I was struck by the depth of my need for Jesus this week.

As one who claims to love people and culture I sure enjoy laughing at people at their worst. The conviction struck me while I was imbibing in a very funny website at work, laughing it up with co-workers and ridiculing the people portrayed on it. "Is this becoming for a Christian?" I thought.

If you work in the technology industry or spend a lot of time around the internet as I do, you'll know the kind of website I'm talking about. In the last few years, the internet has created a humor sub-culture which collects the worst of human behavior, mistakes, flubs, tricks, and pranks and lays them out for everyone to see. This humor-mill has turned into a full on media cash bonanza with start-ups raking in wads of cash and expanding their reach farther and farther afield. Make no mistake, some of these sites are extremely funny, especially those that capture people in their most failed moments.

However, as I read that site this week, the thought occurred to me that I was not laughing with people, I was laughing at people. People made in the image of God. People for whom Christ died. People who needed to hear the message of Jesus from a missionary, not the laughter and scorn of an anonymous prankster. My call to maturity meant putting away the juvenile, to stop wasting time. It was a gentle reminder from the one who showed us what it means to really love people that he didn't laugh at me when I was at my worst. I'm just glad there's no video evidence of me.

Tags: Culture, Missionary Life, Technology

Risk, as Seth Godin explained last week, is what keeps us from exploring new restaraunts choosing instead to stick with the same old chains. It keeps us at home instead of seeing the world, and as MissionalSpace mentioned, is the antithesis of safety.

"We have two options in life. Play it safe…tow the line…conform….be numbed down…slowly die and possibly still end up screwed in the end OR….Take the risk….engage the dream….come alive….tell a story….help change the world….and live a life others are secretly jealous of…..and leave the results to God. None of us are promised a tomorrow….none of us have 100% job security….none of us know whether playing it safe will turn out like we hope. I’d rather live and take the risk."

We missionaries are an odd bunch. For the most part we're not the sort of risk takers that people usually think of; daredevils, rock-climbers, sword swollowers, etc. We're not the circus freaks but we are risk takers. Missional living whether in your neighborhood or across the ocean is a risky venture. It demands all and guarantees nothing in return. We don't do it for fame or fortune, we don't do it for platitudes, we do it because of a deep sense of conviction, a love for people, and a love for Jesus.

But if God is sovereign is it correct to call it risk at all?

Tags: life, Missions

Stand to Reason posted an update today on new Muslim stats. Aparently, there are now 1.57 billion muslims on this planet. That is 1 in 4 people. How many of those actually adhere to the Islamic faith, or simply people listed as "muslim" because they live in an Islamic country remains to be seen. Whatever the situation, the statistics are sobering.

Tags: Missions

Somehow my opinion was overlooked for the Christianity Today question of the week. That's okay, I'll let it slide this time. The question posed to some of the leaders of American Christendom was "Should Multisite Campuses Be Church Plants Instead?" and there were a myriad of answers. Some said that they're still exploring the multi-site phenomenon, others said that multi-site is a prelude to full church plants, and others thought that multi-site was a proper funnel for leader grooming.

One striking thing missing in all of the answers however, was the international Church's perspective. I'm sure part of the reason was that all those asked were working within an American context but how do we as missionaries working in international contexts view this issue? Is the multi-site question an American phenomenon? In the two contexts that I've known personally, multi-site wasn't even an issue because the Church was so small. We were more like the first century Christians learning how to grow, mature, and multiply just to survive; there wasn't a debate on what to do with our girth because we didn't have any.

All of this makes me wonder how the first century church would have answered the question? Was there even a debate between church plants or multi-site? I don't think so... In fact I wonder if the whole debate is simply a product of the fractured, denominational American mindset causing confusion on the issue? If we weren't divided would we even wrestle with the choice to start another church or keep it close to the vest within our fold? Would we want to spread our congregation by adding another campus or would we carve some members out, raise up some leaders and start a new independent work? Are the two mutually exclusive?

In my limited experience, I've found that when the community of believers is tight-knit the goal of making mature disciples and planting as many culturally changing churches as possible are the only goals. How to accomplish that is the only question. In fact I wonder if the whole debate is simply an American issue never to be reproduced anywhere else? If that's the case is the wrong question being asked?

Tags: Missions

J.D. Greer posted "Why We Plant Churches Overseas When There is Plenty to Do Here" and to be honest, I thought it was going to be another rant against international missions. I had my guns up ready for a fight. But as it turns out I didn't have to. His explanation of why missions is so important is a thing of beauty.

"Christ is glorified not simply by the total number who worship him, but also by the fact that this number includes representatives from every tribe, language, people, and nation. Therefore, we must be making concerted efforts to see that missionaries, whether from our country or another, reach the "hidden" people who have not yet heard the gospel."

Tags: Jesus, Missions