Jesus Christ is the same--yesterday, today, forever

My sophomore year of college, I took a Shakespeare comedies and romances class, which ended up turning into a discussion about how most of them were actually tragedies--but that is another argument entirely.

In our reading of The Merchant of Venice, I wrote my essay on the tension and hatred between Shylock and Antonio--the first Jewish, the second Christian.

Their disagreements and the stereotypes they threw in each other's faces were simply a demonstration of the deeper tension between the two religions, which essentially boils down to an argument on the Old Testament versus the New Testament.

The clash between Shylock and Antonio reveals a deeper argument that is sometimes made that says the God of the Old Testament is different than the God of the New Testament, and that what he desires and how he conducts himself has changed.

It's a worn out mantra that God used to be all wrath and now is all love--equating the powerful and almighty Most High to the disposition of a toddler throwing a tantrum and then calming down.

I hear the words "God is love" frequently spoken, plastered on billboards, and shared on Facebook. While I agree wholeheartedly that God is love in its most untainted form, it would be an injustice to the character of God to claim that he is only love.

We have a tendency to present Christ as the gentle lamb, offering forgiveness to the sin-stained inhabitants of Earth. However, we struggle to fit in the God who shakes mountains when he walks and commands the Earth to swallow up people up for their sins into this rhetoric and so we simply leave it out.

What do we compromise when we try to mold the character of God into something more marketable?

We compromise true love for Christ. We compromise true obedience. And we are setting ourselves up for cultural politeness toward "being religious" without any inkling of what it means to truly follow Christ.

I think part of the problem is an incomplete understanding of what love is.

Love isn't a lack of discipline. A lack of discipline actually points to the opposite of love.

"Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them" (Proverbs 13:24).

Parents discipline their children in order to drive out folly from them--in order to make their children better. Parents who care nothing for their children will never bother with the time and effort it takes to administer discipline--they would simply leave their children to their own devices and demise.

A few months ago, I was reading in 2 Samuel 6.

The Israelites were instructed to carry the ark of God--a most sacred item--and just like with the building of the Temple, the Lord was very specific and clear as to how the movement of the ark was to take place.

Among other instructions, the Israelites were told not to touch the ark.

"When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God because the oxen had stumbled. The Lord's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God" (2 Samuel 6:6-7).

There are several points to make about this text. The first time I really looked into this verse, I was confused at the seemingly unnecessary act of striking Uzzah down.

It seemed an awfully lofty punishment for an arguably pardonable offense.

However, we tread on dangerous ground when we begin to put God on trial with our human understanding of what it means to be loving.

The Lord struck Uzzah down because God is holy and just. The verse specifies that Uzzah's action created anger within the Lord because Uzzah's reaching out was an irreverent act.

What does that mean?

The definition of irreverent is showing a lack of respect for people or things that are generally taken seriously. In this case, the lack of respect was neither shown to a person or a thing, but the almighty God. So why was reaching out to the ark irreverent?

Because Uzzah doubted the power of God to protect the ark within the guidelines he had put in place for the Israelites. Uzzah's arm was a prideful proclamation that the Lord's rules were merely suggestions for convenient times, but not binding by any means.

Therefore, the Lord was just in striking Uzzah down.

However, my larger point is not that the Lord is justified in his actions. It's not my place to validate the Lord's actions--there is no validation needed for the creator of the heaven and the Earth.

Yet, I bring this verse to light because it ties in seamlessly with the description of Christ as loving and just and holy and powerful, and I think it's important because verses like this are often brought forth as evidence that the Lord isn't loving or that he once was wrathful, but he has now calmed down or become loving in place of what he once was.

And nothing could be further from the truth.

In Exodus, we see the unrelenting mercy and compassion of Christ toward the Israelites.

In Exodus chapters 32-34, the nation of Isreal formed the golden calf to worship, which was a direct act of disobedience against the Sinai covenant, which specifically prohibited the nation from representing Christ with images of gold or silver.

The penalty for the disobedience, according to the covenant, was death.

However, Moses pleads for the lives of the Israelites and "the Lord relented from the disaster he had spoken of bringing on his people" (Exodus 32:14).

Miles Van Pelt, author of The Old Testament God of Compassion and Mercy, writes about this act of compassion on behalf of God.

"Consider now the incomprehensibility of God--his limitless excellence, his immeasurable strength, and his complete perfection. Now consider that God, from all eternity, had determined to reveal part of his incomprehensible and immeasurable being. The original context of this divine declaration helps us to understand the nature of God's mercy. Isreal had sinned against God and broken his covenant with them. It is truly amazing to discover, therefore, that the first thing God had determined to reveal to us about his name (or character) was that he is merciful. The one who called Abraham and delivered Isreal from Egypt is compassionate. They deserved death, but God relented. The mercy of God in this context is exemplified by his 'forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin' (Exodus 34:7), but this is not just a one-time event in order to portray one of God's 'weaker; attributes. Rather, this particular attribute is central to the movement of covenantal history as portrayed in the Old Testament (Psalms 78:38; 86:15; 103:7-14), and it provides motivation for true and genuine repentance (Joel 2:12-13; Chronicles 30:9)" (Pelt).

So, we see discipline and mercy in the Old Testament. Still not convinced? Let's look at 2 Samuel again.

We see forgiveness as well as consequences in the story of David.

David disobeyed the law of the Lord by sleeping with another man's wife and having her husband killed in battle to hide his actions. The Lord sent the prophet Nathan to David to tell him that his actions would have consequences.

"This is what the Lord says: 'Out of your household, I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your eyes, I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Isreal'" (2 Samuel 12:11-12).

It was in David's broken confession and the realization that he had sinned against the Lord by breaking his law that Nathan was able to tell David about the Lord's forgiveness and also of his righteous wrath.

"Nathan replied, 'The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the Lord show utter contempt, the son born to you will die'" (2 Samuel 12:13-14).

The Lord showed compassion for David's life, but the sin still needed to be dealt with. Actions still have consequences and we do not have the power to choose what those consequences are.

It is easy to see the Lord as mean or uncompassionate when he administers discipline, but the Lord never desires for us to sin in the first place.

The Lord never wanted David to have an affair or to murder someone. The Lord desires for us to choose obedience, but when we turn our back on God's law, it is his love that allows us to suffer the consequences of our actions so that we might learn.

And so to create an argument that claims the Lord doesn't discipline in the New Testament is to create an argument that the Lord doesn't love in the New Testament, which we know for a fact he does.

Something vital to understand when looking for consistency in the New Testament about wrath and judgment on those who sin is the role of Jesus Christ.

We just looked at two instances of judgment in the Old Testament where the Lord showed many attributes of himself--love, compassion, mercy, and righteousness in dealing with humanity's sinful nature.

But what we may not understand is that while those in the Old Testament were under the covenant of old, they were still being forgiven by the grace and mercy of Christ.

Yes, those living in the Old Testament sacrificed lambs to God as an offering, but the blood of the lambs did not save those people from their sins. God saved through his mercy and grace and compassion through the means of their worship offering.

Jesus Christ steps into the scene in the New Testament as the "final sacrifice." However, God did not change the way he forgives and saves. The worship offering simply changed.

And what Jesus means for those in the New Testament is that Jesus was the one who bore the wrath of God that he had once placed on individual people for their individual sins, in the covenant of new, all of that was placed on Jesus' shoulders (Isaiah 53:4-5).

I never realized the implications of Jesus bearing the wrath of God until recently.

God has righteous wrath, we see that clearly in the Old Testament. Sin makes God angry, and he deals with that sin accordingly because he is righteous and a good judge.

Now if God doesn't change--we know he doesn't (Hebrews 13:8)--this implies his anger toward sin is still just as great.

Imagine his immense anger at Uzzah for his disobedience--so great he struck him dead. Now imagine that anger multiplied for every single person on Earth for every single sin they ever committed.

Now imagine all of that resting on the body of our dying Savior.

God has not changed how he feels about sin, but instead of us bearing the weight of our own sinful nature, we hand that immense weight to Jesus to bear for us.

God has not changed, but the avenue in which he decided to administer justice has changed (1 Thessalonians 5:9).

You see, the sins we commit are still wrong and they still need to be addressed. God is a good judge and he wouldn't allow sins to go by unpunished or undealt with.

But instead of making us pay, God allowed Jesus to pay for us. For all of us (1 Peter 3:18).

It is worth mentioning that this exemption of God's wrath is reserved only for those who believe--for those who have confessed their sins and become followers of Christ (Romans 10:10).

For those who have not professed belief in Christ and surrendered to his will and purpose for their life, and for those who have not been transformed by the Holy Spirit, wrath awaits them (Ephesians 5:6).

So no, we are not struck dead for our acts of sin and disobedience. The Lord is long-suffering, slow to anger and abounding in love (Psalm 103:8), but does this mean we should act as if God is a laid-back dad who doesn't really care that much when we mess up? By no means (Romans 6:1-4).

Yes, we are under forgiveness and grace, but forgiveness and grace are not synonyms for indifference. Christ is not indifferent to our sins and we are in dangerous spiritual territory when we begin to feel this is the case.

Being redeemed by the blood by Christ is much more than having the shame of sin taken away. Redemption means we are given the opportunity to have a relationship with the creator of the universe, as well the Holy Spirit to dwell within us.


It means we are filled with the joy of our salvation that causes us to understand who we were before being transformed by the spirit of Christ. When we truly understand who we were before our redemption, this changes every single aspect of our lives, especially how we respond to God's commands.

We find obedience is a love offering to Christ--a way to demonstrate our love for him and our desire to become more like him. We have no strength to fully obey his commands before being transformed and saved from the bondage of our sinful nature.

In short, obedience is a gift Christ gives to us--the ability to choose obedience where before we had no choice but to choose sin.

And there is just as much love in allowing the consequences of our actions to befall on us as he showed the Israelites in sparing their lives.

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8).

Comfortable Christianity

Recently on Facebook, I have seen a trend of "unpopular opinions" where users say their unpopular opinion about current events.

While I have never been deterred from sharing my generally unpopular opinions about life from the perspective of a Christian in a world that spits in the face of everything I believe, the task is more challenging when I feel I am voicing an "unpopular opinion" amidst believers.

So with that being said, I will tread lightly, but I will not compromise truth.

There is a concept I have been struggling with lately and it's this idea that Christianity is a tool for making life more comfortable. Basically, Christianity is the guide to show us how to live, act, speak, and behave so that our lives become easier and better. The more I thought about this concept, the more wrong it seemed to me.

Let me explain.

Christianity and scripture have been loving bestowed on the undeserving Gentiles who were not worthy of being counted as part of the inheritance of Christ. When anyone confesses their sins and surrenders control of their lives to Christ, their life (should) radically change. The old will pass away and they will become a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17).

Scripture, the life-breathed word of God, is a tool given to believers to show and guide how they should live. But there is a fine line between seeing Christianity as the purpose and motivation for your life and seeing Christianity as a way to make your life more comfortable and easy.

Christianity was never intended to make followers comfortable. The lives of Christians are not supposed to be easy. And yet, all too often, I think we see the gospel as a message that promises the perfect, comfortable, easy life--and this misconception is detrimental to the true message the Gospel speaks.

I hear these messages perpetuated through speaking, online and even within the church. Messages like "God only wants you to be happy" and these messages are derived from verses that have been taken out of context and manipulated to fit our own selfishness. For example, "Delight yourself in the Lord and he will give you the desires of your heart" (Psalm 37:4).

Believers and unbelievers alike misunderstand this verse as a promise that if you keep up good behavior doing all your good Christian deeds, then God will reward you with a big house, fancy cars, money and that person you want to be with. No? Aren't those things your heart desires?

But that's the point. If you are truly delighting yourself in the Lord, your desires will be for him. Your desires will be to see his name be made great, not your own. Your desires will not be to accumulate possessions for this world but to surrender everything to be used how he sees fit.

Prosperity gospel preachers like Joel Osteen have taken verses like this and manipulated them into an entirely different religion--a religion of self. Osteen preaches that by following God, you will become rich, famous, and beautiful.

Osteen writes that "God wants us to prosper financially, to have plenty of money, to fulfill the destiny he has laid out for us" (Osteen 1).

The Gospel then becomes about self instead of about Christ. It becomes about putting on a show, being lukewarm about growth, and not being willing to do the challenging things that are required to follow Christ.

Is it really that big of a deal if we want to see Christianity as comfortable and easy? What is really at stake? Am I just being intolerable?

John Piper, author of Let the Nations be Glad!, writes that "comfort and ease and affluence and prosperity and safety and freedom often cause and tremendous inertia in the church. The very things we think would produce personnel, energy, and creative investment of time and money for the missionary cause instead produce the exact opposite: weakness, apathy, lethargy, self-centeredness, preoccupation with security" (Piper 117).

The more comfort we have the more complacent we become. How much more comfortable can you become than those who live in the United States?

I heard recently that this concept of comfortable Christianity is something almost exclusively understood in America. What this means is that Christians in every other part of the world are being persecuted, killed, and ostracized for their faith, while we see it as a socially polite claim to make.

Christianity in the United States becomes more about comfort and security of our families and churches and schools and less about how much we can sacrifice for Christ. We are less willing to "surrender all" to Christ when we have never known anything but extreme comfort.

The song "All to Jesus, I surrender" is the kind of attitude we should have with everything we own--even with our very lives. Yet we sing those words without an inkling of what that might actually look like in our own life.

What do we lose from the power of the Gospel when we don't have to own it?

Everything. I would argue we lose everything. The entire gospel is centered on that of abandon, surrender, sacrifice, and persecution.

When Jesus first called the disciples, he asked them to leave everything behind. The disciples, now so well known, were once simple fishermen who used their trade to feed their families and pay their taxes. Yet, when Jesus called them, "they pulled their boats up to shore, left everything and followed him" (Luke 5:11).

They left their source of income. They left something they had invested so much time, money, and work on. They left their families and the comfort of anything familiar they had once known.

Later on, Jesus encounters two men whom he asks to follow him. The first man responded to the call by saying he had to bury his father first. The second said he just needed to say goodbye to his family.

The Lord responded by saying that "no one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God" (Luke 10:62).

So how does this verse compare to the reasoning that God just wants us to be happy, comfortable and worry free? The Lord asked the men to follow him and both men responded with what we would consider reasonable requests, however, the Lord has called us here on earth to be servants for his purposes, not to idolize family.

And I think that is what is the most disconcerting to me. Yes, we are called to serve in the best capacity we can in whatever station the Lord has called us to, whether that is being a mother, father, sister, brother, teacher, student, etc. I am not belittling that calling.

What I am doing is putting that calling in perspective to the calling to serve Christ. Because we all know which calling is more important, more pressing, and more meaningful in the light of eternity, however, I think we often act as though the family, the job, and the education are more important.

Yes, they are important. No, they are not more important than the call to serve Christ. If you still don't believe me just go back and re-read how Christ responded to the two men.

Piper writes that "Jesus suffered first in a way that we cannot: 'to sanctify the people through his blood.' The death of the son of God is absolutely unique in its effect. But then notice the word 'therefore.' Because Jesus died for us in this way, therefore let us go forth with him outside the camp and bear the abuse he endured. It does not say, since he suffered for us, therefore can have an easy life free from suffering and abuse and danger. Just the opposite. Jesus' suffering is the basis of our going with him and bearing the same abuse he bore" (Piper 102).

Christianity is a loud proclamation that we stand with the man who suffered for the entire human race, and therefore we will dedicate our whole lives to him and suffer like he did because we are associating ourselves with him.

Suffering is not something we intentionally seek after, but inevitably comes when we live the way Christ commands. Our suffering in the states does not even come close to equating to what others suffer across oceans, however, it is concerning when believers say they have never suffered or experienced persecution for what they believe.

Persecution will come; it's inevitable. However, there has been a surge of so-called Christianity that seeks to apologize for anything that might be offensive to unbelievers. Truth is compromised in order to make Christianity more socially acceptable.

Christianity is offensive to unbelievers. Period. Absolute truth is offensive in a culture that acts as if there is not a definite answer to anything. Therefore, to align with a belief system such as Christianity, people will find you narrow-minded, hateful, pretentious etc--even if you have never warranted any of those labels or stereotypes.

That's called persecution. That's called suffering for our faith. Take it in stride, my friends.

I do not seek to criminalize those with money or excess of possessions. The Lord does bless abundantly. However, I charge you not to store up your treasures here on earth, but to see everything you own and everyone you know as belonging to the Lord and willing to offer those things to him whenever he asks that of you.

It's so much easier to thank God for what he has given us than to rejoice when he asks us to give them back. Yet, if we see everything as belonging to him--for the glory of him--then this will make the sacrifice much easier.

About a year and a half ago, the Lord called me to missions. I felt the tug on my heart and I prayed and sought council for over a year--discerning whether it was me or the Lord who was the cause of this.

Recently I went to Africa; my first taste of what it might mean to be a missionary. I was only gone for just short of a month. However, I was able to spend many hours talking with a woman who has been a missionary for almost 30 years. She was transparent and honest with me about the struggles of being a missionary.

And for the first time, I saw what this call really meant--the glitter and sparkle were gone--and I was hit with the reality of the sacrifice and hardships I was signing up for.

I sat at the wooden picnic table breaking beans for dinner that night in the Bush and I remembered all the nights my family sat at the table in the summers breaking beans together. I started to cry and I realized that is what the Lord meant when he said "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26).

What he means here is not that we should hate them, but to love Christ so much that we are willing to turn our back on them and follow him.

And for the first time, I realized that my calling to be a missionary would mean sacrificing the time and company of my family. And despite my sadness, there was still great joy in my heart, because I knew what I was striving for would be much greater than anything I could have here on earth--yes, even my own life.

My prayer for all of you is to be able to honestly proclaim that "for me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain" (Philippians 1:21).

To church or not to church--that shouldn't even be the question

I have often heard the argument against the church by using the verse that states that where two or more gather in the Lord's name, there he is with them also (Matthew 18:20). While I do not dispute the truth of this verse, I think, in this case, it has been taken out of context.

The local church is one of the most vital resources available to believers. It is the place where believers can go for fellowship, spiritual growth, and opportunities to serve.

In high school, I was in the well-known play "The Crucible." I was familiar with the storyline before the show, and most have heard other variations of the Salem witch trials. This play, in particular, makes two distinct points about the church that resonate with watchers.

The first is that churches are corrupt. It's an age-old jab that, unfortunately, has some validity to it. There are corrupt churches. There are corrupt people. But I believe the church is too important to stop looking for good churches after experiences with bad ones.

The second point is made by John Proctor who is boycotting the corruption of the church. I do not think there is anything wrong with Proctor's refusal to promote the corruption of the church, the problem is that he stopped going to church altogether. Proctor claimed he could have a church right in his house with just him and God.

The first time I heard that as a high schooler, it seemed to make sense. The words are nice and pretty, and it comes at a moment of high intensity in the play that makes Proctor the winner of the argument. It's an easy line to fall for if you are not careful.

The members of a church are often times made into an analogy of the body of Christ.

"But in fact, God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body" (1 Corinthians 12: 18-20).

The rest of verse 12 goes on the explain how God has appointed each member of the body to a specific job. Some teach, some serve, some help others, and some administer. The local church is a complex body, much like ours, that depends on the role of each part.

"And if the ear should say, 'Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,' it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be?" (1 Corinthians 12:16-17).

Why do I bring this analogy up? Wasn't I just talking of The Crucible?

Because we need every part of the body for the church to function as it should. We need hands, feet, heads, arms, legs--the whole shebang.

The argument made by Proctor claims that he (as one body part) can essentially play the role of every part of the body of Christ. The church is designed to teach, disciple, lead, conduct outreach, promote the great commission, and many other responsibilities. One man cannot fill those responsibilities alone--and most who make this claim do not intend to fill those responsibilities.

I started reading C.S Lewis' famous book "Screwtape Letters" a few months back (It's been a slow journey because I am also reading like four other books--details.) The book is a fictional piece of writing that is set up as a series of letters between senior demon Screwtape, and his nephew and junior tempter, Wormwood. While I am not using this book as a source of credibility, I think Lewis uses these fictional characters to show how attacks are often wrought on Christians in ways we wouldn't expect.

The two demons have become assigned to a British man, only known as "the patient" who has recently become a Christian. The two demons write letters back and forth, corresponding on how well they are doing at destroying the man's faith and putting obstacles in his walk with Christ.

One specific letter addresses the subject of the church specifically.

"You mentioned casually in your last letter that the patient has continued to attend one church, and one only, since he was converted, and that he is not wholly pleased with it. May I ask what you are about? Why have I no report on the causes of his fidelity to the parish of the church? Do you realise that unless it is due to indifference it is a very bad thing? Surely you know that if a man can't be cured of churchgoing, the next best thing is to send him all over the neighbourhood looking for the church that 'suites' him until he becomes a taster or connoisseur of churches" (Lewis 2).

Let me explain for a moment that I do not think there is anything wrong with finding a church in which you agree with the philosophy and can stand behind their values and doctrine. I think you should find a church you can support and stand behind, as well as a church that bases their actions on scripture alone and not personal preference.

With that being said, Lewis brings up an interesting dynamic--being so picky about churches, that no church can suit your taste. I am not speaking of biblical concerns or differences in doctrine. But what I am addressing is disgruntles based on the kind of worship, the type of dress, the time of services, the way the pastor speaks, the way the church is decorated, or whether the church is a modern building or an old-style building.

While it is not wrong to have personal preferences, these qualities should not keep you from being a regular attendee of the local church, should not keep you from being involved and serving, and should not keep you from giving back to the local church to further the kingdom.

Now here is the part of my blog where things get a little bit awkward and I have to admit that bad experiences happen in churches--trust has been broken, corruption has been revealed, and members of the body have not shown and demonstrated love as they should.

Let me say right now that I recognize that what you may have gone through in past churches is valid and you have every reason to feel hurt and angry. I cannot for a minute say that all churches are standing on the truth of the word and the gospel. But please do not let bad experiences in churches keep you from church altogether.

Yes, leave the old church.

But, please, find a new one.

Church, in the way God designed it to be, is too important to boycott altogether. Nothing excuses the actions of a church that corruption is prevalent in, but nothing excuses our disobedience to the commandment to serve, give, and be in fellowship with other believers.

"Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God which he bought with his own blood" (Acts 20:28).

What this verse is saying is that we, as Christians, are responsible for the church. We are shepherds over the congregation and the body of believers. We should defend the mission of the church like a shepherd defends his sheep against all outside threats. A shepherd has one job and one mission--protect his sheep.

Their entire livelihood and income depend on these bleating wanderers.

You can imagine how hard you would defend and fight for something that determines whether you have money for food. That is the kind of diligence Christ asks us to have for the church.

Christ asks us to fight with everything we have to keep the church because he gave everything to give it to us. It says he bought the church with his own blood. Not lots of money. Not all his possessions. But his life. A death on a cross and a sentence he did not deserve. Why then are we content with half-hearted attempts to attend church once every so often and call ourselves Christians?

I would argue it is impossible to be in Christ and behave that way.

A somewhat similar scenario is where someone has been burned or hurt by a past significant other. It's a cheesy analogy and maybe it's a stretch, but I'm trying to lighten the mood. You hear the callous remarks that all men are pigs because one man proved to be such. Or the flippant jokes that all women are crazy because of a bad experience with one singular woman.

Family and friends soothe the heartbroken now-single person and assure them not everyone is like that. Eventually, that person will piece back their timid and fragile trust and try again.

Sometimes they meet another less-than-steller match. Yes, it's heartbreaking and frustrating, and annoying. But it happens. But they pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and try again. Because eventually, the person realizes that their callousness is not worth being alone.

While the subject of singleness is another argument entirely (see my last blog post), this offers a nice lead into the point that without a church we are essentially like a 16-year-old without a significant other--forlorn, lost, and utterly miserable that they don't have someone and everyone else does.

We are designed for fellowship. We are designed to worship. To give. to serve. When we become Christians we are given a new heart and a new mind and everything within us craves the church. There are those across the world who have no opportunity to attend a regular church--Christians who are so persecuted they cannot worship and serve like they want to. But that is the point--they cannot because of their circumstances, not out of a lack of desire.

I have often heard friends argue that going to church does not make them a Christian. And not going to church doesn't mean they aren't a Christian. Technically this is correct. There are many who walk into churches every Sunday who are not truly Christians as I am sure there are Christians who do not go to church every Sunday.

But this is technical and corner-cutting and I do not think that is really the Christianity that we should be striving for. That is not the kind of love God desires from us. You may be a Christian and not attend church, but I would question how much you are growing as a Christian. I would question the strength of your walk with Christ.

You should go to church because you want to, not because you are supposed to. Actions of obedience should always be performed as a display of love and willingness, but it doesn't mean that if you don't feel like going to church, you shouldn't.

"And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another--and all the more as you see the Day approaching" (Hebrews 10:24-25).

Yes, we are commanded to be involved in church, but it is for our benefit. (As most commands are, we surely find).

When we are truly in Christ, we desire what he desires. And he desires the local church. He desires to give, to serve, to be involved, to worship. I might be concerned at the state of your relationship if you desire none of these things.

As Christians, we shouldn't be asking ourselves whether we can still be a Christian and not go to church. That is entirely the wrong question. We should constantly be desiring to serve and love Christ--to love the local church, to serve, to give, to fellowship. The question is never how much can I get away with and still get to heaven, but how can I most please the Lord and serve him while I am on earth.