Equality: What it is & where it comes from
In the United States equality is at least expressed to be important. Its importance is seen in people’s views and policies on political participation, education access, views on employment and pay, and disability rights. The Civil Rights Movement has shown that equality is valued by many but not all.
What does equality mean and where did the concept of equality come from? It means the state or quality of being equal. Are there good reasons for believing in equality?
The Assumption of Equality is An Assumption
Naturalism, the belief that no God exists, gives no explanation or reason for equality. People who don’t believe in God or the relevance of God might believe in equality but the belief for them is not based on any foundation. The idea of equality is accepted as true without proof or a solid reason to believe it.
Yuval Noah Harari is a historian, philosopher, and author who received a PhD from the University of Oxford and is a lecturer at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. I appreciate his candor in this quote from his book Sapiens:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. According to the science of biology, people were not ‘created’. They have evolved. And they certainly did not evolve to be ‘equal’. The idea of equality is inextricably intertwined with the idea of creation. The Americans got the idea of equality from Christianity, which argues that every person has a divinely created soul, and that all souls are equal before God. However, if we do not believe in the Christian myths about God, creation and souls, what does it mean that all people are ‘equal’? Evolution is based on difference, not on equality. Every person carries a somewhat different genetic code, and is exposed from birth to different environmental influences. This leads to the development of different qualities that carry with them different chances of survival. ‘Created equal’ should therefore be translated into ‘evolved differently.’[1]
So, Harari rewrites the famous line from the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truth to be self-evident, that all men evolved differently, that they are born with certain mutable characteristics, and that among these are life and the pursuit of pleasure.”[2]
For the naturalist, equality isn’t really a thing. It is a dream wish. Perhaps maybe pleasant make-believe.
Christians have a Foundation for Equality
The Bible teaches the equality of all humans by saying all humans are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). It also explains that we are all equally fallen. That is, we all sin and do wrong things. Lastly, it says that salvation is freely offered to all through Jesus.[3]
In Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World, Tom Holland argues that Christianity has profoundly shaped Western civilization, influencing core values like human rights and equality. It may not be consciously recognized but many Christian beliefs our embedded in society. As Harari has said, we “got the idea of equality from Christianity.”
The belief in human equality and rights, equality of men and women, love for foreigners, and care for the poor, weak, and marginalized are specifically Christian beliefs. History shows us that it was only as Christianity spread that these believes became generally accepted. The ancient Greeks and Romans would have laughed at them.[4]
Christian Equality has a lot of Explanatory Power
“We’ve all got both light and dark inside us. What matters is the part we choose to act on. That’s who we really are.” Sirius Black said this to Harry Potter in one of their last meanings. Humans have complexity as J.K. Rowling is so adept at showing. The Bible agrees. We are complex beings. We are all equally made in the image of God, fallen, and redeemable.
The Bible says we all stumble in many ways (James 3:2). We are all broken. Christians are no less complex. Christians are simultaneously sufferers, strivers, sinners, and saints. So, “The line between good and evil is never simply between ‘us’ and ‘them.’ The line between good and evil runs through each one of us.”[5] Or as Dietrich Bonhoeffer said in prison in Nazi Germany, “Nothing that we despise in the other man is entirely absent from ourselves.”[6]
Therefore, in one sense, Christians should be “culturally wary because they know that evil is real, that everyone is a sinner, that no one is beyond a stumble or a scandal, and that human beings are capable of some devious deceptions and horrific thoughts, words, and acts.”[7] Yet, in another sense, Christians should also be cultural optimists “because they know that no matter how grim and hopeless sin makes the world or how wretched sin makes an individual or a group, it does not define us at our deepest level, and it is an imposter that has no ultimate claim on anyone, whoever they may be and whatever they may have done.”[8]
Christianity gives a realistic and complex picture that explains the paradoxical nature of people.
If we lose Jesus, we lose our bases for Equality
I appreciate how Rebecca McLaughlin says it:
Even if historians agree that our moral building blocks came to us from Christianity it’s tempting to think we can keep the values we cherish while gently removing the claims about Jesus Himself. Like easing out a bottom layer Jenga block, perhaps we can build our moral tower higher without belief in God at all. But extracting Jesus from our moral structure isn’t like gently sliding out a Jenga block. It’s like pulling the pin on a grenade. In the resulting explosion we don’t just lose morality, are sense of meaning blows up too.”[9]
This is the case because if Jesus is not real and right, the next most plausible explanation is that of Harari or Nietzsche.
Conclusion
Secular culture assumes equality but gives no basis for it. Christianity, and specifically Jesus, gives a solid footing for equality. Without Jesus equality is on a shoddy structure and is destined to fall. In other words, if Jesus is make-believe so is equality. On the other hand, if Jesus and His ethic are real, we can’t mix and match to our liking. He is either a liar, lunatic, legend, or the Lord. But if He is anything other than the Lord, His emphasis on equality evaporates with Him.
Notes
[1] Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, 109.
[2] Harari, Sapiens, 110.
[3] See Christopher Watkin, Biblical Critical Theory: How the Bible’s Unfolding Story Makes Sense of Modern Life and Culture, 116.
[4] Rebecca McLaughlin, Is Christmas Unbelievable?
[5] N. T. Wright, Evil and the Justice of God, 38.
[6] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, 10 as quoted in Biblical Critical Theory, 128.
[7] Watkin, Biblical Critical Theory, 168
[8] Ibid.
[9] McLaughlin, Is Christmas Unbelievable?
Photo by Jacek Dylag
A Christian Philosophy of Parenting?
What is our aim as Parents?
We want our kids to thrive and flourish. Of course, God’s revealed will needs to measure this, not us or the surrounding culture. Ultimately our desire is for our kids to love God with all they are—heart, soul, mind, and strength—and love others as they love themselves.
Sometimes it seems, however, that ignorance of culture is the aim, ignorance, and perpetual innocence. It seems some parents think innocence and ignorance are the parental aim. As Paul David Tripp has pointed out, many Christian parents try their best to keep the surrounding culture out of their homes. “In so doing, they lose a wonderful, focused opportunity to teach their children how to use a biblical view of life to understand and critique their culture.”[2]
I propose ignorance, innocence, and over-protection are wrong and foolhardy goals. Parents, instead, should help their kids towards virtue, holiness, and love of Jesus.
Virtue, not Ignorance
I recently read Karen Swallow Prior’s book, On Reading Well. The whole book is good but the piece that stuck with me was what she says about innocence and virtue. The Bible teaches that since the introduction of sin and evil into the world, the world contains both good and evil. “Virtue consists of choosing good over evil.” There is a difference between “the innocent, who know no evil, and the virtuous, who know what evil is and elect to do good.”[3] When first reading this, for whatever reason, I connected this concept to parenting.
In parenting, we are aiming for virtue, not innocence. That is, we want our children to choose the good, not be perpetually ignorant of evil. The reality is there will come a time when our kids will and should learn about sex, drugs, pornography, etc. There will come a day when they will not have the innocence that they did when they were young, that is inevitable. What we should desire as parents is not innocence forever, but that they will choose to pursue what is true, good, and beautiful.
Philippians 4:8 says, “Brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.” It is true that we should choose to think about these things but that doesn’t mean we want our kids to be ignorant to the ways of the world. The Bible itself is not ignorant to the ways of the world but tells it as it is and thus describes a lot of deeply disturbing things.
A dear pastor friend, Vince Hinders, shared a parenting approach I’ve found helpful along these lines. I don’t remember exactly how he’d refer to it but I’ll call it “the funnel to freedom.” I say “freedom” because that should always be the parent’s goal. We don’t want bland conformity, we want peace, love, and flourishing.
I call it the “funnel of freedom” because God’s “commandments are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3), they are rather, the “perfect law of liberty” (James 1:25). Jesus wants His children to live in freedom (Galatians 5:1). Guardrails, far from being a burden, are actually a huge blessing.
God’s commands are good and keep us on track which allow us to flourish. Imagine with me that “Thomas the Train” wants to be free to run on the grass with the horses. So he jumps the tracks to pursue freedom. What does Thomas’ “freedom” look like? It looks like a derailed train lying in the grass. The train tracks are the very thing that provided freedom to Thomas, but he railed against them, and it led to futility, not freedom.
God’s perfect rules allow us to live perfectly free, free to be and do what we were intended to be and do. Thomas might think he’s most free off the tracks but that’s simply not true. Whether Thomas likes it or not, he’s a train. And whether we like it or not, we are human, not God. We flourish and experience the freedom God intended for us when we obey His will.
The concept is pretty simple but important to remember. When kids are younger they should have less freedom and more supervision but as kids get older they should have more freedom and less supervision. Basically, our kids will quickly be free to do whatever they want, whenever they want. We want to help them choose the good while they are still around us and we have substantial influence in their lives.
Paul David Tripp says it this way,
Successful parenting is the rightful, God-ordained loss of control. The goal of parenting is to work ourselves out of a job. The goal of parenting is to raise children who were once totally dependent on us to be independent, mature people who, with reliance on God and proper connectedness to the Christian community, are able to stand on their own two feet.[4]
Holiness, not Innocence
We should want our kids to be holy. But what is holiness? What does it mean to live lives of holiness and godliness? To be holy means to be set apart. What does that mean? Well, when I was in a traditional church (before starting a different expression) I preached in my fancy white preaching shoes.
My fancy white shoes are set apart. I don’t use them to mow. They’re crispy white because I only wear them to preach. They’re set apart for that purpose. I have other shoes that are green and busted pretty bad. But my white shoes are set apart for a different purpose.
Christians are supposed to be set apart too. We shouldn’t walk through the grass, so to speak. Jesus wants His people set aside for His purposes. But holiness does not mean we don’t know about the world. It means we choose to be set apart for the Lord’s purposes. Holiness is not ignorance. It’s actually the opposite. It’s knowledge that God is good and His ways are good. And it’s choosing that good.
It’s important to remember what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 5. He says,
I wrote you in my earlier letter that you shouldn’t make yourselves at home among the sexually promiscuous. I didn’t mean that you should have nothing at all to do with outsiders of that sort. You’d have to leave the world entirely to do that! What I mean is you shouldn’t act as if everything is just fine when a friend who claims to be a Christian is promiscuous or crooked, is flippant with God or rude to friends, gets drunk or becomes greedy and predatory. You can’t just go along with this, treating it as acceptable behavior for a Jesus follower. I’m not responsible for what outsiders do, but we do have some responsibility for those within our community of believers.[5]
Holiness, being set apart for Jesus’ purpose, is an expectation for Christians; not everyone in the world. We need to help our kids see the utter goodness of Jesus so they choose holiness. We shouldn’t try to have them leave the world. Even the Amish can’t leave the world, and all their precautions—from drab colors to no cell phones—do not guarantee holiness. Although, it does seem to guarantee legalism.
The reality is, our kids are not, nor will they be, forever innocent. But, in the midst of a sinful world, they can actively choose the set apart purposes of God. They can choose to love God and love others. They can choose to be salt in a world of decay and light in a world of darkness. That is our aim.
Parenting, not Protecting
Our kids go from soiling their laundry to leaving in around 17 years. Yep, there are around 14 years between our kids pooping on their own and them driving on their own. The choices we help them make and the way we guide them between those two milestones matter.
If we’re not working on the slow release now, “the funnel to freedom,” what kind of shape are they and we going to be in when they’re able to legally leave; and watch and play whatever they want, whenever they want on their phone? Are we wisely preparing them for the future?
I think coaching is a good metaphor for parenting. Parents give rules, encourage, and discipline, but they’re not actually on the field. Parents, like coaches, prepare kids for the on-field decisions but can’t make those decisions in real time. Also, both parents and coaches review those decisions and outcomes so that they will be better in the future. If a coach never lets the players suit up and go on the field themselves it will hinder their growth. Similarly, parents must wisely release their kids to make their own decisions.
In Jonathan Haidt’s important book, The Anxious Generation, he says two trends have led to our kid’s generation being “the anxious generation”: overprotection in the real world and underprotection in the virtual world. Instead, parents are called to parent. That is, parents prepare, train, release, and coach, in both the real world and virtual world.
As parents, we are called to love the LORD our God with all we are and His word is to be on our hearts. Then, and only then, are we in a good place to get God’s word inside of our kid’s hearts and minds. When we know God’s love and love God, then we will talk about Him and His goodness when we sit at home, walk at a park, or drive on the road; in the morning, the afternoon, and when we go to bed. Then we’ll have reminders of His love and truth in car and on our walls (see Deuteronomy 6). Then we’ll authentically love Jesus and Jesus will be super appealing to our kids.
As parents, we are not to do things that exasperate our children and make them angry. Instead, we are to lovingly and carefully teach them as they grow up and help them understand the good news of Jesus, and help them to obey His good commands (Ephesians 6:4).
Our goal as parents is not to protect our kids from everything. We can’t and in the end, that wouldn’t help them anyhow. As Jesus said, “In the world you will have tribulation” (John 16:33). Instead, we want to help our kids see the glory and goodness of Jesus and thus chose virtue and holiness.
Conclusion
If I were to summarize my philosophy of parenting (and I think I have the support of Scripture): Radically love Jesus and seek to lovingly share His goodness with your children. Let’s help our kids choose virtue even though they know about vice. Let’s help them choose to be set apart for Jesus’ purposes because they love Jesus and have seen us love Jesus.
Notes
[1] Paul David Tripp, Age of Opportunity: A Biblical Guide to Parenting Teens.
[2] Karen Swallow Prior, On Reading Well, 14-15.
[3] Paul David Tripp, Age of Opportunity: A Biblical Guide to Parenting Teens.
[4] Adapted from Eugene Peterson’s paraphrase, The Message.
Photo by kevin laminto
Should Pastors be Paid?
Should pastors be paid? What does Scripture say? It says worthy pastors are worthy of pay. Although, there are times when a ministry leader may strategically choose not to get paid.
Biblical Support for Pastoral Pay
Jesus said, “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (Lk. 10:7 cf. Matt. 10:10). John and Paul agree. John wrote, “You will do well to send them on their journey in a manner worthy of God… Therefore we ought to support people like these, that we may be fellow workers for the truth” (3 Jn. 6, 8).
Paul has a lot to say about the topic in his letters. He says,
- “Let the one who is taught the word share all good things with the one who teaches” (Gal. 6:6).
- “Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk?… If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?… In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:7,11,14).
- “The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For Scripture says, ‘Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,’ and ‘The worker deserves his wages.’” (1 Tim. 5:17-18)
- “You Philippians yourselves know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving, except you only. Even in Thessalonica you sent me help for my needs once and again… I have received full payment, and more. I am well supplied, having received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God.” (Phil. 4:15-18).
It seems Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, in part, to raise support for his planned ministry in Spain (Rom. 15:20-29). Paul is about Christians supporting Christian work. He told Titus to send along his fellow workers, and he said, “See that they lack nothing” (Titus 3:13). “Every time the New Testament addresses financial support of church staff and missionaries, it underscores generosity.”[1]
Reasons to Abstain from Pastoral Pay
Paul said, “For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God’s word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ” (2 Cor. 2:17). Pastors and all Christian workers, are never to be “peddlers of God’s word,” we are rather servants commissioned to obey our master. Sometimes it is wise to abstain from pay to make it clear that one is serving the Master and not mammon.
Paul clearly was not in ministry to get rich. He said this to the elders in Ephesus: “I coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel. You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me” (Acts 20:33–34).
At times Paul worked as a tentmaker to support his own ministry. In each instance, he had a specific ministry objective in mind.[2] One of the reasons Paul sometimes didn’t take pay for his ministry was to set an example.
You yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate (2 Thess. 3:7–9).
Jamie Dunlop who wrote a helpful book on Budgeting for a Healthy Church, rightly says:
In general, you should pay those who labor to provide teaching for your congregation. Of course, Paul himself sometimes went without the money he deserved (1 Cor. 9:12). But when he did so, his rationale was not one of financial frugality; it was because he didn’t want young congregations to be confused by his pay (1 Cor. 9:12; 1 Thess. 2:5-10). Even then, he pointed out that his not being paid was the exception, not the norm (1 Cor. 9:6-7). In fact, he even goes so far as to describe his support by one church in the planting of another as “robbing other churches” (2 Cor. 11:7-8). Necessary sometimes, but not ideal: normally, a church should support its own pastor.[3]
There were times the Apostle Paul decided not to take pay; instead, he decided it would be best to pay his own way for a season. There could be various reasons for this. In 1 Corinthians 9:12, Paul says he could choose to get paid for his ministry but decided not to make use of that right so as not to “put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ” (1 Cor. 9:12). It seems at another point he did receive financial support from others while he ministered to the Corinthians though (2 Cor. 11:7-9). So, there are a few different reasons why it might be appropriate for pastors and missionaries to abstain from support, at least for a season.
Potential Problems with Pastoral Pay
There are some potential dangers to paying pastors. Here are two from Jamie Dunlop: professionalization and consumerism.
Staff can infantilize the congregation by doing ministry instead of equipping the congregation to do ministry. In fact, the very existence of a staff position can communicate to the congregation that ‘real’ ministry belongs in the hands of trained professionals… Staff can customize ministry for the preferences and needs of specific segments of the congregation. That may encourage a congregation’s consumeristic tendencies, teaching them to value your church based on how well it meets their felt needs.[4]
Sometimes employing professional pastors is asking for problems. John Piper wrote Brothers, we are not professionals for a reason. Pastors sometimes know the seminary world and the passions of their professors, but not the struggles and problems of the people in their pews. They can read Greek but won’t speak in the language of their people. Pictures are posted on the church’s social of the pastor shaking hands but don’t ask him for a hand, he’s far too busy keeping the business of the church going.
Pastors also often tell their people to evangelize but they themselves may not have really talked with an unchurched person in months (or had the opportunity to do so). Pastors can be distant, aloof, and hard to reach. These are some of the potential problems of a “professional pastoral class.” I am not saying it is always that way but it is wise of us to be aware of the downsides of pastoral pay.
Reasons I’m Currently Abstaining from Pastoral Pay
Ministry is not, nor should it ever be, about money. We all, like the Apostle Paul, should seek to authentically love Jesus and others regardless of pay. Of course, pay is not bad. It can be a great blessing. But, here are the reasons I’m currently choosing to be a “tentmaker.”
Setting an Example
The Apostle Paul cared about setting an example for people to follow too. He told the Ephesian elders, “In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive’” (Acts 20:35). And in 1 Corinthians 11:1, Paul says, “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.”
I’m calling people to imitate me; be relational, evangelistic, and minister to others. I want to practice what I’m preaching. I want to prove that it is feasible to be a faithful Christian witness where we work, live, and play without being “a professional Christian.” I want to replicate myself in others and not every leader will be able to be paid for their labor.
I’m currently able to work a “secular job” and (at least somewhat) keep up with “equipping the saints for the work of the ministry.” One of the reasons I can (at least somewhat) keep up with ministry besides the flexibility of my job, my awesome wife, and the support of my family (my mom and father-and-mother-in-law!), is that I’m not the only minister. The New Testament teaches the “priesthood of all believers” and says every part of the body of believers is gifted. When the pastor has a “secular job” it means the body must function as a body. It shouldn’t and it can’t just fall on the pastor. Everyone must pull weight and minister (This is definitely a point in favor of a plurality of pastoral leadership too). In this way, I believe bi-vocational ministry facilitates body-vocational ministry.
Stewardship and Simplicity
I trust God has plans for the micro-church movement we’re working on, and that’s what we’re working towards. We want to see God save people out of the harvest who will reach their community where they are. Our ministry model at this point does not require a pastor to get paid so we believe it is good stewardship to invest that money in the future and in mission work.
We want to be prepared to move when opportunities come. More and more church buildings will close. Down the road, I envision our church buying a building to support the local community as well as serve as a stream of revenue (eg., remote working space, coffee shop, venue). We want to facilitate local ministries and invest in training the next generation to reach people where they work, live, and play. My not taking any income at this point is an investment in the future. It also serves to prove the feasibility of the micro-church movement. As Christians, we can and must be able to be the church, even without a paid pastor and even without a budget.
God’s word is not bound; it’s not bound by a building or a budget. Sometimes we try to restrict the Spirit to specific borders but He is pretty good about breaking our preconceived notions. We also believe in simplicity because simplicity helps us focus on Jesus, ensures people are doing the real-life ministry they are called to, and best facilitates multiplication. No need for salaried pastor positions in the micro-church movement allows for easy replication.
Other Reflections Regarding Pastoral Pay
When is a pastor/missionary worthy of pay?
Paul answers that question. For example, he says, “The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching” (1 Tim. 5:17). Some pastors collect a healthy salary but spend their time behind a desk surfing the web and writing or reading about archaic unconnected theological drivel.[5] They’re not shepherding the sheep, equipping the saints, reaching the lost. They’re disconnected from their people and their problems. They’re a hireling (Jn. 10:12).
Others don’t take their job seriously because they don’t take God seriously. Still others pastor as a point of pride. They, as Jesus says, “like the recognition in the marketplace” like the Pharisees (Lk. 11:43). A “worker” like that is not worthy of his wages. I would argue that worker should take seriously what the Lord Jesus has called them to do because Jesus will call His pastors to account (Heb. 13:17).
The pastor who I think is worthy of pay can honestly say something like this:
I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints. To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ. For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me. For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face, that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ (Col. 1:24-2:2)
I’d feel good about you paying for his labor. But not someone sitting in a cushy office making announcements from the chair about how you need to get your life together, fix your marriage, etc. but doesn’t lift an actual hand to help. That person is not a pastor but is like a Pharisee Jesus criticized (Matt. 23:4).
Many “pastors” are managers, not pastors.[6] They don’t teach or shepherd and may not meet the qualifications of a pastor. Instead, their role is to keep the corporate church running and keep the felt needs of people met. Perhaps a lot of church budgets are going to things that are sub-biblical, not necessarily wrong but not the wisest choice for the best long-term Kingdom impact?
What if the office of Deacon functioned as it did in the early church, and pastors were able to pastor and churches didn’t have to hire “pastors” or “ministers directors” to do the ministry that Deacons could do? What financial resources might that free up? The early church gave money generously for the relief of famine, for example. What ministry might the church be able to do if so much wasn’t spent on staff, sanctuaries, and services?
Notice I’m not saying there isn’t a place for spending money on each of those things, but it sometimes seems like the American church thinks those things are the solution, are ministry, and lead to growth. They may lead to growth, but we should be concerned with healthy growth. Tumors grow. They can grow a lot. There is a difference between growth and healthy growth. When Jesus walked the earth with His disciples we clearly see He cared about healthy growth. Jesus still cares about healthy growth.
Conclusion
Yes, pastors should often be paid if they are doing the ministry Jesus has commissioned them to do. The laborer is worthy of his wages. But this assumes he is laboring. He’s not just lazily soaking up a salary. We also see in the New Testament that there are reasons for ministry leaders to abstain from receiving pay. Trends point to this becoming a more common reality. Will pastors be willing and able to pastor with little to no pay? And what may need to change for churches to pivot from the current model to the realities facing us in the future? (I propose some changes in my series, “What If Church were Different?”)
Notes
[1] Jamie Dunlop, Budgeting for a Healthy Church: Aligning Finances with Biblical Priorities for Ministry.
[2] Steve Shadrach, The God Ask, 79.
[3] Jamie Dunlop, Budgeting for a Healthy Church: Aligning Finances with Biblical Priorities for Ministry.
[4] Jamie Dunlop, Budgeting for a Healthy Church: Aligning Finances with Biblical Priorities for Ministry.
[5] Of course, this is not to say that theology and doctrine are not important. They are. See e.g., “The Practical Importance of Doctrine” and “True Knowledge Should Truly Humble.” Pastors are to minister to their actual people. Theological truth is supposed to be directed to particular practical and pastoral aims.
[6] “Although there are exceptions, the traditional Western approach to theological education is to train pastors to be managers of the status quo, not to lead churches for global disciple making. Maintaining ministry structures is the standard.” (J. D. Payne, Apostolic Imagination: Recovering a Biblical Vision for the Church’s Mission Today)
Photo by Gift Habeshaw
Is the Bible Reliable?
Christians believe that the original manuscripts of the Bible give us God’s authoritative words, and we have very accurate copies of those original manuscripts. As the Bible says, God’s word will not pass away (Psalm 119:89; Isaiah 40:8; Luke 21:33; 1 Peter 1:23, 25).
We do not have an original copy of any piece of the New Testament (an “autograph manuscript”). The process known as textual criticism, however, helps us get back to what was originally written. What would have happened with the original writings of the New Testament, the autograph manuscripts, is they would have been carefully and painstakingly copied and then passed on to the next group of early Christians to carefully copy. These copies would have then been copied as well. Eventually, the original writing would get worn and torn.
We do not have original copies, but we have manuscripts that are very close to the date of the autographs. One of the amazing things about the New Testament is the sheer number of copies we have as well as how close they are to the original manuscripts, both in accuracy and date.
There are three main types of manuscript variants. Daniel Wallace, a specialist in Koine Greek and New Testament textual criticism, says that over 99 percent of textual variants don’t affect the meaning of the text, are not viable, or “don’t have any likelihood of going back to the original, or both.”[1] The largest category is spelling difference. “This accounts for over 75% of all textual variants.”[2] The second “largest category involves synonyms, word order, or articles with proper nouns.”[3] Neither of these categories impacts the message of the text in any meaningful way. There is a third and much smaller category, however, in which the meaning of the text can be affected. Two examples are the long ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) and the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11). In this third category, manuscript evidence must be weighed and considered. But even in this last category, no Christian doctrine is changed. Even Bart Ehrman, a popular New Testament scholar who is not a Christian, has written, “Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”[4]
We can be sure that we accurately have the words of God, but in a few places, we have needed to get back to the words of God, so we have had to trim back what is not supported by the manuscript evidence. So again, that’s what there are notes in most Bibles about the long ending of Mark and the woman caught in adultery.[5]
It should also be understood that “many textual variants exist simply because many ancient manuscripts exist. The amount of the manuscript evidence is one thing that makes the New Testament stand out among other works of antiquity.”[6] Other ancient works are supported by a dearth of manuscripts. Of course, with fewer manuscripts, you have fewer variants, but you also have less evidence to weigh to get you back to the original work.
The Bible’s number of manuscripts is especially impressive considering the Roman emperor Diocletian’s “Edict against the Christians” during the Great Persecution. In Eusebius’ Church History, he talks about the edict “commanding that the churches be leveled to the ground” and the Scriptures be destroyed by fire.[7]
So, is the Bible historically reliable? The Bible reports actual historical events and the manuscripts for the Bible are very reliable. Nothing in ancient literature matches the historical documentation of the Bible. Nothing comes close.
Compared with other ancient writings, the Bible has more manuscript evidence to support it than any ten pieces of classical literature combined.[8]
The reliability of the New Testament history is overwhelming when compared to that of any other book from the ancient world.[9]
The New Testament is easily the best-attested ancient writing in terms of the sheer number of documents, the time span between the events and the documents, and the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it. There is nothing in ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and integrity.[10]
Christians can be confident that most English translations of the Bible are fair representations of what the biblical authors wrote. A vast number of variants exist only because a vast number of ancient, hand-copied manuscripts exist. No textural variant anywhere calls any essential Christian doctrine into question or indicates completely different, competing theologies among the New Testament authors. We have not lost the message of the text. God has preserved his Word, and the text’s wording is trustworthy.[11]
In comparison with the average ancient Greek author, the New Testament copies are well over a thousand times more plentiful. If the average-sized manuscript were two and one-half inches thick, all the copies of the works of an average Greek author would stack up four feet high, while the copies of the New Testament would stack up to over a mile high![12]
Here’s a table[13] so you can see a visual representation of the manuscript data:
Therefore, “to be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament.”[14]
The Bible is historically accurate and other historical works collaborate information we see from the Bible. Tacitus, a first-century historian, wrote this about the early Jesus movement:
Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christ, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and a pernicious superstition was checked for the moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue.[15]
Thus, early non-Christian sources support the main details about Jesus. The authors of the New Testament were either eyewitnesses to Jesus themselves or interviewed eyewitnesses, so we have accurate historical accounts about Jesus (e.g., Lk. 1:1-4; 2 Pet. 1:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-8; 1 Jn. 1:1-3).
There are reasons to trust the Bible from an archeological (and even an astronomical[16]) perspective as well. For years, many people thought the Hittites the Old Testament talks about did not exist. However, archaeological research has since revealed that the Hittite civilization did exist. There are many similar examples.
Various inscriptions support things we see in the Bible. The Pool of Siloam, once doubted, has been found. The James Ossuary seems to support facts about Jesus’ family. The Shroud of Turin, though debated, is potential “hard evidence.” In fact, “No book from ancient times has more archaeological confirmation than the Bible.”[17]
The death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus are attested by various historical accounts. I believe a persuasive argument can be made for the validity of the actual physical resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. I believe the resurrection of Jesus best explains why the disciples were willing to die for their claim that Jesus was the resurrected Messiah and why the Jews would switch from gathering for worship on the Sabbath (on Saturday) to gathering on the Lord’s Day (Sunday, the day Jesus rose from the dead). I think it best explains why people, including Jews, would worship Jesus. It best explains all of it; the church,[18] the New Testament, and various parts of the Old Testament. So, we can trust the Bible to give us accurate historical accounts.
Notes
[1] Darrell L. Bock and Mikel Del Rosario, “The Table Briefing: Engaging Challenges to the Reliability of the New Testament” in Bibliotheca Sacra (vol. 175, January-March, 2018), 98.
[2] Darrell L. Bock and Mikel Del Rosario, “The Table Briefing: Engaging Challenges to the Reliability of the New Testament” in Bibliotheca Sacra, 98.
[3] Bock and Rosario, “The Table Briefing: Engaging Challenges to the Reliability of the New Testament” in Bibliotheca Sacra, 98.
[4] Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 252.
[5] “The New Testament grew in size from the earliest copies to the latest copies—fourteen hundred years later –by about 2 percent. That is a remarkably stable transmissional process” (J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture [Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2006], 55).
[6] Bock and Rosario, “The Table Briefing: Engaging Challenges to the Reliability of the New Testament,” 99.
[7] Eusebius, Church History, 8.2.4.
[8] Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands A Verdict, 9.
[9] The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible, 131.
[10] Ravi Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God?, 162.
[11] Bock and Rosario, “The Table Briefing: Engaging Challenges to the Reliability of the New Testament,” 104-05.
[12] J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2006), 82.
[13] See Josh McDowell, Evidence the Demands a Verdict, (San Bernadino, CA: Here’s Life, 1972). Homer’s Illiad is the best-attested ancient work after the New Testament.
[14] John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity, 29. “Since scholars accept as generally trustworthy the writings of the ancient classics even though the earliest MSS were written so long after the original writings and the number of extant MSS is in many instances so small, it is clear that the reliability of the text of the N. T. is likewise assured” (J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, 16).
[15] Tacitus, Annals 15.44. There are other examples we could look at. A Rabiniac writing says, ““Jesus was hanged on Passover Eve. Forty days previously the herald had cried, ‘He is being led out for stoning, because he has practiced sorcery and led Israel astray and enticed them into apostasy. Whoever has anything to say in his defence, let him come and declare it.’ As nothing was brought forward in his defence, he was hanged on Passover Eve” (Sanhedrin 43).
[16] “Astronomical records show that there were several significant celestial events around the time of Jesus’ birth” (Paul W. Barnett, “Is the New Testament Historically Reliable?” 246 in In Defense of the Bible. See esp. The Great Christ Comet). This is significant because of the “star” (or comet?) that was connected to Jesus the Messiah’s coming.
[17] The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible, 139.
[18] For example, “The creation of so many texts and their survival is remarkable and counter-intuitive. Jesus was a Jew, and anti-Semitism was rife in the Greco-Roman world. He came from Nazareth, a tiny village in Galilee, a remote landlocked principality. He was crucified, a brutal and humiliating form of execution reserved for the lowest orders to deter subversives, troublemakers, and slaves like those who followed Spartacus” (In Defense of the Bible, 228-29).
Photo by Priscilla Du Preez 🇨🇦
Does Satan exist? And if so…
Does Satan exist? There is trouble for us if Satan exists and if he does not exist. Let me explain…
𝐈𝐟 𝐒𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭
If Satan does not exist, how then do we think about the existence of evil? If God is dead, as Nietzsche argued and many have quipped, then so is Satan, and so is our concept of good and evil. Personal likes and dislikes, yes, we still have individual tastes and preferences. Some people like lima beans, some don’t. Some think murder is in good taste, and others don’t. But there is no moral high ground, no actual good and evil.[2]
Andrew Delbanco wrote a book called The Death of Satan. In it, he explains that evil used to “have a face, a name, an explanation.”[1] But now, modern refined humanity doesn’t believe in an evil force at work in the world. Yet, this hasn’t been the case for most of history or even for most people across the globe, even now.
Germany went from being the most sophisticated culture to being a killing culture. They went from a people of art, architecture, and invention to the mass murder of some six million Jews. If evil and Satan don’t exist, then we can’t say the mass murder of millions is evil. We can say we personally don’t like mass murder, but we can’t call it “evil.” That’s problematic.
“We live in the most brutal century in human history.” “The work of the devil is everywhere, but no one knows where to find him.” We have a crisis in our culture. We experience evil, but many don’t believe in actual evil. “We feel something that our culture no longer gives us the vocabulary to express.”[3]
If Satan and evil don’t exist, then it’s bad because there is no real category for “bad.” Then there is no explanation for the things that seem evil; they would then just be, be a regular part of the world. Seemingly evil experiences would just be normal. The way the world is. Also, if evil is not real, it can’t be overcome, defeated, or done away with.
“Don’t be evil” used to be Google’s corporate motto. It’s not now. Did they change their motto because there is no longer a real category of “evil”? If evil is not a real category, people can’t be evil.
𝐈𝐟 𝐒𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭
The truth is, however, it sure seems like evil and Satan exist. I’m reading The Others Within Us: Internal Family Systems, Porous Mind, and Spirit Possession. It’s essentially about what various cultures have to say about spirit possession. The author says spiritual possession is found in every major world religion. One of the researchers cited did a study in 488 societies worldwide and found that it is “probably universal and occurs in all societies.”[4] The book said, “spirit possession often gives the possessed physical abilities that are not explainable.” I have credible friends who have told stories of people who were out of their mind, were not on drugs, yet possessed physical strength not explainable from a merely material perspective. Could what they witnessed be spirit possession?
We are very likely to be outwitted by Satan and his fellow conspirators when we are unaware of their schemes, let alone their existence. As the movie The Usual Suspects says, “The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.”
In Harry Potter, “Voldemort, Lucius Malfoy, and their associates are bent on hating and destroying the stability and structures of the wizard world. Dumbledore, Hagrid, Harry, and their friends are committed to saving them.”[5] In the real world, there’s also a battle going on. We’re in trouble if we’re unaware.
The world is at war. There is an enemy always seeking to harm. We are in a world of magic, good and bad. As C.S. Lewis has said, “There is no neutral ground in the universe. Every square inch, every split second is claimed by God, and counterclaimed by Satan.” But the Bible says that the boss of the universe is good. And that’s a good thing. The sinister Satan will finally and decisively be defeated, never to work his woe again. If Satan and evil exist, it’s bad because Satan and evil are bad. It’s bad because there are actors in our world who want to inflict harm and intentionally destroy.
(𝐒𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐨𝐟) 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐒𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐧 & 𝐄𝐯𝐢𝐥
The Bible makes sense of the weird wild world we inhabit. The Bible is a big, amazing story. It surpasses Marvel and the Lord of the Rings. It tells us about God making the universe. It tells us about spiritual beings rebelling against God and starting a cosmic battle.
The Bible says in our world there is not one actor—humanity, but three—God, spiritual beings, and humans. Christians both believe in actual evil and resistance to evil. There’s a danger to not believing in actual evil; if there’s no evil, evil can’t be resisted. If there is no evil, individuals might label this or that thing “bad” or “good” but that’s just opinion.
For Christians, the understanding of evil and Satan is not simplistic. In regards to human beings, there’s not a clear-cut divide between good and evil. I want to do good but often do bad (Rom. 7:15-20). We all stumble in many ways (James 3:2). Yet, there is something beyond human dysfunction. “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places” (Eph. 6:12).
The Bible says we are in a world where sinister evil lurks. But it also tells us about God’s rescue mission in Christ Jesus. Jesus fought the evil enemy, He defeated and cast out the great dragon’s evil henchmen. Jesus casts out demons like light expels darkness. Jesus, in contrast, to other exorcists “is presented as an authority in control of the unclean spirits. He typically rebuked and commanded them. He relied on the spirit of God and did not use charms or talismans or magical papyri, which were common in his day. He sent out his disciples, clearly stating that he gave them the authority and power to control demons.”[6]
There will come a day when every being will bow, and every entity in the entire universe will publicly acknowledge that Jesus is Lord (Phil. 2:10-11). As humans confess with every breath that we need air, it will be abundantly and eternally clear that Jesus is the boss of every creature. We can withstand anything the world throws at us, not in our power, but through the power of Jesus (Rom. 8; Eph. 6:10).
[1] Andrew Delbanco, Death of Satan, 4.
[2] See J. Daniel McDonald, “Natural Selection and an Epistemology of Evil: An Incompatible Pair.”
[3] Andrew Delbanco, The Death of Satan, 9.
[4] Robert Falconer, The Others Within Us: Internal Family Systems, Porous Mind, and Spirit Possession.
[5] John Killinger, God, The Devil, and Harry Potter, 178.
[6] Falconer, The Others Within Us.
Sports Betting: Christians and Gambling?
Sports betting is promoted all over the place. It is estimated that $35 billion will be bet on the 2024 NFL season. That estimate is 30% higher than last year. 38 states have legal betting markets.[1] Ironically, there are all sorts of commercials promoting sports betting and encouraging responsible gambling. If commercials are airing about responsible gambling, that is a clear sign that a lot of people struggle to gamble responsibly. That itself should be a warning.
Christians are to be good stewards of the resources and responsibilities that have been entrusted to them (Genesis 2:15; Luke 16:1-12; 1 Corinthians 4:1-10; 1 Peter 4:10; Titus 1:7). Misuse of resources is a form of theft because it fails to honor God as the ultimate owner and one that has given those resources to be managed well. Christians have been bought with a price, so we are supposed to honor Jesus with our bodies and belongings.
If we have the world’s goods, we should heavily consider whether we are optimally using those resources. As 1 John 3:17 says, “Whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?”
Here are some helpful questions for us to ask as we consider whether or not we should gamble:
- Are you hoping to get rich quick (Proverbs 13:11)?[2]
- Are you gambling because you are covetousness or trusting in wealth (Luke 12:15; 1 Timothy 6:17)
- Is it illegal (Romans 13:1-2)?[3]
- Are you addicted, or could it lead to addiction (Proverbs 6:27; 1 Corinthians 6:12)?
- Are you gambling for your own glory and fulfillment (1 Corinthians 6:20; 10:31)?[4]
- Is it going to cause others to stumble (Romans 14:21; 1 Corinthians 10:31-33)?
- Is it profitable, and does it encourage you to love and do good works (Titus 3:8; Hebrews 10:24)? Will it hinder your motivation to live your life fully for the Lord (Romans 12:1)?
- Will you be unduly tempted to run to it for refuge and a means of peace rather than the Lord who alone gives true peace (Psalm 18:2, 30; John 14:27)?
With all that said, I do not believe the Bible says, “Thou shalt not take part in any type of gambling.” If one considers the above questions and believes it is okay to occasionally gamble conservatively, then that is the individual’s choice. We spend money on entertainment sometimes, and I do not think that is inherently wrong. But I certainly believe we should not take part in gambling lightly.
[1] See David Purdum, “Estimated $35 billion expected to be bet on NFL this season.”
[2] Sadly, gambling tends to prey on the poorest in society (Proverbs 22:16, 22).
[3] It should be realized that some gambling is often associated with organized crime.
[4] “The ‘whatever’ is universal. It includes our eating and drinking, sleeping, waking, bathing, working, marrying, entertaining ourselves—indeed, every human activity. When we glorify God, we are doing right, and when we do not glorify God, we are doing wrong” (John Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life, 169).
Should Christians Vote for Christian Values?
Yes but realize…
Voting for Christian values is important. It’s difficult, however, when we cannot be sure elected officials will support Christian values. Politicians blow with the wind of popular opinion.[1] And what if there are potentially Christian values on both sides? Further, what if Christian values are not the most important? What if Christian witness also matters? And what if people find themselves conflicted because they can’t, in good conscience, go with either party?
What if people feel that sometimes Christians have appeared to idolize political leaders and thus compromise Christian witness? We must value Christ and love others like Christ. Those are Christian values that aren’t a matter of conscience.
Also, the good news of Jesus is the power of God to salvation and thus transformation, not Christian morality. When Paul spoke to people in the secular marketplace, he didn’t preach Christian values. He lovingly related to them their need for Jesus.
Voting for Christian values may not be as cut and dry as it used to be. Christian values cut both ways. Christian values say abortion is wrong and honesty and humility are right; it says sexual immorality is wrong and radically loving others is right.
Yes but be aware of hypocrisy
As much as caring about Christian values for our country is a way of caring about people’s good and loving them, I think it is appropriate and commendable. But our concern for Christian values can easily devolve into fear. Are we advocating for Christian values from a place of fear or care? The way that we advocate will reveal a lot about our motivations. When Christians are belligerent and unkind, it appears the motivation is coming from a place of fear and not because they want to love their neighbor and protect them from the consequences of an immoral lifestyle.
Our motivation for voting for Christian values should not be a desire to stay safe or the moral majority. Our motivation should be the good of our neighbor. I believe Christian values are a form of common grace that leads to human and societal flourishing. It makes sense for Christians to want even a secular society to practice Christian values. The expectation, however, should be that secular society will not be inclined to practice those values. Why should Christian values be valuable to nonChristians?
This is especially true when Christians themselves aren’t living out the virtues. When Christians fail to display the fruits of the Spirit, for example, they’re not making a good case for nonChristians living Christian values. What impact might it have if Christians lived a lot more like Jesus? What if Christians were loving, kind, moral, gentle, hospitable, and not fearful? People might be intrigued, and Christian values might be more attractive. It sadly seems like the average Christian will talk about the woes of politics in the world but won’t weep about the prevalence of pornography in the Church.
Perhaps Christians need to focus more on living Christian values than implementing those values for others. If Christians across the USA are not themselves living Christian values, it seems like the height of hypocrisy to force them on others. If Christians across the nation lived like Jesus and practiced Christian values, I believe people would be very interested in Christian values. And more importantly, they would be interested in Christ.
Yes but more is needed than voting
As it is, I feel like Christians trying to pull the spec out of others’ eyes has distracted us from the log in our own eyes. But again, that’s not to say I don’t care about the USA or any other nation practicing Christian values. I would like every nation and everyone to practice Christian values! I want everyone to be like little Jesuses. But judgment starts with the church (1 Peter 4:17). If the Church isn’t healthy and following the Lord Jesus’ commands, maybe that’s the bigger deal. We should want everyone to practice Christian morality, but we shouldn’t expect it. In a sense, we should expect them not to (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:10).[2] Just as the president is not our pastor and chief, Babylon will never be the new Jerusalem. To what degree should we be satisfied enforcing Christian values? I’d much rather the Zeitgeist in the USA be changed, which happens by the Spirit through His people.
I also think it’s a problem when Christians seem to wholesale lineup with one party. Christians should be willing to lovingly critique both the right and the left. If we care about Christian values, it applies to both parties. Just as we want America to practice Christian values, we want politicians from the left and right to practice Christian values. If we call out people on the left (remember Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky?), we should be consistent and call out people on the right. If we’re not consistent in our critique, we make it seem like we are not standing on the solid basis of transcultural truth but are biased and trying to protect our preferred political party. Then Christian witness is inconsistent and incongruent.
Also, as the Founding Fathers and Alexis de Tocqueville said in Democracy in America, this country is for a moral people.[3] As John Adams famously said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” In his farewell address, George Washington said, “Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” Essentially, when the morality, virtue, and integrity of the people begin to fail, the American experiment will begin to fail. Yet, we can’t change people’s hearts by changing rules. As the University of Pennsylvania seal says, “Laws without morals are useless” (Leges sine moribus vanae). Sure, I believe in good moral laws, but it is short-sighted to think an election can hold off what’s coming down the pike. Many Christians focus too much on politics and not enough on loving hospitality to those who are different than them.
The USA may be helped through voting, but it won’t be saved. We need an overhaul of character and yet at this time, Christians don’t seem to care about character. Many Christians seem to be looking for rescue from the rash and brash.
If we trust a political party to keep back the flood as the damn breaks, we’re trusting in a façade. No political party is the hope of America. If our morality is to truly change, hearts must change. Politics might be able to patch a hole here and there, but our focus must be concentrated where more impact will be felt. Plus, our goal as Christians is not to save America. It sadly seems that a lot of Christians care more about morality than people. It appears like many American Christians want to save America rather than Americans and care more about an earthly country than Jesus’ Kingdom.
Notes
[1] See e.g., https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/how-the-gop-became-pro-choice/ and https://wng.org/opinions/the-veepstakes-and-the-sanctity-of-life-1720520906.
[2] “Most of the New Testament’s moral witness is about Christian morality inside the life of the church. But that focus about Christian moral integrity doesn’t welcome moral chaos outside the church” (Andrew T. Walker, Faithful Reason: Natural Law Ethics for God’s Glory and our Good, 68).
[3] Tocqueville, for example, said, “Society is endangered not by the great profligacy of a few, but by the laxity of morals amongst all” and “A nation cannot long remain strong when every man belonging to it is individually weak.” Also, “Without common ideas, there is no common action, and without common action men still exist, but a social body does not. Thus in order that there be society, and all the more, that this society prosper, it is necessary that all the minds of the citizens always be brought together and held together by some principle ideas.”
Photo by Elliott Stallion
Is the world broken?
Have you ever thought about the problem of evil and suffering? Have you ever asked, “Why is the world so cruel?”
My daughter came to me crying. “Why do Mom and Lyla have to be sick? If God exists and is good, why is there suffering?”
As I thought about how to answer, tears came to my eyes and an image came to my mind, a shattered platter. By looking at the shattered shards you could tell the platter used to be ornate and beautiful. Upon reflection, that seems like an accurate picture of the world. It certainly seems broken, but yet it has clear traces of beauty.
What happened? How did the platter get that way? If the platter is broken, it seems to make sense that it was previously whole. Otherwise, it would not be broken; it would just be. The shattering, the brokenness, is just the way the world is. There, then, was no previous better state, nor should we expect a future better state.
So either the brokenness of the world assumes a previous state of the world that was whole and good, or there is no wholeness, only shattered shards that were never part of a whole and never will be. Everything is either light with little pockets of darkness, or everything is darkness with little pockets of light.1
Are beauty, goodness, and love innate, or are they random meaningless sparks in a universe that is growing cold? A world without God may have a few pockets of light, but chaos should be expected.2 If God exists, however, and Christianity is true, then chaos is not the final state of the world.
We intuitively sense that the world is broken. We feel it in our bones metaphorically, and some of us feel it literally. How could the world be broken if it was not at some point whole? It seems, therefore, we can make a deduction from the broken state of the world to the original good design. Or else our hope and intuitive sense that something is wrong is wrong.
Whole
The Bible says God created the world whole. The original creation was very good (Genesis 1:31). The platter was ornate and beautiful, so to speak. No disease or need for dentures. No sin or suffering. No turmoil or tears. No fighting or fears. No death and no destruction.
Christians believe “the bedrock reality of our universe is peace, harmony, and love, not war, discord, and violence. When we seek peace, we are not whistling in the wind but calling our universe back to its most fundamental fabric.”3 Christians believe in evil, and they believe it’s a problem. The world was not supposed to be a place of suffering. Evil and suffering are not a hoax, but they don’t have a place in God’s good intentions. The world is broken.
Broken
The platter shattered. The world broke. Sin unleashed suffering, disease, destruction, and death. The brokenness of the world and the messed up nature of humans are teachings of Christianity that can be confirmed by turning on the news.
Christianity explains the origin of the problem of evil and suffering and makes it clear that it is a problem. That is, Christianity says suffering is not innate in the way the world was supposed to be. And Christianity traces the problem of suffering to a historical cause.
Christianity not only says there’s something wrong with the world, it says there is something wrong with humans, with you, and with me.4 It’s not easy to admit our faults, but to deny there is anything wrong with humanity is to say that this is as good as it gets.5 That, also, is not a happy conclusion. Better to face reality head-on than to stumble in a land of make-believe.
Naturalism, in contrast, does not seem to give a sufficient answer, other than suffering is just the way of the world. We’re essentially animals, so we’re going to be animalistic, and so suffering will result. We’re in a world of chaos and chance, so the world will be chaotic. There is no real problem of suffering, there’s an expectation of suffering. Or, there should be. And for naturalists, there is no category for evil.6 Evil gives off no kinetic energy. There is no entity to evil. Various people may have opinions, likes, and dislikes, but from a strictly naturalistic perspective, there is no evil.
Another problem is that “modernity cannot understand suffering very deeply because it does not believe in suffering’s ultimate source.”7 Modernity will then never find the true answer to suffering. If I fix a leaky sink in my house because I notice a puddle and mold, that may be helpful, but it will not fix the problem if the problem is a leak in the roof. If we don’t know the origin of a problem, there is no hope of fixing the problem. We will be left with external shallow bandages. As I say elsewhere, naturalism cannot truly identify evil as a problem because evil, for naturalism, does not exist. If evil is not seen as a real problem then it certainly can’t be solved.
As Peter Kreeft has said, “If there is no God, no infinite goodness, where did we get the idea of evil? Where did we get the standard of goodness by which we judge evil as evil?”8 Or here’s how C.S. Lewis said it: “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing the universe to when I called it unjust.”9
The Bible says sin and suffering are not original to the world; sin and suffering have a beginning in history, and they are not a feature of humanity or the world as originally created.10 That is good news. We do not have to be left in our broken state. We sense that not all is right in the world or in our own hearts and lives. The Bible agrees. Yet, that is not all; it says there is a solution.
The Broken Healer
While writing this, my daughter came into the room and said her bones hurt. That is part of her condition. She has CRMO, which stands for chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis. Basically, her body attacks her own bones, inflammation causes liaisons and fractures her bones, which can lead to deformity. It could stop harming her body when she stops growing, or it could continue her whole life. She currently gets infusions at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in hopes of putting it in remission.
How does Jesus relate to her pain? As Jesus’ biographies relate, “Jesus on the night that He was betrayed took the bread and broke it and said, ‘This is my body which is broken for you’” (1 Corinthians 11:23-24). Jesus was broken for her. Jesus’ bones did not break (John 19:36; Exodus 12:46; Psalm 34:20), but His body did. He did writhe in pain. Jesus may not heal all our brokenness now, but He was broken so that the fractured world could be healed.
The Bible says God took on human flesh (John 1:1-3, 14) partly to experience suffering Himself. God, therefore, understands suffering, “not merely in the way that God knows everything, but by experience.”11 Jesus became fully human in every way so that He could be faithful and merciful, and provide rescue and forgiveness to people (Hebrews 2:17). The Bible may not completely answer the mystery of suffering and evil, but it does give an answer: Jesus. Amid the struggles and psychological storms of life, the cross of Christ is a column of strength and stability. It signals out to us in our fog: “I love you!” The cross is the lighthouse to our storm-tossed souls.
Christianity teaches that the Potter made the platter and was heartbroken over it breaking. So, because of His love for the platter, the Potter allowed Himself to be broken to fix the broken platter (John 3:16). The Bible does stop with the Potter being broken. The Bible concludes with resurrection. Jesus dies, yes. But He does not stay dead. The shattered shards are mended and whole. Jesus is the foretaste, and His rising proves that the whole world will be put back together.
Healed and Whole
The mathematician, scientist, and philosopher Blaise Pascal wrote this thought, which, at first, is a little confusing: “Who would think himself unhappy if he had only one mouth, and who would not if he had only one eye? It has probably never occurred to anyone to be distressed at not having three eyes, but those who have none are inconsolable.”
What does Pascal mean by this? He means that we only miss something if it’s missing. We only miss something if it’s gone. We don’t notice an absence of things that were never there. Hunger points to food, thirst points to water, and a sense of brokenness points to a previous wholeness. As Peter Kraft has said, “We suffer and find this outrageous, we die and find this natural fact unnatural.” Why do we feel this way? “Because we dimly remember Eden.”12
Within our very complaint against God, there is a pointer to God and the reality of Christianity. Christianity gives a plausible explanation as to how the brokenness of the world happened in space and time history. But it also gives us a credible solution; the Potter who made the world and died for the world, promises to one day fix the world.
Christianity gives a logically consistent explanation for the brokenness of the world. And it supplies the solution. We certainly long to be healed and whole. Every dystopia, true and fictional, starts with a desire for utopia. But inevitably dissolves into dystopia. Jesus, however, is not only all-powerful and thus able to bring about a different state of things, He is also all-good so He actually can bring about a utopia. He can heal and make the world whole.
The Bible says that the Potter who formed the platter will reform and remake it in the end. The shattered shards will be put back in place, and everything will be mended and whole. The last book of the Bible says this:
‘Look! God’s home is now among people! God will live together with them. They will be his people. God himself will be with them and he will be their God. God will take away all the tears from their eyes. Nobody will ever die again. Nobody will be sad again. Nobody will ever cry. Nobody will have pain again. Everything that made people sad has now gone. That old world has completely gone away.’ God, who was sitting on the throne, said, ‘I am making everything new!’ (Revelation 21:3-5)
For now, we make mosaics out of the shattered shards of life. We paint as best we can with the canvas and colors we have.
Conclusion
We started with a few questions. Here are a few to consider at the end. What if you are not the only one that has walked your path of pain? What if you are not the only one that has faced your terrible trauma? What if there was someone who, because of their experience, knowledge, wisdom, empathy, sympathy, and their own suffering of trauma, could relate to all that you have gone through? What if that person loved you? What if they wanted to help you heal from your pain and protect you? What if they would go to any length to free you from what you have suffered?
What if the problem of evil gives a plausible argument for the reality of Christianity? What if naturalism does not even have a way to believe in the reality of evil? What if we do not like God because of all the bad things in the world, but God Himself actually took the bad things of the world on Himself to fix the broken world?
What if Jesus was shattered so that one day you could be mended and whole? And what if He promises to help pick up the pieces and make a masterful mosaic?
Photo by Evie S.
- Peter Kreeft, Making Sense Out of Suffering. ↩︎
- As Christopher Watkin has said, “in a world without the sort of god the Bible presents, there is no necessary stability to reality because nothing underwrites or guarantees the way things are” (Biblical Critical Theory: How the Bible’s Unfolding Story Makes Sense of Modern Life and Culture, 225). ↩︎
- Watkin, Biblical Critical Theory: How the Bible’s Unfolding Story Makes Sense of Modern Life and Culture, 55. ↩︎
- As N. T. Wright has said, “The ‘problem of evil’ is not simply or purely a ‘cosmic’ thing; it is also a problem about me” (N. T. Wright, Evil and the Justice of God, 97). ↩︎
- Watkin, Biblical Critical Theory, 166. ↩︎
- Consider that “Physics can explain how things behave, but it cannot explain how they ought to behave. If the universe is the result of randomness and chance, there’s no reason to think things ought to be one way as opposed to another. Things just are.” (Michael J. Kruger, Surviving Religion 101: Letters to a Christian Student on Keeping the Faith in College, 116-17). ↩︎
- Peter Kreeft, Making Sense out of Suffering. ↩︎
- Ibid. ↩︎
- C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (London: Fontana, 1959), 42. ↩︎
- See Watkin, Biblical Critical Theory, 168. ↩︎
- D.A. Carson, How Long, O Lord?: Reflections on Suffering & Evil, 179. ↩︎
- Kreeft, Making Sense out of Suffering. ↩︎
The Bible Shows the Worth of Women
The Bible over and over again shows the worth of women. This is in great contrast to the culture of its time. At the time of the writing of the New Testament women did not have equality with men. For example, there was no approved public place for the self-expression of women, and women could be subject to the death penalty if caught in the stands at the Olympics.
Christianity was also different from the surrounding culture in that it demanded holiness and honor not just from the wife but also from the husband, and both partners had sexual rights. This was not the Roman way. Sexual loyalty was required of women but not men, but the Bible counter-culturally taught that both partners were to be exclusively loyal to the marriage partner.
The Bible shows and defends the value of women. It repeatedly defies the expectations of the surrounding society. Christians turned the world upside down in many ways, for one, it showed women have inestimable worth and so their names are written across the word of God.1 There are some 202 women listed in the Bible. This is significant, for example, because the Quran lists just one and the Hindu Bhagavad Gita lists none.
Women have worth not as sexual objects, not as carriers of kids, and not as cooks. Women have worth because God loves them and Jesus died for them. Christianity also teaches that women are not to be mistreated. That, however, was not the expectation in the culture from which Christianity sprang. We see the contrast between Christianity and the culture of the time when we compare the contemporaries Plutarch, the philosopher and historian, and the Apostle Paul.
Plutarch allows husbands to have sexual relations outside of their marriage. It was actually expected that married men would have sexual relations with other women, such as prostitutes, female slaves, or mistresses from lower social classes. Demosthenes even famously said, “Mistresses we keep for our pleasure, concubines for our day-to-day physical well-being, and wives in order to bear us legitimate children and to serve as trustworthy guardians over our households.”
Paul, by contrast, calls for loving marital commitment for both the husband and the wife. Plutarch does not let wives speak in public, but Paul does. Plutarch says a wife should follow the religion of her husband. Paul says both spouses should love their spouse regardless of their religion. “For Plutarch, it is the husband who takes the initiative in sexual matters. For Paul, both partners have mutual obligation and should act in agreement.”2
Plutarch said husbands should rule their wives “as the soul rules the body.” Whereas Paul says in Ephesians 5 that “husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh.” What Paul and Plutarch say about how husbands are to live with wives is very different. Paul’s instructions to the churches he wrote to were subversive. He showed love and respect for both women and wives and told others to do so.
When we read the New Testament we see “Women were among the early churches’ most active and respected members.”3 The Bible shows women in high roles of leadership, compliments them, greets them, and considers them fellow workers in the gospel. Jesus spoke to and cared for the outcast Samaritan woman at the well. Even Jesus’ disciples were surprised. “They marveled that He was talking to a woman” (John 4:27). Yet He was. Jesus loved and cared for women. Of course, He loved women. He created them. And He created women as part of His good design to image Himself through humanity.
The Bible is emphatic that women have worth. Women are precious and made in the image of God. Women do not have less worth than men. Sadly, this has not always been understood or communicated as it should be. But thankfully Jesus once and for all communicated it on the cross when He bled and died for precious women. He never treated them like meat to fulfill His pleasure but died like meat to provide salvation.
Photo by Joel Muniz
- Romans 16 mentions 29 people and 10 of them are women. Here is the list of the females mentioned: Phoebe (Rom. 16:1-2), Priscilla (Rom. 16:3-5), Mary (Rom. 16:6) Junia (Rom. 16:7), Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis (Rom. 16:12), Rufus’ mother (Rom. 16:13), Julia and Nereus’ sister (Rom. 16:15). That may not seem like a lot but it is very significant for the time that over one-third of the people Paul greeted were women. Women were valuable colaborers in the early church. Here are some other women Paul mentions in his letters: Claudia (2 Tim. 4:21), Priscilla (Acts 18:25; 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Tim. 4:19), Chloe (1 Cor. 1:11), Nympha (Col. 4:15), and Apphia (Philemon 1:2). ↩︎
- Benjamin Marx, “’Wifely Submission’ and ‘Husbandly Authority” in Plutarch’s Moralia and the Corpus Paulinum: A Comparison,” 88 in Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism. ↩︎
- Sarah Ruden, Paul Among the People: The Apostle Reinterpreted and Reimagined in His Own Time, 86. ↩︎
Can someone who committed suicide still go to heaven?
Can someone who committed suicide still go to heaven? Is suicide unforgivable? How could someone trust Jesus for the next life and not trust Jesus to get them through this life?
My Friend’s Story
I’ve done a few funerals for friends who committed suicide. It doesn’t get easier; they were people I loved and tried to help. I was devasted when they died.
I could share many good stories about them. But I’ll focus on “Steve.” Steve had grit and determination. He had stubborn persistence and a strong work ethic. His work ethic was seen, for example, when he worked through a sandstorm on a mission trip. I remember many talks with Steve about the Lord. Steve professed faith in Jesus and shared the good news of Jesus with others even when he had a lot he was going through. He had a kind smile and a compassionate heart.
Steve, however, was also struggling. He was fighting to hold on to hope and to hold on to life. I visited him in a hospital after a suicide attempt a few weeks before his passing. I came into his room, and he was sleeping. A nurse was in the room with him, and I asked her if I could wake him. She said it was fine. So, I woke him up. I remember his sleepy smile… We talked for a little bit, and I asked him what he thought about God and what he thought God thought about him. He said, rather weakly, “I still think He loves me.”
Steve said with every suicide attempt, he’d pray: “God, if this isn’t Your will, protect me.” I told Steve that he did not have to ask God’s will in this regard. God had made it clear it is not His will that he take his own life. The Bible says, “Thou shall not murder.” The Bible also tells you that you are a precious treasure made in His image (Gen. 1:27). And God has demonstrated His love for you. He didn’t just say it, He showed it.
John 3:16 says, “For God so loved the world that He did something about it, He gave His only Son so that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal and abundant life.” The Bible says all that and the Bible says, that in Christ Jesus, you are God’s workmanship, God’s work of art, that He prepared beforehand for good works (Eph. 2:10). I encouraged him that God has good works for him to do. “God has a purpose for your life… God can use your struggles to help others…”
We also read Isaiah 61:1-3 together:
“The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me,
because the LORD has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor;
he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives,
and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor,
and the day of vengeance of our God;
to comfort all who mourn;
to grant to those who mourn in Zion—
to give them a beautiful headdress instead of ashes,
the oil of gladness instead of mourning,
the garment of praise instead of a faint spirit;
that they may be called oaks of righteousness,
the planting of the LORD, that he may be glorified.”
Steve was in a dark place. There was a deepening darkness over him. Even while many people were striving to help him, regular people in his community and professionals. Yet, he was still in turmoil.
Steve should not have taken his own life. But I’m thankful that our sins and struggles do not nullify Jesus’ saving work. The mortal sin, the one unforgivable sin, is the sin of not trusting Jesus for salvation. Yes, suicide is a sin but so is selfishness. If I selfishly speed on the highway and get struck by a semi-truck, my sin at the time of death does not in any way negate the salvation of Jesus. I praise the Lord that even when we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself, He cannot deny His own character (2 Tim. 2:13).
Our World is Broken but Jesus was Broken for the Broken World
I want to say a few things about death, suffering, and the difficult complexities we face. Ecclesiastes, an Old Testament book in the Bible, says, “It is better to go to a funeral than a feast. For death is the destiny of every person, and the living should take this to heart” (7:2). That is a strange thing to say. But it is true. Because it is at a funeral that we consider things that we would not consider at a feast.
So, why death? Why suffering? For us to consider those questions, we need to go all the way back to the very beginning…
We all experience loss and grief. But it wasn’t meant to be this way. We sense that don’t we? We know death does not feel right. It feels foreign and wrong. Because it is. The Bible explains the origin of death and confirms it wasn’t meant to be this way. When God made the world, He made everything and it was good, even “very good” (Gen. 1:31). Why then is the world no longer completely good? Why is their death, suffering, mental illness?
The first humans, our ancestors Adam and Eve, dwelt in perfect fellowship with God in the Garden of Eden but after they sinned, they were separated from God (Gen. 3). In that same chapter, there was relational conflict as Adam and Eve blamed each other and the curse of suffering and pain was introduced. And so, Romans 8 says that the whole creation is groaning. This world was once a paradise, but it is a paradise that got polluted and poisoned by sin and so in life, we experience both great joys and great sorrows. We live in a broken world. A broken world in which sadly the second leading cause of death for persons aged 25-34 is suicide. Death is an unnatural thing that even in the best of circumstances causes great grief. It causes grief and is unnatural because it was not part of God’s original good design.
So then, is there any hope or help? Praise the LORD there is! Even in Genesis 3:15, it’s foreshadowed. Jesus! Jesus will crush Satan, sin, and death. Christianity acknowledges the emptiness and brokenness of the world and offers hope, newness, and abundant life. Jesus shared in humanity’s pain and suffering and He provides the redemption and restoration we need.
Why could someone who trusted Jesus for the next life not trust Him to get him through this life?
Why could someone who trusted Jesus for the next life not trust Him to get him through this life? Because this world is broken, and we are broken. Thankfully, however, sinlessness does not save us. Jesus saves us.
The Bible speaks to the difficult subject of suicide and many other difficult topics. We have examples in Scripture and history where saints have sometimes struggled with depression and wanted to die. Jonah, Elijah, and Moses each asked God to kill them (Num. 11:12-15; 1 Kings 19:4; Jonah 4:1-11) and Jesus Himself was tempted by Satan to take His own life (Matt. 4:4:5-6; Lk. 4:9-11). We know that Jesus can sympathize with our weaknesses because, as Hebrews 4:15 says, He was tempted in every way that we are, yet He never sinned.
God has a heart of a loving father for us. He knows life is hard. He knows sin has deeply ruined the world and wrecked our bodies in many ways. God gets we’re broken, and He longs to fix us, that’s why He sent Jesus. Jesus came for the suicidal.
In the song, “It Is Well With My Soul,” we’re reminded that through Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, all those who trust in Him have their sin—all their sin—paid for. The song says, “My sin, not in part, but the whole, was nailed to the cross and I bear it no more.”
Jesus saves. So, can someone who committed suicide still go to heaven? It depends. Did they trust Jesus for salvation? That’s the question.
Photo by Emma Steinhobel
in X 