Search this blog

Fretting is a worldly habit, not a Christian virtue. Nevertheless, I have been fretting about how to review the recently released book by Michael Spencer (the Internet Monk). Mere Churchianity: Finding Your Way Back to Jesus-Shaped Spirituality (WaterBrook, 2010) is Michael’s long-overdue, first and only book. Its release is filled with pathos, since the Lord took him home just a couple months before he could have held a copy in his hands.

Michael’s book is much like his blog. Parts of it made me want to shout for joy, open my Bible, and remember all the reasons why I love Jesus. Parts of it made me want to tear my hair out and say, Are you serious? The Internet Monk always succeeded in eliciting some kind of reaction from his readers.

Because Michael was a friend to me and a source of encouragement in the blogosphere, I am grateful for his life and work. Because the Lord saw fit to take him home so early (at least according to human understanding), I am torn by how best to review this book.

I’ve come to the conclusion that Michael wanted to start a discussion. He would have been more offended at the thought that I avoided serious critical interaction with his book than he would have been offended by my critique. And though I grieve the fact that he isn’t here to respond to my pushback, I am confident that serious conversation would be his desire. So that’s what I hope this review will provide.


Michael’s main point is to call us back to Jesus and away from “churchianity”, the kind of spirituality that is church-centered, but looks nothing like Jesus Christ. When the church becomes a place for like-minded people to rally the troops and put on smiles that mask the hidden reality of sin and brokenness, the church becomes an obstacle to true spiritual growth for people who love Jesus and want to be formed into his image.

What’s the solution? Get back to Jesus. Be challenged by his life, his teaching, and the meaning of his death and resurrection.


I want to add an “Amen” to large portions of this book. It’s true that Christians often don’t look like Jesus. I’m always befuddled to find people who claim to follow Jesus yet know next to nothing about his life. Our marginalization of Jesus opens the door for groups to co-opt him for their pet causes.

So Michael’s main solution is right. Go back to the Gospels. You’ll find the real Jesus within the pages of the Scriptures. Listen to what he said. Watch what he did. Trust in the Jesus-centered gospel. Don’t settle for anything less than a Jesus-shaped life. Michael’s illustrations brilliantly buttress his point. (Example: Sometimes, our churches are like pecan pies without pecans. We advertise Jesus, but he’s not there.)

Likewise, Michael rightly critiques the prosperity gospel and the “health-and-wealth” teaching that seeps into even the most conservative evangelical churches. Other authors (such as Michael Horton) have provided critique from a theological perspective. Spencer’s critique comes from a pastoral point of view, wherein he shows how hurtful the prosperity teaching is.

By far, the best chapter in the book is “It’s a Bad Idea to Be A Good Christian.” Michael’s embrace of the Lutheran emphasis on justification is recounted in a poignant and pastorally sensitive manner.

Before I get to my critique, let me also mention the great number of pithy quotes in this book. The Internet Monk’s work is eminently tweetable:

  • The life of faith is a battle fought in weakness and brokenness. The only soldiers are wounded ones.
  • God is the Sun too bright for us to see. Jesus is the Prism who makes the colors beautiful and comprehensible.
  • What speaks more loudly of grace: your theological definition of the word “grace” or the tip you leave at dinner?
  • Some Christians claim biblical authority, while only telling you what they have decided in advance what the Bible has to say.
  • Ask yourself this question: If I were to spend three years with Jesus, what kind of person would I be?
  • Jesus-shaped spirituality is cross-centered and Christ-centered. The good news of the kingdom is that the King died to save us.
  • Jesus isn’t looking for admirers. He’s enlisting followers.
  • Evangelicals have invented a spirituality that has Jesus on the cover but not in the book.


Now that I’ve praised the best parts of this book, it’s time to turn to my main problem with Mere Churchianity. I can sum it up in one phrase: pitting a Jesus-shaped spirituality against a church-shaped spirituality.

I understand why Michael goes in this direction. I feel the same frustration. Yes, organized Christianity has major problems. Just about everything that Michael critiques needs to be critiqued. We need to ask the questions that Michael asks.

But how does leaving the church help the church? How is it spiritually healthy to leave the church? How does leaving the church make us more Jesus-shaped?

Throughout Mere Churchianity, Michael’s view of the church goes back and forth like a yo-yo. He insists on the importance of community and yet also insists on the legitimate option of leaving the church as an institution. So, even though he remains within a church (and speaks well of his fellow church members), he doesn’t blame church-leavers at all and practically encourages them to head out the door.

Michael wants genuine community, but he divorces that idea from the church as an institution in a way that is impractical and unhelpful. Here are some examples:

“For many of you, leaving the church may have been the most spiritually healthy thing you ever did.” (57)

“Jesus-shaped spirituality has nothing to do with churchianity. Following Jesus does not require you to pledge allegiance to a religious insitution.” (6)

“Am I saying the people who left the church are in the right? I’m saying I don’t blame them at all.” (26)

“If someone doesn’t find Jesus inside an established church and chooses to leave, what is gained by labeling that person as carnal, or spiritually immature, or out of fellowship with God? I trust individual Christians – including those who have left the institutional church or are on the verge of leaving – to know where God wants them to be.” (212)

“Life as a Jesus-follower grows out of Jesus and the gospel, not out of the church.” (152)

I suppose the main reason I scratch my head at Michael’s encouragement to leave the organized church is because he is so gloriously right on the gospel for the individual. I am at a loss to understand why he fails to extrapolate that same teaching when it comes to the church.

For example, Michael rightly teaches that the gospel is for people who recognize they are messed up, rebellious, sinful, broken and dysfunctional. Christianity is for the losers, for the people who recognize their need for salvation outside of themselves. So far so good.

But let’s engage in a bit of logic. If churches are organized groups of these messed up, broken, dysfunctional people, why in the world would we expect the church to always live up to some unattainably high ideal? I’m not saying we shouldn’t shoot high. I’m not saying we should be satisfied with Christless churches. But surely Michael should give groups of broken people (churches) the same patience he gives individual broken people.

So in the end, I want to say, “Michael, you’re right about individual Christians. We’re broken, wounded, sinful and selfish. So why can’t you see that churches are going to be that way too? Please don’t encourage broken people to leave churches that are broken! Just as we need Jesus in us as individuals to slowly remake us into his image, we need Jesus-filled people in churches if there is any hope for the church to reflect the glory of Christ to the world.”

If Christ remains committed to us – as broken and messed up as we are – why would we not remain committed to his followers? Why would we bolt out the door when our church experience becomes a hassle? What looks more like Jesus – to hit the road? Or to stay with a congregation through thick and thin, through good and bad?

Michael thinks the church’s problems are an obstacle to Jesus-shaped spirituality. I think the opposite: commitment to bear with the church’s problems is the method by which we become more Jesus-shaped.

I share Michael’s craving for a strong presence of Kingdom focus and missional thinking in the Church. This desire is a God-given holy discontentment. Dissatisfaction should stretch our faith and stir our imaginations. But denigrating the church because of its shortcomings ultimately undermines the cause of Christ in the world.

Though no local church is perfect, and the universal Church often looks more like a cheating spouse than a faithful bride, we are to identify myself with this bungling bunch of believers. The church is home. The church is God’s beloved. The church has been bought with precious blood. Though the presence of the Kingdom is not as intensely felt in the church as I would like, it is the sign of the Kingdom in this age, faults and all. And if Jesus is content to give his life for an unruly Church, we should seek satisfaction in serving his church – warts and all.

In the end, I don’t want to divorce Jesus-shaped spirituality from church-shaped spirituality. I want to see these two spiritualities become one and the same. I think Michael would agree, except that I believe leaving bypasses the cross. Committing to love fault-filled people we’ve identified with through baptism is the way to see Jesus-shaped spirituality become a reality.

View Comments


28 thoughts on “Mere Churchianity: A Friendly Critique”

  1. Lewrie Harmon says:

    First: I do not go a day without visiting your site.99.99% of the time I agree with you, and 100% of the time blessed by the visit. I am 70 years old and have the same thoughts as Michael. I left my church for a time to visit churches in our area across denominational lines and discovered the same thread running through them. This would be the theme of his book.At the present time I am staying in the church where I am a member primarily because of the passion of the pastor, and his desire to have a Christ centered church. But, it is as if he is speaking to the wrong crowd. To tell the truth I feel more comfortable among the lost than I do most of the professing Christians. I work in a very seculiar business and we begin every manager’s meeting in prayer.
    One agnostic with whom I am sharing Christ grabbed me the other day, gave me a big hug, and he told me, “I love you.” He’s getting close to entering the kingdom. Also, I feel more comfortable talking about Jesus at work than at church. I listened to the chatter in the halls of the churches I visited and after the services, and there was not much Jesus there. I wonder if we ever really do enter into His preaence in our meetings?!?

  2. @Lewrie Harmon – What a moving comment. Your description of the common church experience is startling because of its accuracy.

    @Trevin – Your devotion to Christ’s Church is encouraging and an example to us all. As a young pastor I am learning more and more of the “faults” and “warts” and of my call to love and serve anyways. Thanks for your thoughtful review. God bless.

  3. Clay says:

    Trevin – I really like your blog and your book. You are an important voice coming out of the SBC. I haven’t read Michael’s book yet, but I think I know enough about where he’s coming from to go ahead w/ my 2 cents. I don’t think Michael is pitting the church against Jesus as much as he is critiquing a system of thought/practice within the church that is already pitted against Jesus. Institutional priorities and assumptions inevitabley shape the church members. When these built-in institutional pressures are not in line with Jesus and the Kingdom, it can create a very devastating situation for someone who finds himself being drawn to Christ. Speaking from experience in my previous church – I felt fought against in my desire to grow in Jesus, not simply because the people within the church were broken, but because the church’s institutional agenda took precedence over the Kingdom. There was literally not one person in the entire church who was asking the same questions my wife and I were. If there had been, we might have stayed. But we felt so overwhelmed that leaving seemed like the most healthy option for our family. We can debate whether that was the appropriate response to the situation, and maybe Michael is wrong to encourage leaving if that is in fact what he does. But Michael’s blog gave me room to breathe when my church life came crashing down on me, and I think that’s the intent of his book. Like he says in the intro – he’s not writing to church members who are happy where they’re at. I look forward to reading it.

  4. Bill Kinnon says:

    Haven’t received the book yet, but I have no doubt that Michael would appreciate your review and your push back – whether he agreed with you or not.

    Like Clay wrote above, Michael’s blog and Michael himself were sources of comfort to me through the pain of leaving church (and the process of re-engaging with it in all its brokenness and glory). I miss him greatly.

    Just want to add how much I appreciate your blog, Trevin.

  5. Jason Blair says:

    Trevin, I share your concern for not totally abandoning the church. But in the spirit of the conversation that was started by Michael, I don’t think he’s necessarily telling people to leave the church. At the beginning, he said the book was primarily for those who were on the edge or out already. I imagine the intended audience is much like him, or like Lewrie above.

    But I don’t think this sets up the dichotomy of institutional church vs. outer darkness. Though it is far from free of problems, organic churches, house churches, etc. are a viable alternative form of Christian community to the Churchianity Michael describes. Perfect? Not at all, but it is an option.

    Guys like Frank Viola make the case from a popular level on that front, in a way picking up where Mere Churchianity leaves us. Robert J. Banks gives a more scholarly justification.

    I’m a seminary student, and aspiring pastor, so I’m not totally opposed to or out of the institutional church yet, but there is hope outside the doors.

  6. Trevin Wax says:

    Thanks all for the comments.

    People do get hurt in churches. I’ve seen it happen. It’s horrible. In my pushback to Michael’s book, I don’t want to give the impression that I am minimizing the pain and hurt that can come from a bad church situation.

    Still, I have talked to people who have been deeply wounded in a church who have decided to stick it out with the congregation and forgive those who have done them wrong. At the end of the day, they say that God used that horrible pain as an aid in their sanctification.

    I’m not saying that this is the path for everybody. I’m not saying there is never a legitimate reason to leave a church. But one’s hope would be to join another congregation and stay planted there.

  7. MarieP says:

    Trevin, excellent review, and your love and devotion to Christ’s church is something we can all learn from!

    To those who disagree, perhaps you should consider the New Testament churches of Corinth, Thyatira, and Pergamos. Why are the faithful in those churches not told to “leave” but rather to “persevere?” Why are they still called “churches” at all? I know that this was a time where people didn’t have the luxury of multiple churches to choose from, but shouldn’t this at least give us pause before leaving a church?

  8. Clay says:

    MarieP – I would never say that leaving a particular congregation should be a first resort. My family stuck it out in our old church two years longer than we wanted to. We’re not talking about church-hopping here. There needs to be room for an open discussion about what the appropriate response is of a person who senses a pervasive “Jesus disconnect” (to borrow a phrase from MS) in their church and is being hurt by it. One could say that the spiritually mature person would stay and allow God to grow them through the brokenness, and that may be the correct answer. But that answer doesn’t address the people who can’t find Jesus in their churches and can’t see how he may be at work even in the brokeness. To see Jesus at work in brokeness takes spiritual maturity that isn’t going to come through reading a book (which I think is why Michael leaves room in his book for leaving). Those kind of spiritual eyes come only through the kind of discipleship which isn’t happening in many institutional churches. So it’s a bit of a catch 22 – the best response may be to stay, but to stay in the midst of pain takes spiritual maturity that isn’t being formed within the church in which you should be staying. And so we’re back to Jesus shaped vs. church shaped spirituality.

  9. Jim says:

    Trevin – Your comments about Michael hit home with me. His was the first blog I ever read, and I visited there off and on for many years. Yet I noticed that the more I read, the more cynical and angry I became at the Church.

    Michael really struggled, and his writing was so provocative that I’m afraid he tended to throw gas on the fire. It was near impossible to read his blog for a week, and not have a negative attitude about your church, and everyone else’s.

    It seemed sometimes that he relished in pointing out all the problems that was all face in our churches. Of course most of what he pointed out was indeed true, but I don’t think we’re anywhere near the “coming evangelical disaster” as he claimed in the Christian Science Monitor.

    His illness, and his death made me very sad. I am grateful for the honest, respectful way you’ve reviewed the book. I think I’ll pass though.

    I’ve learned the hard way how dangerous cynicism is. As lame as church can be, I don’t know what I would do without it.

  10. brian bel says:

    It seems comments here are dependent on the definition of “church”. Is “church” the kingdom of God (a la “the kingdom of God is at hand”) or is it a local congregation. Once you get that settled, we see even in the book of Corinthians that there was a lack of solidarity among those believers. Why do we expect something different today? If Jesus founded a restaurant, would you want to seek out that restaurant often? Of course you would. He founded a Church, and made a bit of a big deal about it when he did. Shouldn’t Christians be eager to be a part of it? (And no, the notion that “church” is merely an invisible collection of all true believers doesn’t pass the smell test.)

  11. Paul Clutterbuck says:

    I detect more than a hint of Dostoyevsky’s “Poem of the Grand Inquisitor” here. Clearly what Michael is talking about happens all over the Church. The Church is made up of fallen people, after all. No matter where you find fallen people, you do find all manner of unChristlikeness, and that shouldn’t surprise us at all. However, my own 20 years outside the Church (1986-2005 inclusive, most spent in house churches) was a far more abusive experience than any time I’ve ever spent within it. Nowadays, I have a real sense that non-attendance in an evangelical church is not only disobedience to Scripture, but a denial of the Lord who gave up everything for me. Even when I use time off from church to read Scripture, hear the best preachers online, and worship the Lord, separation from the community of faith is a fast-track to spiritual and relational degeneration.

  12. mick says:

    I haven’t read the book yet but after interacting for several years on Michael’s blog I would say it is a mostly fair critique. IMO, Michael’s passion and perspective, tho sincere was not perfect – as with the rest of us. I believe he would probably distinguish between leaving “a” church and “the church”, and maybe both for a season which may be questionable. It is hard for us to immerse ourselves in Jesus and, in our humaness, see such duplicity in ourselves and the community of faith around us.

    I would love to have heard Michael’s response to one of his greatest mentors, Eugene Peterson and his new book “Practice Resurrection” which holds both a Jesus shaped spirituality, a strong critique of the church and yet a warm embrace of the rabble that makes up the body of Christ.

  13. Rick says:

    Clay- you wrote:

    “There needs to be room for an open discussion about what the appropriate response is of a person who senses a pervasive “Jesus disconnect” (to borrow a phrase from MS) in their church and is being hurt by it. One could say that the spiritually mature person would stay and allow God to grow them through the brokenness, and that may be the correct answer. But that answer doesn’t address the people who can’t find Jesus in their churches and can’t see how he may be at work even in the brokeness. To see Jesus at work in brokeness takes spiritual maturity that isn’t going to come through reading a book (which I think is why Michael leaves room in his book for leaving).”

    I have recently gone through that, and although I was frustrated personally, our decision to leave was based more on the impact on my family. They needed a healthier (more Christ centered), yet still broken, church. We are beginning the process of reconnected there, and you are right- it is not church-hopping.

  14. RazorsKiss says:

    Back when iMonk was a rising star blogger, he posted something similar. Someone asked him “Leave the church for what? Where can we be in Christ outside of the body of Christ?” I don’t remember who it was, but it stuck with me. I loved Michael, but I don’t know if he ever really connected the fact that Christ and his bride are also “one flesh”. God hates divorce.

  15. Chris Krycho says:

    I think my biggest difference with iMonk all along was that he thought it okay to leave a bad church, and then not go find a good one. (I acknowledge that there are places where finding a good one is hard.) I wrote a while back on how it’s actually the very brokenness of our institutions that God often uses to mature us. There’s a healthy tension here (as in so many places in Christian life): we are called to be deeply committed to our local churches, not quick to abandon them when things get hard. We need the messiness, because it’s in dealing with other’s sin and our own that we really grow—in patience, kindness, longsuffering, and deep love.

    At the same time, there are churches that have so thoroughly lost sight of Christ that people should just get out of them. I read a comment recently by a Presbyterian (PCA) pastor noting that while they have done a very good job defending against the left flank (liberalism), they have forgotten that there even is such a thing as a right flank (which usually ends up looking like nasty forms of legalism). When a church forgets Christ on either flank, I think we need to prayerfully consider whether to stay and fight or simply to go elsewhere; the answer really depends on just how dire the situation and how much one can do to change it.

    When the issue is simply broken people, rather than broken people who are moving in the wrong direction, I think we should usually stay. When theological direction is significantly contributing to the brokenness, things get ugly. We need the gospel for sanctification, not just salvation. We need a call to holiness and all it entails: Christlike humility, gentleness, love, compassion, and hatred of our own sin above all; without it we run amok. But that call must be rooted in Christ. Michael Spencer, gladly, always got that part right.

  16. Clay says:

    God hates spousal abuse too.

  17. Ricky says:

    Great book review. I also have trouble understanding people who feel that leaving a church or changing churches is going to help the circumstances at the current church. I think people are losing the value of what being a part of a church truly is. Im starting to hear more and more people who are “called” to pastor now and truly believe its a pride issue. Check out this great article “So you think you can pastor”

  18. david carlson says:

    I am looking forward to receiving my copy in the mail.

    On a side note, it’s a little hard to start a discussion when most of us have not received our dead tree version – because it will not be out for another week…

    Having said that, how much do you think Micheal’s book was influenced by Brennen Manning?

  19. Ben says:

    Thanks for your review. I haven’t read the book yet, but I do believe I understand where Michael was coming from and what he was trying to say. I am of a different mindset then you. I think what his book is really saying is the Western Church has really become a religious organization rather than a community of believers brought together to bring God’s Kingdom to earth. Jesus ridiculed the church of His day because of the religion. Jesus never intended for “Christianity” to become a religion, in fact I think He would probably disagree with the title that has His name. He wanted to draw all people into relationship with His Father. See when we talk about the church now, we talk about an organization. “Are you going to church?” “See you at church next week.” The church was never meant to be a building or a place, but is you and me in fellowship with one another.

    I appreciate Michael’s viewpoint as I had left a church that I had been “born and raised in” and for the first time in my life actually had a vibrant relationship with my Heavenly Father because I didn’t have the “church” to rely on. I had to seek God for myself and I had to read about Him through His Word. And although I am now in a church I appreciate and wouldn’t change the year-long journey that God took me on.

  20. Tim Valentino says:

    Spot on, Trevin. Many thanks. This paragraph, I think, is virtually unassailable:

    “Let’s engage in a bit of logic. If churches are organized groups of these messed up, broken, dysfunctional people, why in the world would we expect the church to always live up to some unattainably high ideal? I’m not saying we shouldn’t shoot high. I’m not saying we should be satisfied with Christless churches. But surely Michael should give groups of broken people (churches) the same patience he gives individual broken people.”

    Somebody needed to say it.

  21. Benjamin says:

    Thanks, Trevin, for nicely reviewing Spencer’s book that, among other things, addresses the sad but real pain and wounds that too many Christians experience in church.

    I agree with Trevin that staying in a church of wounding people, such as domineering authoritarian inflexible leaders/elders (who often have no clue that they are wounding you or others) would oftentimes be very good for our own sanctification, so that we might even “love our enemies” in our own church congregation or denomination.

    But I also agree with Michael Spencer that leaving a church that is causing you to lose your joy in Christ may not necessarily be a bad thing, especially if the leadership keep insisting on their “wounding” ways. (Of course, they think they’re always right, and you’re always wrong!) The only proviso would be that one does not leave with bitterness, resentment, anger, unforgiveness, a spirit of revenge or retaliation.

    Historically, Christians have stayed or left their original church/denomination/affiliation. The Pilgrims left. The Puritans stayed. Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones left. John Stott stayed.

    Whether we leave or stay, we should commit the decision to God with much soul searching prayer, pray for God to lead us, even discipline us, for our good, so that He might use us for His glory and His kingdom. Also, whether we leave or stay, we should do so with the spirit of love, joy and peace with God and with the people in the church we leave.

  22. Bob Myers says:

    Looking forward to reading the book. But even before reading it, I am thankful for this review for its balance and its push back when it comes to leaving the church. Great points, well stated.

  23. Hi, Lewis – just found your blog while searching for reviews of Michael’s book, which I read when it came out on the Kindle. You’re 100% right that he would NOT want anyone to hesitate to criticise his work just because he’s died. And I do understand your criticism because I loved the book, but it left me wondering just what exactly the reader’s response should be: leave their church? stay? or [option 3 unknown]? I personally think the best answer is just to stay where you are (unless your church is horribly abusive), and ask the Lord to help you get closer to Him in whatever tradition you’re following. But maybe the people Michael is talking to are those who are about to leave church, period – to help them know that it’s OK to do so, for a while, as long as they don’t give up on Jesus. I dunno – it’s a confusing topic, huh? But to make a long post a little shorter, I did like your review!

  24. P.S. my apologies, TREVIN!!! (reading comprehension without morning coffee = < 0 !!!)

  25. david carlson says:

    still waiting for my dead tree version – but did re-read the 1st chapter which is online

    It seems that if you start with the premise, which was Micheal’s, the intended reader are those which have already left the church. It is how he starts out the introduction, it is his intended audience. His argument is the church (local) often sucks, he understands why you left, but this is the truth about Jesus and if you focus on that you can come back to him.

    Perhaps his next book would be on a Jesus shaped church….

  26. Hmmm … interesting thought, David. Perhaps someone else will write that book. I’d read it!

  27. Thanks Trevin for the review. Very interesting. I look forward to reading the book if I get time.

  28. mason says:

    let me be clear…i have not read the book, but will get a copy today, so my comments may change..i read and listened to Michael for 8 yrs. as a pastor of a small rural church i sympathize with a lot of what Michael had to say. my problem with this review is that i think it totally misses the point of Michael’s ministry. Michael remained in the church all of his life. He pastored, attempted a house church and attended a local church. One of his great sadness was when Denise joined the Catholic Church and they could no longer in good conscious worship together. Does not sound like a man who hated or despised the church. It sounds like a man who despeised man made institutions that tear apart the family instead of nurture the family. Michasel loved the Church and desired for it to be everything that Jesus dreamed for it to be. For people to use the tired old reasoning that the Church will never be perfect b/c it is made up of imperfect people is simply an excuse for laziness and control/power. do you not think that Michael has heard that one before? i mean that is the excuse that every pastor uses to cover up and make excuses for the evangelical circus.

    Michael’s call was and always will be to call not only individuals to Jesus but the Church back to Jesus and repent of “pastor as comedian” or worship leader as entertainer. The Church must point to Jesus the author and perfector of our faith. When the Church does not do this it ceases being the Church and we have a right to leave, b/c we are leaving a man made institution and not the Church. Michael never left the true Church just poor imitations and ridiculous circuses that called themselves a church.

    as some have mentioned Michael had a particular audience in mind for this book. as any exegete will tell you, when reading literature you need to understand the author’s intent. Michael’s intent was to bring healing to those who had left and to encourage those who were thinking about it to understanding that they are not alone. that the hope of the world is not the Church…but Jesus..that is a message we all need to get back to….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Search this blog


Trevin Wax photo

Trevin Wax

​Trevin Wax is Bible and Reference Publisher at LifeWay Christian Resources and managing editor of The Gospel Project. You can follow him on Twitter or receive blog posts via email. Click here for Trevin’s full bio.

Trevin Wax's Books