A church-less cell?

Last Friday, I returned to my disbanded cell group. We gathered to talk about starting it up again – reviving the good old times. There were a handful of us with our spouses and kids. Here's a little background. I started the cell group in 2000. We disbanded in 2010. With that departure, all of us left our common church and went to different churches.

Some of us went to a charismatic megachurch. Some went to smaller independent churches. Others like me joined the Methodist church.

Before that, I had been in a mega-church for 25 years. Like all humble beginnings of megachurches, my church started with no more than 500 people in the early eighties. But it grew. The membership multiplied. And like horse and carriage, with numbers come funds. My church soon became a soul nurturing center as well as an administrative juggernaut as it exceeded expectation in growth and collection.

Up to a point, when my church hits the thousands, it became more organized, more professional, and more efficient. Ruth Bell Graham once said that "the church is scarred by wars, buffeted by storms and eroded by pollution, and God is at work restoring His own - repairing, cleaning, purifying." For my church, and the other megachurches locally, we were simply prospering.

I was a church pianist for all that time and I saw the transformation with mixed results. Initially, I struggled with the band – just trying to keep up. We were playing with irregular tempo, missed keys and false starts. But we were happy. We gave our all. We were worshipping from the heart. I was young at that time. 

Then, I tried to keep up with the band as my church grew in name, fame and financial gain. In 1990s, we bought a land and built a church on it. In the early 2000s, we built another. With a roof over our heads, my church started the formalization of worship where stage presentation became one of the priorities. 

Good intention aside, it was the start of the professionalization of worship for us. In other words, my church became kpi professionals and every Sunday service transformed itself from the unplug session of a sing-along to the immersive performance of methodical reverence  - that is, from intuited adoration to organized expression.  

You can say that it was the zeitgeist of the times for churches pushing the envelope of unprecedented growth. Of course, with greater growth comes greater responsibility, and it is the responsibility part that many megachurches seem to struggle with - that is, a responsibility torn between keeping the numbers in the healthy zone with even more contrivances in theology and worship presentation and controlling the numbers in the pursuit of genuine growth, resilient discipleship and enduring relationship with God. 

For me, at ground level, the music scores were written to exacting standards. The choir were impeccably groomed together with the synchronized dancers, the dazzling big screens (replacing the ancient OHP), and the avant garde worship leaders firing up the congregation like a lead singer would excite his fans. Overtime, spiritual discipline were mixed with organizational know-hows, evangelism mixed with competitive growth targets, and church leadership mixed with hierarchical accountability, management by objectives, and legalistic issues of succession.

If a metaphor helps, the church I used to go to every Sunday for home-cooked spiritual meals had somehow morphed into a classy restaurant with elegant services, well garnished dishes in small tantalizing quantities, and an awe-consuming ambience that aims to impress and attract, and she has been triumphant in doing all that through the years. Kudos to her for accomplishing just that.

If you look around you, that is, the megachurches in all, the trend is unmistakable. The new order of organized religion is undeniably about size, professionalism and a soft spiritualized touch of self-therapeutic finessing. It appears that some elements of consumerism have made inroads into the weekly practice of the evangelical faith.

I have been to City Harvest Church and the experience is largely similar. I supposed NCC is the same, that is, metaphorically speaking, it provides refined restaurant-like services with an immersive environment and a larger-than-life preacher offering a buffet spread of spiritual food high in fiber grace and low in cholesterol law.

This reminds me of the insight by David Wells: "The truth is that without a biblical understanding of why God instituted it, the church easily becomes a liability in a market where it competes only with the greatest of difficulty against religious fare available in the convenience of one's living room and in a culture bent on distraction and entertainment...The evangelical church, or at least a good slice of it, is nervous, twitchy, and touchy about consumer desire, ready to change in a nanosecond at the slightest hint that tastes and interests have changed. Why? Because consumer appetite reigns."

So, this leads me to why I left my megachurch four years ago for a more unassuming Methodist setup. But before that, let me be clear here. I left not because I can't find God in my former church. My faith was cared for, nurtured and developed in that church. It will therefore always hold a special place in my heart. However, I left because I can't find my bearings in the church. Somehow I felt lost in the frenzy of growth. It was both a blessing as well as a bewilderment for me. It is thus for a personal reason that I left.

As I had said earlier, the concept of the body of Christ seems to have undergone a modernistic overhaul over the years. And it is a progression that I unfortunately could not keep up. The size, the professionalism, and the hierarchical business-like leadership all culminated to give the body of Christ an executive business lounge feel rather than a cozy and homely setting.

I guess something just had to give with the relentless pursuit of growth. Paradoxically, a church can be both a victim as well as victor when it comes to runaway growth. Size comes with a price tag. And the way I see it, it is an unavoidable tradeoff for size or "mega-ness" at the expense of turning the running of the business of a church into the running of the church as a business.

Now, let's be clear that this is not so much the deliberate design of the pastoral leadership as it is the inevitable snowball of various factors involving managing growth numbers that goes beyond the pastor's calling, amassing millions in regular collection without sustained purpose of its use in mind, struggling with diverse congregants' needs by dispensing touch-and-go scriptural answers, and unwittingly putting the expression of worship before internalizing the object of our adoration.

I think the words of a missionary Jared Herd puts it best: "While our culture is filled with spirituality, it isn't filled with spiritual coherence. We are called on to give, to be moral, to be happy, all the while being transcendental, but for what purpose? Is it so we feel good? What is the end goal? Usually there isn't one. At the same time, we are really encouraged to be consumers, to do what we want, when we want; life filled without even a hint of spirituality. Our culture is calling us to ride two horses that are going different directions, with catastrophic result of fragmentation."

At this moment, I can't help but feel that the teachings of Jesus at the Sermon on the Mount - where we are called to effect a counterculture - are as urgent and relevant then as it is now.

So, going back to last Friday's cell group, I told my members that if we'd to start off the cell group again, it would be an unofficial one (so to speak) since it will not come under the auspices of one common church where we all once came from.

My exact words to them were this: "It would be a church-less cell, but not a Christ-less one." I noted some nodding to that slip-of-the-tongue moniker - "church-less cell". And with that, we left for home to reflect about the road ahead.

My consolation that night was that while we may now be from different churches converging together to meet once a month, I can proudly say that our desire to edify and encourage one another remains undiminished, undimmed. I guess that will always be the end goal we are striving towards and the true purpose of what the body of Christ means to us. Cheerz.

Ten reasons why Kong Hee and Sun Ho should remain as pastors of CHC.

What if I sincerely want to defend Kong Hee and his wife Sun Ho? What if I - like thousands of his church members - want him and his wife to stay in leadership and lead CHC into the future? What reasons would I bring to the table to defend/justify/rationalize their leadership in CHC in the light of the recent tumultuous events? How will I do it?

Well, I have ten reasons as listed below and it gets harder (to defend) as I reach the end. So if you are ready, here goes.

1) They started the Church (that is, CHC). They are her founders. This first reason is the easiest. In the same way that Joseph Prince found NCC, Kong Hee and Sun Ho led CHC from few to many, from anonymity to popularity, and from scraping the bottom of the coffers for finances to raising millions in one weekend donation drive. That kind of history or background cannot be forgotten or dismissed away. It is also one of the indefeasible reasons why the couple deserves lifetime pastoral tenure at CHC.

2) They are a loving couple. If there is any marriage that is made in heaven on earth, I trust their nuptial knot has to be it. Their love is displayed openly on stage with hugs, kisses and words of endearment. Kong Hee once said that Sun Ho is his advisor, his guiding light, his "Sun". He admitted that he wouldn't be where he is today without her (ignoring the biting irony here). Although Sun Ho is relatively less gushing (effusive) of her affection for her husband in public, theirs is a love that stays together and overcome together. It is also a shining city on the hill to set the marital example for their members. Their marital synergy is almost perfect for longtime CHC leadership.

3) Their leadership is recognized worldwide. Kong Hee and Sun Ho have started affiliate churches, training schools, mission centers and prison ministry. They are engaged by international church leaders to speak to thousands with positive responses. Many are studying their church-growth model and trying to integrate it into their own church. To them, it is a winning formula - some sort of spiritual franchising that has a proven track record over the years.

4) They still have the trust and support of majority of the church members. This is a fact. The show of support is rather amazing even after the conviction and the sentences meted out. I guess for the reasons I have given above, you can't find a better replacement for the dynamic duo for CHC - at least not in the immediate future. I really can't imagine CHC being led by someone else. Can you?

5) They gave, did charity, visited broken homes, helped in famines, restored lives and livelihood after an earthquake, and ministered to the poor and distressed. Now let's not talk about the very controversial church building donations and the hyper-driven efforts to bankroll crossover project. Let's accentuate the positive here. Those humanitarian effort I have listed above and initiated by the couple speaks for itself. Their collective Christ-like conduct should be applauded, emulated and humbling for all. Some critics might call it hypocritical but I choose to see it from the desperate eyes of those who are suffering and found enduring relief because of the initiatives of the couple. To the suffering, motives are secondary. Help in whatever form is primary because for most of them, their lives are at stake.

6) They are dynamic preachers and have gotten it right most of the time. Now the first point is an objective observation. The couple are definitely charismatic. I had attended CHC - just once - and I saw Kong Hee preached. He was impressive, well organized. I have also seen Sun Ho lead in worship and she sang reasonably well, sincere and even humbling. The second point (“gotten it right”) is my subjective view. I believe that they are not doctrinally unsound most of the time. Putting aside their arm-bending donation drive and megachurches' slippery slope towards a cult of personality, the couple don't dabble in controversies like Holy Spirit doesn't convict us of sins anymore (but of righteousness) or the muddling through of "I don't confess my sins to be forgiven...I confess my sins knowing that all my sins are already forgiven" (thereby making confession a misnomer). So, their message over the pulpit is still relevant for the church today and their members have every reason to want them to stay put.

7) They have penetrating, though rather unusual, vision of evangelism. Let's face it: the crossover project could have worked for God's glory. It started with good, humble intention. The dynamic couple were abroad watching music videos over big tv screens when the idea came to them. That vision of going into the world to intermingle with them so as to understand their struggles and pain without judgment and then ministering to them where it counts - that is, at the core of one's heart where all issues of life flow - is exactly why Jesus came in the first place and laid his life at the Cross. That vision united the whole church and endeared them to Kong Hee and Sun Ho rather passionately.

8) They love their church. Now, this is controversial. How can love be exploitative? - some may question. How can love put their members through the grueling 5 years of investigation and trial resulting in overwhelming convictions and another tortuous route to appeal that drags the congregational faith for another few months? Is it really love or is it simply the evolutionary instinct of self-preservation? 

Well, I am supposed to defend/justify them remember? And I have already forewarned you that the obstacles gets harder or tougher as it goes. But still, and this is all me, I sincerely feel that Kong Hee and Sun Ho love the church. In DJ See’s judgment, it is stated that "In their defence, all the accused persons testified largely to the same effect: they love CHC and would not have wished to do harm to CHC. They never intended to cause loss to CHC.” I try not to read too much into that because the decades of passion and struggle to build a church deserve more credit to me than a roving suspicion aroused from slumber by the somber words or folly conduct of men. What's more, there is always a "self" in love because in its absence, from where is the self to learn to be selfless then?

Alas, I have come to my last two defences why Kong Hee and Sun Ho should remain as pastors in CHC and they are the toughest yet. I would need my readers' understanding here as I will be sharing my mind/heart out. It would therefore be a lot of rambling me-speak, and quite raw and unwieldy. Here goes.

9) To defend them in the midst of the convictions and sentences (pending appeal, and for Sun Ho, being the main protagonist in the China Wine video, which started the 5-year-old nightmare) is not the tough part, trust me. I'll leave that for the final part below. But my point here is that we are only human. Who amongst us has not fallen? Living the Christian life is already tough enough, not to mention leading many Christian lives - thousands even - setting the example weekly, thinking of finances, growth, membership devotion, possible mass disillusionment, continual reinvention, keeping it all fresh, keeping up that almost invulnerable image expected of visible leaders who are only humans, and all that. 

Kong Hee and Sun Ho are not perfect. Their enthusiasm got the better of them. In their zeal, they have lost the way. And to cover themselves, they blamed it on the auditors, lawyers and even their once most trusted confidante. They panicked. They were scared, confused, desperate, lost, and are only human. I might just do worse in their shoes. All that are understandable. And this brings me to my last point chariot-led by this quote: "To err is human; and to admit it is spectacular."

10) Indeed, repentance is the crowning glory of a man's (or woman's) achievement in my book. It takes moral courage to do so. It takes the unconditional, take-no-prisoner's confrontation of self in the deepest and darkest cesspool of human consciousness to turn a life around for good and for God. That is why the Bible says that "the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise." (Psalm 51:17). And neither should any of us. 

And this brings me to the toughest part of my defence of Kong Hee and Sun Ho. To date, neither of them have done so. Neither has said sorry, truly, unconditionally. In fact, Kong Hee had muddled it further by a theatrical apology on stage that basically and ironically deflected all blame and personal responsibility. And to aggravate matters, he appointed Sun Ho recently as lead pastor - (a stealth act of self-perpetuation rather than contrition). 

While I have listed the above nine points to defend or justify them remaining as pastors, and I stand by each and everyone of them, I am still struggling with this last defence. For how can Kong Hee and Sun Ho remain faultless or blameless in this whole debacle? Is this the perfection of leadership (we as lay members should unquestionably aspire to) or is this silent cowardice? Is it because they are advised by their lawyers not to admit their wrongdoings pending trial and appeal, and they would only apologize after they have exhausted all avenues of appeal? Are they then accountable to what is most expedient by riding on a legal technicality or are they accountable to the timeless principles of honesty, integrity and truth? 

And I will end here with this lamentation: How do you defend, or justify their stay in positions of leadership, especially one of moral and spiritual authority - where thousands look up to and draw moral courage from as ordained by God - when they simply refuse to turn the St. James' mirror of self-awareness, self-examination and self-reproach on themselves and then make the required and, in my view, long overdue changes so that the whole church can move forward not by a convenient change of name to CHC 2.0 or CHC 5.0 or CHC 39.7, but by virtue of a simple, thorough and enduring change of heart...? I guess I need to rethink my whole defence then. Cheerz.

The naked church.

I dreamt I went to this mega-church. It was huge. The attendance alone in one Sabbath service was about 10,000. The worship hall was like the indoor stadium with all-surround speakers, professional sound crew, and rows of cushy seats. Even the sound system with knobs and dials looked like the console on board the Emperor's death star.

Needless to say, any such service would be incomplete without the worship team, the choir and the music band. And in that mega-church, it was a rock-concert setup with guitar distortion, mega-microphones, floodlights, laser shows, larger-than-life screens, celebrity-like worship leaders, and backup singers that brought down heaven.

I have to admit that I was wholly impressed, speechless even. Then, after the power-packed worship service, which lasted for nearly an hour, the lights dimmed and the pianist played an enchanting number to usher in the founder, lead pastor and preacher for that morning. They called him Apostle Kong Ho. And he was wildly adored by his congregation. Not a negative word was uttered about him. Everything about Apostle Kong Ho started with an "Amen!" and ended with a "Hallelujah!" or "Praise the Lord!"

He was so endeared by his churchgoers that I can imagine every word that comes out of his mouth may as well be the same word that comes out from God Himself. And this is why just his presence alone on stage was enough to set my adrenaline racing and heart pumping like wild horses. I was all primed to hear what this veritable giant of God has to say. I was all psyched up like a pubescent concert groupie.

At this time, Apostle Kong Ho swaggered over to the pulpit to rousing applause and he waited for the blitz-like reception of cheers and clapping (and I thought I heard wolf-whistles) to die down before he spoke. But this is the shocking part. This is uber-queer. Apostle Kong Ho spoke, but nothing came out! No, seriously. Nothing.

His mouth or lips were moving - moving at times frantically - but nothing came out of the all-surround speakers. A pin drop would have been louder.

At this time, I panicked and thought I was struck deaf. I then quickly inspected the sound system to see whether they are working. And they were. The splattering of lights on the console were still flashing. The volume dials were up above mid-range. And when Apostle Kong Ho's mic drew near to the choir's speaker, there was the usual ear-piercing feedback. Even when his lips hit the mic, there was knocking sound. The only problem is that nothing was coming out. The volume indicator lights were at ground zero.

Apostle Kong Ho was clearly moving his mouth and walking around on the stage in animated gesticulation. In fact, everything about him was moving, in synch that is, except for uttered words from his mouth. It was the strangest service I had ever attended. I was again speechless just like Apostle Kong Ho was to me wordless.

So I turned my attention to the surprisingly rapt audience. I began to ask the person next to me this: "Pss, good message?" He smiled at me and nodded enthusiastically. The next person I asked immediately gave me a thumbs-up. I wanted to ask further but hesitated when I realized I was becoming a nuisance.

Yet, I could not make heads or tails of the service because there was neither head, tail nor body to it. It was a ghost of a message, an apparition of soundlessness. Imagine lip-synching without the minus-one tape being played out. Or imagine a game of charades but no one was doing the guessing.

The whole congregation was in fact nodding in agreement at the right time as if they had understood it, and some had even shouted "Amen!" and "Praise the Lord!" in unison. And when Apostle Kong Ho stopped moving his lips, the congregation burst out in applause. Dying to blend in, I too clapped but was none the wiser.

Essentially, everyone that day was getting it except poor old me. I was struggling to keep up with the charades. At the same time, I was flabbergasted by the incredulous silence. It was like watching a silent black and white movie of the 30s but without the subtitles appearing on screen. I therefore had no idea what was preached that Sunday morning.


After what seemed like an eternity of wordless gesticulation on stage, Apostle Kong Ho took a bow, waved his hands, and walked off the stage. He went to the front row to take his seat, and during the whole time, the standing ovation was almost deafening. I have to say that I was totally relieved that the strangest service of my life had come to an end.

After the last song and the third collection of the day, I went around to ask for feedback. I needed to know what they heard since nothing was heard by me throughout the service. Of course, I pretended that it was a superb sermon and endorsed it by blind faith just to blend in.

When I approached individual church members, they told me that the sermon moved them deeply. It was at some point prophetic, and at other point, revival-like - so they said.

On my part, while listening to the heap of praises for Apostle Kong Ho's fill-in-the-blank sermon, I was even more clueless – speechless in fact for the third time. How could sheer silence say so much?

I then approached a group of people to seek their views and asked, "What do you guys think of the message?" A cautious pause ensued in the group before one of them said beaming, "The part about Moses and his encounter with God was refreshing." That was it. That was a rather detailed description of a mute sermon. This was also where the group came to effervescent life.

Another dived into the discussion and added, "Amen. What touched me was his modern day adaptation on the parting of the red sea...isn't that God-inspired?" Another chimed in, "Such message can only come from God Himself!" At this time, a few of them fist-pumped the air and shouted, "Amen to that!" I again followed suit, still a little hesitant of course.

Then, I committed the unpardonable sin and asked: "Did you guys really hear anything?" I think my last question was louder than intended and everyone in the foyer came to a standstill. Their chattering stopped. All attention, mostly glare of displeasure, was converging on me. I could tell that they were immeasurably disturbed by my question.

From where I was standing, their faces registered "blasphemy". I knew I needed to do something desperate. So, I let out a churlish squeal and said, "Because I heard it loud and clear! God is parting the red sea for us in our trials and performing a miracle in our life!" The crowd burst out in a chorus of "Amen!" and "Hallelujah!" and some even sung familiar gospel songs to add to the incredulous unanimity of spirit.

"Phew!" - that was my immediate response. I escaped the social lynching. At that point, my dream came to an end and I woke up still reeling from the strange experience. Cheerz

Den of thieves!

I read Matthew 21:12 last night and asked myself: What lessons can I learn from it? Would Jesus do the same to our churches today? 

You would recall that Jesus entered the Temple and he began to drive out all the people buying and selling animals for sacrifice. It was definitely not a courtesy house-call. Neither a MP-like visit. If there were ever a time that you’d witness Jesus losing his divine coolness, this was it. He was mad; some might even find him stark raving mad. He went completely ballistic. His anger turned physical. He even knocked over the tables of the money-changers and the chairs of those selling doves. 


Then, after the trail of wrecked-ball mess, he calmed down and gave the reason: “The Scriptures declare, ‘My Temple will be called a house of prayer,’ but you have turned it into a den of thieves!” My question is this: Is there a modern-day equivalent for us where our leaders have sneaked in worldly practices/culture into our churches and turned the house of prayer into a den of thieves? 

Here I am reminded of these word by Pastor Charles Swindoll in his book Church Awakening: “The Church is a body of people called out from the world for the distinct and unique purpose of glorifying their Savior and Lord. Nowhere in the book of Acts or the Epistles do we see a church called to provide a subculture for non-believers. The lost don't need to find at church a world that’s like their world outside the church. The church is not competing with the world. Jesus is not a brand.” (Of course, there is no perfect church and should you find one, please pack up and run away from it. Most likely, it’s a cult of some sort). 

I guess Jesus was not called to minister to a perfect church either for he did not come for the well, but for the sick. He was simply looking for a broken church, made up of broken lives seeking restoration, healing and deliverance. In other words, he was looking for repentant worshippers, earnest seekers of the truth. 

With Jesus, things are actually that simple. He is wholly transparent. He does not serve up embellished truth laden with dos-and-don’ts or brimming with too-good-to-be-true promises. On the contrary, he imparts practical and powerful life-transforming lessons written in layman languages. He therefore does not promise a life of roses and balmy smooth sailing, but he promises something far more redeeming and empowering, that is, an overcoming life that grows with every adversity. That is why after he drove the profiteering priests and religious teachers out of the Temple, he immediately call out to the blind, the crippled and the lame and he healed them all.
 He dealt directly and specifically with the issue or the heart of the matter. 

Jesus knew that he was not running a popularity contest or giving a prosperity pitch. He did not tell them that following him would mean that they would become prosperity-magnets. Every one of his disciples knew the cost. And everyone of them paid the highest price for following him. You see, Jesus did not point his disciples to the narrow road just because an easy and rich life awaits them. If anything, prosperity is merely incidental to the main cause and the same is readily dispensable to the faith. I believe that we are no richer if we have God and everything in this world or if we have God alone (a la CS Lewis). 

And Jesus did not tell his disciples that they must carry the Cross everyday just so that they will become famous one day and have a huge following of their own. Unfortunately, we as followers often mistake the tree (human leaders) for the forest (Jesus). A New Testament Professor Ernest Best put it this way, “Jesus points his disciples to God and himself walks the way of God, yet it is not possible to substitute another teacher for him; a pupil may move from one philosopher to another and a disciple from one rabbi to another but Christian cannot go to another leader. The disciple of the rabbi, if all goes well, becomes a rabbi: the pupil of the philosopher may equally become a philosopher and have his own pupils: disciples of Christ, however, never become Christs or have their own disciples.” This is a timely and urgent reminder for the leaders of our churches today. 

I guess when the first three Commandments talk about not making graven images or idols of God, it is also referring to not making idols of fallible human leaders by taking them as more than ambassadors or emissaries of Christ, but the final authority of God. The truth is that we are all disciples of Christ and will always remain his disciples for life. 

This humility posture is sadly often superseded by the pastoral ambitions. There is always a lurking danger when a leader crosses that line, even unknowingly, and entertains the idea that maybe he is somewhat more than just Christ’s disciples. Maybe, just maybe, he is especially (and exclusively) elected for such a time as this. And that his teachings - by reasons of his runaway popularity - are the only way, the only truth and the only guiding light when compared to the teachings of the other churches. 

This gradual personal elevation is a two-way endorsement when his church grows in numbers and his pride starts to dabble in subtle misattribution. This is also where the leader becomes increasingly paranoid, protective, defensive, even manipulative. Alas, the signs are often ignored or denied because the leader keeps telling himself and the church that he is just a humble broken vessel of God when in reality, he can’t help but be seen as (and even believed to be) far more than just a broken vessel. The misattribution is thus mutually reinforcing between the leader and his growing followers. 

Now going back to Jesus and the Temple, I believe that some  leaders are unwittingly becoming universal solvents for their churches. They are engaging in an alchemy-like melting exercise with the aim of syncretizing (or compromising) godly principles with worldly values just so as to cater to the multisensory demands of their members. In other words, they are turning their programs into seeker-sensitive services whereby this hidden mantra takes the effective lead: “There go my people, I must find out where they are going so I can lead them.” The priority is hopelessly muddled. 

In the end, the church runs the risk of becoming a self-therapy, leisure center, and not a place where the virtues, the narrative and the powers of the Cross are preached, imparted and duly applied. As such, personal conveniences ultimately take precedence over the sacrifices expected at Calvary in our walk with our personal Savior. 

I find no better ending here than to allow these words by pastor Steven J. Lawson to take us home: “As the church advances into the twenty-first century, the stress to produce booming ministries has never been greater. Influenced by corporate mergers, towering skyscrapers, and expanding economies, bigger is perceived as better, and nowhere is this “Wall Street” mentality more evident than in the church. 

Sad to say, pressure to produce bottomline results has led many ministries to sacrifice the centrality of biblical preaching on the altar of man-centered pragmatism…Admittedly pastors can learn from growing churches and successful ministries. Yet God’s work must be done God’s way if it is to know God’s blessing. He provides the power and He alone receives the glory only as His divinely prescribed plan for ministry is followed. 

When man-centered schemes are followed, often imitating the world’s schemes, the flesh provides the energy and man receives the glory…In a strange twist, the preaching of the cross is now foolishness, not only to the world but also to the contemporary church.” Cheerz.