Since leaving the traditional institutional expression of “church” about six years ago, there have been so many changes in my thinking and perspective. Things that used to be so important to me ceased to seem that important. And other things that seemed to be so trivial or unimportant before suddenly took on new meaning.

Easter is one of those things that ceased seeming to be so important. No, I do not mean that the resurrection of Jesus ceased to have any importance for me! But what I mean is that the single day of celebrating that changed dramatically for me.

When I was working in the institution, Easter was one of the biggest days of the year work-wise. It usually involved quite a bit of musical preparation (perhaps a cantata, or just extra-big congregational music). We would celebrate the resurrection and all that it meant to us like we would never have the chance to do so again.  At least we wouldn’t really get that chance for another year…

So what has changed for me? The resurrection now seems significant to me every day of the year. It’s no longer something to be singled out one day a year, but rather is a life-changing, life-altering, life-encompassing thing for me now.

For me, the resurrection “tops off” the work that was done on the cross. Jesus gave his life to ransom us from the power of sin and death. And because of his sacrifice in this regard, the Father rewarded him by bringing him back to life after he had done the work necessary to purchase us back from the powers of darkness.

So, the resurrection is important to me because it means death is not the end of the story. As Paul wrote, and I paraphrase here, since Jesus was resurrected, we have hope for life beyond the grave as well.

Today, I was aware that many churches were putting their all into celebrating the resurrection. And I think they should. I just think it shouldn’t be a one-day-a-year event. As for me, it was pretty much just another day. Another day of living in gratitude for the resurrection of Jesus. Just like every other day.

Until next time,

steve

Barb, blogging at A Former Leader, wrote a post called “Husband Replacement“. While the major gist of the post is not what I’m trying to blog about here, she wrote a few sentences that I find really pertinent to this question about how we measure spirituality and “leadership”.

I measured [my husband] Marshall for so many years by a measuring stick that was skewed. On one stick was all the things that I thought made you a good Christian – things like being faithful to daily Bible reading, memorizing, journaling, church attendance and fulfilling all the expectations of the leader of whatever church we were in. On the other stick – (God’s stick, btw) – were things like faithfulness, kindness, loving the unlovely, willingness to help me and others, love for his kids, the ability to laugh with those who laugh and weep with those who weep. If I were to have used the right stick he was head and shoulders above any one I knew.

How often do we judge leaders (or just any Christian) based on their faithfulness to the checklist? You know the checklist I’m talking about. All those things we have been taught indicate that we’re a “good Christian”. We honor church attendance, scripture memorization, etc. Yet how often do we look at the relationships people have? How often do we look at how their heart is displayed in their life?

To paraphrase Paul in 1 Corinthians 13, you can memorize scripture, journal diligently, attend anytime the church doors are opened, etc., but if you don’t have love (or, I would add, any of the other fruit of the Spirit), it is completely worthless.

I think this goes along with a post that Alan Knox recently reposted regarding the story we usually call “the good Samaritan”. The one who didn’t have his theology “correct” becomes the hero of the story. He becomes the one Jesus offers as the model to follow. Why? Because he lived it out.

Until next time,
steve

Many times in the past, blog posts by either of us have been sparked by the discussion that ensues in those times together (many of them lasting more than 2 hours).  For over a year, another good friend Tom has been joining us, too.  And sometimes when his schedule allows, frequent commenter “ded” (David) has joined us, too.

For a while now, Ray and I have talked about how much fun it would be to capture those times together to share with others.  Neither of us really knew anything about podcasting, nor did we know exactly how best to bring those discussions to others.

Instead of trying to actually record our conversations in a noisy restaurant, however, Ray and I have decided to start recording podcasts in a more controlled environment, but with the same type of conversations that take place in our weekly get-togethers.

So, I am excited to announce the start of a new podcast, with its own website:  Beyond the Box.  You can listen to the podcasts right there, if you want, on each post.  If you prefer to use iTunes to download them and listen there or on your iPod, the feed you need to subscribe to in iTunes is http://www.beyondtheboxpodcast.com/?feed=podcast.

Each episode (we intend to post a new episode weekly, if possible) runs about 30 minutes.  Our first episode, entitled What Is the Box?,  gives a pretty good idea of what you can expect.

Fun? It is for us, and I hope so for you, too.  Challenging?  Maybe, maybe not.  Controversial?  Probably.  But it’s not much that you haven’t already read on this blog in the past.  Instead of reading posts that have been thought out, edited, and refined, you’ll hear two guys just thinking out loud about some of the topics that pertain to our journey.

Comments on each post are more than welcome, and I hope that some of you will be listening regularly and giving us feedback as we bring the discussion to you in a new way for us.

We invite you to join us on the journey…beyond the box!

Until next time,

steve

Christy, thank you for four amazing years of marriage together. I look forward to the next four, the next fourteen, the next forty…however long we remain in this life. Thank you for being who you are and for helping me be who I am.

I love you!

Spending time with Tony in person is great! He’s got a terrific sense of humor, gracious spirit, and is very easy to talk to on just about any subject. In fact, Tony and I have a tendency to not really finish any subject, but rather to travel down innumerable rabbit trails — sometimes mid-sentence!

For this meeting, Tony and I had decided to go golfing together. I Googled to find a golf course that was sort of halfway in between us, and we decided to meet at the Old Fort Golf Course in (duh) Old Fort, NC. It’s a 9-hole, par 36 course that actually ended up being extremely affordable ($16 each to ride 9 holes).

Between theological discussions and analysis of recent blogging conversations, Tony and I had a blast batting our golf balls in all directions on the fairways, into the woods, etc. And when the dust settled, we got a great chuckle out of realizing that we were actually tied (guaranteeing a future playoff, I hope?)!

I won’t embarrass either of us by posting our actual score, but I can tell you that we both hit par on one hole. My approach shot to the green on that hole was actually from the next fairway over (!!), but we both managed to hit the green in regulation and two-putt for almost textbook par. The other 8 holes weren’t quite so textbook!!

At any rate, between the time talking on the course and a relaxed lunch afterwards (no thanks to the fact that Tony’s GPS unit doesn’t tell you that it’s actually a smoky truck stop that it’s leading you to!), we had some wonderful fellowship and some really deep conversation.

If you don’t already know Tony (he’s a frequent commenter here), I encourage you strongly to check out his two blogs (Rambling Prophet and Rambling Prophet 2) and enter into conversation with him on a wide variety of topics.

And Tony, watch out on that tie-breaker round next time. I know your tricks now

I won’t bore you with summaries of the other posts because you can read them for yourself (and I highly recommend you read them now, if you haven’t already). I am primarily, however, responding to David Rogers’ post…or rather, I should say, I’m attempting to continue the thoughts that David has interjected into the conversation.

David wrote about several roadblocks that he sees in the way of the concept of a “city church”. And in large measure, I agree with what David wrote. But as I read his thoughts on roadblocks, I couldn’t help but think that there was one major roadblock that he didn’t really list. (He sort of touched on this in his fourth roadblock, but I want to flesh it out a bit further.)

Without addressing this roadblock, I am of the opinion that attempting to solve any of the other roadblocks will be an exercise in futility. And in my opinion, this issue would actually take care of several, if not all, of the roadblocks David listed.

That roadblock is pride.

What prevents the body of Christ from being unified in a geographical region? Pride.

David touched on this somewhat in his comment about simple/organic/house churches dismissing the “institutional church” as irrelevant. Now, obviously, many of my readers know that I am involved in an organic church that meets house to house. And I’ve written quite a bit on that topic in the past.

My intent here is not to defend simple church against David’s comment. Because frankly, David is quite right when he highlights certain factions of the simple church adherents as basically ignoring the traditional institution. The only exception I would make to David’s statement is that, as some have already pointed out in the comments on his post, it’s hardly unique to simple/organic/house churches.

The point that I would like to make is that, regardless of the mode of fellowship (institutional, simple, etc.), when anyone shuts anyone else out, I believe that boils down to pride. And without addressing the pride issue, we cannot expect to see any genuine improvement in the area of divisions within the body of Christ.

Recently, on another blog, I read a post about the need for a certain denomination to exercise humility. The author of the post chose to use the phrase “doctrinal humility”. In a sickening twist of irony, the commenters could not get past that two-word phrase. They rushed to defend their lack of humility when it comes to their doctrine. If I may paraphrase, they basically were saying, “We have doctrine that is the most biblical of anyone’s. What are we supposed to be humble about??”

That is exactly the pride that divides. And it is by no means the domain of only one particular denomination. Who among us believes our doctrine is not “biblical”? If we believed that it weren’t, wouldn’t we rush to change it? So to argue that our doctrine, or our ecclesiology, or our system of church, or our mode of baptism, or our position on spiritual gifts is “biblical” is to miss the point.

The only thing over which we are ever instructed to separate from others on in scripture is a compromise of the message of the Gospel. And I would hasten to add that, in the context of the entire teaching of the New Testament, I believe that any separation at all is always with a hope for reconciliation.

So, for a city church to actually be able to function as a city church, there has to be humility. There has to be a willingness to say, “I believe that my convictions in {insert area of doctrine or practice} are based on the revelation of scripture, but I also recognize that those who differ with me also believe theirs is based on the revelation of scripture. Because we are both adherents to the message of the Gospel, I will not allow this area to divide us. After all, my brother or sister may actually be right, and it may be I who am wrong in this area.”

Not too long ago, I participated in a brief discussion on a blog that asked if it’s possible to fellowship and worship together with people who did not believe the same thing about certain doctrines. In the post, the author was offering his compromise, which was to say that we acknowledge a spiritual unity, yet we do not fellowship or worship together with those who believe differently. He used as an example in his post a difference in baptism. Specifically, he was writing from a “believers only” view of baptism vs. “infant baptism”. I offered the following comment:

It’s always refreshing to see other brothers and sisters thinking through these concerns, and I definitely appreciate your heart in these posts….

I think, however, that your solution of “unity in spirit, but not in fellowship” is a step in the wrong direction. And…that’s pretty much what is already going on in the body of Christ today. It strikes me as trying to have it both ways. Unity really means nothing if we can’t actually walk together, in my opinion.

Your example of infant baptism is, ironically, the one that I think is one of the easiest to reconcile. If both sides are approaching the subject with humility and grace, I see no reason why one could not fellowship with the other.

The humility and grace would mean that the one believing in infant baptism would not pressure the other to baptize his infant. And likewise, the one not believing in it would not belittle the faith of the other for practicing it.

It would seem to me that throughout the course of time together, perhaps one might be persuaded to the others point of view, but not because one is demanding it or pushing the issue.

I don’t know if I’m correct here, but it seems to make sense to me. For there to be a “city church”, this type of humility is required. Otherwise, we end up digging in our heels and closing ourselves off to the possibility that we could be wrong.

If we cannot lay down our own pride and humbly relate to our brothers and sisters in the Gospel, regardless of their beliefs about other things outside the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus and our reconciliation to the Father through Jesus, there is no hope of unity. And there is no hope of a “city church”.

_______________________________________

Chain blog rules:

1. If you would like to write the next blog post (link) in this chain, leave a comment stating that you would like to do so. If someone else has already requested to write the next link, then please wait for that blog post and leave a comment there requesting to write the following link.

2. Feel free to leave comments here and discuss items in this blog post without taking part in the actual “chain”. Your comments and discussion are very important in this chain blog.

3. When you write a link in this chain, please reply in the comments of the previous link to let everyone know that your link is ready. Also, please try to keep an updated list of links in the chain at the bottom of your post, and please include these rules at the bottom of your post.

1. Alan Knox, City Church – A Chain Blog
2. Charlie Wallace, City Church: Meeting
3. David Rogers, Roadblocks on the Path to City Church
4. Steve Sensenig, The Major Roadblock to a City Church (this post)
   
5. Paul Grabill, The Resurrection of the City Church: Who Will Move the Stone?
6. Jon Amos, A City Church Thought Experiment
7. James Goetz, The Restoration of the City or Locality Church and Apostolic Leaders
8. Alan Knox, Unity and the Church in a City

This post started as a response on a post over at The Pursuit, but I decided to just write it here instead. In one of Lew’s “Question of the Week” posts, he asked:

Why do the things that cause us to separate ourselves by denomination have little to do with what God’s Word tells us to separate ourselves from?

Recently, in response to that, a commenter wrote:

…the union of people who have conflicting ideas is really no unity at all.

I think this is 1) a red herring, and 2) a false dichotomy, and 3) an excuse for the utter lack of attempts at unity in the body of Christ.

There can be a lot of “conflicting ideas” in a unified group. The unity is not always a simple function of unity in thought (or better yet, a unity in knowledge), but rather a unity in identification.

I find my identity in Christ. Who I am is found in Christ. Anyone else who finds their identity in Christ is my brother, and I should be able to be unified with them without any problem.

What if we disagree on methods of evangelism? So what?

What if we disagree on the use of certain spiritual gifts? So what?

What if we disagree on exactly how God created the heavens and the earth? So what?

What if we disagree on exactly what/when the millenial kingdom of Christ is? So what?

What if we disagree on exactly how God has “chosen” us? So what??

That need not divide us. Unless we twist any of those things, or a million other “issues” like them, into issues of true fellowship, they are not reasons for division. And if those things divide us, we should ask ourselves: From what do we get our identity?

For example, take a look at some of the leaders of large denominations who say that they can’t “cooperate” in the work of the Gospel with those who have not been baptized by someone in their denomination. Are they really seeking unity? In my opinion, no. They are seeking to defend their particular belief system as the only true and correct belief system.

That is not of Christ. It never has been, and never will be. And it is not those outside of that denomination who are the heretics. It is the one causing division who is the heretic.

Let’s quit coming up with excuses for our division and start really accepting and loving those who confess Christ, and seeking unity with them.

Conflicting ideas? Sure. Ability to fellowship and work together despite those differences? Absolutely — because it is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one Spirit that unites us.

Until next time,

steve

First of all, I am very late in mentioning this, but several weeks ago, Christy and I (along with our son) had the great pleasure of having dinner with Brandon and Heather, long-time readers and commenters and blogging buddies. They decided to vacation up here in the Boone area, and we were able to meet them for dinner one evening. What a joy!

Even though Brandon and Heather haven’t been as active in the blogosphere for several months as they used to be, we still had lots to talk about. Our dinner together ended up being about 3 1/2 hours together, only cut short because the restaurant was closing! Thanks for a great visit, both of you, and I hope we can do it again!

My quest to meet each of my readers personally continues…

Additionally, I am still waiting to have an interview scheduled at Barter Theatre in Abingdon, VA. They had hoped to interview late this month, but it’s already the 24th and I still don’t have an interview date. They have assured me that they want to interview me, but I’m not sure how much longer the process will take. So, for the time being, there are no real plans to move.

I had mentioned a while ago on this blog that Christy and I were going through the process of getting licensed for foster/adoptive care. We have a separate blog that talks about that: Love Each Child. If you would like to see some recent exciting events in our lives, please go there and read this post by me, and this one by Christy. (Those of you who read Christy’s blog have already seen these links.)

Needless to say, life around here is very exciting, even though we know very little of what tomorrow will bring! But I do know this: Our God is a very good god, and we feel so very blessed to be able to be His children. While many things in our future remain to be seen, we are very much at peace with the fact that God is orchestrating things that go beyond our dreams and imaginations. And we feel very blessed already.

One more little update: Several months ago, I asked for assistance in writing an article for a publication. Thank you very much to those of you who answered my request and gave suggestions. I used many of those suggestions. I am pleased to announce that within a couple of weeks, the Fall issue of the wonderful quarterly publication The Old Schoolhouse will be carrying the resulting article in their special Christmas section.

I’m very honored to be published in this magazine, one which has very quickly become perhaps the leading publication for the homeschool community. With a publication run of about 33,000 I am pleased to know that my first published article will be helping many people celebrate Christmas this year by bringing new meaning to some well-known songs.

I guess that about wraps up this personal update. Thanks for sticking around, even with the lack of regular posting here! I appreciate every one of my readers and commenters.

Until next time,

steve

David (“ded”) is a great friend and brother to me. I first met David when he was one of our son’s seventh-grade teachers. Since that time, David and I have become very good friends. I value him as a brother in Christ and as one who functions as an elder in my life.

David and his wonderful wife are ones that we try to fellowship with often. The path to finding points of intersection in our schedules has not always been easy, but every time we get together, it is a blessing to us. I always find myself coming away from conversations with David feeling more in love with Jesus, more in tune with the Spirit, and more desirous to live life fully in the Spirit.

For a long time now, David has been contributing very insightful comments on this blog. Several of you have commented in the past how much you appreciate his wisdom and input into the conversation. I couldn’t agree more!

So, it is with great pleasure that I introduce David to you now, not just as a friend, not just as a brother, not just as a vital part of the comments here, but now as a blogger as well. David’s new blog, Spirit in the Wild Wood, is now open, and he’s already got a couple of posts up there for your edification.

I can’t recommend highly enough that you add David to your blog reader, favorites, or however you keep up with your blog reading. You will definitely be blessed by this dear brother!

Until next time,

steve

Much of what I would like to say has been said in one form or another in the comments that were posted previously. This has the net effect of letting me know ahead of time that my thoughts won’t be overly controversial to everyone in the discussion! But seriously, it is refreshing to see such thought being given to this topic. I likely will not address everything that was written in the comments, but they are there for you to read for yourself. Instead, I want to share my thoughts, some of which will overlap the thoughts of others.

It is easy, I think, for us to agree that whatever Jesus meant when he prayed for our unity, we’re not fulfilling it. I don’t think I’ve ever come across anyone who says that the body of Christ is experiencing unity at the level that Jesus prayed for. Part of this is because we don’t even agree on what the unity is supposed to look like!

Some options of interpretation that I have come across in my time of examining this passage include:

• Unity = Unanimity — Unity can only come when we fully agree on everything that is believed, practiced, taught, etc.
• Unity = Consensus — Unity means that we “agree to disagree”
• Unity = Anything Goes — Unity means that every person’s belief is valid, and we should never “debate” or try to convince others of our viewpoints
• Unity = Eschatological Perfection — The unity that Jesus prayed for is only possible, and will only exist, when Jesus returns and we are made perfect.

With that in mind, I posed the question, “What is the unity that Jesus prayed for in John 17 and is it primarily (or even solely) eschatological in nature?”

Let me first of all give my thoughts on the eschatology aspect of the question. I think determining the eschatological import (if any) helps us determine what the unity actually is. It also impacts what we believe to be our responsibility toward the unity in question.

In other words, if the unity is primarily (or solely) eschatological, we can easily assume that it is not attainable in this lifetime, and we will generally feel like it’s not even worth trying. If, however, the unity is a present possibility and reality, we will understand our own response to the prayer of Jesus.

As some have already commented, I do not believe that the unity for which Jesus prayed is eschatological. Eschatological unity is almost a given. Why would Jesus take the time to pray for what is essentially a guaranteed part of the future kingdom?

But more importantly, the words of Jesus in John 17 give us ample evidence that eschatology is not in view during this prayer. Verse 21 tells us specifically that the prayer of Jesus for unity is for this purpose: “…so that the world may believe that You sent Me.”

Verse 23 expands on this by saying that the purpose of the unity is “…so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.”

In my opinion, these two statements of purpose that Jesus gave for his prayer for unity remove any eschatological implication from the prayer. The purpose of the unity is to demonstrate to the world that God sent Jesus and that God loves us.

If this is correct (and obviously, I believe it is), then this greatly impacts our understanding of what that unity is and whether or not we should actively be pursuing it. Since it is not a future unity (any eschatological implications must come from outside the text), there must be a present unity for which Jesus prayed.

Within this prayer, Jesus gives some indication as to what the unity should be. Namely, it should be a mirror of the unity that Jesus and the Father share. He compares the unity of us with his unity with the Father in verse 21:

…they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us….

Would we say that the unity of Jesus and the Father is manifest in “you go your way and I’ll go mine and we won’t bother each other”? Yet this is frequently what ends up happening among Christians.

You believe in infant baptism? Then I can’t fellowship with you. You believe in speaking in tongues? You’ll have to have church across town. You believe that the Genesis account of creation is metaphorical? I have nothing in common with you.

This cannot be what Jesus prayed for.

And with that, I will have to hold off on the rest of my thoughts because I am out of time. Comments are open, and I will return with a further post at some point.

Until next time,

steve