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

This week, we obviously held a very important election here in the United States. And I noticed something leading up to the election, and it became very obvious as the election results came in Tuesday night.

I have a Facebook account (look me up on there if you’re not already my Facebook friend), and my friends list is very, very diverse. I have some of my blog readers, some “in real life” friends, high school classmates, college classmates, co-workers from the theatre where I have been working these past few months, high school kids whom I accompanied this summer at a music camp — all different types of people. Some very liberal, some very conservative. Some Christian, some not. Some straight, some gay. Some old, some young. Anyway, you get the picture.

Well, if you’re not familiar with Facebook, there’s this little thing on Facebook called “status” where you can say what you’re doing at the moment, what you’re feeling, or whatever you want to put in there.

And so, election night, I was logged into Facebook, and I was following the status changes of all of my Facebook friends. And I noticed a very disturbing trend.

I could have divided my friends into two groups that night. One group was jubilant. “YES, WE DID!!!” read some statuses (stati?). “Change is coming!” read others. “I am sooo happy,” read still more.

And then, there were the evangelical Christians and more conservative types in the other group. “I’m feeling very scared.” “I’m scared, but I know God’s still in control.” “I’m worried about our country.”

Now, would I expect everyone to be happy about the election results? Of course not. Millions voted for John McCain.

But fear? Acting like the world was about to go to hell? The funny thing is, I seem to recall very similar comments from friends and family back in 1992 when Bill Clinton was elected as President.

Seriously, Christianity is supposed to be about hope. About life. About victory. About peace. And we’re going to let the results of a Presidential election override all of that??

I just don’t get it. What are you afraid of?

Until next time,
steve

Many of you who read this blog may remember last year that I went through an agonizing six-month process of applying for, interviewing for, and getting turned down for a music director position at Barter Theatre in Abingdon, VA.  At the time, it seemed like a dream job, and it was one that I really wanted.  However, in a close race between me and one other person, they ultimately chose the other person.

Fast forward about six months to June of this year, and I get an email from the guy they hired, asking if I would join him in playing for one of their shows that they were doing with two keyboards.  I was surprised at how willing I was to do it, considering how disappointed I had been to not get the job in the first place.  But my heart had healed, and I gladly decided to make it work.  (It involved some negotiations with the University where I normally work during the school year because a handful of matinee shows would interfere with a commitment I had already made there.)

We made arrangements for how it would all work timewise, and Barter was kind enough to offer me a room to stay for those nights that I didn’t want to make the 90-minute drive back home after a late show (evening shows don’t start until around 8:00 PM).  All seemed settled, and everything was fine.  It would be fun to play a show there, and hey, the guy that took “my” job seemed really nice.

Then, about a week-and-a-half ago, he called me.  It seemed that he had an assistant music director who is not real strong on the keyboard, and they were wondering if maybe I could start a bit earlier than expected and play for some rehearsals, too.   Sure, why not?  So I agreed to that.

And then Sunday a week ago came.  A frantic email.  The assistant music director had left town without telling anyone.  Just cleaned out his room and left.  He was supposed to be music directing a show on his own.  They weren’t sure how they would cover everything.  They would call me Monday with more info.

Monday came, and a phone call.  Would I music direct the show the assistant was supposed to music direct instead of playing the show I was originally hired for?  Or would I like to music direct the show I was originally hired to play and the music director would pick up the other show?  I opted to just take the show the assistant had bailed on.

Now, it was looking more like two months of work instead of five weeks.  That’s cool.  But since it’s going to be more work than I had anticipated, maybe we should figure out a way for the whole family to be up there more.

So I googled “short term rentals Abingdon, VA” and contacted a place that specialized in fully-furnished rentals for short term use (i.e., corporate/business travelers).

And then Tuesday came.  Another phone call, a new offer.  Five months.  Finish out the season.  Music direct two shows, plus play in the original one I had been hired for, assist in other rehearsals, etc.

With a five-month contract, we definitely needed to find a place to stay up there.  We’d only need to be here in Boone one or two days a week, but the rest of the time I’d be working up there, so it made sense for us all to be up there most of the time.

However, I was waiting on some income from work I had done several months ago — income that I didn’t expect to receive until late August.  We would wait until those funds came in, and just try to get by with being apart some until then.

Tuesday afternoon, however, I had a meeting with the people for whom I had done that work.  And much to my surprise, they handed me a check for the amount I was owed!  We could rent a place right away!

Wednesday, I went up there for my first rehearsal, and we met with the agent I had contacted regarding a rental.  We looked at two places, and the second one was perfect. Three bedroom, two bath, nice quiet location less than two miles from where I’d be working.  It’s fully furnished, all utilities included, everything supplied including appliances, cookware, lawncare, internet access…  Wow!  And the price was within the range we had thought we could afford.

I went back for rehearsals Saturday and Sunday, and even though our lease was not to begin until today, the agent gave us a slightly smaller place to stay the night free of charge!

Today, we head back up there and will “move in” to our new place.  We’ll continue to rent this house in Boone and will be here probably Sunday nights each week, and maybe Monday nights as well.  But most of the week, we’ll be hanging out in beautiful and charming Abingdon, VA while I work for the theatre that once chose someone else over me.

It’s going to be a fun and action-packed five months.  The music director is a great and fun guy, and we hit it off immediately.  The theatre management told me that they had a very tough time deciding between him and me and now they feel like they have “the best of all worlds”.  I don’t know about that, but I do know that I’m very happy to have this job!

And through all of this, I have been absolutely amazed at the way in which our Father worked out all the details in such rapid fashion.  His provision has been timely and abundant, and the quickness with which all of this happened is amazing considering how many pieces needed to fit into the right place for everything to work.

I can still honor almost all of my commitments to the University throughout the semester, thanks to Barter’s eagerness to help work out a schedule that allowed that.  And I get to provide for my family while doing what I love doing!

Soooo…I’m not sure when I’ll be able to post again as the next few weeks will be hectic in the whole transition, but you’re used to waiting for my posts anyway, aren’t you? ;)  At any rate, you now know what I’m doing while you’re waiting!

Until next time,

steve

While posting here has been sporadic at best in the past year, there have still been some really stimulating conversations, and some of you have really helped me think through some potentially difficult topics.

Thank you to all of my readers and commenters for making these three years a fun ride.  While I’m busy with other ventures (like podcasting and a not-yet-ready-for-publication joint blog with my wife, as well as our foster/adoptive experiences and my regular musical work), I do hope to continue to spark some interesting discussion here on this blog.

In the meantime, may our loving Father richly bless each of you on whatever journey you find yourself.  And may you find yourself growing deeper and deeper in an understanding of his love and the freedom that comes from life in him.

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

This has been part of my frustration with many theological topics. There seems (to my mind) to be a lot of just quoting other theologians out there. Theologian A quotes Theologian B in support of some point. Theologian B is actually just parroting Theologian C, however. So when Theologian A then turns to Theologian C as additional “evidence”, I get skeptical. Sometimes, it can even turn out that Theologian C quotes Theologian A, and the circle is complete.

One such topic that frustrates me is the topic of inerrancy. Now, please understand that I’m not bashing the idea of inerrancy. I think there may, indeed, be quite a bit of merit to it. However, I’m struggling with understanding the importance of that particular doctrine. More importantly, I’m struggling with the fact that both inerrancy and inspiration almost always carry a disclaimer with them that says that those characteristics are only certain “in the original manuscripts”. In other words, documents that appear to no longer exist. So what does it really buy us? If we leave that loophole open, how important is the doctrine, and of what use is it?

What frustrates me, as well, is the fact that the doctrine seems to not really be defended very clearly. A lot of presuppositions are brought to the table. Now, I realize that we all have presuppositions. But what frustrates me is when those presuppositions are 1) not recognized as such, and 2) treated as if they were already proven. Sometimes the presuppositions are so strong that “evidence” given is not evidence at all, or might even contradict the conclusion.

Recently, another blogger linked to a book edited by Norman L. Geisler called simply Inerrancy. It is actually a compilation of 14 papers written by different theologians. In the chapter entitled “The Early Church Through Luther”, Robert D. Preus begins with the following statement (pp. 357-358):

That the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant and of supreme divine authority, was a conviction held by all Christians and Christian teachers through the first 1,700 years of church history. Except in the case of certain free-thinking scholastics, such as Abelard, this fact has not really been contested by many scholars. Of course, many of the early church fathers and an even greater proportion of the medieval theologians did not directly address themselves to the subject of biblical authority. The former simply assumed the doctrine of biblical authority on the basis of an understanding of Scripture that was shared by both Tannaite Judaism and the early Christians. The latter developed a notable lack of interest in biblical studies and in seeking answers directly from Scripture for questions and concerns of the day….

But just as we can establish Scripture’s teaching of its own divine origin and authority on the basis of what is assumed rather than what is explicitly articulated there, we can clearly delineate the doctrine concerning Scripture held by the Christian church and its theological leaders from postapostolic times through the Reformation era…. On no other point do we notice such unanimity….

Here is a chapter that purports to give evidence that the church has always believed in inerrancy. For additional weight, the author also throws in “supreme divine authority” as something that was supposedly believed.

But does anyone else see the problem with the “evidence”? Here’s the premise again:

That the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant and of supreme divine authority, was a conviction held by all Christians and Christian teachers through the first 1,700 years of church history.

Now, one would expect this to be backed up with a plethora of evidence. This is a bold statement, and one which apparently warranted its own complete chapter in this book. But right after making this claim, the author then states:

Of course, many of the early church fathers and an even greater proportion of the medieval theologians did not directly address themselves to the subject of biblical authority.

Huh? This “conviction” was “held by all Christians”, and yet many of the writings we have don’t even directly address it? How can we know that it was held, then? Furthermore, with regard to the early church fathers, he goes on to say:

The [early church fathers] simply assumed the doctrine of biblical authority….

How can we know this? If a collation of writings from various authors in a particular period of time do not address a particular issue, how can we know that they “assumed” anything?? Oh, but it gets better! Don’t forget the medieval theologians who supposedly believed in the divine authority of Scripture unanimously as well.

[They] developed a notable lack of interest in biblical studies and in seeking answers directly from Scripture for questions and concerns of the day….

I’m sorry, but that doesn’t sound like biblical authority at all to me! How can one claim that a group of theologians believed a certain point when 1) they didn’t address it, and 2) they actually demonstrated evidence of moving in the opposite direction?!? A “notable lack of interest” in actually studying the Bible and/or seeking answers from it hardly indicates a profound belief in its inerrancy or divine authority.

The author appears to recognize that a lack of actual evidence might cause one to doubt his conclusion. So, he then uses an analogy that is supposed to make us feel better about his lack of evidence:

[J]ust as we can establish Scripture’s teaching of its own divine origin and authority on the basis of what is assumed rather than what is explicitly articulated there, we can clearly delineate the doctrine concerning Scripture held by the Christian church and its theological leaders from postapostolic times through the Reformation era….

I’m not even sure where to start with this paragraph. How can we “establish Scripture’s teaching” about anything if it’s not stated? We can do this “on the basis of what is assumed”? Assumed by whom? And what are the parameters on these assumptions? This is “argument from silence” at its worst and in awful proportions — and is the primary evidence given in support of a thesis!

Further, the notion that we can “clearly delineate the doctrine concerning Scripture” from people who, by the author’s own admission, didn’t even address the topic is ludicrous. Again, this is argument from silence. “They didn’t address it, so we can assume that they must have believed a certain way about it.”

Am I missing something? Does this make sense to anyone else??

And finally, the author concludes with this preposterous statement:

On no other point do we notice such unanimity….

I am speechless. Unanimity?? On an issue that is not addressed? Sadly, this is what seems to pass in evangelical circles as “proof” for something. It appears to be nothing more than coming to the table with one’s mind already made up about the conclusion, no matter what the evidence — or lack of evidence — might show.  Surely we can do better than this, can’t we?

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

My heart breaks for this dear family and the hurt that they are experiencing at this loss.  Please pray for them.