Corby Stephens

One of the most basic definitions of a community could be this; a group of people that share something in common. Not “have” something in common, but “share” something in common. What’s the difference? A very significant one, actually.

Let’s say that you have a group of people who are all interested in dogs. Chances are, when they get together they bring their dogs with them. What do you suppose they talk about? Their dogs. They talk about the kind of food they feed their precious Scruffy. They talk about that cute (or not so cute) thing Bluto did the other day. They probably even talk about stuff that happens to their friends and their dogs. They are into dogs. They may get together as a group regularly. They may get together in small groups or one on one. But you know that, whatever the circumstance, dogs are the main event. Their community is based around dogs. They don’t just have it in common, they share it.

Dogs are just one example. Cars, computers, boats, sports, flowers, you name it. The same kind of community is shared by those who love what they love.

There is one rather sad exception to this. It is the one area where one would think that people would naturally share with each other. What is it? The church, specifically in America.

More and more often this is what happens on Sunday mornings. Christians, people who say they love Jesus, gather together. They say their “hellos” and “good mornings”, they sing the songs, they hear the sermon, and then they leave one another until next week. This is not community. This isn’t sharing what they have in common. Is that the fault of the people? Not entirely. Not even mostly. The fault primarily rests with with those who try to grow the church numerically, without growing it spiritually. How does that happen?

One way is when churches try to get people together based on common interest, lifestyle, or situation. Men’s groups, women’s groups, youth groups, single parent groups, recovering fish-o-holic groups, etc. While there isn’t anything inherently wrong with these groups, the danger is that community becomes based on who they are and not who the Lord is in their lives. This is the exact opposite of how things were in the church in Acts.

The church in Acts was made up of rich and poor, free and slave, Jew and Gentile, male and female. What brought these various people together? Their common faith in Jesus. It didn’t just bring them together, it forced them together. These “Christians” were viewed by the world as a cult. They were seen as people who worshipped some dead Jew who claimed to be a King. They were ridiculed by society and, in many cases, abandoned by their families. The only people they could depend on, the only people they could connect with, the only people they could share their joy in and love for Jesus with, was each other.

It’s easy to imagine them, like our dog lovers mentioned earlier, getting together and sharing about a fresh insight the Spirit gave them from a part of the Word they read or heard. They might have shared about how the Lord provided for a need, how the Lord finally broke through a hard hearted family member, how the Lord gave them peace during a trying situation, how they were stuck in a fleshly attitude and the Spirit reminded them to give the Lord their burden and it was lightened. How the Lord, how the Spirit, how the Lord. Because of the interactive love relationship that they had with Jesus, their community was based on Him. It’s a sad, observable reality that this kind of relationship with Jesus is being taught less and less, which results in less and less authentic community. It ought not to be this way.

How do we fix this? Well, it starts with you and it starts with me. I first have to deliberately develop my own love relationship with Jesus. You have to deliberately develop your own love relationship with Jesus. As we do that, as we become more and more excited about Him, as we fall more and more in love with Him, the natural byproduct of that is going to be a desire to share it with one another.

The church isn’t supposed to be like a club or group where people who happen to believe the same thing come together because it’s what you are supposed to do. Many times people go to church because it’s what they think is expected of them. It’s just the way they were raised. It becomes an obligation, even an annoyance. Granted, there are times when when we just don’t feel like it. That’s why we are told in Hebrews 10:24-25, “And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.” Paul calls the church “body of Christ” (1 Corinthians 12). We are all like cells in a body. Cells need each other. Cells die when they become disconnected from the body. It’s interesting to note that, while cells are individual things, they are also interdependent things.

Deepen your relationship with Jesus. Share that with others. Invite others to share with you. Allow others to depend on you, and allow yourself to be dependent upon others in the church. As you and I do this, we will have authentic community. We will be the living body of Christ. The alternative isn’t really an alternative.

As noted at the beginning of part one, this topic was spawned from a discussion at a meeting of pastors. Actually, I started to write an email to the pastor that brought it up and it turned into yesterdays blog. I have followed up with him. Most of this post is going to be his words with some of my comments thrown in at the end. Here is his response.

I’m thinking that the new breed of brothers, some so-called “church growth” experts (maybe even some of the blogger types I asked you about at the men’s conference) are redefining our most treasured beliefs having made a commitment to “engage the culture”. Heres an example from my recent blog-lurking…In the afternoon session of the Willow Creek Arts Conference, Dan Kimball talked about some disturbing trends in church. • The good news is that there is a growing interest in spiritual things in our culture. • There is a fascination in our culture with Jesus. It may seem superficial—but it is a good thing, because we can use it to start spiritual conversations. • Gandhi said: “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are not like your Christ.” • As we move into what is more of a post-Christian culture, more people are born in the new culture. And we get so busy with church activity and planning worship…we escaped the world and created our own Christian subculture and bubble. • John 17:15 – “My prayer is not that you take them out of the world, but that you protect them from the evil one.” • Are we so focused on planning church services—that we’ve forgotten to be the church? • Six things that nonbelievers say about us: 1) The church is organized religion and interested in right-wing politics; 2) The church is judgmental and negative; 3) The church is a male-dominated that oppresses females; 4) The church is homophobic; 5) The church arrogantly believes they are right and all other religions are wrong; 6) The church is full of fundamentalists who take the whole Bible literally. • Most Christians and churches are not like the ones being described. But that is the perception.Re. “Six things…” 1 The church is totally organized around the Scripture, go anywhere in the world, we’re all doing the same thing! “Right-winged”?… we are conservative morally, ethically, socially, spiritually, etc. 2 The church knows right from wrong, we read the Book! “Negative”?… we teach each other to stay away from the pitfalls of sin, and we call sin sin. 3 Genesis 3: God cursed men to hard labor and the responsibility to lead… God cursed women to hard labor and obligation to follow! “Oppressive”?… we are committed to be good leaders, protectors and nurturers of our girls (someone is just jealous). 4 We have a very clear phobia (the FEAR of the Lord) of any sexual indulgence outside of marriage! Not just homosexuality, but also adultery, fornication, pedophilia, bestialty, lust, etc. 5 Our Book tells us what is right, we believe it and sometimes we come across like bratty kids. “Jesus said; I am the way, the truth, the life, no man comes to the Father but by me”. 6 We are FUNdamentals, seeking to be culturally relevant accurately applying the meaning of the Bible. We believe the bible literally!These six things we are FOR, yet the unbeliever crowd seeks to tells us we are wrong to be FOR these things. I think thats pretty negative on their part, don’t you? The problem is some of our emergent brethren don’t have the conviction to take a stand FOR the Word of God. But then again, I’m being negative.

Personally, I find two statements particularly interesting. At the top he said that some “are redefining our most treasured beliefs having made a commitment to ‘engage the culture’.” At the end he said, “The problem is some of our emergent brethren don’t have the conviction to take a stand FOR the Word of God.” I think that sums up the erosion that has been happening.

And now an illustration for web geeks. The web has been making a move to standardize the way in which we view stuff. There are two elements; content and style. Content is the information the page is trying to communicate (text, pictures, etc.) and style is the way in which the content is displayed (bold, underlined, red, blue, big, little). When the web first started, content and style were all jumbled together. The raw code of a web page was a mess. Browsers began to have their own proprietary style codes for thing. That how the “Best viewed in Browser X” craze began.

Now we have CSS (Cascading Style Sheets). Content and style are being separated. Content is in one file, and styles are defined in another file. You can change the the whole look of a web site simply by changing the style sheet, but all the content remains exactly the same.
The Bible is our content. It should never change. It never has changed. Through the centuries and cultures the content of God’s word, the message, the Gospel, whatever you want to call it, stays the same, but the style sheet changes. They style for communicating the word will be one way in the jungles of South America and anther way in China, but the information being communicated remains the same.

In our culture we have come up with all kinds of styles. That can be an issue but isn’t THE issue. When CC started Chuck caught all kinds of flack for the style in which the message was being communicated. But the content was pure. The erosion we are seeing today has to do with the fact that the content is being changed. New content is coming in, required content is being left out. In an effort tot make the style even more relevant and engaging, the content is being sacrificed.

As we, (I should speak for myself) as I do what I can to stand for the true content, I will always be seen by others as being against something else. If I’m for holiness then I’m against sin. If I’m am for taking God’s word at face value, then I’m against anything that come into opposition with it. All that I can do is make what I’m for as clear as possible. What am I for? Jesus. You know, the one in the Bible.

At the last Seattle area pastors powwow something occurred to me during a discussion about criticism coming from the outside. In the end it was agreed that we as CCs don’t want to be known for what we are against, but for what we are pro – teaching the word and grace. That wasn’t the first time I had heard that. In fact I think that sentiment is close to Chuck’s heart. But I have a problem with it.

Understand that I’m not saying we should have a detailed published list of stuff we are against. “Calvary Chapel: we hate others.” Not at all. But here’s the thing. More, and more, and more of Christianity is moving away from the Bible. Grace is being twisted into tolerance. In fact, the words “Christianity” and “Christian” are being poo pooed by the modern hip church. The more that we as CC pastors stand up for the word, teach it seriously, and keep the fact that sin is the reason for grace in the first place, the more we are going to be seen as against others within Christianity. Just quoting Jesus and saying that He is the only way is seen as being against others, as being divisive, and could very well be considered hate speech if certain lawmakers get their way here in America. And that’s what people in churches say.

A thought just occurred to me that could come across as “shocking”. But seen in context I think it will make sense. I think we have had our heads buried in the Bible and in churchianity so much that we have missed the erosion that has been happening and we could easily feel the effects in our own churches unless we do something about it. Now lemme splain. In the 60s and 70s the Jesus movement took off. (Yes I understand that it began 2,000 years ago but I also understand that it ebbs and flows over the years.) Chuck taught the living word and focused on grace as opposed to the legalism of most denominations, including the one he came out of. CC grew. CC spread and multiplied.

Then the initial “bang” sort of wore off. The 80s saw the arrival of the church growth movement and seeker sensitive churches. Because the initial bang of the Spirit wore off (which is a whole other discussion, but it’s true) guys needed something to keep their churches going, especially those who wanted to plant new ones. Many adopted the seeker model. Just ask Ken Ortiz. With the seeker model comes the need to keep those one attracts. The focus becomes inward, on being a draw. The word gets less and less emphasized.

Some in CC recognized that this was a bad path to follow and either never got on board or bailed on it once they were in. They followed Chuck’s example of just teaching the word, teaching grace, and loving the sheep. Nothing wrong with that. That’s great. That’s what we should be doing. This is where it kind of comes full circle. Chuck did that then as a response to the negative elements of mainstream denominations. They were legalistic and dead. Chuck taught grace and life. He was seen as being against all kinds of stuff whether he wanted to be or not.

What are the negative elements of mainstream churches today? For the most part they can all be summed up in one statement: an abandonment of absolute truth. We have bible colleges and seminaries that teach emergent and contemplative spirituality. They crank out pastors who take this to their churches. Churches today aren’t legalistic and dead. They are liberated and dead.

In the words of Bill Nye the Science Guy, consider the following.

“The June 17th headline in the Seattle Times newspaper reads, “I Am Both Muslim and Christian.” Janet Tu, religion reporter for the Times has written the piece on an Episcopal priest named Ann Holmes Redding. Redding has been a priest for more than 20 years, and she became Muslim 15 months ago. The article is her coming-out-of-the-closet debut. Redding explains: “I am both Muslim and Christian, just like I’m both an American of African descent and a woman. I’m 100 percent both.”" From http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/newsletter061907.htm

Don Miller, author of Blue Like Jazz says, “the beginning of sharing my faith with people began by throwing out Christianity” (p. 115) (While I can see how that can be taken as a good thing, Miller throws the baby out with the bath water.)

Baker Books’ new release, “An Emergent Manifesto of Hope” has these quotes. “Christianity’s idea that other religions cannot be God’s carriers of grace and truth casts a large shadow over our Christian experience” (p. 191). “To believe that God is limited to it [Christianity] would be an attempt to manage God. If one holds that Christ is confined to Christianity, one has chosen a god that is not sovereign. Soren Kierkegaard argued that the moment one decides to become a Christian, one is liable to idolatry” (p. 193). “Is our religion the only one that understands the true meaning of life? Or does God place his truth in others too? … The gospel is not our gospel, but the gospel of the kingdom of God, and what belongs to the kingdom of God cannot be hijacked by Christianity” (p. 194).

As solid believers from denominational backgrounds see this erosion happening they begin to shop for churches that are grounded in God’s word. They show up and ask questions like, “Are you guys young or old earth creationists?” “Are you guys into the emergent thing?” “Do you take the Bible literally?” If we answer, “We just teach the word and love the sheep.” that isn’t going to be enough. We have to be ready, willing, and able to say what we are for and against because those are the things God’s word are for and against. Am I saying that every sermon needs to be about the bad stuff going on out there? Of course not. I am saying that, when appropriate, we need to take the opportunities to address the contrast between truth and lie, between counterfeit and real, based on God’s word and out of love for the sheep.

I don’t know about you, but I hope to be known by those liberated dead as the guy in town who is the intolerant fundie that takes the Bible literally, and by those who are hurting and lost as the guy who extends grace and brings comfort from the truth of God’s word.

I know, like we need another one of these after the Senior Pastor Conference things. But I found that when I sit and think through something like this, it helps it to gel in my head and heart. Are you gellin? So, unless you are into more debriefing (which is never really brief, can’t figure that one out), skip it. Otherwise, click away.

The conference ended a week ago today. It was my first time at one of these things as a pastor. When I was at CCBC I was one of the kids serving food and cleaning up the joint. That was a long time ago in another world called Twin Peaks (no, really). Now I was on the other side. It felt creepy. What I didn’t know about was the rooms with vendors from banks, building companies, and other ministries. At first, my reaction was “Is this a pastor’s conference or some kind of convention for, something that’s funny, and people convene about and try to sell stuff?” On the one hand, I can see how it would be helpful if I was in a place where the church was looking to build and had no good leads on banks that’s wouldn’t hose you. But it was still weird.

Another room was mostly about books and DVDs from The Word for Today, CCOF, and Calvary Distribution. But there were also these big posters with the faces of Bill Ritchie, Bob Coy, Greg Laurie, and others (sorry I couldn’t remember, others). What was that all about? (Text removed because of retraction.)

You could tell which speakers hadn’t been there for the whole conference. For example, Greg Laurie re-explained for us something that John Miller (?) had taught on the night before. And then Greg was gone. That kinda bugged me.

One element that I did like, and I think others noticed because I asked Tom Stipe about this and he had had the same conversation with several others, was that the speakers were much less Chuck-centric than in the past. I’ve watch the videos and listened to the MP3s of pastors conferences. One thing you notice is how often each speaker would say “Chuck did this” “Chuck taught me that” “Chuck would never/always” kind of stuff. It got sickening after a while. Understand that I’m from a non-Southern California CC environment and had never heard of Chuck Smith until I got to CCBC.

To take it a step further, something that was said at the conference in Denver that was echoed at the SPC, was that we need to get back to being part of the Jesus movement, and not focus so much on being the CC movement. I thought that was huge. I think it was Ricky Ryan who made that comment during his session. We need to be about Jesus, about the Spirit, and not about CC or Chuck Smith. That’s been a no brainer for me for a while now, but I do remember being caught up on the CC wave for a time. It’s a bad place for one’s ministry to live. I was stoked to hear that theme throughout the conference.

Since the conference I have watched my favorite four session out of 15. (I still can’t believe I sat through 15 sessions!) Joe Focht, Bill Ritche, Tom Stipe, and Ricky Ryan. I think Joe nailed the emotional element, the dynamics and power of Jesus on the cross. That element ought to be the motive, the driving force behind all that we do as pastors and as churches. Bill and Ricky were very parallel concerning the Holy Spirit’s role in our fellowships. Those ought to be required viewing/listening for every pastor in the world. The Spirit is the power that energizes us and our fellowships, and if it’s not there then what are we doing? Tom Stipe really drove home, for me, what it means personally to run the race, to protect myself against being disqualified. And I’m not just talking about the “whack whack whack” thing. Even if that illustration had not been there, the point would have still come across. The need to daily protect ourselves, how seriously we need to take this business. Not only as pastors but as individual Christians. Everyone needs to do that.

After the conference I wrote about my own personal post conference stress disorder. Friday and Saturday were pretty sucky. But with the prayer of others and patience from my wife, Sunday was an amazing day. Next up on the docket was Acts 2:40-47. That’s just where we happened to be that week. I told them up front that I would do my best not to regurgitate the whole conference, and I didn’t. I stuck to what the Lord had already given me for that passage before the conference. The conference stuff only reinforced it all. It was one of those Sunday’s where I ended up going for almost an hour, and I no one noticed. My wife said that I didn’t have any of my usual speech impediments (I stutter and stumble frequently). I knew I went almost an hour because of the clock on my monitor. By the end of the day, I honestly could not remember what I even said. It all just kind of poured out of me. Would that I could have more Sunday’s like that!

People were blessed. Not because of me, but because of where the church has been, what it has gone through, and where it was going. And if I can keep at the forefront of my mind Joe’s passion for the cross, Bill and Ricky’s passion for the Spirit, and Tom’s passion for personal discipline, and I can communicate those things, I think our fellowship will grow deeper root and produce some good fruit.

Will I go back next year? If I do it won’t be for the teaching. I can get as much from the DVDs as I can from being the room, and my couch is way more comfy than those chairs. Can I get an “amen!”? If I go back it will be because the relationships I have developed online with other pastors. I met most of them in person at the conference. (I swear, if someone had made me try to pick John Vlk out of a police line up, I could not have done it. His Wordpress avatar is totally different from how he looks now.) I don’t expect to be able to hang with most of them because they live in other parts of the country. A few of them live around here and I hope to hook up with them as often as I can. But, if I go back, it will be for that hang-out time.

Some people live in the blogosphere. They live to read, live to write, live to comment, or all three. If there were enough that was of interest to me (and I’m sure there is, more than enough), I could be a reader or even a commenter. But I couldn’t really be a die hard writer. Why? Because, I’m a pastor.

I’m an introvert. Among other things, that means I do most of my thinking and processing on the inside. I am an extreme introvert which means that there is actually a whole lot going on in my head. It’s like I have my own cable company with hundreds of channels that I’m always flipping through, looking for something interesting to land on (which isn’t often!). There is always a show going. I could blog a whole stream of consciousness, but then I would get nothing done. If I blogged what I spent most of my time pondering, things I really thought about or troubled me or concerned me or made me happy, I’d have to resign. If I blogged like the average blogger blogged, I could get into real trouble. Thoughts about other people (good or bad), thoughts about situations or circumstances (good or bad), would be really inappropriate. I can’t even really blog about myself for the same reasons. Pastors can’t really be real to the whole world unless it’s framed in just the right context so as not to be taken and mutated into some poisonous venom that brings about a slow and painful death. (Been there, done that.)

I’d like to blog everyday. I’ve found that it’s actually a good way to bring order to the chaos that is the Borg collective consciousness of my mind. When I sit and think about one thing from many angles, I learn. But I can’t really blog in the truest sense of the word. You know, like teenagers or college students, or disgruntled employees. So, here’s to being careful behind the keyboard.

Perhaps I shouldn’t have even written this. You didn’t read this. You didn’t read anything…