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
The Modern American Church is Sick
The modern American church is sick. Let me count the ways… Here I’ll just give two. I hate being doomsdayish. But the writing is on the wall.
Invitation/Evangelism
Sadly, many church leaders equate evangelism with church invitation. In his book Meet Generation Z, James Emery White talks about Michael Green’s book on the staggering growth of the early church. He says Green’s book Evangelism in the Early Church had one huge conclusion: the early church “shared the good news of Jesus like gossip over the backyard fence.” Yet, right after this, White says, “In other words, a culture of invitation was both cultivated and celebrated.”
White, however, is not talking about sharing the good news of Jesus. He is talking about inviting people to a church service.
It’s not difficult… We create tools to put into the hands of people to use to invite their friends all the time… We celebrate and honor people who invite people all the time… Such tools can be something as simple as pens with the name of our website on them that people can give to someone. (Meet Generation Z, 151).
I know this is just a little quote but it does highlight that church leaders are stretching to try and get their people to invite others to church. That’s the big push. So, we make it so “It’s not difficult.” We seem to think, the people in the church are only so capable or faithful. We apparently can’t expect too much. We celebrate the faithful few who give their coworker a church pen and invite them to a Christmas Eve service.
The early church was willing to do more than give out pens with the church’s name on it. Let me get all nerdy and drop some biblical language facts. Do you know where the word “martyr” comes from? “Martyr” means someone who dies for their beliefs. “Martyr” comes from the Greek word which means “witness” or “one who gives testimony.” The early church was filled with witnesses—martyrs—who lovingly told others about Jesus, regardless of the cost. We celebrate and cultivate invitation to a church service. There’s a little bit of a difference.
This is what Michael Green says,
Communicating the faith was not regarded as the preserve of the very zealous or of the officially designated evangelist. Evangelism was the prerogative and duty of every church member. We have seen apostles and wandering prophets, nobles and paupers, intellectuals and fishermen all taking part enthusiastically in this the primary task committed by Christ to his Church. The ordinary people of the church saw it as their job: Christianity what supremely a lay movement, spread by informal missionaries. (Evangelism in the Early Church, 516)
He is clearly talking about evangelism, not invitation. They are not the same. He goes on:
Unless there is a transformation of contemporary church life so that once again the task of evangelism is something which is seen as incumbent on every baptized Christian, and is backed up by a quality of living what outshines the best that unbelief can muster, we are unlikely to make much headway through techniques of evangelism. People will not believe that Christians have good news to share until they find that bishops and bakers, university professors and housewives, bus drivers and street corner preachers are all alike keen to pass it on, however different their methods may be. And they will continue to believe that the Church is an introverted society composed of ‘respectable’ people and bent on its own preservation until they see in church groupings and individual Christians the caring, the joy, the fellowship, the self-sacrifice and the openness which marked the early church at its best. (Evangelism in the Early Church, 517-18)
Listen, I am not saying it is bad to invite people to church. There can be a place for that. But we should not equate evangelism and invitation. And we are all called to actually “gossip the gospel,” not hand out a handout.
Transfer Growth/competition within the Kingdom
How can a kingdom divided against itself stand? I’ve talked about this elsewhere but I think Jesus makes a good point (even if the context in which He said that was different. See Matt. 12:26; Mark 3:24).
I heard a story from a friend. They overheard some other friends talking: “I saw the addition to y’all’s church. It looks great! How’s it going?” That’s when a kid chimed in: “My friends are coming from their churches because they’re not doing good.” I think, “From the mouths of babes” is appropriate here.
A lot of churches across America aren’t doing well. A 35,000-square-foot church building in my area with a 400-seat sanctuary just sold for $65,000. Some may celebrate that another church down the street is adding a multimillion addition, but where is the actual growth? Is it Kingdom growth? Are new people crying out Jesus’ praise who previously didn’t, or are we rearranging furniture?
I’m not saying there are no reasons to decide to go to a different church, there are. The way that we think about transfer growth, however, is important. Again, not to pick on James Emery White but his book’s on my mind and in my hand because I just read it. He talks about visiting a church over the summer which “was one of the most programming-challenged services I’ve ever attended.” He doesn’t specify but I imagine it wasn’t very smooth and maybe awkward at points. But he goes on to say that though the service wasn’t very good, his kids liked the kid’s ministry.
Here’s the lesson: you can drop the ball in the service but ace it with the kids and still have a chance that a family will return. But no matter how good the service is, if the children’s ministry is bad, the family won’t come back… Children are at the heart of your growth engine. (Meet Generation Z, 150).
Basically, we need to have better religious goods and services than the church down the street, and an important part of what we need to offer is a really good children’s ministry. Notice the goal is not discipleship of parents so that they love and teach their kids, and it’s not discipleship of the kids; no, it’s an experience for the kids.
Conclusion
I get it, I don’t want things to be bad or awkward. But maybe the whole paradigm is messed up? Perhaps church was never supposed to be structured with a stage and an audience to entertain? Perhaps the church was never meant to be something we attend or a building? Perhaps “we are family” was never meant to be a church tagline but a reality? Perhaps service is meant to be something that the church provides to the world and not something church leaders provide to church members?
I agree that we should do things well. But it is imperative that we do the right things. 1 Corinthians 10:31 is often quoted by church leaders: “Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” Of course, I agree with this verse. But this verse doesn’t give us carte blanche to use any methodology.
I appreciate what J.D. Payne wisely says in his book, Pressure Points:
With over four billion people in the world without Jesus, it is not wise to develop strategies that support methods which are counterproductive to the healthy rapid multiplication of disciples, leaders, and churches. Just because there is much biblical freedom in our culturally shaped methods does not mean that all such expressions are conducive to the multiplication of healthy churches across a people group or population segment.
We should intentionally pursue what makes for rapid multiplication of healthy disciples. This will call for us to be collaborators, not competitors, and care about actual growth, not transfer growth. Buildings, budgets, and even butts in seats are not necessarily an indicator of health or faithfulness to Jesus’ commands.
What if church aimed at something different?
What if church were different and aimed at something different? What if something radically different is needed, and needed right now? What if God is calling us to multiply movements, not names and brands? What if it’s about Jesus, His Kingdom, and the lost people He is calling, and not about a denomination or third-order doctrinal matters?[1] What if we need to focus on micro-movements and not mega organizations?
In the 2004 Olympics, Matt Emmons was way out in front. He had nearly clinched gold in the fifty meter, three position rifle final. All he had to do was hit the target. He didn’t have to get a bullseye; he just had to hit the target—something he could seemingly do with his eyes closed. He took aim, pulled the trigger, and hit the target. The only thing was, it was the wrong target.
He did not get gold that day. He didn’t get a metal. The only thing he got was disqualified. It’s possible to do a really good job, even the best job, and fail. If we aim at the wrong thing, we’re wrong even if we hit the target.
What if we have been aiming at the wrong target? The Apostle Paul, referring to Christian ministry, says, “Let each one take care how he builds” (1 Cor. 3:10). We must be intentional and aim well.
What if the modern church has often listened to business wisdom instead of biblical wisdom? What if we have built on a different foundation than the one the Bible commends to us? What if the church has cared too much about the esteem of man, and Christ and His word have fallen in our esteem?
We easily prize and prioritize the wrong things. We listen to the wrong voices and value and build the wrong things. Jesus wants us to listen to Him, value the Kingdom, and be about the Kingdom. Several years ago Kent Hughes wrote Liberating Ministry from the Success Syndrome. He says true success in ministry is not measured by worldly metrics like numbers or popularity. The book emphasizes the importance of focusing on the spiritual well-being and transformation of individuals rather than solely chasing large congregations.
What if we’ve been aiming at a good social media presence when what we need is actual presence? What we need is not pastors who look good, but who are good. What if we’ve unknowingly been capitulating to the culture and bought into a coy lie?
What if “butts in seats” is not what we should be aiming for but feet on mission? What if mega comfortable, convenient, and cool is the wrong target, so even if we hit it we’re liable to be disqualified? Again, we must “build with care” (1 Cor. 3:10). What if we’re building with straw and the End will disclose the futility of our efforts? (1 Cor. 3:12-13)
If disciples are what our Lord delights in, and disciples endure the Day, then that must be our aim. We must aim and build differently. Buildings and brands are not the goal; a band of radical Jesus followers is; that’s who turned the world upside down in the beginning (and without a budget).
Fruitfulness is faithful disciples. We must work like Jesus and Paul did. And we must create contexts most likely to produce faithful followers, not fans.
What if we had deep instead of surface relationships, discipled instead of entertained, and emphasized the church body instead of the building? What if we were intergenerational instead of isolating, cared about character instead of charisma, and emphasized the ministry of people instead of “superpastors”? What if pastors deeply knew people, we were authentic instead of artificial, and simple instead of complex?
What if churches were co-laborers instead of competitors? What if churches were closer to the biblical ideal and cared more about the Kingdom and less about their brand? What if the renown and reputation of Jesus was the all-consuming focus? What if we all said, “May Jesus increase, and I decrease?” What if pastors sought to “put themselves out of business”?
What if the church sought to be the church, not just go to church? What if the church didn’t just care about orthodoxy but cared about orthopraxy, too? That is, what if people didn’t just know how to define love or find verses about it in the Bible, but radically loved all those they came in contact with. What if churches were appealing, not mainly because of their architecture, programming, and hipness, but because Jesus’ love radiated out of them‽ What if the world was turned upside-down—in the best of ways—not by moralism, music, and monologues from the stage, but people loving Jesus and other people in real life?
My proposal for the church is: let’s be different. Let’s do these things. Let’s radically love Jesus and others and let the chips fall where they may. Everything else is stubble and dross. Brands will fade, buildings will burn, but souls and our Savior are forever.
Notes
[1] Sadly, some people seem more anxious to convert people to their peculiarities, than to convert souls to Christ (Iain H. Murray, Pentecost Today?, 151).
Quotes from J.D. Payne’s Pressure Points
I really appreciate J.D. Payne. His church planting class had an impact on me in seminary, and I have appreciated his books. I recently read his book Pressure Points.
In his intro, Payne says, “Ever since the first century, the church has experienced challenges to her mission of making disciples of all nations… Over the past two thousand years, the church has constantly found herself swimming in a sea of difficulties and delights, challenges and comforts, opposition and opportunities… For better or for worse, the global issues of our day are shaping and will continue to shape the church… Knowing how to live as wise stewards involves knowing our world in light of our commission. Knowing our world means understanding the global pressure points shaping the face of the church and mission.”
To be wise stewards it’s helpful to be aware of those pressure points so we can respond well. I found his book helpful. Here are some quotes that especially stuck out to me:
Our brothers and sisters in the Majority World remind us of the simplicity of the faith. At the end of its first three centuries, Christianity became one of the officially recognized religions, and it accomplished this feat with few materials resources. While there are exceptions, the Majority World believers are accomplishing more for gospel advancement with little more than God’s Word and His Spirit than the church in the West is accomplishing with all of our money, organizations, and structures. They are an example to us that faith can be vibrant and the church both simple and dynamic.
Biblical simplicity helps foster the rapid dissemination of the gospel and the multiplication of disciples, leaders, and churches.
Complexity gives birth to complexity, and complexity is difficult to reproduce… The more technical our methods and strategies,… the less likely the people we reach are going to be able to use those same approaches to reach those within their social networks.
If we model a form of leadership before the people that only the few can imitate, then the possibility of multiplication will be diminished.
If my regular leadership style and ways of doing ministry are so lofty that they impress upon the people, ‘You can never serve the Lord like this—the way ministry should be done. I’ll do everything for you. And only those of such a caliber as myself can be trusted with any significant ministry,’ then I am not a leader with the multiplication of disciples, leaders, and churches in mind.
With over four billion people in the world without Jesus, it is not wise to develop strategies that support methods which are counterproductive to the healthy rapid multiplication of disciples, leaders, and churches. Just because there is much biblical freedom in our culturally shaped methods does not mean that all such expressions are conducive to the multiplication of healthy churches across a people group or population segment.
Often our strategies are designed to bring instant gratification, thus allowing us to win the sprint of seeing numbers produced but failing the marathon of making disciples.
The multiplication of disciples, leaders, and churches will only happen in relation to the sovereignty of God. The church cannot create movement. It is an act of the Spirit. We cannot program it. It is not achieved in four or five easy steps. However, we can hoist the sails on our boats so that if the Spirit does decide to move.
We Should Invest mainly in the Body, not the Building
Wildly, “Every year in the United States, we spend more than $10 billion on church buildings. In America alone, the amount of real estate owned by institutional churches is worth over $230 billion.”[1] That’s what David Platt said in his eye-opening and challenging book, Radical. And Radical is an old book. It was released way back in 2010. I am sure the figures are much higher now (except the more than 4,000 churches closing every year may have impacted the numbers).
Platt shares a helpful example of where the American church is. He was looking at a Christian news publication. On the left side of the headline, it said, “First Baptist Church Celebrates New $23 Million Building… On the right, it said, Baptists have raised $5,000 to send to refuges in western Sudan.”[2] That is a little bit of a contrast to what we see practiced by the Macedonian church and held up as an example by Paul in 2 Corinthians 8.
Let’s build up the church and give radical offerings to the temple as they did in the Old Testament, but let us not be confused about what that temple is. Here we have no temple made by human hands but we seek the temple that is to come; the heavenly holy of holies. We must now invest our money and resources on the church, that is, the church body.
The universal church, the body of Christ from every tongue, tribe, and nation is where we should focus our money and work, not on building a material church. Why spend our money and work on a church that will burn when we could focus on saving the lost so that they may not burn? Buildings will burn, including church buildings, so may we focus on using what God has entrusted to us to spread the gospel so fewer eternal bodies burn and the true church of God is built up.
It should be realized here that I am not saying church buildings are bad. I don’t think they are. In fact, they are a blessing. But, like anything God gives us, they are a stewardship. If we are using our church’s building, resources, and wealth to the maximum capacity for the glory of God, that is great. We should leverage everything for Jesus our Master.
However, if we are not, we must evaluate our church budget. I personally don’t think extravagance in a church building is called for and is not a wise allocation of money and time. I, however, realize that extravagance is a relative term and not precise, this is intentional. I cannot determine what is the right stewardship for someone else’s church, only the head of the church can; namely, Christ, and the leadership He has put in place there.
But I believe we can apply what the Hebrew writer talks about when he says to throw aside every weight (cf. Heb. 12:1). The weight is not necessarily bad in and of itself, but it will undoubtedly slow us down. So, the Hebrew writer says, cast it off.
We, as the church, have a clear goal, the Great Commission. So, we must be intentionally wartime efficient. Everything must be measured up to the overarching goal with the realization that we are at war and these questions are important when there are millions dying and going to hell. There is no point in decking out a battleship like a cruise liner. Why take the time to add senseless trinkets to a ship that is needed in the war to save lives?
When we realize we are at war and people are dying, we should adjust our methods to more efficiently reach people. There are obviously certain components that every ship must have to be a ship and there are certainly things that a church must have to be a church. However, we must not add components that are not necessary if we seek to rapidly reproduce churches as is necessary if we are to reach the many lost and dying.
In Nehemiah 4, we see men of God working at masonry rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem with a sword tied to their waist so that they would be ready at any minute to fight. These men labored by day (in hard labor with a sword on) and by night they were on guard against any attack. They gave their time, health, and resources, and it was for an earthly Jerusalem. Should we not all the more labor to build up the body of Christ? Should we not spend and be spent for souls, as the Apostle Paul said?
Notes
[1] David Platt, Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream (Colorado, CO: Multnomah Books, 2010), 118.
[2] Platt, Radical, 15-16.
Photo by Meszárcsek Gergely
10 Essential Points to Help Your Preaching
Below are some points I seek to practice in my preaching but, alas, I often fail.
1) Preach Jesus
Don’t just give cool insights. Don’t preach morals. A Jew, Muslim, or Mormon should know they are in a Christian gathering because Jesus is worshipped. As Colossians 1:28 says, “Him we proclaim.” (Thankfully, we celebrate communion every Sunday so even if the preacher doesn’t do a super good job here, we have a safeguard built in. We will reflect on the good news of Jesus!)
2) Let Your Personality Come Through
Preaching is God’s truth passionately delivered through personality. When you preach you don’t have to, nor can you, nor should you, try to preach just like someone else. Just as each author in the Bible wrote differently because God’s truth was being communicated through a different person, in a similar way, in preaching God is using a unique person to communicate His truth.
3) Make the Main Point of the Text the Main Point of the Message
The Bible is a light (Ps. 119:105,130), a sword (Eph. 6:17), a hammer (Jer. 23:29), and a surgeon (Heb. 4:12). The Bible is more essential than bread (Matt. 4:4), better than gold (Ps. 19:10; 119:72), and we need it to live (Ps. 119:144). Scripture is perfect (Ps. 19:7), true (Ps. 19:9), pure (Ps. 19:8), and eternal (1 Pet. 1:25). Scripture contains the words of life (Jn. 6:68) and the words that are breathed out by God (2 Tim. 3:16). Scripture gives joy (Ps. 119:111; Jer. 15:16), makes wise (Ps. 19:7), equips (2 Tim. 3:17), guards (Ps. 119:9), guides (Ps. 73:24; 119:105), saves (1 Pet. 1:23), sanctifies (Ps. 119:9,11; Jn. 17:17), and satisfies because by it we taste of the goodness of God (1 Pet. 2:3). So, we must understand God’s word, explain it, and apply it. As Nehemiah 8:7–8 says, we want to read from the Bible, make it clear, and give the meaning so that people understand what the Bible teaches.
4) Keep it Simple
A simple structure that highlights the point of the passage is ideal. Jesus’ teaching was often very simple and concise. As my wife exhorts me, “The youngest child should be able to understand.” I think that’s a good principle. Or, as I have heard preaching professors say, “Put the cookies on the lowest shelf” and “Keep it simple, stupid.”
5) Have Humble Confidence
When we stand before the gathered church we have reason for humility and confidence, and both are important. We have reason for humility because we are fickle and fallen and can never convey God’s truth as well, or as passionately, as it deserves. We have reasons for confidence because the Spirit moves and works through inadequate jars of clay (2 Cor. 4:17) and God’s word is living and powerful, it will accomplish its work (Is. 55:11; Heb. 4:12). We should also be humbly aware that God has gifted us with the ability to communicate His truth (Eph. 2:10). We must pray and acknowledge our need for the Holy Spirit to bless and work through our words to accomplish His purpose.
6) Open Well
A grabbing opening is helpful. If you want people to listen, help them out, and give them a reason to listen. We don’t need to be professional speakers or be super charismatic, but we do want to meet people where they are and love them well. In our desire to not be boring, we are fulfilling the Golden Rule: “Treat other people as you would like to be treated.” If you don’t mind being bored, remember most people do, and seek to love them well by not boring them to death.
7) Illustrate
Illustrate, apply. repeat. Jesus did. He gave parables, pictures, and cogent poetry. If Jesus illustrated, it’s not immature or unspiritual to illustrate. It is true, however, that illustrations should work as windows to let in light, and not doors to let people escape from the point of the text and message.
8) Apply
We must humbly apply God’s truth to our own hearts and lives and then we must lovingly apply it to our hearers. The Great Commission says, “Teach them to obey all I have commanded you.” It doesn’t just say, “Teach them to understand…” Jesus said, “If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them” (Jn. 13:17). Application and obedience to God’s word is vital.
9) Preach
As was said at the beginning, preaching is God’s truth passionately delivered through personality. A sermon is not a lecture or the regurgitation of a Wikipedia page.
Don’t be a commentary. If a commentary is needed, there are libraries. You don’t have to say everything. You’re not an encyclopedia.
10) And Remember these Other Random Points
Don’t tell us what you’re going to say and do, just say and do it.
Don’t talk for too long, it could kill a man. Ask Eutychus (I have a friend that always said, “You’d a cuss’d too”).
Calm down and trust the work of the word through the Spirit.
Photo by Priscilla Du Preez 🇨🇦
Should Pastors be Paid?
Should pastors be paid? What does Scripture say? It says worthy pastors are worthy of pay. Although, there are times when a ministry leader may strategically choose not to get paid.
Biblical Support for Pastoral Pay
Jesus said, “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (Lk. 10:7 cf. Matt. 10:10). John and Paul agree. John wrote, “You will do well to send them on their journey in a manner worthy of God… Therefore we ought to support people like these, that we may be fellow workers for the truth” (3 Jn. 6, 8).
Paul has a lot to say about the topic in his letters. He says,
- “Let the one who is taught the word share all good things with the one who teaches” (Gal. 6:6).
- “Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk?… If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?… In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:7,11,14).
- “The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For Scripture says, ‘Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,’ and ‘The worker deserves his wages.’” (1 Tim. 5:17-18)
- “You Philippians yourselves know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving, except you only. Even in Thessalonica you sent me help for my needs once and again… I have received full payment, and more. I am well supplied, having received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God.” (Phil. 4:15-18).
It seems Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, in part, to raise support for his planned ministry in Spain (Rom. 15:20-29). Paul is about Christians supporting Christian work. He told Titus to send along his fellow workers, and he said, “See that they lack nothing” (Titus 3:13). “Every time the New Testament addresses financial support of church staff and missionaries, it underscores generosity.”[1]
Reasons to Abstain from Pastoral Pay
Paul said, “For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God’s word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ” (2 Cor. 2:17). Pastors and all Christian workers, are never to be “peddlers of God’s word,” we are rather servants commissioned to obey our master. Sometimes it is wise to abstain from pay to make it clear that one is serving the Master and not mammon.
Paul clearly was not in ministry to get rich. He said this to the elders in Ephesus: “I coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel. You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me” (Acts 20:33–34).
At times Paul worked as a tentmaker to support his own ministry. In each instance, he had a specific ministry objective in mind.[2] One of the reasons Paul sometimes didn’t take pay for his ministry was to set an example.
You yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate (2 Thess. 3:7–9).
Jamie Dunlop who wrote a helpful book on Budgeting for a Healthy Church, rightly says:
In general, you should pay those who labor to provide teaching for your congregation. Of course, Paul himself sometimes went without the money he deserved (1 Cor. 9:12). But when he did so, his rationale was not one of financial frugality; it was because he didn’t want young congregations to be confused by his pay (1 Cor. 9:12; 1 Thess. 2:5-10). Even then, he pointed out that his not being paid was the exception, not the norm (1 Cor. 9:6-7). In fact, he even goes so far as to describe his support by one church in the planting of another as “robbing other churches” (2 Cor. 11:7-8). Necessary sometimes, but not ideal: normally, a church should support its own pastor.[3]
There were times the Apostle Paul decided not to take pay; instead, he decided it would be best to pay his own way for a season. There could be various reasons for this. In 1 Corinthians 9:12, Paul says he could choose to get paid for his ministry but decided not to make use of that right so as not to “put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ” (1 Cor. 9:12). It seems at another point he did receive financial support from others while he ministered to the Corinthians though (2 Cor. 11:7-9). So, there are a few different reasons why it might be appropriate for pastors and missionaries to abstain from support, at least for a season.
Potential Problems with Pastoral Pay
There are some potential dangers to paying pastors. Here are two from Jamie Dunlop: professionalization and consumerism.
Staff can infantilize the congregation by doing ministry instead of equipping the congregation to do ministry. In fact, the very existence of a staff position can communicate to the congregation that ‘real’ ministry belongs in the hands of trained professionals… Staff can customize ministry for the preferences and needs of specific segments of the congregation. That may encourage a congregation’s consumeristic tendencies, teaching them to value your church based on how well it meets their felt needs.[4]
Sometimes employing professional pastors is asking for problems. John Piper wrote Brothers, we are not professionals for a reason. Pastors sometimes know the seminary world and the passions of their professors, but not the struggles and problems of the people in their pews. They can read Greek but won’t speak in the language of their people. Pictures are posted on the church’s social of the pastor shaking hands but don’t ask him for a hand, he’s far too busy keeping the business of the church going.
Pastors also often tell their people to evangelize but they themselves may not have really talked with an unchurched person in months (or had the opportunity to do so). Pastors can be distant, aloof, and hard to reach. These are some of the potential problems of a “professional pastoral class.” I am not saying it is always that way but it is wise of us to be aware of the downsides of pastoral pay.
Reasons I’m Currently Abstaining from Pastoral Pay
Ministry is not, nor should it ever be, about money. We all, like the Apostle Paul, should seek to authentically love Jesus and others regardless of pay. Of course, pay is not bad. It can be a great blessing. But, here are the reasons I’m currently choosing to be a “tentmaker.”
Setting an Example
The Apostle Paul cared about setting an example for people to follow too. He told the Ephesian elders, “In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive’” (Acts 20:35). And in 1 Corinthians 11:1, Paul says, “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.”
I’m calling people to imitate me; be relational, evangelistic, and minister to others. I want to practice what I’m preaching. I want to prove that it is feasible to be a faithful Christian witness where we work, live, and play without being “a professional Christian.” I want to replicate myself in others and not every leader will be able to be paid for their labor.
I’m currently able to work a “secular job” and (at least somewhat) keep up with “equipping the saints for the work of the ministry.” One of the reasons I can (at least somewhat) keep up with ministry besides the flexibility of my job, my awesome wife, and the support of my family (my mom and father-and-mother-in-law!), is that I’m not the only minister. The New Testament teaches the “priesthood of all believers” and says every part of the body of believers is gifted. When the pastor has a “secular job” it means the body must function as a body. It shouldn’t and it can’t just fall on the pastor. Everyone must pull weight and minister (This is definitely a point in favor of a plurality of pastoral leadership too). In this way, I believe bi-vocational ministry facilitates body-vocational ministry.
Stewardship and Simplicity
I trust God has plans for the micro-church movement we’re working on, and that’s what we’re working towards. We want to see God save people out of the harvest who will reach their community where they are. Our ministry model at this point does not require a pastor to get paid so we believe it is good stewardship to invest that money in the future and in mission work.
We want to be prepared to move when opportunities come. More and more church buildings will close. Down the road, I envision our church buying a building to support the local community as well as serve as a stream of revenue (eg., remote working space, coffee shop, venue). We want to facilitate local ministries and invest in training the next generation to reach people where they work, live, and play. My not taking any income at this point is an investment in the future. It also serves to prove the feasibility of the micro-church movement. As Christians, we can and must be able to be the church, even without a paid pastor and even without a budget.
God’s word is not bound; it’s not bound by a building or a budget. Sometimes we try to restrict the Spirit to specific borders but He is pretty good about breaking our preconceived notions. We also believe in simplicity because simplicity helps us focus on Jesus, ensures people are doing the real-life ministry they are called to, and best facilitates multiplication. No need for salaried pastor positions in the micro-church movement allows for easy replication.
Other Reflections Regarding Pastoral Pay
When is a pastor/missionary worthy of pay?
Paul answers that question. For example, he says, “The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching” (1 Tim. 5:17). Some pastors collect a healthy salary but spend their time behind a desk surfing the web and writing or reading about archaic unconnected theological drivel.[5] They’re not shepherding the sheep, equipping the saints, reaching the lost. They’re disconnected from their people and their problems. They’re a hireling (Jn. 10:12).
Others don’t take their job seriously because they don’t take God seriously. Still others pastor as a point of pride. They, as Jesus says, “like the recognition in the marketplace” like the Pharisees (Lk. 11:43). A “worker” like that is not worthy of his wages. I would argue that worker should take seriously what the Lord Jesus has called them to do because Jesus will call His pastors to account (Heb. 13:17).
The pastor who I think is worthy of pay can honestly say something like this:
I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints. To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ. For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me. For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face, that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ (Col. 1:24-2:2)
I’d feel good about you paying for his labor. But not someone sitting in a cushy office making announcements from the chair about how you need to get your life together, fix your marriage, etc. but doesn’t lift an actual hand to help. That person is not a pastor but is like a Pharisee Jesus criticized (Matt. 23:4).
Many “pastors” are managers, not pastors.[6] They don’t teach or shepherd and may not meet the qualifications of a pastor. Instead, their role is to keep the corporate church running and keep the felt needs of people met. Perhaps a lot of church budgets are going to things that are sub-biblical, not necessarily wrong but not the wisest choice for the best long-term Kingdom impact?
What if the office of Deacon functioned as it did in the early church, and pastors were able to pastor and churches didn’t have to hire “pastors” or “ministers directors” to do the ministry that Deacons could do? What financial resources might that free up? The early church gave money generously for the relief of famine, for example. What ministry might the church be able to do if so much wasn’t spent on staff, sanctuaries, and services?
Notice I’m not saying there isn’t a place for spending money on each of those things, but it sometimes seems like the American church thinks those things are the solution, are ministry, and lead to growth. They may lead to growth, but we should be concerned with healthy growth. Tumors grow. They can grow a lot. There is a difference between growth and healthy growth. When Jesus walked the earth with His disciples we clearly see He cared about healthy growth. Jesus still cares about healthy growth.
Conclusion
Yes, pastors should often be paid if they are doing the ministry Jesus has commissioned them to do. The laborer is worthy of his wages. But this assumes he is laboring. He’s not just lazily soaking up a salary. We also see in the New Testament that there are reasons for ministry leaders to abstain from receiving pay. Trends point to this becoming a more common reality. Will pastors be willing and able to pastor with little to no pay? And what may need to change for churches to pivot from the current model to the realities facing us in the future? (I propose some changes in my series, “What If Church were Different?”)
Notes
[1] Jamie Dunlop, Budgeting for a Healthy Church: Aligning Finances with Biblical Priorities for Ministry.
[2] Steve Shadrach, The God Ask, 79.
[3] Jamie Dunlop, Budgeting for a Healthy Church: Aligning Finances with Biblical Priorities for Ministry.
[4] Jamie Dunlop, Budgeting for a Healthy Church: Aligning Finances with Biblical Priorities for Ministry.
[5] Of course, this is not to say that theology and doctrine are not important. They are. See e.g., “The Practical Importance of Doctrine” and “True Knowledge Should Truly Humble.” Pastors are to minister to their actual people. Theological truth is supposed to be directed to particular practical and pastoral aims.
[6] “Although there are exceptions, the traditional Western approach to theological education is to train pastors to be managers of the status quo, not to lead churches for global disciple making. Maintaining ministry structures is the standard.” (J. D. Payne, Apostolic Imagination: Recovering a Biblical Vision for the Church’s Mission Today)
Photo by Gift Habeshaw
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
in X 