​Just over a year ago I wrote an article titled, “Donald Trump is no saint” (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/evangelicalpulpit/2018/10/donald-trump-is-no-saint-rob-dalrymple/). The article was in response to a letter sent to me. The premise of the letter was that since God has used “very flawed” persons throughout the Bible, perhaps, he could use such today (i.e., Trump).
 
I responded by noting that “very flawed” was not a proper designation for Noah, Moses, and Paul (some of the persons the letter characterized as used by God and “very flawed”). Now, I don’t deny that all persons in history, including those men and women that God has used, are sinners. But, to use “very flawed” for Noah, Moses, Paul, et al, leaves us no recourse to distinguish Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot from the rest of humanity. Indeed, we are all sinners in need of the grace of God. Some just seemed to have cornered the market of “flawedness” more than others.
 
Yesterday morning, while I was attending a breakfast to honor Martin Luther King Jr, I happened to take a quick peek at my email, only see to one titled, “Another very flawed man” sitting in my inbox. The brief note contained a link to an article that contends that the FBI was about to release extensive details regarding MLK’s troubling sexual misconduct. I was deeply grieved by the email.
 
My dismay stems from that fact that yesterday was the day that the U.S. government had set aside to honor the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. Now, there is a simple culturally accepted notion that regardless of one’s past transgressions it is not appropriate to bring them forth during a memorial service. A memorial service is to honor a person’s legacy not to detract from it.
 
More significantly, the attempt to denigrate MLK’s character on the day the nation had set aside to honor his legacy was an attempt altar the conversation from the issues that King was fighting for and against and to direct it instead to his character. In otherwords, even if the accusations of the FBI against King were true, yesterday was not the day to discuss them.
 
Instead, yesterday was the day to address the issues that MLK was trying to bring to the forefront: the radical, systemic injustices that proliferate our country. Yesterday was a day for all Americans to recognize the realities under which people of color live on a day to day basis. Yesterday was a day for us all to realize that we are all created by God and in His image—regardless of the color of our skin, our gender, or our socio-political status. Yesterday was not the day to question the character of MLK. To do would be to detract from the very important conversations that King and many others fought so hard, and for which King paid his life, to bring to the fore.
 
Now, does this mean that MLK lived a life without blemish? Certainly not. As I already noted, one of the core teachings of Scripture is that we are all sinners.
 
As for the accusations, allow me to address them briefly.
 
There is no question that the FBI was doing everything possible to undermine MLK and others. King was consistently accused of working with the Communists. Because of this
“accusation” (for which, to my knowledge, no evidence was ever found) he was deemed a threat to the U.S.’s national security and served as the primary justification for the FBI’s investigations. This alone should cause suspicion as to what they found. Could it be the U.S. government wanted to supress the work of the foremost civil rights leader and that they were willing to do so at all costs? Did they “find” a “just” reason for the surveillance of America’s foremost civil rights leader in order to justify their intense scrutiny and the bugging of his hotel rooms?
 
Now, I realize that this is a significant accusation. And, maybe there are truths in what the FBI may have found in regard to MLK and sexual misconduct. Maybe. But the actions and motives of the FBI were suspect and as a result their findings should be questioned.
 
If these findings are deemed true, it will be sobering for many. It will confirm that we are all sinners in need of a savior. It will detract from MLK’s legacy. What it cannot do, what we cannot let it do, is deter us from the conversations that King was bringing to the fore.
 
Our pledge of allegiance says, “with liberty and justice for all.” May this indeed be true! 

​

What is the purpose of the Christian life?
I have been asking in this series of blogs, “what is the purpose of the Christian life?” To this point, I have been suggesting that it is to imitate and fulfill the mission of Jesus. In the last few posts I have been arguing that the coming of Jesus was in fulfillment of all that the OT promised. In particular, Jesus fulfilled the mission of the OT people of God to make God known.
 
I have noted that one of the great promises of Scripture is the “Immanuel Principle:” the promise that God will dwell among His people: see Lev 26:11-13 and Ezek 37:24-27.
 
In order to understand the significance of this promise for the life of the people of God today we must reflect on two key elements of the Immanuel Principle. In the last post I noted that the first key of the Immanuel Principle is that it is primarily about God dwelling among His people and only secondarily about a place. In this post, I will reflect on the second key element: namely, that God’s dwelling among His people is a present reality!
 
God presently dwells among His people
The second key to understanding the Immanuel Principle is that the fulfillment of God’s promise to dwell with His people has already begun!
 
Though, indeed, the book of Revelation places God’s dwelling among His people at the end (Revelation 21-22), it is important to note that Paul cites the very same OT passages (Lev 26:11-12 and Ezek 37:24-27) and argues that they are being fulfilled in the present! That is, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the life of God’s people today is also the fulfillment of the Immanuel Principle. Paul says, “For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE” (2 Cor 6:16).[1]
 
In this passage, Paul cites Ezekiel 37 and Leviticus 26 and contends that the fulfillment of God’s promise to dwell among His people has already begun in the life of the believers through the presence of the Spirit. We are the temple of God and the fulfillment of God’s promise to dwell among His people! This is key. Paul places the dwelling of God among His people—in fulfillment of the Immanuel Principle—not in some distant future, but as a present reality!
 
This doesn’t mean that there will not be a glorious future fulfillment as expressed in the book of Revelation. The difference between the fulfillment now and the future fulfillment is that sin, death, and sorrow remain in the present. In the future fulfillment,
“Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.”
 


[1] Note the use of all caps is the NAU’s means of confirming for their readers that they are convinced that the saying derives from the OT.

​I have been asking in this series of blogs, “what is the purpose of the Christian life?” To this point, I have been suggesting that it is to imitate and fulfill the mission of Jesus. In the last post I argued that the coming of Jesus was in fulfillment of all that the OT promised. In order to understand the mission of God’s people, however, we need to go deeper for a bit.
 
God dwells among us
The God of Christianity is worth knowing. He is transcendent. He is glorious. He is Holy. And He is love. This God, and we could go much further in our description of His magnificence, desires to be made known. God is not simply concerned about making sure we go to heaven when we die, or that we don’t go to hell. He desires to be in relationship with us.
 
One of the great promises of Scripture, often deemed the “Immanuel Principle,” is found in Leviticus 26:11-12, “Moreover, I will make My dwelling among you, and My soul will not reject you. I will also walk among you and be your God, and you shall be My people.”
 
We see here that God’s desire is that we might dwell with Him, or He with us! This promise reverberates throughout the OT and finds expression in the great covenant promise of Ezekiel:
“My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd; and they will walk in My ordinances and keep My statutes and observe them. They will live on the land that I gave to Jacob My servant, in which your fathers lived; and they will live on it, they, and their sons and their sons' sons, forever; and David My servant will be their prince forever. I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will place them and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in their midst forever. My dwelling place also will be with them; and I will be their God, and they will be My people” (Ezek 37:24-27).
 
Now at this point, it might be easy to jump to the book of Revelation and see that the ultimate fulfillment of this promise is present in the description of the New Jerusalem:
“And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them. . . . He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son” (Rev 21:3, 7).
 
The purpose of the Christian life, then, is to imitate Christ and fulfill His mission which was to make God known.
 
In order to understand the significance of this promise for the life of the people of God today we must reflect on two key elements of the Immanuel Principle. This will be my next two posts.  

 
My response to the piece by Mark Galli
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html
 
My initial reaction as I read the article by Mark Galli was surprise. And in this I must admit that I was saddened. I was saddened, not because I agreed or disagreed with his piece, but because I knew the visceral reaction that it would create.
 
I just wish the Christian community were able to be more open-minded and to receive pieces like this for what they are: the honest opinions of a fairly well-informed person.
 
The problem is that we too often fail to ruminate on information. Instead, we are too quick to laud or castigate him (depending on what side of the political aisle we are on).
 
What is worse is that we do this publicly; harming our witness. (I will refrain, at this juncture, from a long diatribe regarding the responsibility of Christians to love one another and to be cautious of speaking poorly of the other in public, lest it harm our witness. But this is certainly the reason why I was initially saddened.)
 
The fear of the public outcry (I am speaking of those voices from within the church) also makes others reticent to speak out. This means that we are more likely to fail to hear the voices of well-informed leaders, such as Galli, in the public arena. Why speak out, when the response is lambasting and potentially damaging to the church’s witness?
 
Now, do I personally agree with Galli’s call to have Trump removed? I don’t think so, but I don’t know.
 
This may sound like a cop-out. But as an educated person, I understand that there are a lot of facts needed to make such a determination and I have other arenas that deserve my time and attention. I am simply lacking the knowledge of the facts that would be needed for me to make such a determination.
 
Now, in saying this, I must admit that I would not be surprised if Trump were guilty of the second charge: namely, the obstruction of justice. It seems to correspond to his behavior throughout his political life.
 
This is why we need to hear from voices such as Galli. We need to wrestle with the opinions of those who have more knowledge of the situation.
 
I do think that the Church (universal) needs to step back and get its own house in order. We have lost focus of our mission: namely, to make known the Lord God Almighty. The Church at times seems to be setting its hope in the state and the kings of this world. Our hope is in Christ.
 
I do not intend to suggest that we cannot step into the political and social arenas. I am simply noting that when we do so we must consider how it will affect our witness. There are places for Christfollowers to be engaged in the political arena. We must do so, however, with an awareness of our larger mission.
 
With this in mind, I wish to call attention to one paragraph in Galli’s piece with which I wholeheartedly agree. Galli noted,
“To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we might say this: Remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump’s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency. If we don’t reverse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come? Can we say with a straight face that abortion is a great evil that cannot be tolerated and, with the same straight face, say that the bent and broken character of our nation’s leader doesn’t really matter in the end?”
 
Of course, there are times in which our silence adversely affects our witness. With this being said, it is important to see the comments of Christianity Today’s president. He noted that after Galli’s article CT received numerous letters from people expressing appreciation for Galli’s piece:
“We have received countless notes of encouragement from readers who were profoundly moved. They no longer feel alone. They have hope again. Many have told us of reading the editorial with tears in their eyes, sharing it with children who have wandered from the faith, rejoicing that at last someone was articulating what they felt in their hearts. They felt this was a watershed moment in the history of the American church—or they hoped it would prove to be.”
 
The witness of the Church is certainly at stake. This is why it is important to hear the many, and varied, Christian voices. To those within the evangelical Christian community who affirm Trump’s presidency, and to those who denounce it, I make these appeals:

1. Our hope is not in the kings and leaders of this world, but in Christ alone.
2. The Kingdom of God comes through the faithful, loving, sacrificial witness of God’s people.
3. Our witness to the world trumps (sorry for the pun) our political convictions.

 
With that being said, we need to hear voices like Galli’s. We need bold Christian leaders to stand up and speak first to the Church! Only then might we consider speaking it to the nation. 

NB: one criticism I heard regarding Galli’s article was: “well do you prefer that we inaugurate one of the liberal democrats?” This assertion misses the whole point. For one, if Trump were impeached, Pence, who appears to be even more conservative than Trump, would become President. Secondly, The question is not whether or not Trump is better than other options, the question is whether or not Trump deserves to be impeached. 

​I have been asking in this series of blogs, “what is the purpose of the Christian life?” To this point, I have been suggesting that it is to imitate and fulfill the mission of Jesus. In the last post I argued that the coming of Jesus was in fulfillment of all that the OT promised. In order to understand the mission of God’s people, however, we need to go deeper for a bit.
 
God dwells among us
The God of Christianity is worth knowing. He is transcendent. He is glorious. He is Holy. And He is love. This God, and we could go much further in our description of His magnificence, desires to be made known. God is not simply concerned about making sure we go to heaven when we die, or that we don’t go to hell. He desires to be in relationship with us.
 
One of the great promises of Scripture, often deemed the “Immanuel Principle,” is found in Leviticus 26:11-12, “Moreover, I will make My dwelling among you, and My soul will not reject you. I will also walk among you and be your God, and you shall be My people.”
 
We see here that God’s desire is that we might dwell with Him, or He with us! This promise reverberates throughout the OT and finds expression in the great covenant promise of Ezekiel:
“My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd; and they will walk in My ordinances and keep My statutes and observe them. They will live on the land that I gave to Jacob My servant, in which your fathers lived; and they will live on it, they, and their sons and their sons' sons, forever; and David My servant will be their prince forever. I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will place them and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in their midst forever. My dwelling place also will be with them; and I will be their God, and they will be My people” (Ezek 37:24-27).
 
Now at this point, it might be easy to jump to the book of Revelation and see that the ultimate fulfillment of this promise is present in the description of the New Jerusalem:
“And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them. . . . He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son” (Rev 21:3, 7).
 
The purpose of the Christian life, then, is to imitate Christ and fulfill His mission which was to make God known.
 
In order to understand the significance of this promise for the life of the people of God today we must reflect on two key elements of the Immanuel Principle. This will be my next two posts.  

 
Are “pro-life” evangelicals inconsistent in their ethic?
 
The answer to question is, “yes.” We all are inconsistent in our ethic to some extent. What I intend to suggest is that “pro-life” evangelicals are, often unwittingly, radically inconsistent. Let me say at the outset that I am a “pro-life” evangelical.
 
I often cringe when I hear my fellow evangelicals proclaim that they are voting for the “pro-life” candidate. I cringe because this seems to mean that they are voting for the candidate that opposes abortion. This may seem all well and good to those who are “pro-life.” But, if one is truly “pro-life”, shouldn’t that mean that one is pro “all-life” (i.e., not just the unborn)? And, if so, shouldn’t that mean that there are many issues for which we must be concerned?
 
If we are truly “pro-life” should we not then care for the millions who are dying from starvation and hunger related diseases? And what about the millions suffering from the lack of access to clean water? There are a multitude of factors causing such hunger and the shortage of water. My point, however, is that those who are “pro-life”, such as myself, must demonstrate the same level of concern for these people as we do for the unborn.
 
And if we are truly advocating for the unborn children, then should we not care about societal issues that lead to unwanted pregnancies? Should we not also care for the mothers?
 
In addition, I think it is tragically ironic that most advocates of “pro-life” agendas deny the reality of global warming. It is, of course, hard to quantify the effects of global warming. We know that higher temperatures make ocean waters warmer and this appears to be directly related to an increase in more intense storms. Higher temps also dry up forests and increase the intensity of wildfires. Drought conditions are also linked to food shortages. Heat related deaths also appear to be on the rise due to global warming. The global rising sea levels has serious effects on the millions (or ten of millions) who live in coastal regions and on low elevation islands.[1]
 
It appears well established that millions of lives are at risk annually from the effects of global warming. So, then, if we elect a person strictly because they are “pro-life” and, yet, that elected official fails to support measures that may curb global warming, are we truly electing officials that are “pro-life”?
 
We could, of course, make this quite a lengthy article, and not merely a blog post, by noting the multitude of issues related to injustices against the poor and the marginalized—including mass incarceration, racial injustices, as well as the current refugee crisis and more. But I think the point has been made: being “pro-life” must come to mean being “pro-all-life.”
 
Now, I know how some of my evangelical friends might respond. They will contend that the unborn child is in a different category because they are innocent human beings and have done nothing to deserve their plight. Though this is true, it is missing the point.
 
Before I respond, allow me to digress for a moment. The biblical call (it is legitimate to bring in the biblical call at this juncture because I am speaking to evangelical pro-lifers, whose foundation is the Scriptures) is for the people of God to advocate for justice: especially for the poor and oppressed. As Proverbs 31:8-9 says, “Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy.”
 
The laws of the Old Testament, epitomized in the ten commandments, were centered on justice: “He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice . . .” (Micah 6:8). Biblical justice was primarily aimed at the poor and the marginalized who had little to no recourse to justice otherwise. The command to rest on the seventh day, for example, was embraced by the workers in the fields and not the owners of the fields. The law was designed to keep the owners from exploiting their workers by demanded that they provide a day of rest for the laborers. The commands against coveting and murder were also aimed at protecting the poor who had no recourse for justice when they were exploited.
 
To suggest, then, that the unborn are in a special category fails to reckon with both the point I am making here and the overall biblical injunction to advocate for justice. Biblical justice is wholistic. To be “pro-life,” from a biblical perspective, means to be “pro-all-life.” One should not choose some life, even if they are in a special category, and neglect others.
 
Furthermore, to counter the argument that the unborn are in a special category because they are innocent, we must note that most of the the refugees didn’t choose their situation either—this is especially true for the children. Those who live in low lying areas of the world tend to be the poor. Yet, they are generally impacted much more severly from global-warming and its effects. Mass incarceration in the US unjustly affects people based on the color of their skin. Yet, no one chose to be born a certain color. 
 
I plead, then, with my evangelical brothers and sisters, that we must begin to lift up our eyes and see a world that is full of injustices. I, too, weep for the unborn children who are never given a chance at life. But, I have learned to weep also for the millions who are suffering from the effects of ruthless dictators and evil regimes that have caused them to be displaced from their ancestral homes, and from the millions who are living in poverty because of the color of their skin, and the millions who are suffering from the effects of global warming.  
 
If we are going to be “pro-life,” we must learn to be “pro-all-life.”
 
​
[1] The response of many evangelicals here is that global warming is not caused by human activities but is simply a natural cycle of weather. The evidence does appear to counter this notion.

​In my last post I asked the question: what is the purpose of the Christian life? I suggested that the purpose of the Christian life and the call of God’s people is to carry forth the work of Christ. In order, then, for us to understand our mission as the people of God, we must understand the mission of Jesus.
 
The Mission of Jesus
One way to comprehend the mission of Jesus is to recognize that in addition to His coming to die and rise again, He also came to do what Adam, Abraham, and the Israelites were called to do. Namely, to be a blessing to the nations by making God known both to the nations and to the whole of creation.
 
Let me explain:
First, it is essential to see that the NT story is the continuation of the OT story. Now, there is typically very little objection to the claim that in the coming of Christ the OT is fulfilled.
 
The problem is that for many Christians the notion that the OT is fulfilled is often limited to Jesus’ fulfilling the sacrificial laws and prophecies pertaining to His death and atonement. The writers of the NT, however, seemingly want us to know that everything is being fulfilled in Jesus. The whole story was about Jesus.
 
Jesus and the fulfillment of the OT
The gospel of Matthew begins with a genealogy (Matt 1:1-17). Matthew informs his readers that the genealogy is intentionally divided into three equal parts of fourteen generations:
“So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations” (Matt 1:17).
 
The first part of Matthew’s genealogy divides the story from Abraham to David (Matt 1:2-6a). In doing so, Matthew affirms that Jesus is the true descendant of Abraham and the rightful heir of Israel.[1]
 
The second part of Matthew’s genealogy separates the time from David to the deportation to Babylon (Matt 1:6b-11). From this we learn that Jesus is the true descendant of David and, thereby, the rightful King.
 
The third section of the genealogy extends from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah (Matt 1:12-16). The significance here, for Matthew, is that the story of Israel and the OT, which ended with the nation in exile, is coming to its fulfillment in Jesus. The end of the exile is here in Jesus. God is restoring His people and fulfilling His promises in Jesus.
 
This is precisely what Luke demonstrates in his account of the story of Jesus. Luke’s opening reference to the things “accomplished among us” (Luke 1:1) and his concluding statement in the mouth of Jesus that “everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled” (Luke 24:44) forms an inclusio; which is an author’s way of framing a work in order to set forth his purpose.
 
Clearly Luke views the whole story of Jesus as the fulfillment. Luke wants his readers to view the entire story of Jesus in light of the things that “have been accomplished among us” (Luke 1:1). This includes far more than Jesus’ atoning death and resurrection. After all, the Gospel of Luke has twenty four chapters and only two of them (Luke 23, 24) describe the events surrounding Jesus’ death and resurrection.[2]
 
The Gospel of Mark associates Jesus life, death, and resurrection in terms of the coming of the Son of God—note the inclusio of Mark 1:1 and 15:39: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (1:1); “The centurion, who was standing right in front of Him, saw the way He breathed His last, he said, ‘Truly this man was the Son of God!’” (15:39). It is important to note that the title “son of God” was used for both Adam[3] and Israel.[4] The Gospel of Mark, then, is an announcement that Jesus is the true Son of God, and that in Him the call of Israel is being fulfilled.
 
That the Gospel of John views the story of Jesus in terms of a larger narrative that extends beyond Jesus’ atoning death and resurrection is evident from the opening “In the beginning” (John 1:1); a clear allusion to Genesis 1:1.” This is confirmed by the fact that Jesus, after rising from the dead, appears to His disciples and then “breathes” on them (John 20:22). The word for “breathe” here is the same term used in the Greek version of Genesis 2:7, when Adam became a living being after God “breathed” on him. It is also used in Ezekiel 37:9-10, a passage that looks forward to a future restoration of God’s people.
 
The gospels present the coming of Jesus in a manner that far transcends His role of dying and rising for our sins. This in no way is meant to diminish the significance of Jesus’ death and resurrection.
 
It is through His death and resurrection that Jesus defeats death and establishes His kingdom. In fact, Jesus’ death and resurrection are not only essential to the story of redemption, they are, as we will explore more fully, essential to His mission, and, consequently, to our mission as the people of God. If, after all, Jesus establishes His kingdom through death and resurrection, then it stands to reason that the people of God further the advancement of the kingdom through their deaths and resurrection.
 


[1] This is why Paul can say that Jesus is the true seed of Abraham (Gal 3:16).

[2] Though we could be generous and make it two and a half chapters if we wanted to the include the end of Luke 22 and its description of Jesus’ arrest.

[3] Cf Gen 5:1-3; Luke 3:38.

[4] Cf Exod 4:22; Hos 11:1.

What is the purpose of the Christian life?
In previous posts I have argued that the goal of the Christian life is to grow in the likeness of Christ. Now, I wish to address the question: what is the purpose of the Christian life?
 
I am going to make a statement that may very well sound blasphemous. I assure you that it is not. So, before you cease reading, please allow me to clarify. The statement is: “Jesus did not finish the job.” Granted, this sounds extremely blasphemous; downright heretical. Nevermind my plea for clarity. You should stop reading this blog. Clearly I do not hold to an acceptable theological position. Before you do that (I hope it is not too late. Though if you are reading this sentence, I guess it is not), allow me to clarify.
 
The reason why this statement looks blasphemous is that for most Christians “the job” that Jesus came to do is usually limited to: atoning for sin, defeating death, inaugurating the resurrection, and providing for the forgiveness of sins. If this is all that is meant by “the job,” then, of course, Jesus finished the job.
 
But, what if “the job” extended beyond these? After all, if “the job” was only to die and rise again, then why did Jesus minister for three and a half years? Why didn’t He just get baptized, go to Jerusalem, and die? Or, better yet, just go to Jerusalem and die? And why do the gospels make so much of the life and ministry of Jesus?
 
Now, I suspect that some might respond here by saying that the life and deeds of Jesus serve as a model for us. We should be kind like He was. We should love our enemies like he did. We should pray often like he did. These are fine suggestions. Surely, as we have seen, there is a call to imitate Jesus.
 
The NT writers intimately connected the ministry of Jesus to the coming of the kingdom. In other words, according to the NT the totality of the life and ministry of Jesus, as well as his death, resurrection, and ascension, and the coming of the Spirit, mark the beginning of the kingdom of God, or the New Creation.
 
What is essential for us grasp, both in regards to understanding the NT and the purpose of the Christian life is that in Christ the new creation has begun, but it does not end with Jesus!
 
The purpose of the Christian life and the call of God’s people, then, is to carry forth the work of Christ. Consequently, in order for us to understand our mission as the church, we must understand the mission of Jesus—which I will elaborate on in the next post!

What does this all mean?
It also does not appear that Paul has given us a timeless edict. He has laid down a principle that cannot be ignored: namely, that whoever serves as a pastor must be educated and prepared so that they are not easily deceived. This would apply to men and women. Anyone who is not educated well enough is more subject to deception (modern studies have confirmed this to be one of the leading factors for deception among adults), and therefore should not be in the office of pastor in the church. This corresponds with Paul’s list of qualifications in 1 Tim 3 for pastors: including the fact that they cannot be a ‘new convert’ (1 Tim 3:6) and that they must be ‘able to teach’ (1 Tim 3:2). For those who are new converts will be susceptible to deception as they are not likely well educated in the teachings of the church.
 
It is tragic that some of these very churches who adamantly restrict women from being pastors and teachers have men in these positions who also lack the education necessary to protect the flock from the deceptions of the devil. The principle, as Paul has set forth in this passage, is that anyone who is more easily deceived cannot serve as pastors and teachers over the church. Paul eliminated all women because in his day they were, generally speaking, not privileged to the education necessary to qualify them for such positions. But, in 1 Timothy 3, when he lists the qualifications for pastors, he notes that men who are not educated (i.e., new converts and not able to teach) are similarly excluded from the office of pastor over men.
 
In all, women have tremendous gifts and callings from the Lord. These gifts and callings are essential to the full growth and edification of the body! It is time that we all recognize them for who they are and what they can bring to the table!
 
This means that as long as there are no cultural factors that create a hindrance to the gospel (as would be the case in various part of the world even today), women should be allowed to teach and have authority in the church. In fact, if women teaching and having authority were a help to the gospel in a particular cultural context (such as Europe and much of the west), then we should absolutely permit it. Imagine if, in our progressive culture, the church were leading the way in the area of women’s rights, how much it would potentially positively affect the spread of the Gospel!
 
Why is this important?
First, hindering women from roles of leadership in the church suppresses women and both denies them the opportunity to use the very gifts given to them by the Holy Spirit, and denies the church the blessings that would come from their doing so. When women are not given their proper role in the New Creation alongside men, the Kingdom of God suffers. Just think about: we lose half (or more than half) of our resources.
 
Secondly, the church’s backward views of women often fosters the discrimination and abuse against women mentioned at the beginning of these posts. Instead of leading the way in terms of justice for all, we are silent. At times we are in fact leading the charge for the suppression of women. Many may take offense at this accusation. But, I know well that many men in the evangelical church are afraid to speak up for women’s rights because they would not want to be seen as supporting the liberal movement of women’s rights. Shame on us. Our women are suppressed, marginalized, abused, raped, forced into slavery, and unwanted marriages and we are afraid to speak up because we don’t want to be considered liberal? I say that to speak up is to be Christian!
 
Jesus said, “For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels” (Mark 8:38). You may not agree with me on the theological conviction of women in ministry. But for the sake of women in our world, I dare say that we must reconsider our views, for the impact on women is atrocious!

PostScript
Recently a very popular conservative evangelical pastor (John MacArthur) put down a popular woman teacher (Beth Moore). When asked to give a one word association to “Beth Moore” MacArthur replied with two words: “go home.” The host and the assembled crowd applauded in an uproar of laughter. I am sorry but this was despicable. It was rude. It was a display of arrogant and pretentiousness.
 
Just because one does not believe that women should be allowed to teach in the church, does not give one the right to disgrace those who do or the women who teach. The NT is emphatic, and the repeated emphasis only serves to accentuate its importance,[1] that we are to maintain unity in the church. We must love and respect one another.[2] MacArthur did not reflect any notion of love for the other. His comments were offensive to Beth Moore, to women in general, and to all who affirm the right of women to teach and preach. Moreover, he was cavalier and somewhat arrogant and the response of the crowd only served to foster division in the church. This is radically unbiblical.  
 
As I have argued in my posts, women should be allowed to teach and pastor in the church today as a sign that the kingdom of God has come. If you do not agree with this position that is one thing. But the continued attitude that denigrates women is unacceptable and the church must cry out against this.  


[1] Cf Rom 12:10, 16; 1 Cor 1:10; 3:3-7; Eph 4:2-6; Phil 2:1-4; Ps 133:1. It is through our unity that the world will know that the Father sent the Son (John 17:23).

[2] John 13:35; 1 John 3:14; 4:12; 1 Pet 3:8.

​Doesn’t Paul say women can’t be pastors?
But what about 1 Timothy 2 were Paul seems to forbid women from teaching and having authority in the church and he appears to do so with abiding justifications and not culturally relevant ones? “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression” (1 Tim 2:12-14).
 
Before looking at this passage we should note that this was not an absolute dictum that forbade women from all teaching activities. After all, we see women doing just that throughout the NT. Priscilla was teaching Apollos in Acts 18. Philip’s four daughters were prophesying in Acts 21 (note: the act of prophesying entails teaching). And in 1 Cor 11:5, Paul approves of women praying and prophesying in church, He simply requests that they have their heads covered when doing so.
 
Now, it is widely acknowledged that the twin prohibitions of ‘teaching’ and ‘having authority’ in 1 Tim 2:12 entail the primary functions of a pastor. Thus, while not absolutely forbidding a woman from teaching in every setting, Paul was forbidding them from the role of a pastor or church leader; at least “over men.” This would suggest that a women preaching on a Sunday morning to the congregation may well be permitted; for though they are performing a task that a pastor performs they are not usurping his authority as pastor and leader of the flock. That is, the text forbids them from two things that together constitute the position or office of what we term ‘pastor’. This does not mean that a woman cannot perform the task of teaching—which is why we see women teaching at various times in the NT.
 
To suggest that women cannot preach on Sunday, but yet they can present the same message to a classroom on Wednesday is quite silly. What is the difference between a woman teaching a message on a Wednesday and her giving the same message on a Sunday morning? She is performing the task but not the office of a pastor. This distinction is quite significant. Paul allowed the former, but forbade the latter.
 
Secondly, Paul’s prohibition that women should not have authority in the church is not absolute either. Paul simply states that alongside the restriction of teaching she cannot have over “a man.” For many, and I would concur, this means that women are permitted to function and serve as children’s pastors, or, even pastors of women; just not over “men.” That this holds true finds support in Paul’s letter to Titus in which he counsels Titus on how to relate to younger and older men and older women.[1] Note that Paul gives no provisions for Titus on how he is supposed to counsel younger women. Presumably, because this would have been inappropriate. Propriety suggests that older women were better served at addressing and ministering to younger women.[2]
 
It is at this juncture that most evangelical churches would be in agreement with me. They have no problem with women being in authority over women and children. Some refuse to allow a woman to preach on Sunday, but, as we have shown, that does not appear to be what Paul was forbidding. At this point, we could stop and most everyone would be content—though not necessarily in full agreement—with what has been said. Paul seemingly allowed women to teach in various settings and to be in authority over women and children. But, let’s look at the prohibition of women in 1 Tim 2:12-14 to see if there is more.
 
It is important to observe that the prohibition of women from occupying the office of pastor over men is justified by Paul in 1 Tim 2:13-14. Here he gives two reasons for his prohibition.[3] His first justification is that Adam was formed first (2:13). This is a reference to what is called ‘primogeniture’ (basically: the order of birth or creation). Paul is saying that since Adam was first in creation we are going to establish a rule that man is to be first in the church. Now this appears very concrete. It remains true today that Adam was formed first—in fact, it will remain true forever. Therefore, Paul’s prohibition appears to be based on an abiding principle.
 
In order, then, to argue that Paul’s prohibition of women being pastors over men was culturally conditioned (that is, it is not necessarily the result of absolutely binding and eternally fixed factors), one would need to contend that the law of primogeniture is not absolute. Well, it is not. There are numerous occasions in which the one who was first was not given the privilege forever: Isaac over Ishmael; Jacob over Esau; Ephraim over Manasseh; Moses over Aaron; David was the youngest in his family.
 
In addition, primogeniture was culturally bound. In a culture that was intimately tied to land transfers and the allotment of inheritance, it was necessary to impose some standard that determined who was first. In such cultures, it was often essential to not split up the farms equally among all surviving heirs as this would have been detrimental to the long term survival of the clan. In such societies, it was natural to choose the oldest—since the oldest was more likely mature enough to care for the family. After all, younger siblings might even be in need of care themselves. Choosing the oldest as a rule also eliminated or minimized the potential for sibling rivalry. These pragmatic factors made primogeniture a part of the fabric of the biblical world. But, as such, they do not necessarily translate to our contemporary situation. Thus, to say that Paul was saying men can be pastors and women cannot based on an absolute fact that Adam was made first, fails to recognize that his reasoning was based on a culturally accepted practice of primogeniture. For Paul and the early church, this was a valid reason. But it was a reason that was culturally conditioned. And one that does not necessarily translate into all cultures for all time.
 
The second reason that Paul states to justify his restriction of women from the office of pastor over men is that Eve was the one who was deceived first (1 Tim 2:14). Again it appears that Paul has provided for us a theologically grounded basis for his rule—the fact is that she was deceived first. Though this reasoning seems a bit arbitrary, it was not. Paul’s argument is that Eve, and the women of his day, were more susceptible to deception. Now, this may appear to be a bit sexist.  
 
Before we look at the nature of this assertion we must reflect on the fact that the pastor must keep watch over the flock. In doing so, one of the most central roles of the pastor is to watch over the teaching and beliefs of the church and to guard them against deception (note: the devil’s name is ‘the deceiver’: deception is one of his primary weapons!). Therefore, Paul lays forth an important rule that the pastor must not be one who is more susceptible to deception (I’ll return to this in a moment).
 
Now, we must ask why it is that Paul deemed that women were more susceptible to deception. For a while, I myself concluded that since Paul stated that women were more susceptible to deception, then it must simply be so. However, more recent studies have revealed (beyond the fact that I was naïve among other things) that there are several causes that make a person more susceptible to deception. Among these factors are such things as age (children are more easily deceived than adults), experience, intelligence, and education (the more educated the less likely to be deceived).
 
Note that gender is not a factor! Paul was not saying, then, that women by nature were more naturally deceived. Why, then, did Paul say that women were more easily deceived? Considering all the factors that contribute to a person being subject to deception, the only factor that would have been generally, and perhaps almost universally true of women at the time of Paul, is that they were not privileged to the same levels of education as men. As a result, women were, generally speaking, not qualified to serve as pastors because they were not privileged to the same level of education and were, thus, more likely subject to deception. Consequently, it was not their gender that was the problem. Might we conclude that as access to education is made more available to all, including women, that women may qualify to serve as pastors over men?
 
Paul wasn’t forbidding a woman who lectured on a Wednesday from teaching on Sunday. The educational preparation for women in his day wasn’t present. Now that it is more readily available, it stands to reason that Paul would have been willing to allow women to teach the same message on Sunday that they did on Wednesday and to allow them the authority to lead the entire church.


[1] Titus 2:1-8.

[2] Now I am not suggesting that Paul allowed women to be pastors of women in his day because such is an anachronistic thought. It doesn’t appear that they had such roles then. I am suggesting that if Paul were here today in our contemporary western churches he would have had no problem with women being ‘leaders’ of women. You’ll see why below I refrained from using the designation ‘pastor’ here.

[3] The Greek of 1 Tim 2:13 begins with gar (for) which often states the reason why something is true. That is, Paul is effectively saying, ‘The reason why women cannot be pastors over men is . . . (v 13) and . . . (v 14).

Women and the Kingdom of God
There is no question that Jesus brought the Kingdom of God (KOG).[1] Now, the KOG is in its essence the restoration, redemption, and reconciliation of all creation. Though the kingdom of God is a central focus of Jesus’ teaching, it is in the description of the New Jerusalem in final two chapters of the book of Revelation (21-22) that we find the climax of the kingdom. One of the keys to understanding the Kingdom of God is to note that the description of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21-22 is in accord with the restoration of Eden.[2]
 
We know that in Eden male and female were created to be equals: “Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” (Gen 1:26-27). The Genesis account unequivocally asserts that both male and female were equally made in the image of God.
 
Some suggest that the formation of Eve in Genesis 2 asserts that subjugation of women. This, however, is not a good reading of the text. When Genesis is read against the background of the Ancient Near East it is clear that women are not to be relegated to inferiority. For one, the Genesis account is unique in the ancient world in that it describes the formation of women! Other Ancient Near Eastern accounts do not include women in the discussion.
 
It has been asserted that since according to Gen 2:18 women were made as a helper for men, they must be inferior to men. The text states, “The LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.’”
 
The problem here is that the designation “helper” does not imply inferiority. In fact, “helper” is used most often to describe God’s (Yahweh’s) relationship to Israel.[3] But God is Israel’s helper because He is stronger. If anything, then, one might suggest that women are superior to men. The context, of course, does not indicate this either. The point being, the Genesis account asserts that both male and female were made in the image of God. There is nothing in the context that suggests that women are inferior.[4]
 
If, then, the Kingdom of God is the restoration, redemption, and reconciliation of creation,  and, if in the original creation male and female were equals, then it stands to reason that in the new creation male and female are equals again.
 
In addition, if the new creation has begun, which 2 Corinthians 5:17 surely indicates (“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here”), then the church should be at the forefront of advocating for women in the present—both in society and in the church. To deny such is to deny that the new creation has already begun in the life of the people of God.
 
Some may respond that the NT has plenty of instances in which women are inferior to men. How can this be if the new creation has already begun and women were moving towards equality with men?
 
First, one must recognize the radical nature of the church and the role of women in it. As mentioned above, in accord with Peter’s citation of Joel, women were equally filled with the Spirit. They were also fulfilling roles as prophetesses and deaconnesses. And women were praying and prophesying in the church. All of this was revolutionary.
 
I believe that one can easily understand passages in which Paul and the NT writers were putting restrictions on the progress of women in the church as a temporary restraint in light of the cultural conflicts that arose. Simply put, if the church were viewed as too progressive in regards to women, and they likely were in danger of doing so, then it may well have had a negative impact on their witness. As a result, Paul thought it best to reign things in a bit. Thus, when women were to pray and prophesy in the church, Paul says that they should do so with their heads covered (1 Cor 11:3-16). Note that Paul did not forbid women from praying and prophesying in the church—something that many churches do today—but that he simply yielded to the cultural pressures in order to maintain peace with the culture. In other words, Paul decides to lay down this rule in order to not offend beyond what was necessary so that the gospel may proceed.


[1] Cf Mark 1:14-15. Jesus’ opening announcement in Mark is that the Kingdom of God is at hand!

[2] Note the presence of the tree of life (Rev 22:2).

[3] See for example: Exod 18:4; Deut 33:7, 26, 29; Ps 33:20; 115:9-11.

[4] See below for my response to the notion that Adam was superior simply because he was made first. Primogeniture (being first) does not necessitate superior.

Can women serve equally with men in the church?
Admittedly, the question is multi-faceted and the issues are complex. The complexities include at the most basic level whether or not women can teach in the church at all (including the teaching of children; youth; or, adults—whether that be women only, or both women and men), and whether or not women can have authority in the church and at what level (including authority over children; youth; adults—whether it be women only, or both women and men).
 
I will argue over this series of posts that with the coming of Christ, his life, death, and resurrection, and the coming of the Spirit, the new creation has begun. This is why Paul can say, “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come” (2 Cor 5:17).[1] Now, since the new creation is understood in terms of a new Eden, then, just as there was equality of gender, ethnicity, and socio-economics in Eden, so, also, shall there be in the new creation. This is stated explicitly in Galatians 3:28-29 says, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
 
But, and this will be my main point, if the new creation has already begun in the present, then should we not begin to implement the new creation in the life of the church today? Paul exhorts the church in Colosse to do just that when he says, “Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above” (Col 3:1). I don’t suspect anyone would object to the assertion that the key ethic of the kingdom is love and this ethic is to characterize the people of God in the present. Love is indeed eternal (1 Cor 13:4-13). Love is not simply an ideal that is awaiting a future fulfillment. Love is an ethic that must be implemented in the present. The question, then, becomes: should we not do the same when it come to the role of women in the church and in society?
 
Now, I realize that complementarians (those who believe that men should continue to have authority over women in the church and home) will simply respond that the Bible says so (citing 1 Tim 2:12-14 as the primary text). I will address this passage also. First, however, I will expand on the argument that the NT is clearly moving us towards a new creation reality in which men and women are equals in the kingdom.
 
Before I venture down that path, I will briefly relate my experiences that caused me to begin to question my long held convictions.

Why I began to reconsider matters 
I came to faith in Christ in a wonderful, but very conservative, church environment. As a result the Bible was read as very black and white (aside from the red letters of course!). When it came to women in ministry, I was convinced that the Bible lays it out very concretely: women cannot “teach or have authority over a man” (1 Tim 2:12). Now, I understood this verse allowed women to teach children and other women, but not men. Over the years, in addition to my coming to understand the Scriptures in light of the new creation, the Lord used several experiences that began to nudged me look at things afresh.
 
First, I had several encounters with women in higher education. In my post-graduate studies I came across numerous articles and books written by women. I wondered to myself at the oddity of it all. These female scholars were great writers and gifted communicators. And their writings reflected a deep passion for the Lord. I thought that it was ironic that I, as a man, could take what they wrote and use it in teaching and preaching, but they themselves, simply because they were women, were not be permitted to do so. I began to wonder why women could teach our emerging pastors in the colleges and seminaries Monday through Friday, but those same women were not allowed to teach our congregations on Sunday? I was puzzled by the reality that their students, who were not as equipped as they were, could preach, but they couldn’t.
 
A second key factor that caused me to delve more deeply into the Scriptures was the fact that there are many gifted women in our churches. Some of these women are high level leaders, teachers, and even executives in the workplace. Yet, their leadership, teaching, and management skills are suppressed in today’s churches simply because of their gender. If God has gifted them, then why are they not able to use those gifts in the local church?
 
In a society in which women’s rights are suppressed, should not the church be at the forefront of advocacy for equality? How can we read Gal 3:28 and still advocate for the superiority of one gender above another? The answer is that we can do so only by failing to read Gal 3:28 in regards to the coming of the kingdom.
 


[1] The NAU (cited here) says “new creature.” Most English translations (including the ESV, NET, NIV, and NRS) read, “new creation.”

​Wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters around the world experience significant oppression. They are, simply because of their gender, routinely deprived of education[1] and other opportunities afforded to men. In some countries, women are forced into unwanted marriages.[2] According to the World Health Organization 35% of women worldwide have experienced either intimate partner violence or non partner sexual violence in their lifetime.[3] One out of every three women have been a victim of some form of physical violence by an intimate partner.[4] And it is not just out there. In the United States, one out of every six women will be the victim of an attempted or completed rape.[5]
 
When all factors are equal, such as experience and education, women working the same jobs as men are paid significantly less than their male counterparts. Gender discrimination goes well beyond pay: it includes a lack of respect. Women often feel less important. They are passed over for promotions or important assignments, and even turned down for a job simply because of their gender. In addition, women are more often harassed than men: 70% of women believe online harassment is a major problem; and that it is often overlooked or dismissed.
 
If we are appalled at the practice of slavery, then we should be far more appalled at the global treatment of women today. There are as many as ten times more women trafficked in sex slavery today than there we slaves brought to the new world.
 
Though there are more women in the western and European world today, and though they tend to live longer lives, demographers have estimated that there are between 60 and 100 million missing women from societies due to infanticide of female babies. In many countries girls are aborted far more frequently than boys.
 
For evangelicals who are so radically concerned with the abortion issue, why are we not speaking up! This is not what God intended! It is time for the church to stand up and cry out at the injustices brought upon our wives, our daughters, our mothers, and our sisters.  
 
Women in the church
Women have played a prominent role in the church for centuries. Historically women have been the majority members of the church. The large female membership likely stemmed in part from the early church's informal and flexible organization offering significant roles to women.
 
When we look at the New Testament we learn that women held prominent roles in the early church: including, the evangelist Priscilla,[6] the deaconness Phoebe,[7] and Philip’s daughters that prophesied.[8] Luke portrays Mary in the posture of a disciple when he notes that she was sitting at the feet of Jesus.[9] Women were prominent in the resurrection accounts of all four gospels. The letter to the Corinthians indicates that women were praying and prophesying in church.[10]
 
It appears that the hallmark of the new covenant is that men and women will equally receive the Spirit. Thus, Peter’s citation of Joel: “In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy” (Acts 2:17-18).
 
When we read of women taking on such prominent roles, we must recognize that this was radically counter-cultural. The church was blazing a trail that had not been much trodden.
 
When we look at the church today, however, women are often consigned to a second-place status: a second-place that is often a significant distance from first. Why, then, if the NT consistently elevates the role of women, do most churches relegate them to an inferior status?
 
In this series of posts, I will contend that women play a significant role in the NT because in the new covenant God is restoring His creation which includes the equality of gender and race. Hence, Gal 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”


[1] Two out of three of the world’s illiterates are women. See: https://www.savethechildren.org/us/what-we-do/global-programs/education/girls-education.

[2] One third of the world’s girls are married before they are 18. One of every nine women are married before they turn 15. See: https://www.icrw.org/child-marriage-facts-and-figures/.

[3] See: https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women.

[4] See: https://ncadv.org/learn-more/statistics.

[5] See: https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence.

[6] Cf Acts 18. Note in 18:18, 26, Rom 16:13, and 2 Tim 4:19 her name precedes that of her husband suggesting strongly that she has a more prominent role. 1 Cor 16:19 is an exception where Aquila appears first, but this only makes one wonder more why Priscilla (or Prisca) is listed first in every other occasion.

[7] Rom 16:1 appears to call Phoebe a deaconess. Though most translations use ‘servant’ here. The calling out of Phoebe itself suggests someone of note. Grammatical considerations also lend towards her being a deacon. Some contend that the masculine “deacon” is used and not the feminine “deaconness” but it does not appear that the feminine “deaconness” had to come into use yet.

[8] Acts 21:18-19: they are called prophetesses. One must remember that a prophet in the NT is more than one who receives oracles from the Lord. But they are often associated with teaching and exhorting. Cp Paul’s contrast of those who speak in tongues vs those who prophesy in Acts 14.

[9] Luke 10:39.
​
[10] 1 Cor 11:5. 

NB: This question was posed to me by an acquaintance. Let me state at the outset that I am answering this question as a biblical scholar and not in terms of the current policital climate in the US. In otherwords, my answer would not change regardless of who the current president is, nor what country I were writing about.
 
First, if one defines an “instrument of righteousness” in terms of a leader of a nation who is upholding the laws of the land in accord with his God-given responsibility, then it is easy to find some laws that even the most ruthless of leaders upholds and, thereby, conclude that that leader is such an instrument. In other words, almost anyone could argue that almost any leader is an “instrument of righteousness” based on this definition. This is a classic example of Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorff’s principle “words create worlds”—which stated succinctly means that what people look for is what they find.
 
The primary problem, and there are many, with the suggestion the our current president is “an instrument of righteousness” is that it misunderstands what “righteousness” is. “Righteousness,” biblically defined, is not a moral category, even though that is how we tend to use it, but is always closely related to the covenant: see the phrase, “righteousness of God” throughout the books of Romans and Galatians. In these books, the phrase is intimately tied to God’s covenantal faithfulness.
 
Consequently, an OT king could be such an instrument if he upheld the law of God (God’s covenant) for the nation of Israel—note the connection with the people of God. In the New Testament, however, the covenant with Israel finds its fulfillment in Jesus; who begins “a new covenant.” To be an “instrument of righteousness” in the NT, then, means that one is advancing the new covenant; which Jesus proclaimed is the Kingdom of God.
 
[Thus, citing OT passages about God using kings to advance His kingdom is not applicable in the NT. Citing Romans 13 doesn’t work either because all Paul is saying there is that those in authority are meant to do right. That is, they are to maintain justice in the world. But this is different than bringing in the justice of the Kingdom of God; that is, national justice is not equal to justice done by the people of God—at least it cannot be now that the people of God are not a distinct national people group] 
 
The key distinction between the old covenant and the new is that in the new covenant the people of God are no longer limited to a national identity. Instead, the people of God are composed of anyone who acknowledges that Jesus is Lord. If, then, an “instrument of righteousness” is one who advances the kingdom of God, then no secular leader can do so today (unless one were to suppose that God were to bring a nation-state against the church in judgment; but there is no NT indication that such will occur).
 
There are two kingdoms in the world today: the Kingdom of God and the kingdoms of the world. The Kingdom of God comes through faithful, persevering, sacrificial, and loving witness of God’s people. It stands opposed to the kingdoms of the world in that we proclaim Jesus is Lord while they proclaim Caesar is Lord.
 
A secondary problem arises with this presumption. Namely, in the present Christians are to be “instruments of righteousness” by advancing the Kingdom of God in both word and deed to the nations. When Christians take a stand politically and endorse people or laws it is imperative that we ask ourselves how will this affect my witness?
 

(This blog is part 3 of a series of blogs on “the Gospel and power”).
The first blog in this series addressed the “upside-down” nature of the Gospel—namely, that the kingdom of God comes through faithful, sacrificial, and loving witness. I, also, addressed matters of church discipline. And thirdly, I referred to a documentary that focused on a movement among some Christians to influence the world by placing godly men in positions of power around the world.
 
The third point—putting godly men in positions of power—seems like a good idea to many. I, however, am deeply troubled by this idea. In addition to what I wrote earlier, I am troubled because I believe that it is in direct conflict with the Gospel and the mission of God’s people.
 
God’s people are to advance the kingdom of God through their faithful, loving, and sacrificial witness. To say it again: the gospel advances when God’s people faithfully, lovingly, and sacrificially witness for the kingdom. That is, we do so the same way Jesus did—by dying![1]
 
Now, it may seem incredulous to suppose that the kingdom of God advances through the death of God’s people. And that is the point! The kingdom of God doesn’t advance its empire the way the world’s empires advance! This may be hard to swallow but it is the absolute message of Scripture and it is supported by church history.
 
The thinking behind those who aim to place godly men in power, then, falsely assumes that it is God’s desire to place Christians in power so that they can affect Christian laws upon a secular society. Now, this might be a noble endeavor. But I would vigorously contend that it is an inherently non-Christian endeavor.
 
For one, the endeavor to impose Christian laws and ethics upon a culture does not make Christians, nor a Christian empire. It may make for a society with good laws. But it doesn’t necessarily make a society of good people.
 
Now, do not misunderstand. I am not saying that Christian men (and women) cannot or should not be in positions of power. Nor, am I saying that making good laws is not a noble endeavor.
 
What I am saying is that God’s desire for His people is to work for His kingdom. There will indeed be a day when Jesus will rule all the nations. But it will not be by placing Christians in power in this age. Instead, the ruler of this age (the devil) must be permanently cast aside; and, death and sin must be eradicated. Until that happens, which I would affirm takes place at the second coming of Christ (but if you want to push it to the end of the millenium it doesn’t matter to me), the people of God are called to lives of faithful, loving, and sacrificial witness.
 
Until then, the people of God may attempt to influence the nations of the world. We may seek positions of power. But we must understand that it is not through power, force, or military might that the kingdom of God comes. It is through a faithful, loving, and sacrificial witness. As a result, our deeds are just as important as a words.
 
Thus, when Christian leaders in power fall from grace and commit blatant sins, they should model repentance and contrition, and they should step down. After all, if a pastor or other leader did such, we have already agreed that they should step down.
 
For some reason, there is a fear among Christians that we cannot have Christian political leaders step down because someone who is not a Christian—someone who doesn’t share Christian values—might step in and fill the office.
 
This line of thinking is seriously in error. Our Christian witness is of greater importance that having Christians in seats of power. “They will know you are my disciples” not because you made Christians laws, but because of your conduct and character. When Christians hide their sins, or confess them, and, yet, do not step down, they are testifying to the world that their power is more important than their character.

When they don’t do what we would expect any other Christian in leadership to do, then we have placed too great an emphasis on the position and the power. And we have failed to understand that this is not the way the kingdom of God comes.
 
Hence, the documentary; which was produced to warn people about the Christian agenda to rule the world and influence the nations for their cause.
 
In the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7) Jesus explains that in the Old Testament law one was not permitted to murder, commit adultery, or lie. But, in His kingdom, Jesus explains, doing any of these in one’s heart was equal to doing them in one’s actions.

​The point is that having good laws does not make one Christian. The nature of the Gospel is to have one’s heart transformed.
 
When we endeavor to force Christian values on others through power, it often repels people from the Gospel. When Christians are respected for being Christians and for living according to their ideals—which are predicated on a faithful, loving, and sacrificial witness—then the Gospel flourishes.


[1] In my upcoming book I spend much time defending this statement.

(This blog is part 2 of a series of blogs on “the Gospel and power”).
​
The first blog in this series addressed the “upside-down” nature of the Gospel—namely, that the kingdom of God comes through faithful, sacrificial, and loving witness; and matters of church discipline; and a documentary that focused on a movement among some Christians to influence the world by placing godly men in positions of power around the world.
 
The third point—putting godly men in positions of power—seems like a good idea to many.

I, however, am troubled by this idea. I am troubled because I believe that it is in direct conflict with the Gospel. In this blog, I will contend that putting Christian people in positions of power may well lead situations that conflict with the Gospel.
 
The aforementioned documentary went on to show that those values sometimes went ignored if/when they were transgressed. For example, when men committed acts of adultery, instead of doing the very things we should expect men of God to do, they were protected by the Christian establishment.
 
From the vantage point of those producing the documentary this was the height of hypocrisy. From their perspective, these Christian organizations were trying to obtain power in order to impose their social, economic, political, and moral standards on others (which to some in the secular world, appears cultic). Yet, these men of Christian ideals were not willing to live up to those very same standards when they violated them. They wanted to impose Christian values on the world, in other words, but they were not willing to follow them themselves. 
 
Many of you may be reading this and conclude that there is nothing wrong here. These men, at least some of them, were contrite and repentant. They probably sought reconciliation. They likely tried to do the right thing.
 
Let’s assume for a minute that this were true in all cases. We have already established that Christian leaders need to be held to a higher ethical standard than others. Furthermore, for their own sake, and for the sake of others who have been injured by the leader’s fall from grace, and for the sake of the church’s witness to the world, these men need more help. To allow them to remain in their positions of power after a significant sin conveys the message to all that these men are to be treated differently from the rest because of their positions of power. This is precisely the opposite of what I set forth in the first blog. When leaders sin, the consequences need to be more severe.   
 
What, in effect, is happening in these cases is that keeping men in positions of power is deemed more important than the Gospel. This might sound outrageous. But the Gospel, which includes our witness to the world, is adversely affected when Christians, especially Christians in places of power, sin.
 
Not only that, but allowing them to remain in positions of power sends a message to the leaders themselves that they are special and need to be treated as such. Consequently, they do not receive all of the consequences for their sins that others might. The result is that they fail to get the necessary counseling and help that they need. Instead, they retain their positions of power, and begin to live with a sense that they are above the law. Because they do not face the necessary consequences of their sin, they often continue living unscrupulously. The end result is that the very law that they are put in positions of power to impose on others does not, in effect, apply to them.
 
Another effect of this special treatment for those in power is that sin itself is often minimized. This is used to justify the softer punishment for the leader who has sinned. In order to minimize the sin, however, the victim is often pushed aside. After all, giving the victim the necessary care they deserved, would only validate the severity of the sin.

Why do good Christian leaders in positions of power compromise their own core Christian values? More importantly, how can the Church not stand up and object when this happens?
 
The answer is, of course, complex, but a key catalyst is the conviction that it is deemed more important to have such men in positions of power, than it is to impose Christian discipline. In other words, the desire to have men who espouse Christian ideals in power is deemed more important than having men who actually live them out on a consistent basis. 
 
There is another, and more significant, flaw with this approach to power. Namely, that it is in direct conflict with the Gospel of Christ. 

The Gospel is that Jesus is Lord and that through His life, death, resurrection, and ascension, He has become the world’s true Lord. Jesus presently reigns as king through His people, who are called to proclaim His kingdom to the world. We proclaim the kingdom by imitating Jesus. The overriding ethic of Jesus’ kingdom is love! Thus, just as Jesus overcame power through faithful, loving, and sacrificial witness, so shall we. (In the book I am currently writing I spend 60-100 pages laying this out and defending this thesis. But I suspect that you expect a blog to be a bit shorter). At some point in the future, Scripture indicates that Jesus will return, vindicate His people, and establish His kingdom in full. At that time, death, sin, and corruption will vanish.
 
The Gospel has often been referred to as the "upside-down Gospel." Jesus’ way of doing things doesn’t fit with the world’s way. The world uses power. Jesus uses love. The world demands that we look out for number one. Jesus demands that we look out for the other—especially the one that others won’t look out for.
 
I suspect that most of you who are reading this will have no trouble with this notion. Well, we at least have no problem with this in theory. We all recognize the difficulty in living it out.
 
. . . .
If a pastor or church leader were involved in some form of moral failure, I suspect that most everyone reading this would recommend some form of pastoral care for the afflicted and church discipline for the offender. Such discipline should, in the least, include confronting the offender so that he/she repent, demanding that they obtain counseling and other help, and then aiming for eventual reconciliation.

​Most would agree—depending on the nature and severity of the sin—that the pastor or leader should step away from ministry for at least some specified period of time, if not forever—depending of the seriousness and length of the sin, as well as how well the pastor or leader has received help.
 
In such instances, church discipline is intended to address issues of sin on at least three levels.

First, there is the care for those injured by the pastor or leader’s sins.
Secondly, it is designed to help the pastor or leader who committed such acts.[1] 
Finally, there is the witness of the church to the world. Certainly, this third level is only secondary to helping those who have suffered recover, and those who have sinned get well. Nonetheless, when the church deals with sin in a congregation, especially when that sin is committed by a leader, it must be cognizant that the world is watching.
 
I suspect that most of you who are reading this will have no trouble with what I have just set forth—other than the fact that such situations are difficult and grieving and because of this we often fail to do it out well.
 
. . . .
I recently watched a troubling documentary.[2] Apparently there are Christians who perceive that God desires to place Christian men in leadership positions around the world in order that they may influence the world for the gospel. Their motive is certainly fine. And, I suspect, their hearts are in the right place.
 
I suspect that most of you who are reading this will have no trouble with this notion. In fact, I suspect that most of you think that this is a good thing.
 


[1] This is what is supposed to happen. We all, likely, know of instances in which this process wasn’t followed. In effect, once you have finished this book you might see why.

[2] The documentary was presented from a secular perspective and aimed to expose the movement and its agenda. I am not addressing whether or not it was good. My point is in regard to the concept that Christians should aim to advance the kingdom by putting people in positions of power.

Can you worship in a van? Can you worship with a fan? Can you worship in a house? Can you worship with a mouse? Can you worship in the dark? Can you worship in a park? Can you worship in a tree? Can you worship . . . ? The answer to all of these should be “yes”! Because worship[1] is a matter of the heart.  
 
I just saw a blog that was posted in which the title was “Why Churches should ditch projector screens and bring back Hymnals.”[2] Seriously! Now the author does attempt to make some defense for his thesis, but I suspect that the bottom line is: he personally worships better with hymnals than screens and so he assumes that everyone should.
 
His first argument is that “screens are ugly” (actually, the author states “they’re horrifically ugly”). He argues that they may look okay in a house or gymansium, but they “don’t fit” in a traditional church building. I’m laughing, sorry. But, do I need to note here that Jesus, Priscilla and Aquilla,[3] Tertullian, and most every Christian until the 4th century worshiped in houses?[4]
 
Next, the author argues that screens “reflect our tech obsessed culture.” Now, there is something to be said regarding our tech obsessed culture. But, does he not realize that he is writing a blog!!; which was published on a website? (let that sink in for a moment). And that in order to read his blog I must look at a screen? And does he not realize that hymnals didn’t exist until after the invention of the printing press—aka technology. And that organs and acoustic guitars can’t be played without electricity? Shall I go on? If we rail against technology, where do we start and where do we end?
 
He then contends hymnals are better than screens because it is difficult to teach new songs with screens because there are no notes. He says, “If you’re not already familiar with the tune, you cannot sing from a screen. There are no instructions on how many pitches you must devote to each syllable.” Seriously? I can’t read music. And I suspect that most (?) people can’t either! So, where does that leave us? Of course, it doesn’t matter for me how many pitches to devote to a syllable because I can’t stay on tune anyways.
 
Finally, the author contends, “To Save Worship, We Must Rediscover Hymnals.” Do I really need to respond here? If so, please reread the title of this blog.
 
If you want a hymnal, then use one. But many don’t know how to use a hymnal. And they are not likely to learn. Getting rid of the screens will hinder worship for them because they will not know the words.
 
I have many thoughts about traditional v contemporary and all that. But, for those in the church who are having this debate, I simply ask: where is your heart?
 
In addition to this, I find it ironic that people in the Church argue for one form of worship over another when worship at its core is self-denying and other focused—namely, God/Christ. So, when a person argues that my preferred form of worship is better than yours, they are often failing to deny themselves and, thus, hampering true worship.
 
I would hope that you could worship with an organ, or a guitar, from near or from far!
 
NB: One final note: a good friend and fellow pastor posted a link on his Facebook page titled “Dear churches, here’s why people are leaving.”[5] Now, I don’t think that the reasons stated in this blog are comprehensive enough, the author does hit on some good points. Basically, we are not addressing the issues that need to be addressed. I would say that the attitude that says we must get rid of the screens and bring hymnals back is a part of the problem. The younger generation doesn’t know how to use a hymnal and they spend much of their life looking at screens. Some come to church and don’t want to look at a screen. But, for many others, screens are a way of connecting them to worship! So, if you want hymnals and no screens, you might have them. But you will also need to shut your doors in a few years.


[1] I realize that “worship” needs to be defined here, but I think most readers know that I am using it in the context of deep praise and adoration during a public service. I certainly agree that “worship” should be holistic.
[2]https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/18/churches-should-ditch-projector-screens-bring-back-hymnals/
[3] If you are not familiar with them I encourage you to read Acts. They were a key couple in the life and ministry of Paul
[4] I really want to say, “I guess they should have used screens!” but I won’t.
[5]https://johnpavlovitz.com/2019/05/14/dear-church-heres-why-people-are-leaving/?fbclid=IwAR05mbAeO8Az-uo9LI3NxOxtQzTSLs_DJZIRXmjzUpqLqtLFJaH1CFC6hJw
 

​

​Christianity as a Relationship
In order to understand the nature of discipleship it is also important to recognize that Christianity is about a relationship. Many are familiar with the notion that in becoming a Christian one becomes a child of God. We receive God, our Father, who cares for and attends to His children—even more than a loving earthly father.[1] All of this is certainly true.
 
There is a danger here, as I see it. Many Christians think of having a relationship with God in terms of their own personal gain! God is there for me when I need Him. The focus of which is on God being there for me. Certainly, there is a personal gain, and certainly God is there for us. But if that is what it is about, then it is not predicated on love, but on selfishness. This means that we have the roles reversed. Instead of surrending to Christ as Lord, Christianity becomes about me. This leaves myself as Lord.
 
So, it is indeed about a relationship. But that relationship begins and ends with Christ as Lord.
 
Discipleship as Imitation
The fundamental feature of Christian discipleship, then, is that it is about becoming like Jesus! Paul says, “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ” (1 Cor 11:1). In Ephesians, Paul says, “Be imitators of God” (Eph 5:1). Since Paul was convinced that he was striving to imitate Christ in his own life, he felt that he could urge his disciples “be imitators of me”  (1 Cor 4:16). What an incredible statement! Instead of saying “imitate Jesus”, Paul says “imitate me.” Now, I do not think that we can suppose that Paul was arrogant here. I suspect that Paul meant, and his readers knew, that he was doing his best to follow Jesus and was asking them to follow along!
 
That the goal of the Christian life is to attain Christlikeness is why Paul says, “We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ. For this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me” (Col 1:28-29). Paul says that he labors and strives to present everyone “complete” in Christ. The word for “complete” (teleios) has the sense of attaining the goal, or the end.[2]
 
Now, we recognize that will not attain Christlikeness in this lifetime. We will, however, in the resurrection: “We know that when He appears, we will be like Him” (1 John 3:2). This is why Paul says,
“that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus” (Phil 3:10-14).
 
Imitation in suffering
Imitation of Christ includes suffering as Jesus suffered! Suffering is a fundamental component of being a Christian. Peter notes that Jesus suffered as an example for us: “For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps” (1 Pet 2:21). This is why Paul says that our imitation of Christ includes following Him in the way of suffering: “You also became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much tribulation with the joy of the Holy Spirit” (1 Thess 1:6). Later, in the same letter, Paul notes, “For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you also endured the same sufferings” (1 Thess 2:14).
 
This is why Jesus states that “if anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel's will save it” (Mark 8:34-35).
 


[1] Cf Luke 11:13 “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?”

[2] The different translations help us to see the full meaning of the word: ESV, NET, NIV, and NRS render it “mature in Christ”; and the NLT uses a phrase “perfect in their relationship to Christ.”

“If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel's will save it” (Mark 8:34-35).
 
What is discipleship?
Let me state it from the outset of this chapter: discipleship is the goal of the Christian life and the essence of discipleship is cross-bearing. Jesus commanded us, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matt 28:19-20). And He added, “Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple” (Luke 14:27).
 
Matthew 28:19-20 is the central command of Christianity. The command is to make disciples, not converts. A number of years ago the late Dallas Willard wrote, “The Great Omission.”[1] Now an omission is to leave something out. What is it that Willard suggests we have left out? His answer was “the Great Commission.” The Church has omitted the Great Commission. The very thing we have been called to do is the very thing we have not done.
 
Instead, most churches have replaced discipleship with conversion. Now do not misunderstand: conversion is a part of the process of making disciples. But, conversion is not the same as discipleship.
 
How so? Conversion is a one-time event. It is a one-time deal—though, admittedly, it may be a process for some. A person prays and asks Christ into their heart. Done! Fini. Game over. Even for those who come to faith in Christ over time, there is still a point, even if it is unknown to them, when conversion has taken place. Discipleship, however, is a lifelong journey.
 
A disciple is a learner, or a student. Essentially, the goal for a disciple is to grow in the likeness of their rabbi or teacher; which for a Christian means that we are on a journey to Christlikeness. When Jesus commands us to make disciples (Matt 28:19-20), He is saying that we are to help people join the journey of growing in the likeness and image of Christ. Making disciples, then, is a life-long journey.
 
Tragically, as Willard observed, “The governing assumption today, among professing Christians, is that we can be “Christians” forever and never become disciples.”[2] This is because for much of evangelical Christianity the goal is conversion. Pastors and church leaders often wonder why they have so much trouble getting people to come to church, to live seriously for Jesus, to read their Bibles, to come to a prayer meeting, to volunteer and serve. Yet, the answer is simple: why should they? After all, if conversion is the goal, then all else is extra. If the choice is between the football game and going to church, between the kids soccer and a Bible study, between sleeping in and not sleeping in, between a night at home and a night at a prayer meeting, then the decision is simple: “if I am already a Christian and all that is good to go, then I might as well as stay home and enjoy the game, or the extra sleep.”
 
The problem is that, for many, they were never told they were supposed to do anything beyond believe. Though, admittedly, it is sometimes implied, and often taught, that those who commit their lives to Christ “ought” to live moral lives. What is not recognized enough is that the preaching of moralism (do good things and not bad things) is often a source of conflict for many. They feel burden to do the right thing. The result is that we find degrees of faithfulness in the church, but mostly as a result of a sense of obligation.
 
The reality, then, is that we have sold them the wrong product. Then we wonder why they are not doing what we believe is vital to their spiritual growth.


[1] Willard, The Great Omission,

[2] Willard, Omission, xi. ​

I would like to take our discussion of what is the Gospel further. In doing so, we need to ask two questions: First, what is the goal of the Christian life? Secondly, what is the purpose of the Christian life? The first question pertains to the topic of personal discipleship. The second question to the mission of God’s people. It is essential, however, to note that the answers to these two questions are intricately interwoven. We must not, and cannot, separate our growth as disciples from our call to fulfill our mission.
 
Here again, the Gospel of personal salvation becomes problematic. I suspect that if we were to ask most western Christians what the goal and the purpose of the Christian life are the answers would be something along the lines of: “to accept Jesus so we can go to heaven when we die.” For most, this is both the goal and the purpose.
 
As a result, it is not uncommon for Christians to consider Christianity as a one-day-a-week, or even a one-day-a-month thing. Most Christians have little sense that there is much beyond accepting Jesus as their savior. Pastors struggle to get their members to come, to be engaged in Bible studies, to engage in outreach, and to serve. As long as Christianity and being a Christian is defined in terms of my personal salvation alone, then the struggle to help Christians understand that there is more and to experience this more will be ever present. 

In order then to understand the Gospel further we must explore what discipleship is and what it means to be a disciple. This will be our next series of posts. 

The Gospel and the Kingdom
To this point we have established that the gospel in its simplest expression is “Jesus is Lord” and that it is to be believed because it is the truth. In order to further our understanding of the Gospel, it is, also, necessary to observe the relationship between the gospel and the kingdom of God!
 
The gospel and the Kingdom of God are deeply intertwined in the NT. We see this in Mark’s opening description of the ministry of Jesus: “Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel’” (Mark 1:14-15). Though some might suggest here that Jesus was referring to two related but different things—first, Jesus was “preaching the gospel of God” (Mark 1:14), and secondly, He was also “saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand’” (Mark 1:15)—the Greek construction indicates that these two elements are in fact one. That is, Jesus was “preaching the gospel of God,” and what He was saying (i.e., what constitutes the gospel of God) was: “the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand.”[1] In this statement, then, we see a clear connection between the gospel and the Kingdom of God.
 
The Gospel of Matthew, likewise, connects the gospel with the Kingdom of God. Matthew uses the word “gospel” (euangellion) four times (Matt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; and 26:13). In each of the first three occurences (Matt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14) the gospel is directly connected with “the kingdom.”[2]
 
Matthew’s first two uses (Matt 4:23; 9:35) are especially significance for our sake. A comparison of Matthew 4:23 and 9:35 shows that these two verses are virtually identical:

“Jesus was going throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness among the people” (4:23)
“Jesus was going through all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness” (9:35).  
 
The repetition of virtually identical statements,[3] as we see in Matthew 4:23 and 9:35, forms what is known as an “inclusio.” An inclusio is one of the primary means by which an ancient author identifies the beginning and ending of a section or an entire work.[4] The use of an inclusio not only serves as a way of indentifying the beginning and ending of a section, but also serves to indicate its key purpose—somewhat like what we do with a “thesis statement.” This means that Matthew 4:23-9:35 should be viewed as one extended section. The central themes of which are Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom and His doing the work of the kingdom. We see then that one cannot separate the proclamation of the Kingdom of God from the acts of the kingdom.
 
This means that the gospel is “Jesus is Lord”; and, this proclamation is directly correlated with both the proclamation and the doing of the Kingdom of God.
 
Of course, this means that in order to comprehend the gospel more fully we must gain an understanding of the kingdom of God. (to which we will turn in a future post)! 

NB: if you like these posts and find them helpful please let others know! 

[1] This understanding is reflected in the NET, NIV, and NLT translations: NET “Now after John was imprisoned, Jesus went into Galilee and proclaimed the gospel of God. He said, ‘The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the gospel!’”; NIV “After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. ‘The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!’”; NLT “Later on, after John was arrested, Jesus went into Galilee, where he preached God's Good News. ‘The time promised by God has come at last!’ he announced. ‘The Kingdom of God is near! Repent of your sins and believe the Good News!’” The key here is that the Greek will often introduce a quote by utilizing two references to “saying.” For example, the Greek NT will often state, “Jesus was teaching and saying.” In such cases, we are not to suppose that Jesus was doing two different things here: namely, teaching and saying. Instead, the second verb “saying” is just the ancient writers way of introducing the content of the speaking. Note, they didn’t use quotation marks. So, the second verb often serves as our English equivalent of quotation marks.

[2] Note the NAS translates the identical construction in the Greek of Matt 4:23; 9:35; and 24:14 slightly different in 24:14: “this gospel of the kingdom”; instead of, “the gospel of the kingdom.” Of course, “this” and “the” are grammatically interrelated.

[3] There was no need to be absolutely identical. We must bear in mind that Matthew was read aloud. The hearers of the text, upon hearing Matthew 9:35, would recall the earlier statement of Matthew 4:23: even even if they were not able to recall if the statements were identical.

[4] Since the ancient text was read aloud and most were “hearers”, the use of paragraph breaks and chapter headings wouldn’t have been useful. In addition, the cost of paper was such that the ancient authors were in need of saving space. As a result, ancient writings not only lacked paragraph breaks and section headings, they often lacked space even between words. Verbal markers, that is things that could be heard, were the primary means of assisting the ancient hearer in regard to structure and flow of thought.  

​What is the Gospel?
A look into the NT shows that the word “gospel” is used in a basic sense to announce the “good news.” The “gospel” is a proclamation of good news! Now, this is a good start, but we still need to declare what the “good news” is about.
 
In its simplest expression the gospel, or the “good news” is that “Jesus is Lord.” This may seem elementary, but the implications of it are profound. In fact, I would contend that we cannot utter anything more profound than the declaration, “Jesus is Lord!”
 
If Jesus is Lord, then no other king, president, or world leader is; neither is power, nor military might. If Jesus is Lord, then I am not: neither is pleasure, sex, drugs, nor alcohol. It means that my personal security is not: neither is my accumulation of wealth, my accomplishments, my talents, nor my education, nor, in my case, my good looks! It means that my personal desires are not. It means that my family is not. It means that neither is my house, my car, my clothes, nor any possession. To proclaim that “Jesus is Lord” begins with the acknowledgement that no one or nothing else is![1]
 
The confession that “Jesus is Lord” is profoundly simple. Yet, upon further examination, we quickly realize that this is the most difficult task humankind has before them.
 
Why should someone believe the Gospel?
Now, the "gospel" begins with and extends beyond the proclamation that Jesus is Lord. But, before we proceed, we need to address one somewhat tangential question: “why should someone believe the Gospel?” The answer is simple: because it is the truth. That is it. Jesus is Lord and we are not.[2] And that is the truth. There are no other reasons. We should submit to Jesus as Lord because He is Lord!  
 
The problem is that very rarely is the Gospel presented in our western Christian culture as something to be believed and followed because it is the truth. Instead, we market the Gospel as something to be believed so that you can go to heaven; or so that you won’t have to go to hell; or so that you can get your life back together. In otherwords, we typically present the Gosepl as something that will result in personal gain.
 
The question, then, becomes: if I believe in Jesus only for my own gain, have I really submitted to Him as Lord?
 
Now, I recognize that submitting to Jesus as Lord may be a process. Just as we know that it is appropriate to teach a child to do right by offering them a reward, so, also, we may attract youth to a Wednesday night event with ice cream, movies, video games, and whatever is necessary. Even adults are introduced to Jesus or the Church through fun events.
 
The danger, as I see it, is that when we incentivize the reasons why someone should believe in Jesus, we risk minimizing the Gospel. Sure, there is truth in the notion that: “if you go to Bible study, you will may learn how, through Christ, you can overcome your troubles”; or, “if you cease living immoral lives, you can find true pleasure in Christ.” There is truth in the fact that in coming to Christ we may begin to experience all the blessings that come from being a child of God. But, there is also truth in the fact that the call of Christ is not easy.
 
Two potential problems arise. First, many churches are only offering more candy: “If you come to church we will make sure you enjoy it.” This makes it very hard for that same church to preach the radical call of Christ. In all honesty, it is a bit hypocritical and unfair to offer them candy one day and then demand that they carry their crosses the next. We lured them in with candy. Then, after they stayed a while, we switched out the candy for green beans!
 
Secondly, what happens to this person and their faith in Christ when things do not go well? We told them that in believing they would be blessed; they would have peace; God would provide for all their needs. We told them about the good things that would happen if they come to Christ—they will gain wisdom and other spiritual gifts in the present, and they will have comfort knowing that eventually they will be in heaven with Christ forever. We might also tell them a little of the demands of Christ. How they are supposed to bearing their crosses—mostly in the form of moralistic preaching; such as, be sexually pure and do not lie. But, when things don’t go well, they sometimes spiral.
 
When the Gospel of Jesus as Lord is proclaimed, we can tell them that He remains Lord in the midst of their sufferings, their fears, and their longings. The beauty of the Gospel is that Jesus as Lord entered our sufferings for us in order to redeem us.
 
The reality, however, and I know you are thinking it, is that if we are more explicit with the nature of and the demands of the Gospel, not as many people will believe.
 
This is why I believe that the Parable of the Sower is vital for our understanding of the Gospel and the life of the Church. But, that is the subject of another post!


[1] It has been said that there are two words that cannot be uttered to God in the same sentence: “no” and “Lord.” If Jesus is Lord, then we cannot say “no” to Him. If we say, “no” to Him, then we are denying that He is Lord.

[2] This fact stands whether or not God is good. If He is Lord, then we should submit. It just so happens that He is good! Thank God! Sorry for the pun! 

It doesn’t get more basic to Christianity than to ask: “What is the gospel?” The question is pretty simple. Unfortunately, as I mentioned in part 1, I suspect that many Christians would have a hard time coming up with an answer.
 
In addition to the alarming reality that many Christians cannot define the Gospel with any clarity, comes the realization that for many the definition of the Gospel is often “me” centric. That is, the Gospel becomes merely something that was done for me. It is common, for example, for someone to define the Gospel as: “Jesus died for my sins.” Or, “if you have faith in Jesus and repent then you shall be saved.” I suspect that defining the Gospel in terms of this “me” centered—how do I personally get saved—approach proliferates Christianity.  
 
One website, in fact, states:
“When Christians refer to the ‘Gospel’ they are referring to the ‘good news’ that Jesus Christ died to pay the penalty for our sin so that we might become the children of God through faith alone in Christ alone. In short, ‘the Gospel’ is the sum total of the saving truth as God has communicated it to lost humanity as it is revealed in the person of His Son and in the Holy Scriptures, the Bible.”[1] In the next sentence, the author of this article encourages readers who are uncertain if they are saved to click on the link to learn more about “God’s plan of salvation.” In addition, The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia states, “The central truth of the gospel is that God has provided a way of salvation for men through the gift of His son to the world. He suffered as a sacrifice for sin, overcame death, and now offers a share in His triumph to all who will accept it. The gospel is good news because it is a gift of God, not something that must be earned by penance or by self-improvement.”[2]
 
Now, let me be clear: the gospel is certainly the good news of God’s gracious gift for those who believe that we might be saved. It absolutely entails the finished work of Christ. The result includes the restoration of our relationship with the Father.[3] But it is much more! And, in fact, I would contend that when it comes to defining the Gospel I am not sure that this is the best place to start.
 
For one, defining the Gospel solely in terms of what it does for me fails to account for the most fundamental element of the Gospel: namely, the sovereignty of Christ. The Gospel is not about us, it is about Him. The Gospel begins and ends with: “Jesus is Lord.”
 
Secondly, defining the Gospel in terms of what it means for my salvation makes salvation the focus, or the goal. The problem, as we will explore in the following chapters, with making salvation the goal, is that once a person is saved all is completed! This leaves the process of discipleship!—the very thing Jesus commanded us to do (Matt 28:19)—out of the picture. I will contend that if our understanding of the Gospel only entails that which corresponds to our personal salvation, then what we are left with is a truncated gospel; one that serves to facilitate our western, individualistic, consumerist, and self (me)-centered worldview. We must ask how much a “me” centered gospel is really the Gospel? After all, can we reconcile the summons to follow Jesus, which begins and ends with, one must “deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me” (Mark 8:34), the very epitome of self-denial, with a “me” centered version?
 
There is a third problem that arises from a “me” centered definition of the Gospel. Namely, that is leaves out the mission of God’s people! A good definition of the Gospel captures the fact that Jesus is Lord, that He not only rules as “King of kings,” and that He has called us to be the means through which He establishes His kingdom! Perhaps the clearest support of this comes from 1 Peter 2:9: “But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.” God has chosen us, Peter says, “so that”[4] we may “proclaim” His excellencies!

[1] See: https://bible.org/article/what-gospel. viewed 3-28-18.

[2] Charles F. Pfeiffer, Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1975), electronic media. Cited in bible.org. https://bible.org/article/what-gospel 3-28-18.

[3] For an excellent discussion of the Gospel see Tim Keller, Center Church, parts 1-2.

[4] The Greek uses hopos, which, in constructions such as this, indicates purpose. 

In this final post I wish to ask the question: What does this mean for the Church today? 
​
I will contend that the Sabbath is indeed an abiding provision. The fulfillment has begun in Jesus, and it continues through the present day. The Sabbath was fulfilled in Jesus, but not abolished by Him. It is through the work of God’s people that the fulfillment of the Sabbath continues. What might this mean?
 
First, just as communion reminds us of what God through Christ has done for us, so also, the Sabbath is a reminder that God has rescued us. In addition, just as taking communion looks forward to the eternal banquet in God’s kingdom, so also, practicing the Sabbath looks forward to the eternal rest awaiting us. Practicing the Sabbath reminds us that God has set us free from slavery. In fact, to not practice the Sabbath is to reject the notion that God had rescued us. It is a flagrant denial of the fact that we were in slavery and have been set free.
 
Secondly, a theology of the Sabbath means that we are to recognize the holiness of the day. This is best done in the weekly gathering of God’s people. For those who work on a Sunday maybe it means attending a weekly Bible study or some form of corporate fellowship, worship, and study.
 
Thirdly, we can rest and take time off weekly, because God is our source. The Sabbath reminds us that God’s economy does not follow the economics of the world. God blesses His people because they are obedient and because they practice justice. It is the economics of the kingdom of this world that begs us to work too much. In taking a day off each week, we are living out the Kingdom of God and confirming He is Lord and will provide. Consequently, we can take a day off each week to worship and serve the true King of kings. In doing so, we have no concerns about wealth—losing income or productivity—because our King reminds us that He is the provider. Practicing the Sabbath is a weekly reminder that God is in control.
 
Finally, to practice the Sabbath means to ensure that justice is done. This means that we are not engaging in activities that foster inequity and that we are actively seeking to eradicate injustice. Boy did I just opened up a can of worms! Having a kingdom ethic and engaging in kingdom practices means that we must ask the tough questions and put the answers into practice.[1]


[1] I highly recommend the very challenging book by Richard Foster, The Freedom of Simplicity.