(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?
To Save a Life
I had never heard of the movie To Save a Life until Miranda’s friend invited her to go see it. We decided to go see the movie as a family, along with a few other families and a few other friends. To be honest, I wasn’t that excited about seeing this movie. I mean, it’s a Christian movie.
However, there are a couple of things that surprised me about this movie. First, the acting was not as bad as I expected. I don’t expect the movie to win in Oscars, and yes, there was several caricatures instead of characters. But, it wasn’t as bad as most of the Christian movies that I’ve seen.
Second, and the biggest surprise of this movie to me, the movie was not produced as an evangelistic tool. In every point where most Christian movies would break into a “gospel presentation,” this movie was more reserved. In fact, the only way you know that the main character converts is a brief scene of his baptism in the ocean.
Now, I know what you’re thinking… “Why is it bad for a movie to present the gospel?” It’s not. That’s not what I mean.
But, that’s not the purpose of this movie. This movie was not written as an evangelistic tool targeted toward unbelievers. This movie was written for the church! Yes, the message of this movie was targeted toward those who already consider themselves believers.
And what was the message? People are important. Throughout the movie we see how people (including Christians) fail to spend time with others who are hurting or struggling. We see what a difference a little time can make in a person’s life.
Similarly, the movie encouraged believers to move out of their enclaves and to get to know people who may be considered outsiders. This was specifically directed at teenagers and the youth group culture, but I think it applies to all age groups. Without dismissing the youth group culture, the movie questions whether we should get excited about playing games and having youth group activities when our lives are not making a difference outside of church culture.
I’ve been surprised that I’ve seen very little church marketing related to this movie. Usually, churches in our area spend huge amounts of money trying to get people to see Christian films.
I don’t know why I haven’t seen this same kind of marketing for this movie, but I have two thoughts. One, since the movie is not evangelistic, I think many churches are staying away from it.
Second, since the movie depicts underage drinking, drinking parties, unmarried sex, cursing, teenage pregnancy, teen suicide, cutting, etc., I wonder if some people are uncomfortable recommending the movie, especially to their children and teenagers. However, these things are taking place all the time, even among people connected to the church.
I think believers should see this movie… and talk about it amongst themselves. I think we need to use this movie as a catalyst for seriously discussing our impact on the community around us, and especially on the lives of hurting people around us.
After we saw the movie, our family talked about these things. I think it was very positive for us.
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.
Going… really going
I just got back from having coffee with a couple of great brothers in Christ. We don’t always agree with one another (although we usually do), but we still love spending time with one another and encouraging one another toward maturity in Christ.
Our discussion drifted toward evangelism, and specifically the idea of “going.” We all agreed that we didn’t want to be the kind of people who simply invited unbelievers to come to us. We wanted to be the kind of people who went to them… the kind of disciples who were going.
But, as we talked, we realized that even when people tell us about “going,” they eventually get back to the point where they are trying to bring people back with them. You know what I mean, right? We go out to present the gospel. Then, when someone is interested, we invited them to come meet with us.
We want to be different. Now, when someone is interested in the gospel, we want to continue going to them. Instead of asking people to invite their friends and family to come to us, we want to go to them, much like Peter went to Cornelius and his friends and family. We don’t want to simply increase the number of people meeting with us, we want to see the number of churches meeting around our area increase.
This was a very exciting discussion to us, but also quite frightening. Why? Because while we agree with this in theory, we’ve never seen it practiced… we have no example to follow in real life. But, it’s what we want to see happen in our lives and in the life of the church.
As we left, one of my brothers said that he was going to call “C”. (“C” is a young man who recently professed faith in Jesus Christ through the witness of my brother.) “C” has met with us a few times. But, my friend is now going to offer to go to “C”… to meet with him in his house… to meet his friends and family on their turf. To keep “going”…
I don’t know what’s going to happen… but I’m excited.
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…
If preaching is not preaching then what is preaching?
So, I’ve written a few posts saying that “preaching” as the term is used in Scripture is not the same as “preaching” as the term is traditionally used by churches today.
In other words, when we read about someone “preaching” in Scripture, I believe it means that the person was proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ and his kingdom to people who were not Jesus’ followers.
My question to you is this: Assuming my understanding of “preaching” in Scripture is correct (and I’m really not asking for discussion on this point for now), how would “preaching” take place in our culture and context today?
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?
Relationships and Ministry
Three years ago, I wrote a post called “Relationships and Ministry.” I think this post goes well with my focus on edification this week. By the way, the young man in my story below did find a group of believers to spend more time with, and we also managed to maintain contact and fellowship with him. He moved out of state not too long ago, and we still keep up with him and see him from time to time.
——————————————
A young man who is a part of our fellowship recently told me that he was having trouble building relationships. He lives about 30 minutes away from others in our fellowship. Several of us suggested that he look for a group of believers who live closer to him.
Why would we do that? Do we want to break fellowship with him? Absolutely not! And, we are not breaking fellowship with him at all. Don’t we care about growing the church? Certainly! But, we recognize that we will not grow the church. Only Christ will grow the church. Why would we suggest that someone meet with other believers?
First, we recognize that the Christian life is designed by God to be lived in fellowship with other believers. This cannot happen for this young man if he only meets with his Christian brothers and sisters for a couple of hours on Sunday. This is not fellowship… this is attendance. There is a difference. We desire more for this young man and for all brothers and sisters in Christ. We desire to see all believers developing real relationships (maturing relationships) with other believers.
So, I saw this young man a couple of days ago. He has had a great time getting to know some Christian men who live near him. Besides spending time with them, he has also started ministering to his community with them. They are playing basketball at a local partk, getting to know some of the other young men there, and sharing Scripture with them.
What a joy to see real ministry (both to the church and to those outside the church) growing out of fellowship with other believers!
How will they hear without a preacher?
The title of my post comes from Romans:
For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” (Romans 10:13-15 ESV)
What context did Paul have in mind when he asked the question, “And how are they to hear without someone preaching?” If we read the question in context we understand that Paul is talking about “preaching” to those who have not called on the Lord, who have not believed in him, and who have not heard of him.
What does this mean? The audience for the “preacher” in this passage is not composed of the church or believers. Instead, the “preacher” is sent to those who are not yet believers – that is, to unbelievers. (If we read the broader context of Romans chapters 9-11, we’ll see that unbelievers are Paul’s focus.)
In other words, Paul is not talking about what takes place every Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday night in so many churches… what we call “preaching.” Instead, Paul is talking about “preaching” (that is, proclaiming or announcing) the gospel to those who are not believers.
It’s past time for us to start using words properly, and stop confusing definitions and biblical mandates.
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?