Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.
On this episode of Act of Worship, Dr. Jonathan Michael Jones discusses his new musical setting of Revelation 4 entitled "Worth Is the Lord."
Sunday, October 27, 2019
Sunday, September 15, 2019
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.
Sunday, September 8, 2019
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.
Sunday, April 7, 2019
A FAITH WITH WHICH TO TOIL
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.
Saturday, March 30, 2019
MLK'S FALSE GOSPEL
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.
Sunday, March 24, 2019
RACHEL HOLLIS: A REVIEW THROUGH A GOSPEL GRID
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)