Kristi and I just got back from Newport Beach, CA where we had the privilege of spending the past few days with church planters/pastors and their wives from all over the world at the Acts 29 Network Pastors Retreat. We had a great time in a beautiful city worshiping with friends and we met pastors, church planters and their wives from all over the world. It was a refreshing time and a great reminder of why we joined the network in the first place.

I have friends who swim in different theological streams than I do. I love this and want to respect their theological convictions, learn from them. But, invariably, I get concern from friends in other streams about Acts 29. Some of the concerns are based on individual personalities and others on cultural/theological issues. Some is legitimate and some of it is just silly. Back in 2009, I wrote on our church blog several reasons why we were aligning with Acts 29 and I wanted to revisit those today.

We planted a church because we want people to know Jesus. We want to make, mature and multiply disciples. We want to see the entire NW Valley of Phoenix transformed by the Gospel. We want to see Phoenix and Arizona changed. Beyond that, we want the world to know about Jesus. This isn’t going to happen through our church alone. And so we have partnered with other Jesus-loving, Bible-believing, Truth-proclaiming, City-serving churches around the world to plant churches that plant churches. Here are the reasons I wrote in 2009 that we were partnering with Acts 29:

• Jesus-centered missionality

I realize that “missional” is a bit of a junk-drawer word (surely you have a drawer somewhere in your house where everyone puts everything?!), but at it’s base, it communicates the idea of living like missionaries in our immediate context. Living on and in God’s mission. Missions involves cultural engagement and lays the groundwork for evangelism.

Acts 29 not only understands and encourages this but does so from a Christ-centered framework, putting Jesus at the center of everything. This is key and must not be overlooked. Indeed, as Mars Hill Church says: “It’s All About Jesus.” To claim to be “on mission” without Jesus is simply a fool’s errand at best, and suicide at worst. Acts 29 understands that, not only is Jesus the embodiment of God on Mission, He is our hope and strength as He sends us in His footsteps (Matthew 28:18-20).

• Vocal doctrinal commitment

It is a sometimes-tempting trap for many church planters to water down doctrine in the hopes of attracting more people. Acts 29 rejects such shallow options, understanding that, to open up your Bible at all and teach is to involve doctrine and we’d better strive to get it right. We only do disservice when we treat the things of God as though they’re merely self-help tools to get us our best lives. Acts 29 unapologeticaly encourages and empowers pastors to lead their people deep into the glories of Calvary.

• The centrality of the Church

While the doctrine (and practice) of the Church is under attack from nearly every direction (including many who profess faith in Christ), Acts 29 stands on the principle that the Church is at the center of God’s redeeming Work. It is for the Church that Christ laid down His life (Ephesians 5:25).

• The importance of family

It’s often been said: “As goes the home, so goes the church.” And yet, it’s quite common for many ministers to pour themselves out so much in ministry that they have nothing left for their families, which should be their primary ministry. Acts 29 not only understands this, they call their pastors/planters to first be family men before pastors. This is often sorely overlooked to the detriment of everyone involved. I am humbled to be part of a network that takes family so seriously.

• Calling Men to Be Men

I was never a jock and I cringe a bit when I see masculinity defined primarily in athletic/competitive terms. But, it doesn’t take long in most churches to realize that more women participate in church life than do men. Acts 29 is intentionally calling men to be men, to be sacrificial leaders, to be humbly bold, to lead their families and the church. This is much needed in our culture.

• Kingdom over Denomination

Acts 29 has members across the denominational landscape. I see this as a tremendous strength. Acts 29 strives to put the Kingdom over our differences (as important as they may be). It’s much more difficult to strive to work across those boundaries than it is to hide behind them. What’s even more difficult is to firmly hold certain doctrines in a closed hand while holding others in an open hand. I am honored to be part of a network that puts the unity of the Kingdom above the differences of denomination.

—-

Three years later, I would only add to that list. There is a zeal for evangelism and a heart-desire for diversity in this network that I haven’t always seen in my other church-life affiliations. There is a growing emphasis on international church planting and there is a very real desire to pursue humility and a winsome approach to reformed theology that I myself have not always pursued. I am thankful to be challenged in this area.

I am more encouraged now than ever to be part of the network. We have a lot to learn, but, by God’s grace, we are trying.

Yesterday, I started a new series about things I wish someone had told me when we set out to plant Church of the Cross nearly four years ago. These are things I’ve been thinking about for some time now, partly because I get the opportunity to talk with a lot of pastors and church planters and partly because I spend more time than I probably should in reflection/introspection. Hopefully, some of these things will be helpful to those who are at some stage of planting a church now, or even possibly anyone thinking/praying through what it may look to transition an existing church to more of a GCM approach.

Yesterday, we talked about the necessity of starting with discipleship because , if discipleship is not at the center of our churches, something else will be. If we don’t start with discipleship, it can be very difficult to find a way to get it in the backdoor once we’ve established a church identity or culture.

And it’s that idea of church identity/culture that I want to think about now. Everyone has a distinct personality. That’s not only OK, it’s beautiful. It’s what makes us unique; the little quirks, the things we like or don’t, the way we inflect words or the funny little expression. After having served in some form of “paid ministry” for nearly 10 years now, I’ve come to realize that, just as everyone has a distinct personality, so every local church has, for lack of a better term, a personality and that’s not only OK, it’s beautiful.

Every church has (or should have) its own personality. This includes big things like doctrinal stances but also smaller (or seemingly smaller, even though everything a church “does” should be driven by theology) things like the way we gather, or sing or organize ourselves. This, of course, isn’t grounds to say that every local church has the right to define for themselves everything completely, there are certain non-negotiables to being a “Christian, Evangelical” church but I’m not going to hit on those today. Instead, I want to think about the “personality” of each local church.

It all too often seems to me that the machine in which we operate “church planting” tries to reduce everything down to a formula, down to “do these steps and you will grow a large church quickly.” It’s not wrong to want to reach people but it’s not right that the formula we tend to give church planters means that there is a shocking sterility and sameness to many of our churches. Alan Hirsch and Michael Frost tell of traveling to do research for their book The Shaping of Things To Come, saying that one of their “lasting impressions” of the many, many churches they visited all over the world was that:

“by and large, in spite of language differences, they tended to be invariably dull and rather predictable. They had a disturbing propensity to look, feel, and act in basically the same way. They sang the same basic songs and followed the same basic order of service in their corporate worship. The sheer predictability of it all was quite shocking and deeply disturbing. It sometimes seems as if there is some form of “template” at work in evangelical churches all over the world, regardless of language and some culture.”

I suspect that at least part of the reason Frost and Hirsch felt this is that, to a large degree, there is a certain template. We clear expectations of what church should “look like” and these expectations are largely institutional and pragmatic. And, as a church planter, if I’m led to believe that I need to grow as big as I can as fast as I can, then of course I’m going to go with the template. After all, “it works,” right?

But, practically, when this becomes the case, much of the passion, zeal, and specific vision that led someone to plant a church in the first place simply gets squashed. If the goal is to grow as big and fast as possible, then our mentality will invariably be that we need to hold on to people as tightly and as long as possible. The unavoidable result is that something in that initial vision gets sacrificed as soon as someone who doesn’t like “that piece” threatens to leave, whatever their particular pet peeve might be. The result will nearly always be to come as close as possible to the lowest common denominator on everything because that will keep the most people for as long as possible.

I wish that someone had told me to be as clear on Church of the Cross’ particular vision as soon as possible and to humbly but boldly stick to that. Stick to it. Be open to biblical criticism. Be humble enough to receive critique and search it and maybe apply it, but stick to your vision because if you don’t define it, someone else most certainly will. This has tremendous implications. It means that, for the long-term health of the church plant, we must be willing to let people go. It even means that there may be times when we recommend people leave. Not because we’ve got it all figured out, not to be exclusionary but because every church has a particular “personality,” not every local church is meant for every person and that’s not only OK, it’s beautiful.

This means that you must be clear on your theological convictions and how those inform what and why you do things. It also means that you must be willing and patient enough to explain (over and over again) why you do things the way you do. If you don’t know why or can’t explain it, you probably shouldn’t be doing it.

This means that we will most likely grow slower (more on that in coming days) but, Lord willing, healthier. I wish someone had told me to have the humble confidence to define who Church of the Cross would become, not in terms of what we were against but what we were for and to love people enough to realize that, not every person will “get it” or even “fit in,” and that’s OK. We should not intentionally exclude people, even if they do things differently, but if the goal is to grow as fast as possible, then sooner or later, part of what makes a local church unique is going to be lost in the pursuit of numbers.

When we ask people to change aspects of their personality to suit us, we call it emotional abuse. When we ask church planters and church planters to change aspects of a local church’s personality, we call it “church growth.”

• Read Church Planting Things I Wish They’d Told Me (1): Start With Discipleship.
• Read Church Planting Things I Wish They’d Told Me (3): You’ll Probably Never Be A Mega-Church And It’s OK To Grow Slowly
• Read Church Planting Things I Wish They’d Told Me (4): Don’t Plant Out Of Opposition
  
• Church Planting Things I Wish They’d Told Me (5): Don’t Plant To Prove Yourself
  

There’s trouble in paradise. There’s a growing disconnect in church planting culture; at least in some of the circles in which I travel. In many regards, I’m still being told that the goal is to have a “megachurch.” For all the talk about discipleship-based church models and missional living, the speakers at nearly every conference are megachurch guys, which communicates that they’re the guys who’ve done it well, that I should be learning from. I don’t for a second doubt that I do, in fact, have a lot to learn from these guys, but what if I don’t ever want to be a megachurch pastor?

I’m being told that church planters should check out AT&T’s coverage because they let you block certain people from calling you and that “there will just be some people in your church who don’t need your number” while my wife is being told all about how some pastor’s wives are escorted from the house into worship by bodyguards who even get to determine who gets to talk to said pastor’s wife.  But what if I don’t ever want to be a megachurch pastor and my wife doesn’t want bodyguards determining who can talk to her?

Everywhere we turn in church planting culture, the megachurch guys are the ones giving advice and the assumption is nearly always that, what they’re doing is what we should be doing. And yet, at the same time, there’s a growing number of megachurch guys who are openly admitting their struggles with the megachurch approach. Matt Carter, of Austin Stone openly laments that if his church were to add even 3,000 more people on Sundays that little would actually change in his city and that he’s tired of just adding more people (a paraphrase from his 2010 Phoenix Acts 29 Boot Camp sermon – I couldn’t find the audio) while Matt Chandler of The Village also regularly talks about similar issues.

My friend Justin Anderson of Redemption Church, in his insightful piece “Reflections on Seven Years of Church Planting,” writes:

I’ve seen the “Promised Land” and it’s just OK. For the last couple years, I have been living the dream. Our church has seen explosive growth, people be saved, baptized, and join groups all the time. We have four campuses, thousands of people, and a great staff. Finally, all the toil of church planting has paid off and the prospect of megachurch stardom was a reality.

Most of us want some version of this in ministry. I finally reached the promised land, and I can report that it’s just OK. Don’t get me wrong: there were parts that I loved, but at the end of the day there is always more to do, always another idea, hill to climb or battle to fight—it never ends.

After several months of reflection, I can honestly say that I will miss the people whom I have grown to love over the last seven years far more than I will miss big budgets, assistants, buildings, speaking gigs, or any of the perks that come with megachurch life.

Though Anderson doesn’t go as far as Carter does in his denunciations of the megachurch model, notice that he’s also not extolling its virtues. In fact, he says that, as he transitions from AZ to CA to plant all over again, it is the relationships that he’ll miss the most. So, on the one hand, I’m being told (at least implicitly) that megachurch-dom is the goal and yet, many of the megachurch guys are openly saying that they don’t necessarily want to be in the position everyone else is saying church planters should strive for. There’s a disconnect.

Jared Wilson reflects on Anderson’s piece:

Too often we envision “successful ministry” — this vision may look different from person to person, church to church — and pour our energies and affections into seeing that vision become a reality, assuming that once we finally “arrive,” things will be better, easier, finally and ultimately fulfilling. This is, functionally, idolatry. It is a creation of a false heaven, not simply false in its falling short of the real Paradise but false in its inclusion of talent, acquired skills, and grit to reach.

Don’t settle for the false heaven of a “successful ministry.” Because real success is faithfulness. Big church or small church, growing church or declining church, well-known church or obscure church — all churches are epic successes full of the eternal, invincible quality of the kingdom of God when they treasure Jesus’ gospel and follow him. Jesus did not give the keys of the kingdom with the ability to bind and loose on both sides of the veil only to those who’d reached a certain attendance benchmark. So do well, pursue excellence, and stay faithful. God will give you what you ought to have according to his wisdom and riches.

Even (or, one might say “especially) in church circles, we’ve come to believe the lie that bigger is always better and that measuring “success or failure” in ministry is akin to counting numbers. And yet, many of the guys who have “made it” are realizing the disconnect. I’m not sure if he was trying to make this point or not, but I believe that Anderson, in the same piece, identifies the issue behind the disconnect:

Make a specific plan for discipleship-and call it discipleship.

In Matthew 28, Jesus’ final command was to “go and make disciples.” This was a direct statement of purpose for the church, but in many of our churches, there isn’t a clear definition of a disciple, let alone a plan for discipleship. Praxis was no different. We knew exactly how we wanted to run our worship services and live on mission but had no plan for discipleship.

Most of our churches are doing discipleship, if only accidentally, but few of us call it that. So, instead of spending all your time on promotional flyers, try to craft a simple plan to make disciples of Jesus. Also, stop wracking your brain trying to think of a unique Greek or Hebrew word for it—just call it discipleship.

Now, let me be clear: I’m not saying or hinting that megachurch can’t or don’t do discipleship well or at all. But I am saying that it’s more difficult in a megachurch environment and probably happens less often than in a smaller, Gospel Communities on Mission – style church where discipleship is the driving factor, the main organizing principle rather than the weekend event (yes, I realize I just smuggled in all sorts of my own bias, so if you disagree, I’d love to hear from you; have you seen megachurches become megachurches because discipleship was their primary focus?).

If discipleship is, as Anderson says a “purpose of the church,” then shouldn’t it be at the center of our churches? Shouldn’t it be the focus and drive the structure of the local church? If discipleship doesn’t have as naturally or as easily in a megachurch environment, then why are megachurches held up as the model for church planters?

Most church planters have not been called or equipped to be megachurch pastors. But they can faithfully disciple some and equip them in turn to do the same. Where is the conference telling them that’s not only OK but better?

But then again, maybe I’m just overly cynical.

It seems as though, largely speaking, that American Christians fall broadly into a couple of main categories: those that emphasize doctrine or those that emphasize action. There is, of course, that large group of churches that water down just about everything in order to grow numerically. In fact, there is a very large church in my area in which leaders readily admit that you won’t hear public teaching above a seventh-grade level. They call it their USA Today approach. But those churches are not my point today.

One of the main reasons we hear at Church of the Cross, where I pastor, for Christians leaving our church family is that we don’t have enough “bible study.” These people often go to churches with a lot of classes and that heavily emphasize doctrine. Now, don’t get me wrong, I love to study the Bible, I love to study doctrine and doctrine is fundamental to our faith. If you don’t believe in the Trinity, you’re not a Christian. There are clear boundaries to Christianity and we need to know those boundaries but I’m not convinced that “studying the bible” is the main thing the church should be doing. In fact, our right doctrine should move us to action.

Jesus very clearly says: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). Jesus commands that His people make disciples, “teaching them to obey” all that He commanded (Matthew 28:18-20) and James says: “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world” (James 1:27).

Scripture is very clear that right thinking (doctrine) changes our heart (affections) and that this results in action. We are not yet doing it all that well, but I am not interested in pastoring a church of people who want to learn more that they won’t do. If our churches are not putting faith in to action, all the doctrine we study is simply puffing us up (1 Corinthians 8:1).

This is an uncomfortable thing to consider. Lots of people will loudly proclaim, “Yes, but our actions don’t save us! Salvation by grace though faith alone! (Ephesians 2). Fair enough, but I’m not saying that our actions produce faith. I’m saying that our faith should produce actions that ask us to sacrifice and become “good news” to our surrounding culture. James says that if we simply hear the Word without doing it, we are deceived (James 1:22) and that if our faith doesn’t result in works, then it’s not real faith (James 2).

Jesus is not going to be impressed if you can parse your Greek and Hebrew and if you’ve worked out the definitive ordo salutis and if you’ve worked out Infra- vs. Supralapsarianism. Most Christians in America already know enough Scripture that we don’t live. Jesus says that whatever we do for “the least of these” we do for Him (Matthew 25:40).

I’m still not sure what this looks like in Suburban NW Phoenix, but I do know that the church should serve those in need and that, the more we learn, the more we should live. So, at Church of the Cross, we’re not interested in studying the Bible just to study but to become equipped to live on mission. We want to put it in to practice. We want to live it. The question shouldn’t be whether a church emphasizes doctrine or action but whether or not the truth about Jesus is moving people to action. We are really struggling with this as a church family but I am incredibly humbled that there are others who want to see faith put in to action.

As I’m want to do, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about church and church planting. I’ve also just finished reading Hugh Halter’s latest book Sacrilege. Over the years, Halter has been a tremendous source of challenge and encouragement. On one hand, I come from a fairly “traditional” church background in which, though it may not have been explicitly been communicated, we’re expected to be more comfortable around those who already follow Jesus than those who do not; so Halter has pushed many of the buttons I thought I was holding on to. On the other hand, I’ve long had a heart to plant a church in which people at every stage of faith were drawn closer to Jesus, so he has been a breath of fresh air, reminding me that I’m not the only one (I was going to say, “reminding me that I’m not crazy,” but I don’t know Hugh, so for all I know, he could be quite crazy.).

One verse Halter references really stuck out to me (yes, there was much to applaud in the book, but for the sake of this post, I want to ponder this particular verse). Mark 2:17:

“Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Throughout the book, Halter reminds us that Jesus spent quite a bit of his time and energy connecting with people whom the “religious” or “spiritual” people didn’t think Jesus should be with. In fact, this is the premise introducing Luke 15, which contains one of Jesus’ most famous parables, the Prodigal Sons:

Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him. 2And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”

But Mark 2:17 has really been haunting my thoughts and my prayers lately. In my current situation, I am blessed to have the chance to talk with a lot of pastors and, in particular, church planters. This has caused quite a bit of self-examination lately. I’ve found myself wrestling with the one question a church planter never leaves behind: Is the church we’ve planted the church we initially wanted? It seems that in church culture, we like to swing the pendulums. We either immerse ourselves in “building up Christians” or “reaching out” as though, somehow, these things are mutually exclusive.

In 1 Corinthians 14, when addressing people on the issue of speaking in tongues, Paul assumes that there will be unbelievers present. I wonder how many theologically solid churches also intentionally word and present things in a way in which they assume unbelievers will be present. Do we take time to explain our terms and practices? It seems that many of our church plants err on one side or the other. What has been called “seeker sensitive” or “theologically deep.” But are these things really at odds with one another?

“Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Are the churches we are planting places where “the sick,” sinners, those who don’t know where else to turn, feel welcomed and loved while also challenged? It’s a fine balance to call sin sin while also loving sinners. Or are the churches we’re planting places where we have a “preview service” so we can appeal to certain Christian sensibilities and get a “core group” of people “on board” so that we can have “respectable numbers?” Pardon my cynicism, but I’m really wrestling through some of these issues.

I am in no way saying that Christians shouldn’t be part of church plants. But, I am saying that I wonder if we don’t sometimes cater our church plants in such a way where we can simply guarantee that we have certain numbers of Christians to present to the people who ask. I want an environment where those who already follow Jesus are challenged to go deeper in their relationship with Jesus and those who don’t yet know Him are not only challenged to follow Him but made to feel both welcomed and challenged until they do so.

I fully realize that I am probably naive, but I don’t understand churches that set the bar so high that only those who already follow Jesus will ever feel comfortable. And even then, only certain types of Christians will have the “right doctrine” to belong to this church. In my own background, this is Reformed Theology, but it can be any number of issues. We are very prone to center our churches around practices and doctrines rather than Jesus. The result is that, in our pursuit of our particular doctrine or practice, we exclude many. We don’t explain what we do, we speak “Christianese” and we simply expect others ti immerse themselves into our culture as quickly as possible.

Are we more concerned with whether the sick find healing (and we all recognize our sickness), or that the healthy find a place to belong? Would it look any different if we continually considered the sick in everything we do? Why do we seem to believe in practice that these things are mutually exclusive?

I used to care A LOT about politics. I served as President of the College Young Republicans and, for a while, I even wanted to be a lobbyist. But, gradually, over the years, things have changed. My life is not demonstrably different under a Republican or Democrat President and I’m no longer registered as a Republican. Frankly, I’ve lost faith in the power of politics for any meaningful change. But me being jaded about politics is not really what I wanted to think about today.

As I’ve watched the lead-up to the Republican primaries, I’ve been struck by just how unoriginal the candidates are (with the exception of Ron Paul who is not the subject of this post). As each candidate one-ups the others and tell me why they’re the best, the main theme that seems to emerge across the board is that each of the Republican candidates is NOT President Obama. And at the end of the day, that’s all they have to do. At the end of 8 years of President Bush, all the Democrats had to do was run a candidate that WASN’T Bush. It was only to their benefit that they ran an extremely charismatic politician who iced his message with hope of change. But the truth of the matter is that he simply WASN’T Bush and the Republican candidates AREN’T Obama.

It’s disheartening when our politicians run on the fact that they aren’t like the other candidate, but that’s what it’s come to. But, in reality, it’s not all that different from the genesis of many church plants. I’ve been thinking of the idea of church planting lately, especially in Suburbia.

It is not uncommon for a church plant to basically be the result of disgruntled people leaving one church and simply NOT wanting to be like the church they left, so they plant a church. The result is that the mission of the new church is simply that they don’t have to be like the old church. That’s it. Therefore, once they quickly realize this goal, they’ve “succeeded.” The drive to reach people and become more like Jesus dwindles because they’ve already succeeded at their basic goal of not being like the church they left.

But is this really the point of the church? Shouldn’t we all be striving to become more like Jesus, making, maturing and multiplying His disciples? When this is our drive, we will make progress but we will never “arrive.” There should always be the holy discontent of wanting more Jesus, wanting to be more like Him, wanting others to know Him and know Him better.

If you’re considering church planting, please pray that it isn’t simply in reaction to a situation you want to leave. It’s not all that difficult not to be someone else. We’ve got to have more drive than this.

As a pastor (It’s been three years now since planting Church of the Cross, how long do I really hold on to the idea of calling myself “church planter”? I mean, I know it’s trendy and everything but we’re a self-sustaining, growing church, we’re not really a plant anymore, are we? But I digress), I’m constantly faced with pressure (mostly internal) to grow our church “faster” and “bigger.”

But we don’t dim the lights, we don’t have lasers, we don’t push all of our people to invite people to Sunday morning, our gatherings are pretty casual and we ask for interaction even during the sermons. We extend a lot of effort in making Sunday mornings feel more like a family gathering than a production. The truth is that we are (probably) not going to grow quickly. And we’re OK with that because, oftentimes, even in churches, slower growth is sometimes (but admittedly not always) more healthy than quick growth. In fact, I’ve heard from several pastors who have pushed very hard for fast growth and then complained about the problems it brings. But again, I digress.

Every local church has a personality and every local church is not for everyone. This is just a reality and it’s OK. But this realization requires discernment because, how do we know what’s a good fit and when we’re simply elevating our own preferences and being consumers, even when it comes to choosing a church. After all, how in the world did we even come to accept a phrase like “church shopping”?

I worry that much of the push to grow churches bigger as quickly as possible does little more than reinforce the consumer mentality already present in most Americans. I love the passion that many churches have to see people come to faith in Jesus. And we share that passion. We desperately want to see people come to know Jesus. But this isn’t always the same thing as wanting to grow a church quickly. In fact, when I look at Scripture, I sometimes see Jesus appearing to make it difficult for people to actually come and follow Him. Consider Matthew 8:18-22:

Now when Jesus saw a crowd around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. ¹⁹And a scribe came up and said to him, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.” ²⁰And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” ²¹Another of the disciples said to him, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.” ²²And Jesus said to him, “Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.”

Or Matthew 16:24-28:

Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. ²⁵For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. ²⁶For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? ²⁷For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. ²⁸Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

I wonder how many of our churches are actively calling people to deny themselves in order to follow Jesus; in order to be part of the local church? Now please don’t read this as me saying that we do this well and that I’m criticizing other churches for not doing this? I’m not saying we do it well, though we are trying.

I wonder if the emphasis on growing churches big quickly actually means that we will often soften Jesus’ demands in order to grow? Will a call to deny self be as attractive as lights, music and invitations? Can they co-exist? It seems that many churches recognize this, so they make their “church membership” process quite difficult; making it long and intense. But does this really result in a life of self-denial? What might it look like if churches really told their people that to be part of that local church would mean an entire restructuring of life?

I suppose the deeper question is what kind of growth are we looking for in our churches? Does numerical growth lend itself to or hinder genuine spiritual growth? Instead of giving our church planters tips on growing their churches numerically, how many books are their giving tips about how to call people to die to themselves? What might look different in church culture if we focused more on calling people to deny themselves as much as we focus on numbers?