My wife Kristi and I have been foster parents for almost one year now. Trust me, I know how crazy this is to most people. We already had four biological boys of our own. But we didn’t feel like our family was done, even though it was done biologically (trust me, I had the surgery). So, last July we began praying for a bigger van. We simply outgrew the normal minivan. A minivan could no longer hold our love.

Last week, we pick up our new 12 passenger van. And just in time, too.

I can’t give a lot of details, but our world has became a lot more chaotic. In fact, it’s a beautiful madhouse. Late last week, we received a call asking if we could take three more foster kids. We said yes. So, we went from 5 kids (our 4 sons and Baby G, who we’ve fostered for almost a year now) to 8 kids in our home. It helps that the other kids are Baby G’s biological siblings, but It doesn’t help as much when 8 kids are fighting, fussing, whining, pottying (on a potty or in diapers) or falling asleep at the most inopportune of times.

We never set out to become a big family. But then again, we never opposed being a big family. That much should be obvious with four biological sons of our own. But there’s something unexplainable about foster parenting. Someone recently told us that as you begin to love the kids God places with you, your heart expands to love each additional child for the season they are with you. That is very true. But it’s hard. In fact, sometimes it sucks. Our house is loud. It can get messy and lots of things break. We sweep/mop/vacuum/wash dishes/load laundry/fold laundry/put away laundry/wipe privates, change diapers, wipe mouths, tables and floors, etc., multiple times a day. Every day. And, in addition to the normal household chores that any children bring with them, foster children often bring problems of their own with them (though the problems are most often not their fault) and these kids are no exception. But then again, biological children are not always a walk in the park either. This type of life requires sacrifice.

But then again, it always takes sacrifice to love others, doesn’t it? And this has led me to lots of thought and prayer lately.

I am passionate about foster care and adoption. We have four biological children of our own and then decided our family wasn’t complete. But I know people that aren’t called by God to be foster parents. And that’s OK. I am under no illusion that you are called to be a foster parent, especially of multiple children. And I’m OK with that.

Just don’t tell me how crazy I am for opening my home. I already know that. I can’t even go to Target without getting stares and comments. Even in the heart of Suburbia, large families are not the norm. I understand that you may not be called to open up your home. But I have to ask: how has God called you to sacrifice? Even though I may not know personally, I can guarantee you that God has called us to more than a comfortable American life where we put our church sticker on our car and call it good.

How has God called you to sacrifice? How has God called you to embrace and enter the suffering of the world He loved enough to send Himself/His Son to die for? Just like I believe that ”Not Every Local Church Is For Every Person,” I believe that not every Christian is called to sacrifice in the same way. But all Christians are called to sacrifice. Something.

This may seem self-evident to you, but the way Christians treat one another says to me that we don’t believe this. I am weary of Christians believing that because we’re not all called to sacrifice in the same that we’re not all loved by our Father in the same way. While most of us would never be so blunt as to word it that way, this is exactly how we treat one another. The ones who passionately sacrifice on behalf of those caught in sex trafficking/slavery sometimes look down on those who aren’t called to serve in the same way. The people giving their lives to the homeless want others to share that passion. Those fighting abortion passionately ask “Where. Is. The. Church?” Those, like me, who open up their homes for kids with no home wish that more Christians would do the same.

But instead of celebrating and encouraging and equipping the beautifully different ways Christians can and do impact our culture, we cast dispersions at those who aren’t called to serve like us.

Now, I’m going to be brutally honest; if you claim to follow Jesus and you’re not living sacrificially in some way, I urge you to repent. I’m not sure you can truly belong to God’s family and live for yourself. However, that’s really not the group I’ve been thinking/praying about.

I am far too quick to dismiss those who are not like me. But at the same time, I tire of people that are just like me. After all, “variety is the spice of life,” right? What kind of world would it be if we all liked the same music or movies or food? I am deeply concerned that we are creating non-necessary dividing lines within the big freak-show tent of Christianity. I am far too quick to think that if you’re not called to serve in the same way that I am, then you’re not called by God at all. And that’s just nonsense. We don’t all like the same music. And that’s awesome. We don’t all like the same movies and I thank God that I’ve never had to sit through Titanic or Avatar (the 3D thing, not the animated series) even though I can appreciate that those may be your thing.

Why do we all take for granted that our passion (trafficking, abortion, homelessness, poverty in all its forms, health, water, children, hospitals, literacy, etc., etc., etc., etc.,) is the only passion? If that were the case, we might make a large dent in one issue without making any dent in others and making little to no impact on the big picture. Why are we so quick to elevate our own passions while diminishing others (hint, I think it’s because, even in serving, we are arrogant)?

This whole journey has reminded me that God’s people are nothing more than a beautiful circus of crazies and freaks. Instead of judging one another for not serving in the same way, why aren’t we one another’s best cheerleaders? Instead of looking down on each other for not serving in the same way, why aren’t we reaching back to grab the hands of those who aren’t yet serving at all? Instead of believing that our focus is pitch-perfect, why aren’t we all listening to the beautiful symphony of God’s will to reconcile all things to Himself through the Son while we try to find our part in the orchestra?

If the world will know that we belong to Jesus because of our love for one another (John 13:35), I wonder what our false judgment of one another tells those who are paying any attention?

World Magazine recently posted a piece in which Anthony Bradley argues that “the push to be ‘radical’ and ‘missional’ discourages ordinary people in ordinary places from doing ordinary things to the glory of God.”

A few days ago on Facebook and Twitter I made the following observation:

“Being a ‘radical,’ ‘missional’ Christian is slowly becoming the ‘new legalism.’ We need more ordinary God and people lovers (Matt 22:36-40).”

He goes on to say:

I continue to be amazed by the number of youth and young adults who are stressed and burnt out from the regular shaming and feelings of inadequacy if they happen to not be doing something unique and special.

After considering the “anti-Suburban” bent of much moder “missional” thinking, Bradley ties the push to be “missional” and “radical” with narcissism and an unhealthy push towards being “radical.” Bradley concludes and asks:

The combination of anti-suburbanism with new categories like “missional” and “radical” has positioned a generation of youth and young adults to experience an intense amount of shame for simply being ordinary Christians who desire to love God and love their neighbors (Matthew 22:36-40).

Bradley pointedly asks:

Why is Christ’s command to love God and neighbor not enough for these leaders?

The other day, I noted that knocking down straw-men is simply not enough for humble but challenging discourse. Sadly, I wonder if that’s not exactly what Bradley has done. Bradley has presented an understanding of being “missional” that excludes and condemns everyday believers (all of us). However, I think he has simply taken a caricature of “missional” and run with it. While there certainly may be missional practitioners who foster this kind of environment, I can’t help but read Bradley’s concerns through my church family’s understanding and practice of striving to be “missional.”

I want to humbly challenge Bradley to look beyond the hype machines to the actual missional conversation that is happening behind the spotlights. His notion that being missional is not for everyone is simply ludicrous. After all, Steve Timmis and Tim Chester have presented our church family with the notion of living “everyday life with Gospel intentionality.”

In other words, the primary context for missional living is the everyday life of the everyday believer. We as a church family have intentionally sought to strip away the church calendar in order to free people up to live ordinary life; just differently. Though my main concern here is not the “new radicals” that Bradley lumps in with his missional concerns, is the call to die to self really something “ordinary” Christians are exempt from?

I have to be honest and say that I am confused by what Bradley expects everyday believers (which, by the way, his very notion perpetuates the myth of laity vs. clergy, but that’s another point entirely) to be doing and how that varies from the call of a vast number of missional theologian practitioners. Bradley concludes:

Perhaps the best antidote to these pendulum swings and fads is simply to recover an mature understanding of vocation so that youth and young adults understand that they can make important contributions to human flourishing in any sphere of life because there are no little people or insignificant callings in the Kingdom.

While I disagree that missional is a fad, his notion that “youth and young adults” can and should “make important contributions to human flourishing in any sphere of life because there are no little people or insignificant callings in the Kingdom” is exactly how I would describe missionally. Followers of Jesus should be striving to redeem the everyday. Freeing people up to live as missionaries in their everyday context is anything but legalism. In fact, I have seen numbers of people finally “wake up” from their Evangelical pew sitting slumbers.

While I appreciate the dialogue and even the pushback against “missional,” I am deeply concerned that so many well-intentioned evangelical writers simply mischaracterize what it the vast majority of people I read, learn from and interact with mean by “missional.” The thrust is exactly what Bradley says it’s not: you don’t have to be a superstar to live an extraordinary life in and for the Kingdom. In fact, that’s exactly who thrives in Jesus’ upside-down economy.

The missional types I interact with are at the forefront of regaining a healthy theology of vocation, they are pushing people to not add lots of church events to their calendars but to sieze the day, every day with the numerous ways God gives every one of us to live faithfully. They are urging people to intentionally serve others, to build relationships of discipleship and gospel fluency no matter where someone might be along the spectrum of faith.

It’s amazing to me that what one person sees as the freedom of the Christian life that’s so often lacking in modern evangelicalism, another sees as the new legalism while arguing for exactly what so many missional types are expounding. How is it that the term “missional” is now so widely used but so poorly defined in any sort of consensus. I understand the term to be exactly what Bradley argues for.

What do you think?

As I rambled yesterday, I used to enjoy controversy. This can be especially entertaining when you write a blog because , of course, you can write things just to get a reaction out of people. Those days are (mostly) gone. I don’t enjoy upset people with emotional responses to hot-button issues.

But Christians often have very real differences. Even within Orthodoxy. And that’s not only OK, it’s a beautiful thing. When you go to see the Freak Show (not that we would because that’s not politically correct), you want to see different freaks. You’ll probably be disappointed if every booth is Lobster Boy or the Bearded Lady. But to see Lobster Boy, the Bearded Lady, the Fire Swallower, the Knife Thrower and the world’s tallest and shortest men all at once, that’s a cornucopia for the senses!

I’ve been a Christian long enough to know that we all think we’re right. No matter the issue. And rather than celebrate our differences (within the freak-show tent of Orthodoxy), we megaphone our differences like the elderly couple trying to punish their neighbor by blaring Iron Maiden. We want everyone to know our theological boundaries because, once you cross them, you’re no longer in my camp and I’m not sure anything you now say is valid because you went outside of our self-prescribed boundaries.

Of course there is such a thing as Orthodoxy. There are people who are Christians and those who are not. And there are many who claim to be Christians but are not. Don’t believe me? Just visit any “Christian” bookstore. But the boundaries of Orthodoxy are not my point here. Instead, I have in mind the many well-intentioned Christians who exclude and judge one another because of differing positions within the tent 0f Orthodoxy. After all, so far as it depends on us, shouldn’t we try to get along with everyone (Romans 12:18)? After all, isn’t one of the goals of Christian maturity the unity of the Spirit (Ephesians 4:13)? It’s by our staunchly held tribal theologies that the world will know that we belong to Jesus, right (John 13:35)?

Not only have I been thinking a lot about the differences between the many Orthodox tribes, I’ve been thinking about what happens when you’re a member of one tribe but start to question its boundaries. What happens when you’re part of one tribe and the things from another tribe seem attractive? Do you leave your tribe to join theirs? Do you try to convince both tribes to meet in the middle? Do you start your own hybrid tribe? How will the people in your old tribe think about you though?!

We Christians are quick to decry religions like Mormonism and Islam that are sometimes known for excluding from community those who renounce the faith. Yet we Christians do the same thing in practice. When someone leaves our particular theological tribe or begins to question it from the inside, we are quick to protect our boundaries at the expense of relationship.

Where is all of this going, you should be asking. What theological position is Brent questioning that he shouldn’t be? What tribe is he being kicked out of? Well, none yet. But I’m glad you asked. And in case you missed the title of the post, I’ve been thinking about Complementarianism for a couple of years now. I consider myself a Complementarian. So any questioning of the tribe’s boundaries is done so from within. If you’re not familiar with the term, Wikipedia (so you know it’s right) defines it as:

Complementarianism is a theological view held by some in Christianity and other world religions, such as Islam,that men and women have different but complementary roles and responsibilities in marriage, family life, religious leadership, and elsewhere.

It all started when our Church of the Cross family studied Acts together. In Acts 2, on the Day of Pentecost, quoting Joel, Peter declares that one of the signs that it is the last days, that the Spirit has arrived is that “sons and daughters” will prophesy. Later, in Acts 21, we are told that Philip the Evangelist “ad four unmarried daughters, who prophesied.”

So we have clear biblical precedent that women can prophesy. I’m not going to spend time exploring just what this “prophecy” is or isn’t here in this post, though I recognize that this is a vital issue. I would point to 1 Corinthians 14:1-3 in our understand but that’s not where I’m want to spend time today. Instead, I want to note that Paul, quite often and very clearly differentiates between “prophecy,” “exhortation” and “teaching.” Consider, for example, Romans 12:1-8, 1 Corinthians 12:28; 14:6, Ephesians 4:11-13,”

It seems clear that Paul understood these things as separate from one another. Yet our current understand of preaching and Complementarian male eldership not only lumps them all together (prophecy, exhortation, teaching) but excludes women from the public ministry of all of them based on the Paul’s prohibition of only one element: teaching. 1 Timothy 2:12 clearly states that Paul does not permit a woman to teach or have authority over men. It’s not my point today to notice how we as Complementarians are quick to promote the literal application of this verse while we continue to let women speak in our churches despite 1 Corinthians 14:34.

Instead, I just want to openly discuss the way we Complementarians seek to complement the genders. Our implementation in local churches has been that women are only “allowed” to teach other women or children (and even then only up to a certain, undefined age of accountability when a boy becomes a man and a woman is no longer allowed to have authority over him). This is primarily based on 1 Timothy 2:12. But what if “prophecy” and “exhortation” are different than “teaching”? Are women still prohibited from publicly displaying those gifts?

It seems to me that our understanding and practice of Complementarianism has actually failed to complement the genders because it has removed the public opportunity for women to demonstrate gifts Scripture clearly says are open to women. I realize that by even entertaining these thoughts I am opening a can of worms that will likely be strung end t0 end around me to quarantine me within the the Complementarian tent. But I just can’t help but wonder if we haven’t applied Paul’s idea of “teaching” and used it to exclude women from things they were never meant to be excluded from in the first place? What if the issue is not really gender roles but the role of Sunday in general and specifically sermons?

While I am not convinced by John Dickson’s position that the role of “teacher” that Paul excludes women from is no longer in play, I do agree with him that our modern sermons have lots and lots of “prophecy” and “exhortation.” Does that mean women should be able to preach? Can a woman preach under a male elder’s “authority”? What if a local church’s main emphasis for the Sunday sermon is not “teaching” but “exhortation”? I don’t have any good answers for these questions, but I think we need to be asking them if we really want a complementarianism that truly complements the genders.

I firmly believe that however we understand gender roles, we should celebrate the differences rather than pursue sameness. I believe that there are different gender roles and that this is God’s design. But I wonder, in our zeal to protect those differences, have we gone too far? Have we not gone far enough? How and when and to whom should women exercise the gifts God has given them and how can our local churches make this a priority?

It’s interesting to think through some of the implicit assumptions we pick up along the path of life. Like that weirdly glinting rock that you couldn’t take your eyes off of it, so you put it in your pocket and them promptly forgot the reason it attracted you in the first place. The Christian life is one of growth and change. We are not the same people we once were. Nor are we now who we are yet to become. What’s best for us in one season of life may or may not be the right fit years later. It is also possible that we might not have been ready for that season, had it dawned earlier in life.

Certain things become fixtures for certain seasons of life. A certain church family might be a good fit, providing you with the challenge and growth you need for a certain phase of life, but you can’t imagine going back to it years later. And that’s OK. Because the Christian life is about growth. And just like you may need a certain church’s emphasis during a particular phase of life, not every local church is for every person.

Every local church has, for lack of a better way to put it, a “personality.” And not every local church is the best fit for every person. This was an interesting conclusion to come to as a church planter. The implicit (and sometimes explicit) advice is to get as many people as you can as quickly as you can and hold on to them for as long as you can. Because that’s “success,” right? Pardon my sarcasm.

But if the goal is to get as many people as you can as quickly as you can and hold on to them for as long as you can, then you will, by necessity, water-down your own vision in order to please as many people as possible. Thus, we have many church planters now pastoring churches they themselves might not even be a member of if it were up to them. Every local church has its own culture. There ought to be certain things that are universal to Christian communities:  love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control, sacrificial love for one another, etc. But there are also millions of possible contextual variables from that point forth.

You are not best friends with just anyone. In fact, if you’re like most people, there are only a handful of people that you really connect deeply with in your lifetime. And everyone gravitates towards different people and that’s a beautiful thing because it celebrates the uniqueness of the personalities God has given us. But it’s not just that deep-level connection that is selective and unique. Not everyone line dances. Not everyone likes football. Not everyone crochets. Not everyone yodels. Not everyone likes NASCAR or American Pickers. Some people like Bob Dylan and some people like Prince and some people like both. So we clump with those who share our peculiar particulars. And that’s OK as long as we remember that our peculiarities are no better or worse than someone else’s, so let’s celebrate all the weirdness instead of judging other people’s pop culture weaknesses.

So we need to learn to know ourselves. And we must find environments where we are encouraged to truly become sanctified versions ourselves rather than watered-down versions of someone else. And not every person is going to find that in every local church. That doesn’t mean that if you just don’t like any of the churches in your area that you can sacrifice Christian community because all of your preferences aren’t being met. That’s selfish consumerism. You may have to make compromises to be in Christian community, but remember, it’s most likely just for a season of your life. The day will come when you can’t imagine going back to be a part of that church because you’ve grown so different from that time in your life. But that day also dawns with the realization that you would not be the person you are now without that time in your life.

So be thankful now. And let’s all become sanctified versions of ourselves rather than watered-down versions of someone else.

As a pastor and friend to people, I think a lot about the Christian Phrases that we use. In fact, I probably think about these phrases more than most people.

To be completely honest, I still struggle at living as a missional Christian. I an trying to make the shift so that more of my time is with those who don’t yet believe instead of those who do. But I’m not there yet. Which means that I currently find myself in a weird limbo. I still spend more of my time than not with Christians but I am spending enough time with those who don’t yet believe or those who recently have that I get bombarded with a very weird mix of questions and concerns.

A friend of mine who who has come to faith in Jesus recently forwarded me the attached picture with a question about the claims being made by the image and by Christians. During this time, I was also thinking a lot about the fact that the “Christian church” in America is losing its young at an alarming rate and the ideas of N.T. Wright on the “authority of Scripture” (here and here). Where is all of this going, you might wonder? And that’s a fine question indeed.

I wonder, if, at least part of the reason (and I’d venture to say, a good deal of the reason) we are seeing so many young people leave “the faith” (as they understand it to be) is because we have incorrectly taught them what it means that the Bible is ‘inerrant.” Wayne Grudem and others have taught that this idea means that:

The inerrancy or Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm any thing that is contrary to fact.

This seems reasonable enough, doesn’t it? The Bible, which Christians believe to be the recorded revelation of God Himself through His interactions with people as recorded by people under His direction, does not contradict fact. Of course, we have all kinds of problems with this idea, like who says what is fact and what isn’t, but for now, let’s focus on the inherent idea that many people have, which is that; if the Bible contains anything at all in it that doesn’t seem to jive with itself, then the whole thing ought to be thrown out.

Consider, for example, something that many people who want to disregard the whole Bible will point to?

Genesis 1:25-27: And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. ²⁶Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” ²⁷So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

And then consider:

Genesis 2:18-20: Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” ¹⁹Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. ²⁰The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.

Clearly these accounts “contradict” one another. After all, in one, man is created after the animals and in the other, he is clearly crated before the other animals. This must mean that the entire Bible is false, because we have a historical contradiction here, right?! And this is exactly where I believe much of the difficulty has burrowed through the cracks of modern-day Christendom.

We have adopted the notion that since the Bible is true, then it must be interpreted as we interpret any other self-contained historical text. In other words, if Lincoln had contradicted himself in the Gettysburg Address, we would have reason to doubt the entire message. Or, perhaps more to the point, if an academic textbook gave differing accounts of a historical event, our modern audience would certainly complain that the editors did not whittle it down to an agreed-upon interpretation.

But what if more ancient audiences did not share our predilection for certainty?

What if you were the first reporter upon the scene of 9-11 and, as you began to squint through the rubble to interview the first people out of the madness you got a version of the story that said that the building collapsed before the second plane suicided into a building but then you got a version of the story that said that no building gave up until the second plane blitzed a building? Would you conclude that nothing ever happend? No plane ever hit any building because two accounts of the same story contradicted one another?

Or, as long as I’m pushing buttons, what about the young earth/literalist/usually Dispensationalist people?! There are a lot of Christians who openly preach that if you don’t interpret the “7 Days of Creation” literally then you might as well throw out the rest of the Bible because you don’t believe it. Really? Even though there is ample historical-critical-literary research to show that someone could believe in an Old-Earth and still believe the Bible? But I digress. My point is that we’ve raised a generation of people to believe that if someone present scientific evidence (and we can debate about what is evidence or what is not some other time) that the earth is probably older than just some thousands of years, then either that person is automatically wrong or the entire Bible is automatically wrong.

A story is not authoritative the same way a dictionary is authoritative. We look to one as a very detailed, literal resource. We look to the other as the interpretation of true events. Stories hold power over most people. We forget that, before writing, before printing, before blogging, “truth” was passed down through stories. They were coddled, protected, cared-for and preserved. It was a family honor to be entrusted with the preservation of the family story.

But if your brother also told the story and your two versions differed, no one believed thus that the entire story should be thrown out. They simply understood that, though the events are true, they are preserved in story form. However, somewhere along the Enlightenment Trail, we came to believe that science/fact/provability is the end-all be-all, so Christians naturally ran the Bible through this grid.

So, we have entire ministries devoted to proving the “literal” interpretation of the Bible that God may never have intended to be preserved in a “literal vs. non literal” manner. We have an entire generation believing that if someone, anywhere in the world can find something in the Bible that seems to “contradict” itself then the whole thing is false. But what if it was never meant to be read that way? What if we have turned the doctrine of inerrancy into a stumbling block it was never meant to be?

I have no problem believing in the miracles recorded in the Bible. I believe God created everything, therefore He certainly has power over what is “possible.” I have no hesitation believing the grand story of the Bible: A Holy, Loving, Perfect God who, though One is Three, existing in perfect community, decided to open up that community to a creature made in His image who chose to rebel against His provision, but He still pursued people by not only fulfilling the requirements upon them but the penalty of breaking those requirements so that someday, everything would be made right.

I am not flustered when I am presented by so-called contradictions in the Bible because I have been in enough counseling sessions to know that, even when you ask the same person to tell you the same story more than once, you will find discrepancies.

I worry that, in sincere attempts to “protect the faith,” many Christians have unwittingly set the next generation up for a tidal wave of rebellion because we have trained them to interpret a true story through the lens of scientific data. I am not a judge. But if I were, and I were to hear a case in which every recitation of the events sounded exactly the same, I would not believe anyone. However, if there were differences in story, even from the same teller, I would be more inclined to believe the whole, even if I was still left with some questions about specifics.

Stories can be authoritative. Just not the same way as scientific data. That doesn’t mean a story isn’t true, just that we understand it differently than we do a research project.

What do you think? Have we gone down a crooked path with the doctrine of inerrancy? Am I cookoo for Cocoa Puffs? How should we make the most sense of the most Scriptures?

“Christian Celebrity Culture” is such an odd phenomenon. Christian leaders putting themselves on display is certainly nothing new. Jesus intentionally incorporate His disciples into everyday life. Paul urged his readers to follow his pattern of life. I wonder how many of Paul’s readers read those words and thought things like “I’ll never match up to that! That Paul is too holy for me!” Or, how many in the original audience compared Paul’s place in life to their own: “We should all be like Paul! Why isn’t our church more like that?!”

There seems to be a glut of “missional” videos and sermons with people sharing stories of gospel transformation; at a personal and community level. While I love that the idea of living missionally is gaining exposure as a normative expectation of every Christian, I also worry that the flood of success stories has an unintended impact on many. It’s not uncommon for these success stories to breed discontent and sometimes even discouragement in local church families. We as individuals look at these videos and hear these stories and wonder why we don’t have exhilarating stories to share. And why doesn’t my church family look like that one? Why don’t my pastors look like those pastors. They must be doing something wrong. I need a church that lives like that. Stories that were meant to encourage and spur on, oftentimes actually discourage. Because we compare ourselves without the context of everyday life.

I wonder if that’s how Paul’s original audience took his audacious statement that they should imitate him as he imitated Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1). Though it’s hard to know for sure, I doubt that Paul’s audience met this claim with the same discouragement of comparison that we meet celebrity Christian success stories with. I think there’s an important difference. In Philippians 4:9, Paul says: “What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.”

Notice: Paul says to practice not only what we’ve learned and received and heard, but seen. I can learn a lot of internet sermons. We now have unprecedented access to arguably some of the richest theological teachings ever, at the click of a button. I can listen to world renowned pastors and teachers. And I can easily begin to place them on a pedestal. And it’s not long before discouragement nips again at my heels. Why can’t I be more like them? But Paul says to practice what they’ve seen him do. I may be reading in to the text here, but I don’t think so: to see how Paul lived, they had to share life with him. His teachings were never removed from practice.

The next time you hear some of the conference and video missional success stories, listen for phrases like “Then one day . . . ” What we forget is that the churches, pastors and people in those videos are boiling down days, weeks, months and oftentime, years of perseverance into a single story. So, listen to these stories. Be encouraged that you too can live a missionary’s life in the everyday. But don’t compare yourself or your church to the polished product of a sermon illustration or professionally-produced video.

We must learn to redefine “wins” and “losses” in the grand scheme of things. Most of us are not going to have spontaneous baptisms and mass conversions as we go through our weeks. But we can live everyday life with Gospel intentionality.

One of the precepts of the Christian life is growth. This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. One of the foundations of all of life is growth. If a baby doesn’t grow, we call it “failure to thrive” and it is a serious condition. It’s not normal or good when a baby doesn’t grow. We rightfully worry.

And yet, we’ve created a “christian culture” in which someone can be a “baby Christian” for 5, 10, 15. 20, . . . years and no one bats an eye. We may think, “well, they’re not growing as fast as others but who am I to judge?” So we have church buildings full of people who don’t pray; don’t read their bible; don’t live in sacrificial community; don’t love their neighbors, and in all reality, aren’t growing. True, who am I to judge anyone else’s soul, but if there is no growth, is there life?

We are not yet what we will be. But neither are we once were. In 2 Corinthians 3:18, Paul says that we are “being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another.” In 1 Corinthians 13:11, Paul says that there is a time when we outgrow childish ways. In Ephesians 4, Paul says that as we grow in maturity (which is a community goal), we become more stable. Hebrews 5:14 tells us that as we grow, we gain more discernment. We are able, more and more, to tell what is good from what is evil.

And yet, at least in America, we marinate in consumerism. We are taught from an early age to expect to be served. So much so that I’m sure there are people who no longer know how to make coffee because you can buy it everywhere. We have imported consumerism into Christianity so much so that we can drop the phrase “church shopping” without thinking twice. We expect to be served (or at least “fed”). In consumerism, we learn to trust the retailers. We develop our own set of brand allegiances and we look to certain retailers as arbiters of our trusted brands. Why is there always a Lowes right across the street from Home Depot? Because some of us trust one while others trust the other.

But what happens when Christians, marinating in consumerism, hand discernment over to retailers? For many, “discernment,” the ability to determine good from evil, has simply become a point-of-purchase decision. I bought it at the “Christian” bookstore, it must be OK, right?! No. In any Christian bookstore, you can buy books by people who are not Christians. People who deny the resurrection. People who openly downplay sin. People who do not believe in the Trinity. I’m not being narrow and legalistic here. There are boundaries to Orthodoxy or everyone is a Christian. I’m just saying that you can walk into any Christian bookstore and buy works by authors who are clearly outside any traditionally accepted version of Orthodoxy. Books by people who are not Christians. And no one thinks twice.

So much of our Christianity separates the “professionals” the people who are paid to do ministry, from the rest of us. The Pastoral Staff are the ones who get paid to study and pass it one in bytes for the rest of us, right? I go to them when I have a problem because they’re equipped for that, not me. And it’s a Christian bookstore, so I can trust what’s inside.

Instead of teaching people to rely on “professional ministers,” making people dependent on pastors, local leaders should focus on equipping God’s people for everyday ministry (Ephesians 4:11-13). Discernment is not something we can hand over to the professionals (who don’t always have our best interest at heart), much less the retailers (who care even less about your soul, whether they are designated Christian or not). It is something we must hone ourselves in community.

Our system is perfectly designed to produce the results we’re getting. So we should not be surprised that American Christianity resembles the local shopping mall more often than the Kingdom of the Living Christ.