Mothers Day - Splitting the baby!

In the Old Testament, there is a great account of Solomon's wisdom, which also showed his heart. 2 Woman come to him with 1 dead baby and 1 living baby. Both Mothers claim that the living baby is theirs and the dead baby belongs to the other. Solomon understanding the heart of a Mother calls for a sword and for the living baby to be cut /split in 2 with 1 piece being given to each mother. The real Mother refuses and agrees to the 'fake' mother having the baby. The 'fake' mother insists on the baby being split. Solomon recognises that the 1st woman is the true Mother and orders that the baby be given to her.

Churches are God's children, birthed through the labours of pioneering pastors and wives. Humanly speaking they pay an often hidden price to see the church (baby) come to life. However there are others who wish to claim for themselves what they have not birthed or paid a price for. They did not serve and undergo the labour that comes with birthing a church. These 'fake' mothers, in order to get what they want they are prepared to split the baby (church), because for them, half a baby (church) is more than what they had before.

Is Church Growth All About the Pastor?

Common story: First ________ Church gets a new minister—Pastor Joe.
He’s not a very good communicator. People start leaving.
Within two years, attendance has dropped by half. Giving is down by a third. First Church descends into a malaise.
Eventually, Pastor Joe is fired and the search for his replacement begins.
A year later, First Church hires a new minister—Pastor Daniel.
He’s a great communicator. The church immediately starts growing. Happy days are here again. People love Pastor Daniel.
Why did this happen to First Church? Nothing else changed.
The building remained the same. The worship times remained the same. The ministry programs remained the same. The key staff remained the same.
The only thing that changed was the pastor.
Yet, First Church’s attendance and giving rose and fell in direct response to the quality of the preacher.
Can I be brutally honest?
When it comes to church attendance, nothing matters as much as the ability of the pastor to deliver good sermons.
If a pastor is good at his job, the church grows.
If he’s bad at his job, the church shrinks.
Sounds unspiritual—but it’s true.
It shouldn’t be this way—but it is. Each week is a referendum on the pastor’s ability to deliver an inspiring sermon.
Admit it: You’ve gotten into the car with your spouse and begun critiquing the sermon before you’re out of the church parking lot. Or you’ve been asked, “How was church?”
What do you talk about?
The sermon.
Let’s be real: Protestants judge the quality of a worship service largely by the power of the sermon to move them.
Nothing else comes close.
This is why the right minister can cause a church to sink or soar.
I liken it to a football team: An NFL squad has 53 men, but the team’s fortunes rise and fall on the talents of one man—the quarterback. If he can deliver lots of touchdowns, the team wins. If he can’t, the team loses.
Granted, the signal-caller must have good players around him, but as the Denver Broncos are seeing this year, a great QB means everything.
The same is true with church attendance. When it comes to numbers, nothing matters as much as the ability of the pastor to deliver engaging sermons. Preaching is everything.
It pains me to write these words.
In an ideal world, what SHOULD matter is prayer, the presence of the Spirit, the love of the people for one another and the church’s ministry in the community.
In that ideal world, a church should be able to take out one preacher and install another without a hiccup.
And while we’re at it, why does the size of a church even matter? Jesus would choose a church of 12 sold-out disciples over a church of 12,000 passive pew-sitters any day.
We can argue these points until Christ returns, but this blog post is about attendance. Numbers. And when it comes to putting men in pews, nothing matters more than pastoral quality. Every other consideration pales in comparison.
This wasn’t always the case.
In medieval times, there was only one church in a given area, or parish. If your parish priest offered boring homilies, you were stuck.
After the Reformation, sermons became the centerpiece of Protestant worship, as they are today. Some preachers were interesting, and others were boring.
But until the 1950s, that didn’t matter much. Christians were mostly loyal to their denominations. If you were born a Methodist, you attended the Methodist church in your area. If pastor was a lousy preacher, you endured it. You never even thought of going to another church because you were Methodist and that was that.
Fast-forward to today.
Parishioners are no longer loyal to their denominations.
Here’s my story: I was born and baptized Lutheran. As a young man, I attended an Assemblies of God Sunday school. I came to know Christ in a Free Methodist Church. In college, I joined a Baptist church, where I was married. I moved to Alaska and became a Presbyterian, and 10 years ago, I joined a nondenominational megachurch, which I still attend today (although I returned to a small Lutheran church this summer and loved it).
This kind of religious switching would have been unusual a century ago, but today it’s common. People move to new cities. They have automobiles that will take them to a church (and a pastor) they connect with.
People are less loyal to institutions.
Because parishioners now have access to better preaching (live or through the media), they are less willing to put up with boring, rambling, irrelevant preaching.
This has led modern congregants to evaluate their churches based on the sermon. They stay or go based on whether they “are being fed.” If the messages consistently lag, they seek out another church that offers them more.
Many of you are seeing red by this point. “Today’s churchgoers are so shallow. They treat God’s holy church like a product to be consumed!” you may be thinking. And you’re right.
But this is the reality in today’s world. People come to church expecting to receive something from God. If they don’t, they move on.
Can we blame them? People came to Jesus—and they always received.
Although we may condemn them as consumers, today’s parishioners choose a church with great care. The decision to leave a church is often a difficult one, fraught with emotion, doubt and uncertainty.
I have a friend in Texas (let’s call him Roger) whose church planted a “daughter church” in a nearby town. Roger and his family agreed to move to the daughter church to help it get started.
This “church plant” started with much enthusiasm, but quickly began to sputter. Attendance dropped by 75 percent as the fledgling congregation struggled with its music and preaching.
Roger attended faithfully. He volunteered. He prayed.
But the poor sermons exacted a toll on his walk with God. “Honestly, I wanted to be a good soldier and stick it out, but I finally had to be honest with myself—I was dying spiritually,” Roger said. “The worship was lifeless. The sermons just weren’t reaching me. In nine months, I didn’t hear anything from the pulpit I hadn’t heard a thousand times.”
Roger eventually made the painful decision to abandon the church plant and return to the mother church.
“I felt like a traitor,” he said. “But I’m regularly hearing from God again back in my home church. I know I’m being selfish, but I go to church to meet with God. If that’s not happening, what’s the sense in going?”
Here are some questions for you to grapple with:
What do you think Roger should have done? Was his decision to abandon the church plant selfish, or is it more important to do the things that help us grow spiritually?
Why do we go to church? For our own benefit? For God’s benefit? For the benefit of others?
Should a believer persevere in a congregation that does not meet his needs “because it’s not about him”? If so, for how long? Weeks? Months? Years? Decades?
Should Christians be “self-feeders,” or should they expect to be fed Sunday morning?
Should churchgoers expect to hear something new at church, or should they be content to hear familiar truths they’ve long known?
Should believers “tough it out” in a church with lifeless preaching?
Churchgoers give up a lot of time to come to church. Should they expect a return-on-investment for their time?
Is it right for churchgoers to change congregations based on the quality of the preaching?
Should a church live or die on the preaching ability of its senior pastor?
If a Christian decides to leave a church, what’s the best way to go about it? Should he simply disappear? Or should he write a letter to the pastor explaining his reasons for resigning?
I welcome your comments. And please share this blog by clicking on the share icons below. 

Divorcing Fact from Fiction

The following is from Pastor John McArthur.

Question: Is it true that Christians and non-Christians have the same rate of divorce?
Answer:
Some reporter called me a few months ago and said,
Reporter:  There is a new study, a new survey that indicates that divorce among Christians is the same as divorce among non-Christians.  This survey has been done, this poll has been taken and it has been determined that Christians are divorced at the same rate that non-Christians are divorced in America.  What do you think of that?
John MacArthur:  I don't believe it--I do not believe that.
Reporter:  But this is what the survey says!
John MacArthur:  I don't care what the survey says--I don't believe that.
I don't believe it, and in fact, I believe that is to dishonor the Lord, to say that the power of Christ is zero in a marriage--the power of the Holy Spirit in a marriage.  I don't believe that.  I do not believe that true Christians get divorced at the same rate that non-Christians do.
Well, it showed up in a newspaper and the guy who took the poll wasn't happy, because he thought I was questioning his integrity, so he wrote me a very, very strong letter.  I have a large "strong letter" file--this is one, "How dare you question me!  How dare you question the integrity of this poll!"  Well, I said, "I'll question it on this basis: Who did you ask that question too?  If you just surveyed the people who 'claimed' to be Christians--that doesn't count, and I might suggest to you that you don't know who the true Christians are."
So I didn't buy it at all.  And what irritated me about it is that this is a dishonor to God!  Because it denigrates the power of God in the life of a believer, with regard to the marriage!  It wasn't a question whether you get your statistics right, it's a question of dishonoring God!  You can't say that the power of God has no effect on marriages!  I said, "You don't do that."  Well, now it has become an evangelical urban legend--every time I turn around--I heard a secular news reporter say on the television the other day, "Well, now it has been proven that divorce among evangelical Christians or among Christians is the same as non-Christians."  Now we are just another statistic.  This is to say that God has no power in a marriage?
When divorces occur in our church [approximately 10,000 members] and they occur occasionally here--very often it is because somebody in the marriage who professed Christ--didn't know Him.  If you go out and survey people in "churches" across the spectrum from Catholic to Protestant, and denominations, etc., etc., etc, who knows what you are going to get?
The same company that does the surveys is the company that surveyed the people who said, "We don't want Bible teaching anymore in the pulpit."  Now what does that tell you about that crowd--if they don't love the Word of God?
It might be true that the divorce rate among nominal, cultural, so-called "Christians" is the same as those who don't claim to be Christians. But to assert that the divorce rate among true believers is the same as unbelievers--well, that's just preposterous.

Five Reasons why the Bible is the most important Book on Earth

The Bible is the single most important book ever written. It is an eyewitness account of historical events of such magnitude that they have literally shaped the world in which we live. Without this book the Western world and a good deal of the Eastern world would be completely different today than if the events of this book had never occurred.
It is not too much to say that the events recorded in this book are claimed by a significant percentage of people who have ever lived on this earth to be the most important events ever recorded in the history of the world. This book is foundational to just about everything mankind will ever know or accomplish. It has directly led to massive undertakings of good will and charity. Because of this book, great projects have been undertaken, hospitals have been built, multitudes fed and clothed and orphanages founded.
Here are five primary reasons why you need to read the Bible. This article was written by Dan Buttafuoco, president of the Historical Bible Society.

Reason #1:
The Bible has transformed the world

It would be impossible to claim to be an educated person in today's world without having at least some familiarity with the events contained in this book. Actually, all of the events contained in this book should be known by everyone.

• A good number of people around the world read portions of this book every day. It is one of the most published and printed books in the history of the world. It has been printed in just about every known language (including braille) and each year, since it was first written, it has been the world's greatest bestseller year after year. As time marches on it is continually printed in yet more languages. Collectors of rare books treasure it in every form.
• The Bible was the first book ever put to the printing press. The man who first printed it, Johannes Gutenberg, was recently voted the most important man to have ever lived within the past 1000 years!
• A good number of museums exist today which are dedicated solely to this very book and the events contained therein.
• The Bible is available in every corner of the globe, even where it is illegal to own or read this book. It is available in electronic format and on CD as well. You can find it on the internet for free. Famous actors and personages regularly quote it. It was quoted by William Shakespeare many times in his writings.
• Worldwide organizations and associations have been formed because of this book and its message, many of them existing for centuries. Together they represent multiple hundreds of millions of members.

Reason #2:
People are willing to die for this book

People have died torturous deaths simply to gain access to this book. You may, even now, be in a country where this book is discouraged or even banned outright. In many countries it is a crime to distribute or even possess this book.

• This book has been praised, cursed, restricted, banned, desecrated, burned and fought over. People swear on it and at it.
• Some have tried to eliminate it. All who have tried have failed. People have suffered exquisite tortures and loss of freedom and even their lives for printing it. This has occurred recently and over many centuries past, as well. It is, in fact, a regular occurrence in this world.
• This book is simultaneously hated and loved. Once read it would be impossible to be indifferent to it; for its claims are monumental and beyond exaggerating. It provokes a strong response in either a positive or negative direction; you will either love it or hate it. It was meant to be so by design. It is so controversial that wars have been fought over its interpretation. Governments have toppled on account of it and kings have been deposed because of it. Most importantly, lives have been dramatically changed for good because of this book.

Reason #3:
It’s the most accurate book of antiquity

The Bible is the most copied book of antiquity. Written over a time period of some 1,500 years, it was completed approximately 2,000 years ago. Yet, in all the centuries that have passed, none of its contents have ever been found inaccurate.

• It has been translated into its present form directly from the original languages from a vast supply of ancient manuscripts sifted by the best minds and most competent scholars of our day and of many prior generations. It has been translated into every known existing language.
• It is surpassingly accurate to the smallest details. Its contents, as translated, are as close to the original words of the authors as humanly possible. Only a few words of the entire book (a tiny, insignificant percentage) are in any doubt as to the original words and none of the disputed text affects the message of the book. Additionally, new discoveries of previously unknown ancient manuscripts continue to provide ever greater accuracy to the contents of this book.
• It has been sifted, studied, commentated upon and dissected more than any book in history. Volumes of books have been written about it and if they were stacked on top of one another they would reach to the sky.
• Where this book can be verified by external events such as archeology, geography, custom, politics, culture, known world history and writings in other ancient texts it has been so verified as to be accurate in all respects. New discoveries always support it, never vice versa. It has never once been proven faulty on single detail or fact, although many have mightily tried and failed.

Reason #4:
It contains a life-changing message of freedom

The Bible has liberated many from oppression by its clear teachings. It raises the dignity and rights of every human being ever born. It is truly an amazing and remarkable piece of writing. It contains clear teaching on the value and worth of every individual. It will astonish and surprise you and likely move you to tears.

• It has freed minds and hearts throughout history. The events recorded in this book have generated more great works of art (and some not-so-great ones, as well) than any other subject matter in the history of the world. All the museums in the world, added together, could not possibly contain all of the artwork inspired by the events of this book.
• This book itself represents true freedom. It has never been in the custody and control of a single group of people, unlike other important books. It belongs to everyone and it has been possessed by everyone, every culture and every tribe and race of people. Reading it will strike you directly in your heart. It has the "ring of truth" to all who love the same.
• This book contains a message at its very core. It is a message to all people everywhere, in every time period, relevant to their everyday lives. It claims to be the very words of God... an audacious claim, for sure. It is for you to decide whether to believe the message of this book and apply it to your own life.
• If you now know nothing about God, you will know a great deal about God after reading this book. If you believe you know much about God, you will know even more about him after you read this book. You may even decide to re-evaluate your knowledge of God after reading it.

Reason #5:
It connects you to history’s most important figure

You may have heard of the "godman," Jesus of Nazareth, also called the "Christ" (i.e."Anointed One"). You may even think you know him. But if you have not read the account offered firsthand throughout this book, you will, in effect, know nothing definite about him. The entire Old Testament points to his coming, and the entire New Testament testifies to his teachings and actions.

• His name has been used to bless people and it has been used as a curse word by those who despise him. People have been healed and set free in his name. One thing is for sure: when you meet Jesus in the pages of this book and understand who he claims to be it is impossible for you to remain indifferent to him.
• This story is either the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind or it describes Jesus as exactly who he claims to be: the Supreme Lord and Ruler over all of mankind and the very creator God of the Universe. Logically speaking, this is either a nice poetic story created from a fantasy with an intent to deceive you or a clear and accurate picture of God, who is our judge ( both mine and yours). You decide. If you think you know about God already, consider the source of that "knowledge" and examine if this book may, in fact, be a better source for true knowledge about the one true Creator God that made you and everything else, both known an unknown in this Universe.
• People are free to reject this book and what it says. God made us "free moral agents" to choose as we desire. Yet, people violate the teachings and wisdom of this book at their own peril.
• Because of the main person in this book, Jesus of Nazareth, time has been split into two main epochs (B.C. "before Christ" and A.D. "anno Domini" for "year of our Lord").
• Each year, over a billion people celebrate his birth, his death and his bodily resurrection from the dead.
• Jesus is the only religious leader ever to make the claim that he has risen from the dead. All others are dead and buried. Abraham is dead. Moses is dead. Mohammed has died and remains dead, Buddha is dead, Gandhi is dead. Only Jesus claims to be alive. Even Muslims revere Jesus as a holy man and a great prophet. All told, about half of the world today accepts that this Jesus was a great and remarkable personage.

Conclusion

Keep turning the pages of this remarkable book. Read it with an open mind and open heart. It contains pure truth about God, about life, the nature of mankind and our own hearts as human beings. The Gospel of John is a wonderful place to start, but read the whole thing — Old and New Testaments. You'll be amazed what you discover about God, and about yourself.
If this God is indeed your judge, before whom you will someday give an account of your life, it truly behooves you to be aware of who he is and the simple thing he asks of us before that solemn time comes. In essence, this book will help you to deal with that very event for which we are all destined. Be warned: you will not be the same after you read this book.

Maggie Thatcher “The Best Man Britain ever had” 1925 - 2013

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22078436

Having been born in 1972 in London to immigrant parents, I am what some refer to as “a child of Thatcher”, coming to age during her premiership (1979 – 1990). So I have watched, read and listened to the media coverage of Baroness Thatcher’s recent death with keen interest.

As is customary when someone dies people reflect and eulogise. For some their memories of her are fond, for others who celebrated in Brixton, Liverpool and Glasgow they are bitter (though some celebrants seemed so young they were possibly not even born in 1990?).

A shop keeper’s daughter who rose to lead the male dominated Conservative party, winning three general elections, is itself worthy of historical significance. That she became known as the “Iron Lady” (two opposite terms conflated into one?) and has historical terms such as “Thatcherism”, “Thatcherite years” demonstrate the impact of her premiership.

To reflect on the ‘Thatcherism years’ is to reflect upon my own early life, because if leadership is anything, it is influence. Therefore by extension National leadership is also National influence (for good or for bad).

Several things her story has caused me to reflect on:

Leadership      - How true Leadership is divisive – We see people mourning her loss and others celebrating her loss.

Once you make a leadership decision you polarise people. Many will point to her leadership over the Miners strikes, the Falklands, the right to give council tenants’ rights to buy their own home as positives. Others will look to the devastation caused to Mining Communities, tough financial legislation, and stopping free milk for school children!

Maybe this is why many Leaders, political or otherwise shy away from decision making?

Longevity       - How long should a Leader stay in leadership? – Was Thatcher a victim of her own success?

Thatcher never actually lost a general election and her record of political demise has echoes of Tony
Blair being forced by his own cabinet to step down, who coincidently also won three elections.

Several dangers successful leaders face:

1).         They know better than anyone else – Thatcher appears to have ignored the advice of those closest
              to her and in so doing, isolated herself from the very people she needed the most.

2).         Treat people with indifference – Thatcher appears to have hurt and offended those most loyal to her and appears to have took their loyalty for granted (Geoffrey Howe, Nigel Lawson, et al).

3).         They believe their own press – Thatcher was highly thought of both home and abroad. Is it possible that she thought herself invincible politically? She actually seemed surprised and hurt that she was forced out.

Legacy            - How will history remember you? -  Leadership legacy is often defined around the memorable events of your tenure. Whether it’s George Bush at a kinder garden school first being told of the 9/11 attacks, John Prescott punching a guy for throwing an egg at him or Gordon Brown calling a woman a ‘bigot’ with his lapel mike still on, these are the ‘things’ history remembers.

Loyalty           - How leaders need to be able to be influenced by the right people – You cannot take the loyalty of those who serve you faithfully, for granted. People can get hurt and offended and as a consequence change their minds about you. It seemed those who were the most loyal to Thatcher inflicted the most damage.

Whether you liked her or not, I think it is fair to pause and reflect upon her leadership in a balanced (if possible) manner. My own view having watched a number of her parliamentary debates is that “they don’t make them like that anymore”.

My prayers go out to her loved ones who may be grieving during this time, may God be merciful to all.

Was Lance Armstrong’s confession on Oprah that he took performance-enhancing drugs, right or wrong?

Was Lance Armstrong’s confession on Oprah that he took performance-enhancing drugs, right or wrong?

The big media news story of the last few weeks has been about Lance Armstrong the seven times Tour de France winner confessing to Oprah Winfrey (the agony aunt of America) that for years he took performance enhancing drugs. Armstrong also admits that he could never have won his seven tour de France titles without the drugs, and that he had been lying to many people for the last ten plus years. He acknowledges that he has put his friends and loved ones through much pain and torture.

Armstrong says that at the time he did not feel like he was cheating and that it appeared to him to be a “level playing field” because everyone else was doing it. I find this argument weak at best and morally corrupt at worse. This argument is what I have (unfortunately) come to expect from a naive teenager who justify their sexual promiscuity with the statement “everyone’s doing it” and not from a 41 yr old world class, multi millionaire athlete, father and husband.

However what I find somewhat grating is the moral hypocrisy from those in the media towards Armstrong’s confession. Some put forth various views that cast suspicion upon the authenticity of his confession. Some say he wants to compete again in triathlons, maybe even cycling. Whilst others say his confession is only because he was caught and that his decision to confess on Oprah was because she would give him an easy ride (no pun intended). Firstly at the age of 41 and having been out of any real competitive sport for the last 5 years I don’t think it is possible for Lance Armstrong to compete at any real serious level (unless he uses performance enhancing drugs, sorry couldn’t resist that one). Secondly was he actually really caught? Armstrong went on record to say that he had been tested more than any other cyclist in history and never tested positive. The only evidence against him came from former team mates who themselves confessed to taking drugs (and therefore implicating Armstrong) in return for light (6 months) punishment. I always find these scenarios akin to liars accusing other people of lying (how do you believe them). Thirdly I don’t buy the idea that confessing on Oprah was an easy option, I mean wouldn’t you rather confess to a priest / pastor in a small booth / office than on one of the biggest talks shows in media? I mean can you confess to any bigger audience in the world than Oprah’s? I think I am right in saying more people watch Oprah than the Tour De France? Whilst I accept that Oprah may be a more genial person to confess to (though her first question went for the jugular), surely human nature would rather confess to a friendly rather than fierce person?

I actually want to commend Lance Armstrong for his confession, on such a very public platform, (maybe others will be inspired to do the same?). This could not have been an easy decision. Apart from the fact he must of known he was going to be castigated by many, he has also opened himself up to numerous litigation cases being filed against him (already to the tune of £10m and rising). Many in his position would of kept up the pretence of the past ten years and taken their lies with them to their grave, leaving many in the public sphere still unsure of his guilt or innocence. No I think his confession was a very difficult decision to come to and will haunt him emotionally and financially for the rest of his life.

Yes he could have and should have confessed a lot earlier, but are we now saying that there comes a time when it is too late to confess? Ask the loved ones of those who have been murdered who have begged the killer to confess the whereabouts of their victim’s body for years. (Ask the relatives of the victims of the Moors murderers Ian Brady and Myra Hindley). Many in history have chosen in their dying moments that their ‘last words’ be a confession of a previous wrong. At least Armstrong did not wait that long (though I accept there maybe more to confess). Above all else I believe Armstrong proves that adage to be true and that is “confession is good for the soul”.

One of Jesus disciples wrote in 1 John 1:8-10 (NLT) ⁸ If we claim we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth. ⁹ But if we confess our sins to him, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all wickedness. ¹⁰ If we claim we have not sinned, we are calling God a liar and showing that his word has no place in our hearts.

Armstrong still has a long way to go to repair the damage he has done and if truth be told, for some nothing he ever does will be acceptable penance for his crimes. But here a little perspective is called for; he cheated in a bike race and made lots of money from it. I can think of many in the public eye who have fallen from greater heights and managed to redeem themselves in the public eye. I think of Bill Clinton using his political leverage to help re elect President Obama. Many feel he has redeemed himself by his recent years of charitable work. Maybe Armstrong’s great work in fighting cancer will help him to redemption and ‘livestrong’ at least in the eyes of God.

Why You Should (Definitely) Want Your Church to Grow

by Bill LaMorey

11 Comments

The title of this post alone will be sufficient to send some into a fit.
Why don't I up the ante and say I want to see our church outgrow our current location again, launch new church plants, and start new campuses.
Uh-oh, I just sent somebody into overload.
“C’mon church growth isn’t important…you shouldn’t be all about the numbers!” Wrong.
Numbers represent people, and people are the reason God sent Jesus on His redemptive mission to our planet!

Why do I want to see our church grow?

Because it means that:
More people will turn their lives over to Jesus (as long as we’re not just stealing sheep from other churches, which I’m really not interested in). Depopulating Hell gets me excited! Not to mention giving people the hope, healing, meaning, and purpose found in Jesus!!
More people will grow in their faith (you cannot grow spiritually mature apart from a local body of believers).
More people will get on mission to make a dent in serving and reaching out to the people in our community with tangible expressions of the love of Christ.
More people means more opportunities for current church members to serve and step into expanded roles of leadership (thus continuing their discipleship).

You see, I just have these crazy beliefs…

I believe to my core that the entire world needs Jesus desperately.
I believe that our church is a good place for people to experience God because Jesus is magnified, the Bible is taught, and God is honored.
I believe that God has assembled an amazing group of people: our staff, our volunteers; everyone! So I know that a new Christian comes into a loving, supportive environment.
I believe that church growth honors God (the Bible teaches we are to be faithful AND fruitful).
Because of my beliefs, I let go of my career path over a decade ago and committed to serving God fulltime. Therefore, I pour my all into what I do every single week. So OF COURSE, I want to see that my family and my church family are all making a difference with what we’ve committed our lives to!

My Motives?

Some will question the motive of me or others who also want their churches to grow. “You just want bragging rights…”
God knows my heart, so I won’t bother defending that. But can’t we learn a lesson from Paul and rejoice wherever Christ is made known instead of being caught up in someone’s motive?

“It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. But what does it matter?…The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this, I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice.” (Philippians 1:15, 18 NIV)

Lest I be too misunderstood, church growth has never been the measure of our success.
We look to “changed lives” as the metric for whether or not we are succeeding at our mission. This places us in dependence upon God’s Spirit because we’re not capable of changing anyone’s life.
However, the greater the number of people in your church, the greater opportunity there is for changed lives. So while church growth isn’t the measure of our success, it is a goal and something we desire and plan for without apology.

Share this:

Share on email Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on linkedin Share on evernote More Sharing Services