Last Sunday we visited a thriving church in Westport. While it wasn't one of the churches I planned to visit during Sabbatical, I have been there for a few pastors meetings, have talked to several people who worship there and love it, and was invited by a friend who has been attending recently. The lead pastor is an amazing guy in his mid thirties- deep, strategic, and very down to earth. This church is reaching twenty and thirty-somethings by the droves. And they don't hold back- the sermon focused on a passage of Scripture where Paul tells wives to submit to their husbands. The preacher was sensitive to the tension produced by the subject, and he acknowledged the historical and cultural abuses of the text, but preached the text faithfully, practically, and with passion.
While driving home, Erica asked me what I thought. My only response: "I didn't like it." Why? The style of worship just wasn't my thing. Now I am not talking about music, but music is an element of worship. I struggle to genuinely connect with God through a service of worship that might be labeled "formal," "traditional," "Word and Table," "liturgical," "worship renewal," etc. (I am well aware of the multiple meanings and applications of each of these terms, so just imagine a composite of them.) The music featured mostly old and new hymns with only a piano and cello accompaniment. (I am told that the music changes each week, though). Communion followed the preaching. The mood was quiet with low energy. I guess when it comes to worship, I prefer energy and emotion and simplicity. When I have to think hard about the words and phrases I am using to speak to God, I get lost in the words and lose focus on the object of those words, God himself.
But even as I shared my thoughts with Erica, and even now as I write this 3 days later, I feel checked in my spirit. I am talking about worship (a God-centered thing), yet most of my thoughts are me-centered. Isn't that kind of backwards? Yes, it is. It also reveals some selfishness. Worship: it is not about me!
So which is better? Worship that suites me or worship that doesn't? I guess the real question is, what kind of worship does God prefer? Jesus talked about God's desire for worshipers to worship in Spirit and in truth. (John 4) How about an analogy. Worship is often described as an offering given to God- a gift. So when Christmas rolls around, what kind of gifts do I prefer to receive? I like to receive the gifts that are on my list. I feel special when Erica gives me special coffee beans, even though she detests the taste and even smell of coffee (there is just something special about a gift given out of love when the content of the gift is disliked by the giver.) I also really like it when Erica shops for a shirt that she likes but that she knows that I like, too. I think worship is similar. After all, God is a person therefore we are connected to him through a personal relationship, where both parties needs and preferences are important. Granted, he is the master and I am the servant.
Okay, so back to my church visit. Yes, I genuinely worshiped God. Could I do it that way every week? Yes. Should I? I am not so sure. In the end, I still think that God provides different kinds of churches for different kinds of people-all imperfect - and none of them customized around my preferences - but all churches that should help me grow out of my selfishness.
And no, I am not going to tell you what the name of the church was because they are doing such great things for God that I wouldn't want my opinion and experience to sway you.
Note: I think after my final church visit on November 7 I will write a blog entry on how to choose a church- based on my experiences at all of these churches.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Confrontation (1 Timothy 1:5)
I am four weeks into my sabbatical and I just made it past the first chapter of 1 Timothy. There is just so much there. This time I can't get past verse 5. I have worked on it a lot, so here are my thoughts. (I am hoping that blogging my thoughts will help me move on.) Paul left Timothy in Ephesus while he moved on to another region. Evidently, there were some Christians in Ephesus teaching false doctrines, clinging to old myths, and other law-related issues contrary to the gospel. Timothy's job was to teach the truth and to command those men out of their error. Now if you read my previous post, this isn't the same word used in verse 1 when Paul described his calling/command to ministry. But it is still strong. Paul isn't telling Timothy to mildly suggest to these men that they reflect on the possibility of a conversation regarding their potentially erroneous teachings. No. Basically he tells Timothy to order the men to cease and desist. It is a very strong word.
"Thanks, Paul. I'll get right on that. Easy for you to say, Paul. You aren't here to take the beating. They might listen to you, the former Pharisee and law-expert yourself, famed preacher, missionary and elder in the church. I'm just a young buck."
I hate confrontation. It makes me want to vomit just thinking about it. I tend to be a people-pleaser. I want everyone to be happy and I really don't want to make waves. What if they get mad at me and reject me? But sometimes you have to confront. A mentor once told me that if I am not willing to confront when confrontation is needed, I am putting my own desires ahead of what is best for the church. Ouch. So I confront. And then throw up.
What I think is most important for Timothy is Paul's insight into the need for this confrontation. Timothy is working with several wannabe teachers who have lots of words and knowledge, but they are wrong AND are not loving. Their arrogant heresy produces anti-love. So, in verse 5 Paul says, "The goal of this command (the confrontation) is love . . ." He is describing the desired outcome. If these guys take Timothy's command to heart, they will become more loving. Notice that the desired outcome is not just the teaching of truth for the sake of truth. While truth is essential, Paul really wants love. Evidently their teachings were producing controversy within the community of Christ-followers.
So here is my thought: when I confront someone, is my desire for them to be more loving? It is a focus on their future goodness, not their present error. It is a focus on their best interests, not mine. And if they are going to change and become more loving (the result), then the process of the confrontation must also be infused with love. In other words, in the act of confronting and commanding, I must confront and command in love. And if I do that and they reject me, I guess it really is their issue. In the end, it is not about me or for me. Love isn't.
"Thanks, Paul. I'll get right on that. Easy for you to say, Paul. You aren't here to take the beating. They might listen to you, the former Pharisee and law-expert yourself, famed preacher, missionary and elder in the church. I'm just a young buck."
I hate confrontation. It makes me want to vomit just thinking about it. I tend to be a people-pleaser. I want everyone to be happy and I really don't want to make waves. What if they get mad at me and reject me? But sometimes you have to confront. A mentor once told me that if I am not willing to confront when confrontation is needed, I am putting my own desires ahead of what is best for the church. Ouch. So I confront. And then throw up.
What I think is most important for Timothy is Paul's insight into the need for this confrontation. Timothy is working with several wannabe teachers who have lots of words and knowledge, but they are wrong AND are not loving. Their arrogant heresy produces anti-love. So, in verse 5 Paul says, "The goal of this command (the confrontation) is love . . ." He is describing the desired outcome. If these guys take Timothy's command to heart, they will become more loving. Notice that the desired outcome is not just the teaching of truth for the sake of truth. While truth is essential, Paul really wants love. Evidently their teachings were producing controversy within the community of Christ-followers.
So here is my thought: when I confront someone, is my desire for them to be more loving? It is a focus on their future goodness, not their present error. It is a focus on their best interests, not mine. And if they are going to change and become more loving (the result), then the process of the confrontation must also be infused with love. In other words, in the act of confronting and commanding, I must confront and command in love. And if I do that and they reject me, I guess it really is their issue. In the end, it is not about me or for me. Love isn't.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
My experience at two very different churches
This weekend I worshiped at 2 different churches. On Saturday night, Erica and I attended Church of the Resurrection, a United Methodist mega-church in neighboring Leawood, Kansas. The music was excellent, the atmosphere was Spirit-filled and relaxed and a bit subdued. Adam Hamilton preached a clear evangelistic message in which he shared his reasons for why he believes in God- it was intellectual (lots of Stephen Hawking references) but also emotional and personal.
On Sunday morning I attended LifeQuest Church, a thriving multi-service, multi-site church in neighboring Belton, Missouri lead by a friend of mine, Chris Pinion. They worship in a remodeled Harley Davidson dealership (what a perfect fit for a church in Belton). The music was energetic and loud and the crowd was not subdued. Pastor Chris preached the first message in a series aimed at speaking specifically to men. The service included arm wrestling, straight talk, and a clear call to follow Christ.
On the surface, these 2 churches are very different. COR ministers to five to ten thousand a weekend (there were probably 800 people at the Saturday night service with us). LQ ministers to maybe 500 per weekend (there were 120 chairs in the worship space). COR's sanctuary is big, bright, kind of quiet, with no food or drink allowed (I had to finish my $1-suggested-donation-coffee in the lobby). LQ is smaller, dark, loud, and coffee-friendly (& free). The sermons were very different in content and delivery, but both perfectly fit the crowd and the message. Both preachers were heard by their audiences. And both were explicitly evangelistic. These pastors are both doing a great job of reaching the people they are intending to reach.
Which did I like better? I can't really say. Personally, I would take my friends at New Vision any day. They are just the best. But I guess I am a little biased.
"But Jason, what if . . ." Okay, okay. I liked the rockin' music at LifeQuest. I liked the intimate feel- and the passion, friendship, and excitement. But the production and flow was better at the Resurrection. I struggled often to sing at both churches. I would have preferred more Bible content teaching at both. So I can't really say which I would prefer . . . I liked them both.
Listen to me- these are the things I liked and didn't like. In the end, who cares about what I like. I don't God does. But these 2 pastors and their churches are reaching people and working hard to lead their people to be 24-7 Christ-followers. Adam and Chris- you guys rock! Thanks for what you do for the kingdom. Sometimes it feels like you are the competition, but I am glad the three of us know we are all on the same team.
On Sunday morning I attended LifeQuest Church, a thriving multi-service, multi-site church in neighboring Belton, Missouri lead by a friend of mine, Chris Pinion. They worship in a remodeled Harley Davidson dealership (what a perfect fit for a church in Belton). The music was energetic and loud and the crowd was not subdued. Pastor Chris preached the first message in a series aimed at speaking specifically to men. The service included arm wrestling, straight talk, and a clear call to follow Christ.
On the surface, these 2 churches are very different. COR ministers to five to ten thousand a weekend (there were probably 800 people at the Saturday night service with us). LQ ministers to maybe 500 per weekend (there were 120 chairs in the worship space). COR's sanctuary is big, bright, kind of quiet, with no food or drink allowed (I had to finish my $1-suggested-donation-coffee in the lobby). LQ is smaller, dark, loud, and coffee-friendly (& free). The sermons were very different in content and delivery, but both perfectly fit the crowd and the message. Both preachers were heard by their audiences. And both were explicitly evangelistic. These pastors are both doing a great job of reaching the people they are intending to reach.
Which did I like better? I can't really say. Personally, I would take my friends at New Vision any day. They are just the best. But I guess I am a little biased.
"But Jason, what if . . ." Okay, okay. I liked the rockin' music at LifeQuest. I liked the intimate feel- and the passion, friendship, and excitement. But the production and flow was better at the Resurrection. I struggled often to sing at both churches. I would have preferred more Bible content teaching at both. So I can't really say which I would prefer . . . I liked them both.
Listen to me- these are the things I liked and didn't like. In the end, who cares about what I like. I don't God does. But these 2 pastors and their churches are reaching people and working hard to lead their people to be 24-7 Christ-followers. Adam and Chris- you guys rock! Thanks for what you do for the kingdom. Sometimes it feels like you are the competition, but I am glad the three of us know we are all on the same team.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)