Theological Musings

n my post about maturity, way back in the end of 2006 :), my dear friend and blogging buddy Gordon Cloud asked some questions about simple church that I never got around to answering because of the holidays. I’m finally going to take the time to address them here, and open it up for further discussion, rebuttal, etc. by Gordon or anyone else who cares to weigh in.

Before I begin, I want to make some foundational points very clear. I find it necessary from time to time to revisit these underlying points because not all who read this post read my blog regularly (or have read long enough to see these points before). Additionally, it serves as a reminder for myself, lest I get so enamored with where my ideas are right now that I allow pride to creep into my heart. So, the following post has, as its undercurrent, the following presuppositions and foundational concepts:

• I am not against any particular form of church. I think that there are plusses and minuses in any expression of the body of Christ, and I also believe there are exceptions to every possible criticism or positive comment that can be made about any form of church.
• I do not believe that my ideas are the only possible conclusion to what is revealed in the Bible, but I do attempt to constantly check everything I am doing and promoting with what has been revealed.
• I do not personally believe in a “prescriptive” approach of reading Scripture, insomuch as some groups claim that their particular style of church is “New Testament” or “biblical”, etc. Rather, I look at what Scripture does tell us about how the body should function, what the goals are, and evaluate our practices in light of those desired outcomes. (This is a key principle in understanding where I’m coming from.)
• While I may disagree with some brothers and sisters on their approach to church, I do not hold that against them personally, and do not see it as a personal issue of division between us. As Paul instructs, I try to live at peace with all, as much as it depends on me.

Having said all that, there are three questions that Gordon posed. The first is one that relates to a particular view of elders, not necessarily limited to simple church. The other two relate more specifically to simple church. Gordon asks:

1. Where does the Bible mandate multiple elders? (I know it gives a historical reference to their existence, but it does to pastor/teachers as well)
2. In the simple church model, where do the biblical offices of pastor and deacon fit in?
3. Where do musicians fit in? (You’re going to have a hard time convincing me that God hasn’t equipped you for this ministry! )

The first question was answered by Alan Knox in the comments that followed Gordon’s questions, but I’ll touch a bit on it here. I’m not exactly sure I understand now (several weeks later) what this question was in response to, but I think it went along with the concept we were batting around about multiple teachers, pastors, etc. helping to shepherd the body.

As Alan mentioned in his reply to Gordon, elders are never mandated in Scripture at all. There’s not a mandate for a single elder, nor is there a mandate for a plurality of elders. However, references to elders in the NT are plural. So, the concept of multiple elders seems to be the “norm” in the NT churches.

I think, perhaps, however, that the question is whether or not it is appropriate to have one “senior pastor”, or a head elder, who is primarily responsible for shepherding, preaching, etc. (If I’m misunderstanding, Gordon, please correct me.) If the Scripture mandated multiple elders, then obviously, it would be wrong for a church to be led by one man. In the absence of scriptural mandate, therefore, I do not believe I can, in good conscience, say that it is wrong to only have one.

However, in light of the shepherding aspect of elders, I believe that one elder is not the most practical way to work out the descriptions we have in the New Testament. I realize that Gordon and I differed on this point in the thread to which this post responds, but I do believe that it is necessary to have a finger on the pulse of where someone is spiritually if we are to shepherd them. If I am an elder, attempting to shepherd and spiritually guide multiple people, I think it is impractical to conceive that I can do that effectively without having a relationship with those people.

This goes both ways. Not only do I need to have an awareness of where they are in their walk, but they need to know me in such a way that my life can be an influence to them. This takes into account the reminders by Peter and Paul (but not Mary! hehe) to live lives that are examples to those whom we are shepherding. How can one truly be an example, if there is insufficient relationship for their lives to truly be observed?

I have seen many times (including in my own life) where a leader can seem to have their act together in public, but in private, it is far from together. This is easy to maintain when there is distance between the leader and the follower (reference the utter surprise and confusion that results when a pastor of a large church resigns amid scandal), but when there is a real relationship, it is much, much harder for these types of discrepancy to remain.

Because I see relationship and visibility of a spiritual life to be so crucial in the biblical descriptions of elders, that leads me to the conclusion that elders are more associated with smaller groups of people, and as the group gets larger, the number of elders gets larger.

This in no way is meant to imply that one cannot learn and grow from the teaching of one more separate from their personal lives. However, I think there is a distinct difference between this form of learning by listening, and a true elder/shepherd relationship. I have learned much from men I have listened to or read. But I could never legitimately call those men a “pastor” to me. They know nothing about me, and I know nothing about them. How can they shepherd me, and how can I emulate them?

There are some additional practical reasons why I believe being an elder to a smaller group of believers is more desirable. One is the propensity for leadership to turn into a power trip for the one “at the top”. This plays out in churches much, much more than it ever should.

And quite frankly, it can happen on a small group level, as well. However, I think that both the temptation in this regard and the fallout from the damage caused by yielding to that temptation are both magnified as the size of the group grows. The more the leader is separated from the people (i.e., protected from them), and the more the identity of that group is centered around that human being, the greater the danger. And the harder the fall, if one comes.

I hear often (and heard when I was a vocational pastor, as well) how lonely it can be in the pastorate. You don’t know who you can trust, you don’t have very many close friends, you feel like people aren’t really being themselves around you, etc. But if you are not the only one “at the top” (think about that for a moment), it needn’t be lonely, trust and loving relationships can be forged, etc.

These are some reasons why, although not mandated, I think that the concept of multiple elders (without one being elevated) is a very wise practice to have in our church families. Not only that, but I think it will be the natural outgrowth of a maturing, growing body of believers.

This is already too long, so I’ll deal with the next two questions in a later post.

Until next time,

steve

t the risk of allowing this blog to devolve into a personal, warm and fuzzy, “Here’s where I am today” kind of blog, I’m actually going to take the challenge recently extended to me by David Wayne, aka the JollyBlogger. David’s one of my “silent readers”, those people who make you feel good about your blog because they’ve linked to you and added you to their Bloglines, and yet they never leave comments. However, since David’s such a nice guy and asked so politely, I’ll accept his invitation to reveal some things about myself! (Notice how subtly I slide some guilt David’s way…hehe)

All seriousness aside, here are the questions that David has passed on. He called it “Five(ish) Things I’d Like to Know About You” and you’ll see very soon why he said “Five(ish)”:

0) What’s your name and website URL? (optional, of course)

Hi, my name is Steve Sensenig, and I’m addicted to blogging. (Hi, Steve!) My website URL is…well, which one would you like? Let’s see, this blog is http://www.theologicalmusingsblog.com. My music site is http://www.worshipkeys.com. My homeschool blog (very infrequently updated) is http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/pianosteve. I have a xanga that I hardly ever update, too, but which is reserved usually for much lighter things. That’s http://www.xanga.com/pianosteve. Happy now?

1) What’s the most fun work you’ve ever done, and why? (two sentences max)

Hmmmm, I would say probably the current work I do accompanying music students at Appalachian State University. Hey, I get paid to play music. What could be more fun?

2) A. Name one thing you did in the past that you no longer do but wish you did? (one sentence max)
B. Name one thing you’ve always wanted to do but keep putting it off? (one sentence max)

A. Atkins diet. I lost about 40 pounds on it in about a year and a half. That was in 2003. Since then, I’ve gradually found 30 of the ones I lost. OK, so that was more than one sentence. Even my writing apparently needs to go on a diet!
B. Getting my pilot’s license.

3) A. What two things would you most like to learn or be better at, and why? (two sentences max)
B. If you could take a class/workshop/apprentice from anyone in the world living or dead, who would it be and what would you hope to learn? (two more sentences, max)

A. Golf, because it’s so much fun but I stink at it; and playing jazz, because it’s so much fun but I…well, maybe I’m not so bad, but I could be a lot better!
B. At the risk of just sounding like I am trying to impress you with my spiritual maturity (which I’m not, because I still have a ways to go), I would love to have been one of the disciples of Jesus when He lived here on the earth. What would I hope to learn? Answers to a lot of the questions I ask on this blog!

4) A. What three words might your best friends or family use to describe you?
B. Now list two more words you wish described you…

A. funny, sensitive, gentle
B. film composer (One of my dreams is to compose the music for a motion picture someday)
5) What are your top three passions? (can be current or past, work, hobbies, or causes– three sentences max)

My top three passions are: 1. Loving Jesus Christ and seeking more of Him in my life, 2. My lovely wife and our family, and 3. Music

6) Write–and answer–one more question that YOU would ask someone (with answer in three sentences max)

I’m really at a loss on this one. It would greatly depend on the person I was asking, so I think I’ll have to pass on this one. Sorry, David!

[Bonus: What is one question you wish people would ask themselves?]

Are the things that I’m doing in my life moving me closer to Jesus Christ?

——————————————————————

Now, as these things go, I’m supposed to tag others with this. So, if you are interested in doing this, answer in a post on your own blog (if you have one), or in the comments below (if you don’t have a blog, or don’t wish to turn your own blog into a personal, warm and fuzzy, “Here’s where I am……..):

• Gordon Cloud
• Tony Sisk
• Alan Knox
• ded
• Phil Wyman
• Raborn Johnson (just to get you blogging again!)

Until next time,

steve

For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good. (Titus 2:11-14, NIV)

I figured for the first post of 2007, I would try to be a bit less controversial than how we finished out 2006! Actually, I have every intention of getting back to some of the great questions Gordon Cloud asked in the comment thread on the Maturity post, but something else has really pressed on my spirit today, and I want to talk about it.

There is a false dichotomy in the minds of a lot of Christians regarding the existence of sin in the life of a confessing Christian. On one hand are those who say that a Christian is (or at least should be) completely and utterly sinless if they are truly in Christ. On the other hand are those who say that a Christian should expect not only to sin in their life, but to continue to struggle with sin, sometimes to the point of feeling despair.

It would appear on the surface that these are the only two options, and since none of us really honestly claims to be perfect, then the correct answer must be the second one. Sin is here to stay in this lifetime, and there is no hope of freedom from it until we die.

Well, as could probably be expected by the way I phrased the previous paragraph, I believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle. OK, so maybe this won’t be so uncontroversial after all, but try to hang with me before scrolling down to the comments section!

I have a real problem with the “sin will always keep us trapped” teaching. And that problem is simply that I see something completely different in Scripture. For example, take a look at the verses I quoted above from Titus. I intentionally used the NIV here, even though my automatic Scripture reference linking plugin is set up (by me) to link to the NASB. I chose the NIV because I think it captures the bluntness of what Paul said to Titus in that passage.

Paul tells Titus that “the grace of God…teaches us to say ‘No’ to ungodliness….” The NASB says more formally that it “instruct[s] us to deny ungodliness”, which just doesn’t quite carry the same punch, in my opinion. To “deny ungodliness” sounds to me more like a refusal to acknowledge it (although I do recognize the meaning of the word “deny” is completely appropriate in context). The NIV says that we are able to say “No” to it. That’s powerful, in my opinion.

You see, that removes a lot all of the excuses that we like to give for remaining in sin. The “just say ‘No’” slogan was used in an anti-drug campaign back in the Reagan presidency. The simplicity of the notion of just saying “No” was recognized by many. But the idea that we somehow have the power in and of ourselves misses the point. The source of the power comes not from our own endeavors, but from the grace of God within us.

So, what does this mean for sin in the life of the believer? Quite honestly, I think it means that we have no excuse. Paul does not say that the grace only partially appeared. He does not say that this is part of some “already/not yet” tension within the kingdom of God.

How can I say that so confidently? Well, look at the rest of the statement by Paul. The grace of God teaches us “to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope….” (emphasis mine) He does not say that this ability to live a righteous life will come after Jesus returns. But rather, in this present age, that grace gives us the power and ability to say “No” to ungodliness and live an upright, godly life.

For many who believe that the life of sin and struggle with the same is simply “being real” and being honest, a key passage is Romans 7. Now, I will be the first to state that I do not have the complete answer as to the meaning of Romans 7, but the debate generally revolves around the question, “Is Paul describing a pre-conversion experience, or post-conversion experience?” Briefly put, I have seen two arguments in favor of Paul describing the present condition of a believer that bear any merit.

1. Paul speaks in the present tense
2. Every Christian we know still sins from time to time

I can’t completely explain the use of the present tense, but I think there’s a lot to be said for what appears before and after Romans 7 (for those playing along at home, that would be more specifically Romans 6 and Romans 8!) Because in those chapters surrounding Romans 7, Paul also talks in the present tense about us being “freed from sin” (Romans 6:7), not being “in the flesh”, but being “in the Spirit” (Romans 8:9), etc. I think we err to dismiss the teaching of chapters 6 and 8 in favor of the argument for the present condition of a believer in chapter 7.

And now, looking at the passage under consideration in Titus, we have Paul saying that the grace of God enables us to live a life that is pleasing to God in the here and now! Paul doesn’t go on and on in Titus about how he’s not really living there because some element of the kingdom hasn’t yet been fulfilled.

Similarly, a well-known statement in 1 Corinthians 10:13 assures us that there is a “way of escape” from every temptation. Is there ever a point where we can say, “Oh, I’m still caught in this struggle with sin, so I just have to endure it”? I’m not convinced there is.

So, what to do with the existence of sin in the life of a believer? Is there a balance to be found? Is there some “middle ground” between the two positions, as I stated at the start? I believe there is.

I believe the middle ground is to acknowledge that we have everything available to us through Christ (i.e., the indwelling Holy Spirit) to live a life that is not characterized by sin. More specifically, I think we need to acknowledge that any detour from the path of righteousness into sin is not because something is yet to be fulfilled in the kingdom, but rather that we have not availed ourselves of the grace given to us.

Do I claim to live a sinless life? No. I would be dishonest if I did. But I must place the blame for that sin squarely on myself. In a situation where I sin, I choose to sin. I choose to ignore the “way of escape”, and I choose not to say “No” to ungodliness. I have not allowed God’s grace to live through me and be my teacher in righteousness. To claim otherwise is to say that Christ has not done enough for me.

Until next time,

steve