I read this clever post about ordination recently and it got me to thinking.

What other “hot button” issues does the church need to rethink?

For example, we call most people who believe in creationism “fundamentalists” because we assume the idea is “fundamental” to the Bible, whereas those who support evolution are somehow breaking away from the basics.

But is that true?

More to the point, should Christians even believe in creationism?

Now, when I say “creationism” I mean belief in a literal six day creation of the world, not the idea that God is the ultimate Creator of the universe.

Yes, Christians should believe in God as the Creator, but I would like to suggest 10 reasons why Chrisitans shouldn’t believe in creationism.

#1 – According to the book of Psalms, nature reveals God’s glory and God’s handiwork. In other words, we can look at nature and discern how God created. Science has done this and discovered that nature reveals a God who created through evolution. So, if nature reveals evolutionary mechanisms at work, but God really created everything in six literal days, but chose to deceive the experts by displaying evolution in nature, then God is a trickster and a liar. In that case, the God of creationism is not the God of the Bible.

#2 – Speaking of nature, creationists would have you believe that contrary to the laws of nature, God created everything instantly. There’s a word for this sort of action which breaks the known laws of science. We call it “magic” or “witchcraft”.  According to Deuteronomy 18, however, practicing witchcraft or magic of any kind is a sin. To be a creationist, then, you must believe that God is a sinner.

#3 – Speaking of sin, creationists get really upset about the idea that humanity shares a common ancestor with apes. Instead, they argue that everyone descended from one man, Adam, and one woman, Eve. If that is true, then we are all the products of incest. However, according to Leviticus 18 incest is a sin. If that passage from the Bible is true, then creationism is founded upon sin. Monkeys, on the other hand, are not sinful.

#4 – If, according to John 16, it is that the Holy Spirit that guides our minds to the truth, and the Spirit has helped our minds discern the truth of evolution, yet creationism requires us to reject that truth, then creationism, by extension, also requires us to reject the Holy Spirit. Sounds a lot like the unforgivable sin of  ”blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” to me.

#5 – Christianity is all about restoration and reconciliation. It’s about uniting creation back to its Creator. Evolution supports this effort as it claims that all life on planet Earth is fundamentally connected. Creationism, on the other hand, argues that all plants, animals, and people on Earth, being created on separate days, are fundamentally disconnected from one another, thus furthering the division in the world which Jesus came to heal. Therefore, evolution is more Christlike than creationism.

#6 – If the majesty of creation tells us anything about God, it’s that God is all about beauty. The Creation Museum, however, is tacky and cheesy, both of which are the opposite of beauty. To be the opposite of something is to be its antithesis. Therefore, since beauty comes from God and (as we learn from looking at The Creation Museum) creationism is anti-beauty, then it is also anti-God.

#7 – According to creationists we must believe in a literal six day creation because everything in the Bible must be understood literally. If that is true, then Jesus’ command to cut off your hands or gouge out your eyes if they cause you to sin must also be taken literally. Since there are no creationists in the world who take these commands literally, creationism must be grounded in hypocrisy in order to work. However, in Matthew 6, Jesus says “don’t be like the hypocrites.”

#8 – The Bible is all about long journeys with God: 40 days on the ark, 40 years in the wilderness, 400 years in Egypt, etc. Evolution is a big supporter of really long journeys. Creationism, on the other hand, wants things to happen instantly and then be over with. If the goal of Christianity is to spend not just billions of years, but eternity with God, then creationism’s emphasis on getting things with God finished quickly seems to be anti-Christian.

#9 – If Colossians 1:16 is correct that through God all things in heaven and earth were created and science is a thing on the earth, then it is something God created. Therefore, when creationists reject science and the theory of evolution, they are in fact rejecting God’s creation and therefore God. Vice versa, when we embrace science we are in fact embracing both God and God’s creation.

#10 – Finally, creationists argue that dinosaurs and man lived side by side. If that is true, then The Flintstones is the most historically accurate portrayal we have of prehistoric life. While Fred, Wilma, and Dino are great, the church has enough credibility problems as it is. Trying to get science classes to use The Flintstones as part of their curriculum will only hinder the furthering of the gospel message. If we really want to spread the gospel, then we’ll have to let Barney and Bam-Bam remain on The Cartoon Network.

Grace and peace,

Zack Hunt

If you’ve ever thought to yourself, “Geez, I really wish somebody would do a Christian version of Miami Vice,” then your dreams have come true.

On the other hand, if you’ve ever thought to yourself, “Geez, I really wish people would stop making terrible, cheesy, somewhat racist Christian parodies of pop culture,” then welcome to your nightmare.

This post is a continuation of a proposal I made last week, arguing that perhaps lay people, like clergy, should be allowed and encouraged to take a sabbatical from regular church attendance. 

On Monday, I addressed the underlying assumption behind my proposal. Simply put, the need for or even having the option to take a sabbatical seems to primarily be an American issue.

On Tuesday, I got distracted by Mark Driscoll.

Yesterday, I talked about how critical accountability would be to this process. A person maybe stepping back from the church, but they would not be stepping away from accountability.

Today, I want to wrap up this series by addressing the other critical component of any potential lay sabbatical: intentionality.

In yesterday’s post I alluded to this in my description of how a person taking a sabbatical would remain accountable to their church throughout the entire process. In order to remain accountable, of course, one must first be intentional about seeking out accountability. Accountability doesn’t happen by accident.

I think that this is one of the primary differences between a potential lay sabbatical and the current phenomena of people (primarily young adults) simply ceasing to attend church. In my experience many of my friends who have broken ties with the church, but by no means all of them, slowly faded away from the church. There wasn’t a lot of intentionality behind their leaving. Life got in the way, interests changed, frustrations mounted and one missed Sunday here and there became two missed Sundays in a row, which turned into a month away, and then eventually they couldn’t find any reason or desire to come back.

A lay sabbatical, on the other hand, would be an intentional effort, not to break with the church, but to renew a person’s love, passion, and commitment to the Body of Christ.

In order for that renewal to be accomplished, I believe a person would first need to understand their own reason for taking a sabbatical in the first place. This might take several weeks to discern, but it would be essential so that everything the person did (or didn’t do) during the sabbatical could be intentionally focused on addressing the need that spurred the decision to step back in the first place.

Once a person had come to the point where they could articulate to themselves and those around them why they needed a sabbatical, the process described yesterday would begin. Working together with a pastor, committee, or if those weren’t possible, a group of close, dedicated fellow believers, the person would create a specific plan for their sabbatical.

Not only would they need to decide from the beginning how long the sabbatical would last, I think it would be equally important for them to articulate why that amount of time and not a shorter or longer sabbatical would be necessary. For example, burnout out might be able to relieved in a few weeks. A deep crisis of faith, however, may need several months. Once again, in order maximize the potential “success” of the sabbatical, this step in the process should also be intentional so that the specific need of the person is being addressed.

While I believe it would be important to allow space for a person to take advantage of unexpected opportunities, I think it would be critically important to outline specific opportunities for service, Christian fellowship, and rest before the sabbatical began which would address the aforementioned reason for taking the sabbatical. So, for example, if a person was frustrated with a church they viewed as too inwardly focused, then perhaps (while still making time for Christian fellowship and rest) the emphasis of their sabbatical would be on finding ways to serve the would outside the church, i.e. volunteering at the local soup kitchen, working with an organization like Habitat for Humanity, or going on a long term mission trip.

On the other hand, if the reason for the sabbatical was that the person had been hurt by their local church, then perhaps (while still making time for service and rest) the focus of their sabbatical would be on finding alternative forms of Christian fellowship, i.e. a weekly meal and Bible study with friends, participation in an intentional Christian community like The Simple Way, or by visiting churches in Christian traditions radically different than their own.

Then again, if a person was overly committed at church and simply burned out from nonstop church programming, then perhaps (while still making time for service and Christian fellowship), the focus of their sabbatical would be on finding or creating quite space in their lives where they could turn off the noise from the outside world, be still, and rejuvenate their soul as they set aside time devoted completely and totally to simply listening to the voice of God, i.e. a daily time of prayer and meditation, a personal retreat to a local convent or monastery, or weekly walks alone in a local park.

Each persons needs and reasoning for taking a sabbatical would be different. In order for that time to be fruitful, a person would have to be intentional from the beginning about both their purpose and what they intended to do during their time away.

Ultimately we must also remember that Christianity is not about us. Therefore, in a lay sabbatical a person would need to also be intentional about keeping in mind how their own growth would eventually help the rest of the Body grow. While a person would clearly have no idea at the beginning what they would learn by the end of their sabbatical, as the end of the sabbatical did approach it would be important for a person to begin to think about how to share what they learned during their sabbatical with their local congregation upon completion.

Obviously, not everyone likes to speak in public. In fact, most people don’t. So, sharing a testimony about what happened during the sabbatical probably wouldn’t be the best way to share with the congregation. Fear of public speaking aside, however, I think that sharing should be more than a one off moment at church. Testimonies are great, but the reality is most of us forget what we hear our preacher say on a Sunday morning by the time we go to bed on Sunday night. There’s little chance that we would do much better listening to a lay person.

Even if we did manage to remember a few of their points, if that person took a sabbatical for several months, then I have to imagine they would have more to share than would fit in a 5 minute testimony. Perhaps the person returning from sabbatical could share what they learned in a small group setting for a few weeks, offering new ideas for their church to get involved in their community or possibly even giving advice to others who might want to take a sabbatical of their own. Then again, if the person is more creative in nature, perhaps they could create a gallery of pictures they took during their time away that would tell their story. Or maybe the person could write down their account, publish, and share it with their church. However a person chose to share their journey wouldn’t matter, so long as they were intentional about doing so in an effective way.

Like every other step in the process, intentionallity at the end of the sabbatical would just as critical as it was in the beginning. If the sabbatical is going to be Christian, then ultimately it must serve others. If we neglect this step at the very end, then the entire time away would have been only about us, our own wants, and our own desires. In that case, there would be nothing particularly Christian about this practice.

However, if we can be intentional about using this moment to ultimately edify the church and help her people to grow, then stepping back may be the very thing that draws us closer together as the Body of Christ.

Well, that’s my proposal. It’s not perfect and it certainly needs work. This idea of a lay sabbatical is something that I will continue to ponder and tinker with for sometime to come. Until then, I would love to hear from you. Is this something you would try? Would you support others who wanted to do it? What would you change? What would you add or take away? Let me know and don’t be afraid to get creative! 

Grace and peace,

Zack Hunt

After having been distracted yesterday by Mark Driscoll’s ongoing attempt to discredit all of his critics, I wanted to get back to following up on my proposal that lay people show be allowed and encouraged to take a sabbatical from regular church attendance.

On Monday, I looked at an underlying, but previously unmentioned, assumption behind my proposal. Namely, that this seems to be a particularly American issue, in that we are so over-saturated with churches and church programming that the idea of lay burnout is something that is even possible. As opposed to churches in countries hostile to Christianity wherein church is something a believer must risk their freedom and/or life to attend even just once a week.

Today, I want to address what is, for me, the most important component of a potential lay sabbatical: accountability.

As I said in my original post, I am not in any way advocating either vacation from church or a complete break with the body of Christ.

The word “church” itself is very loaded, particularly in American evangelicalism, and I think that is what has led to some of the misunderstanding regarding my proposal. As good Protestants, obsessed with sola fide and hell bent on rejecting anything that even whiffs of “you need to do this or be here in order to be Christian,” we have over-spiritualized the concept of church.

That is not to say that as Christians we aren’t part of the transcendent Body of Christ which cannot be contained to one particular building. Of course we are. But that in no way excludes the reality that the church as a physical building in which believers set aside as sacred space to come together for worship and fellowship isn’t also a real and incredibly important component of what it means to be part of the Body of Christ.

For whatever reason, most of us have gotten drunk on the kool-aid of pop theology (I assume because it’s so tasty and easy to swallow), that we all but reject the idea that “church” is anything other than a transcendent group of like minded people. Conveniently, this also frees us from the “burden” of attending a physical church since we believe that such a thing is not “required” for salvation. It is also, I believe, from this same mentality that the misunderstanding over what I am proposing flows .

I am not advocating a form of Christianity lived permanently apart from the Body. No such thing exists even if we want to pretend otherwise. I am proposing that believers be allowed a time away from regular attendance at their local, physical church in order to seek out alternative forms of Christian community and participate in kingdom living outside the four walls of a sanctuary. In doing so, I think that both they and their local congregation could find much needed growth through an always needed reminder that the church must serve the world outside her doors.

To do this in a way that is both healthy and edifying to both the participant and the local congregation, accountability to that body would be absolutely essential.

The sort of sabbatical I am proposing would not occur on a whim. I do not have in mind people waking up groggy on a Sunday morning, hitting snooze, and calling it a sabbatical. What I want to propose is something in which both the participant and the local church would be accountable to one another before, after, and throughout the entire process.

In the case of the participant, the decision to take a sabbatical should be one that first undergoes serious reflection, prayer, and dialogue with either their pastor or other believers. This final decision to take a sabbatical would only come after this period of reflection which I think should last, at the very minimum, several weeks.

Once the decision to take a sabbatical was made by the participant, I think it would be essential for them to meet with their pastor and/or possibly some sort of sabbatical committee before taking their leave of absence. This meeting would set up parameters for the sabbatical: when it would begin and end, periodic check-ins with the pastor and/or committee to update how things are going, the development of a basic plan for what specific outreach and alternative Christian fellowship opportunities the person will participate in, and a means by which the participant will share what he or she learned with the church upon their return.

As I said, this would be no vacation. It would require time and effort on the part of the person involved. Although, I do think it would be important to incorporate times of physical rest during the sabbatical. Nonstop activity would essentially negate the whole idea of taking a break. Though again, to be clear, offering a lay sabbatical is not an attempt to simply rename and justify weekly attendance at “Bedside Baptist”.

All of that being said, is there a risk that the person taking a sabbatical would just sit at home and do nothing? Of course. But, that is already happening now. So, why not engage the issue head on and try to turn it into something positive?

Simply put, a lay sabbatical that provides opportunity and accountability would give the church with a much more productive approach to addressing those who already stay home, than our current approach of complaining about and then condemning them.

I am convinced that if we can find a way to grab a hold of people who are on the brink of leaving or who have already left and lovingly engage them in service, community, and fellowship outside our doors until they are ready to find their way back inside our doors, then ultimately it will only lead to good things both for them and for us.

So what do you think? Are there any other accountability mechanisms you would employ? If so, what are they and why would you require them for a lay sabbatical?

Tomorrow I’ll look at another critical component of this proposal, accountability’s twin sister: intentionality.

Grace and peace,

Zack Hunt

This is interesting.

While I would have to respectfully disagree with the sentiment “Jesus didn’t have a church” (he DEFINITELY went to synagogue), I do appreciate his efforts to reach those outside the church.

Live streaming church at a bar with free brunch (but no alcohol) sounds intriguing to me, but what do you think?

Is this an ok alternative to “regular” church or should people make more of an effort to attend a traditional service in person?
 

You probably read that headline and thought, “tell me something I don’t know.”

It’s not exactly breaking news that Mark Driscoll doesn’t like critics. He really doesn’t like them when they come in the form of “internet bloggers”. (As opposed to those people who blog off the internet?)

Of course, Driscoll is not alone in his disdain for critics. Nobody likes to be criticized. I don’t. Criticism hurts, especially when it’s true.

What makes Driscoll different than other public figures who have battled critics is that he doesn’t simply dismiss them, nor does he accuse them of spreading falsehoods. Instead, he tries to frame the issue of criticism in spiritual terms as we see demonstrated in this latest video posted by Mars Hill.

For Driscoll, on one side you have critics: lazy, bitter, angry, trouble makers who sit around pointing out everything churches/celebrity pastors are doing wrong without taking any action on their own part to correct the perceived problems.

On the other side are the servants: noble, loyal, peaceful Christlike disciples who offer their unwavering, no questions asked support to their church/celebrity pastor and when they do see something wrong they take action.

So to recap: critics are lazy sinners who just complain all the time. Real Christians follow their leader and don’t ask questions.

Aside from the fact that this clip is a thinly veiled attempt to dismiss the mountain of criticism directed his way, like a lot of Driscoll’s theology his argument is both ridiculously absurd and ironically un-Biblical.

For starters, everybody’s a critic. Literally. All of us. We’ve all criticized things or people and we will continue to do so for the rest of our lives.

So has Mark Driscoll.

Every time he gets on stage to yell and scream about a satanic movie, demonic exercise, or effeminate/n0n-reformed theological position he is criticizing something.

And that’s ok. Criticism, when it’s constructive (and even sometimes when it’s not) is a good thing. Criticism helps us do what we are often incapable of doing ourselves: seeing our own mistakes. If we have the courage to listen to those criticisms and learn from them, then criticism can be a mechanism for growth.

More importantly, there are few things we encounter more often in the Bible than criticism of the people of God, which makes me really confused as to what Bible Mark Driscoll is reading.

When Moses comes down the mountain and yells at the people of God for not living up to their covenant with God he’s being a critic.

When Samuel holds Saul and David accountable for being imperfect kings he’s being a critic.

When the Psalmist cries out to God “why have you forsaken me?” he’s being the boldest critic of all by criticizing God’s fidelity.

The second half of the Old Testament is entirely devoted to critics. We call them prophets. Their job was to call the people of God to account for not being faithful to God. They did this by criticizing the way they lived and the way they worshiped.

Then, of course, you have that guy named Jesus in the gospels. When he’s not healing sick people or preaching to the masses he’s criticizing the religious establishment.

But the Bible isn’t done with criticism after the resurrection. Much of Paul’s letters (as well as the other New Testament writers) are full of criticism of the churches he was righting too. He wasn’t being “mean” or “un-Christian”. He was holding them to account so that they could learn from their mistakes and grow into the people of God they professed to be.

The tradition of ecclesiastical criticism, though, doesn’t stop with the Bible.

The early church fathers, not least of all St. Augustine, were constantly criticizing their opponents for false teaching.

Two of Mark’s great reformed heroes, Martin Luther and John Calvin, were two of the greatest church critics of all time.

Jump ahead to the modern era and we have people like Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, and countless others who criticized the church for the way it was treating people.

So, despite what Driscoll may want you to believe, the truth is that some of God’s best servants were also some of the church’s greatest critics.

But here’s where Mark’s bifurcation of critics and servants really falls apart….

ALL of these Biblical and post-Biblical critics actively pursued the change they called for. They didn’t just sit at home complaining, they confronted kings in their throne rooms, stood up in the heart of the temple, nailed their grievances to a church door, led marches, lived with the oppressed, and even gave their lives.

Mark Driscoll’s dismissal of critics out of hand as lazy trouble makers only demonstrates his inability to respond effectively to their critiques. He tries to frame his critics as false Christians, or wolves among the sheep, so that way he can ignore them by claiming some sort of spiritual high ground because “real Christians” shouldn’t let themselves be distracted by Satan’s attempts to thwart the preaching of the gospel.

The reality, of course, is that much of the criticism directed his way isn’t the devil’s handiwork. Many of Mark’s critics are genuine disciples of Christ, concerned that the things he preaches and the way he leads his flock are not reflective of the Jesus he claims to serve.

Like it or not, what happens at Mars Hills reflects on all of us. That’s why we criticize and that’s why we actively try to do something about it.

Sure there are critics out there who sit at home, never go to church, and criticize everything, never do anything about the problems they see. But that is absolutely not true of everyone. For Mark to pretend that it is in order to simply ignore the criticism is…. well…. lazy.

Grace and peace,

Zack Hunt

Last week I proposed the idea that lay people should be allowed and encouraged to take a sabbatical from regular church attendance.

Having allowed that idea (along with your feedback ) to marinate in my mind over the weekend, there are several things I thought I would elaborate on from that first post and explore in more depth. Some of these follow up posts will be longer than others, but since “taking a sabbatical from church” isn’t the most conventional of ideas, I think it is important to flesh idea the many idea, issues, and assumptions behind such a proposal.

The first is an underlying assumption behind the post that I did not articulate originally, but should have.

I am convinced that the phenomena of people getting burned out, bored, or frustrated with church, then either abandoning the faith all together or choosing to do something else on their own is a particularly American, or Western phenomena. That’s not to say that we don’t see this happening in other cultures around the world. People everywhere, in every time and in every culture have struggled with their faith. But the luxury of the freedom of religion coupled with a gluttony of ecclesiastical choices creates a spoiled and consumeristic atmosphere in which choosing which church to belong to or whether or not attending church is even something you want to do as “part of your faith” is a luxury that many Christians around the world simply cannot afford.

For many of our brothers and sisters in the faith, attending church is something which they must risk their life for. Driven “underground” by oppressive regimes hostile to Christianity, these Christians overcome their fear of imprisonment and possible death in order to fellowship with other believers. Going to church for these Christians isn’t something they “have to do” every week. It’s something they’re willing to put their lives on the line for because they view the opportunity to fellowship with other believers as one of those moments in which the veil which separates heaven and earth is torn apart as the kingdom of God grabs a foothold in the here and now.

That is not to say that the rest of us are lesser Christians or somehow unjustified in our ecclesiastical burn out.

The freedom of religion which we enjoy in the United States is a double edged sword. It allows us almost unlimited opportunities to practice our faith together. As we should, we exploit this freedom. Sometimes, though, I think we exploit that freedom a bit too much.

I don’t meant that we shouldn’t take advantage of every opportunity we can to fellowship with other Christians, particularly if it is true that in those moments we experience kingdom life in the here and now. We should exploit that freedom. However, I’m not sure having church programming almost every night of the week is the type of healthy Christian fellowship the Bible calls us to. Nor do I think that the modern obsession with program driven church is particularly Christian.

Personally, I find ironic that in our zeal to “get back to the good ole days” of the early church by modeling everything we do off of the New Testament’s account of how the first Christians did church, we somehow miss the fact that the early church usually only got together once a week. We on the other hand, feel it necessary to have “church” every Sunday morning (after Sunday School of course), then again on Sunday night, then once more on Wednesday night, and of course no Christian week would be complete without a fellowship activity and possibly an additional Tuesday night prayer meeting just so we make sure we have all of our “Am I A True Christian” boxes checked.

It’s enough to burn out anyone, including the early church.

Now, I am not saying that any of those things are intrinsically bad. Some of them, most of them, are very good things. However, I think that our over emphasis on programming has resulted in people who do a great job being the church inside the four walls of their local parish, but who forget how (or barely even have the opporunity) to be the church in the place where the church is needed the most: the rest of the world.

This is one of the primary reasons that I think it would be good for all of us to take a sabbatical from regular church attendance. Not so that we can have a lazy vacation and ensure we don’t miss kickoff on Sunday afternoons, but so that we can rediscover what it means to be the church in and for the world. Christ did not intend for his body to retrench from the world, shutting itself off from society as it awaits the Second Coming. Christ gave the world the church as a gift, very much in the same way that he gave himself for all mankind. We are called, like our Saviour, to love, serve, and care for all of creation as the vehicle through which all people are drawn back to their Creator.

Certainly there are many times in which we fail at that mission, but perhaps it is because of that failure that we need a sabbatical from church programming in order to rediscover what it means to truely be the Body of Christ in and for the world.

Grace and peace,

Zack Hunt

Pat Robertson just can’t go off quietly into the sunset.

That would be too easy.

Instead, he seems to be on a mission to constantly outdo himself with more and more ridiculous and offensive statements.

Then again, maybe it’s just a competition he’s got going on with John Piper. In that case, the race is neck and neck.

In this quintessentially Pat video, Robertson explains how Jewish people are ignorant (and I would assume, therefore, partly to blame, right Pat?) about the cause of antisemitism in the world.

The video actually starts off more or less ok, with Pat seemingly declaring his support for Jewish people and rejection of antisemitism.

Then, in typical Robertson fashion, he says something completely ridiculous.

If you have been looking around the blog world lately, then you’ve probably noticed a lot of conversation about young adults leaving the church.

Bloggers like Rachel Held Evans and Christian Piatt (and I’m sure many others) have weighed in on the subject articulating well many of the reasons why young people seem to be leaving the church in droves. However, I’m not sure that after all of the back and forth we ever really discovered a way forward. In other words, while we may have established the problem, it doesn’t seem that we have found any concrete solutions.

That is probably due in large part that problems this complex and can’t be easily solved with a silver bullet. However, I’m not convinced that this excuses us from at least attempting to address this ecclesiastical epidemic.

With that in mind, I want to suggest an idea that is somewhat radical or at the very least unconventional. Nevertheless, if put into practice I think it could, at the very least, allow an already existing phenomena to be framed in a more productive way in the future. Likewise, I think it could offer all of us a healthy and Biblically sound way of dealing with the frustration, anger, burnout, and pain that so many of us experience as members of the church.

I want to suggest that we make taking a sabbatical from church an accepted, if not encouraged, part of the Christian life for lay people.

That’s right.

I think it might be a good idea for us, from time to time or even just once in our lives, to take a break from going to church every Sunday morning.

This is an idea that I am just now beginning to tinker with and think through. So, this post is not a final, polished proposal, more of an idea that I’ve begun working out in my head. On the most basic level my thought process is this: If pastors take, and are encouraged to take, a sabbatical from church in order to rejuvenate, avoid burnout, and bring a renewed vision and energy to their church, then why shouldn’t lay people do the same? After all, as a “royal priesthood of believers” are we not all in ministry?

Countless people already go through a period of leaving and returning to the church. Yes, there may be a lot of young adults leaving the church now, but that is nothing new. For years people have left the church after high school, only to come back later when they’re married and have kids.

Others, myself included, get burnt out and jaded with the church. But even that is part of a long tradition of people who have struggled with their faith. Like those who have come before us, we find ourselves at a place in life where we’re no longer convinced that we believe the same things we used to believe. In response, we decide that the place that fostered those beliefs isn’t a place we want to be a part of anymore because we look around and don’t seem to see anyone anymore who looks or thinks anything like us.

So we leave.

And some of us never come back.

And why would we if the church that should be there for us in this time of greatest need, instead kicks us to the curb for our lack of faith or “loyalty”.

What if instead of simply criticizing and condemning this phenonmena we found a way to embrace it, reframing it in a way that could help both the individual as well as the church experience growth through this time away.

I know that may sound counterproductive, but stepping away and taking a break is actually a very Biblical model. One which even Jesus himself followed.

The idea of a sabbatical comes from the ancient practice of observing the Sabbath. In Exodus, God commanded the people of Israel to “Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.” As we all remember from Sunday School, God rested on the seventh day of creation, but the reason for the people of Israel to take a Sabbath was more immediate than that.

For 400 years the children of Israel had been slaves in Egypt. 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year for 400 years they had been making bricks for Pharaoh. The fifth commandment wasn’t simply about remembering the seventh day of creation. It was about the creation of an alternative kingdom to the one the Israelites had endured in Egypt. Pharaoh had given them quotas, forcing them to make bricks everyday. God was offering them rest and a life free from quotas.

This holy day of rest wasn’t merely a day to sit around and do nothing. It was an opportunity for the people to step back from the craziness of their daily lives, lives they lived every moment within their community of faith. This day of rest allowed them to step back from all of that, not as an end in and of itself, but in order to rejuvenate and spend time getting closer to God.

In the gospels, we see Jesus following this model. Jesus was a man in great demand, who spent almost every waking hour teaching, serving, and interacting with his community of faith. Sometimes he just needed a break. Which is why read about him going off to a quiet place to pray from time to time. He wasn’t abandoning his community permanently. He was stepping back for a period of time in order to rejuvenate and spend time with his heavenly Father.

If Jesus took a sabbatical, so should we.

We do a really poor job today of taking time to rest. In the United States in particular, it’s looked down upon to take too much time off. We have it ingrained into our collective concsiouness that the most virtuous person is the hardest working, the one who never takes any time off.

This mentality carries over into the church and becomes particularly problematic when it is wedded to what I labeled the other day as “checklist Christianity.” For so many of us in the faith, the best Christians are the ones with perfect church attendance. If you miss more than a few weeks in a row you start getting phone calls and Facebook messages. Even if you’re able to avoid those things, you still have to face the sarcastic comments about your absence once you do finally go back to church.

What if we turned all of this on its head?

What if taking a sabbatical, or a break, from regular church attendance was a normal part of church life, much like Jesus stepping away from the crowds to pray?

Now, I’m not talking about arbitrary absence where we just sleep in and sit on the couch all day watching football. I’m thinking about something more formal, something more formative and more productive both for the people taking the break as well as for the church.

Perhaps this lay sabbatical could be arranged with the pastor at their local church. Working together the lay person and their pastor could establish a set time to be away. Perhaps a month, maybe 6 months, maybe even a year depending on the particular person’s needs and goals. During the sabbatical the person wouldn’t simply do nothing. Certainly there would be time set aside to be still and rest, but in general the time spent away from church would be filled serving others in places like a soup kitchen, after school tutoring, short term missions, or some other outreach opportunity.

Likewise, the person would be intentional about making time for participating in alternative forms of Christian community such as a home bible study or sharing a regular meal with fellow believers. Perhaps the pastor sheparding the lay person could even help them identity these opportunities. Then at the end of the sabbatical the lay person would in some way report back to the church all that God had taught and done through them during that time. In that way, the time spent away from the church by the individual would actually end up serving the church body by showing them new ways to be the church in the world outside the four walls of the sanctuary.

Certainly there would be a risk that people wouldn’t come back or would just sit at home and do nothing. But first and foremost, this would be for people intentional about their faith, who genuinely want to grow even as they struggle. Besides, if we really do believe that this community of faith called the church is something worth being a part of, then we have to take that seriously and believe with confidence that those people would return after their sabbatical.

The Amish take such a risk with their tradition of rumspringa (something VERY different than what I am proposing), only to see the vast majority of their people return to the fold. I think we could have the same expectation of return as the Amish do.

Of course, there are those who leave because they are hurt by their local church wherein it might be inappropriate or impossible to set up something through the pastor, particularly if he or she is the reason that person is leaving. In that case, I think that this could still be done, but in a more informal way. However, it would take a great amount of self-disciple.

In order to work, I think it would require the person to find a spiritual mentor or group of fellow believers who could serve as their source of accountability during their time away, providing them with the same sort of sheparding and direction that the pastor would in the aforementioned scenario. Although, this person would most likely end up returning to a different church, if they returned at all, I think that their time away, their story about leaving, and their testimony about what God taught and did through them during that time could all serve to edify their new community of faith.

So, why bother with this issue at all?

For starters, I think allowing for a lay sabbatical would liberate us from the quotas of checklist Christianity. Many of us have become enslaved to a checklist we feel we need to complete every week in order to maintain our Christian membership card. Allowing for a sabbatical would help us to refocus and remember that the Christian life is something primarily lived out beyond the four walls of our sanctuaries.

Likewise, I think a lay sabbatical would allow us to affirm and embrace the reality that all of us struggle while also offering a practical way forward that honors both the person struggling as well as the church (which isn’t always the bad guy). In doing so, I think a sabbatical would give us both a much needed break from each other.

Finally, I think this time away would provide much needed growth both for the person taking the sabbatical as well the church to which they return. It is often in our times of struggle that we grow the most, particularly when that time of struggle is also spent searching.

I want to stress that this is a not a permanent break from the church or an alternative way of living the Christian life.  The Israelites went back to life among their community of faith. Jesus rejoined his followers. One cannot be Christian by permanently separating from the Body. Rather, this proposition is about trying to seek a way to address the very real pain, struggles, and frustrations that all of us endure in a way that allows those moments in our lives to be an intentional time of growth and renewal, both for us as well as the Body to which we belong.

I am well aware that this proposition is not a silver bullet. It’s probably not the solution for everybody. But I think it could be an effective way to address an already existing phenomena that is healthy, productive, and faithful to the witness of Scripture.

As I said before, this idea is just now beginning to coalesce in my mind. It is certainly something that I am going to continue to think through and work out in my own mind for a while, but I want to know what you think. Is there anything you would add? Are there any problems you forsee with such a practice? If you’re struggling with the church, but still want to be committed to God, is this something you would consider? Let me know what you think in the comments section. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Grace and peace,

Zack Hunt

Wow.

Just wow.

I guess this means Jesus really hated the early church:

“All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.”                                                                                                                                                     Acts 4:32-35