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.
Empowering the Church Body: Beyond the SuperPastor
What if church were different? What if we emphasized the ministry of people instead of a “SuperPastor”? When we say, “I follow Paul,” or, “I follow Apollos,” we are being merely human. What then is Apollos? What is Paul? We are all God’s fellow workers (1 Cor. 3:4-9).
What if we emphasized the ministry of the church body instead of one “professional”? The early church leaders valued the ministry of the church’s people, the ministry of the “non-pastors.” We see this, for example, in all the people Paul greeted in his letters. He knew them and appreciated them. And part of this was valuing the ministry of women. Romans 16 mentions 29 people and 10 of them are women.[1]
Church as event communicates that the special people on the stage are equipped to do the work of the ministry. The people who sit in the audience are simply passive and not gifted to do ministry. That is exactly backward. God has given leaders to equip the saints for the work of the ministry (Eph. 4:12), God has already given the people of the church various gifts (Rom. 12:6-7; 1 Pet. 4:10-11).
Even though Paul was the church planter par excellence, he practiced partnership and co-leadership, which Jesus Himself established (cf. Mark 6:7). Jesus turned the world upside down in part through the hands of 12 ordinary men who had clearly been with Him (Acts 4:13).
Paul followed this same pattern. He was almost always with a colaborer[2] and always desired to be with them. When Paul was separated from his colaborers he said, “Come as soon as possible” (Acts 17:15 cf. 2 Tim. 4:10-12; Titus 3:12-13) and he waited for them (Acts 17:16). Paul mentions his fellow shepherds—Timothy, Titus, Silas, and Barnabas—all over the place.[3] From his first church-sponsored “mission trip” (11:30 cf. Gal. 2:1) to his last (notice “we” in Acts 28) he sought to be with fellow laborers. We also see Paul “appointed elders [pl.] for them in each church” (Acts 14:23; cf. 11:30; 15:2; 20:17-18; 21:18; Titus 1:5), which also establishes the importance of co-leadership.[4]
Pastors are important. Pastors ensure attention is concentrated in the right place—on Christ. No pastor should ever be the focus. Jesus should ever be everyone’s focus. Jesus is central. Everyone else plays a supporting role. But everyone must play their role. The church is a body and Jesus is the head. Every part of the body must be engaged and functioning properly for the body to flourish (1 Cor. 12:27; Eph. 4:16).
The church is the body, and each member is to do their part for the body to function as it is supposed to (1 Cor. 12:4-31). Each member is equipped with gifts from the Spirit (Rom. 12:3-8) and is to employ them for the common good (1 Cor. 12:7). Sadly, but not surprisingly, a Gallup survey found that only 10% of church members in America are active in any kind of personal ministry.[5]
The church is supposed to be the furthest thing from fans sitting in the stands. The church is more like the football team on the field. The church gathers once a week in a huddle to remember and carry out the play. The church works together to hold tight to the gospel and move it forward. Sideline Christianity is not biblical Christianity. Every single Christian—not a special breed of Christian—is to be on the field, whatever that particular field is, loving Jesus and loving others. We all have a part to play, and when we aren’t doing our part gospel movement is hindered.
May pastors stop building fans and equip the saints. And may the saints stop sitting in the stands and get on the field. The war is raging. The time is now.
Notes
[1] The New Testament, in contrast to the literature of the time, knows the inestimable worth of women. Here is the list of the females mentioned: Phoebe (Rom. 16:1-2), Priscilla (Rom. 16:3-5), Mary (Rom. 16:6) Junia (Rom. 16:7), Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis (Rom. 16:12), Rufus’ mother (Rom. 16:13), Julia and Nereus’ sister (Rom. 16:15). Women were valuable colaborers in the early church. Here are some other women Paul mentions in his letters: Claudia (2 Tim. 4:21), Priscilla (Acts 18:25; 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Tim. 4:19), Chloe (1 Cor. 1:11), Nympha (Col. 4:15), and Apphia (Philemon 1:2).
[2] See Acts 11:30; 12:25; 13:2, 13, 42-43, 46; 14:1 [“they”]; 15:2, 25-27; after a disagreement Silas goes with Paul v. 40; 16:3, 25; when he went to Corinth he connected with Aquila and Priscilla 18:1-3; when he went to Antioch he took them with him v. 18; in ch. 19 he found other believers; 20:4-5.
[3] For Timothy see Acts 16:1, 3; 17:14, 15; 18:5; 19:22; 20:4; Rom. 16:21; 1 Cor. 4:17; 16:10; 2 Cor. 1:1, 19; Phil. 1:1; 2:19, 22; Col. 1:1; 1 Thess. 1:1; 3:2, 6; 2 Thess. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:2, 18; 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:2; Philemon 1; Heb. 13:23. For Titus see 2 Cor. 2:13; 7:6, 13-14; 8:6, 16, 23; 12:18; Gal. 2:1, 3; 2 Tim. 4:10; Titus 1:4. For Silas see Acts 15:22, 27, 32, 40; 16:19, 25, 29; 17:1, 4, 5, 10, 14-15; 18:5; 2 Cor. 1:19; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1; 1 Pet. 5:12. For Barnabas see Acts 9:27; 11:25; 12:25; 13:2; 15:2, 36-41; 1 Cor. 9:6; Gal. 2:1, 13.
[4] Even in Paul’s address to churches, he often includes his colaborers. For instance, 1 Thessalonians 1:1 says, “Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church…” (cf. 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1; Philemon 1). Also, from the time of his conversion Paul realized the importance of discipleship since he was taught by Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), Ananias (Acts 9:17), Peter (Gal. 1:17), and heard from Peter about Jesus’ own emphasis on discipleship.
[5] Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Church, 365-66.
Redefining Church: From Building to Body
What if church were different? What if we had a church body instead of a building? Paul says we—the people of the church—are “God’s building” (1 Cor. 3:9). Yet, we have communicated for a long time that “church” occurs on Sunday morning. This has resulted in various negative side effects.[1]
Church attendance has become the standard of faithfulness, if people occasionally give to the church or serve in the church they are a “super Christian.” When the building is communicated to be the church, the building receives the attention, time, and money, instead of the church body. The budgetary considerations of the church building can weigh more heavily on leadership than the personnel, relational, and spiritual needs of the church body.
An example of how this has played out: Instead of Deacons caring for the tangible needs of the church—and the church having a “house to house” (Acts 5:42; 20:20) aspect, where people are known in their daily lives and needs—they have become custodians of the church building and grounds. Deacons equipped and needed to care for the church body, are working on the building. Thus, widows and single mothers are often left to struggle.
The church in America communicates that you can come to the church and receive religious goods and services at a set time. Religious goods and services are mediated through a church building and professional clergy. God is accessed on Sunday. To receive what the church offers one must go to a church building and receive a message from an approved person on the stage.[2]
Churches often, unknowingly, communicate that church is a business, brand, and building; they advertise and sell their religious goods and services.
Look at any church website and what is advertised are worship services for us to enjoy, sermons for us to listen to, youth provision for our children, and perhaps a small group that can provide for other needs. We post pictures of our smart buildings, of our edgy youth work, and of well-designed sermon series; we invest time and money in brilliant branding and a hip visual identity. This all serves to reinforce the idea that our churches exist primarily as events for consumer Christians to attend.[3]
What if we stopped seeing the church as a building and saw it as a body? Jesus and being the church are life, not an event.
The church gathers to encourage one another and remember the good news of Jesus. The church is not the building, the church is not the service, and it’s not an hour and a half on a Sunday. The church gathers, yes. But the church is a body of people, people in relationship. People are the church Sunday through Saturday. The church gathers to remember and scatters to bless. “Church building” is a misnomer.
It’s interesting that many of the biggest revivals utilized different spaces than what has now been deemed church buildings. The Methodist circuit riders grew the Church by riding the circuit and going from house to house. The early church did not have buildings deemed “church,” instead, they knew they as the people were the church 24/7, Saturday through Sunday, not some “professional” pastor, not some slick church with programs that can almost compete with the secular market. But it’s not just an early church thing that can’t work now. Consider the house churches in China. Of course, I am not saying it’s bad for churches to gather in buildings and even buildings that are owned strictly for the purpose of the gathering of the church. But the building is not the body. And the building does not grow the body. The building, however, can be a great distraction from the body.
Chuck Colson shares a story about a pastor in Washington DC. He led the church for years when suddenly, one night, he saw the church clearly for the very first time. “He was flying into Washington one day at dusk. At that time the approach path to Washington’s Reagan National Airport happened to pass directly over Fourth Presbyterian Church.” He “pressed his face against the window to catch a glimpse of the building from the air. But everything on the ground was shrouded in the shadows falling over the city as the sun set.”
He couldn’t see the church. He followed the Potomac River, then from a distance the White House and then the Capitol dome. But, as he stared out the window, he began to think about all the people of the church who worked in those offices and government buildings. Disciples he had equipped to live their faith. Then it hit him. “Of course! There it is!” he exclaimed. The church was there all the time. “The church wasn’t marked by a sanctuary or a steeple. The church was spread throughout Washington, in the homes and neighborhoods and offices below him, thousands of points of light illuminating the darkness.”
“That is the way the church should look in the world today. The people of God—one body with many different parts spread throughout every arena of life, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.”[4] The church is not a building. The church is a body of people shining wherever they work, live, and play. Church, let’s be the body. And let’s not hide in a building. Let’s mix it up in the world, and be the salt Jesus has called us to be.
Notes
[1] “If the local church is understood as a building and not the people of God, then many ecclesiastical problems develop over time” (J. D. Payne, Apostolic Imagination: Recovering a Biblical Vision for the Church’s Mission Today).
[2] The modern American church, in this way, looks a lot like catholicism. People don’t go to church to receive communion, as has historically been the case for Catholics. They go to a church building to “experience God” through a “worship experience” meditated by “professionals” on the stage and the lights dimmed low. There is a special priestly class that does the ministry. The priesthood of all believers is functionally lost because church revolves around the building and church service.
[3] Krish Kandiah, “Church Is a Family, Not an Event.”
[4] Colson and Vaughn, Being the Body, 307-8. “In His earthly ministry, Jesus was limited to one human body; now the Body of Christ is made up of millions and millions of human bodies stamped with His image” (Ibid., 306).
Authentic Church: Moving Beyond Performance
What if church were different? What if we were authentic instead of artificial?
We’ve communicated for decades that church is essentially a performance that you sit down and watch. Is it any wonder so many have decided church is irrelevant? If that’s what church is, it is to a great degree irrelevant. When surveyed, the unchurched gave “There is no value in attending” (74%) as their top reason for abandoning the church.[1] We can get better entertainment at home or half a million concert venues, amusement parks, or sporting arenas. The church can never offer all that the world can, but the church offers something the world can never offer. Have we sold our birthright for a meager porridge?
People long to be real. There’s even a social media platform called “Be Real.” Christians must be real, for real. Distrust in corporations and institutions is very high[2] and most churches have all the markings of a corporation.
What if we did away with the stage and a staged experience? What if instead of curating a culture that looks perfect and happy, we were able to be honest even when we’re struggling? We need a hospital instead of a beauty pageant. We need people to be able to be their sick selves and get better rather than just plastering on a fake face.
Scripture calls us to “bear one another’s burdens” (Gal. 6:2) and “confess our sins to one another” (James 5:16). If we are to carry out these commands of Scripture, we must have a culture that supports and allows their practice, not that contradicts their practice.
Also, the very structure of the “church service” is often artificial. Going to a “service” where we sit in a chair or pew is disconnected from most other parts of our lives. It is more similar to going to a movie or a theatrical performance and is not integrated with the rest of our lives. Many churches have community groups to provide a real-life Christian experience. Churches see the need for real-life Christian relationships, and a Sunday service doesn’t and can’t provide that. It is, however, much more convenient to just “get fed” at church and not bother with being the church, so often people opt out of authentic community.
Christians are to shine as lights in the world but that doesn’t mean they have to be “shiny happy people.” The word hypocrite comes to us from Greek and means to “pretend” or “play a part” as in a theatrical performance. Christians, however, have no need for a mask. As Christians, we know we are all simultaneously saints, sinners, and sufferers. That’s the reality. But many “church services” don’t take those simultaneous statuses into account. The biblical worldview communicates that there is a time for sorrow and a time for rejoicing (Ecc. 3:4; 2 Cor. 6:10). There is a time to lament and a time to dance and praise. But we often lack that breadth of expression. Yet, how can we bear one another’s burdens (Gal. 6:2) if we shy away from the fact that we have burdens?
Jesus often hungout with the lower-class rabble and rebel rouses. Modern American Christianity often communicates that cookie-cutter, middle class is the ideal. Can we expect people in the church to be real, honest, and seek help with their challenges when the church service presents a squeaky clean picture of what it means to follow Jesus? Again, if “the medium is the message,” the message is Christians live super happy, put-together lives. Is it any wonder those who are suffering or struggling don’t want to share, or “go” to a church where perfection is televised from the stage?
Notes
[1] See James Emery White’s book, Meet Generation Z, 84 where he references research done by the Barna Group for his previous book Rethinking the Church. It should be noted that this data is old as that book came out in 1997.
[2] Office of the Surgeon General, Our Epidemic of Loneliness and Isolation: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on the Healing Effects of Social Connection and Community, 13.
in X 