BENEFITS OF BI-VOCATIONAL MINISTRY

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

BENEFITS OF BI-VOCATIONAL MINISTRY

            I have been in vocational ministry in various capacities for nineteen years and have seen ups and downs, good and bad, benefits, and struggles, and a variety of types of ministries and ministers. A common discussion that has arisen over the years is whether ministers should be paid full-time or part-time or even be paid at all. I have seen opinions from across the spectrum as well including those who believe that paying ministers is not biblical. While I disagree with such an assertion (1 Tim 5:17-18), I fully admit that each minister’s calling is unique. Context determines a great deal regarding wages; yet, there are benefits and consequences to both full-time vocational ministry and bi-vocational ministry.

I do not discredit either or find either full-time vocational ministry or bi-vocational ministry more admirable than the other. Both manifestations of ministry are noble and worthy tasks. The purpose of my words today, nevertheless, is to discuss the benefits of bi-vocational ministry. I personally wish more ministers were bi-vocational for the reasons I will give. Not only that, I also wish that more bi-vocational ministers put in the same work, schooling, and attention to ministry as those who are full-time vocationally. Paul did so; why could not any other minister in the local church? Ministry is hard; we should support our pastors and understand what they do for the kingdom. I understand three primary benefits to bi-vocational ministry that I believe all Christians should realize.

A Connection with Normal Human Life

            From observation and personal experience, bi-vocational ministers possess a natural connection with normal human life that is at least difficult in full-time vocational ministry. Often, people (usually falsely) associate full-time clergy with laziness, lack of skill, and having an easy job.[1] While this is certainly a false equivalence, ministers who also work in fields outside of the church perhaps possess a natural avenue toward relating to others. A minister’s life is anything but normal inside the church, outside the church, and in the home. I was raised as a pastor’s child and then served in ministry after leaving my parents’ home so I can attest to this fact. Far from difficult manual labor (although ministry sometimes requires this, as much as people do not realize it), ministry is difficult in its relations with people. People can be both a tremendous blessing and a dreaded curse and often the same people. When people both in the church and outside the church see and know that a servant of God also works a typical job as they do and has the same struggles as they do but still gives their time and devotion to God, a natural connection is built, which creates amazing pathways for evangelistic opportunities.

A Greater Ability for the Church to Use the Resources God Grants Her

            Bi-vocational ministers also reap the benefit of a greater ability for the church to use the resources God grants her. Said in a more colloquial manner, less of the local church’s money is not used on ministerial salaries. I do not discredit paying ministers, for Paul instructs churches to do so. Nevertheless, it is a practical feat for a minister to work another job so that the local church may use their resources for the purposes of ministry. Since it is a minister’s job not (only) to minister but to equip the saints for the work of ministry (Eph 4:11-14), the resources God grants the church should also be used for such a purpose. Certainly, likely despite popular opinion, ministry costs nothing; it simply requires willing and committed people to serve God and give of their own time and resources. The resources of a local church, however, are exceedingly advantageous to the work of ministry. When one is a bi-vocational minister, less of the local church’s resources go toward paying a person’s bills (some of which are truthfully luxuries) and instead toward the work of ministry.

No Fear of Man; Complete Trust in God

            The final primary benefit to bi-vocational ministry which I observe is that a bi-vocational minister naturally has less fear of man, i.e. their local church body and instead has a complete trust in God. This is certainly the rule knowing that there are exceptions. Without a church paying a full-time minister’s salary, that minister may serve God unashamed, unapologetically, and without fear of losing their livelihood. Truthfully, any minister, full-time or bi-vocational, should serve in this way; yet, often, they do not. With another source for provision (which, no matter what, is always God), a bi-vocational minister may more easily trust God and not fear what will happen if they serve God in the manner he commands. One who relies solely on a church salary could easily struggle with obeying God when the tide is against them; yet, that is precisely what all Christians are commanded to do.

Ministers Serve for Free

            A pastor with whom I once served told our church that our entire ministerial staff served for free. I pondered what he meant by that and realized it later. While we were paid full-time salaries, the assumption should be that we still relied on God for our provision. Ministers are to obey God no matter how difficult or unpopular it may be. We cannot see into a person’s heart to know their motivation for serving God. We should, however, take them at their word when they say they serve God for his glory. While full-time ministry contains the natural advantage or being able to focus solely on the work of the Lord, bi-vocational ministry provides avenues of connection with people that might otherwise not be gained. Paid or not, ministers should serve for free. The Lord’s work is holy, as are his people and his ministers. No one should discredit bi-vocational ministers but should instead hold them to the same standards as a full-time minister and consider their work equally as worthy.

---

[1] To clarify my position here, ministry is not a job but a calling. This is not to say that God cannot or does not call people to other fields of work; ministers, however, while called in various ways, should have a firm, clear, precise, and unapologetic call to the ministry of the local church.

WHAT TULIP IS AND WHAT IT IS NOT

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

WHAT TULIP IS AND WHAT IT IS NOT

            I am less dogmatic about my Calvinistic beliefs than I used to be. Nonetheless, I am as devoted to the doctrines of grace as ever. Perhaps, the reason so many new Calvinists are annoyingly devout to such a doctrine is because it is wonderful news, not bad news. I used to be someone who saw Calvinism as bad news until I understood it. Certainly, it is a secondary issue, i.e. not necessary for salvation; yet, it is a crucial one for people to understand no matter on which side of the doctrine they stand. My purpose here is to walk through the five points of Calvinism[1] and discuss each one regarding what it is and what it is not.

Total Depravity

What It Is Not

            Total depravity is not synonymous with a lack of the Holy Spirit’s conviction. I was recently asked, after a mass shooting, what makes people not commit mass murders. I answered, “The Holy Spirit.” The person who asked the question then responded by pointing out the fact that many people (in fact, the majority) are not Christians but do not commit mass murders; therefore, it could not possibly be the Holy Spirit so what makes them not commit mass murders? My response again was, “The Holy Spirit.” Total depravity does not mean that God does not move among and even guide people including those who are not Christians. Remember that God used and even commanded the steps of wayward people in Scripture. We are assured that the Holy Spirit is at work on this earth. Total depravity, therefore, does not equate to a lack of God here, for he is everywhere.

What It Is

            Total depravity is exactly what it sounds like for humanity: the complete and utter lostness and deadness of humanity. The doctrine of original sin teaches that Adam’s race, i.e. humanity is infected with the stain of sin and is, therefore, doomed to eternal punishment. One issue many have with Calvinism is what seems to be unfair that God would send people to hell; the problem is that humanity is already going there. Scripture says that we are dead in our trespasses apart from Christ (Eph 2:1, Eph 2:5, Col 2:13). The issue with humanity is not that we have sinned; rather, it is that we have never done anything but sin. Firmly believing a difference in choice and free will, I attest that we certainly make choices; yet, human choice will always be sin without Christ’s divine intervention. Total depravity then is the complete and utter evil of every single person who has ever lived and who will ever live. No one is worse than another; we are all equally depraved.

Unconditional Election

What It Is Not

            A common misconception is that God elects some for heaven and some for hell. Besides the fact, that heaven is not at all the point of salvation,[2] God does not elect some for heaven and some for hell; rather, he sovereignly chooses some who are already doomed for eternity. Unconditional election then has nothing to do with privilege or what one has or has not done.

What It Is

            Unconditional election should focus more not on election but rather on the fact that it is unconditional, i.e. it is not based on anything someone has or has not done. Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, which may only occur at God’s sovereign awakening. If one believes salvation is given because of a decision made, effectively, a belief of works is at play. Is it not a work to ask Jesus into your heart? Certainly, I believe many people are saved through salvation prayers so this is not to dismiss a mode of receiving but rather to point to Christ’s ultimate will in election. No one knows who is elect and who is not so we must obey Christ and his call to preach the gospel to all people. For me, knowing that God’s election is unconditional takes a great deal of pressure away. I am not responsible for anyone’s salvation; yet, I am responsible to obey and preach.

Limited Atonement

What It Is Not

            Limited atonement is perhaps one of the five points of Calvinism which upsets and confuses people the most. To clear one misconception, limited atonement does not mean that God’s atonement is not enough for all or that God cannot save all, for he certainly can. I do not know a single Calvinist who believes otherwise. Limited atonement, furthermore, does not mean that some people are without hope. God desires that all come to repentance and that not one would perish (2 Pet 3:9).

What It Is

            Limited atonement, as I once heard John MacArthur say, is the easiest of the five points to believe. God’s atonement is not limited in scope but certainly is limited in application, i.e. only the elect receive atonement. The reason limited atonement should be the easiest point with which to agree is because only those who receive Christ will receive atonement. It matters not whether someone is a Calvinist or not, Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, etc. but only whether they have a lordship relationship with Jesus Christ. God’s atonement is only limited to such people. This is limited atonement. Dr. Robert E. Webber once said that everyone believes in limited atonement; the question, however, is who does the limiting. A Calvinist would believe that God does the limiting. No matter the view, limited atonement sees God’s forgiveness being applied only to the church and no one else, although forgiveness is offered to all.

Irresistible Grace

What It Is Not

            What irresistible grace is not might be the most blatantly obvious of the five points. Irresistible grace is not a view which excludes human rejection. In fact, every human is, by nature, an enemy of God (Rom 5:10); we all, therefore, would perpetually reject Christ without his sovereign awakening.

What It Is

            Irresistible grace is the biblical concept that no one may ultimately resist the will of God as much as we think we may (Rom 9:19). Even Pharaoh’s disobedience was guided, planned, and executed by God to reveal his glory (Exod 14:4). People either receive or reject Christ; God has a purpose in both: namely so that his glory may be revealed.

Perseverance of the Saints

What It Is Not

            Perseverance of the saints is not a license to sin for those who are elect. In fact, those who belong to God should find satisfaction in Christ to the point that they become more like him, i.e. spiritual formation involves a decreasing of desires of the flesh. Perseverance of the saints is also not a guarantee that life will be nothing but happiness without troubles. Jesus assures Christians of the opposite (John 16:33).

What It Is

            Perseverance of the saints teaches that while troubles in this world and in this life are guaranteed, God’s sovereign plans and purposes will be accomplished, nothing will separate God’s people from his love (Rom 8:38-39), and all things (including death itself) work together for the good of God’s people (Rom 8:28). Therefore, the church ultimately perseveres, is preserved, and possess a rich inheritance.

The Purpose: God’s Glory

            When I was wrestling with Calvinism in college, I was angered because I could not find anything satisfactory to argue against it. A friend of mine graciously met with me and had heated discussions with me while I set out to prove Calvinism a false heresy. In the process, however, I came to believe that against which I was fighting; I had no argument. What a relief it was to finally realize and understand that nothing is in my control no matter how much I think it is. I remember sarcastically asking my friend if we are merely robots at God’s disposal, a question most Calvinists have been asked. The responses was, “No, not robots. It is actually worse,” followed by a reading of the following scripture:

Romans 9:20-23 English Standard Version (ESV)

²⁰ But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” ²¹ Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? ²² What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, ²³ in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—

This passage has been explained by people throughout the centuries without a satisfactory response. I looked and believe I would have found it if it existed. My solution then was to accept it as truth and trust God. This is not a way out of serving God but rather a message of good news for those who are his, for nothing can take us from his hand. The purpose in any doctrine, primary or secondary, should be the glory of God alone. Let us, therefore, be diligent servants to our master and people who preach the exceedingly good news of Jesus Christ: the message of hope for a hopeless world.

---

[1] Although the doctrine takes the name after John Calvin, Calvin himself is not responsible for the formulation of TULIP. Rather, he was instrumental in the teaching and professing of such ideas.

[2] Conformity to Christ is the purpose of salvation (Rom 8:29).

A FAITH WITH WHICH TO TOIL

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

A FAITH WITH WHICH TO TOIL

            There seems to be an avoidance of any biblical topic which might be considered negative even when Scripture plainly discusses such a matter. One such topic I will discuss is the toiling aspect of the Christian faith, for indeed, Christianity is a faith with which to toil and one worthy of toiling. I think that our subconscious minds and even our hearts deceive us into thinking that Christianity is full of happiness and little toiling. As glamorous as it may seem, that is not biblical Christianity. Even spiritual giants such as Paul, Peter, and truly all the Apostles struggled in their faith at times. Paul speaks of toiling with the Christian faith in multiple letters. He writes, “For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me” (Col 1:29 ESV). Additionally, he says, “For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe” (1 Tim 4:10 ESV). These two scriptures, in particular, speak to the truth and necessity of toiling in the Christian faith. I dare suggest that if one claims to be a follower of Christ but does not toil, struggle, or suffer, he or she should carefully examine their faith. Scripture essentially guarantees these for God’s people. How then should we toil with our faith? I will discuss three principles which I believe to be fundamental to one who toils well in the Christian faith.

Our Toiling Is Founded

            These two passages are taken from two different letters which Paul wrote: one to the Colossians and one to Timothy. Both passages reveal an unwavering foundation upon which our toiling lies. In his letter to the Colossians, Paul bases his toiling on the preeminence and glory of Christ; when writing to Timothy, his basis is worthy service to the Lord. Both bases (I believe) stem from a supreme love for and satisfaction in Jesus Christ. This is the foundation of our faith, for without it, not only is our toiling in vain, we do not possess the strength to toil. Believers should realize that toiling and struggling through the Christian faith should, nonetheless, be a joyful experience. Jesus, in declaring himself as the true vine, says, “These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full” (John 15:11 ESV). When God’s people realize their place in Christ and mystic union with him, his joy is made full. As Christ suffered for the joy set before him (Heb 12:2), we too should toil, fight, and wrestle in our faith with joy. This does not equate to an always pleasant experience; yet, the foundation upon which we toil affords joy. When doubts and questions arise, when spirituality is seemingly stagnant, and when we wonder what the point is, we should be mindful of the fact that we toil upon a foundation: namely the foundation of Jesus Christ who is solid and will never fail.

Our Toiling Has a Purpose

            Christian toiling also has a purpose, which is the glory of God. Paul was so set on the preeminence and glory of Christ that he realized the struggles of this life to be rubbish. “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us,” says Paul (Rom 8:18 ESV). Christian toiling then is not futile but holds the highest purpose. Consider the difficulties the Apostles faced in their lives for Christ. All but John were eventually martyred in horrid ways; all faced troubles even before their deaths; and all had their faiths shaken at some point, some of which are recorded in Scripture, e.g. Thomas doubting the resurrection of Christ and Peter denying Christ. These are examples of spiritual giants, to whom we look, struggling and toiling with their faith. When a Christian is confused, hurt, wondering, depressed, or spiritually dry, he or she is not alone. Not only do we share with the saints of the past, present, and future, Jesus Christ himself presently intercedes on our behalf as someone who has encountered everything we have (Heb 4:14-16). Amid the enemy shouting lies and doubts in our direction, we should understand that a greater shout is coming from the one for whom our struggles are placed. Unlike those who do not belong to the Lord, Christian toiling is not futile but has a purpose.

Our Toiling Is Not for Us

            My final principle regarding our faith with which to toil (and with which is worthy to toil) includes a plea. Our toiling is not for us or any other human for that matter. I do not want to be the guy who says, “Tough it out,” but that is precisely what we are to do. Scripture nowhere says that God will not give us more than we can handle;[1] in fact, the Bible teaches quite the opposite. People do not enjoy discussing the toiling aspect of the Christian faith because it is not fun; much of Christianity, however, is not fun. People who teach that Christianity should always be fun do not teach biblical Christianity. Our faith has not yet been perfected but one day will be when we are with Christ (Phil 1:6). Until then, toiling is a necessary but formative tool in our lives.

Understand that our toiling does not happen for us but for the glory and pleasure of God in Jesus Christ. Think beyond the cliché of that statement. Our purpose, in being saved, is not to go to heaven but to be conformed to the image of Christ (Rom 8:29). Thus, anything we encounter in this life faces that governing purpose. Toiling then is not for us, for our enjoyment, for our pleasure, or even for our growth but rather so that we become like Christ. In other words, the faith with which we toil is for Christ. When that becomes our perspective, the toiling process becomes a tool by which we view Christ’s glory rather than our own disappointment.

Do you struggle in your faith? Do you toil? If so, thank God that you are his. Toiling is normal; it is necessary for the believer. Your faith is not perfect, just as every other believer on the planet has an imperfect faith. Toiling then is guaranteed and vital to the faith. Fight through questions; wrestle with weakness; and trust in God’s strength which will bring you through it, as we encounter a faith which is worthy of our toil.

---

[1] Many professing Christians falsely make this claim based on a lose interpretation and misunderstanding of 1 Corinthians 10:13, which promises that God will not allow Christians to be tempted beyond their ability but not that one will not be given more than they can handle. The teachings of Christ, in fact, contradict this thought, for Christianity recognizes that humans can do nothing on their own in the first place; thus, a Savior is necessary.

MLK'S FALSE GOSPEL

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

MLK’S FALSE GOSPEL

            I considered presenting the following material around Martin Luther King (MLK) Day in January but chose instead to wait because I did not want to overshadow, to my listeners, the great social-justice work Dr. King accomplished. Today, however, I will discuss the false gospel which MLK preached citing specific examples and even questioning his personal salvation.[1] My issues with MLK surround his opposition to central tenets of the Christian faith, as is the case with many other solid Christian theologians and pastors who are familiar with his work. I openly admit that I am no scholar on the work of Dr. King; nor, have I exhaustively examined his work. I have, however, read and heard enough of his work and teachings to understand that he taught a false gospel, which is, in fact, the antithesis of the gospel of Jesus Christ aside from his stances on social-justice issues, particularly the wrongness of racism.

I suggest that MLK was wrong on the gospel in four chief areas: the authority of Scripture, the deity of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the virgin birth, and the resurrection of Jesus. Given that these areas are indispensable to the Christian faith, I dare suggest that it is impossible to be a Christian without a fervent belief in these key orthodox doctrines. My intention here is not to defame Dr. King but surely to criticize the false gospel he preached[2] with the hope that Christians will know and understand his message compared to the message of Jesus Christ. As people discover the false gospel MLK preached examined next to what Jesus Christ preached, an abundantly apparent contrast becomes clear.

The Authority of Scripture

            MLK diverts from orthodox Christian doctrine with his view of Scripture’s authority. King plagiarized about a quarter of his Boston University PhD dissertation; yet, his work was seen to still contribute to his field. It certainly has done such but (I believe) negatively. The church, since her early days, has affirmed the authority of Scripture. Certainly, there have been debates over the centuries as to which texts should be canonized; the Bible we have now, however, represents the toil of that process and, about twenty centuries later, is the completion of the canon of Scripture.

            MLK blatantly denies the authority of the Bible. One of his scholarly papers entitled “What Experiences of Christians Living in the Early Christian Century Led to the Christian Doctrines of the Divine Sonship of Jesus, the Virgin Birth, and the Bodily Resurrection” suggests so in the title alone, i.e. experiences dictate essential Christian doctrines rather than the Bible. King says:

But if we delve into the deeper meaning of these doctrines, and somehow strip them of their literal interpretation, we will find that they are based on a profound foundation. Although we may be able to argue with all degrees of logic that these doctrines are historically and philosophically untenable,[3] yet we can never undermine the foundation on which they are based.[4]

In King’s “Sources of Fundamentalism and Liberalism,” the Garden of Eden is presented as a myth. King even says that “doctrines such as a supernatural plan of salvation, the Trinity, the substitutionary theory of the atonement, and the second coming of Christ are all quite prominent in fundamentalist thinking”[5] as he scorns those who ascribe to such doctrines.

The Apostle Paul says, “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.” (1 Thess 2:13). In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus says:

…Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matt 5:17-19).

Further, even Jesus himself says, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods?’ If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’” (John 10:34-36)? These passages (among others) speak to the authority of the Bible, which is the word of God. Surely, the Bible is derived from Jesus, i.e. he is not derived from the Bible; yet, if one claims to be a Christian but denies the authority of Scripture, what purpose do they accomplish? The church, for centuries, has ascribed the authority of the Bible in unequivocal terms. MLK did not do this, which led to certain blatant heresies in his teaching.

The Deity of Jesus Christ as the Son of God

            Likely because of Dr. King’s denial of the authority of Scripture, his faith (or lack thereof) was seemingly placed in human ability and intellect, which (Scripture is clear) does not save. Stemming from MLK’s denial of Scripture’s authenticity and authority are three underpinning heresies in his theology. First, King denied Jesus Christ’s deity as the Son of God. In the same paper as previously mentioned, King says:

The first doctrine of our discussion which deals with the divine sonship of Jesus went through a great process of development… How then did this doctrine of divine sonship come into being… I need not elaborate on the fact that the Greeks were very philosophical minded people. Through philosophical thinking the Greeks came to the point of subordinating, distrusting, and even minimizing anything physical?… And so in order to receive inspiration from Jesus the Greeks had to apotheosize him…the church had found God in Jesus, and so it called Jesus the Christ; and later under the influence of Greek thought-forms, the only begotten Son of God.”[6]

Moreover, of the sonship of Jesus, King states, “…the external evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine is found wanting.”[7] The Gospel of John is replete with Jesus’ own references to his deity and status as the Son of God (4:10, 5:19, and 5:26 among others) in addition to numerous biblical passages which explicitly state or allude to Jesus’ deity as the second person of the Godhead.

            King, in his paper, “The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus” suggests that deity is not part of Christ’s inherent nature but was rather granted to him later. “It was his felling of absolute dependence on God…that made him divine.”[8] Such is the problem with considering Jesus both fully God and fully man: fully infers quantity; yet, Jesus is both God and man by his nature, i.e. neither was bestowed upon him. Thus, it is more accurate to say that Jesus is truly God and truly man.

            In another paper, King says:

It is not at all surprising in view of the wide and growing influence of these religions that when the disciples in Antioch and elsewhere preached a crucified and risen Jesus they should be regarded as the heralds of another mystery religion, and that Jesus himself should be taken for the divine Lord of the cult through whose death and resurrection salvation was to be had.[9]

Here King essentially furthers his claim that Jesus’ deity and status as God exists as a mere tale among early Christians, a tale which was used to present another option in a polytheistic society.

            To disbelieve that Jesus is God and that he is the Son of God is to disbelieve Jesus himself and, thus, to discredit the fact that he is the only way. Early Christians surely understood that Jesus is God and is, in fact, the Son of God. MLK, in making these statements goes against centuries of orthodox Christianity, history, the Bible, and even the words of Jesus himself. In this regard, Dr. King is stubbornly wrong on the gospel.

The Virgin Birth

            Yet another protruding error in MLK’s theology is his denial of the virgin birth. In recent years, a popular American pastor said that it is more important to believe in the resurrection than the virgin birth. This, however, is a false narrative, for if the virgin birth did not occur, Jesus was conceived and born in sin just as any other human and, therefore, not an unblemished atonement for the remission of sin. Moreover, because the Bible says in unequivocal terms that Jesus was born of a virgin, one must believe it.

            Dr. King suggests that “the word, virgin, is not found in the Hebrew original but only in the Greek text, which is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word for ‘young woman.’”[10] “First we must admit that the evidence for the tenability of this doctrine is too shallow to convince any objective thinker,”[11] says King. He continues:

A more adequate explanation for the rise of this doctrine is found in the experience which the early Christians had with Jesus. The people saw within Jesus such a uniqueness of quality and spirit that to explain him in terms of ordinary background was to them quite inadequate. For his early followers this spiritual uniqueness could only by accounted for in terms of biological uniqueness. They were not unscientific in their approach because they had no knowledge of the scientific. They could only express themselves in terms of the pre-scientific thought patterns of their day.[12]

            Dr. King diverted horribly from the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith here. Not only did early Christians testify to the truth of the virgin birth, believers throughout the centuries have held to this doctrine as necessary and inarguable. Further, most Christian scholars do not question the legitimacy of the Greek translation of the word, virgin. It is surely accurate and trustworthy. If Dr. King did not believe in the virgin birth, as inferred in his writing, he did not trust a stalwart portion of the gospel. MLK greatly erred in his theology regarding the virgin birth.

The Resurrection of Jesus

            Of all doctrines to question, MLK perhaps questioned the one most central to the Christian faith: namely the resurrection of Jesus. King states:

From a literary, historical, and philosophical point of view this doctrine raises many questions. In fact, the external evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine is found wanting… What experiences of early Christians led to the formulation of the doctrine?… The root of our inquiry is found in the fact that the early Christians had lived with Jesus. They had been captivated by the magnetic power of his personality. This basic experience led to the faith that he could never die. And so in the pre-scientific thought pattern of the first century, this inner faith took outward form.[13]

King here not only questions the resurrection but effectively and blatantly denies its reality. In fact, Dr. King suggests the resurrection to be a mere theory which was born of and formed from experiences and thought. Never mind that fact that Jesus walked the earth for forty days after his resurrection and appeared to his disciples and to over five-hundred witnesses before his ascension, MLK suggests the resurrection to be a sort of comfort mechanism for people who are easily swayed and weak of the mind. The fallacy of Dr. King’s theology here cannot be excused.

A Flawed Man Who Did Good Work but (Probably) Did Not Have a Relationship with Christ

            Many do not like to discuss the fallacies of Dr. Martin Luther King. He did tremendous work in the area of social-justice. Nonetheless, the gospel he taught, according to his own writings, is a false gospel. Dr. King, in fact, seemingly equates Christianity (and Jesus) to any other form of what might be considered a noble religion or religious leader. Scripture is clear that Jesus is the only way; he is not the same as any other religious leader; and Christianity is no manmade religion. If King continued to believe his own false suggestions, while no one knows the innerworkings of his heart, it is right to question whether he had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I do not deny God’s power to save someone upon their death bed. I do not know what happened to Dr. King before he passed; yet, I know what he taught and believed based on his writings. Lest we deceive ourselves, Dr. King’s gospel is not the true gospel.

---

[1] It is not wrong to question one’s salvation insofar as he or she gives little evidence of a genuine Christian faith in their teachings and expressions of core and fundamental Christian doctrines and tenets of the faith. One might believe it is wrong to do so because of Jesus’ command not to judge (Matt 7); yet, in calling a person out for judgment, a judgment is also being made then and there. Judgments are not strictly forbidden but rather should be done in light of one’s own shortcomings. Here then is a proper judgment of Dr. King.

Footnotes here will reference specific citations of Dr. King’s work; yet, online sources were utilized; thus, page numbers will not be given.

[2] In Christianity, criticisms are right, for believers grow through loving critique, but should be employed in love and respect for the purpose of edification.

[3] Webster’s: cannot be held, defended, or maintained.

[4] Martin Luther King, “What Experiences of Christians Living in the Early Christian Century Led to the Christian Doctrines of the Divine Sonship of Jesus, the Virgin Birth, and the Bodily Resurrection.”

It should be noted that this paper is easily findable through a variety of sources including those online.

[5] King, “The Sources of Fundamentalism and Liberalism.”

[6] King, “What Experiences of Christians Living…”

[7] Ibid.

[8] King, “The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus.”

[9] King, “A Study of Mithraism.”

[10] King, “What Experiences of Christians…”

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

RACHEL HOLLIS: A REVIEW THROUGH A GOSPEL GRID

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

RACHEL HOLLIS: A REVIEW THROUGH A GOSPEL GRID

            Rachel Hollis has seemingly taken the Christian book world by storm and (somewhat) rightfully so. I recently read both of her books. Her talent, confidence, and intelligence are undeniable. Pastors who have not heard of Hollis or who do not think that she has made her way into their churches are sadly oblivious. Hollis certainly presents a strong message to readers. Her two books, Girl, Stop Apologizing and Girl, Wash Your Face have sold many copies and made millions of dollars. Any time someone has as much influence as Rachel Hollis on any Christian group (most commonly women in this case), pastors should, at the least, understand the message being submitted. I will make a bold statement in that Rachel Hollis’ message is not the gospel and is, in fact, antithetical to the gospel. While I do not know Hollis’ personal motivations or even consider her work to be evil in itself, a few items surrounding her work concern me. Thankfully, my thoughts parallel those of many other Christians who think about these issues so I am not the first to review her work in this way. For the remainder here, I will examine these items through the lens of the gospel and discuss how Rachel Hollis’ message contradicts the gospel message of Jesus Christ.

Self-Centered

            At its core, Rachel Hollis’ message is seemingly one of self-worth, i.e. things will not change until you begin to love yourself. Many would not see the issue with this message until they realize that it is not the message of the gospel. Hollis suggests that you are the primary focus and your happiness depends on you. This is not the message of the gospel. In fact, contrarily, the gospel says that you do not come first, that you have no ability to save yourself whatsoever, and that the only worth you have is from the fact that you are created in God’s image and are found in Christ. Hollis’ message is self-centered. Little of what she says regards what Christ has already done for you but rather what you can do for yourself if you change a few things. “First learn to love yourself well and give yourself credit; then reach for more,” says Hollis.[1] It is effectively self-righteousness.

I must admit that her story about calling it quits with her ex-boyfriend who broke up with her leaving her with a horrid feeling was touching. Upon reading such a self-centered perspective, however, I must wonder the details of her version of the story, also having been on the side of a breakup (and even a divorce) where lies were told about me. My point here is that Hollis’ message, contrary to the gospel, is one of self-centeredness and self-focus rather than a dying to self and a living to Christ alone.

An Avoidance of Truth

            Hollis’ message, in both of her books, is also an avoidance of truth. In fact, the author does not present a clear and unequivocal message that Jesus Christ is the only way even suggesting that just because believers have decided Christianity is right does not mean that other religions are wrong. What Hollis fails to realize is that truth is narrow. In a world that seemingly bombards Christianity with openness and wideness, we often forget that in most areas of life, truth is not wide but narrow, e.g. mathematical truth is usually narrow, scientific truth is usually narrow, and grammatical truth is usually narrow. Additionally, Jesus made clear that he is the only way (John 14:6). To suggest that Christianity is not the only right way is to effectively avoid the truth. It is becoming more difficult to make such statements without retaliation; yet, it is truth. Christianity is not a manmade religion as many would espouse. Many have a problem with the term, Christian; yet, it is a biblical word, for believers were first called Christians at Antioch (Acts 11:26). Hollis does not directly deny Christianity as the only way; she does, however, leave room for question, i.e. she equivocates. Her message is, thus, an avoidance of truth (likely for the purpose of book sales).

Self-Gratifying

            Hollis also presents a self-gratifying message. It should be no surprise to anyone that the author connects with her readers by appeasing societal self-gratifying norms. We are truly a selfish society, even in our so-called social justice actions. It does not take long for good intentions to become purely evil masked by an illusion of what many perceive to still be good. I do not know Hollis’ motivations for her work. Nonetheless, I can say confidently that her message is not a gospel message, although her work is sold and marketed in Christian outlets and as a gospel message. The message Hollis gives is that your happiness is dependent on you disregarding the fact that such a claim is nowhere in the Bible. In fact, if we are speaking of biblical joy, it is dependent on Jesus Christ, not you. Hollis’ message, however, claims the opposite.

Self-Saving

            Hollis’ message is also one of self-saving ability. From the beginning of Girl, Wash Your Face, in chapter 1, Rachel Hollis suggests that you are your own hero. Scripture is clear that all of humanity is dead in sin (Eph 2:1). One who is dead has no ability whatsoever to save themselves, much less become a hero on their own accord. While Hollis’ message is to believe in yourself, the gospel’s message is to believe in Christ because you (literally) have no ability to save yourself whatsoever. While Hollis’ message is to think more of yourself, the gospel’s message is to think less or yourself and even think nothing of yourself at all but only of Christ and his accomplished work on the cross. Hollis presents a self-saving message of false hope by believing in yourself, trusting in yourself, and setting goals. As a goal-oriented person, I firmly believe in setting goals. Nevertheless, goals should be set for the right reason. One of Hollis’ personal goals is to always fly first-class.[2] Flying first-class is not sinful itself. Her message, however, points to a deeper problem: the problem of not denying self. There are several indicators in what Hollis says that directly contradict the message of Jesus Christ. While Hollis says to look to yourself, Christ says to deny yourself, take your cross, and look to him. This is the message of the gospel, not Hollis’ message of self-help.

Not a Gospel Message but Being Promoted as Such

At its core, Rachel Hollis’ is no different than any other self-help non-gospel message out there; yet, it is promoted in Christian bookstores, sales charts, and churches as a distinctly Christian message. Make no mistake that it is not. I do not claim that non-gospel books are bad. I read several which I enjoy. In fact, if it were not to DIY helps on YouTube and Google, I would not have a clue how to engage in necessary repairs of my house. The problem with Hollis’ message, however, is that it is promoted as a Christian message when it is truly far from it. Hollis’ message is a godless message masked by the fact that she refers to herself as a Christian who cusses a little and vaguely references God in her writing, i.e. it is not an explicit gospel message, which, in my opinion, is the only gospel message that exists. My concern then is not necessarily for the message itself as much as it is for the portrayal of what it is, i.e. because it is promoted as a gospel message, people in local churches accept and trust it as such. Reality is we should only trust the Bible. Many, however, resort to other messages including Hollis’. The connection made then between Hollis’ message and the gospel is a false one. Largely, what she says is antithetical to the gospel. I do not pretend to know Rachel Hollis’ motivations in writing. In fact, I would not be surprised if they are good and pure. The message she presents, however, is not the gospel. If you want to read Hollis, do so. In fact, as I would with any influential author, I encourage you to do so with an analytical mind. I have read her work and do not deny her talent. Her grammar is lacking probably because she is writing to a broad popular audience. Lest anyone receives a false hope, however, do not make the mistake of linking what she says to any sort of gospel message. The message of Rachel Hollis, as encouraging as it may be, is not a gospel message.

---

[1] Rachel Hollis, Girl, Stop Apologizing (dd), 62.

[2] Ibid., 101.