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)
Gathering or Going?
If we read the narrative of Scripture as a whole (Old Testament and New Testament), we’ll see examples of God’s people gathering together and examples of God’s people going out.
I’ve been wondering lately, where should our focus be? Obviously, both gathering and going are important to the individual follower Jesus Christ and to the church. I agree with the Anabaptists that every disciple is both an ordained missionary and an ordained minister (servant).
But, should one (gathering or going) have a higher priority in our lives? Should this focus be different individually than corporately (as a group)? How would we (individually and corporately) demonstrate this priority?
Does acceptance make our beliefs illegitimate?
Recently, when reading about the Jewish influence on the early church, I came across this interesting paragraph:
For the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, however, the issue [of circumcision of Gentiles] was not so clear. The inferences were obvious to them; the ramifications were potentially damaging to the Jewish traditions. That God had poured out his Spirit on the Gentiles was amazing in its own right; but the subsequent inference that the Jewish believers would be required to accept (and even have table-fellowship) with the Gentile Christians without the latter having to undergo circumcision or to observe the law brought into question the legitimacy of the Torah. (Brad Blue, “The Influence of Jewish Worship on Luke’s Presentation of the Early Church,” in Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts (ed. I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson; Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 1998) , p. 492)
An amazing thing happened in those early years after Pentecost (as recorded by Luke in Acts). God’s Spirit began to indwell people… and not just Jews, but Gentiles as well.
Before, Jews would only interact with Gentiles when required to (for instance, the Roman army or government officials) or when the Gentiles agreed to be circumcised and keep the law. In other words, if it were up to the Jews, they would only spend time with people who were like them and who believed like them.
But, now, the Holy Spirit was indwelling uncircumcised, law-breaking Gentiles, and the ramifications of this indwelling was about to turn the Jewish-Christian’s view of the world upside down. They knew that they were required (by their common relationship to God and by the common indwelling of the Spirit) to not only spend time with these new Gentile Christians, but to treat them as brothers and sisters!
Outrageous! And, many of those Jewish Christians refused, fought, argued, kicked-and-screamed against this type of behavior. They knew exactly what this kind of acceptance meant. If the Jewish Christians accepted the Gentile Christians as brothers and sisters, then the Jewish Christians would have to admit that neither circumcision nor keeping the law were necessary for God’s acceptance.
Thousands of years of traditions and belief were about to be thrown out the window because God was accepting, saving, and indwelling Gentiles.
Now… today… what are we going to do when we recognize that God is accepting, saving, and indwelling people from different traditions and with different beliefs? Are we going to accept them? Or, are we going to refuse, fight, argue, kick-and-scream against the work that God is doing?
Can we admit that God can accept, save, and indwell people who do not have the same traditions, practices, and beliefs as us? Are we willing to admit that our traditions, practices, and beliefs are not necessary for God to accept, save, and indwell someone?
Looking forward to a Super Bowl Party
I understand that we’ve been invited to a Super Bowl Party by some good friends this Sunday night. I’m really looking forward to this party. Actually, I look forward to any party involving our friends and family.
Yes, the Super Bowl will be on the television, and we’ll laugh at some of the commercials.
But, my main purpose in going to the Super Bowl Party has nothing to do with the football game or the commercials. Instead, I’m looking forward to building and deepening with relationships with people who are at the party.
I never know what will be discussed during a party like this… but there are always discipling relationships… both for me to help someone else grow in maturity in Christ and for someone else to help me grow. This is what I’m looking forward to the most!
The weaker are indispensable
I’ve been thinking about 1 Corinthians 12 again recently, especially this passage:
On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. (1 Corinthians 12:22-25 ESV)
Paul makes an extraordinary claim here in the context of spiritual gifts. Those people with gifts which seem weaker or less honorable are actually indispensable and worthy of greater honor.
Who are the people with “weaker” gifts, and how do we demonstrate that they are indispensable and worthy of greater honor?
The Lord’s table and humility
Two years ago, I wrote a post called “The Lord’s table and humility.” I’m still amazed when I read through the New Testament and see how much emphasis is placed on simply eating meals together. I still don’t understand it all. I also don’t understand how someone could take something that was once the center of fellowship among brothers and sisters and turn it into a reason for separation.
————————————————————-
As I’ve mentioned previously in the posts “A Spiritual Remembrance” and “The Lord’s Supper as Communion“, I’m reading through Understanding Four Views on the Lord’s Supper, edited by John H. Armstrong. The “Reformed View” of the Lord’s Supper is presented by I. John Hesselink.
While there is much that I would agree with in Hesselink’s presentation, I would disagree with some of his conclusions as well. (Interesting, since I could say the same thing about Moore’s presentation of the “Baptist View” of the Lord’s Supper.) However, I was very encouraged by one part of Hesselink’s presentation. In these paragraphs, he quotes John Calvin as Calvin considers the “secret”, “mystery”, and “wonder” that we call the Lord’s Supper:
I urge my readers not to confine their mental interests within these too narrow limits, but to strive to rise much higher than I can lead them. For, whenever this matter is discussed, when I have tried to say all, I feel that I have as yet said little in proportion to its worth. And although my mind can think beyond what my tongue can utter, yet even my mind is conquered and overwhelmed by the greatness of the thing. Therefore, nothing remains but to break forth in wonder at this mystery, which plainly neither the mind is able to conceive nor the tongue to express (Inst. IV.17.7).
Hesselink then comments on the quote above by John Calvin:
Since this heavenly mystery is beyond comprehension but is at the same time such a precious gift of God’s generosity and kindness, our proper response should not be frustration because of our inability to understand the mysteries of the sacrament, but rather gratitude and a reverent openness to what God would give us through it. We should emulate the spirit of Calvin, who was not “ashamed to confess” that the nature of Christ’s presence in the Supper is “a secret too lofty for either my mind to comprehend or my words to declare.” In short, he concludes, “I rather experience than understand it” (Inst. IV.17.32).
After years and years of battles with words and swords concerning “the nature of Christ’s presence in the Supper”, it is encouraging to read these words of Calvin and Hesselink. Calvin held very strongly to his convictions concerning the Lord’s Supper, and yet he was able to voice (at least) his inability to understand the mystery and wonder of the Supper. Perhaps this is a good starting place for those who disagree about “the nature of Christ’s presence in the Supper”.
I’ve found that most disagreements concerning the Lord’s Supper do not begin with Scripture. Instead, they begin with someone’s interpretation of Scripture – whether a patristic writer, or a reformation writer, or a modern day writer. Those who hold to certain views of the Lord’s Supper defend their favorite authors. In the meantime, they often ridicule (at best) or condemn (at worst) those who disagree with their favorite author. Thus, the common table of the Lord becomes a shouting match or even an ultimate fighting arena for those who hold different interpretations of the Supper itself. These fights – with words or with swords – end up dividing what Christ brings together.
However, if we can approach the table with humility – holding to our convictions and yet admitting that our convictions may be wrong – we will find that the table ceases to be a weapon and becomes the communion for which it was intended. We may find that we can stop dividing over Paul, Apollos, Cephas, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et. al. and instead find common grace, mercy, and forgiveness in Jesus Christ. Of course, that means that we will have to admit that we (and our favorite interpretation and author) may be wrong. We also have to admit that we can learn from other followers of Jesus Christ who come to the table from different perspectives and hermeneutical traditions.
As long as we try to find unity in the writings and interpretations of men, we will only find factions and divisions. We will only find unity in the person of Jesus Christ. That unity may display itself more when we stop trying to prove ourselves right, and instead use the freedom that we have in Christ to serve others – even those who disagree with us about the table of the Lord.
At the table, the Lord lowered himself to the position of a slave and washed the feet of his followers. Those disciples did not understand him completely. Peter would soon deny him. Yet, Jesus served them. May we follow his humble example.
A definition of mutuality
I’m continuing my study of “mutuality” for a presentation in Atlanta in March. I ran across a very interesting paper relating mutuality and missions. However, I think many of the concepts will carry over into relationships among believers not in a missions context.
Here are some of the interesting passages:
[M]utuality is the sharing of “power-with” by and among all parties in a relationship in a way that recognizes the wholeness and particular experience of each participant toward the end of optimum flourishing of all. (Dawn M. Nothwehr, “Mutuality and Mission: A No ‘Other’ Way,” Mission Studies 21.2 (2004), 254)
[T]here are four forms of “mutuality”: cosmic, gender, generative, and social. These forms of mutuality are retrieved from classical Christian theology, and define the maximum flourishing of humanity in relation to four areas: the cosmos, gender relationships, divine-human co-generativity, and human sociality. (Ibid., 256)
By the way, my research is in the fourth area: mutuality in the area of human relationships, which she calls “Social Mutuality”:
The fourth and final form of mutuality is social mutuality. This form of mutuality is exemplified in the life and ministry of Jesus and is the moral goal for the Christian life…. Living as Jesus lived, with a commitment to mutuality, enables us to bear God into the world. Fidelity to mutuality frequently requires making sacrifices for the cause of radical love, creating and sustaining relationships, or righting wrong relationships, and it is exemplified by countless persons, both named and nameless, who have suffered for the sake of mutuality…. The Holy Spirit animates and empowers people enabling them to choose to share in a common power with those less powerful or oppressed. Empowered by the Holy Spirit, people become friends with God and seek the good for one another. It is fidelity to this power of mutuality that motivates people to make sacrifices for the sake of the Reign of God, in freedom and with full integrity. Jesus demonstrated this fidelity through his kenosis of patriarchy, proving that “power-with” is of greater value than “power-over” in bringing about the Reign of God in history (Ibid., 258-60)
I think this a good start for my study of mutuality. What do you think?
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?
Yours is but a part of the whole
Please remember: though you receive the life of God personally, yet the life you receive belongs to tens of thousands of the children of God; yours is but a part of the whole. The very nature of your new life is not independence – it requires you to fellowship with the rest of the brethren. (Watchman Nee, Assembling Together, New York: Christian Fellowship Publishers, 1973, p. 4)
Don’t get caught up on the “tens of thousands of others”… the new life you receive from God belongs to those around you, to those that God brings you into contact with every day. God gives you a new life that you can give away.
Still too private, but still growing
Just over a week ago, something happened that was very disheartening to me personally. This thing that happened did not directly affect anyone else, nor did it directly affect the church. But it did affect others, even if they didn’t realize.
Although I’m learning and writing about community and fellowship and sharing and living life together, I found myself keeping this discouragement to myself. Why? Because this is my natural way of protecting myself and others.
However, I did share my pain with a few people… not enough people… not the church… but a few people. Looking back, I know that I should have told more people about this discouragement. It would have been better for me and it would have been better for them. But, I didn’t do that.
In many ways, I’m still too private of a person, even though I “know” the importance of sharing life together – all of life. But, I am growing in this area. I don’t know what will happen the next time something painful happens to me… but I pray that I keep growing.