Perservering to power

Do you want prophecy? The gift of healing? Are you disappointed with "where you're at", telling yourself, "if only I'd obeyed God in that situation, last summer... then I'd be on the fast-track. The anointing of God was on me when that revivalist from Africa was in town. But that anointing lost its freshness like an open bag of Sun Chips. I'm stuck waiting until I roll another lucky seven in the Holy Spirit."

Wrong. I wonder if God doesn't say to us, when we ask for new power, "well, what did you do with what I gave you in the past?". Concerning a word of time-sensitive prophecy we failed to deliver-- have we repented and are we doing now, naturally, what we can in light of that prophecy? Oops; we weren't just looking to deliver a dramatic word, were we? How interested were we in the natural follow-up? If the word was revelation that we never proclaimed, did we let it sit only because the ringing left our ears? Is that word any less true now? Are we being faithful now to proclaim it, even though its taste is dulled? We didn't just want to feel tingly while preaching it, did we? Are we still using the revelations that God spoke to us in the last ten years? Or have we cast them off-- as if they went out of style with our high school clothing? This is about repentance. True repentance leads to action, and true repentance for failing to respond to the Spirit's prompting may interest the Spirit in prompting us again.

The truths we heard and the power we felt are still here. Nothing has changed between our past heights and now. We must not be discouraged if our pool of Bethesda is still. The point is not that we missed out on some splashing, but that we're now standing in the pool. The same God is right here, right now. Ask Him to stir your soul in memory of what you saw when you failed to jump in. God doesn't want people standing around, staring at the pool, pining for past tremors. He wants people sitting in the pool, getting pruney-skinned in His still goodness, souls desiring to tremor before Him. Staring up at Him. Then He can use us easily.

-andrew

In Response to Andrew's Question

So here is part 2…

So in response to Andrew’s question: “And what of political and economic action? How far should the church go into these arenas and still call itself “The Church”? I'm not going to try to answer that. Maybe Kevin will share some advice?”

Well I’ll try to…I’ve been struggling with the questions ever since I gave my life to Christ, and God is constantly giving me new understandings.

In our current political arena we are presented with two parties that are really quite similar, with only a few differences that separate them.

So to sum it up (from my point of view) we have the Republicans who try to impose morality laws upon the country via the state. Although teaching and bringing about small bits of morality to the country is good, it still lacks the basis of conviction from Christ, hence non-believers (and many believers) seek to live morally out of fear of the state. [So… pros & cons]. Along with morality laws we have the Republicans in an alliance with the corporate interest’s side of free market enterprise. Republicans seek to protect free market capitalism, and remove any state influence in it, and in general remove the state from economic affairs. This again has pros & cons, when working in perfect competition it leads to a strive towards innovation and quality at lower costs, but also Capitalism is a system driven by personal gain and greed, and in order to succeed (max profits) you either need to work with or take advantage of those around you (and the environment). [Unfortunately it seems that a social-capitalist mix economy seems the best one I can think of, until of course Jesus return.] Finally since Reagan, the Republicans have taken on a militaristic approach towards foreign policy of actively reshaping the world to better suit American interests (especially corporate interests, and political power interests) through militaristic coercion and economic coercion.

On the other hand we have Democrats who generally support reducing the amount of morality laws the state imposes, helping to keep a clearer sense of separation of Church and state, but also leads to greater immorality. Along with that the Democrats seek to limit the abuses of free market capitalism by to a greater extent protecting workers rights, the environment etc… The pro being protecting people and trying to institute morally good things, but it also creates a dependency on the state for protection & to be taken care of (as opposed to God), along with that it limits some the free market. Finally after Reagan, the Democrats have sought to continue to advance American interests but rather through greater cooperation internationally, still using American military but generally to keep the peace rather than complete reshaping of countries.

So finally here is my advice as to how Christians should enter into politics, (this being the basis for the reasons why I political act)

1. Christians should be at the fore front leading/spear heading (but not excluding others) social movements and trying to fix social problems. Doing this not only helps create a better more just society to live in, but it give us the opportunity to show (through action & words) Christ’s love and concern for all people how doesn’t just care about your spiritual well being but, restoring all creation including government and law. (for what is righteous laws but tokens of the righteous government to come). Also it gives us great opportunity to work with other non-Christian groups, to communicate with them and to impact them.

A good example of this could’ve been with the issue of combating climate change, under Christian leadership, we could’ve tackled the problem and insured a working out come, but avoided having them use mottos like “save ourselves”. Also in the long run under Christian direction we can help prevent the anti-Christ from using this in aiding his rise to power.

Unfortunately what do we do now that Christians are not leading the fight against global warming? Well (imho) we still get involved and seek to redeem it.

2. Christians should seek and call for peace(violence). We all know that there shall be no peace until Christ returns, but we can still look to see some peace now. I really don’t know the full extent of how this should be applied, but I want to specifically address the conservative Christian justification for going into Iraq being that we removed Saddam to aid in converting Iraqis and all Muslims to Christ. First off not only are we failing in that respect (and it was a bad plan) but also it seems to me that we are using human methods to accomplish Heavenly goals. First off we are not: the kingdom of heaven, Christendom, Israel nor even a Christian nation for that matter. Along with that we are not led by God and neither does it seem we are capable in fighting a war justly [check out just war theology]. I could go on about this for awhile, but rather I would prefer relying on heavenly methods of redeeming a nation, and example being the early church or currently the church in China. (you know the stories).

Along with this we should seek and call for justice in all our foreign policy dealings.

3. We should call for morality within our own society. For example calling for an end to abortion, or limiting violence and sexuality on TV, or the internet etc…etc… [all the while be careful of giving the state to much power with censorship, or the state will likely abuse it]

4. Finally we should learn to critique & support our leadership, in hope of building them up rather than tearing them down. This was mentioned at the call and in other places, I’m not sure completely how this goes, but we need to find the understanding in how we interact with the government while remaining biblical.

Anyway. So this was much longer than expected, but it still all feels very brief, in that I could’ve explained each one much more. But it took me quite a long time just to write that. But, I hope you read it (and understand what I meant) and you tell me what you think... “as Iron sharpens Iron…”

~Kevin

In Response to "A Christianity Only the New York Times Could Love"

Ok…. So I’ve finally sat down to write my response to the articles & blog entries. (Almost 3 months since Julia requested my response…sorry). So after a lot of reading and re-reading, pacing around, prayers for guidance & some dinner this is what I’m going to respond to. [I realize there are a lot of points in the article; I’m just picking up on a few].

So what do I think? Well I think Dave Sliker is mostly right on. The type of Christianity that Barrack Obama appears practicing seems to be rather humanistic sort of Christianity, that seems to basically just thank God for giving us good morals. But than again isn’t recognizing God as the reason behind our morality not a testimony to God’s power & influence? You see this is why I think Dave Sliker went to far in stating that this sort of Christian faith that Obama & to a lesser extent Clinton are practicing is “outrageously anti-messiah in spirit and in truth.” Their faith is severely lacking in many respects, yes it ignores the under lying causes of these problems & it looks to man for solutions (which is very bad), but in it’s own small way it can draw people to God. For example Obama repeatedly reiterates throughout many of speeches how his compassion for people and the solutions to these problems which he is addressing are because of God in his life. And this does eventually draw people closer to God. For example people may ask to themselves ‘Who is this Jesus person who leads people such as these to act in such away?’ or they may think ‘they care about me because of God in their life, that must mean that God does care about me.’ And at the very least this does leave people with a positive rather than negative about God & Christianity, and therefore more open to learning about Christ.

[In a side note about Obama, he gives God all the glory for that as well as just running for office, which hints at (which he may mean) that he wouldn’t be able to do this but for God, but this isn’t something that all Christians of this type do (I realize that I’m brining in outside information, but go on you tube or other video sites to listen to Obama’s speeches)] but this act also leads people to Jesus in a small way.

This leads me to a second point which Sliker raises and that is “In my opinion, the initial by-product of my faith in Christ should not be to stir men and women to good works and worthy causes… (but to be) …stirred to 1. Know Jesus (and study the Bible) and / or 2. Pray more.” I do agree that those should be the by-product of my faith, but I disagree with the insertion of the word “initial” there. For as stated earlier even if the initial by product isn’t those two things, there are many opportunities where it isn’t appropriate or maybe even harmful to act out your faith with an evangelistic message or intimacy based message, but just by championing righteous laws you will hopefully eventually lead people to want to know Jesus in a greater way.

Ideally a candidate should just trust in God and live out his faith completely directing people to God and trust that God will take him/her to where he wants them to be. But if we are using human methods to do God’s work the above strategy makes good sense. But I definitely agree Barack Obama’s faith from what I can tell is heavily compromised as he isn’t sure if he believes in the after life (pg. 3), but from what I can tell he is Christian, but I am not a good judge of such things. Clinton I have my doubts as to whether she is even a believer.
Anyway, tell me what you think!

~Kevin

Birthpains

This world suffers the "beginning of birth pains". As I think of what lies ahead, I realize that I had dreaded it, as if I have been condemned to share this world's final death throes. But the suffering of the last days is not described as birth pains-- not death throes.

Like other birth pains, these trumpet the arrival of a new stage of life. This is not the end of all things.

This is only the beginning.

-a.

The Cross in the Soul

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials, that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ, whom having not seen you love. Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, receiving the end of your faith—the salvation of your souls. -- 1 Peter 1:3-9, NKJV

Every month I feel like I never knew what faith was before.

Our faith is founded on resurrection. We claim that His resurrection power, in us, is integral to the transformation of our born-again lives. Paul says the Gospel would be worse than a fallacy without the resurrection of Christ. But do we embrace His resurrection, in us? What is resurrection, in us?

Resurrection is walking through death.

Jesus sought His cross. We've abrogated God's glorious call to the Cross, choosing instead our petty complaints of suffering. I complain about having "too many calls on my life" and that "people don't understand me". But my complaints are not the Cross. They're just the interplay of my faults and the Curse, sprouting up around me. The Cross is what we're running to embrace. Jesus won't inflict the Cross on you. If your cross is on the ground and not your back, it's not The Cross. If it's not embraced, you're just hurting.

So what does it mean to embrace the Cross? And what value does suffering bring? I had nominalized it to a teacher of patience. But the stocks will teach patience-- and they don't require any effort on your part. Instead of a submission to stillness, the Cross demands an active submission-- the willful embrace of suffering. The Cross demands everything. And it gives us more: The love of God for God, in us. The pleasure of God in us, to us. Our love is demonstrated by our faith, which is the fountain of God's pleasure in us. Smiling at God through tears while suffering for Christ is good, but God's heart is ravished by lovers who will love Him straight through death. 'To the very [would-be] destruction of their souls. A lover that devoted will be denied no gift. When we have that love for (faith for) Him, we'll walk in His resurrection power. He will be free to do with us as He pleases because any pleasure He has in our doings will please us. The one who walked into the jaws of death without considering himself will raise the dead without conceit.

Which death am I talking about? It's whatever you have. Maybe the deepest death is in you-- the "great darkness" cast by the dark lamp of the eye that can't see God today. What greater submission and faith are shown than faithfully walking through inner (that is, complete) darkness? When hope itself is stolen from us, will we choose him? Do we have a faith that says, without bitterness, "though He slay me, yet I will love Him?" The spiteful statement "I don't even care" is no longer good enough. Bitterness is too heavy. When our ship is sinking, we must throw it overboard to stay above the waters.

I suspect that God is more free to bring happy resolutions to our pain if we embrace the Cross instead waiting out the suffering. Perhaps He is too interested in our good to let us down from the Cross until we take His way out.

If, like me, you've been wasting your heart bearing up suffering and aren't eager to run straight into the mouth of death, take hope. If we embrace the Cross in faith, walking in the Spirit, our innermost being stands away from our affliction. The flesh and heart are seared, but our spirit stands fast. We shall neither be spiritually oppressed under suffering nor shall we collapse into the dust.

Standing in God's spiritual strength while we bear the cross in our weak flesh is amazing.
It's like side-stepping bullets through the fourth dimension.
It feels like walking through walls.
It's His resurrection power to bear our burdens. The Cross.

-andrew

Maturity in Christ-likeness

God's sovereignty versus man's obedience

God's mercy versus God's judgment

God's wisdom versus God's zeal

God's authority versus God's humility (the lion versus the lamb)

Experiential versus evangelical (or experimental versus “the teachings of your father”)

Doing versus being (seeking versus waiting)

Serving versus leading

Long-suffering versus rebuking

Power to heal versus power to endure

Living by the Spirit versus living by the Word

As we strive to mature in Christ-likeness, we're aiming for the “radical middle” of many spiritual balances. It would seem that Jesus is a paradox; a riddle that we must crack to find maturity.

But this is a poor way of seeing it. I think it much better to see it like this: Jesus is not a paradox; Jesus is a person. There's nothing contradictory about a man who does one thing today and another tomorrow, or a man who does one thing for ten reasons while feeling five hidden things.

In fact, that's a great thing. Far better than an ideal set of values, Jesus is a living man. Jesus has more character than anyone else we've ever known. He is “fuller in his person-ness” than we can yet be. It blows our mind to reconcile these paradoxical virtues into our lives, but in thinking about Jesus doing the same, it somehow makes sense.

As we become more like Jesus, our personalities will become more full, just like his. Our “fullness of person” will allow us to live in “the radical middle”, just as He does. So it would be better yet to say that there is no radical middle point. There is only the person of Christ-- the dynamic Man who does the Father's will at all times. The right thing to do, to feel, to be, is what Jesus wants to do where you are, right now.

-andrew

In Response to ”A Christianity only the New York Times Could Love”

Relevance

In thinking about this article, I realized that I've been struggling here for a long time. I think most of us struggle with the draw between ministries that are more Christ-focused and ones that are more Church-focused. For me it feels like living in Christ and working in the Church. There's no competition between those two when you put them in ink, but it seems that we often either to fail to embrace Christ or fail to embrace each other. Yet embracing Christ and not embracing each other shows us to not truly be embracing Christ. And concerning embracing others and not Christ.... “do not even the pagans do that”?

We're not going to leave our places of Christ-centeredness and we're not about to leave the societal church either. I pray that they would have patience and not leave us! We need to find out how to live in Christ and work in the social Church, to learn to do social works in Christ, and how to cast the vision of Christ-centeredness to our society.

I'm taking this from an angle of “the societal church” versus “the spiritual church”. You could also call it the “natural church”. There certainly isn't anything “natural” about social movements whose people actually love each other-- I only say “natural” because the natural Church loves through the natural. So many are confined to this kind of ministry. I am not an exception. Actually, I think I'm unusually dull in the natural ministry.

I'm preaching to the choir when I say these things. Maybe I say them out loud so I'll have to listen to myself.

Winning to the Church versus winning to Jesus

Scattering

He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad. (Read the context of Matthew 12:30 and Luke 11:14-23 or yourself. You may decide that its applications don't extend to this subject. I think they do.)

This is the central problem. Are our societal ministries gathering with Jesus, or for something else? Unless we are gathering for Jesus, we are scattering his wheat. Maybe we're not harvesting tares, but maybe we're not getting wheat into the barn either.

Fully understanding that most “Christian brand” societal programs are not fighting against the interests of Christ directly (quite the opposite), I say we should be first concerned for any which are divided from Christ in the first place! The concern is not that any such ministries are not gathering. The concern is that they're not gathering together, with Jesus. Jesus' first interest is bringing people to his father, not to do societal works. Blessing others with Jesus is absolutely better than blessing them with societal blessings and never showing them Jesus. Jesus us to join with him in both, but I believe his higher priority is getting people to the father.

Considering this verse, I have to concede to David's use of “anti-messiah”. But I find it a bit strong. “A-messianic” would be more graceful. I have no authority to judge the Church, so I'll prefer to use more passive terms. Direct speech can burn bridges. If we want spiritual change, we must acknowledge that it will only come by the Holy Spirit.

The failure of the flesh's Gospel (ministry in the natural)

21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in Heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' (Matthew 7 NKJV)

Even if we use the tools of the personal messianic gospel, we can completely miss the point. How much more so if we use only secular social tools? When I talk with “a-messianic” Chistians, I often hear “I prefer sermons on such-and-such” and “I'm offended that people admit that Jesus said such-and-such a thing”. People filter Jesus. I want to ask “whose Jesus are you following?”.

We'd better get Him right. We'd better not be looking for ourselves and calling that “God”. In this country, everyone can claim personal untouchable authority on Truth, but it's not so. Not here or on the other side of death. We'd better not sculpt our personal Jesus.

43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in Heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your Heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5 NKJV)

It's true what they say. The Quar'an and other books have some of the positive moral messages of the Bible. The world will be just as impressed with the character of the sincere Muslim as the “sincere societal a-messianic Christian”. So what will draw others to Christ, through us? Only Christ, in us.

Winning people to Christ, winning them with Christ.

A love beyond the flesh

27 “But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you. 29 To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either. 30 Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back. 31 And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise.
32 “But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. 35 But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. 36 Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful. (Luke 12:27-36, NKJV)

They will know we are Christians by our love. But don't pagan fathers love well enough to give their sons bread and not snakes? What will make us different? The differentiation is the manner, means, and substance of the love. The pagan loves with what he's got, and that's him. The pagan in concerned with the wordly things (Luke 12:29-30 NKJV), and worldly love. The thing that sets the Christian apart is that the Christian seeks to act in the world's arena, yet in a supernatural way. The pagan's love is natural. At least one sect of Islam tithes out of financial excess— the poor don't have to give their would-be marginal contributions. I've been told it's much more rational than Christian tithing. Yet Jesus memorialized the copper-coin widow for her impractical (“irresponsible”? “dangerous”?) gift. Christians are called to give everything they have, and more. Let's give out of everything God's got, and embrace the foolishness of Christ-- the cross [of love].

We need to love with the gifts of the Spirit. We need to love with the supernatural cross of Christ. We must win men with acts of love, and win them to Christ by loving in the Spirit.

Being practical – call to action

Seeker friendly

There are plenty of things that the unchurched aren't ready for-- Church politics, Church history, Church culture. And there's plenty of Jesus that people aren't ready for! So we do need to introduce people at a pace that won't freak them out, both for their progress and for our safety (Matthew 7:6).

Seeker friendly – seeking what?

If our fellowships are friendly towards seekers-- what are those seekers seeking? People show up to church to find friends, spouses, business opportunities, an escape from boredom. People stumble into Jesus for all sorts of unrelated (and sometimes bad) reasons. We must decide: “What kind of seeking do we want to promote in our ministries? More directly, what kind of seeker are we trying to pull in?”

Just as the Charismatic Church must remember to focus on the face of God and not his hands, the societal Church must remember the same thing. Our ministries must start at God, and from there do his works-- not start at his works and end at ours. And so directing every ministry towards God is the first step to finding “good” seekers. I want us to be wary of events that have no correlation to evangelism, worship, work of the Spirit, and ministry. Yes; our social ministries should spend time “just hanging out”, but those times shouldn't be formally announced through the ministry. Ministry parties are great-- and are a great time to remember what God has done and why we wanted to do it with him. Rejoice together in the Lord always! Those should be announced. But if we're not going to rejoice in him, let's not diffuse (the scattering idea again) our ministry with them.

What we want to stop is seekers from finding us [and thinking they've found what they were looking for]. What could be worse than stopping seekers from finding God when they're so close? --and with a substitute that's so poor? We need to keep God (rather: ourselves!) in a place in our ministries where we are dwarfed by Him.

We need to maintain an upward tension in seekers. Otherwise, the seeker might not keep moving towards God; drifting towards “lesser Gods”-- or, dissatisfied, drift out of the Church. If we are a stream, we need to be flowing. Standing still is not allowed! Seekers need to know they can keep rising towards God, and they need to keep their desire on him! This is well-accomplished by maintaining an upwards gaze and spiritual motion ourselves. If we halt, moving only in the theater of “natural” ministry, we should not be surprised when our followers stagnate like us. If we aren't all looking at God, neither will they. We want to maintain a tension (a desire if possible) in seekers to pursue God. The seeker-friendly nature of our ministries should support seekers seeking, not seekers stagnating.

Practical centering

These issues apply to entire ministries but are played out in individual lives. If we want to cast vision in “the societal Church”, we'd better embrace it up-close. When men see us, they must see Jesus before seeing his Church.

The same master that commands us to love said “Blessed are you when men hate you.” Jesus isn't concerned first with pleasing men, and our ministry's gaze needs to first be on him. [If you allow this usage of this verse--] Seek first the kingdom of God, and the all else will be added-- our earthly ministries will happen. We will win men, and will win them to Christ. But we must seek to build the kingdom of Heaven, not the kingdom of man. We can't serve two kingdoms. We know that to stay in the kingdom of Heaven is to acknowledge our king and increase in him. If we pull others into the kingdom of Heaven, they will do the same. That's the order that it has to happen. We shall have no place in the kingdom of man.

I'm all for social and political reform groups, and even ones made of Christians. ;-) But I think God would be better “advertised” if those groups would separate from “churches” and “ministries”. Task groups (IHOP-KC's housing ministry comes to mind) exist for a natural purpose. They can exist without a high mission statement-- their worth leans on the mission statement of the parent ministry. No one is going to interview that ministry and expect to find a balanced representation of Christianity. A church that exists primarily for social action is not this way. “Church” boasts a lot about the activity of God and the Christian lives there. Any organization with “church” in its title should be prepared to represent a complete idea of the Church of Christ-- which is centered on Jesus. There is no slack room here.

Because the world doesn't understand the Spirit or “those who are born of the Spirit”, when it sees works of the Church, it can only see what's moving in the natural. So the only way for our Christian social reform programs to stand out in the world's eyes is to have “God” as the first reason of what we do. And it has to be convincing. If we're asked, ”why do you fight for social reform?”, would we say “because we believe in equality?” Well, great, so do the Pagans. That doesn't mean anything anymore. What's news to them is that the Christan God believes in it too, and so sincerely that he's taking it to the streets and the ballot box.

Practical partnering

15 Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from goodwill: 16 The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; 17 but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice. (Philippians 1)

Certainly if Paul can say this about people who evangelize out of envy and strife, he can say it about much of the Church that I don't gel with. I have at least as many negative motivations and misconstrue Jesus just as much as anyone else. So I don't want to separate myself from, discount, or discredit the work of the societal Church. I have a lot to learn from them.

How far do we support “a-messianic ministries”? I say “as far is is practical to further our objectives”. Do we partner? Yes? Do we partner with secular organizations? Yes. We wouldn't treat the Church any less.

The socially responsible Church

And what of political and economic action? How far should the church go into these arenas and still call itself “The Church”? I'm not going to try to answer that. Maybe Kevin will share some advice?

The metric of success – building the kingdom of Heaven

It's all about advancing the kingdom of Heaven. We need to keep our eyes on that, and God will give us the tools and direction to make it happen. We shouldn't allow our interests to be blindered by the working out of our ministries in the natural.

Oops. Sorry about the length of this post. Responses welcome. I don't want to wander off into heretical monologue ;')

-andrew