Christian Community in Hollywood?
I was greatly encouraged, challenged, and convicted by this article about actor Zac Levi in Relevant Magazine. Here’s the start of the article:
Step into the house of Zac Levi on any ordinary day and you’re likely to find more than you expected. Peek into the living room and you’ll see three or four people sitting around tapping away on laptops. In the office, there’s an author writing a script. Walk upstairs and you’ll find an editing facility with a commercial editor hard at work.
“Zac’s home is like a fraternity house,” explains Jeremy Boreing, Levi’s business partner, pastor and close friend. “You can’t walk in without meeting someone you don’t know. Two of the bedrooms are always used by someone who needs a place to stay while they’re struggling financially. Saturdays are open for barbecues and Sundays are for home church.”
I think Zac Levi is one actor (and follower of Jesus) who has learned to be hospitable and live in community.
(HT: Mark)
More on stronger and weaker brothers and sisters
Dave Black has been posting “Conclusions” from his study of the strong/weak language in Paul’s letters. This is his sixteenth conclusion (posted only 30 minutes ago – February 3, 2010 at 7:31 pm):
In the Pauline ethic, a firm conviction of monotheism is of less importance than the love of one’s Christian brother. Paul insists that strong Christians should hold their liberty in check in deference to their weaker brethren. Moreover, the duty of the strong is not only to avoid placing stumbling blocks before the weak, but also to remove them.
I wonder what would happen if we always treated one another as the “weaker” brother or sister, meaning we always defer to the other person, always avoid placing stumbling blocks in their way, and always attempt to remove any stumbling blocks that might be there. Will we ever know?
(Tangential) Writings
I like to read “Laura’s (Tangential) Writings.” To be honest, sometimes her food posts look appetizing… sometimes not. But, her words (as brief as they usually are) always cause me to think. This is from her post called “Diversity is Heart Deep“:
Touch the outcast.
Remember the forgotten.
Make neighborhoods and share.
Honor sundry loves and flex.
Know as intimate and acquaintance.
Connect faithfully in ordinary life.
Something about these words touch me and make me want to do something. What about you? Do these short lines do anything for you?
Dave Black comments on Hebrews 10:24-25
Dave Black wrote this on his blog today concerning Hebrews 10:24-25:
Wow! Does this not suggest the character of our church meetings? Does this not teach us that we are to come together for the purpose of mutual edification? Does this not challenge our deeply entrenched views about “worship”? Should we not suspect The Message of a bit of eisegesis when it renders “let us not neglect our meeting together” as “not avoiding worshiping together”?
Paul’s point is crystal clear: We come together to encourage one another. How we can get “We come together to hear the Word of God preached” from these verses is beyond me.
Earlier in the day, he also wrote this concerning the phrase “corporate worship”:
I’d like to know where in the New Testament we are told to assemble for the purpose of “corporate worship.” Just thinking out loud. Yes, I know we have our worship teams, our worship guides, our worship services, our worship pastors. But could we be wrong about the whole notion of why we gather in the first place? Man, if we get something as basic as this wrong, just think of all the areas of ecclesiology we might be missing!
The Place of Academics
Arthur from “the voice of one crying out in suburbia” has written an excellent post about the role of academics in the church called “Three cheers for Greek geeks.” Of course, like Arthur says, there’s no place in the church for “academics for academics sake.”
After discussing the simplicity of following Christ and the lack of education of the first disciples, Arthur then points out how academic studies (especially the translation of Scripture) has benefited the church.
Arthur concludes with this:
There is a place for deeper studies of theology and doctrine, people willing to dig really deep, to get after source material. There are many controversial and false teachings that crop up and thank God for men who have put in the time to refute these errors where they crop up. There are some incredibly gifted theologians in the church and again I thank God for them. When crackpot theories come out, we need sound scholarship to refute them. Whether it is counter-cult apologetics or silly stuff like ‘King James Only-ism’, the academy is a useful place to hash issues out. Of course plenty of really dangerous and kookie teaching comes from academic institutions too, so having a PhD is not a safeguard against heresy.
Where the possible problem rises up is two-fold. First, the academics in the church in many cases have stopped serving the church and started serving the academic community. Christian academics for the sake of academics, with a goal of getting published and recognized instead of serving the Body of Christ, is self-serving and sinful. If you use your own gifts for your own glorification, even hidden under a veneer of false humility, it is sinful and prideful and incredibly dangerous.
Second, there is the notion that those who lead in the local gathering of the church must be those who meet the proper academic credentials, credentials that are absent from Scripture but present on virtually every pastoral job posting. I think seminaries have a vital function as bastions of learning but I don’t think they should be vocational education schools for ministry and I also don’t think (as I have stated often before) that they should be enclaves of learning for those willing to pay tuition but rather they should instead be places of sending where the academics among us go out from their ivy covered halls of higher learning to serve the church. Writing journal articles that are so complex and confusing that only other academics can understand them may get you published in a theology journal but don’t do much to edify the Body of Christ.
In spite of these issues, there certainly is a place for scholarship and academia in the Body of Christ. There is nothing especially noble in being as ignorant as possible nor is there anything noble in puffing one’s self up with pride in the academy. As long as everyone uses their gifts to support and edify the Body and bring glory to Christ, we will be alright.
Arthur is right, of course. Those in the academy should make sure their work serves other believers, not just their advancement in the academy.
But, this also applies to other professions as well. Everyone should ask if and how they are allowing God to use them to serve the church.
Taking baby steps together
On his blog this morning (Friday, January 29, 2010 at 7:47 am), Dave Black talked about some of the lessons that he’s learned during the past year while dealing with his daughter-in-law’s difficult labor and delivery, his hospitalization for malaria, and his wife’s cancer diagnosis. He calls these “baby steps”:
- I’ve learned that I cannot control my life.
- I’ve learned that the world is too uncertain a place to count on it.
- I’ve learned that life must always reflect God’s character.
- I’ve learned that I can’t wait for wounds to heal before I serve God with abandon.
- I’ve learned that cold dogmatism has no place in Christianity.
- I’ve learned that the goal of life is to love God and serve Him by loving others.
I wonder if it’s possible to learn to take these “baby steps” together, or if they can only be learned (and lived out) through the crucible of struggle and trials…
Lionel wants to follow someone’s example
Lionel at “A Better Covenant” has written a great post full of thought-provoking ideas called “You Need A Leader And God Has Called Me To Be Yours.” The entire post is about a desire to follow a leader’s example (his life) and not following because of his position.
This is Lionel’s conclusion:
Everyone wants someone to submit to them, but nobody wants to serve. Everyone is called (I am not saying this calling is true only affirming the common mindset) to be a leader and says you should submit to them but again leadership begins with service. Leadership begins with reputation, practice, living it out amongst a group of believers. We love leadership here in America because it costs you nothing yet gains you everything. Man want to eat the fruit of being apostles but are [not] living like them. So you can miss (miss means to bypass in the urban vernacular) Lionel Woods. I don’t believe in submitting to positions in the body of Christ. I believe in submitting to people who have lived a life worthy of imitating. Self-recognized men who call themselves leaders and then require others to submit to them based off of some wrong biblical interpretation won’t work. I will submit to all believers as I see the work of the Lord Jesus in their lives and as the Spirit speaks through them. All that other stuff, is just stuff and titles and positions and at the end of the day it looks more like a Franchise than a family!
I wonder how many more people would be willing to follow a Christ-honoring, serving example. I wonder how many “leaders” would be willing to step down off the platform and start serving people on their hands and knees.
When good motives go bad: Further thinking about the pulpit and other churchy type stuff
Recently, my good friend Lew wrote an interesting post called “Words Not Found in Scripture – Pulpit.” (By the way, this post is part of a series in which he traces words/concepts that are not found in Scripture. If you haven’t read it yet, then you should.)
Lew begins his post like this:
What is said and done behind a pulpit is serious business to the average churcher. Sometimes you might hear someone say, “Can you believe what he said behind the pulpit?†Another may believe that the pulpit is a ministry that is “absolutely essential to the vitality and health of the church as a whole. †Some even believe that a pulpit shows our dependence on God and his Scriptures. I could go on and on about what people see the pulpit as; or believe what the pulpit means.
Lew then points out that the term “pulpit” is not found in the New Testament at all. Because of Lew’s post, I started thinking about things that are started for good reasons, but end up harming the church… or, if not harming, at least hindering the church’s maturity.
Now, I know what you’re thinking: “Are you saying that ‘the pulpit’ may harm the church or hinder the church’s maturity?” Well, yeah, that’s what I’m saying. Let me explain.
Now the pulpit is ancient. It originally referred to a stage for actors, then eventually began to refer to a podium used by speakers. In the Reformation, the pulpit took on a different significance… not a different purpose, but a different significance. Pulpits and podiums had been standard furniture in church buildings for centuries, and people stood behind those podiums to read from Scripture and to present sermons. But, the Reformers decided to de-emphasize the Eucharist and emphasize the Scriptures. Thus, they began to put more and more significance on “the pulpit” and less and less significance on “the altar.”
Good motives, right? I mean, it’s good for people to think about the importance of Scripture. But, something began to happen.
People began to lose sight of the fact that “the pulpit” was meant to point to the Scriptures, and began to see “the pulpit” as something that almost stands on its own. Christians began to argue about what kind of language could be used “in the pulpit” (and they still argue this point), completely missing the fact that the passages of Scripture used to argue against coarse language “in pulpit” actually said nothing about “the pulpit.”
Similarly, others began to find authority “in the pulpit” such that only certain people were allowed to speak from “behind the pulpit.” Once again, the passages of Scripture used to defend this line of thinking did not mention a pulpit or any type of furniture. “The pulpit” became so important for some that the thought (and God-forbid the practice) of removing the pulpit meant a slide toward atheism.
Soon, “the pulpit” began to replace the Scriptures instead of pointing to the Scriptures. (Obviously, this didn’t happen for all believers.) Even the fact that pulpits seem to be irreplaceable and necessary to our understanding of the church shows just how far this line of thinking has progressed. “The pulpit” no longer points to the Scriptures, but has replaced the Scriptures.
When the reformers began to focus attention on “the pulpit,” they had good motives, but I think the outcome has actually worked to harm the church by hindering the church’s growth and discipleship.
The same thing could be said of church buildings, pews (or chairs) in rows, choirs, baptistries, etc. As with the pulpit (the piece of furniture), none of these things are evil in and of themselves. However, without recognizing it, things that we use for good reasons can actually work against the edification of the church.
So, should we stop using podiums? Maybe, maybe not. Should we stop sitting in pews or chairs lined up in rows? Maybe, maybe not. Should we stop using baptistries? Maybe, maybe not.
How do people view these things? Are they distracting the church? Are they causing believers to misunderstand who they are in Christ and their responsibilities in Christ? Are we willing to take a close look at the things that we consider to be indispensable? Are we willing to change if we find these things are actually hampering the church in their life together?
The church and loneliness
There is a very good, thought-provoking post at Communitas Collective called “The Loneliness of Church.” The author has noticed something important:
My family and I were part of a large church that had many activities and ministries. I jumped in the swirl and began to form relationships with others who were involved in the same things as me. We enjoyed each other, experienced intense spiritual moments together, spoke the same language, voiced the same longings. All the things that make up friendship. Except for one detail; our involvement was limited to a church building and a church ministry. Most of my church friends, probably 99 percent, had never been to my home nor I to theirs. The people I would pray with and cry with and have spiritual intimacy with did not know my children’s names or know that I am an avid rose gardener with over 20 rose bushes in my backyard.
It was like an illusion, the illusion of friendship and the illusion of community.
Yep. Busy-ness and projects can create the illusion of friendship and community. But, it could be just an illusion.
How can we tell? What happens when the project ends? What happens with the tasks are complete? Is there still a relationships and a desire (that is acted upon) to spend time together? No… then it was an illusion.
This illusion can cause the busiest, most engaged, most assimilated people within the church actually live a lonely life.
Another good post on leadership
grace at “Kingdom Grace” has written another good post on leadership called “Things I Didn’t Learn About Leadership in Church.” There’s alot of good stuff in the post, so I’ll quote one part that I really like:
Leadership is not the articulation of what we assume others need. Which means that I can not really enter into a leadership relationship until I know someone well enough to know their needs and am willing to serve them in response to their needs, not to mine. This is a fair gauge for assessing whether a true leadership relationship exists.
Positional leadership can create a platform of influence for an individual, and it can be organizationally effective. However, it is not typically transformational to the lives of followers. To the degree it is separate from relationship with followers, it is a perversion of leadership, no matter what you call it. (emphasis in original)
Besides recognizing that leadership requires relationship (at least in the scriptural sense of leadership), she also makes a great distinction between leadership and organizational/managerial issues. This is a very important distinction!
Whenever groups of people get together (from 2 people to 20,000 people), organization is necessary. But, organization is not the same thing as leadership. Problems arise when organization/management is equated with leadership.
What do you think? Agree or disagree?