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
The Modern American Church is Sick
The modern American church is sick. Let me count the ways… Here I’ll just give two. I hate being doomsdayish. But the writing is on the wall.
Invitation/Evangelism
Sadly, many church leaders equate evangelism with church invitation. In his book Meet Generation Z, James Emery White talks about Michael Green’s book on the staggering growth of the early church. He says Green’s book Evangelism in the Early Church had one huge conclusion: the early church “shared the good news of Jesus like gossip over the backyard fence.” Yet, right after this, White says, “In other words, a culture of invitation was both cultivated and celebrated.”
White, however, is not talking about sharing the good news of Jesus. He is talking about inviting people to a church service.
It’s not difficult… We create tools to put into the hands of people to use to invite their friends all the time… We celebrate and honor people who invite people all the time… Such tools can be something as simple as pens with the name of our website on them that people can give to someone. (Meet Generation Z, 151).
I know this is just a little quote but it does highlight that church leaders are stretching to try and get their people to invite others to church. That’s the big push. So, we make it so “It’s not difficult.” We seem to think, the people in the church are only so capable or faithful. We apparently can’t expect too much. We celebrate the faithful few who give their coworker a church pen and invite them to a Christmas Eve service.
The early church was willing to do more than give out pens with the church’s name on it. Let me get all nerdy and drop some biblical language facts. Do you know where the word “martyr” comes from? “Martyr” means someone who dies for their beliefs. “Martyr” comes from the Greek word which means “witness” or “one who gives testimony.” The early church was filled with witnesses—martyrs—who lovingly told others about Jesus, regardless of the cost. We celebrate and cultivate invitation to a church service. There’s a little bit of a difference.
This is what Michael Green says,
Communicating the faith was not regarded as the preserve of the very zealous or of the officially designated evangelist. Evangelism was the prerogative and duty of every church member. We have seen apostles and wandering prophets, nobles and paupers, intellectuals and fishermen all taking part enthusiastically in this the primary task committed by Christ to his Church. The ordinary people of the church saw it as their job: Christianity what supremely a lay movement, spread by informal missionaries. (Evangelism in the Early Church, 516)
He is clearly talking about evangelism, not invitation. They are not the same. He goes on:
Unless there is a transformation of contemporary church life so that once again the task of evangelism is something which is seen as incumbent on every baptized Christian, and is backed up by a quality of living what outshines the best that unbelief can muster, we are unlikely to make much headway through techniques of evangelism. People will not believe that Christians have good news to share until they find that bishops and bakers, university professors and housewives, bus drivers and street corner preachers are all alike keen to pass it on, however different their methods may be. And they will continue to believe that the Church is an introverted society composed of ‘respectable’ people and bent on its own preservation until they see in church groupings and individual Christians the caring, the joy, the fellowship, the self-sacrifice and the openness which marked the early church at its best. (Evangelism in the Early Church, 517-18)
Listen, I am not saying it is bad to invite people to church. There can be a place for that. But we should not equate evangelism and invitation. And we are all called to actually “gossip the gospel,” not hand out a handout.
Transfer Growth/competition within the Kingdom
How can a kingdom divided against itself stand? I’ve talked about this elsewhere but I think Jesus makes a good point (even if the context in which He said that was different. See Matt. 12:26; Mark 3:24).
I heard a story from a friend. They overheard some other friends talking: “I saw the addition to y’all’s church. It looks great! How’s it going?” That’s when a kid chimed in: “My friends are coming from their churches because they’re not doing good.” I think, “From the mouths of babes” is appropriate here.
A lot of churches across America aren’t doing well. A 35,000-square-foot church building in my area with a 400-seat sanctuary just sold for $65,000. Some may celebrate that another church down the street is adding a multimillion addition, but where is the actual growth? Is it Kingdom growth? Are new people crying out Jesus’ praise who previously didn’t, or are we rearranging furniture?
I’m not saying there are no reasons to decide to go to a different church, there are. The way that we think about transfer growth, however, is important. Again, not to pick on James Emery White but his book’s on my mind and in my hand because I just read it. He talks about visiting a church over the summer which “was one of the most programming-challenged services I’ve ever attended.” He doesn’t specify but I imagine it wasn’t very smooth and maybe awkward at points. But he goes on to say that though the service wasn’t very good, his kids liked the kid’s ministry.
Here’s the lesson: you can drop the ball in the service but ace it with the kids and still have a chance that a family will return. But no matter how good the service is, if the children’s ministry is bad, the family won’t come back… Children are at the heart of your growth engine. (Meet Generation Z, 150).
Basically, we need to have better religious goods and services than the church down the street, and an important part of what we need to offer is a really good children’s ministry. Notice the goal is not discipleship of parents so that they love and teach their kids, and it’s not discipleship of the kids; no, it’s an experience for the kids.
Conclusion
I get it, I don’t want things to be bad or awkward. But maybe the whole paradigm is messed up? Perhaps church was never supposed to be structured with a stage and an audience to entertain? Perhaps the church was never meant to be something we attend or a building? Perhaps “we are family” was never meant to be a church tagline but a reality? Perhaps service is meant to be something that the church provides to the world and not something church leaders provide to church members?
I agree that we should do things well. But it is imperative that we do the right things. 1 Corinthians 10:31 is often quoted by church leaders: “Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” Of course, I agree with this verse. But this verse doesn’t give us carte blanche to use any methodology.
I appreciate what J.D. Payne wisely says in his book, Pressure Points:
With over four billion people in the world without Jesus, it is not wise to develop strategies that support methods which are counterproductive to the healthy rapid multiplication of disciples, leaders, and churches. Just because there is much biblical freedom in our culturally shaped methods does not mean that all such expressions are conducive to the multiplication of healthy churches across a people group or population segment.
We should intentionally pursue what makes for rapid multiplication of healthy disciples. This will call for us to be collaborators, not competitors, and care about actual growth, not transfer growth. Buildings, budgets, and even butts in seats are not necessarily an indicator of health or faithfulness to Jesus’ commands.
What if church aimed at something different?
What if church were different and aimed at something different? What if something radically different is needed, and needed right now? What if God is calling us to multiply movements, not names and brands? What if it’s about Jesus, His Kingdom, and the lost people He is calling, and not about a denomination or third-order doctrinal matters?[1] What if we need to focus on micro-movements and not mega organizations?
In the 2004 Olympics, Matt Emmons was way out in front. He had nearly clinched gold in the fifty meter, three position rifle final. All he had to do was hit the target. He didn’t have to get a bullseye; he just had to hit the target—something he could seemingly do with his eyes closed. He took aim, pulled the trigger, and hit the target. The only thing was, it was the wrong target.
He did not get gold that day. He didn’t get a metal. The only thing he got was disqualified. It’s possible to do a really good job, even the best job, and fail. If we aim at the wrong thing, we’re wrong even if we hit the target.
What if we have been aiming at the wrong target? The Apostle Paul, referring to Christian ministry, says, “Let each one take care how he builds” (1 Cor. 3:10). We must be intentional and aim well.
What if the modern church has often listened to business wisdom instead of biblical wisdom? What if we have built on a different foundation than the one the Bible commends to us? What if the church has cared too much about the esteem of man, and Christ and His word have fallen in our esteem?
We easily prize and prioritize the wrong things. We listen to the wrong voices and value and build the wrong things. Jesus wants us to listen to Him, value the Kingdom, and be about the Kingdom. Several years ago Kent Hughes wrote Liberating Ministry from the Success Syndrome. He says true success in ministry is not measured by worldly metrics like numbers or popularity. The book emphasizes the importance of focusing on the spiritual well-being and transformation of individuals rather than solely chasing large congregations.
What if we’ve been aiming at a good social media presence when what we need is actual presence? What we need is not pastors who look good, but who are good. What if we’ve unknowingly been capitulating to the culture and bought into a coy lie?
What if “butts in seats” is not what we should be aiming for but feet on mission? What if mega comfortable, convenient, and cool is the wrong target, so even if we hit it we’re liable to be disqualified? Again, we must “build with care” (1 Cor. 3:10). What if we’re building with straw and the End will disclose the futility of our efforts? (1 Cor. 3:12-13)
If disciples are what our Lord delights in, and disciples endure the Day, then that must be our aim. We must aim and build differently. Buildings and brands are not the goal; a band of radical Jesus followers is; that’s who turned the world upside down in the beginning (and without a budget).
Fruitfulness is faithful disciples. We must work like Jesus and Paul did. And we must create contexts most likely to produce faithful followers, not fans.
What if we had deep instead of surface relationships, discipled instead of entertained, and emphasized the church body instead of the building? What if we were intergenerational instead of isolating, cared about character instead of charisma, and emphasized the ministry of people instead of “superpastors”? What if pastors deeply knew people, we were authentic instead of artificial, and simple instead of complex?
What if churches were co-laborers instead of competitors? What if churches were closer to the biblical ideal and cared more about the Kingdom and less about their brand? What if the renown and reputation of Jesus was the all-consuming focus? What if we all said, “May Jesus increase, and I decrease?” What if pastors sought to “put themselves out of business”?
What if the church sought to be the church, not just go to church? What if the church didn’t just care about orthodoxy but cared about orthopraxy, too? That is, what if people didn’t just know how to define love or find verses about it in the Bible, but radically loved all those they came in contact with. What if churches were appealing, not mainly because of their architecture, programming, and hipness, but because Jesus’ love radiated out of them‽ What if the world was turned upside-down—in the best of ways—not by moralism, music, and monologues from the stage, but people loving Jesus and other people in real life?
My proposal for the church is: let’s be different. Let’s do these things. Let’s radically love Jesus and others and let the chips fall where they may. Everything else is stubble and dross. Brands will fade, buildings will burn, but souls and our Savior are forever.
Notes
[1] Sadly, some people seem more anxious to convert people to their peculiarities, than to convert souls to Christ (Iain H. Murray, Pentecost Today?, 151).
Quotes from J.D. Payne’s Pressure Points
I really appreciate J.D. Payne. His church planting class had an impact on me in seminary, and I have appreciated his books. I recently read his book Pressure Points.
In his intro, Payne says, “Ever since the first century, the church has experienced challenges to her mission of making disciples of all nations… Over the past two thousand years, the church has constantly found herself swimming in a sea of difficulties and delights, challenges and comforts, opposition and opportunities… For better or for worse, the global issues of our day are shaping and will continue to shape the church… Knowing how to live as wise stewards involves knowing our world in light of our commission. Knowing our world means understanding the global pressure points shaping the face of the church and mission.”
To be wise stewards it’s helpful to be aware of those pressure points so we can respond well. I found his book helpful. Here are some quotes that especially stuck out to me:
Our brothers and sisters in the Majority World remind us of the simplicity of the faith. At the end of its first three centuries, Christianity became one of the officially recognized religions, and it accomplished this feat with few materials resources. While there are exceptions, the Majority World believers are accomplishing more for gospel advancement with little more than God’s Word and His Spirit than the church in the West is accomplishing with all of our money, organizations, and structures. They are an example to us that faith can be vibrant and the church both simple and dynamic.
Biblical simplicity helps foster the rapid dissemination of the gospel and the multiplication of disciples, leaders, and churches.
Complexity gives birth to complexity, and complexity is difficult to reproduce… The more technical our methods and strategies,… the less likely the people we reach are going to be able to use those same approaches to reach those within their social networks.
If we model a form of leadership before the people that only the few can imitate, then the possibility of multiplication will be diminished.
If my regular leadership style and ways of doing ministry are so lofty that they impress upon the people, ‘You can never serve the Lord like this—the way ministry should be done. I’ll do everything for you. And only those of such a caliber as myself can be trusted with any significant ministry,’ then I am not a leader with the multiplication of disciples, leaders, and churches in mind.
With over four billion people in the world without Jesus, it is not wise to develop strategies that support methods which are counterproductive to the healthy rapid multiplication of disciples, leaders, and churches. Just because there is much biblical freedom in our culturally shaped methods does not mean that all such expressions are conducive to the multiplication of healthy churches across a people group or population segment.
Often our strategies are designed to bring instant gratification, thus allowing us to win the sprint of seeing numbers produced but failing the marathon of making disciples.
The multiplication of disciples, leaders, and churches will only happen in relation to the sovereignty of God. The church cannot create movement. It is an act of the Spirit. We cannot program it. It is not achieved in four or five easy steps. However, we can hoist the sails on our boats so that if the Spirit does decide to move.
We Should Invest mainly in the Body, not the Building
Wildly, “Every year in the United States, we spend more than $10 billion on church buildings. In America alone, the amount of real estate owned by institutional churches is worth over $230 billion.”[1] That’s what David Platt said in his eye-opening and challenging book, Radical. And Radical is an old book. It was released way back in 2010. I am sure the figures are much higher now (except the more than 4,000 churches closing every year may have impacted the numbers).
Platt shares a helpful example of where the American church is. He was looking at a Christian news publication. On the left side of the headline, it said, “First Baptist Church Celebrates New $23 Million Building… On the right, it said, Baptists have raised $5,000 to send to refuges in western Sudan.”[2] That is a little bit of a contrast to what we see practiced by the Macedonian church and held up as an example by Paul in 2 Corinthians 8.
Let’s build up the church and give radical offerings to the temple as they did in the Old Testament, but let us not be confused about what that temple is. Here we have no temple made by human hands but we seek the temple that is to come; the heavenly holy of holies. We must now invest our money and resources on the church, that is, the church body.
The universal church, the body of Christ from every tongue, tribe, and nation is where we should focus our money and work, not on building a material church. Why spend our money and work on a church that will burn when we could focus on saving the lost so that they may not burn? Buildings will burn, including church buildings, so may we focus on using what God has entrusted to us to spread the gospel so fewer eternal bodies burn and the true church of God is built up.
It should be realized here that I am not saying church buildings are bad. I don’t think they are. In fact, they are a blessing. But, like anything God gives us, they are a stewardship. If we are using our church’s building, resources, and wealth to the maximum capacity for the glory of God, that is great. We should leverage everything for Jesus our Master.
However, if we are not, we must evaluate our church budget. I personally don’t think extravagance in a church building is called for and is not a wise allocation of money and time. I, however, realize that extravagance is a relative term and not precise, this is intentional. I cannot determine what is the right stewardship for someone else’s church, only the head of the church can; namely, Christ, and the leadership He has put in place there.
But I believe we can apply what the Hebrew writer talks about when he says to throw aside every weight (cf. Heb. 12:1). The weight is not necessarily bad in and of itself, but it will undoubtedly slow us down. So, the Hebrew writer says, cast it off.
We, as the church, have a clear goal, the Great Commission. So, we must be intentionally wartime efficient. Everything must be measured up to the overarching goal with the realization that we are at war and these questions are important when there are millions dying and going to hell. There is no point in decking out a battleship like a cruise liner. Why take the time to add senseless trinkets to a ship that is needed in the war to save lives?
When we realize we are at war and people are dying, we should adjust our methods to more efficiently reach people. There are obviously certain components that every ship must have to be a ship and there are certainly things that a church must have to be a church. However, we must not add components that are not necessary if we seek to rapidly reproduce churches as is necessary if we are to reach the many lost and dying.
In Nehemiah 4, we see men of God working at masonry rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem with a sword tied to their waist so that they would be ready at any minute to fight. These men labored by day (in hard labor with a sword on) and by night they were on guard against any attack. They gave their time, health, and resources, and it was for an earthly Jerusalem. Should we not all the more labor to build up the body of Christ? Should we not spend and be spent for souls, as the Apostle Paul said?
Notes
[1] David Platt, Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream (Colorado, CO: Multnomah Books, 2010), 118.
[2] Platt, Radical, 15-16.
Photo by Meszárcsek Gergely
10 Essential Points to Help Your Preaching
Below are some points I seek to practice in my preaching but, alas, I often fail.
1) Preach Jesus
Don’t just give cool insights. Don’t preach morals. A Jew, Muslim, or Mormon should know they are in a Christian gathering because Jesus is worshipped. As Colossians 1:28 says, “Him we proclaim.” (Thankfully, we celebrate communion every Sunday so even if the preacher doesn’t do a super good job here, we have a safeguard built in. We will reflect on the good news of Jesus!)
2) Let Your Personality Come Through
Preaching is God’s truth passionately delivered through personality. When you preach you don’t have to, nor can you, nor should you, try to preach just like someone else. Just as each author in the Bible wrote differently because God’s truth was being communicated through a different person, in a similar way, in preaching God is using a unique person to communicate His truth.
3) Make the Main Point of the Text the Main Point of the Message
The Bible is a light (Ps. 119:105,130), a sword (Eph. 6:17), a hammer (Jer. 23:29), and a surgeon (Heb. 4:12). The Bible is more essential than bread (Matt. 4:4), better than gold (Ps. 19:10; 119:72), and we need it to live (Ps. 119:144). Scripture is perfect (Ps. 19:7), true (Ps. 19:9), pure (Ps. 19:8), and eternal (1 Pet. 1:25). Scripture contains the words of life (Jn. 6:68) and the words that are breathed out by God (2 Tim. 3:16). Scripture gives joy (Ps. 119:111; Jer. 15:16), makes wise (Ps. 19:7), equips (2 Tim. 3:17), guards (Ps. 119:9), guides (Ps. 73:24; 119:105), saves (1 Pet. 1:23), sanctifies (Ps. 119:9,11; Jn. 17:17), and satisfies because by it we taste of the goodness of God (1 Pet. 2:3). So, we must understand God’s word, explain it, and apply it. As Nehemiah 8:7–8 says, we want to read from the Bible, make it clear, and give the meaning so that people understand what the Bible teaches.
4) Keep it Simple
A simple structure that highlights the point of the passage is ideal. Jesus’ teaching was often very simple and concise. As my wife exhorts me, “The youngest child should be able to understand.” I think that’s a good principle. Or, as I have heard preaching professors say, “Put the cookies on the lowest shelf” and “Keep it simple, stupid.”
5) Have Humble Confidence
When we stand before the gathered church we have reason for humility and confidence, and both are important. We have reason for humility because we are fickle and fallen and can never convey God’s truth as well, or as passionately, as it deserves. We have reasons for confidence because the Spirit moves and works through inadequate jars of clay (2 Cor. 4:17) and God’s word is living and powerful, it will accomplish its work (Is. 55:11; Heb. 4:12). We should also be humbly aware that God has gifted us with the ability to communicate His truth (Eph. 2:10). We must pray and acknowledge our need for the Holy Spirit to bless and work through our words to accomplish His purpose.
6) Open Well
A grabbing opening is helpful. If you want people to listen, help them out, and give them a reason to listen. We don’t need to be professional speakers or be super charismatic, but we do want to meet people where they are and love them well. In our desire to not be boring, we are fulfilling the Golden Rule: “Treat other people as you would like to be treated.” If you don’t mind being bored, remember most people do, and seek to love them well by not boring them to death.
7) Illustrate
Illustrate, apply. repeat. Jesus did. He gave parables, pictures, and cogent poetry. If Jesus illustrated, it’s not immature or unspiritual to illustrate. It is true, however, that illustrations should work as windows to let in light, and not doors to let people escape from the point of the text and message.
8) Apply
We must humbly apply God’s truth to our own hearts and lives and then we must lovingly apply it to our hearers. The Great Commission says, “Teach them to obey all I have commanded you.” It doesn’t just say, “Teach them to understand…” Jesus said, “If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them” (Jn. 13:17). Application and obedience to God’s word is vital.
9) Preach
As was said at the beginning, preaching is God’s truth passionately delivered through personality. A sermon is not a lecture or the regurgitation of a Wikipedia page.
Don’t be a commentary. If a commentary is needed, there are libraries. You don’t have to say everything. You’re not an encyclopedia.
10) And Remember these Other Random Points
Don’t tell us what you’re going to say and do, just say and do it.
Don’t talk for too long, it could kill a man. Ask Eutychus (I have a friend that always said, “You’d a cuss’d too”).
Calm down and trust the work of the word through the Spirit.
Photo by Priscilla Du Preez 🇨🇦
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
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
in X 