) is the same pattern in the Epistles - which our sermons should model after. For example, in Ephesians 1-3, Paul talks firstly about what God has done for us in Christ. From chapters 4-6, he then exhorts us to live godly lives in response. First we need to hear God’s work for us. That not only glorifies Him but inspires faith and love in us. That gives us power to live for God. Without hearing about how good God is to us in Christ, we won’t have the power to live for Him.

Jesus Christ, the Lord of Creation, Redemption, and Fulfillment, calls the church the salt and light of the world. Jesus seems to have had in mind a community engaged in vigorous, self-sacrificing mission that goes to great lengths to enact costly love, that inconveniences itself regularly to seek justice for the oppressed, that creatively serves the forgotten, all to portray that the kingdom of God is at hand.

…We have to give up the small gospel that simply confirms what C. S. Lewis called “our congenital preference for safe investments and limited liabilities.” The freedom of grace grants us many gifts, including that there is “therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1). This assurance of grace is meant to set us on the road of faithful discipleship, not just to assure us of grace at the finish line. Such freedom enables Christ’s disciples to love because we have first been loved (1 John 4:19). The grace that settles our account with God is meant to set us free from self-interest for the sake of loving others with abandon.

The apparent smallness of our gospel is directly related to the smallness of the church’s love. When prominent Christian voices call for protests and boycotts over things like our freedom to say “Merry Christmas,” the gospel seems very small indeed. If, by contrast, such voices called the church in America to give away its Christmas billions to the poor and needy around the world—as an act of incarnational love—that would leave a very different impression of the faith we profess, and offer a far greater hope for a love-hungry world.

It would be a new day for our testimony to the immensity and scope of the gospel if we lived out persevering, sacrificial love for people near and far, especially for those without power, without money, without education, without food, without sanitation, without safety, without faith. If this counterintuitive, servant love moved us out of our middle-class enclaves, drew the poor to be included in our family values, brought us to worry more about the need for consumption of those who have nothing than the consumptive fantasies of those who have too much, the gospel would be more nearly the life-enlarging gift it is.

(Mark Labberton, The Lima Bean Gospel)