Author Archives: Michael J. Fast

If Powerlessness Means No Power How Can I Lead My Church?

Posted on by

“You know, Mike. The hardest one of the 4 for me is Powerlessness. As Pastors we need to guide our churches. Without our power, people will not move and the church will not grow. So there needs to be a balance.” Phil was wrestling with one of Michael Frost’s Four Ps of Incarnational Mission. As a churchplanter among middle-class Filipinos, he is concerned about the future of his church and the best way to minister to this group.

Phil was a part of SEATS latest School of Ministry class. In an effort to return to the roots of our movement we have been revisiting the Gospels under the guise of a hermeneutics class. Called “Understanding Jesus: Mark.” I thought it might be interesting to combine Frost’s understanding of Incarnation and Incarnational Mission with the stories we see in Mark. Here is a brief summary of each of the four:

Presence – Do what Jesus would have been doing, if he were here.

Proximity – Identify with those to whom we are ministering, much in the way Jesus identified with nearly everyone to whom he ministered.

Powerlessness – giving up our position of power – be it money, position, education, or whatever – and depend upon God for the things we need in ministry. Rather than trusting in my own power, I trust in God’s.

Proclamation – it is all worthless if we never get around to discussing and presenting Jesus as the good news.

Granted these summaries may not accurately reflect Frost’s concepts since they are my summaries but they did form the basis for our discussion in class.

Of course, like Phil, we are all ok with 3 of the 4. We are happy to see that we represent God’s presence in the world, that we drawn near to others just as he drew near to us, and that ultimately, without the good news being proclaimed, there is no value to our mission. But when we get to that pesky #3 – Powerlessness – something seems to hold us back. We begin asking questions like Phil: How do we balance leadership with servanthood? Am I just supposed to sit back and let my church fail? To sit back and let people just do what they want?

The key to all of this is to remember that in Powerlessness we are imitating Jesus. Perhaps the Trinity had a similar discussion “before the foundation of the earth” where they debated the nature of the Incarnation. Perhaps they thought about all the positives and negatives as they discussed the plan. Certainly God’s concerns are bigger than ours. If I am concerned about my church and its growth, God is concerned with the universe and its growth. But yet, when all is said and done, God chose to use powerlessness as a key part of how he presented his love and salvation to us.

Another key is to remember that it is not really Powerlessness that is being spoken of but rather a dependence upon power that is not our own. Jesus is constantly speaking of how he is the one who depends upon the Father for certain things. We also read how it was the Holy Spirit who filled him and enabled him to do his marvelous acts. When we embrace powerlessness, we set aside our own resources, powers, abilities, etc and embrace humility and dependence upon God in it all.

I thought of a few points that might help us focus on the key concepts that relate to Powerlessness:

1. So does the ‘Pastor’ have to be the best at everything? If we believe this, we will never be able to embrace powerlessness since we will need that power to keep up the hectic pressure and pace we need to set for ourselves.

2. Does the church depend upon the ‘Pastor’ for its existence? Obviously we need to answer “No.” It is Christ upon whom we depend for our existence as a church. As such, maybe we need to let go a little bit and see where God is leading. (See #1, above).

3. How do our gifts play into this concept of powerlessness? The fact that the Spirit manifests himself through gifts he gives to each Christian as he sees fit means that one person can’t carry the whole load. We need to give up our idea of the pastor as the key figure in the church, as the one with whom the church lives or dies and embrace the fact that each part of the body is crucial to the future of what God does through us!

4. The concept of team understands powerlessness and uses it effectively. “There is no ‘I’ in team” is an old saying that has some truth to it. Team means we do it together not that you or I do it alone.

5. Is ‘Pastoral’ leadership based upon leadership through power, or leadership through example or leadership through serving? Jesus is pretty clear in saying that power isn’t to be the basis for our leadership. In fact, in his example of washing the disciple’s feet, he showed that it is really through servanthood and example that our leadership lies.

What are your thoughts on powerlessness and how it relates to leadership?

Do you want God to "keep the balance"? I Don’t.

Posted on by

Just watching Avatar on DVD at home with the family the other night when the line jumped out at me. Near the end of the show, when Jake Sulley is questioning himself and his quest to free Pandora of the “Skypeople,” he asks Eywa to help him. His girlfriend Neytiri replies, “Eywa doesn’t take sides, she keeps the balance.”

I’m not sure about you but I want a God who does take sides — one who chooses the side of good over evil, who chooses right over wrong. Because a God who chooses to keep the balance makes sure that there is just as much evil in the world as there is good.
For an example of a God choosing right over wrong, take a look at the story of Jesus.

Building the Kingdom: Essentials vs Non-Essentials

Posted on by

Had an interesting discussion in our School of Ministry yesterday. We were talking about how the church is to be an example of the Kingdom of God on earth by exhibiting its values and by being a true community.

Of course, our discussion eventually ended up at the old axiom: “in essential matters, unity; in non-essential matters, liberty; in all other matters, charity.” My colleague, William Camba, pointed out that we don’t really seem to have trouble over the essential matters – we aren’t always discussing within our churches whether there really is a trinity or if Jesus is God or not. We do, however, seem to get caught up on the non-essentials – what colour to paint the walls, what kind of music to play, or what clothes we should wear during worship. The thing is there is also a distinct lack of liberty and love expressed during these times. William illustrated his point with a personal story about how he was recently distracted while attending a conference because the speaker was wearing flip-flops. “Why isn’t he wearing shoes?” was the question going through his mind. Upon his observation of the reactions of others to the slippers (ie no one else seemed to be offended), he eventually began to ask himself whether the problem was really his own and perhaps he was making something an essential that really isn’t essential.

The class then went on to discuss that most contentious of church issues, namely music. To be honest I wasn’t really happy with where the rest of the discussion and feel that I wasn’t able to wrap up the day on a positive note. After, however, a lot of thought, I realise we really need to have a way of determining what is essential and what is not so that we can avoid conflict in these areas in the future and so that we can practice the liberty and charity that we want to.

So what makes some things essential and other things non-essential?

Other than certain foundational theological truths that we can’t mess with, we are surrounded by a vast amount of stuff that can be classified as personal preferences – the songs we sing, the words we use, the Bible version we prefer, the clothes we wear, etc. How can we navigate this quagmire?

The key is that we need to return to the essentials of the church. For example, the Bible describes a church that is not merely to exist but to function properly. Some call this being missional but for the past few years we at SEATS have been talking about the Functional Church. Our churches are to proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ (kerygma). They are also to exhibit the values of the Kingdom of God (koinonia). They are to be centers of service to both God and Humans (diakonia), and they are to bear the truth, even to the point of death (marturia).

In determining if something is essential, we need to return to these basic functions. Take the earlier example of music in the church. When we think about being functional in proclaiming the Good News we need to see what is essential. It is essential that the Good News be proclaimed in our public singing but the form that public singing takes is not essential. As long as it gets the job done in the best way possible.

We also need to declare the truth through our music. The form, however, is non-essential. As long as it is effective in declaring the truth then we should do it. If it is not, then we need to modify or change it.

Is it possible to serve through music? As long as the music is functional then its form is secondary. The same goes for proclaiming the values of the kingdom.

You may have noticed that forms are very much based upon societal norms. Keeping music as the example, if we want to reach fans of emo, then we can use emo. If we want to reach fans of country music then use country. If rockers, then rock. And on and on it goes. What is clear is that there is no longer only one societal norm.

So how does the church deal with these issues? One way is by having some kind of multiple services, each one targeted for a different society. (Of course, if you want to check out a different society’s service, prepare to misunderstand it ☺).
Another option for churches is to use the following statement: “We are not doing this particular thing for you – it is for (name of target).” This must be combined with a follow-up: “This is what we are doing for you.”

Paul saw his acting like a Jew or acting like a Greek as nonessentials. He didn’t force people to conform to his preferences but rather conformed to theirs. In light of Paul’s attitude, we need to have the following conversation in our churches:

What is our goal at our church? To have newcomers conform to our list of preferences or to conform to their preferences so they might more easily learn the essentials/become disciples? How can our _______ best fulfill this function? What forms need to be modified? What forms need to be changed? What forms need to be redeemed?

What are your essentials? I encourage the members of SEATS Schools of Ministry to give their opinions on the discussion board on the SEATS Facebook Page.

But just remember: liberty and charity.

How is God at work outside the church?

Posted on by

For the past few days I have been musing about the question “What is God doing in the world?” Ed Stetzer and others (here & here) have been writing about it on the Missional SyncBlog. The background of the question is a concept that is gaining momentum in the church based upon the role of the Church in the world and the role of God. For many years we in the church have thought that the church has a mission in the world. While there is no real problem with this there a little confusion seemed to develop along the way as to who was ultimately responsible for seeing this vision to fruition. Recently, as we began to ponder the work and mission of God, we realised that it is in fact God who is working in the world and we in the church must join him in his mission to the world. So that leads us to the question above as to what exactly God is doing in the world, more particularly, apart from the church? Meaning, what things to we need to look for as we try to let God set the agenda rather than we ourselves setting the agenda? More to the point, is God saving people outside of the church as well?

Then it came to me. Perhaps the most well-known verse in the Bible can help us understand how God is at work in the world. John 3:16 says, “God loved the world in this way: he sent his only Son so that whoever believes in him will not die but will have life that lasts for ever.”

There seems to be two things that we learn from this verse:

1. God is actively involved in loving the world.
2. God active love of the world is shown to the world in a very specific way: through Jesus.

What are the implications of this?

1. God’s love for the world does not appear to hinge upon the world’s love for him.
2. Jesus is essential to this display and experience of love.
3. The church, as Christ’s body, must then actively showing God’s love to the world.
4. Wherever we go, whomever we meet, whatever we experience, we must remember that God is in love with that place, that person, us. Asking the question, “What/Who is God loving here?” will go a long way towards us understanding his work in the world. The Parable of the Family (Luke 15:11-32)

If we think of an example we can think of the parable of the loving father. God, of course, is the father, and he loves his children regardless of whether they stay with him or not. Much has been made of the fact that “while he was still a long way from home his father saw him, and his heart went out to him; he ran and hugged his son and kissed him.” (v20) For the father, the son has never really left. He knows and waits for the day he will return. The Father also loves his older son saying, “you are always with me, and everything that belongs to me is yours.”

The so-called prodigal son is one of those kids he loves. Who is the prodigal? He represents those who have chosen their own way over God’s way – even those who are the most offensive and hateful in our eyes.

The Father also loves the older son. Who is the older son? The older brother could be described as those who are in the kingdom but who are not appreciative of what the Father’s love means for them and for the world. They enjoy the fact that they are working hard for God but appear to be unwilling to enjoy their relationship with the Father nor to want to share the blessings with others.

The key is that the prodigal son has to return to his father’s house in order to be received by the Father. The irony is that the older son doesn’t really appreciate his own situation: he doesn’t enjoy his position in the household and he doesn’t let anyone else enjoy the goodness of the father’s home either.

So, how does this relate to the church?

First of all it is important to see that God loves everyone, both inside and outside the church. He loves those who give their lives to him. He loves those who have chosen following him as a career-path. He loves those who are seeking to destroy the church. He loves those who haven’t yet heard about him. He loves those who have chosen to live their lives in opposition to him. He loves corrupt politicians. He loves abusive parents. He loves prisoners, criminals, gang members, hockey moms, blue-collar workers, management, employees, unions, scabs, parents, teens, kids, teachers, administrators, predators, stalkers, etc. If God loves these people then we need to join him on his mission of loving them. If I want to know where God is working in the world I just need to find someone whom the world doesn’t love and start loving them.

Of course we can’t equate the love God has for the world with his condoning the practices of the world. Certainly God created everything good, but we, in our sinful state, have turned the good into the bad. We (& the world) must return to God in order to receive the benefit of salvation. God’s promise to us is that creation will not have to groan anymore as he restores everything to its original holiness.

How then does it inform us as to what God’s work is outside the church?

Without Jesus, there is no salvation. The Bible also says that unless we repent, we will not be able to share in the salvation Jesus gives. But, the Bible is also clear that God does love the world. The church as Christ’s body is the representation of God’s love in the world and is tasked with showing that love to the world.

Why Anonymous Letters Don’t Work Among Jesus’ Followers

Posted on by

I thought about beginning this blog with a scenario where a person might be led to write an anonymous letter complaining about their church but to be honest I just couldn’t figure out what the motivations might be. Regardless of that, it is a topic that we do need to discuss from time to time. Anonymous letters are part and parcel of a life in ministry. I don’t know anyone in ministry who hasn’t sometime received anonymous advice or an anonymous letter. So how do we deal with them?

All throughout my life I have heard from people in all walks of life – Pastors, District Ministers, Seminary Presidents, and even missionaries – what I should do if I receive an anonymous letter. The answers are all surprisingly unanimous: “Throw all anonymous letters in the garbage and forget about them!” This is very easy to say but very hard to do. There is something that keeps drawing us back to the words on the page over and over again to the point where we are carried off in despair or self-pity.

I was pondering this advice the past week and began to wonder why anonymous letters do not work in the church. Here is my list (not sure I’ll get to 10 so I can’t really call it a Top-10 List):

1. The Church is Community. I know the people I worship and minister with personally. I may see them everyday or even every week. We attend worship services, cell groups, seminars, and classes together. We interact. We play. We love. We share. We know each other. There is that mutual give and take that goes with any good relationship.

Enter the “Anonymous Letter.” All of a sudden that relationship is broken. There is no more trust. Instead there is shame. Someone is too ashamed of the situation to make himself/herself known. Someone is too ashamed of what they are saying that they don’t want to take ownership of their words. Someone doesn’t care about community enough to keep it intact and loving.

2. The Bible tells us to confront in a personal way. Of course, in many cases your culture will determine how you confront or approach someone, but it is still in a personal way. In Galatians, Paul tells us, “Brothers, if someone is caught in sin you who are spiritual need to restore him gently …” The term brothers (or sisters) denotes relationship that leads to restoration. I approach my brother or sister (in a culturally relevant way) and work with him/her to improve. We work through our struggles together.

Enter the “Anonymous Letter.” Now all of a sudden there is no personality to the relationship. “Who is the one who is correcting me? Who knows because it’s anonymous. I guess if no one cares about me enough to help me move through my struggles then I don’t need to change.”

3. Legitimate Questions Deserve Answers (Perhaps even illegitimate questions do as well). If you want an answer for a question you ask, it is vital that the person answering knows who is asking. How can I answer you unless I know who you are? What if I give the answer to someone who isn’t asking. I have wasted my time and you still don’t have your answer! Not all questions need to be answered in a public forum.

Anonymous letters don’t allow us to give the answers to those who are asking them. The writer assumes everyone has the same question and therefore needs to know the answer and so their should be a public declaration of the answer. A public declaration of the answer could even lead to embarrassment for the writer (see #4 below).

4. Anonymous letter writers don’t necessarily have enough info to ask the questions. Their questions may arise because of misinformation, incomplete information, or erroneous information. There may be significant misunderstanding on the part of the writer to the facts of the matter. Just because a letter is anonymous doesn’t mean that it is based upon fact.

The best option is to follow the biblical pattern for resolving conflict and asking questions – namely, the two parties need to communicate in an open and honest way with each other. Not only will this allow the right issues to be addressed but will also foster true community and unity.

Emerging Ecclesiology and Church Leadership

Posted on by

A number of years ago while I was still in a student at Canadian Baptist Seminary. I wrote a paper entitled, “Women in Ministry? Of Course!” It was a biblical study of the role of women in ministry and attempted to wrestle with the ongoing debate of whether or not women should be pastors.

The other day I was in conversation with a colleague and we were discussing the pastoral role. He has gone on record as saying that the call to be a pastor is the highest calling. I have gone on record as saying that the call to be a pastor is not the highest calling. In fact it is equal with all other callings of God, whether to be a teacher, a plumber, a carpenter, a businessman, etc. As we were chatting about the issue, I took note of my assistant working away at her desk and realised that if it is indeed the highest calling to be a pastor, she would have not hope of responding to that call. In fact, if it is indeed the highest calling to be a pastor, one half of the human race has no hope of fulfilling God’s highest purpose for their life.

It got me to thinking about the book I am now reading. I have been captured by The Forgotten Ways, by Australian missionary Alan Hirsch. In it he talks of new forms of church that have been emerging in the last 40 years or so that are better equipped to respond to the cultural milieu within which we live and minister today. His contention is that attractional models of church that were so valid in the years from Constantine (ie. Christendom) are becoming less valid in a world where there is an increasing plurality in the religious scene. No longer can we assume that society is Christian.

This reflects the wisdom of Dr. Ken Davis, my seminary church history prof. He talked of two types of Christianity existing in the world. One he called Corpus Christianum. or the Body of Christianity. This is that organisational force that is formed when Christianity becomes official, established, powerful, etc. It may or may not truly reflect the desires of Christ even though it says it does. The other he called Corpus Christi or the Body of Christ and reflected the Believer’s church – ie. those who have chosen to follow Christ and who actively on a daily basis to take up their crosses and follow him.

Hirsch says that the current concepts on church leadership were formed out of the Constantinian model of church (ie. Corpus Christianum). Since society was officially Christian, there was no more need for Apostles (to protect the truth) or evangelists to proclaim the truth. The church settled on pastors to shepherd the flock that already existed. This form exists until today but was developed out of the new realities of church in AD300. He contends that the church needs to return to the 5-fold leadership described in the Ephesians 4:11 – “He also gave apostles, prophets, missionaries, as well as pastors and teachers as gifts to his church.”

Coupled with Hirsch’s thoughts on church leadership, I was also reminded of another book i’m reading, this one by someone perhaps as diametrically opposed to Hirsch’s philosophy as you can get. After serving on the staff of one of the most famous “attractional” churches of our time – Willow Creek – Don Cousins moved on to create his own church consulting agency. His latest book, Experiencing Leader Shift, is his take on church leadership today. He clearly states that there is no specific spiritual gift of leadership mentioned in the Bible and that in fact our present understanding of leadership today focuses on only one type of leadership: namely that of the leader-who-can-make-grand-plans-and-carry-them-to-fruition. In layman’s terms, basically people who can successfully lead their faith communities into mega churches. Cousins discounts this leadership style as being the spiritual gift of leadership. He also points out that 92% of American pastors don’t see themselves in this way and therefore feel that they are not adequate to the task. He proposes (and this is where the comparison with Hirsch takes place) that biblical leadership is in fact plural – made up of 5 different gifts that all create leadership in different ways within the church.

So how does all of this relate to the issues of women in ministry? Perhaps we have created a debate where no debate needs to exist. If, as contended by Hirsh and Cousins, church leadership is not defined by one individual who preaches every Sunday, heads up board meetings, leads Bible studies/cellgroups/home groups/care groups/etc, casts vision for the church, protects the church theologically, declares the will of God for the congregation, etc. and is rather a plurality of people gifted in the areas of apostleship, prophecy, evangelism, shepherding, and teaching, then (boy this is a long sentence) there is a place for both genders to be involved in church ministry and even leadership. Now women, along with men, have the chance to achieve their highest purpose in Christ through the appropriate exercise of their gifts and new understandings of church leadership.

everyone was wrong — what american idol tells us about ourselves

Posted on by

so it appears that everyone was wrong. if your’re not one of the +-100 million american idol voters (nor one of the countless who watched around the world) you may be unaware of the shocking finale of season 8.

everyone knew who would win. there wasn’t any doubt in anyone’s mind. the contestants knew who would win. the judges knew who would win. the world knew who would win. even the winner knew who would win and that it wouldn’t be him. everyone knew adam would win. hands down. no debate. no contest.

so what happened? it turns out that no one told the voters so they voted for kris. his remarks were perhaps the most pertinent: basically saying “adam deserves this. this is adams’s [award].”

anyway, it’s all just a show that captured our hearts for a season but now we must get on to the realities of life. so what does this say to us? what can we learn from all of this?

in the realm of nation building (or discipling nations) it is easy to get discouraged and down knowing that we are up against an insurmountable obstacle. trying to rid our nation of graft and corruption; leading the fight against pornography; dealing with almost insurmountable traffic woes; helping fathers reclaim their responsibility to their families; etc.

it’s like we all know who is going to win: they are. the sinners. the corrupt. the selfish. everyone knows.

but everyone is wrong. there is good news and it is encapsulated in (at least) two bible verses:

in matthew jesus talks about the gates of evil not being strong enough to repel the attacks of the church. eventually those gates will be destroyed and the church will triumph.

revelation talks about the two kingdoms: the world’s and god’s. in the end the kingdoms of the world will become the kingdom of jesus.

so there is hope. in fact it is certainty: transformation will occur and it will be worldwide in it’s scope.

twilight

Posted on by

went to see another movie the other day (seems to be a favourite theme of my blogs 🙂

i wasn’t sure what to expect since the movie was supposed to be about vampires. remembering the fun i had watching lost boys when i was in university, i thought that it might be ok.

to be honest, i was amazed!

two thing stick out in my mind right now. they both relate to the character edward (perhaps as the male character i can relate to him more than the female character)

in many ways we are like edward — not perhaps vampires who have to control our urges to kill — but rather sinners who have to control our urges to sin. every day and in every situation we face, we make a choice: will i give in to the sinful body i inhabit (romans 7:24)? or will i live as if i am dead to that sin (romans 6:2-3). edward can be a model for us of this daily struggle we face. this is the true reality of the christian life (at least as i have experienced it). the daily decision to deny yourself and follow the teachings of jesus.

i was a little bit turned off at first with edward’s true appearance as an almost angel-of-light. it reminded me too much of how satan is portrayed in the bible. but then i saw it from another angle — as humans we were created a little lower than the angels (ps 8:4; he 2:6ff) but in christ we are called “sons’ of glory. in many ways as christians we tend to hide our true identity as sons of god. we even hide our true identity as those for whom sin has no power. we fool ourselves into thinking that we are still sinners and deny ourselves the opportunity to really gain victory over it. so maybe we are a little diamond-skinned after all.

Villar, Politics, & the Church

Posted on by

“Ladies and Gentlemen, please join me in welcoming the President of the Senate of the Republic of the Philippines, Senator Manny Villar.” It was strange to hear those words coming out of my mouth. In fact the whole situation was a little bit of a surprise for me. As the producer for this year’s Baptist Conference of the Philippines Biennial Assembly, it was my job to ensure the program ran smoothly. I spent the time running back and forth making sure everything was working well. The first night, as expected, we had a few program changes, due in part to the anticipated late arrival of the keynote speaker, the aforementioned Senator Villar. Rev. Gary Harrison, VP of BGC-US, another of our speakers, graciously agreed to preach his message early, just to accommodate the Senator’s busy schedule. Of course, as the producer, the big question for me was, “When the Senator arrives, do we get him to wait or do somehow signal the other speaker to wrap things up so that the Senator could have his shot?”

A variety of discussions ensued with a variety of participant’s. In the back of my mind I was thinking that we shouldn’t be to eager to stop the preacher just for a politician to take his place. Others shared the same viewpoint and so the Senator waited for about 15 minutes. Of course, as my colleague Rene pointed out, “Politicians never show disappointment in public.”

So it was up to me. I should point out that my role at the Assembly did not include any public role. In fact, I was just wearing jeans and a t-shirt when the message came to introduce the Senator!

I must admit I was impressed with the Senator’s speech (although for the life of me I couldn’t get the image of him dressed in his leather suit, singing, “Manny Villar para sa Senador” to the tune of an old Tom Jones song, out of my head.). Either he or his speechwriter understood the issues of Transformation enough so that he said all the right things in the right order. Perhaps much more boldly than I might but then that is not a bad thing.

Afterward it was very interesting. As he was leaving he began (as politicians do) to shake hands with the assembled host. I have in my mind this image of pastors scrambling down to the aisle just so they could shake his hand.

Having said all of that, this phenomena brings several questions and or observations to my mind:

Firstly, it seems to me that in situations like this, the question running through everyone’s mind is, “How can he help us.” There is, as Rene once again pointed out, a certain star quality to having a famous politician grace our circles, even circles as politically neutral as a church gathering (said with my tongue firmly in my cheek!) We all want to meet the famous person and more importantly perhaps have them join our church. But to what end?

The second thing it makes me ask is, “Why isn’t it the same way with the political world?” Why are our leaders not as rabidly excited when we are given the opportunity to speak in the public arena? Why are they not beating down our doors looking for our support so that they can craft their programs accordingly?

Could it be that we have become so rabidly anti-political in our churches, scared to say even the slightest world in support of one candidate or another? Could it be that when issues come up, we as a church have either ignored it or over-spiritualised it so that our answers become meaningless? Case in point, a local Baptist minister in Canada saying, when asked about a horrible child-abuse ring that had just been uncovered in his town, “I think they are demon possessed!” How is that answer relevent to the issue facing that town – namely that of pain, betrayal, distrust, anger, cries for justice?

The church needs to get its voice back! We need to speak out on the issues that are shaping our societies. We need to bring not only the message of the Good News of Jesus Christ into the world, but also the message of the truth of who God is and how he wants us to act.

Mike Fast welcomes feedback on any of the articles he writes. Please leave your comments below.

poop

Posted on by

The other day I was watching one of my favourite TV shows: Dirty Jobs with Mike Rowe. In Episode 34 he was working for the day in a candy store somewhere in small-town USA. One of the jobs he had to do was create dog-poop candy. No, the ingredients did not include actual dog poop. Rather, they used chocolate and some well-placed peanuts to create the impression that one was in fact eating dog poop.

As you get to be my age [not that old but old enough to be thinking about these things] you start to think about legacy. What is the purpose of my life? What will I leave behind when I die? Will I do enough so that my kids will have a better life that I had?

I thought about that as I read the story of Ahab in the Bible. He was the King of Israel many years ago. God had wanted him to be faithful to his plan for his country but he decided to go his own way. He married the neighbouring king’s daughter, Jezebel who promptly proceeded to kill all the prophets of God. In the end they both died dishonourable deaths, condemned by their actions against God.

Which brings us back to the issue of “poop.” Do you know what legacy Jezebel left behind? Poop. Yes, poop. The story in 2 Kings 9:36-37 says: ‘Dogs will eat Jezebel’s body inside the walls of Jezreel. Jezebel’s corpse will be like manure [poop] on the ground in the fields surrounding Jezreel so that no one will be able to say that this is Jezebel.’”

What kind of legacy are you leaving behind?

I hope mine isn’t poop.