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
Crying On Christmas Day
A lot of us know the cheery and upbeat Christmas song, “I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day.” Many people don’t know Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s story and poem behind it. Longfellow heard the bells ringing out from a nearby church on Christmas Day, 1863, and heard the happy chatter of the crowds and composed his poem. But the world seemed anything but peaceful and cheery. It was shattered. He had recently lost his second wife to a fire, the Civil War was raging, and his son had just been wounded in battle.[1]
Longfellow said, “How inexpressively sad are all holidays!” “Perhaps some day God will give me peace.”[2] The song versions of Longfellow’s poem don’t capture the bleak despair he was facing but the Civil Wars version comes close. Here are the two last verses of the poem:
And in despair I bowed my head;
“There is no peace on earth,” I said;
“For hate is strong,
And mocks the song
Of peace on earth, goodwill to men!”Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
“God is not dead; nor doth he sleep!
The Wrong shall fail,
The Right prevail,
With peace on earth, goodwill to men!”
Many bow their heads in despair and say, “There is no peace on earth.” Many people are sad on Christmas Day for various reasons—whether death, divorce, or some other devastation—but sadness is no stranger to Christmas.
Other than “It’s A Wonderful Life,” most Christmas movies are silly, not very serious, and not sad. But the original Christmas story, the true Christmas story, is anything but silly. Jesus was born in an animal troth and was thought by many to be an illegitimate child.
The very reason the Bible says Jesus had to come to earth is sad. Jesus’ very name means, “the Lord saves.” And that is indeed what Jesus came to do, save His people from their sins and the sad situation they had gotten themselves into.
Jesus came into the brokenness and blight of the world. As the Christmas song, “O Holy Night,” says,
The King of kings lay thus in lowly manger,
In all our trials born to be our Friend.
He knows our need— to our weakness is no stranger.
Jesus can sympathize with us (Hebrews 4:15). Jesus understands death and devastation, not just in the way that He knows everything as God, but by experience. Since human beings are made of flesh and blood, Jesus Himself became flesh and blood (John 1:14; Hebrews 2:14), and is acquainted with the stress and sorrow we face.
We don’t always have to be happy-clappy at Christmas. Rather, the Bible says:
There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:
a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak (Ecclesiastes 3:1,4,7).
More Christmas songs than you might realize, understand our plight and pleas for rescue. Here are a few lines from one of my favorite songs, “O Come, O Come Immanuel”:[3]
…free Thine own from Satan’s tyranny
From depths of hell Thy people save
And give them victory o’er the grave
…Disperse the gloomy clouds of night
And death’s dark shadows put to flight
…open wide our heavenly home
Make safe the way that leads on high
And close the path to misery
…O come, desire of nations, bind
In one the hearts of all mankind
Bid Thou our sad divisions cease
And be Thyself our King of peace
We don’t know the exact timing of Jesus’ birth, but it would be fitting if it was a dark cold night. This world is often dark and cold. But Christmas is about Jesus coming into that cold black darkness, relating to us, and bringing life, light, and warmth. In Jesus, “The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shone” (Isaiah 9:2).
The reality is, that Christmas is about light in darkness and hope amid grief. But Christmas is not lite, and it’s not just about laughter and “ho, ho, ho.” The Bible tells a gritty, realistic story about this broken world. But it also gives hope. It gives:
a bell ringing out in the silence
a light in the midst of darkness
snow silently falling on the black muddied earth
sunrise cresting the top of the trees
reminders that there is change
a new day ahead.
The Bible says that God does not sit idly by, but rather enters the fray. Christmas proves that God so loves the world. We may not always feel light, but He gives the offer of life. When we feel heavy and hollow, He offers to lift our load and give purpose.
Longfellow was sorrowful. His life was shattered. But what if Jesus came to earth to be 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?
What if, in our muddled mess, Jesus the Messiah came? Came to love us and help us heal? What if He loves us? And says, “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy laden. Come to Me, I have walked the weary road of life, I get it, I understand your strife.” Jesus says, “Come to Me, all who are empty and exasperated. I will give you rest for your souls.”
May God bless each of you this Christmas and in time, help you make a beautiful mosaic out of the shattered shards of life.
Notes
[1] He lost his friend, Nathaniel Hawthorne, around a year later.
[2] See “I heard the bells on Christmas Day.”
[3] Immanuel means “God with us.”
Photo by Abigail
What is Christmas about?
Christmas is about the coming of the Christ. But, what does “Christ” mean? And why does it matter?
The word Christ comes from New Testament Greek. The Greek word is Christos (Χριστός), and it translates the Hebrew word Messiah (מָשִׁיחַ). Great. But what does Christ/Messiah mean? The simple answer is that Messiah means “anointed one.” But there is much more behind the meaning of the word Messiah than just “anointed one.” The Old Testament in various ways and in numerous writings promises that one would come and fulfill various promises. So, the expectation for the Messiah cannot be captured if we think it just means “anointed one.” It does mean that, but that is not all it means.
Do you know what a “honey-do-list” is? Have you ever seen one? I currently have a few things on the list: fix the leaky faucet, refinish the chair, and paint my son’s bedroom. A “honey-do-list” is a checklist of expectations. My wife, Leah, gave me a list and expects me to get everything done on the list. I am glad my wife is understanding and gracious, so the list isn’t very long.
As we think about the Jewish expectations for the Promised One, we are looking at a “honey-do-list” of sorts. We see from Scripture and history the “honey-do list” was not as small and understanding as my wife’s. The Jewish people had a huge list. And different people had different lists, but any list would be difficult to check off.
I think of the messianic expectations like water and oil. You don’t expect them to go together. How can the promised one be a king (2 Sam. 7:12-13; 1 Chron. 17:11-14) and a servant (Is. 52:13-53:12)? “One like the son of man” (Dan. 7:13) and also “Everlasting Father” (Is. 9:6)? How could the promised one suffer and die for His people and yet bring an eternal righteous reign? You don’t think of those things as going together. But sometimes things that you wouldn’t think go together, work quite nicely.
You wouldn’t think oil and vinegar make sense together. And you probably wouldn’t initially think it would make sense to have bacon with anything! It’s good enough on its own, right? But if you add spinach, candied pecans, cheese, oil, and vinegar (transformed into salad dressing), the bacon is elevated, and maybe even a little healthier.
If unexpected combinations result in delicious food, how great would the impact be on a spiritual level? A king who is also a servant?! Someone who has all power but is also all good? We don’t often think of these combinations, but if they could happen, it would be amazing.
The expectation presented in the Old Testament for the Promised One seems almost impossibly diverse. How could any one person fulfill the many expectations? How could it make sense for the “Ancient of Days” (Dan. 7:9, 13, 22) to be a descendant of king David (2 Sam. 7:12-16; Is. 11:1; Jer. 23:5-6)?
The New Testament authors, over and over, argue that Jesus is the Promised One, the long-awaited Messiah, who fulfills the prophecies, patterns, pointers, and promises of the Old Testament (2 Cor. 1:20). He will crush the serpent of old (Gen. 3:15) and lead the way back into Eden, He will bless all the nations of the earth, and He will set up His righteous and eternal Kingdom.
The messianic expectations appeared to be nothing more than unrelated and random shards of glass. But the New Testament helps us see they all work together to form an astounding, almost unbelievable, stained-glass picture of Jesus, the long-awaited, promised Messiah. That’s why understanding what Christ means matters. Without understanding the expectations for the Messiah, we’re left with broken glass, rather than a breath-taking mosaic.
Regarding prophecy, there are several Old Testament passages we could consider. I’ll give the Old Testament reference and then the New Testament reference.
- His appearance will be disfigured (see Isaiah 52:14 and Matthew 26:67).
- He will be despised and rejected (see Isaiah 53:3 and John 11:47-50).
- He will take sin upon Himself (see Isaiah 53:4-6, 8 and 1 Corinthians 15:3).
- He will be silent before His oppressors (see Isaiah 53:7 and Matthew14:60-61).
- He will be assigned a grave with the wicked and the rich in His death (Isaiah 53:9 and Mark 15:27-28, 43-46).
- He will be a descendant of king David (see 1 Chronicles 17:11-14 and Luke 3:23, 31).
- He will be born in Bethlehem (see Micah 5:2 and Matthew 2:1).
- He will be preceded by a messenger (see Isaiah 40:3-5 and Matthew 3:1-2).
- He will have a ministry of miracles (see Isaiah 35:5-6 and Matthew 9:35; 11:4-5).
- He will enter Jerusalem on a Donkey (see Zechariah 9:9 and Matthew 21:7-9).
- His hands and feet will be pierced (see Psalm 22:16 and Luke 23:33).
- He will be hated without reason (see Psalm 69:4 and John 15:25).
- His garments will be divided and lots will be cast for them (see Psalm 22:18; John 19:23-24).
- His bones will not be broken (see Psalm 34:20 and John 19: 33).
- His side will be pieced (see Zechariah 12:10 and Jn. 19:34).
- He, the Mighty God, will be born (see Isaiah 9:2-7 and Matthew 1:23; John 1:1-3, 14).
Christmas—the real meaning of the season—is about Christ, the fulfillment of God’s promises, and all the many things that means.
Photo by Jakob Owens
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 🇨🇦
Is Christmas True?
Is Christmas true? Or should we assume Christmas is just a fairytale like Santa Claus?
Our starting places or assumptions have a big impact on the way we weigh evidence. For instance, in Harper Lee’s book, To Kill a Mockingbird the correct verdict could not have been given in that context (i.e., Maycomb’s racist white community) because people excluded the possibility that anyone other than the black man, Tom Robinson, was guilty. Despite the strong evidence that Atticus Finch put forward, Tom was still convicted. Why? Because people were prejudiced against the truth. The people’s a priori assumption, that Tom was guilty because he’s black, led them to not honestly look at the evidence and pronounce the correct verdict.
This sadly still happens. It happens in the court of law and it can happen when people consider evidence about Jesus too. But, if God exists and wants to be born as a baby, as Christmas says, then certainly God can do that.
The Bible says Christmas is true. It even says the “star” guiding the Wisemen is true. Are there actual reasons for believing in the historical accuracy of Christmas? I believe so. But will people openly weigh the evidence?
Honestly, there’s a lot to look at. Here I’ll just share two pieces to consider.
Jesus’ Biographies
Although the Gospel accounts in the Bible may not be exactly like our biographies today, they really are biographies. Or they certainly claim to be. They purport to give actual history about Jesus of Nazareth. The Bible has four historical biographies about Jesus, often referred to as the Gospels.[1] Two of them explicitly claim to tell us what Jesus actually did and said, and they claim to be based on eyewitness testimony (Luke 1:1-4; John 21:20-24). And so, Justin Martyr, a second-century Christian writer and philosopher, referred to the Gospels as “the memoirs of His apostles.”
This is what Luke says:
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught (Lk. 1:1-4).
Luke is basically making the claim to be a journalist or historian.
The Gospels place themselves in a historical context. They don’t start with imaginary elements. There is no “once upon a time.” Instead, they give us identifiable time stamps. They say things like: “Augustus was emperor of Rome,” “Quirinius was governor of Syria,” “Pilate was governor of Palestine,” “Herod was king of the Jews,” and “Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin” (e.g., Matt. 2:1; 27:2; Mk. 15:1, 43; Lk. 2:1-2; Jn. 19:38). These were not made-up people or made-up positions. They repeat historical realities because the Gospels claim to be historical documents.
Many of the events that the New Testament writers wrote about were well-known. The Apostle Paul could tell king Agrippa: I am persuaded that none of these things has escaped your notice, since these things have not been done in a corner(Acts 26:26). The early Jesus followers did not follow cleverly devised myths about the Lord Jesus Christ but claimed to be eyewitnesses (2 Pet. 1:16).
C.S. Lewis knew a lot about legends and he didn’t think the Gospels read like legends. In Lewis’ own words: “Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing.”[2]
The “Star” of Bethlehem
Matthew’s telling of the story of Jesus includes a lot about a “star.” But if you read the account, he says things about the “star” that do not make sense if he is talking about a literal star. The way he describes what the “star”[3] does would not make sense unless he was knowledgeably aware of the peculiar movements it made. The star was “His star” and it “rose,” “appeared,” “went before them,” and rested “over the place where the child was.”
The sign in the heavens convinced the Babylonian magi—the NASA of the day—to pay a visit to Jesus. They were aware of the Jewish promise of a coming King and what was transpiring in the sky made them think something very significant was happening.[4]
What did the Wisemen see? This would be super random to include in a story about Jesus unless the writer knew it to be factual and significant. Otherwise, the writer could have said something simpler: “a bright and mysterious light shown down on the blessed child.” Instead, the author describes the movements of a beautiful comet, something like the Great Comet of 1811. The potential issue with describing something so seemingly outrageous is that it’s visible to a lot of people. Many people could have come forward and said there was never anything in the sky like that. But that didn’t happen. Instead, later on, Origen rightly identifies the “star” as a comet.
Here’s what Origen said (circa 248):
The star that was seen in the east we consider to have been a new star, unlike any of the other well-known planetary bodies. Yet, it had the nature of those celestial bodies that appear at times, such as comets…. It has been observed that, on the occurrence of great events, and of mighty changes in earthly things, such stars are apt to appear, indicating either the removal of dynasties or the breaking out of wars. … There is a prophecy of Balaam recorded by Moses to this effect: ‘There will arise a star out of Jacob, and a man will rise up out of Israel.’
Ignatius said (circa 105), “The light from this star was inexpressible, and its uniqueness struck men with astonishment.”
So, unless this event with the Wisemen and Comet happened, what would one gain by fabricating the story? The Babylonian Wisemen would not be popular with the Jewish people. The Babylonians took Jewish people into exile and were idolaters and the Wisemen were seen as magicians who practiced sorcery against the LORD’s command (Deut. 18:10–12; Mal. 3:5; Gal. 5:19–21). And so, the God/child receiving charity from such people would probably not be seen positively.
If your premise is that the whole story was fabricated and made up to fool people, why would the author have risked claiming such a visible and verifiable phenomenon? On the other hand, if you look at Matthew as a historical work, there’s nothing that should be excluded outright. For one, Matthew certainly gets king Herod’s personality right. The historian Josephus recorded what a gruesome man Herod the Great was. He put his favorite wife to death as well as three of his sons and killed other family members too.
The slaying of the 15 to 35 babies, known as “the Massacre of the Innocents,” referred to in Matthew 2 may not be mentioned in other surviving historical accounts but it is in keeping with what we know of Herod.[5] And again, why mention this historical datum if it wasn’t accurate? Wouldn’t it be possible as the account of Jesus circulated for someone from Bethlehem to hear about the account of the massacre? Wouldn’t the story of Jesus be on unstable footing if just one lie was found out? Why then would the author take such risks?
Imagine I wanted to lie and make you think I’m good at baseball. There are all sorts of ways I could do that. I could say, “I’m really good at baseball.” I could say, “I played college baseball.” But the more specific and fantastic I get about my lie the higher the risk. If I say, “I played baseball for the Yankees” you’re going to have lots of questions and you’re probably going to seek out verification. A nondescript lie is a lot safer and can still accomplish my purpose of making you think I’m good at baseball. The claims about Jesus are not like that. They are distinctive. They—especially in the first century—are falsifiable.
The biographies of Jesus go beyond saying “Jesus was good at baseball,” and even beyond saying “Jesus played shortstop for the Yankees and batted cleanup.” They give loads of information that could have been found to be false but were never proved to be false. Again, why include so much fantastical false information? And remember, the Jesus movement didn’t take decades to form.
Anyhow, I’m trying to stop writing… There are many reasons to believe Christmas is a true story. We’ve very briefly considered two.
Notes
[1] Gospel means “good news.” In Greek, it is euangélion (εὐαγγέλιον) and it is where my daughter, Evangelina, gets her name from.
[2] C.S. Lewis, “What are we to make of Jesus Christ?,” 169 in God in the Dock.
[3] “Star” here is the English translation of the Greek word aster (ἀστήρ), and it’s where we get our English word “asteroid.” Aster can refer to various lights in the sky.
[4] See Colin R. Nicholl, The Great Christ Comet: Revealing the True Star of Bethlehem (Crossway: Wheaton, IL, 2015).
[5] Remember the infant mortality rate would have been high in that day and the massacre was all boys aged two and below so the number would have likely been relatively low for someone like Josephus to report
What if we believed Jesus was Lord, not just Savior?
What if church were different? What if we believed Jesus was Lord, not just Savior? There was a long debate on this very topic. It’s known as “the Lordship controversy.”
It is true that faith alone saves, but the real genuine faith that saves is never alone. If Jesus is Savior, He is also Lord (Eph. 2:8-10). We prove Jesus is our Savior by showing that He is our Lord (Matt. 7:21; Jn. 8:31; 15:8). He is no Lord if He does not reign. We indeed struggle and we strive as we follow our Savior. In Christ Jesus, we are all simultaneously saints, sinners, and sufferers, seeking to conform our likeness to Jesus.
But I fear that we as contemporary Christians have picked over what is known as Christianity and have taken what we think agreeable and ignored what we consider unpleasant. It is much the same way that a two-year-old eats. The child eats what it feels it will enjoy and pitches everything of seemingly no value. The problem with this is that any baby on its own will not eat as it should and will, therefore, become malnourished, sick, and run the risk of death. I fear this is a problem in the US Church today.
A survey The Barna Group conducted in 2006, found that
“Faith commitments sometimes play a role in what people do – but less often than might be assumed. In comparing the lifestyle choices of born again Christians to the national norms, there were more areas of similarity than distinction… In evaluating 15 moral behaviors, born again Christians are statistically indistinguishable from non-born again adults on most of the behaviors studied.”[1]
This should not be the case. 1 John 2:3-6 states,
“We know that we have come to know [Jesus Christ], if we keep His commandments. Whoever says ‘I know Him’ but does not keep His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps His word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: whoever says he abides in Him ought to walk in the same way in which He walked.”
James, similarly, tells us, “Be doers of the word, and not hearers only” (1:22).
Jesus said, “Why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord’ and do not do what I tell you?” (Lk. 6:46). If Jesus is Lord, and He is, He demands and deserves our full allegiance. We are commanded by the Lord Jesus to make disciples, it’s not an option. That’s not all though. We are told to teach the disciples to observe all that Jesus has commanded. We’re called to do much more than make converts, we are essentially commanded to multiply little Christs.[2]
Notice also that the Lord, who has all authority in heaven and on earth, has said, “Teach them to observe all that I have commanded them.” He didn’t say, “Teach them to understand everything I have commanded them.” Obedience is first. We often get that backward. We often focus so much on understanding every little jot and title that we don’t have any time or energy left to do what our Lord has given us to do.
When I was in Army boot camp and the drill sergeant told me to do something, I did it. I did it quickly. I didn’t ask why. I didn’t ask for a definition. I just did it. And I screamed “Yes drill sergeant! Moving drill sergeant!” I listened and I obeyed. The drill sergeant deserved and demanded respect and it was given. The drill sergeant was the boss and so there was obedience.
Jesus is the boss for whom every being in the entire universe will bow. He is the Creator, we are creation. What He says, we must do. Jesus is the Lord, not just the Savior.
Notes
[1] “’Born again Christians’ are defined as people who said they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. Respondents are not asked to describe themselves as ‘born again.’” The Barna Group, American Lifestyles Mix compassion and Self-Oriented Behavior, February 5, 2007. From: http://www.barna.org/donorscause-articles/110-american-lifestyles-mix-compassion-and-self-oriented-behavior on 6-15-10.
[2] Many passages tell us to be like Christ. For example: Matt. 16:24; 19:21; Jn. 13:14-15, 34-35; 17:18; 20:21; 1 Cor. 11:1; Eph. 5:1-2; Phil. 2:5-11; 1 Peter 2:21; 1 Jn. 2:6; 3:16; 4:9-11.
A Diffrent Church Culture: Character instead of Charisma
What if we constructed a different church culture? What if we valued character over charisma? What if we had less scandal and pastoral burnout? What if church were different?
We don’t come out and say that charisma matters more than character, we don’t say that performance is the preference over pastoring, but that is often our modus operandi. Character takes a back seat to packing the seats. “The celebrity syndrome destroys accountability… The strong leader who builds a large and successful church is often not held to strict account.”[1] Too much is riding on the good name of the performer. So, coverups happen for the “good” of the church.
What if so much weight and expectation were never meant to be on one pastor? What if we have so many scandals and moral failures, partly because the pastorate was never meant to be what we’ve made it? “We expect the pastor to be a shrink in the pulpit, a CEO in the office, and flawless in every area of his life.”[2] Is this sustainable? Especially when he is also often called to be a celebrity.
It would seem that Christian leaders are especially under attack by the enemy.
One poll showed that nearly 40 percent of the pastors polled had had an extramarital affair since beginning their ministries. And the divorce rate among clergy is increasing faster than in any other profession. The statistics show that the divorce rate among the Protestant clergy in the United States is higher than the national rate 65 percent as compared with 50 percent.[3]
The reality is every pastor is tempted by power, pride, and pleasure. So, it is vital for pastors to have character and accountability, and not be unduly put on a pedestal. If they are put on a pedestal at all it should only be to say with the Apostle Paul: “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.”
Yet, sadly, we essentially incentivize hypocrisy through social media. An unwritten role is that pastors have a good social media presence. Actual presence and character have been downplayed and what is seen on the screen is what is valued. The world has been turned upside-down and Satan is having a field day.
Along these lines, Mike Cosper shared that too many of his friends “threw themselves whole-hog into the creation of a persona and devoted all of their energy (and often, the energy of several staff members) into the maintenance of the mask they wore. This left the rest of their life and the rest of their soul unattended, and the darkness they ignored or avoided or pretended didn’t exist eventually shipwrecked their lives, their careers, and in many cases, their families.”[4]
Paul David Tripp astutely points out that the desire and obtainment of fruitful ministry and success can be pursued and obtained for the wrong reasons. One can easily desire more baptisms, a bigger budget, and more buildings not for the glory of God and Kingdom growth, but for the fame and self-worth/identity of the lead pastor. The human heart is fickle, even the pastor’s heart.
“A leader whose heart has been captured by other things doesn’t forsake ministry to pursue those other things; he uses ministry position, power, authority, and trust to get those things. Every leadership community needs to understand that ministry can be the vehicle for pursuing a whole host of idolatries.”[5]
Continued Christian character must be a qualification for leadership, not charisma alone. It is easy to use the right things to the wrong ends. Vance Pitman once pointed out that every man that has an affair in ministry, had an affair with ministry first. Paul David Tripp gives invaluable counsel regarding leadership within the church in his book Lead.[6]
Leaders and teachers can “profess to know God” and yet “deny Him by their works” (Titus 1:16).[7] That’s partly why Christian leaders need to meet the biblical qualifications (1 Tim. 3:1-13; Titus 1:1-9). It is easy to want to teach for shameful gain (Titus 1:11). Yet, those who teach must do so out of love for Christ and others; and have character that commends the message (v. 6-9).
Christians, especially Christian leaders, should demonstrate love, joy, kindness, impartiality, mercy, faithfulness, reasonableness, gentleness, goodness, grace, patience, purity, peace, sincerity, and self-control (Gal. 5:22-23; James 3:17). Christians should never be characterized by quarreling, conceit, hostility, gossip, jealousy, rivalry, anger, envy, enmity, slander, strife, dissensions, divisions, or disorder (2 Cor. 12:20; Gal. 5:19-21). In Exodus, we are told that those who were to be placed in leadership were those who feared God, were trustworthy, and hated bribes (Ex. 18:21). Christian leaders who are fit to lead are those who care for the flock and not just for themselves; who feed the flock and not just themselves (Ezek. 34:1-10).
Christian leaders should be motivated to serve out of love of God, and love of people. Not money, not fame, not power. The Apostle Paul said, “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which He bought with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). Christian leaders have a weighty calling. They are to care for the precious people Messiah Jesus purchased with His very own sacrificial death. That is not something to take lightly. Christian leaders are to shepherd the flock of God that is among them, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have them; not for shameful gain, but eagerly (1 Pet. 5:2). Christian leaders “will have to give an account” of their leadership (Heb. 13:17).
So, in evaluating a Christian leader, we should ask: “Does this person demonstrate strong Christian character? Does this person show compassion and concern? Is this person motivated by love of God and neighbor?” We should not merely ask: “Does this person have charisma and influence?”
Notes
[1] Colson and Vaughn, Being the Body, 332.
[2] Ibid.,332.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Mike Cosper, Recapturing the Wonder: Transcendent Faith in a Disenchanted World, 83.
[5] Paul David Tripp, Lead, 109-110.
[6] “Every leader needs to be the object of ongoing discipleship, every leader needs at moments to be confronted, every leader needs the comforts of the gospel, every leader needs help to see what he would not see on his own, and every leader needs to be granted the love and encouragement to deal with the artifacts of the old self that are still within him. If this is so, then we cannot be so busy envisioning, designing, maintaining, evaluating, and reengineering ministry that we have little time to care for the souls of the ones who are leading this gospel work. A spiritually healthy leadership community participates in the ongoing personal spiritual growth of each one of its members” (Tripp, Lead, 86).
[7] Healthy doctrine is vital (1 Tim. 1:10; 6:3; 2 Tim. 1:13; 4:3; Titus 1:9, 13) and so are good works (1 Tim. 2:10; 5:10, 25; 6:18; 2 Tim. 2:21; 3:17; Titus 1:8; 2:3, 14; 3:1).
What if church were historically & spiritually rooted instead of following a fad?
What if church were different? What if we were historically and spiritually rooted instead of following a fad? As Kendall Vanderslice has said,
It is good to have words we repeat that were thoughtfully written by generations past, to have sacraments we share that remind us over and over again that we are part of something so much bigger than ourselves, so much bigger than our moment in time, so much bigger than the community of people immediately around us.[1]
What if we didn’t practice empty rituals but appreciated the rich history of the Church, recited her creeds, sang her songs, and told her stories? Os Guinness has said,
By our uncritical pursuit of relevance we have actually courted irrelevance; by our breathless chase after relevance without a matching commitment to faithfulness, we have become not only unfaithful but irrelevant; by our determined efforts to redefine ourselves in ways that are more compelling to the modern world than are faithful to Christ, we have lost not only our identity but our authority and our relevance.[2]
The Church has a long history of timeless relevance. The Church has “the words of life” (Jn. 6:68). What if we tapped into that history and showed people Christianity has unmatched depth and answers to life’s deepest questions? But what if we weren’t stuffy and ritualistic?
We will worship so we must worship wisely. Intentional liturgy is vital. As the gathered church we purport to worship the Lord, so we must do so in an intentionally biblical and wise way. By my calculations, most Christians spend around half a year of their life participating in the gathered worship of the church. We must make the best use of that time! The gathering of the church is an important way the church is equipped to be the church scattered.
It is of utmost importance that the liturgy of the gathered church be deliberate. Even simple, seemingly insignificant, things in worship communicate doctrine and teach people. This is true, for example, of terminology (“priest” or “pastor”) and architecture (simple or elaborate; God’s people are the temple, or the building is the temple).
Liturgies have been in use in Christian worship from the earliest of times so it’s important that we consider what liturgy means and its place in the life of the church. All churches have a liturgy but some churches seem to be less intentional about their liturgy. It seems some churches operate on a default liturgy. A pastor may inherit a liturgy from the previous pastor and it remain essentially unchanged for generations. That, however, is problematic for a few reasons. As Timothy C.J. Quill has said, “Worship practice reflects and communicates the beliefs of the church. Liturgy articulates doctrine.”[3] Eric L. Johnson has said, “Worship reorders our hearts by putting everything else in perspective.”[4] So, liturgies are formative. The liturgy of the church whether “more liturgical” or “more nonliturgical” is vital to think about because the way one worships shapes the way one believes and lives.
We must hold to the traditions that we were taught (2 Thess. 2:15) and maintain them (1 Cor. 11:2). There is a place for Christians to be historically rooted. The gathering of the church must be carried out according to God’s revealed will. We want to worship God in the way He has prescribed as best as we can.[5] We should acknowledge, however, that “The New Testament does not provide us with officially sanctioned public ‘services’ so much as with examples of crucial elements.”[6] Even though the New Testament does not give us a complete manual of what the church gathering should be like,[7] it does give us clear things to do.[8]
I really appreciate this summary by Edmond Clowney:
The New Testament indicates, by precept and example, what elements of [corporate] worship are. As in the synagogue, corporate prayer is offered (Acts 2:42; 1 Tim. 2:1; 1 Cor. 14:16); Scripture is read (1 Tim. 4:13; 1 Th. 5:27; 2 Th. 3:14; Col. 4:15, 16; 2 Pet. 3:15, 16) and expounded in preaching (1 Tim. 4:13; cf. Lk. 4:20; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; 4:2). There is a direct shift from the synagogue to the gathering of the church (Acts 18:7, 11; cf. 19:8-10). The teaching of the word is also linked with table fellowship (Acts 2:42; 20:7, cf. vv. 20, 25, 28). The songs of the new covenant people both praise God and encourage one another (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:15; 1 Cor. 14:15, 26; cf. 1 Tim. 3:16; Rev. 5:9-13; 11:17f; 15:3, 4). Giving to the poor is recognized as a spiritual service to God and a Christian form of ‘sacrifice’ (2 Cor. 9:11-15; Phil. 4:18; Heb. 13:16). The reception and distribution of gifts is related to the office of the deacon (Acts 6:1-6; Rom. 12:8, 13; cf. Rom. 16:1, 2; 2 Cor. 8:19-21; Acts 20:4; 1 Cor. 16:1-4) and to the gathering of believers (Acts 2:42; 5:2; 1 Cor. 16:2). The faith is also publically confessed (1 Tim. 6:12; 1 Pet. 3:21; Heb. 13:15; cf. 1 Cor. 15:1-3). The people receive God’s blessing (2 Cor. 13:14; Lk. 24:50; cf. Num. 6:22-27). The holy kiss of salutation is also commanded (Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Th. 5:26; 1 Pet. 5:14). The people respond to praise and prayer with the saying of ‘Amen’ (1 Cor. 14:16; Rev. 5:14; cf. Rom. 1:25; 9:5; Eph. 3:21 etc.). The sacrament of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are explicitly provided for. Confession is linked with baptism (1 Pet. 3:21); and a prayer of thanksgiving with the breaking of bread (1 Cor. 11:24).
Another foundation of healthy church gatherings is public sharing. The church is instructed in 1 Corinthians 14:26 that when it comes together each one should have a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. When the church family gathers each member should be prepared to do its part and share something to build up the others who are present. The operation of spiritual gifts[8] for the upbuilding of the body is important because “each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good” (1 Cor. 12:7). Each part of the body playing its part is vital (Rom. 12:4-8). It’s good to be “eager for manifestations of the Spirit” but it’s even more important that we “strive to excel in building up the church” (1 Cor. 14:12).
So, what would it look like for churches to have an intentional liturgy and recite creeds like the Nicene Creed but also leave room for authenticity, lament, relationship, and the moving of the Spirit? I’m not entirely sure. But my church is working towards it. I do know if we are to move in this direction we must plan differently. We must make room for the creeds, communion, and the moving of the Spirit. We must have intentional congregational prayer and not just as a ploy to move people on and off the stage.
Notes
[1] Kendall Vanderslice, “The Church of the Chronically Online” 56 in Common Good issue 17.
[3] Timothy C.J. Quill, “Liturgical Worship,” 19 in Perspectives on Christian Worship.
[4] Eric L. Johnson, God & Soul Care, 171. “Christian liturgical practices… reorient our hearts and our identity to our ultimate concern” (Johnson, God & Soul Care, 172).
[5] I appreciate what Michael A. Farley says: “Evangelical scholars employ a range of very different hermeneutical strategies in applying the Bible to worship. This is not surprising, of course, since evangelicals are divided over the theory and practice of biblical hermeneutics in many areas of theology. The first step toward progress in reconciling divergent views is a clear recognition and accurate characterization of the diversity of hermeneutical approaches to constructing a biblical theology of worship. If discussion can take place at this level, evangelicals can avoid the frustrating experience of talking past one another without comprehending why one’s arguments are not persuasive to one’s interlocutors” (“What Is “Biblical’ Worship? Biblical Hermeneutics and Evangelical Theologies of Worship,” JETS 51/3 [2008]: 610).
[6] D.A. Carson, Worship by the Book, 52.
[7] Farley, “What Is “Biblical’ Worship?,” 610. “There is no single passage in the New Testament that establishes a paradigm for corporate worship” (Worship by the Book, 55). “The New Testament allows significant freedom to test and mold the forms of local churches to cultures, contexts, and circumstances” J. Scott Horrel, “Freeing Cross-Cultural Church Planting with New Testament Essentials” in Bibliotheca Sacra 174 (April-June 2017), 224).
[8] Clowney, “Presbyterian Worship,” Worship: Adoration and Action, ed. D.A. Carson, 117 as quoted in Worship by the Book, 48.
[9] See “The Work of the Spirit within the Church” at https://www.academia.edu/43153921/The_Work_of_the_Spirit_within_the_Church
How I Survived My Divorce
By Becky O’Brien
For a long time, I didn’t think I’d make it.
I was scared, not knowing how I could manage without a husband and dad in the home for our 10 kids. I was angry. This was not the way it was supposed to be. I prayed that God would help our marriage but didn’t really believe it. So, then I felt guilty.
It is hard to really go back to remember the pain and the rejection I felt. Today I am sitting far down the road—25 years after the separation. I am at the midpoint. I was married just short of 25 years.
We were separated for a long time, 6 years. When we were first separated, I had been a Christian for 11 years. But I loved the Lord and desired to follow Him with all my heart. Every time I read the Word, I would write down verses that spoke to me, memorizing or hiding His word in my heart as I could.
God’s Word
I knew God is sufficient and His power is made perfect in weakness (2 Cor. 12:9). Really getting a hold of that truth was so helpful. I would also often read and meditate on Zephaniah 3:17:
The Lord your God is in your midst,
a mighty one who will save;
he will rejoice over you with gladness;
he will quiet you by his love;
he will exult over you with loud singing.
God’s word was the light in my darkness. God’s word was the steady rhythm of truth, amongst a cacophony of lies.
The Church
Because of the situation, we (my children and I) went to a new church. It was mandatory. My husband had been the pastor of the church we had been attending. Not everyone liked the new church at first, but we grew to love it and became a vital part of it. I am so thankful that we were loved and well cared for. We were included, involved, and blessed in many ways.
I am thankful that I have the gift of hospitality and used it by inviting church brothers and sisters to my house, which provided a way to bond and share burdens (because we all have them). It was a way that I felt included in relationships with men and women, both in healthy ways. I missed relating with and communicating with a man. I also enjoyed a mixed Sunday School class where I could have fellowship with families which also provided an example to my children.
In our new church, the pastor and saints loved on us, prayed for us, engaged us, and helped us with physical needs (in very big ways!). I remember standing in the parking lot after church talking and being ministered to; our children played, as we prayed.
Joy
During the long, lonely nights, I would pray—drawing close to my friend who is closer than a brother (Prov. 18:24). I still pray a lot at night.
In the hardest of times, I felt the greatest joy. “The joy of the Lord is my strength” (Neh. 8:10).
I hated the hurt but loved the joy. I knew God was with me. You could not ask for more—but then the “nuts and bolts” of life! It was a roller coaster at times.
Later, when I was farther down the road, and things were going well, and I was more secure, I would long for the joy I experienced when things were so difficult. I experienced the reality of Psalm 46:1, “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.” I experienced the joy of knowing that the God of the universe was carrying me and caring for me.
Contentment
I was always looking for my husband to return. I remember one time, early on, I thought I heard him come in—someone was talking in the kitchen. I went in expectantly and was crushed when it was the neighbor.
I would always be looking for his car to turn into the driveway. That went on for years. Finally, that is only a memory.
I also remember him picking up the kids for a visit or calling them, and I was jealous sometimes, even angry, because I wanted him to want to see me.
Remembering my yearning for love and care and desire to have a mate… It took a long time to be “content in all things.” It took longer than I now remember. That leads me to share another verse:
Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me (Phil. 4:11-13).
How I clung to this verse. It became my focal verse to remind myself of all the time! I worked hard to cast all my cares on the Lord, remembering that He cares for me (1 Pet. 5:7). And I looked to Jesus (Heb. 12:2); oh, how I looked to Jesus.
Jesus the Great Healer
God used my hurting, emptiness, and desperation to draw me into an intimate love relationship with Him. I was not an easy case. For a while, I looked for God in all the wrong places (including another man, food, and other people) to fill what I was really seeking—that intimate relationship with the God of the universe. The God that was real to Moses, David, and Noah. The road was rough, but it was how I grew in intimacy with my Father, my Abba Daddy.
I sorrow over hurting people and desire their salvation. No wonder people turn to the bottle and drugs. I understand—to numb the pain. I am so thankful I had and have Jesus!
We have a Great Healer. I remember having a decorative wood heart that was in two pieces with some kind of metal piece holding the two pieces together. It was very symbolic to me of my broken heart and of the Great Physician’s healing work. He does great heart surgery, by the way. But the healing period is very slow and there’s still some pain along the way.
Incidentally, after hearing of a sweet friend (not close, but dear) who had a broken heart, I passed that on to her. I rarely see her, but recently, after many years, she told me she still has it and thinks of me still. A broken heart will do that. Sometimes the Great Physician uses us as His nurses in His healing work.
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God (2 Cor. 1:3-4).
So, how did I survive my divorce? I clung to Jesus and His Word. Or rather, they clung to me. They held me although my husband didn’t.
What if Sheep had a Shepherd?
When Jesus saw the masses He had compassion on them because they were like sheep without a shepherd (Matt. 9:36). Jesus cared about people, and He was very adamant that pastors care too. Yet, often people are left to face the world on their own.
What if church were different? What if sheep had a shepherd? What if pastors weren’t elevated on the stage or locked behind the closed doors of the office? What if shepherds “smelled like their sheep” and knew and spent time with people? What if the proportion of pastors to people allowed for pastoral care? What if we valued pastoral practice over eloquence and business acumen?
Jesus said shepherds will give an account for their shepherding or non-shepherding of the sheep entrusted to their care. Yet, sadly sometimes churches focus on the brand, building(s), and performance, and not on the church body being shepherded and equipped. But Jesus cared about shepherds shepherding.
A pastor is a “shepherd” or “one who cares for a flock or herd.” That’s why “pastor” sounds like the word “pasture.” The two words are connected. All over scripture, God refers to leaders as shepherds, with God Himself being the ultimate shepherd. When God’s people are not rightly cared for, He is upset. God says, “Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture” (Jer. 23:1-4)! And Ezekiel 34 shows that God takes the failure of His under-shepherds very seriously. He pronounces judgment on them (Ezek. 34:1-10). He promises He Himself will care for them (Ezek. 34:11-31).
God’s word says, “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which He obtained with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). What a high, precious, and important calling! Pastors are to care for what Jesus bought with His very own blood. If it is that important to Jesus, how can it not be important to us?
Paul himself provides a powerful example of pastoral care. Paul visited people to “see how they are doing” (Acts 15:36)[1] and his letters showed his shepherding care. Paul made disciples and cared for disciples. These are complementary callings of church leaders. Paul taught Timothy and Timothy was genuinely concerned about the welfare of the people of the church (Phil. 2:20).
Paul had pastoral concern for God’s people. He wrote “I have you in my heart” (Phil. 1:7) as well as “being affectionately desirous of you, we were ready to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own selves, because you had become very dear to us” (1 Thess. 2:8). Scripture would have us see the importance of ministry both “publicly” and “house to house” (Acts 20:20).
Peter cared about leaders caring for people too. He passed on what he heard from Jesus: “shepherd the flock” (John 21:15-17). Peter relayed the command that leaders are to shepherd the flock of God (1 Peter 5:1). And Peter reminds us of our motivation: When the chief Shepherd appears, He will give the unfading crown of glory (v. 4).
Further, Acts 6:1-7 shows us shepherding must be intentional. We must make plans, delegate, and ensure the practical needs of people in the church are taken care of. Shepherding God’s people must be taken very seriously. King David, before he was king, risked his life for mere sheep (1 Sam. 17:34-36). King Jesus gave His life for His sinful people. He’s the Good Shepherd that lays down His life for the sheep (Jn. 10:11). And His under-shepherds are to lovingly and practically care for those for whom He gave His life (Acts 20:28).
Thus, in summary, King Jesus, the Great and Sovereign Shepherd, laid down His life for the sheep and calls pastors to care for His sheep. Under-shepherds must not spurn what the Over-Shepherd has called them to. If Jesus is the Pastor par excellence then under-shepherds must strive to emulate His loving, relational care.
Notes
[1] John also longed to see his people “face to face.” He was not satisfied with letters. He wanted to visit. Actual pastoral presence matters.
in X 