Who is the real Jesus of history?
People sometimes think of Jesus as a white man with long beautiful hair and chiseled abs. We don’t know a lot about Jesus’ hair or abs, but we do know He’s not a white guy. We often picture pop culture Jesus or Jedi Jesus.
Is there a real Jesus of history? If not, what explains the story about Him and His countless followers?
The movie Talladega Nights gives a funny and strangely accurate description of how we often think about Jesus. Ricky Bobby says, “I like to think of Jesus as wearin’ a Tuxedo T-shirt, ’cause it says, like, ‘I want to be formal, but I’m here to party too.’ I like to party, so I like my Jesus to party.” We often have self-conceived versions of Jesus. We may not say we think Jesus is “wearin’ a Tuxedo T-shirt” but may have misconceptions about who Jesus is.
People have said Jesus was a magician, a sage, a homeless charismatic, a mystical peasant, a revolutionary rebel, or a guru. Many things have been said. But it really comes down to four options. Jesus was either a legend, a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord.
Is Jesus just a myth?
Couldn’t Jesus be like Robin Hood; a fun story but not based on reality? Maybe Jesus was just a good guy and because of various random historical factors, a legend was built up around Him that is not based on facts. Couldn’t Jesus be an elaborate forgery by His friends?
Is the story around Jesus nothing more than a myth or mythology like the Romans have about Hercules or the Norse have about Thor? Is Jesus a folk hero, like Paul Bunyan is for Americans and Canadians?
Does the story of Jesus seem like a legend? C.S. Lewis, someone who knew a lot about legends, didn’t think the Gospels read like legends. He said, “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.”[1]
Also, legends do not arise that contradict the fundamental convictions held by a culture.[2] Cultures do not make myths to erode belief; instead, they make myths that gird them up. So, how would a legend about an alleged God/man arise among first-century Palestinian Jews, and especially, how did the alleged legend arise as quickly as it did?
The earliest Christians did not embrace the doctrine of Jesus’ deity easily. They were Jews. They were repulsed by the notion that a human could be, in a literal sense, God. Jews are one of the least likely groups in history to confuse the Creator with a creature. As Richard Bauckham has said, “Before the advent of Christianity, Judaism was unique among the religions of the Roman world in demanding the exclusive worship of its God.”[3] And yet, Jesus’ disciples worshiped Jesus.
If first-century Palestinian Jews were going to produce a legend, it would not have been one about a man who was God. That would have seemed blasphemous. The earliest Christians did come to understand the deity of Jesus. They even saw how it was forecasted by the Old Testament, but it was very difficult for them to grasp at first.
A few things about legends. First, most of the time, people know when a legend is a legend. And they’re not willing to die for something that is a legend. I don’t think anyone has died over claims about Paul Bunyan or Robin Hood. Yet, Jesus’ disciples did die for their claims about Jesus.
Second, it takes time for a legend to become a legend. The dates of the Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—are too early to be legends. There were legends later, legends such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, where the child Jesus caused one of his playmates to whither up like a dying tree. But how would the Jesus legend have arisen so quickly when those who could have easily contradicted it were still alive?
Jesus was crucified in the early 30s, yet Paul wrote about the deity of Jesus already in the early 50s and 60s. There is good evidence for dating at least two of Jesus’ four biographies before AD 62. When the New Testament authors wrote, those who claimed to see the risen Jesus were still around. So, if Jesus is just a mere legend, how did the legend arise so fast? Further, why would those who were in a place to know that Jesus was only a legend, die rather than admit the hoax?
Third, Jews did expect a messiah, and many so-called messiahs led revolutions. Yet, it is very unexpected that a legend would arise about a crucified criminal being God-in-flesh. But that’s just what the early followers of Jesus claimed, and they did so at great cost to their own lives.
Is Jesus just a liar?
Maybe Jesus wasn’t a legend. Maybe He was a liar. Other people didn’t make up tales about Him, He made them up. Perhaps Jesus orchestrated an elaborate deception. People thought He was special, but in reality, He was just an especially good liar.
People were conflicted and confused about Jesus. John 7:12 says, “There was a lot of grumbling about Him among the crowds. Some argued, ‘He’s a good man,’ but others said, ‘He’s nothing but a fraud who deceives the people.’” Some people did, in fact, say Jesus was a liar. After Jesus’ death, some of the religious leaders went to the Roman governor, Pilate, and said,
“Sir, we remember how that impostor said, while He was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise.’ Therefore order the tomb to be made secure until the third day, lest His disciples go and steal Him away and tell the people, ‘He has risen from the dead,’ and the last fraud will be worse than the first.” Pilate said to them, “You have a guard of soldiers. Go, make it as secure as you can.” So they went and made the tomb secure by sealing the stone and setting a guard” (Matt. 27:63-66).
Does Jesus, who seemed to always speak the truth wisely, seem like a liar? Many works of charity—like hospitals and orphanages—can be traced back to Jesus’ influence, yet was Jesus Himself a deceiver and a bad person?
Jews took the Ten Commandments very seriously. They did not look lightly on “You shall have no other gods” (Ex. 20:3) or “You shall not make for yourself a carved image” (v. 4). Jews even regarded the images on coins as “graven images” so special coins were printed in areas heavily populated by Jewish people. Neither did they take the command not to lie lightly (Ex. 20:16). Jesus’ earliest followers and worshipers were Jewish. They, however, didn’t worship Jesus early on in His ministry. They were still confused or unsure about His identity. But they did worship Him after His resurrection from the dead (Matt. 28:9, 17). They knew He was not a liar after they saw Him alive from the dead as He said He would be.
If the Gospels are merely a big hoax or prank, why would the authors include embarrassing or counterproductive aspects? Why would the Gospel of Mark tell us:
- Jesus’ family questioned Jesus’ sanity
- Some thought Jesus was possessed by a demon
- Jesus seemed to disregard Jewish laws
- Jesus’ disciples are often seen in a bad light
- Women discover Jesus’ empty tomb, while the men are hiding in fear
Beyond all this—and many other examples could have been given—there’s the fact that the Gospels center around an alleged Messiah who was crucified by the Roman oppressors. It is hard to imagine a more difficult story for first-century Jews to believe.
I imagine a first-century Jew saying this to an early Jewish Christian: “So, you’re telling me that Yahweh took on flesh and was crucified by our military overlords, and you claim He’s the Savior of the whole world?!… What?! What are you smoking?” Why spread such a lie?
What motivation would Jesus have to deceive? And does He seem to be a liar? If Jesus was a liar that does not explain how the hoax continued after His death. Why would the early church make up such an elaborate lie? If it was the most masterful lie in all of history, what was it for? The earliest followers of Jesus had nothing earthly to gain by claiming Jesus was something special. Jesus was crucified. People weren’t exactly lining up to die in that excruciating way.
Is Jesus just a lunatic?
The other option is that maybe Jesus thought He was the Messiah. He thought He was God. He was self-deceived and He deceived others. Perhaps He had a “God complex”—a narcissistic personality disorder as listed in the DSM (*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders*)? The Mayo Clinic says those with this condition have an inflated sense of their own importance and a need for excessive attention and admiration. Other signs of this disorder are troubled relationships, a sense of entitlement, a willingness to take advantage of others to achieve goals, and a lack of empathy for others.
Does it seem like Jesus had a narcissistic personality disorder? I’d encourage you to read the Gospels and consider that question yourself. But in my reading of the Gospels, that does not fit Jesus. Jesus loved others and literally laid down His life for others.
Jesus does not seem like a lunatic. Although, He is unlike any other human. In all of literature, Jesus stands out as exceptional and real. But Jesus was accused of being demon-oppressed.[4] And Jesus did say some strange and confusing things. He said He was “the bread of life” (Jn. 6:35) and “the resurrection and the life” (Jn. 11:25). He said, “My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink” (Jn. 6:55). He said, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (Matt. 16:24).
Jesus said some things that would understandably make people think He was crazy. If I said the sort of things He said, I wouldn’t be taken seriously. It’s interesting to me though, that He was taken seriously. People don’t take crazy people seriously because they’re crazy. They might laugh, they might care for them, and they might even lock them up,[5] but they don’t take them seriously. Jesus was taken seriously. So seriously, in fact, that people sought to kill Him for His claims (Jn. 8:59; 10:31).
Not surprisingly with the claims that Jesus made, some people said He was insane (Jn. 10:20). In fact, there was a time that Jesus’ family thought He was out of His mind (Mk. 3:21). Yet, lunatics may claim to rise from the dead, but they don’t really rise from the dead. Jesus on the other hand, showed Himself to be alive by many proofs after He clearly died (Acts 1:3). Therefore, Jesus’ unbelieving brothers and even doubting Thomas believed. They went from categorizing Jesus as some kind of misled crazy zealot, to calling Him King.
Why did people go from thinking Jesus was looney to bowing to Him as Lord? What explains this? If Jesus was crazy, why does He seem so sane and remarkably appealing and persuasive? And what should be thought of Jesus’ seismic impact?
What if, instead of being crazy, Jesus is the sanest human that ever walked the earth? What if Jesus shows us what we’re supposed to be like? What if, when He loves so much that it looks ludicrous, He’s actually showing us how we were always meant to be? What if Jesus is the Lord, and when He walked among us, He was seen as so different—so crazy—because He was so different? What if calls at His insanity actually testify to His deity? What if Jesus was at least for a time mocked as a lunatic because He is the Lord?
In complete darkness, light seems very strange. In a place where everyone is lost and groping to find their way, someone who knows the way is an anomaly, and knowing human nature, likely an ostracized one. The different duck is the ugly duckling, even if it’s a swan. In the same way, early claims of Jesus’ lunacy might identify Him as Lord.
Could Jesus be too good to be false? Could Jesus’ impeccable character reveal who He really is?[6] Could Jesus have seemed crazy for the very reason that He is the Lord?
Is Jesus the Lord?
To consider where you should land with this important question, I encourage you to read Jesus’ biographies—Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John—yourself and see if they describe a legend, a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord.
Who do you say that I am? (Matthew 16:15)
Notes
[1] C.S. Lewis, “What are we to make of Jesus Christ?,” 169 in God in the Dock.
[2] Gregory A. Boyd and Paul Rhodes Eddy, Lord or Legend? Wrestling with the Jesus Dilemma (Grand Rapids, MI: BakerBooks, 2007), 37.
[3] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2008), 140.
[4] Matt. 12:22-32; Mk. 3:22; Lk. 11:14-23; Jn. 7:20.
[5] Mark chapter 5 talks about a demon-possessed man who would have appeared crazy. People attempted to chain him. They didn’t take him seriously.
[6] See Tom Gilson’s helpful book, Too Good to be False: How Jesus’ Incomparable Character Reveals His Reality.
Photo by Conscious Design
Let’s be the church, not watch church
Many churches have focused a lot of attention on their online presence—online services and social media. There are upsides to these things but what are the potential downsides? In this blog series, we’re asking, “What if church were different?”
Throughout church history, physical presence has mattered a great deal for multiple reasons. And it still matters. Why does physical presence matter?
Jesus’ Physical Presence
This point is the most succinct and it packs the most punch. The incarnation of Jesus is the ultimate sign that points to the importance of physical presence. In Jesus, God took on flesh. He was physically present among people (see e.g., John 1:1-3,14). God values physical presence.
Jesus’ “life is the full truth of living, Jesus is the standard by which life is to be measured.”[1] And Jesus shows us that physical presence matters deeply. Because Jesus was very much present physically.
Shut-ins Need Physical Presence
It is often said that online services are for shut-ins. I appreciate churches thinking of shut-ins but it would also be good to visit those shut-ins. I wonder what percentage of shut-ins utilize online services versus able-bodied people? I think churches investing in and visiting shut-ins would be a wiser and better use of resources (especially when there is already all sorts of church service content available). Our epidemic of loneliness and social isolation is not being helped by the internet and online services. People need actual people.
Online Presence cannot replicate Physical Presence
Actual physical presence has been important for centuries in order to celebrate the Lord’s Supper with the saints. Part of the reason the Lord’s Supper is sometimes referred to as “communion” is because through Jesus we have communion with God and with one another.
Physical presence is important so we can practice the “one another passages.” For example, we are to accept one another (Rom. 15:7), bear with one another (Eph. 4:2; Col. 3:13), forgive one another (Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13), pray for and confess sins to one another (James 5:16), cheer and challenge one another (Heb. 3:13; 10:24-25), admonish and confront one another (Rom. 15:14; Col. 3:16; Gal. 6:1-6), warn one another (1 Thess. 5:14), teach one another (Col. 3:16), bear one another’s burdens (Gal. 6:2), submit to one another (Eph. 5:21).
In Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam argues that social capital in the U.S. has declined, as people are less engaged in civic life, social organizations, and community activities. He attributes this to factors like television, suburbanization, and generational changes, warning that this trend weakens democracy and social trust. He calls for efforts to rebuild connections and foster civic engagement. He says, “The single most common finding from a half-century’s research on the correlates of life satisfaction, not only in the United States but around the world, is that happiness is best predicted by the breadth and depth of one’s social connections.” Online presence cannot replicate physical presence.
Discipleship Needs Physical Presence
Following Jesus isn’t just informational, it’s transformational. We are Jesus’ apprentices. We seek to imitate others as they imitate Jesus (1 Cor. 11:1). This requires physical presence.[2]
You can curate your playlist but you can’t curate your pastor or the people of the church. You can skip a podcast with content you don’t like (but maybe need to hear!) but you can’t, or at least you shouldn’t shush the people sitting with you in church. We can be our own DJ of “digital church,” we can form it in our own image to fit our whims, but real church—the gathering of Jesus’ blood-bought body—works to reform us in Jesus’ image. Jesus DJ’s us.
We can filter and unfollow our online community and we can turn it off and on. We can accept, block, and unfollow “friends.” But in real-life discipleship in apprenticeship with Jesus, we must love everyone.
One of the strategies of the enemy at war is to divide the army so that they are more easily defeated. If the arm is divided, they can’t support one another and encourage one another. That is to a great extent what has happened to many Christians today. They are very much on their own and vulnerable to the attack of the enemy.
The Apostle Paul used the “technology” of the time and wrote the amazing letter to the Romans—quite a gift!—but he says, “I long to see you, that I may impart some spiritual gift to strengthen you” (Rom. 1:11). John repeatedly talks about the importance of seeing people “face to face” (2 Jn. 12; 3 Jn. 14). Actual physical presence is important.
Actual “Church is a resistance to certain ways of being formed.”[3] Church is about Jesus, loving Him, and others. It’s not about convenience. Online often malforms us, Jesus wants to form us in His image. If we’re online we’re not putting our life on the line for Jesus and others.
Jesus’ Ideal is Physical Presence
Imagine the scenario in heaven where Jesus is sharing His plan for the redemption of the church… Jesus says, “I want to purchase people from every tribe, language, nation, and tongue so that they will be a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for My own possession, so that they will sit in front of their TV and watch a church service. That’s my dream. That’s my big plan to transform the world and spread love.”
That’s crazy and not Jesus’ ideal. 1 Peter 2:9 says Jesus has made us His chosen race, royal priesthood, holy nation, and people for his own possession, so that we may proclaim the excellencies of Him who called us out of darkness into his marvelous light. What Jesus is doing is creating a bunch of little christs and spreading His love. In other words, God‘s plan for the transformation of all the world is not a bunch of couch potatoes, but an army of little Jesuses.
Plus, we lose out on glorifying Jesus in our diversity if we’re online and not in person. As Kendall Vanderslice has said, “Church is one of the few remaining institutions that brings people together across generations, across physical and cognitive abilities, across relationship status and life stage.”[4]
Conclusion
The world is often a lonely place, especially in America. The Mayo Clinic recently shared an article on the importance of friendship and how to be a friend. The word is realizing what the church has known for centuries and seems to be forgetting. Let’s be the church, not watch church. Let’s be friends, not just accept friend requests. In a world of loneliness, let’s love and open the doors of our homes and hearts.
Notes
[1] Norman Wirzba, Food and Faith: A Theology of Eating, 195.
[2] 1 John 2:6 says, whoever says Jesus abides in them ought to walk in the same way in which He walked. James 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). See also 1 Cor. 4:14-17; 1 Thess. 1:4-10; Heb. 13:7-8.
[3] Kendall Vanderslice, “The Church of the Chronically Online” 56 in Common Good issue 17.
[4] Vanderslice, “The Church of the Chronically Online,” 56.
Photo by Priscilla Du Preez 🇨🇦
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
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).
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
Crying On Christmas Day
A lot of us know the cheery and upbeat Christmas song, “I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day.” Many people don’t know Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s story and poem behind it. Longfellow heard the bells ringing out from a nearby church on Christmas Day, 1863, and heard the happy chatter of the crowds and composed his poem. But the world seemed anything but peaceful and cheery. It was shattered. He had recently lost his second wife to a fire, the Civil War was raging, and his son had just been wounded in battle.[1]
Longfellow said, “How inexpressively sad are all holidays!” “Perhaps some day God will give me peace.”[2] The song versions of Longfellow’s poem don’t capture the bleak despair he was facing but the Civil Wars version comes close. Here are the two last verses of the poem:
And in despair I bowed my head;
“There is no peace on earth,” I said;
“For hate is strong,
And mocks the song
Of peace on earth, goodwill to men!”Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
“God is not dead; nor doth he sleep!
The Wrong shall fail,
The Right prevail,
With peace on earth, goodwill to men!”
Many bow their heads in despair and say, “There is no peace on earth.” Many people are sad on Christmas Day for various reasons—whether death, divorce, or some other devastation—but sadness is no stranger to Christmas.
Other than “It’s A Wonderful Life,” most Christmas movies are silly, not very serious, and not sad. But the original Christmas story, the true Christmas story, is anything but silly. Jesus was born in an animal troth and was thought by many to be an illegitimate child.
The very reason the Bible says Jesus had to come to earth is sad. Jesus’ very name means, “the Lord saves.” And that is indeed what Jesus came to do, save His people from their sins and the sad situation they had gotten themselves into.
Jesus came into the brokenness and blight of the world. As the Christmas song, “O Holy Night,” says,
The King of kings lay thus in lowly manger,
In all our trials born to be our Friend.
He knows our need— to our weakness is no stranger.
Jesus can sympathize with us (Hebrews 4:15). Jesus understands death and devastation, not just in the way that He knows everything as God, but by experience. Since human beings are made of flesh and blood, Jesus Himself became flesh and blood (John 1:14; Hebrews 2:14), and is acquainted with the stress and sorrow we face.
We don’t always have to be happy-clappy at Christmas. Rather, the Bible says:
There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:
a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak (Ecclesiastes 3:1,4,7).
More Christmas songs than you might realize, understand our plight and pleas for rescue. Here are a few lines from one of my favorite songs, “O Come, O Come Immanuel”:[3]
…free Thine own from Satan’s tyranny
From depths of hell Thy people save
And give them victory o’er the grave
…Disperse the gloomy clouds of night
And death’s dark shadows put to flight
…open wide our heavenly home
Make safe the way that leads on high
And close the path to misery
…O come, desire of nations, bind
In one the hearts of all mankind
Bid Thou our sad divisions cease
And be Thyself our King of peace
We don’t know the exact timing of Jesus’ birth, but it would be fitting if it was a dark cold night. This world is often dark and cold. But Christmas is about Jesus coming into that cold black darkness, relating to us, and bringing life, light, and warmth. In Jesus, “The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shone” (Isaiah 9:2).
The reality is, that Christmas is about light in darkness and hope amid grief. But Christmas is not lite, and it’s not just about laughter and “ho, ho, ho.” The Bible tells a gritty, realistic story about this broken world. But it also gives hope. It gives:
a bell ringing out in the silence
a light in the midst of darkness
snow silently falling on the black muddied earth
sunrise cresting the top of the trees
reminders that there is change
a new day ahead.
The Bible says that God does not sit idly by, but rather enters the fray. Christmas proves that God so loves the world. We may not always feel light, but He gives the offer of life. When we feel heavy and hollow, He offers to lift our load and give purpose.
Longfellow was sorrowful. His life was shattered. But what if Jesus came to earth to be shattered so that one day you could be mended and whole? And what if He promises to help pick up the pieces and make a masterful mosaic?
What if, in our muddled mess, Jesus the Messiah came? Came to love us and help us heal? What if He loves us? And says, “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy laden. Come to Me, I have walked the weary road of life, I get it, I understand your strife.” Jesus says, “Come to Me, all who are empty and exasperated. I will give you rest for your souls.”
May God bless each of you this Christmas and in time, help you make a beautiful mosaic out of the shattered shards of life.
Notes
[1] He lost his friend, Nathaniel Hawthorne, around a year later.
[2] See “I heard the bells on Christmas Day.”
[3] Immanuel means “God with us.”
Photo by Abigail
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 🇨🇦
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.
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 