Seattle Metro Church

For some time now, our church has viewed and discussed films that have something to say about spirituality. Film and Spirituality, as it has come to be called, has been an interesting way to engage the culture around us, by giving us an avenue for discussing the way that spirituality is expressed in media. Personally, I find this a proactive way of connecting with the culture around us in potentially redeeming ways.

Modern western evangelicalism, with its Platonic separation of the sacred and secular, has dictated to the church what are and what are not acceptable acts of worship. I have been discovering that this was not always the case. Other cultures have understood and exemplified that all of life is worship. Ancient Celtic Christians, for example, acted to sanctify their day-to-day activities by having prayers for milking a cow, bathing, etc. There is even Biblical precedent: “And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him” (Colossians 3:17).

Back to movies. Films are one of the major ways our culture expresses itself: its wants, fears, hurts and desires. Films have the power to change public perception, to educate, to entertain. They open our eyes to a wider reality; they show us a world that is bigger, brighter, darker, more full of life, beauty, and danger than our everyday experiences. They are a primary medium for our generation’s mythology. Almost anything that we (as a culture, a nation, a society, a generation) believe about ourselves, God, and our world can be found in our movies.

What a pity that the church has widely regarded movies as problematic, something to be either shunned altogether or dissected on an arbitrary decency scale. I empathize with those who wish to protect society’s children from overexposure to sexuality, violence, coarse language, and occultism. However, I believe that isolationism, opposition and denial are not the best alternatives that Christianity has to offer. I think that the challenge to Christians is to be a prophetic witness to culture. Just as Daniel interpreted the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar, so I believe that we as the church will be able, with God’s help, to provide meaning to the often meaninglessness of contemporary art forms, such as movies (even when such meaning was unknown to the creator at the time of its creation).

I would go further. Beyond saying that we Christians, the Bible, God, or simply our worldview has something to say regarding film, I would contend that the conversation can and should go two ways - namely, that film can and should influence our reading of Scripture. Something that has been missing from the Church’s movie-watching, if it has done any, is the allowance for the film to speak to us in a worldview-shaping way.

In his book Useless Beauty: Ecclesiastes through the Lens of Contemporary Film, Robert K. Johnston attempts to do that with the specific subject matter of the book of Ecclesiastes. He juxtaposes some of the book’s major themes: “life’s vanity, death, amorality, our existence’s incrutability” (p. 185) with several modern films, allowing them to illustrate these topics and provide a fuller picture of what the writer said. Not surprisingly, in light of the subject matter, many of the movies Johnston covers are rated R (Magnolia, Monster’s Ball, and American Beauty, among others). According to Johnston, several scholars have lately entered the arena of film, seeking to “reverse the hermeneutical flow,” or allow the conversation between faith and culture to be two-way.

This is a call for the community of faith to get involved, to get our hands dirty, to be actively engaged with our society - not just to have something to say to culture, but to listen for the voice of God in our circumstances, no matter how unlikely the source.

Tonight our discussion of 3rd John at one point evolved into a conversation about travelling teachers. It seems that SMC may be in a unique situation to benefit from and be a benefit to the kind of travelling teachers that were more common during the early years of the church. As a church, we have an extremely low overhead (no property, no staff) and that would allow us to generously compensate those individuals who would be willing to spend time teaching with us. Additionally, since we have no full-time preachers (other than ourselves), the presentation of a message of God by those outside of our fellowship could be both encouraging and challenging. Finally, we could form connections with these wandering teacher who have connections with so many others. These networks could prove invaluable, allowing connections between churches that wouldn’t otherwise exist. This would enable us to help one another in times of need and, as Tami pointed out from 3rd John, allow the good reputations of the churches to spread and be an encouragement to others.

Unfortunately, there aren’t many ecclesiastical vagabonds who wander the United States, except for those holy-celebs on tour. I’m thinking that personal connections would be the only way to be the way to move forward with this idea, at least in our Seattle context. Just some thoughts.

Church growth is a wonderful thing. There are more voices in prayer, more hands in service, more talents utilized, and minds engaged, and more hearts in love with Christ Jesus the Lord. But growth also brings its own unique challenges which traditionally include:

• Finding more room for everyone to meet and park
• Finding a way to continue in the loving service, evangelism, and discipleship that led to the growth in the first place

Tragically, the first option to find more space most often trumps the second option of Christian mission. I’m sure you’ve seen it before - big churches that move into big buildings only to become very small churches in big buildings due to backwards priorities.

We at Seattle Metro Church are attempting to avoid such a course. The traditional model of “doing church” typically conceives costly, building-focused, clergy-led organizations. We, however, are striving for a more organic and biblical pattern which we hope produces a low-overhead, mission-centered, Christ-led family of God.

About a month ago SMC grew to 20 people which was very crowded for a single living room, especially with five young children. After a month of prayer and contemplation, we decided it was best to multiply our church by dividing into two smaller groups for meeting on Sundays. One church, two groups.

This differs fundementally from the small group programs of most churches that typically add them on as extensions of the church, much like you add clothing to a body. Our church, however, consists of small groups just as a body consists of cells.

We also made some important supporting decisions.

• We will meet on the first Sunday of every month as a whole
• Our other ministries (such as Contxt and Film Nite) will also continue to be shared
• We will appoint liaisons to facilitate coordination and communication between the groups

This approach has several advantages and disadvantages that I will not go into now but hope to soon. This plan is not perfect and it’s not a silver bullet, but I think it’s a great start. Feel free to ask any questions or offer any suggestions.