Disinfecting vs. Discipling

What is the difference between ‘disinfecting’ and discipling Christians?    

The difference between disinfecting and discipling Christians is in many ways analogous to the difference between an oil change and a road trip. Changing the oil of the car is undoubtedly good and necessary for the vehicle’s functionality. However, if changing the oil is all that ever happens to this car, then it is as functional as a car with no oil at all. This is because cars were designed for locomotion. Certainly, while oil changes are necessary for a car’s locomotion, the end goal of a car is not oil changes, but locomotion.

In the same way, Christians are like cars in that they need ‘disinfection,’ but not as the ultimate priority. To be sure, ‘disinfecting’ the sin out of Christians hearts is undoubtedly good and necessary for a Christians spiritual vitality. However, if ‘disinfecting’ is all that ever happens to the Christian, then he is as functional as a non-Christian for God’s kingdom purposes after all. This is because Christians are designed for mission and discipleship. Certainly, while ‘disinfection’ is necessary in order to fuel effective Christian living, the end goal of the Christian is not ‘disinfection,’ but discipleship.

Besides, true ‘disinfection’ happens only in the context of discipleship anyways. Disinfection without discipleship is a disinfection that was never substantiated after all. This is because we do not become sanctified primarily by cleaning up the bad in our lives, but rather by engaging in the good of God’s mission. In other words, if you’re not moving forward, then you’re probably moving backwards, even if you think you’re not moving in either direction. Regression tends to give the illusion of mere stagnation; yet, its in the perspective of progression that we finally see ‘stagnation’ for what it really is–regression.

Here’s the paradox: if driving is the goal, then oil changes will happen at a whim. Though annoying at the time, oil changes will feel necessary, inconsequential, and matter-of-fact because they are part of what will allow you to do what you were designed to do: drive. Similarly, if engaging in God’s mission is the goal, then sanctification will happen more naturally and effectively in the process. On the other hand, if oil change is the main, sole preoccupation, it will simply seem like drudgery because it will seem like it is for no real purpose. However, if it is placed in the context of the thrill of driving, changing the oil will be done with a completely different attitude. But if no driving is happening, changing the oil will feel like a waste of time and a burdensome, boring, and picky chore. Likewise, the only way to not subject your sanctification to this same attitude is unless you are constantly being caught up in the thrilling momentum of God’s kingdom.

Like oil changes versus locomotion, disinfecting versus discipling is the striking contrast between potential energy and active energy.

Like cars, Christians were not designed to merely “be fixed” as much as “be fast.”

The “fast” part simply entails the process of constant fixing (as we all know is the case with any vehicle in constant use). So get driving, that’s what you were designed for. Oil changes will just have to happen along the way.

Posted in Blogs | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Members vs. Leaders

How is the experience of a church member different as a leader instead of just an audience participant?    

The experience of a church member is different in that his involvement in the church is naturally much broader than the leaders of the church. I think the dynamic of an army provides helpful analogies about how we might think about the difference between the experiences of how a church leader and a church member engage in the Great Commission. For example, foot soldiers naturally assume a broader potential for geographical impact than their generals do, and this is because of the job description of each parties inherent role. Foot soldiers invade physical space to a much greater degree than do their generals, and this is because the direct role of the foot soldiers is to effectively conquer space while the direct role of a general is to administratively send out others to conquer space. Indeed, the mission is the same, but the roles are different. Similarly, church members who are not leaders intrinsically assume a broader potential for geographical or relational impact into secular environments by virtue of their jobs that they vocationally assume. Church leaders, however, naturally assume a narrower potential for relational, secular impact because their relative environments are simply not as non-Christian as their lay members. Nevertheless, while both parties equally assume their roles in the same mission, their job descriptions entail differences of design and function. It is important, therefore, for each party to recognize their inherent need upon each other and their obligation to celebrate, serve, and honor each other–for they are not two, but one.

Posted in Blogs, Church, Church Positions | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Big Request & Big Risks | JD Greear Excerpt

The following blog is a small excerpt out of JD Greear’s latest book, Gaining By Losing, which analogously explains why God desires us to ask big requests and to take big risks in his name:

The story is told that Alexander the Great had a general who approached him after many years of service to ask if he would pay for the wedding of his daughter. Alexander agreed and told him to obtain the funds needed from the treasurer. Soon thereafter the treasurer came to Alexander, complaining that this general was taking advantage of Alexander’s generosity. He was asking for an exorbitant amount of money, enough to host the largest wedding Greece had ever seen.

Alexander thought about the situation for a moment, then waved his hand dismissively and said, “Grant him his request in full.” The treasurer looked bewildered. Alexander continued, “My general pays me two compliments: He believes that I am rich enough to afford his request and that I am generous enough to grant it. In assuming these two things, he honors me.”

Our God is so good, gracious, and powerful that we can never ask or assume too much of him. We don’t offend him with large requests; we offend him with small ones!”


JD Greear, Gaining By Losing: Why the Future Belongs to Churches That Send (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015), chapter 11.

Posted in Blogs | Leave a comment

Engaging the Society Narrative: Absolute Negative Freedom | Tim Keller

I recently read Tim Keller’s latest book, Preaching, for a seminary class, and it was simply incredible. Yes, while the general thrust of the book is certainly angled for preachers, it is without a doubt a book for all Christians. (In fact, had I been the author, I would have renamed the title in order to broaden the target audience. And I’m kind of upset the title is “Preaching” because it’s highly likely most Christians won’t dare to pick it up.)

The main thing I appreciated about this book is its commentary on how the gospel intersects all cultural narratives and affirms/challenges their relative, foundational premises. Below is an entire section of chapter 5 where Keller addresses the holes in the Absolute Negative Freedom worldview, which is by far the most pervasive worldview in America today. Check out what he has to say, for I couldn’t possibly express the complications behind the sentiment of this worldview any better than he did.

+     +     +     +     +

Freedom of choice without limits has become almost sacred. (Philosophers call this “negative freedom”—freedom from constraints—which they contrast with “positive freedom,” the freedom to pursue some good aim.) Absolute negative freedom becomes the chief moral good, so that “the [only] sin which is not tolerated is intolerance.” This poses many problems both philosophical and practical.

One is that this narrative’s sacralizing of personal choice erodes community and fragments society. Remember Taylor’s quote that “to have any kind of livable society some choices have to be restricted, some authorities have to be respected, and some individual responsibility has to be assumed.” Sociologists have documented the growing civic and political disengagement of younger adults. The more people are invested in the late-modern understanding of the sovereign self and in its younger brother, absolute negative freedom, the less they feel a loyal part of the greater body politic.

Another problem with this freedom narrative is the unworkability of what has been called the “harm principle.” Taylor summarizes it as “no one has a right to interfere with me for my own good, but only to prevent harm to others.”36 The harm principle seems to make freedom of choice into a self-correcting absolute. In this view, a society does not need to lay down any moral principles at all—it can be “value free.” Everyone is free to live in any way she chooses, as long as it doesn’t curtail someone else’s freedom. However, the Achilles’ heel of this theory is the assumption that we all know what “harm” is or that it can be defined without recourse to deep beliefs about right and wrong.

One person says that it harms no one for a man to consume pornography privately in his own home. Others counter, however, that pornography will shape how he talks and acts with others, especially with women. Beneath these different conclusions about harm lie different understandings of the right and wrong way for individuals to relate to community. In other words, any decision about what harms others is rooted in specific views of human nature, happiness, and right and wrong—each of which is a matter of faith. So even if we all agree that freedom should be curtailed if it harms people, since we can’t agree on what harm is, the principle is useless in practice.

The freedom narrative also thins out the pursuit of meaning in life. Harvard scientist Stephen Jay Gould once was asked “What is the meaning of life?” and responded, “We are here because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestrial creatures. . . . We may yearn for a ‘higher’ answer—but none exists. This explanation, though superficially troubling, is ultimately liberating. . . . We must construct these answers for ourselves.”37 If there is no God and we have not been put here for some purpose, then there is no “discovered” meaning in life—no purpose that is there, existing before us, for which we were built, and with which we are obligated to align ourselves. This absence frees us, Gould says, to decide what things are meaningful for us. We may find that building homes or painting pictures or raising a family gives us purpose. So those are the meanings we choose for ourselves.

Philosopher Thomas Nagel, however, says that created meanings are less rational in principle than discovered meanings. Most of us would agree, Nagel argues, that we only have meaning if we feel we are making a difference, that what we do matters. But, he argues, if there is no God and you write a “great work of literature that continues to be read thousands of years from now,” nevertheless “eventually the solar system will cool or the universe will wind down and collapse and all trace of your effort will vanish. . . . If you think about the whole thing . . . it wouldn’t matter if you had never existed.” In other words, if there is no God or anything beyond this material world, then whether you’ve been good or cruel or murderous will make no final difference. No one will be around to remember anything. That means you can live a meaningful life only if you are careful to not think out the implications of your view of the universe. That’s not a very rational way to live. Religious believers, however, draw greater meaning in life the more they think out the implications of their view of the universe. In their view, right actions now count literally forever.

Luc Ferry, another atheist, makes a related argument—that these created meanings are not just less rational but more selfish. We may decide to give our lives to serve the medical needs of poor people; but why, within a secular framework, is that significant? The proper answer according to the freedom narrative is that we are doing it not because we are obligated to do it but because we freely choose to find this activity significant for us. However, Ferry argues, that means we are actually helping sick people for our sake, not theirs. We are doing it because it makes us feel worthy and significant. Self-created meanings come terribly close to simply living for oneself.

The final reason that this narrative does not ultimately work is that the modern idea of freedom itself is an illusion. Remember that the modern concept of freedom is absolute negative freedom, the absence of any constraint. The fewer limits or boundaries I have on my desires, choices, and actions, it would seem that the freer I am. However, this does not do justice to the complexity of the dimensions of freedom and the realities of incarnate and communal life.

A sixty-year-old man may have a strong desire to eat fatty foods, but if he regularly exercises his freedom to give in to that desire, his life will be curtailed in some way. He must choose to lose a lesser freedom (to eat these foods he enjoys) for a greater freedom (health and long life). If you want the freedoms that come with being a great musician—the ability to move people with your music and to make a good living for your family—you will have to give up your freedom to do other things in order to practice eight hours a day for years. Freedom is not, then, simply the absence of restrictions, but rather consists of finding the right, liberating restrictions. Put another way, we must actively take tactical freedom losses in order to receive strategic freedom gains. You grow only as you lose some lower kinds of freedom to gain higher kinds. So there is no absolute negative freedom.

The ultimate proof that the freedom narrative does not work—is love. No love relationship can grow unless each person sacrifices some freedom in order to serve the other, yet these restrictions, if accepted mutually, lead to the various liberations of mind and heart that only love can bring. Most people will say they feel most like “themselves” when they are truly loved and loving another—but that requires the surrender of complete self-determining freedom. As we have seen, the late-modern freedom narrative undermines human community in general. But it is especially corrosive of marriage. A late-modern person, controlled by both the freedom and identity narratives, wants a spouse who “accepts me as I am” and neither demands that you change nor requires you to sacrifice any of your own substantial desires, interests, and dreams. This kind of marriage is a fiction—it doesn’t exist.

The very theme of the kingdom of God, when preached properly and fully, directly challenges yet fulfills the late-modern desire for freedom. We can see in daily life how the disciplines—freedom “losses” like practice and dieting—lead to other kinds of freedom gains. We also see how when employees submit to the leadership of a great CEO or team members to that of a great coach, everyone on the team realizes his potential and everyone thrives. Submitting to the right rules and the right leader can bring all sorts of great freedoms. If we see this to be the case, then how much more liberating will it be to submit to the true king of our souls? When the Bible talks about God’s returning to judge the earth, even the created order is liberated from decay (Psalm 96:11–13; Romans 8:20–23).

All of this supports the famous claim by Jesus that knowing him sets you “free” (John 8:31–36), meaning “The ultimate bondage is . . . rebellion against the God who has made us. The despotic master is not Caesar, but shameful self-centeredness, an evil and enslaving devotion to created things at the expense of worship of the Creator.”


Tim Keller, Preaching, Chapter 5: “Engaging the Society Narrative: Absolute Negative Freedom”

Posted in Blogs | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Why Fiction Stories Resonate | J.R.R. Tolkien

The following blog is an excerpt from Tim Keller’s latest book, concerning the natural desires of mankind and the gospel of Christ:

Tolkien’s famous essay “On Fairy Stories” argues that there are indelible, deep longings in the human heart that realistic fiction cannot satisfy. Fantasy fiction—fairy tales and science fiction and similar literature—depict characters who…

  • get outside of time altogether;
  • escape death;
  • hold communion with nonhuman beings;
  • find a perfect love from which they never part;
  • triumph finally over evil.

Of course readers and viewers know that fairy stories are fiction, but when the story is well told and these things are depicted vividly, it provides a peculiar kind of comfort and satisfaction. What we call “fantasy fiction” is massively popular and continues to be consumed by audiences numbering in the billions. The enduring appeal of stories that represent these conditions is unquestionable. But why? As a Christian, Tolkien believed that these stories resonate so deeply because they bear witness to an underlying reality.

Even if we do not intellectually believe that there is a God or life after death, our hearts (in the Christian view) sense somehow that these things characterize life as it was and should be and eventually will be again. We are so deeply interested in these stories because we have intuitions of the creation/fall/redemption/restoration plotline of the Bible. Even if we repress the knowledge of that plotline intellectually, we can’t not know it imaginatively, and our hearts are stirred by any stories that evoke it.

The English word “gospel” comes from the Middle English word Godspell which derives from two Old English words: good and spell (story). In Old English “to tell a story” was “to cast a spell.” Stories capture the heart and imagination and give us deep joy. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the Goodspell. It is the story that all other joy-bringing, spell-casting, heart-shaping stories only point to. What’s special about this one? It is the one story that satisfies all these longings—yet is historically true.

If Jesus Christ was really raised from the dead—if he is really the Son of God and you believe in him—all those things that you long for most desperately are real and will come true. We will escape time and death. We will know love without parting, we will even communicate with nonhuman beings, and we will see evil defeated forever. In fairy stories, especially the best and most well-told ones, we get a temporary reprieve from a life in which our deepest desires are all violently rebuffed. However, if the gospel is true—and it is—all those longings will be fulfilled.


Timothy Keller, Preaching, Chapter 5.

Posted in Blogs | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Tolerance, Or Is It?

If I learned any one particular cultural philosophy during my four years in college, it was without a doubt the notion of ‘tolerance.’ I am not exaggerating when I say that this concept pervaded almost every lecture of my two humanity majors, Interpersonal and Organizational Communication and Religious Studies (and I even heard it mentioned in several of my pre-dental prerequisites before too, like Anatomy and Chemistry, believe it or not).

Assuming you don’t live under a rock, you understand that this philosophy of tolerance exists not only as a hot topic among thriving college campuses, but also is increasingly becoming the lifeblood of popular culture, politics, and societal frameworks.

Of course, recent develops this year suggest just that, as Hobby Lobby vs. Obamacare, Caitlyn Jenner, and the legalization of homosexual marriage all fundamentally point to this paradigmatic shift in culture away from absolutism and towards relativism, which crowns the concept ‘tolerance’ as the ultimate, ruling authority.

However, while I do think the cultural philosophy of tolerance finds its origins in our foundational philosophy of American rights and liberties, it seems like our culture is nevertheless tipping towards the extreme end of the ‘tolerance’ spectrum in such a way that it actually—and quite ironically—debunks its own stance all along.

To get at what I mean, let’s first re-assess the definition of tolerance, just to make sure we are all on the same page. Webster defines ‘tolerance’ as, “the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.”

So, inherent to the meaning of ‘tolerance’ is two fundamental things: 1) the existence of disagreeing ideas, 2) acting in an agreeable manner despite such disagreement.

Personally, I think the issue of definition is the fundamental point of contention where this philosophy starts to sour. Meaning, while culture constantly promulgates the philosophy of tolerance, it appears that its functional definition does not always match its formal definition.

In other words, culture is not functionally preaching a true of tolerance when it forces a universal acceptance of a cultural norm (which is, ironically, functionally intolerant of other cultural values and expressions).

Going back to Webster, we can clearly see that ‘tolerance,’ on its own terms, emphasizes the nature of how people should disagree; tolerance never emphasizes that everyone should agree.

If I’m not mistaken, the very climate of tolerance necessitates the very existence disagreement after all. Truly, if there were no disagreement, then there would be nothing to tolerate. Tolerance does not mean agreeing on everything; it means being gracious and kind in our disagreements. Tolerance is a disposition of one’s position, not a ‘Spanish inquisition’ of one position.

Besides, how is one to accept the veracity of every worldview, especially when worldviews are in direct contradiction at some points? It’s impossible to say that a circle and a rectangle are the same.

The irony of a view of ‘tolerance’ that says ‘everyone must be like this’ is that it immediately becomes intolerant of other cultures that have views different to it. In other words, this view of ‘tolerance’ implicitly communicates that it is completely acceptable to be intolerant to intolerance in other cultures. But quite ironically, right at that moment, this view of ‘tolerance’ has become entirely like other cultural views of intolerance. But thinking it has the right to do so, it grants itself the high privilege of intolerance that it does not allow to other cultures—which ironically, is a greater degree of intolerance all along.

Are you tracking here? It’s kind of a cerebral conversation. I’m trying my best to explain the philosophical implications of twisting the definition of ‘tolerance’ to mean ‘agree on everything.’

An extreme view of ‘tolerance’ that advocates fights intolerance with intolerance is simply blind to the reality that they are just like other cultural frameworks. For example, if popular culture insists that homosexual marriage is acceptable, yet Islam’s and Christianity’s ethics state otherwise, then true tolerance of popular culture should say that while there are disagreements, we can do so in a gracious, respectable manner without emphasizing that every culture adopt our worldview. Similarly, Muslims and Christians, according to their worldview should disagree with the political climate, but should do so with gentleness and respect, without compromising their unique values, either. However, if popular culture were to discriminate against Islam and Christianity for their ethics, popular culture would not be tolerant, but intolerant.

If popular culture were follow ‘tolerance’ in the truest sense of the word, it would look something like this: when popular culture tells another culture to ‘tolerate’ this-or-that, that would mean an exhortation for agreeableness (warm and considerate), not agreement (accept or endorse). This distinction is extremely important, and I believe it is one that is often overlooked or underappreciated.

Some cultures, like Islam and Christianity, cannot inherently agree with or endorse homosexual marriage because it fundamentally violates their view of how the world and humanity has been designed and purposed.

To conclude, and on a semi-related note, I just want to emphasize the point that Christianity, especially, can never enforce spirituality through politics. Christians must stop depending on political climates to seemingly accomplish spiritual agendas. God has never and will never be confined to political climates, and the various political climates throughout Scripture and the early church and now prove that. Christianity’s salvation lies not in a political mold, but in a cross and open grave. The former does not have the power to change our hearts, but only the latter can. Therefore, at the end of the day, Christ is the hope for the world, not the political situation of the day.

Posted in Blogs | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

How Do I Figure Out My Calling?

What is my calling? This is something I have struggled with my entire life. And I still struggle with it today. If anything, I have struggled with it more since I graduated college than any other time in life. Though, there have been two verses in particular that have profoundly shaped the way that I think about a life ‘calling’ as of recent.

Here they are:

The first verse is 2 Timothy 4:5, which reads, “As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry” (emphasis mine). Upon my emphasis of the last phrase, there exists a cross-reference to Colossians 4:17, which says, “see that you fulfill the ministry that you have received from the Lord.” These two verses work together to say something very important about the nature of what it means be ‘called.’

Paul told Timothy to fulfill your ministry. This is pretty significant. Note that Paul did not say, fulfill my or even fulfill the ministry. Paul said, “fulfill your ministry, [Timothy].” The sentiment behind this statement seems to communicate that God has given each of us a special type of ministry to perform based on the giftings, passions, and opportunities that he has uniquely given us, and no one else can really do this type of ministry quite like we can. Thus, this ‘calling’ is something that God has created us to do all along; it’s something that is found in our spiritual gifts, our heart of hearts, our open doors, and even our DNA.

But before we get too introspective, I think it is important for us to realize that God gives us two different callings, yet the callings fundamentally exists together much like two concentric circles (one smaller circle that is situated inside one bigger circle).

Initially, the ‘bigger, outside circle of calling’ represents that God’s call is first objective, broad, and general for every Christian: you have been commissioned to live for the glory and mission of God. This is all about the Great Commission. Every Christian is called to go and make disciples, expanding the quality and quantity of kingdom across the globe.

Next, the ‘smaller, inside circle of calling’ represents that God’s call is secondarily subjective, personal, and specific for every Christian: you have been wired to fulfill a certain angle of ministry for the glory and mission of God. This is all about your spiritual gifts, desires, passions, and abilities. Every Christian is called to make disciples, but there is no such clear-cut formulaic way that the Bible commands us to do so. It essentially gives us freedom with how we are to be on mission and to go about making disciples, beckoning us to be as creative as possible.

Thus, in other words, every Christian is called to join God in his ultimate mission to bring the gospel to all peoples, yet we are called to participate in this mission in differing ways. Indeed, at the end of the day, it’s not a matter of if you have been called; it’s a matter of where and how you will fulfill that calling.

You could even think of the mission of God like a big corporation. The goal of a corporation remains the same from top to bottom, yet each department of the corporation accomplishes the goal through their different, yet, complementary work. The marketing and administrative and human resources and product design and customer service each perform different roles, but there exists a fundamental, laser-beam focus of one goal at the forefront of each separate department. And indeed, different departments accomplish the goal better by working together, each with their own strengths and focuses. Similarly, the Christian ‘calling’ remains the same whoever you are, but you are to work towards its accomplishment in different ways based on who you are.

Ok, well. What is my ‘role’ or ‘office’ per se for how I am to specifically participate in this grand mission of God?

Many of us just wish God that would write it out in the sky for us, plain and clear in terms of what he wants us to do. But that’s the thing—this ‘calling’ doesn’t ever seem so plain and clear. So we lean especially upon dependence and prayer in this grueling time of uncertainty.

Dependence is great, but what about answers? Ok, yes, dependency is a great answer, in and of itself. But questions like these constantly raid us nevertheless: What else do I have to do to get certainty about God’s will for my life? Lay a fleece? Ask for the sun to stand still? Eh. Yeah, I feel the same way. So, now what?

While looking upwards to God in prayer and dependence is absolutely crucial in this gaining a sense of spiritual or vocational direction, I think the question of vocation is one of those rare times when Scripture actually permits us to look ‘inwards’ in ourselves as much as we are reminded to look ‘upwards’ to God. What do I mean?

Meaning, when trying to figure out our calling, don’t wait for a voice to tell you ‘here or there’ or ‘this or that.’ Let’s be honest and confess that it may never come. Instead, look in yourself and see how God has wired you, designed you, and created you. When God created you, he pre-packaged your life-purpose inside of you. Therefore, what you are looking for is not so much a question of ‘calling’ so much as it is a question of ‘wiring.’

What makes you burn? What makes you passionate? What makes you angry or excited or burdened? The answers to these questions likely indicate what God created you to do.

To be honest, working with and caring for children does not exactly cross my mind or make me passionate or make me burdened. Being a 3rd grade teacher is something that I have never before considered. But thank God for those of you who are deeply affected by this. This is a need. Personally, things like reading, writing, connecting, media, creating, and church ministry is what gets me hyped. It constantly heats me up. Reaching people is what gets my gears spinning. I don’t try to be impassioned by those things. No, those things impassion me because its what God has wired me to do.

So in a way, God has already answered this question of ‘calling’ for you—he’s placed it in your wiring. He’s given you those passions and abilities and skills for a reason. He’s calling you to be a steward of them, too.

Like in the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30), don’t sit on these gifts and passions. Use them in a responsible and shrewd way, banking on God to see your efforts through. Use them to bless others and to expand the kingdom. Take risks with them. See what happens. Trial and error is good.

But fearful paralysis to use and risk these gifts of God is the same as to bury money in a hole instead of to invest it in a future. Money and your calling functionally work in the same way: they can only multiply in a climate of risk, not in a cave of regret. If there is no risk, then there will be no reward. Sure, you could lose them, but then again, God is not calling us to be safe and inactive with our talents; he is calling us to be shrewd and active with our talents, banking on his sovereignty and love in the process of anticipation.

And God totally delights in our taking risks upon his sovereignty and grace. Our risks for him prove that we actually trust in him.

And in response to us making risks for the kingdom, I think God just kicks back and cracks a wide, fatherly smile, saying, “Try me. Your risks won’t be anything less than totally exhilarating for you, and nothing short of utterly glorifying to me.”

His glory and our joy are not separate. Just like his calling on us and his wiring of us are not separate. Indeed, they are one. Who you are—and what your calling is—is a unique, irreplaceable piece that fits into the grand, glorious panorama of redemptive history.

Look upwards to God for grand purpose. Look inwards to self for specific purpose. And then look outwards to see how your wiring fulfills a need for the overarching purpose of the Great Commission.

Upwards. Inwards. Outwards.

That’s your calling.

Now do it.

Posted in Blogs | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment