The Qualitative Difference

When Christians talk about giving or sacrificing for the cause of Christ, we often emphasize our sense of duty: "We're supposed to sacrifice for Christ because of all that Jesus did for us." This is, of course, a true statement, but what we should also emphasize is the qualitative difference in a life of sacrifice compared to a life driven by a concern for personal wealth and security. 

There is not only the quantitative difference in the sacrificial versus the self-indulgent lifestyle (in that one results in a smaller bank account and fewer "toys" than the other), but there is definitely a qualitative difference as well. There is a solidness or a richness in the experience of sacrificial giving that is just not present in things done only for the self. 

When this is understood, it becomes clear that, in the big picture, not sacrificing is really the more painful and regrettable option, but why is this so often hard to realize when we are in the contemplation stage before making a decision about how to spend our resources? 

MM

It's What's In The Image That Counts?

It's safe to say we live in an image-driven culture, where image is usually prized above the substance underneath. I was recently disturbed to see a poster of Kobe Bryant (whose adulterous relationship was made very public a few years ago) hanging in the entrance to by sons' elementary school. It's not that Bryant should be shunned or condemned, it's just that a man who's had to hold a press conference announcing and apologizing for his adultery is not really one whose motivational poster belongs in an elementary school. But he looks good in a Lakers uniform (I guess) and performs well on the court, and for many, these are much weightier issues than moral character. 

So, in such an environment where image is king, how can Christians shift the focus to what really matters and keep ourselves from getting sucked into the hollow pursuit of image for its own sake? 

How do we teach our children about this? 

MM

20/80 80/20 or 100/100 ?

A few years ago, the Serendipity Publishing Group printed what could be called an 80/20 model of church involvement, which explained the percentage of people attending church who actually contribute to the mission of their church (and thus to the mission of The Church).

The 80/20 chart showed that in churches across the country, 20% of the people in most congregations contributed 80% of the money, time, and other resources, and 80% of the people contributed 20%.

This raises an important question:

What is something specific that would change (maybe overnight) in a town or larger community if just one congregation operated on a 100/100 relationship between the people who attend and those who contribute to the mission of The Church? In other words, what would change if every person who regularly attends a Christian congregation (let's say of a few hundred) believed that all his or her resources were on loan from God and based every decision on the question, "How can I use all of what's been given to me to make the maximum impact on the world around me for the purposes of Jesus?"

MM

On Earth As It Is In Heaven

Taking seriously Jesus' words about bringing forth God's will "on earth as it is in Heaven" reminds us that the Christian life is about action and about rearranging our lives so that God's will--his purposes, his agenda, his goals, etc.--are the driving factors in all our decision making. 

But far too often people think of the Christian life as more of a private thing, focused only on one's self. What is a specific example of how this mistake shows up in a person's thinking or actions? What can we do to get on track? 

MM