Cultural Contexts of the Early Christian Movement

Since the dawn of humanity, people have sought to understand the reality of the world in which they live. A common theme held by these seekers suggests that a supreme being exists (typically referred to as “God”) who interacts with the inhabitants of earth. Many people groups have expanded upon this idea throughout history and offered their own perspectives on the realities of God.

For centuries, Christian theologians have also examined, pondered, and debated the texts of the Bible in search for the true interpretation of scripture. Their studies have brought to the surface succinct tenets of what it means to be an orthodox Christian and what actually constitutes the being of God. In Westernized countries, Christianity has offered the most widely accepted understanding of God and the world. Modern Christianity embraces the belief of a Triune Deity, made up of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit—three separate personages in one. For many, this is a trustworthy explanation of the nature of God; for others, it is not so cut and dry.

These skeptics are quick to point out that amidst the formulation of religions such as Christianity, there has been much cultural, political, and social change surrounding them. Because of the ageless interactions between nations, cultures, and beliefs, many skeptic claim that unseen influences have occurred, surely influencing Christian beliefs from what they may have been, originally. These doubters sense controversy concerning the possible intersections of other religions with early Christianity—such as from African, Persian, and Greek/Roman cultures. These challenges may have some merit, so, in the interest of truth, an investigation is warranted. 

To this end, this article will first offer to the reader a general understanding of who and what orthodox Christianity believes God to be.  Secondly, the reader will be presented with the rudimentary beliefs of several religions that the early Christians would have come into contact with in their lives. Furthermore, the possibility of historical inconsistencies and weak theological integrity of these various religions will be touched upon, briefly. From these surveys, it will hopefully shed light on whether early Christianity borrowed any doctrinal ideas in the understanding of God from their regional neighbors.  

The Christian Understanding of God

Perhaps the clearest example of the Christian orthodox view of God comes from the Nicene Creed—a statement of faith composed by the early Church by the Church Council at Nicæa in 325 CE, under the authority of Constantine the Great.[1] In it, the basic understanding of God and Christianity was articulated (as well as someone so transcendent can be). The Nicene Creed states,

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father; through him all things were made...We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son], who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and  glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and  apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.[2]

God is seen as the creator but also as a person, one with Jesus, His son, who is also God and one with the Holy Spirit, who is also God. Thus, the orthodox view of God is as a Triune entity, made up three distinctive yet encompassing persons. The key statement from the Nicene Creed for this paper’s purposes is, “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son], who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.” One can see that the statement promotes the Trinity as more than just a force or simple personage. God is a complex being, made up of three members who intricately share in their lives together—Father, Son, and Spirit.

Of course, this understanding is not without problems. The reality of the Trinity is a difficult concept to understand and questions have arisen over the centuries as to its origins. Many skeptics have pointed out that though the New Testament is replete with references to the Holy Spirit, the Old Testament lacks similar proof. Yet, although the same exact terms may not necessarily be used in both Testaments, nevertheless, a clear presentation of the Holy Spirit as Hiss own person can be perceived from a variety of scriptural sources.

Genesis 1:2 states, “The Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.”  Note the author of Genesis purposefully chose the words, “Spirit of God” and not just “God.” Genesis 1:26 states, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” The use of “us” and “our” indicate plurality of persons, not singularity. Exodus 31:3 further states, “And I have filled him with the Spirit of God.” Again, the Spirit is spoken of as a real entity, not just a mood or passion. The Spirit is seen to have purpose and intent in its actions. 

These verses demonstrate that the Spirit of God, as a unique personage with and in God, was included in the Biblical texts from 2500-4000 BCE.[3] As such, the Old Testament and New Testaments are still able to make claims to a monotheistic God. Other religions may make similar claims to Christianity, but the authenticity of their sources is often suspect due to the time frame of their arrival on the religious scene, dubious authorship, and unsanctioned alterations or additions. 

As mentioned earlier, for a full examination of the question of extra-cultural influence on early Christianity, it is essential that the religions surrounding the early Christians be inspected. Therefore, three main regions will be examined—Africa to the south, Persia to the East, and Northern Europe.

The African Understanding of God

In considering the African understanding of God, it must be acknowledged that owing to the size of that continent, a great number of divergent theologies exist.  So, to narrow down African Theistic thought to a few concepts is difficult, to say the least. However, in the pursuit of truth, some generalizations will be made. 

First of all, the “most minimal and fundamental idea about God, found in all African societies”[4] has God as “the Supreme Being.”[5] He is considered “omniscient”[6] and “knows everything, observes everything and hears everything, without limitation and without exception.”[7] At this level, African theology may have some things in commonality with Christianity;  however, from there on, the theology shifts in a dramatically different direction. 

God is considered Spirit but not in the Orthodox Christian way. For the African people, “In theory God is transcendental but in practice He is immanent.”[8] In other words, although God resides in a dimension outside of normal time and space, He still manifests Himself to humanity in “natural objects and phenomena.”[9] This belief crosses over to animism (the attribution of conscious life to natural objects or to nature itself) and pantheism (identifying the deity with the universe and its phenomena) in a variety of ways. Widening the gap further, many African tribes believe that God “does not eat, and has no messengers”[10] nor family—completely contradicting the life and nature of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as well as the whole Trinity as presented in the Bible.

Perhaps most importantly, the African understanding of the nature of God suggests that “People might know some of His activities and manifestations, but of His essential nature they know nothing.”[11] God, then, is “mysterious and incomprehensible, as indescribable and beyond human vocabulary.”[12] This concept completely disagrees with the Christian view of God. 

According to the Bible, God has revealed Himself in so many ways that it would be hard to say that humanity has no notion of His nature. The Apostle Paul proclaims in Romans 1:20,

“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”

Moreover, in 1 John 4:16, it states that “God is Love” whereas in African Theology, “There are practically no direct sayings that God loves.”[13]  

This lack of intimate connection with God is further exemplified in the theology of ancient Egypt. One of the more ancient civilizations that clearly should have influenced Middle East thought, Egyptian religious thought was rather superficial. Their theology “did not possess the terminology for the expression of a system of abstract thought...[they] thought in concrete pictures.”[14] Thus, the two most important parts of life to the Egyptians were the sun and the Nile and the Egyptians molded their religion around those forces of nature. 

Furthermore, as the Egyptian theology evolved, “The forms of the state began to pass over into the world of the gods.” Religion in Egypt became politicized. In Egyptian theology, through reincarnation, “The deceased Pharaoh became Osiris and enjoyed the same resuscitation by Horus and Isis, all the divine privileges, and the same felicity in the hereafter which had been accorded to the dead god.”[15] Ironically, whereas in the majority of Africa, God was a transcendent spirit, untouchable by humanity, in Egypt, God was a mortal, human pharaoh.  

Clearly, Egyptian and Christian theology have little in common. There is no Egyptian counter-part to the Trinity. In Egypt, theology was used to govern the people through power and might. In Christianity, love and servanthood were (and still are) the hallmarks of godly living.  Egypt enjoyed many separate and distinct gods but early Christianity had just one God.

The Persian Understanding of God

As Christianity got its start in Judea and Galilee, it is reasonable to wonder how much its Persian neighbors to the east influenced its development. A great deal of trading, both of goods and social conventions, passed back and forth in the Middle East and religious movements—such as the Zoroastrians, who interestingly appear to share commonalities with Christianity.

In fact, many Zoroastrians claim that “It is probable that the Jews were influenced by the Zoroastrian faith of Iran in those days—and took the concepts of heaven/hell, God’s evil adversary, the resurrection and the final purification of the world-the virgin birth, the Saviour, etc.”[16] from them. In addition, they assign a date of 6000 BCE[17] as the date of the founding of Zoroastrianism. With the similarities to Christianity and the claim of an earlier historical origin than that of both Christianity and Judaism, it appears that Zoroastrianism could have a valid claim of being a strong influence.

Yet, appearance is not always reality, and put to the scrutiny of historians, scholars, and theologians, the Zoroastrians’ assertion lacks merit. To begin with, the time frame suggested by most conservative Zoroastrians can easily be debated because “The collection of Zoroastrian teachings was not completed until the fourth century CE—centuries after the early Christian movement began, leaving in some doubt who may have influenced whom in such matters as angels, resurrection, and eschatology.”[18]

Additionally, eight hundred years is a long time to maintain textual integrity during such an intense period of social change and upheaval. Secondly, even accepting the date of 600 BCE as the birth of Zoroaster[19]—(the Greek name for Zarathustra, the founder of Zoroastrianism), the Jews in captivity in Persia had been reading for hundreds (if not thousands) of years of a God of justice, love, and mercy and of the coming messiah in David’s Psalms and Isaiah’s prophecies. To say that the Jews owed their theology to the Zoroastrians is like claiming the United States owes its freedom to the Young Democrats.

Beyond these historical problems, an in-depth study of the Zoroastrian understanding of God shows it falls far short of the Christian view. Much like the Egyptians, Zoroastrian theology is superficial and operates at a more basic level than Christianity. The Zoroastrians worship “a single god, Ahura Mazda, who is supreme.”[20] As spirit, their God “has no size, form or weight and therefore, it cannot be described physically.”[21] The Zoroastrian God, like the Egyptian god, Re, is a god of light and fire, which “is a symbol of their God.”[22] There is a strong dualistic nature to the Zoroastrian God and their whole faith.

Although the Gospel of John also makes reference to God as light, it is presented in conjunction with God coming in the form of a human being, sent to be humanity’s redeemer. In Christianity, this paradoxical and simultaneous ontology of humanity and divinity occurs through Jesus Christ. Zoroastrianism solely promotes the idea that “Humans are responsible for their own fate.”[23] Furthermore, contrary to the Christian principle of sharing the Gospel with the World, the Zoroastrians do not accept converts. To be part of the faith, one has to be born into it. Such an approach clearly suggests Gnostic tendencies.

The Greco/Roman Understanding of God

Christianity did not only have to face pantheism, polytheism, Gnosticism, and dualism in its fledgling days. It also had to contend with the Hellenism of the Roman Empire, which promoted all things Greek—including its religions. This is perhaps one of the strongest areas of debate for the skeptic because the philosophic approach of the Greeks and Romans had a sophistication and depth similar to that of Christianity. The Christian ideals of heaven, perfection, and godliness have long been attributed to platonic influences and most of the Epistles in the New Testament show form and function commonly used in the Greco/Roman culture.

Philosophic approaches aside, theologically, the Greeks and Romans were polytheists, at least in word, and had a number of Gods to choose from. The Roman gods were the same as the Greek gods but with different names. The Romans also promoted their gods in status to “state-gods and were caught up in political religion.”[24]   

Zeus, as the head deity or “sky-god,”[25] stood for “righteousness”[26] although he and the other deities were less than perfect. Often, the Greco-Roman gods suffered from poor choices and ill-fated occurrences. Zeus was often adulterous and deceptive in his dealings with mortals and immortals. Although Zeus was a supreme being, he had a father—Cronus—and a mother—Rhea.[27] Thus, he was a created, flawed, yet all-powerful being.

As the Roman Empire progressed through time, religion became more syncretistic and “a new stress on the demons, the intermediate spirits, and new gods from the east and south came in alongside the old.”[28] The Romans worried little about tainting their faith with new gods. In fact, their approach went hand-in-hand with the nature of Hellenism. The historian Polybius considered the Greco-Roman gods to be merely “an opiate for the people.”[29]  Eventually, much like the Egyptian pharaoh’s, the flawed (and often unbalanced)Roman emperors even began to be worshiped as divine.[30]

Suggesting that Christians borrowed their doctrine from Greco-Roman theology is a weak position to take for not much of the Greco-Roman gods corresponds with the Christian God. The Christian God, however, was above all one of purity, love, and goodness, but the Greco-Roman Gods were more like mortals with special powers (think “postmodern Avengers”). The Christian God required piety and self-control, but Greco-Roman gods (like Bacchus and Mars) promoted lustful, epicurean living.  In a strong sense, then, the Greco-Roman gods probably would have been considered by the early Christians as models of everything bad and therefore, undesirable.

Conclusion

By casually reviewing the various religions surrounding the early Christian church, it is easy to superficially presume that it might seem realistic that some elements of Christianity may have been borrowed from other cultures. There are hazy similarities that could lead one to propose such a theory. Terminology and religious metaphors are tossed around in such a fashion as to imply sameness. 

However, upon deeper inspection, it is clear that in most cases, in principle, early Christianity operated on a much different depth than other religions. Whereas most other religions appeared to focus on humanity’s role in life, Christianity mandated focusing on a pure and holy God. This surely lead to a high standard of consistency and integrity and one demonstrated by the words of John in the New Testament. He writes,

“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this, you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.”

Likewise, in the present time of syncretistic embrace and substitutional pretense, the postmodern church should heed John’s words and keep its eyes Heavenward toward a Triune God who is authentically and authoritatively one in Person, Spirit, and Love.

Bibliography

Breasted, James. Development of Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt. Philadelphia: University of Pennslyvania Press, 1972.

Hailey, Henry, ed. Halley’s Bible Handbook. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965.

Havewala, Porus Homi, “Who are the Zoroastrians,” [Online] August 6, 2001,                                          <http://members.ozemail.com.au/~zarathus/zor33.html>

Jeffers, James. The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament. Illinois: InterVarsity, 1999.

Keller, Werner. The Bible As History. New York: Bantam, 1980.

Mbiti, John. African Religions and Philosophy. New York: Anchor, 1970.

Mistry, Pervin J., “Spirituality in Zoroastrianism,” [Online] August 6, 2001,                                              <http://members.ozemail.com.au/~zarathus/spirit33.html>

Lewis, James and William Travis, Religious Traditions of the World. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991.

Parada, Carlos, “Zeus, Greek Mythology Link,”[Online] August 6, 2001,                                       <http://www.hsa.brown.edu/~maicar/Zeus.html>

Parrinder, Geoffrey, World Religions From Ancient History to the Present. New York: Hamlyn, 1971.

Robinson, B.A., “Zoroastrianism,” [Online] August 6, 2000, <http://www.religioustolerance.org/zoroastr.htm>

”The Nicene Creed,” [Online] August 6, 2001, <http://www.mit.edu/~tb/anglican/intro/lr-nicene- creed.html>

Endnotes

[1] Livingstone, Oxford Concise Dictionary, 400.

[2] http://www.mit.edu/~tb/anglican/intro/lr-nicene-creed.html.

[3] Halley’s Bible Handbook, 34.

[4] Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 37.

[5] Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 37.

[6] Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 39.

[7] Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 40.

[8] Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 43.

[9] Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 43.

[10] Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 43.

[11] Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 45.

[12] Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 45.

[13] Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 49.

[14] Breasted, Development of Religion and Thought, 8–9.

[15] Breasted, Development of Religion and Thought, 39.

[16] Havewala, “Who are the Zoroastrians.”  

[17]  Robinson, “Zoroastrianism.”

[18] Lewis and Travis, Religious Traditions of the World, 57.

[19] Havewala, “Who are the Zoroastrians,” [Online] August 6, 2001.

[20] Robinson, “Zoroastrianism.”

[21] Mistry, “Spirituality in Zoroastrianism.”

[22] Mistry, “Spirituality in Zoroastrianism.”

[23] Mistry, “Spirituality in Zoroastrianism.”

[24] Parrinder, World Religions, 149.

[25] Parrinder, World Religions, 147.

[26] Parrinder, World Religions, 148.

[27] http://www.hsa.brown.edu/~maicar/Zeus.html.

[28] Parrinder, World Religions, 159.

[29] Parrinder, World Religions, 166.

[30] Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World, 17.

The Greatest Commandment

I love this stanza from 1 Corinthians 13:

"When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

And I know many people say, "Exactly! Loving others is the only thing that matters. I don't have to believe in the miracles or think that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God. Just sentimental love is what I want . . . Ahhhh . . . Wuv . . ."

But that is not a careful reading of the text. First Corinthians states, "These three remain: faith, hope, and love"—not "only love remains" or "don't worry about faith and hope," but all three matter, with love binding them all together. That is great Christianity, truly, but take one of the three out of the equation, and life's questions become very difficult to be solved, if at all.

Asked what the greatest commandment was, Jesus stated in Matthew 22,

"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments’." 

Notice which comes first—Loving God is the greatest commandment—not just loving others (although that is integral to Godliness). And, according to Jesus, loving God means loving the Law and the Prophet—you know, the Old Testament, the Bible. Jesus loved people, of course—but He had faith in God and His Scriptures first, which gave Him the hope and purpose and power to love others that society considered unlovable until His death on the Cross. To be a Christ-follower means loving God the Father, wholly, and trusting that His ways, His words, are THE path for a good, productive life.

And, by all means love, but start with loving our heavenly Father, to whom you owe everything.  If you hold His Word and His commandments and His ordinances in disdain, if you mock others who adore His greatness and His guidelines for holy living, you are being unloving, untrusting, and unhopeful about God and to others. You are only loving yourself, which is easy and basically self-idolatry (despite what Whitney Houston proclaims in her song, “The Greatest Love of All”). Real love of God and others produces hope, which in turn produces faith, which fosters more love, more hope, and more faith in a wondrous, amazing cycle of relationship, response, and replication. 

So, if you call yourself a Christian, then first pour out your love on God, sing out His praises, tell Him what you are so thankful for, give Him that twenty-second spiritual hug that Psychologists say is quintessential for mental and emotional health, and then let that love shower down upon others around you who are in desperate need faith, love, and hope in their own lives. We must be Christ to the world; people need to see the love of Jesus in our hearts for everyone, including God.

Remember, love never fails unless people fail to love—and it all starts with the Love of God.

Why Is Evangelism Passé in Postmodernity?”

The question running through my head this morning is “Why is evangelism so disdained in postmodernity?”

Simply, it is self-evident that too many people follow gospels of their own making, which are no gospel at all (Galatians 1:6–10). Throughout biblical/church history, many ambassadors of God have shared the Good News from God, which is different from the other vacuous man-made politicized centers of religiosity available in Jesus's time and until today. Yet, although currently many lukewarm assemblies market tremulous paths of faith, their “customers” perceive them to be merely grifts (shams) of self-determinism, whose “evangelists” push programs and profits, but little peace and pomades for the soul. Instead of the transcendent Gospel of Jesus Christ, people are offered a Gnostic (secret) gospel of self-empowerment, prosperity, physical fitness, emotional placebo, and so on. Though they strive to encounter God, instead they too often find a church of humanity—ostensibly, a bureaucracy or social club, which is why they think, “Well, if that’s the case, I’ll just shop around or make my own.”

While that might help them feel comfortable for a while, it brings them no closer to God and they still thirst for everlasting divine waters. To fight off the emptiness of the void, they gather around with other like-minded frustrated seekers for consolation and acceptance. Manifestly, their gospel is 1/2 of the Greatest Commandment (Mark 12:28–34; Matt 22:34–40; Luke 10:25–28). While they may be loving their neighbor as themselves, they refuse to love God with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength. Ultimately, they stop short and suffer for it. As Isaiah and Jesus noted, they

"Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving" (Isaiah 6:9 & Mark 4:12).

Thus, when an authentic Evangelist comes around to share with them the true Good News of GOD (as defined in the Bible), it scares/angers people because it makes them aware of their own empty spiritual state and the foolishness of their chosen path or community. In fear or despair, they lash out and vilify the Messenger (or worse), digging an even deeper chasm between them and their salvation. It is a tragedy of their own design and making, sadly. Fortunately, no expanse is too far for God to traverse, nor any sin too wicked to be forgiven. Salvation can be found, but only through the Person—and Grace—of God.

King David said it well in Psalm 103 (TLB):

I bless the holy name of God with all my heart. Yes, I will bless the Lord and not forget the glorious things he does for me.

He forgives all my sins. He heals me. He ransoms me from hell. He surrounds me with loving-kindness and tender mercies. He fills my life with good things! My youth is renewed like the eagle’s! He gives justice to all who are treated unfairly. He revealed his will and nature to Moses and the people of Israel.

He is merciful and tender toward those who don’t deserve it; he is slow to get angry and full of kindness and love. He never bears a grudge, nor remains angry forever. He has not punished us as we deserve for all our sins, for his mercy toward those who fear and honor him is as great as the height of the heavens above the earth. He has removed our sins as far away from us as the east is from the west. He is like a father to us, tender and sympathetic to those who reverence him. For he knows we are but dust and that our days are few and brief, like grass, like flowers, blown by the wind and gone forever.

But the loving-kindness of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting to those who reverence him; his salvation is to children’s children of those who are faithful to his covenant and remember to obey him!

The Lord has made the heavens his throne; from there he rules over everything there is. Bless the Lord, you mighty angels of his who carry out his orders, listening for each of his commands. Yes, bless the Lord, you armies of his angels who serve him constantly. Let everything everywhere bless the Lord. And how I bless him too!

Note that David is speaking about a Who and not a “What.” In his Psalm, David introduces the reader to the Being of God—not just the social schedule or activities for the Assembly. David is not acting as an agent for a church or movement, but rather as an ambassador—an evangelist—for the loving divine Entity in his life. David wants others to personally experience the wondrous relationship that he has with our wonderful God.

The Good News of David is that God is—THE—God of action, of doing, of being, of life itself. No community of humanity (or watered-down, polluted evangelism) can compete with the benefits of God. Ponder this: Those who are lost, God is able to find. Those who are hurting, God is willing to mend. Those who all alone, God is open to embrace. Nothing and no one is beyond His rescue. God pardons, heals, redeems, crowns, satisfies, renews, performs, judges, and makes known. In Him is found kindness, grace, mercy, timeliness, charity, reward, reliability, efficacy, understanding, and everlasting compassion, compassion, compassion.

In postmodernity, more than ever, people need more than a spiritual placebo—they need the Person of God and passionate people to proclaim His Power over darkness.

Sacro-Egotism and Cult Leadership

At the 2007 Association of Sociology of Religion conference in New York City, a member in the audience hearing my explanation of Sacro-Egoism (wherein individual authority and power vastly outweighs institutional or established authority for most religious issues and mores) mentioned that she thought the term, “Sacro-Egoism” (Knox, 2016), was derogatory, and she demanded that I rescind it. I replied that she probably was confusing “egoism” with “egotism.” The former, egoism, is a healthy part of normal human personality; the latter, egotism is a manifestation of neuroses (or worse) that leads to an absurd sense of self-esteem or self-importance. To wit, Webster’s Dictionary (1986) defines the ego as “. . . [T]he self; the individual as aware of himself” and also as “. . . that part of the psyche which experiences the external world through the senses, organizes the though processes rationally, and governs action,” so egoism is not a bad thing; it is part of normal human psychology. Fortunately, she seemed content with my response.

That being said, I began to consider whether or not Sacro-Egoism (i.e.—religious and political individualism) could become even more of an oppressive expression of personal will—both for the individual Christian and in any nearby church communities. If a person’s radical-individualism was hyper-inflated, specifically regarding spiritual beliefs, then that person could become a “Sacro-Egotist,” wherein his or her notion of religion and/or spirituality would be the only option for themselves and could be forced upon others. A person such as this sounds suspiciously like a cult leader.

In fact, the Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology (1983) states that the word,

‘cult,’

. . . most frequently denotes a group, usually religious or pseudo-religious in nature, that exhibits the following characteristics: it deviates sharply from and strongly rejects the prevailing culture; it is dominated by a highly charismatic leader who often proclaims him- or herself to be divine or to have special access to the divinity.

This approach would take the main characteristics of Sacro-Egoism (on the part of the leader) and passive compliance (on the part of the followers) and would transform them into something much more intense and excessive (and likely harmful) than nominal religious expression.

Thus, with a Sacro-Egotist cult leader established in a position of power and influence in a fringe religious community, his or her followers would completely acquiesce to his religious demands. Clear examples of Sacro-Egotism/cults are evident in history—Jim Jones of the People’s Temple, David Koresh of the Branch Davidians, and Marshall Applewhite of Heaven’s Gate. One could possibly make the case that several post-modern leaders in the Progressive Postmodern Church Movement also lean toward a Sacro-Egotistical understanding of salvation, biblical canon, and Christian ethos—i.e., Bell’s “Love wins,” which suggests counter-biblical claims of universalism and lawlessness.

Each of the aforementioned cult leaders took their own sense of religious individualism to an extreme level, providing empowerment for themselves and submission for their followers, which is ironic, considering that Sacro-Egoism embraces the antagonism AND ambivalence to institutionalism that the Sacro-Egotistical commander will not allow. The personal/pragmatic commitment to the spiritual journey was replaced with a rigid, sacrificial commitment to the spiritual plan of the leader. Jesus and the Bible were integrated into church life where it best served the cult leader. Finally, there was an intolerant condemnation of other religious systems of faith that challenged or contradicted the superiority and authority of the Sacro-Egotist’s understanding of spirituality and/or holistic health.

The historical push (and SCOTUS legalization) of gay “marriage” demonstrates just how much Sacro-Egotism and its embrace have infiltrated American culture. Five non-elected judges attempted to decide an absolute (controversial) moral and religious code for 400 million American citizens. Still, the Bible warns about such a narcissistic approach to spirituality, religiosity, and leadership.

In Ezekiel 34, the prophet states,

Then the word of the Lord came to me saying, “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel. Prophesy and say to those shepherds, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Woe, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flock? You eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat sheep without feeding the flock.

Jesus also teaches about Sacro-Egotism in Matthew 24, predicting,

“For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.”

In the Epistles, the Apostle Peter writes in 2 Peter 2:

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories.

And in Jude 1, the writer warns,

For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord . . . These people are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead.

Curiously, not everyone in modern society considers cults to be necessarily negative. European sociologists Furseth and Repstad state,

Health and well-being are often important values in cults, as they are in society at large. The deviant aspect [of cults] lies in the fact that cults are critical of established religion and academic medicine, and that they seek alternative ways of attaining the same goals through healing, alternative medicine, astrology, and self-development (Furseth and Repstad, 2006).

Although the follower may be seeking spiritual improvement, the Sacro-Egotist is still mainly “on the hunt” for spiritual exploitation of adherents—a violation of the main characteristic of good, healthy leaders who use their role to better the lives of those trusting in them. This was true 2,000 years and it is still true today.

Modern American religious culture may tolerate (and affirm through passivity) the radical oppression of Sacro-Egotists, but the biblical message is clear. The Apostle John writes in his second epistle,

“Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.” 

Sacro-Egotism may appeal to the cultural aesthetics of the present age, but it is still a destructive force that needs to be remedied in love and truth. Even more, it needs to be rebuked on a personal and community level for the sake of the Gospel.

Christ's Glorious Return

The greatest irony in human history might be that the first time Jesus came to earth, wicked religious leaders despised Him and killed Him because they wanted a King, but He came as a servant. Yet, when Jesus returns, based on current rejections of biblical authority and a treacherous self-serving bias feeding their egotism, wicked religious leaders seem damned and determined to reject Jesus again because they want to reign over a slave—not bow down to a righteous King—and will be destroyed because of their embrace of evil and self-deification.

Some things to consider:

1. Jesus is coming again to rule forever.

2. The postmodern Sadducees and Pharisees have been trying to re-spin the End of Days away just as the Serpent did in the beginning of this man-made maelstrom—"Did God really say that?" Answer: Yes, He did.

3. Nothing is occurring or will occur that hasn't been heralded in the Bible (see the passages below).

4. False teachers can/will only dispense a false gospel contrary the biblical accounts and will attempt to sway or shame you into complying with their “Special Interpretation” (or else).

5. Jesus's Return will be a Glorious Day!
   
   "As the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west so also will the coming of the Son of Man be . . . Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." (Matt 24:27-31)
   
   "Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God." (2 Thess 2:1–4)
   
   "Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, 'Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.'” (Jude 1:14-15)
   
   "I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with clouds of heaven! And He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed." (Dan 7:13–14)

A “Flash” Book Review of The Emperor’s Handbook, by Marcus Aurelius

When one thinks of Roman emperors, typically, a vision of malevolent, crazed, narcissistic tyrants demanding worship (or death) comes to mind. Yet, readers are fortunate indeed to have access to one of the finest minds of ancient antiquity in The Emperor’s Handbook, by Marcus Aurelius, lauded as one of the “Five Good Emperors” by Niccolo Machiavelli in the sixteenth century (Machiavelli, 1531, Book I: Chapter 10). Within this proverbial tome, Aurelius presents his advice, admonitions, and axioms regarding the path of the good life for all humanity in twelve loquacious chapters.

As in the Golden Era of Israel, in which King Solomon enjoyed prolonged peace and good fortune, the Roman culture and society that surrounded Aurelius also provided him ample and precious time to contemplate his (and others’) road to success, which he attributed to both wise choices and the providence of the gods. Rome, in this era (121–180 CE), was steeped in polytheism, so it is not surprising that Aurelius makes repeated references to the providence and beneficence of the gods in each of his journal’s chapters. Yet, unlike the fickleness of the Greek gods, Aurelius saw goodness, charity, and divine justice in the ways of the gods, proclaiming,

“But in truth, they do exist, and they do care for human beings, and they have put all the means in man’s power to enable him not to fall into real evils” (Book II, Section 11).

Ultimately, though, Aurelius’ own vision of the gods includes a humble, yet pragmatic view mankind (and of himself), wherein all mortal human beings can attain unprecedented blessings simply by taking advantage of the earthly palette of opportunities provided to everyone from the gods, if they would just set aside their unstable human emotions for a philosophy of life that is principled, purposeful, and predictive. As Aurelius concludes,

“What a power man has, to do nothing except what God will approve, and to accept all the God may give him” (Book XII, Section 11).

With such sagacious aphorisms, it is no wonder that many consider Aurelius’ The Emperor’s Handbook to be still just as relevant and resonant in the twenty-first century as it was in the second century.

References

Aurelius, M. The Emperor’s Handbook: A New Translation of the Meditations. New York: Scribner, 2002.

Machiavelli, N. (1531). Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Lives. Public.

To Know As We Are Known: A Lesson on Life and Learning

Life has many commonalities that transcend culture and time. One customary facet of human development that most people have experienced throughout history involves the educational process (both for the secular and the sacred). Sadly, over the past several decades, too many students have entered into educational environments that were academically superficial (or skewed) and came out of the journey missing the very aspects that their schooling was designed for—the acquisition of a thorough consideration of valuable knowledge for productive personal and public use. Thus, the importance of proper educational presuppositions—especially concerning seminary goals and methods—has never been so evident as when considering the radical personal approach that postmodernity currently offers to twenty-first century seekers.

For decades, a populist movement has grown within Western society, with frustrated individualists actively working to throw off the modernist cloak of scholarly tradition that vexes them and hampers their proclivities (because of traditions’ embrace of archetypes, evidence, and restricted social avenues). Rather, they seek educational institutions with “fresh” conceptions of schooling. In Christian circles, this overlaps with people’s religious edification at church and in seminaries. One could consider this new postmodern perspective to be a hybrid of Christian existentialism and practical theology.

Many scholars would agree that for most progressives, traditional Protestantism carries with it a stereotype of vaulted religion that is all talk and no action (or too much talk and too much action). In the seeker’s mind, the sterile, stifling, and rigid environments that surround traditional seminaries can hamper and hinder their personally prescribed walk(s) with God. They often feel frustrated and frenzied because of their loss of self-control and self-direction.[1]

In rebellion and opposition to their perceived outdated academies, these postmodern “splitters” have broken off from traditional orthodoxy to find (or form) their own viable centers of theological reflection. These new learning bodies tend to sponsor apologetical flexibility, alternative spirituality toleration, heterodox beliefs regarding biblical interpretations, and unfettered theological acceptance of all recruits.[2]

With this new progressive attitude, they attract and increase enrollment (at least, initially) by providing more of a relational than an overarching doctrinal approach to theological studies, offering students degree programs that are ostensibly more individualistic and personally pleasing than rigorous and thorough, scholastically. As Schaeffer puts it, “Sadly enough, there is a kind of an anti-intellectualism among many Christians: spirituality is falsely pitted against intellectual comprehension as though they stood in a dichotomy. Such anti-intellectualism cuts away at the very heart of the Christian message.”[3]

As with any movement, though, there are problems associated with this new direction of religious learning. Specifically, whenever one moves away from the right, there is the danger of landing too far to the left. Supporting this, toleration and acceptance done in love and with biblical understanding are required in traditional Christian praxis but taken too far (2 John 1:9), they can be harmful if not even heretical. As C. S. Lewis wrote, “The heart never takes the place of the head: but it can, and should, obey it.”[4] A church full of emotion and compassion is a good thing, but when accommodation and hysteria overtake reason, it can lead to a shallow, imbalanced understanding that only tickles the ear (2 Timothy 4:3).

To counter this, Parker Palmer’s book, To Know As We Are Known, addresses these issues by offering academic understanding and commonsense guidance over what good teachers—and good educational institutions—embrace and exhibit. He begins his exploration by focusing on the archetypical foundations of learning and the dangers of the hyper-personalized ones.

The old adage suggests that knowledge is power, and Palmer recognizes this axiom. Many students work to increase their academic understanding only to increase their personal empowerment at work, at church, or in general society. Unfortunately, this political self-promotion can occur because of more than just the student’s selfish wants and demands. Often, the students become the product of the learning environment that has been designed to program them to think with a myopic agenda in mind (either of the institution or the student him/herself).

For the sake of clarity (and one quite relevant to seminary life), Palmer defines the beneficial teacher-student experience as “the study of sacred texts, the practice of prayer and contemplation, and the gathered life of the community itself.”[5] Thus, the student will be sitting on a three-legged stool, but if one of the legs is too long or too short, it can divert the student’s attention away from important facets of education.

Palmer goes on to expand upon these important truths of education and brings up the issue of objectivism versus subjectivism. He deliberates on the attributes and impossibility of being objective but also on the biased dangers of being too subjective. He offers, “The teacher is a mediator between the knower and the known, between the learner and the subject to be learned.”[6] With this in mind, it becomes a challenge to be completely objective, for the teachers cannot divorce themselves from the knowledge, but neither should they approach the matter solely focused upon themselves. This could lead to egotism and abuse. Palmer’s final advice is to embrace the knowledge—and to let it sink in deep and to engage it, personally and reasonably.            

There are many different ways of acquiring knowledge and Palmer warns against taking the safe, secure road of theoretical conventionality alone. Instead, he suggests making the knowledge matter in the heart for, truly, “to learn is to face transformation.”[7] If students are to grow in knowledge, their learning should make a difference in their own lives—and others’ lives, too. If nothing happens, then the information passed on has been pointless and just a vain pursuit.

If transmitting and receiving knowledge is so important, then, Palmer suggests various techniques for encouraging good teaching and good learning. He states, “Both obedience and understanding imply submitting ourselves to something larger than any one of us, something on which we all depend.”[8] A proper humble attitude is crucial to making the educational process a success. The teacher and the student must be self-aware enough to not let their egos get in the way of discovering truth. Neither should the teacher or student allow their fears to determine the limits of their educational involvement.

Academic or scholarly equilibrium seems to be the key. This balance is not just to be in the teacher’s approach to the student but even more so in the whole educational environment that the student steps into. Palmer proclaims, “I am calling for teachers who bring the audience into the play, who create the space that draws students, teacher, and subject alike into truth’s own drama.”[9] Seminary students need to be made aware that learned truths and fallacies daily affect their lives. They need not fear truth; rather, they need to embrace truth and trust in it (John 14:6).

Finally, Palmer sums up this powerful pedagogy when he says, “The true professor is not one who controls facts and theories and techniques. The true professor is one who affirms a transcendent center of truth, a center that lies beyond our contriving, that enters history through the lives of those who profess it and brings us into community with each other and the world.”[10] These ideas are quite astute and yet so many professors are oblivious of their significance and requirements. Lectures are often given to promote personal agendas. Professing often becomes pontification solely to boost their egos. Personal partisanship often replaces proper education with proselytizing within the classroom. Tragically, professors such as these ignore the responsibilities of their position and abuse it (and their students).

Fortunately, books like Palmer’s (from authors such as C. S. Lewis, Oswald Chambers, Bruce Wilkinson, Nancy Pearcey, and the like) offer a lens of sensible guidance for being a good teacher (and a good student). The suggestions in To Know As We Are Known are powerful; a teacher or student who follows Parker’s admonitions will surely experience greater, more productive opportunities and an insurance of a full and meaningful educational experience—if they take the chance. Of course, which is riskier—to call oneself a teacher and yet not to actually teach truths, or to call oneself a teacher and to try to make a difference in a student’s educational life? Similarly, which is riskier—to call oneself a student and yet not be opened to fully learning, or to call oneself a student and humbly try to expand the understanding of oneself, God, and how the world operates (and why)?

Seeking truth (especially biblical truth) can be a scary pursuit that demands bravery but being courageous is not just being unafraid. Being a courageous teacher, then, is purposely teaching in ways that challenge students’ childish presuppositions, even when that pedagogy might evoke political or emotional responses. Likewise, being a courageous student, then, is being willing to hear new (and old) concepts that push back against any comfortable, deeply trenched personal understandings of Christianity and human existence.

Finally, it probably goes without saying that any good teaching or learning in a seminary rests, relies, and submits to the time-honored and proven divine resource of spiritual authority and proper praxis—the Bible. As Solomon wrote long ago, “Let the wise listen and add to their learning, and let the discerning get guidance—for understanding proverbs and parables, the sayings and riddles of the wise. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Proverbs 1:5–7, New American Standard Bible). Still, this is an excellent ongoing challenge for all teachers and seekers in the postmodern age. Even further, it embodies the spirit of a seminary after God’s own heart and His mission on earth. 

 (Originally published in the Log College & Seminary journal, Theolog 1:1, Spring 2021)

[1] John S. Knox, Sacro-Egoism: The Rise of Religious Individualism in the West (Wipf and Stock, 2016), 55.

[2] Paul Heelas, Linda Woodhead, Benjamin Seel, Bronislaw Szerszynski, and Karin Tusting, The Spiritual Revolution: Why Religion is Giving Way to Spirituality (Blackwell, 2005), 68–74.

[3] Francis Schaeffer, A Christian View of the Church (Crossway, 1994), 261.

[4] C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (Macmillan, 1978), 29–30.

[5] Parker Palmer, To Know as We Are Known: A Spirituality of Education (HarperOne, 2010), 17.

[6] Ibid., 29.

[7] Ibid., 29.

[8] Ibid., 40.

[9] Ibid., 67.

[10] Ibid., 79.

Being Who You Are

“The most common form of despair is not being who you are.” ~ Søren Kierkegaard

One of the clearest indicators that you're in the wrong environment is being shamed by the bureaucratic powers that be, demanding that you abandon core elements of your identity (such as honesty, sincerity, fairness, justice, a sense of humor, and so on)—or else (professional threats)—so as to appease the arbitrary comfort-whims of a ruffled customer, client, student, or barbarian who has now become your tyrannical, unbalanced master. Where is that in your work position description?

It is compliance by compulsion for the sake of institutional cupidity, control, and comfort. It is a sign that you are working for a company who thinks that they have bought your soul with a salary.

"You are no longer ________; you work for us now; we will remake you in our image, our brand, our constantly shifting approach, our ever-tightening grip."

You suddenly discover that you are under the paternal/maternal caprices of Sparta, Caiaphas, Imperial Rome, Muslim Caliphates, City-State warlords, Borgia popes, Absolutist monarchs, cold-hearted Industrialists, Socialist autocrats, technology bureaucrats, the new AI gods, and so on.

Remember what Jesus said to His Disciples as He sent them on a mission to share the Good News to the world:

"Do not get any gold or silver or copper to take with you in your belts—no bag for the journey or extra shirt or sandals or a staff, ***for the worker is worth his keep*** Whatever town or village you enter, search there for some worthy person and stay at their house until you leave. As you enter the home, give it your greeting. If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet." ~ Matt 10:9–14

It's not about the money, machine, or placation of the minions; it's all about the message and the mission of the Master's men.

Honor your calling. Be steadfast in your calling. Protect your calling at all costs.

Missing my friend Tim today. From our 2017 Bible Survey textbook:

“Wisdom Literature,” God in the Details, Kendall-Hunt 2017

On Pannennberg, Jesus, and Literary Theory . . .

Wolfhart Pannenberg’s book on the historical issue of the Resurrection and the delay of the Parousia (Second Coming) presents a powerful argument for the validation of scripture and a refutation of the modern New Testament literary hyper-criticism approach. Pannenberg examines two specific aspects of the Resurrection (the after-Easter appearances of Jesus and the empty tomb) and the modern critical thought surrounding them, as well as the issue of the Parousia in lieu of Jesus’s Resurrection.

Pannenberg begins with the appearance of Jesus to Paul and argues against the idea that Paul merely borrowed from older traditions of appearances. Unlike the Disciples, Paul’s Christophany took the form of an audition as opposed to the more familiar descriptions the Disciples give. Paul’s experience also had a uniqueness about it but still was comprised of elements that gave it the signature of a biblical vision--specifically, the signature of seeing the risen Christ.

Pannenberg then goes on to examine whether or not the whole experience was just a psychological one, as some scholars he suggested. Contrary to their opinions, Pannenberg states, “Something like this did not arise as the mental reaction to Jesus’ catastrophe.” His final conclusion is that there is not enough legitimate evidence to prove or disprove that argument and so conclusions cannot be so final.

Pannenberg further asserts that modern scholars are hypocritical in their approach to the New Testament accounts for they, themselves, are applying their own biases to begin with on whether a man can rise from the dead. Beyond that, they are being inconsistent in their historiography because they are critiquing the whole experience historically while at the same time denying it is an actual historical event.

Pannenberg moves on to tackle the empty tomb and in similar fashion, takes his opponents assumptions and dismisses them one by one. He begins by pointing out the fact that the empty tomb would be impossible to fake as there was too much notoriety and public awareness of it. Furthermore, if it were a conspiracy concocted by the Disciples (or by some body snatchers), then their behavior was inconsistent in that endeavor. If they were away, how could they steal the body and if they stole the body, why did they stay? The community of early believers was a “reliable testimony for the fact that the grave had been found open.” Finally, the fact that both of these traditions came into being around the same time suggests that their assertion is that much stronger and more valid, at least historically.

Pannenberg then focuses on what Jesus’ Resurrection and coming Parousia means to humanity in the present. His conclusion is that it is just as meaningful to humanity now as it was to the early Christians, for the return of the Lord “has become promise once again for us.” We await confirmation just as our Christian forerunners did—with hope and expectation.

Pannenberg’s work for me, as a hopeful church historian, is one of assurance and confidence that it is possible to approach the Bible’s stories in a logical and intelligent way. In fact, contrary to the fanciful humanistic optimism that overtakes so many modern scholars, as a Christian, I can admire and promote my faith and the book that it rests upon as more than a psychological mirage or concocted theo-drama. There may be mysterious issues and complexities with linguistic nuances and interpretation, but there is also truth in the New Testament. These twenty-seven ancient books deserve the same amount of respect as other historical works examined by modern scholars—that is, if the scholars really desire to be critical builders of truth and not merely cynical, circular-reasoning deconstructionists.

Bibliography

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Jesus, God and Man. Lewis L. Wilkins, Duane A. Priebe, trns. Philadelphia : Westminster Press, 1977.

Parables & References:

1) The Speck and Log: Matt 7:1–5; Luke 6:39–42

2) The Two Houses: Matt 7:24–27; Luke 6:47–49

3) The Children in the Marketplace: Matt 11:16–17; Luke 11:24–26

4) The Two Debtors: Luke 7:41

5) The Unclean Spirit: Matt 12:43–45; Luke 11:24–26

6) The Rich Man's Meditation: Luke 12:16

7) The Barren Fig Tree: Luke 13:6–9

8) The Sower: Matt 13:3–8; Mark 4:31, 32; Luke 13:19

9) The Tares: Matt 13:24–30

10) The Seed: Mark 4:20

11) The Grain of Mustard Seed: Matt 13:31–32; Mark 4:31, 32; Luke 13:19

12) The Leaven: Matt 13:33; Luke 13:21

13) The Lamp: Matt 5:15; Mark 4:21; Luke 8:16; 11:33

14) The Dragnet: Matt 13:47–50

15) The Hidden Treasure: Matt 13:44

16) The Pearl of Great Value: Matt 13: 45–46

17) The Householder: Matt 13:52

18) The Marriage: Matt 9:15; Mark 2:19, 20; Luke 5:34, 35

19) The Patched Garment: Matt 9:16; Mark 2:21; Luke 5:36

20) The Wine Bottles: Matt 9:17; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37

21) The Harvest: Matt 9:37; Luke 10:2

22) The Adversary: Matt 5:25–27; Luke 12:58

23) Two Insolvent Debtors: Matt 18:23–35

24) The Good Samaritan: Luke 10:30–37

25) The Three Loaves: Luke 11:5–8

26) The Good Shepherd: John 10:1–16

27) The Narrow Gate: Matt 7:13–14; Luke 13:24

28) The Guests: Luke 14:7–14

29) The Marriage Supper: Matt 22:2–9; Luke 14:16–24

30) The Wedding Clothes: Matt 22:10–14

31) The Tower: Luke 14:28–30

32) The King Going to War: Luke 14:31–32

33) The Lost Sheep: Matt 18:12; Luke 15:4–7

34) The Lost Coin: Luke 15:8–10

35) The Prodigal Son: Luke 15:11–32

36) The Unjust Steward: Luke 16:1–9

37) The Importunate Widow: Luke 18:2–5

38) The Pharisee and Tax Gatherer: Luke 18:10–14

39) The Slave's Duty: Luke 17:7

40) Laborers in the Vineyard: Matt 20:1–16

41) The Talents: Matt 25:14–30; Luke 19:11–27

42) The Two Sons: Matt 21:28

43) The Wicked Vine-Growers: Matt 21:33–43; Mark 12:1–9; Luke 20:9–16

44) The Fig Tree: Matt. 24:32; Mark 13:28; Luke 21:29, 30

45) The Watching Slave: Matt 24:43; Luke 12:39

46) The Man on a Journey: Mark 13:34

47) Character of Two Slaves: Matt 24:45-51; Luke 12:42–46

48) The Ten Virgins: Matt 25:1–12

49) The Watching Slaves: Luke 12:36–38

50) The Vine and Branches: John 15:1–6

Battling the Bureaucracy

Read this today. It’s spot on.

“Above all, perhaps, there are the people, the infamous bureaucrats. They are the supposedly human face of the state—cold, distant, unconcerned. Of all the ills of bureaucracy, [bureaucrats] might be the worst. They look without seeing, they listen without hearing, and they proclaim decisions that can change people’s lives with the indifference of a butcher slicing a piece of steak.” - Bernardo Zacka (The Atlantic)

This is never more true than in our times—but it was evident in the New Testament era, too. Long ago, Jesus suffered at the hands of religious bureaucrats (the Pharisees), academic bureaucrats (the Sadducees), and government bureaucrats (the Sanhedrin and the Romans).

Then, as now, it was the bureaucrat’s job to keep the system functioning—at all costs—through rationalization, compartmentalization, and institutional coldness. Even more than that, they protected the system by dehumanizing and vilifying those who challenged the workings of the toxic machine. They didn’t care about the little person or real justice; they only cared about the “big picture” and getting the machine moving again. Instead of rescuing him, they drowned the little lamb in crisis with procedures, priorities, and pretense, which is why the bureaucrats in Jesus’s time hated Him so much and zealously strived to destroy Him.

You see, the Good News of Jesus Christ was the end of the bureaucracy. He came to set people free; the bureaucracy worked tirelessly to keep people enslaved. He selflessly gave up His life to protect the little lambs; the bureaucrats sacrificed the wearied masses to grease the bureaucratic machine for their own continued comforts and job security. Jesus lightened the burdens of His people; the bureaucrats only added to their miseries. The juxtaposition went on and on, and the gulf between Him who came to save and those who entrenched to oppress grew wider and wider.

It’s impossible to not hear Christ’s echoes of the Good News throughout the ages, even into postmodernity. In fact, the Good News calls out now more than ever with the ubiquity of bureaucratic machinations in every corner of human society. Bureaucracies seem inescapable, but they’re not. Despite the great darkness that surrounds and engulfs humanity right now, God’s Light in Jesus shines more brightly than ever, shattering the shackles of bureaucracy with the love of God and His Good News for humanity.

What was Jesus’s solution to bureaucratic tyranny? “Jesus answered and said to them,

“Go and report to John what you hear and see: the blind receive sight and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he who does not take offense at Me.” ~ Matthew 11:2-6

Christ’s Good News focuses on tending to the immediate and tangible needs of His flock—a far cry from the bureaucrat’s mindless directive to “Take a ticket (you number!) and get in line—Next!” The solution to the oppression—the disease—of bureaucracy has been, still is, and will always be found in and through Jesus Christ, who actively cared/cares more for His Mission to help people than servicing the machine to manage them. Simply, Jesus is the model of Good News that we can and should follow in defanging the bureaucratic monster of postmodernity.

Primitive Christianity

In a period of great economic and social hardship, the Gospel writer, Luke, records in his church history work, The Acts of the Apostles, 

And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved (Acts 2:44–47, NASB). 

Not surprisingly, as the number of Jesus disciples rose, the Jewish leaders who had earlier been threatened by Jesus’ message and influence upon a society which they wanted full hegemony, worried the Jesus movement could reignite, and turned their criticisms and persecutions upon Jesus’ disciples and followers, many of whom fled the area to safer, more receptive areas (at least, initially). Still, many early Christian leaders bravely stayed in Jerusalem and Judea to speak their message of Christian love and salvation, leading to public abuse by authorities determined to extinguish this dangerous sect of Messianic Judaism.

The Apostle Luke records,

“. . . and after calling the apostles in, they flogged them and ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and then released them. . . And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they kept right on teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ” (Acts 5: 40, 42, NASB).

The Age of Martyrs

This Christian zeal energized many to follow; however, it motivated just as many on the other side of the argument to more serious efforts. Thus, the Apostle Stephen is the first recorded martyr of the Christian movement (Acts 7, NASB), and based upon extra-biblical accounts of the time, others soon thereafter followed Stephen’s demise. The Disciple Andrew was crucified on an ‘X’ in Greece; the Disciple Matthew was killed by the sword in Ethiopia; the Disciple Bartholomew (also known as Nathanael) was whipped to death in Armenia; the Disciple James Zebedee was beheaded in Jerusalem; the Disciple Thomas was stabbed by a spear in India; the Disciple Jude was killed by arrows during his missionary work; the replacement Disciple, Matthias was stoned and beheaded for his faith; the Apostle John (and Gospel writer) was boiled in oil but somehow survived; the Apostle Barnabas was stoned to death in Salonica; the Gospel writer, John Mark, was dragged to death by horses through the streets of an unnamed Egyptian city; James the Just was thrown over a cliff, somehow survived, but then was immediately clubbed to death; the leader of the Disciples, Peter, was crucified upside down in Rome under the Emperor Nero; and the Apostle Paul was beheaded under the persecutions of Nero.

As the early Christian movement spread, the early Jesus followers passed on their understanding of the new covenant between God and humanity with the Greco-Roman sub-cultures that they encountered. Even more so, they shared a new and affirming religious philosophy that ran counter-cultural to the superstitious, hedonistic, relativistic mores of the day. They spoke of the reality of the one, real God to polytheistic communities that had never known life without an ever–increasing (and very often unknowable) pantheon of gods. They encouraged people to live by the spirit and not the flesh, embracing chaste lifestyles that honored other people’s bodies (and their own) instead of exploiting and abusing sexuality for momentary pleasure. They exhorted people to take care of the weakest and neediest in society—the orphans, the widows, the poor—and to avoid activities like divorcing and suing that poisoned their relationships with each other. In the Greco–Roman world, ideas like these were radical, refreshing, but were sometimes considered quite subversive, if not perverse.

Such Christian activism did not go unnoticed, especially by the provincial leaders who disliked any civil unrest that interfered with the Pax Romana and monetary gain. With the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE and Diaspora (the forced dispersion of the Jews from Israel) that followed, after the first century, CE, Christian castigation mostly came from Roman leadership who feared little, if any, reprisal or revenge from the Christians who were known for their passivity and peacefulness (and whom had few political friends in the Senate). Thus, members of the Early Christian movement often became political targets and scapegoats for the social ills and political tensions of specific rulers and turbulent periods during the first three centuries, CE; however, this persecution was sporadic and rarely Empire-wide, but it was devastating, nonetheless.

The persecution of the Christians did not end with the deaths of the Disciples and the Apostles; their pupils and successors, the Church Fathers (ancient theologians, church leaders, and defenders of orthodox Christianity) also endured Roman hostility and maltreatment for their beliefs, as did other peripheral Christian men, women, and children (of all ages) who called themselves, “Christian.” The three main periods of persecution occurred from 64 – 95 CE (Emperor Nero to Emperor Domitian), 112 CE – 250 CE (Emperor Trajan to Emperor Decius), and 250 – 311 CE (Emperor Valerian to Diocletian).

Generally, people of all religious persuasions were tolerated within the Roman Empire; after all, polytheism was the norm for most Mediterranean societies at that time. Yet, for the Empire to operate, efficiently and profitably, social order had to be maintained at all costs. Submission to the Emperor was not an option, but Christians could not and would not say, “Lord, Lord,” to the enthroned emperor or make a divine offering in their deified honor. This caused frequent friction with Roman authorities, and who started a conflict was less important to the Roman governors than maintaining peace and acquiescence; therefore, the troublesome elements were eliminated as a warning to others about challenging the absolute rule of Rome. 

Senator and Roman historian Gaius Cornelius Tacitus (56 CE – 120 CE) recounts,

“Nero set up as culprits and punished with the utmost refinement of cruelty a class hated for their abominations, who are commonly called Christians. Nero’s scapegoats (the Christians) were the perfect choice because it temporarily relieved pressure of the various rumors going around Rome. Christus, from whom their name is derived, was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. Checked for a moment, this pernicious superstition again broke out, not only in Judea, the source of the evil, but even in Rome.”

Being so counter-cultural and morally provocative, many Christians found themselves to be entertainment (or a warning to all who would also create conflict or rebellion in Roman society) in the Roman Circus or at other various gladiatorial arenas in the Empire, wherein they could be crucified, burned alive, thrown to lions or other wild beasts without weapons of defense, beheaded, impaled on pikes or spears, hanged, drawn and quartered, or killed by gladiators (although such events were not very spectacular considering the peaceful non-resistance of the early Christians). How many Christians were killed during these Great Persecutions is unknown; however, many scholars believed it numbered in the thousands. Some martyrs (one who dies for the faith) were leaders in the still–growing church, but most others were mere grassroots followers in the Jesus movement. 

Although not every Roman emperor was merciless in their treatment of Christians, several rulers stand out because of their severity or cruelty. Emperor Nero, who reigned from 54 CE – 68 CE, was emotionally unstable, involved in several conspiracies, a poor administrator, and used the Christians as a distraction of his imperial failings and frustrations. Emperor Domitian, who ruled from 98 CE – 117 CE, was said to be “a thoroughly nasty person, rarely polite, insolent, arrogant, and cruel.” A black-and-white thinker, he introduced anti-Jewish and anti-Christian laws, and demanded Christians worship him as god (people were to refer to him as dominus et deus—‘master and god’). Emperor Decius, who ruled from 249 CE – 251 CE, also issued royal edicts to suppress Christianity, demanding that all Christian bishops offer sacrifices to him. 

Despite the famous cruelty of Nero, perhaps the greatest persecutions of all happened during the reign of Emperor Diocletian, who reigned from 284 CE – 305 CE. A zealot for Paganism, he called himself, “The Vicar of Jupiter,” and believed that the eclipsing of Roman power was more due to Christianity than bad governorship. Thus, he issued the strongest anti-Christian edicts of all the emperors, commanding that all Christian churches were to be burned, all Christians were to be deprived of political office, all Christian scriptures and bibles were to be burned, and all private and public worship of Jesus was to cease. Despite his austere measures, though, the Christian movement grew stronger.

One of the most famous Christian martyrs was Polycarp, the Bishop of Smyrna (Turkey), who was executed during or around the reign of Marcus Auerlius (121 CE – 180 CE). One of the Apostle John’s disciples—the others being Papias of Hierapolis (ca. 70 CE – 163 CE), Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 35 CE – 108 CE), and Irenaeus of Lyons (early 2nd century – 202 CE)—Polycarp was a guardian of the faith and unyielding to the end of his days.

In the Martyrdom of Polycarp, the (unknown) author writes,

“Eighty and six years have I served Christ, nor has He ever done me any harm. How, then, could I blaspheme my King who saved me? You threaten the fire that burns for an hour and then is quenched; but you know not of the fire of the judgment to come, and the fire of eternal punishment. Bring what you will.”

Martyrdom was not limited to officials in the Christian movement or believers only from the male gender, either. In 203 CE, five Carthagians defied the Imperial orders of Septimus Severus (145 CE – 211 CE) prohibiting conversion to Christianity and were subsequently arrested, including Vibia Perpetua, a twenty-two-year-old Roman noblewoman and her servant/handmaiden, Felicitas. A young mother, Perpetua was allowed to breastfeed her young child in prison, and Felicitas was eight months pregnant, but both women still refused to recant their faith (despite the objections and pleading of Perpetua’s father). During their execution, they were first mauled by a mad cow, finally being dispatched by sword in the arena. The three other male slaves—Revocatus, Saturnius, and Secundulus—were whipped and then thrown into the arena to defend themselves against a wild boar, a bear, and a leopard.

The Canon of Scripture and Orthodoxy

Even with the aforementioned challenges to the Christian movement, from its earliest days through the centuries of development, Christianity’s focus stayed on its founder—Jesus Christ of Nazareth. The Apostolic and Church Fathers labored to preserve the authentic message of Jesus and his Disciples, rejecting works and ideas that were more than just attitudes, biases, and personal opinion concerning the great things of God. Moreover, a majority rule or belief had to be accepted by the ecumenical councils from all areas of the Roman Empire—Antioch, Rome, Alexandria, Carthage, etc.; before there was commitment, there had to be careful Christian consensus.

In determining the standard or canon for Christian scripture, the early Christian leaders used a four-part “rubric” and international community affirmation to approve or reject books and letters for biblical inclusion. First, the writings had to be Catholic, used universally all over the Mediterranean religion; second, the writings had to be Orthodox, or included correct truths of Jesus and his message; third, the writings had to be Apostolic, or written in the time of Jesus by his Disciples/Apostles; finally, the writings had to be Traditional, or used often and regularly by Christian churches. If a book or letter could place this “COAT” upon its back, it was worthy of inclusion in the biblical canon.

Moreover, because of their historical closeness to Jesus and his direct training of their authors, the Gospel accounts and letters (the Epistles) of the Disciples/Apostles were considered to be superior, authoritative sources in discerning authentic Christian doctrine. Contrary to some who claim these early Christian church fathers made their choices out of personal benefit, it is interesting to note that none of the Apostolic Fathers’ own writings (The Didache, 1 & 2 Clement, the Epistles of Ignatius, the Epistle of Polycarp, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc.) made it into the biblical canon despite having great cultural value and influence.

Thus, despite regional differences and emphases, despite strong personalities and community dominance, the major tenets of Christianity were established for the church, using Scripture as the main guide, and only confirmed through ecumenical councils from all over the Mediterranean region. This was done both for unity within the Christian body, but also to protect against heretical ideas seeping into Christianity from various false teachers and movements (many of which are still held today by some people).

For instance, the Gnostics promoted a secret way to the divine that vilified the flesh and contradicted the theology of the Hebrew scriptures with its own pantheon of deities, demons, and spiritual beings. Docetism promoted the idea that Jesus only appeared to die on the Cross, as he was only spirit and never truly incarnated. Arianism holds that Jesus was a created being, not equal with God the Father. Nestorianism suggests that Jesus existed as two separate people, and that only the human Jesus suffered and died on the Cross. Pelagianism promoted the idea that Adam’s original sin did not carry on through him to all humanity, and that all human beings can affect their own salvation through the will and wise choices. All of these movements contradicted, in some way, scriptural evidence in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.

Therefore, utilizing biblical verification, early church leaders arduously strived to compose and communicate the supernatural relationship of Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit, which they eventually termed, “The Trinity”—the Latin word for “Three-ness.” Specifically, the Church Fathers concluded that God exists as a single deity with three separate but permanently connected persons in his ontology. So, though one God, he is also differentiated within himself to accomplish his divine will in Heaven, the universe, and on earth. He is not three separated entities or beings; nor is he a single person revealing himself in three forms (which the heresy, Modalism, contends). Paradoxically, God’s persons are simultaneous and not consecutive, and, via “Perichoresis,” they “dance around each other,” focusing on specific activities although still enveloping each other and each other’s work. Though not specifically referenced in the Bible by word, the reality of the Trinity can be observed in both the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, although it is more noticeable in the New Testament writers’ assertions and explanations.

To preserve the original message and meaning of Christianity, several Christian communities created creeds (a formal statement of religious belief) to help define and defend Christian doctrine and characteristics. Many consider Romans 10:8-9 to be the first Christian creed—“The word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

Christian tradition suggests that, later on, the Jesus’ Disciples wrote the Apostles Creed (ca. 150 CE) after Jesus’ crucifixion, although modern scholarship puts the date to be post second-century, CE. In this ancient creed, it presents God as the creator, discusses Jesus’ birth, death, resurrection, and ascension into Heaven. It also references the Holy Spirit and his communication with the World (although it omits an official discussion of the Trinity), and ends with an explanation of the Church, its saints, and the afterlife.

Under the supervision of Emperor Constantine I, the Nicene Creed (325 CE) was composed by an ecumenical council, which is accepted as authoritative by most Christian groups, but not by the Eastern Orthodox Church (at least, the second version in 381 CE is rejected for adding in the Filioque Clause). It describes the pre-existence of Jesus Christ, his role in the future judgment of humanity, how Jesus is homoousis—of one substance with God, how/why the Holy Spirit is to be worshipped as part of the holy Trinity family, discusses the requirement of baptism, and minimizes the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ, interestingly.

Although there are others, the Athanasian Creed (328 CE) is important as it deals mainly with the Trinity, and pushes back against the heresies of the day: Arianism, Docetism, Modalism, and Monophytism. It expands upon the Nicene Creed and promotes a more exclusive understanding of salvation and eternal rejection for non-believers.

Constantine the Great and the Establishment of Early Medieval Christianity

The followers of Jesus Christ would finally see reprieve from their centuries-long struggles to worship Jesus Christ as their king and Lord in Roman society under Emperor Flavius Valerius Constantinus, also known as Constantine I the Great (ca. 280 CE – 337 CE). Contrary to his previous predecessors, and perhaps because of the havoc and weakening that ensued after Diocletian’s abdication of the Imperial throne in 305 CE, Constantine saw value (and possibly truth) in the Christian way and, once in power, took steps to remove all former legal restrictions on Christianity. Specifically, in the Edict of Milan, composed in 313 CE, Constantine offered citizens of the Empire new freedoms and protections from centuries–old bigoted edicts. No doubt, fourth–century Christians felt a peace like none before as they read (or heard) in the Edict of Milan,

“When you see that this has been granted to [Christians] by us, your Worship will know that we have also conceded to other religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for the sake of the peace of our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases; this regulation is made that we may not seem to detract from any dignity of any religion.”

Although Constantine’s “conversion” to Christianity is controversial (was it for personal or political reasons?), the future sole emperor later spoke of a dream that he had the night before his pivotal battle with Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge (312 CE) wherein God told him to have the Christian “Chi-Rho” monogram painted on his soldiers’ shields to ensure success. Considering that Maxentius’ forces were double of that of Constantine’s, Constantine’s chances were slim, at best. Whether due to desperation or blind faith, he purportedly submitted to the instructions in his dream (although early reports of the battle omit the divine vision telling him, “In hoc signo vinces”—“In this sign conquer”), carried a new banner of allegiance into battle, and won the day.

His victory achieved, and with the drowning death of Maxentius, Constantine eventually went on to become sole emperor of an undivided empire in 324 CE. An apt and inspirational administrator, he set forth to reform the great Roman Empire that had been dwindling down for decades, with God at his back. More so, he became a patron of Christianity and its church, appointing Christians to high political office and giving them the same rights as other Pagan political officers, paving the way for the Christian institute to lead society—not be dragged down or crushed by it.

By the fifth century, Christianity had become the state religion of the Roman Empire, leading to a dramatic change in how the faith played out in greater society. This caused a shift in Christianity from private to public worship; from a distinctly Jewish character to one more aligned with the Gentiles; from an individual matter to more of a community affair; from a seeker-driven faith to an exclusively chosen body of believers; from a looser, more informal structure to that of distinct strata of operation and authority; and from gender empowering to more specific gender specific limitations. Additionally, Christian leaders had to figure out how Christianity integrated with Roman law and government, dealt with barbarian peoples, and still maintained the essence of Jesus’ teachings and missions for his followers.

The next two centuries of Christianity would see the development of the episcopacy and the rise of a religious aristocracy—the clergy and laity, the papacy, the priesthood of some, not all, believers. Furthermore, where previously riches were a sign of greed and exploitation, once endorsed and involved with the emperor, now riches were seen in more favorable light. An even greater juxtaposition was the shift from Christian pacifism to militarianism (also no doubt due to the syncretization of Christianity into secular society). Theologically, there was a move away from Millennialism and the Second Coming of Christ to a more practical, earthly understanding of the kingdom of God; the enforcement of clerical abstinence and the condemnation of simony; the addition of Purgatory to key church dogma; the establishment of the Sacraments, which institutionally demonstrated the outward signs of God’s inward grace in the lives of his followers; and the evolution of Christian monasticism throughout Europe and Africa.

Some might consider such institutionalism contrary to the original Jesus movement; however, it is best to remember that, according to Christian scripture, Jesus was confirmed by Jewish scripture to be the prophesized Messiah, he taught regularly and enthusiastically in the Temple for years, he affirmed and participated in the numerous Jewish festivals and customs required of Judaism, and he became the perfect priest and sacrifice before God on humanity’s behalf. Moreover, Jesus also established his Twelve Disciples to be official ambassadors of the Kingdom of God, to act as heralds of the new covenant between God and humanity. He also promised them that at the Final Judgment, they would be the ones to judge the tribes of Israel.

Yet, if nothing else, Jesus was quite adroit of making the best of all situations, whether personal or public, private or institutional, turning every situation into an opportunity to love God with all his heart, soul, and mind; and to love his neighbor as himself. He also called upon his believers to follow his loving model in reaching the world for God. As the Apostle Paul writes in Galatians, which includes one of the oldest self-definitions of Christianity, “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins so that he might rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be the glory forever more. Amen.”

In the twenty-plus centuries since the ministry of Jesus, Christians have willingly and sacrificially tried to reach the world for God, to continue the great commandment of Jesus Christ in their own complicated lives, changing cultures, and imperfect ways—sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. This was true in the first century, CE, and, century after century, it is still a reality for the Christian movement, two thousand years later.

Pensées and Postmodernity: A Reflection Upon Pascal’s Perennial Book on Proper Pensiveness

Presently in postmodernity, there sadly exists an attitude of insular superiority over past philosophy and thought. As American theologian David Wells has noted, 

The issue of truth has become a vexed matter today. In fact, we are being forced to choose between two positions, neither of which is very happy. Either there are insights into truth which are apparently untainted by the thinker’s internal biases, social location, and cultural lenses, or we live in a cultural context so overwhelming that thinkers are merely ciphers waiting to be filled and determined by their cultural experience.[1]

Perhaps due to the myth of the supremely enlightened postmodern mind, a self-proclamation of truer knowledge and understanding is made too often without a full examination of ancient sources. Reading Blaise Pascal’s Pensées (written in 1670 CE), the title of which literally means “thoughts,” such a hasty and negative conclusion is ill-advised. In this modest-sized tome, there is much to be gained from reading this astute French philosopher’s words of wisdom. British theologian William Wood affirms this, stating,

“Pascal is much more than a religious moralist with a fine prose style. He is also an important moral philosopher, one who deserves a place alongside the other, more systematic, ethicists of the early modern pantheon.”[2]

Textual Analysis

In his writings, the reader finds a clever, perceptive, imaginative, and insightful observer of humanity and its foibles. Created more as a journal than a doctrinal treatise, Pascal offers a multitude of profound and dependable perceptions on the truths surrounding humanity and Christianity. He masterfully blends reality with relevance. In the end, this philosopher and scientist presents his paradigm of the Christian religion suggesting that it is persuasive, personal, and alive.

In perusing the contents of this compilation, one notes that Pascal has approached Christianity with the eye of a scientist. He includes numerous chapters in scientific form with titles like “Order,” “Cause and Effects,” “Transition From knowledge of Man to Knowledge of God,” “Proofs of Jesus Christ,” “Mathematics/Intuition,” and many similar other designations. With so much to point out, his topics meander somewhat in their discussion of the human condition, but he devotes most of his writing in Pensées on the concept of God and humanity’s relationship to Him.

Pascal’s writing in Pensées does not soften his appraisals when it comes to the understanding of humanity and the Divine. He states, “Christianity is strange: it requires human beings to recognize that they are vile and even abominable, and requires them to want to be like God.”[3] He provides other proverbial aphorisms such as, “We must love only God and hate only ourselves,”[4] and “How hollow and full of filth man’s heart is.”[5] Truly, Pascal’s understanding of human spirituality casts a dark shadow over fleshly attitudes and actions, with people being far from being perfect in action and in thought or will.

If Pascal stopped there, Pensées would be a very depressing and darkly moribund assessment. Fortunately, this insightful thinker also points to a cure or remedy for the common affliction of humanity. First, he proclaims, “Man’s greatness lies in his capacity to recognize his wretchedness.”[6] He later complements this notion with the idea that

“It is clear that, through grace, man is made as if on the level of God, participating in his divinity, and that without grace he is deemed the equivalent of brute beast.”[7]

Additionally, Pascal advises his readers to “not look for satisfaction on earth, do not hope for anything from humanity. Your good is only in God, and ultimate happiness lies in knowing God, in becoming united with Him forever in eternity.”[8] Humanity might have its problems, but God can more than make up for it by the provided salvation in Jesus Christ. Humanity’s natural state may be bad, but there is a path of redemption—belief in God and the Gospel.

Lest one think that Pascal’s approach to Christianity is overly dry and pedantic, he additionally remarks, “My whole heart longs to know where the true good lies in order to follow it. Nothing would be too high a price for eternity.”[9] Pascal did not just want head knowledge about God; he earnestly and eagerly sought after the Truth that restores the mind, the heart, and the soul. Somberly, he writes,

“What a distance there is between knowing God and loving him.”[10] 

Yet, Pascal searched for God in life, found unending evidence for His existence and His plan for humanity, and considered God to be holy, loving, and ultimately and deniably lovable. He also observed that many people know that God exists but either choose to ignore Him, distracted by earthly pursuits, or even to irrationally reject Him and the faith. These people, Pascal concluded, are to be pitied, but God’s Truth is still to be shared with them. It is up to all humanity—individually—to accept or to run away from Him. Free will requires free thinking.

Pascal’s Provocative Appeal

Fortunately, reading Pascal’s Pensées enriches one’s understanding of Christianity by providing more than just a sentimental avenue; through Pascal’s erudite considerations, readers find a logical approach to theology that makes sense—evidentially and empirically. Pascal invites his readers to set their emotions aside and then to turn his theological premises over and over again, in pursuit of superlative truths. He asserts,

“Those who are accustomed to judge by feeling understand nothing about things which involve reasoning.”[11]

In a privatized meta-culture that caters more to those with therapeutic moral deistic tastes,[12] Pensées challenges its readers to crawl through the emotional muck to discover deeper and more balanced thought considering the order and salvation of God. Too often, the modern world settles for subjective, comfortable understandings when Truth is somewhat more stringent (although not hopeless). Pascal admonishes his readers, 

“All our dignity consists therefore of thought. It is from there that we must be lifted up and not from space and time, which we could never fill. So let us work on thinking well. That is the principal of morality.”[13]

In Pascal’s worldview, to do well in life starts, continues, and ends with thinking logically and productively.

Conclusion

Pascal’s intellectual evaluations of life gave him a great deal of information on society, governance, human behavior, morality, ethics, religion, and the like. His final conclusions may not be the most appetizing for an intellectually-unsettled postmodern, but Pascal more than makes up for any cynicism with an optimistic understanding of love of God (and His ways) and the greatest of news for all humanity. American scholar Ehsan Ahmed writes,

“[For Pascal] The seat of truth is found in the being whose heart is already inscribed with the laws of God in order to decipher his love in contexts at times open and at other times hidden.”[14]

Fortunately for his readers—and for readers in the current cancel culture—Pascal did not censor either his own humanity or God’s divinity in Pensées. Wells notes, 

“It is true that we must struggle with reading texts aright, but it is a postmodern misstep to say that meaning flits from reader to reader indeterminately, that it is never anything more than a case of isolated, individual signification. It is precisely this captivity to our own selves, to our own autonomous subjectivity, that God must break if we are to hear his Word aright otherwise, we hear it not at all. And if this hearing in fact is held at bay by our epistemological captivity, then Christian faith has to mean something different in every age and context.”[15]

Ever the thoughtful scientist, Pascal carefully and honestly laid out the universal proofs of earthly people who struggle to think well enough and their omni-reasonable, merciful God who ever longs for them to use their God-given gifts of contemplation—to make penetrating, prudent choices. In many ways, this is echoed by the early Christian leader and Apostle, Paul of Taurus, in Philippians 4:8 (NASB), where he exhorts his own readers, 

“Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, think about these things.” 

No doubt, Paul’s universal order to “think about these things” would have resonated strongly with Pascal—especially considering the historical and theological testimony of Paul’s life. 

Somewhat ironic considering the postmodern era’s emphasis on radical individualism, Pensées is a testament to Blaise Pascal’s own personal pursuit of Truth. Rather than just a private angle on religiosity (small “t” truths), though, in this sublime book, the philosopher endeavors to explain to his readers an accurate understanding of the realities of human life (based on observation), the divine intervention and revelation of God to humanity (based on Scripture), and the ultimate benefits of a (super)personal relationship with the great Creator and Guide (based on reason).

[1] David Wells, “Christian Discipleship in a Postmodern World,” JETS 51, no. 1 (March 2008): 25.

[2] William D. Wood, “Axiology, Self-deception, and Moral Wrongdoing in Blaise Pascal’s Pensées,” Journal of Religious Ethics 37, no. 2 (2009): 356.

[3] Blaise Pascal, Pensées (Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1999), 87.

[4] Pascal, 91.

[5] Ibid., 49.

[6] Ibid., 36.

[7] Ibid., 43.

[8] Ibid., 54.

[9] Ibid., 166.

[10] Pascal, 92.

[11] Ibid., 137.

[12] Wells, 28.

[13] Pascal, 73.

[14] Ehsan Ahmed, “Pascal, the ‘Pensées’ and the Figure of the Lamb: A Physiognomy,” Neophilologus 80, no. 1 (1996): 29.

[15] Wells, 26.

Who is God?

In the Old Testament, the book of Genesis starts out with God making the universe and all its inhabitants in six steps or days out of nothing, or ex nihilo. As theologian R. Kent Hughes, states, “[Genesis] is an exquisitely perfect title because this book gives us the genesis (the beginning) of the doctrine of God, which rose to tower high over the pagan notions of the day. It is the genesis of the doctrine of creation, which likewise rose far above the crude mythologies of the surrounding nations. Genesis gives us the doctrine of man, demonstrating that from the beginning we are both wonderful and awful.”

Readers learn that light, the firmament of heaven, the separation of water and land, plants, the Sun, moon, and all stars, earthly marine life, birds, land animals, and human beings themselves are created from God alone. God does this through proclamation—“And God said”—and follows up his creations with an affirmation—“And it was good.” Literalists say it happened in six literal days and surely if God is God, then He could do it in six, literal twenty-four hour periods, but the complexity comes from an examination of language and logistics.

God exists outside of time, which is for humanity. People determine time through the revolving of our planet around the Sun, but the Sun is not created until day four, after the plants. Other scripture points to a day for the Lord being like a thousand years, so it is plausible that it took longer, but the idea of creating everything out of nothing in its complexities and wonderfulness defies understanding by finite minds anyway. Human civilization would like to think that it knows and understands everything, but the reality is that human beings have a limited perception and a restricted understanding of history.

Not surprisingly, how life began and why is a question that has occupied human thought for a long time, both in the religious and secular world. Intelligent Design theory suggests that life on earth is not just the result of the right chemicals and molecules combining with the right amount of heat, energy, or electricity to “make” a life-form, but that an intelligent, superior entity volitionally and purposefully created the world and its inhabitants. If this is true as the Bible suggests, then humanity has a purpose and plan around its existence, actions matter, choices are moral or not, people sin against God and each other, and people have eternal meaning beyond eating and procreating.

So, what can be known about God—conclusively but not exhaustively—from the biblical texts and other significant testimonies of believers through the ages (such as the Apostolic Creed)? 

God is eternal (Psalm 90:2); God is self-existing and self-satisfied (John 5:26); God is omnipotent (Daniel 4:35); God is omnipresent (Psalm 139:7–10); God is holy (1 Peter 1:16); God is love (1 John 4:19); God is unchanging (Psalm 55:19); God is good (Matthew 5:43–45); God is truth (Titus 1:2); God is spirit; God is creator (Genesis 1:1–31).

Not surprisingly, God is known for so much more:

• He is the only God in the universe (Isaiah 45:5–12)

• He is a jealous God (Exodus 34:14)

• He is a God who keeps His covenants (Genesis 9:9, 15)

• He is a God of mercy and justice (Exodus 34:6–7)

• He is a God of forgiveness (Psalm 51:1–2)

• He is a God of redemption (Isaiah 44:6)

• He is a God who protects those whom He calls (2 Thessalonians 3:3)

• He is a God of faithfulness (Psalm 36:5)

“The Lord God is One” (so the Shema prayer, see Deuteronomy 6:4) but has been called by many names in the Bible: Elohim, Yahweh, El Shaddai, El Elyon, El Olam, El Roi, Jehovah, Adonai, Abba, Father. Speaking of which, God is the Father of the Nation of Israel (Isaiah 64:8), Jesus Christ (John 1:18), and the Redeemed (Galatians 3:26). He is the First Person of the Trinity (John 1:14). He rules over all, He cares for everything, and He desires righteousness to reign according to His will. He is worthy of the highest of praise, truly.

Considering God and the Christian Faith

Christian Theology has been described as the systematic study of beliefs, practices, and institutions that articulate the Christian faith. As such, it is just as important to understand key theological concepts as it is fascinating to study them. Moreover, Theology gives traditional perspective and definitive terminology for understanding the whole of human existence or reality. It provides a clear statement about the truth of the Christian message, aiding in the interpretation of religious truths for each generation. In this way, Christian Theology is never finished; it has constant value and engagement for those who study it.

There are several types of Theology:

• Historical: What/how people thought about the Divine in the historical timeline

• Biblical: Evidence and examples and edicts from Scripture on Divine concepts

• Philosophical: Concerned with how we think about the Divine and its interaction with the world

• Modern: Concerned with contemporary ways of understanding the Divine and its relationship with the world

• Practical: What any minister needs to know to function in a local church

Officially, Theology is the study of the nature of God and religious truth(s). Studying Theology is a huge task as it overlaps with so many other disciplines. In the past (and still in the present), theologians have sought to ascertain the greater patterns (categories) in the Christian faith observable in Scripture and through the contemplations and proclamations of prophets, priests, and other significant historical religious influencers of the faith. 

A "Systematic” approach discriminates about what is essential (or not) to the subject matter. It is comprehensive in investigating what is to be examined, it is self-critical and open to change (or reform), and it relates its results with those from other related disciplines. Systematic theologians approach the task by dividing theology into several units of study, trying to insure that the entire scope of theological issues and thought is covered. Thus, Systematic Theology covers several traditional major ideas including Revelation, Paterology, Christology, Pneumatology, Soteriology, Angelology, Demonology, Eschatology, Hamartiology, the Canon, and so on—all of which will be addressed in some form or fashion in your readings and activities this term. In fact, although y'all may not know what each of the aforementioned terms mean, y'all have probably already thought about these studies in your Christian walks.

Some people have criticized Systematic Theology for being a reductionist, one-sided closed-system of cultural indoctrination organized around particular central theme, but such a negative perspective ignores the greater good gained from studying Theology, systematically. With the scientific scrutiny that has historically accompanied Systematic Theology, investigators have arrived at evidential and inferential understandings taught holistically (or specifically) in the Old and New Testaments. They have been able to consider complementary doctrines (or innovative ones) at the same time, in order to have a balanced view.

They have produced summaries of Christian teaching that guard against misunderstanding and false teaching. They have assessed the accuracy and importance of various doctrinal views—especially postmodern ones that are prone to bias from a radical individualism worldview. By carefully considering the key concepts of the Christian faith, systematic theologians have counteracted the chaos and subjectivism of much that is passed for “Christian tenets” today—all with the goal of better understanding who God is and what His authentic plan is for humanity.

Ecclesiology in the 21st Century

The Early Christian Community

Although the Pharisees and Jewish leaders considered the dangerous influence of Jesus to be quelled with his execution (especially with the threat/warning of crucifixion for embracing such beliefs), the Christian message continued to be as appealing and inviting as ever, and the movement grew, exponentially. Moreover, whereas oppressive and politically controlling leaders of Judaism continued in their reactionary ways, the early Christians offered inclusivity and freedom to those who wished to join in “The Way” (as the movement was sometimes called).

In this period of great economic and social hardship, the Gospel writer, Luke, records in his church history work, the Acts of the Apostles,

"All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved" (Acts 2:44–47).

Not surprisingly, as the number of Jesus’ disciples rose, the Jewish leaders who had earlier been threatened by Jesus’ message and influence upon a society which they wanted full hegemony, worried the Jesus movement could reignite, and turned their criticisms and persecutions upon Jesus’ disciples and followers, many of whom fled the area to safer, more receptive areas (at least, initially).

Still, many early Christian leaders bravely stayed in Jerusalem and Judea to speak their message of Christian love and salvation, leading to public abuse by authorities determined to extinguish this dangerous sect of Messianic Judaism. The Apostle Luke records,

“They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go . . . Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Messiah” (Acts 5:40, 42).

Christendom

Some might consider Christian institutionalism contrary to the original Jesus movement; however, it is best to remember that, according to Christian scripture, Jesus was confirmed by Jewish scripture to be the prophesized Messiah, he taught regularly and enthusiastically in the Temple for years, he affirmed and participated in the numerous Jewish festivals and customs required of Judaism, and he became the perfect priest and sacrifice before God on humanity’s behalf. Moreover, Jesus also established his Twelve Disciples to be official ambassadors of the Kingdom of God, to act as heralds of the new covenant between God and humanity. He also promised them that at the Final Judgment, they would be the ones to judge the tribes of Israel.

Yet, if nothing else, Jesus was quite adroit of making the best of all situations, whether personal or public, private or institutional, turning every situation into an opportunity to love God with all his heart, soul, and mind; and to love his neighbor as himself. He also called upon his believers to follow his loving model in reaching the world for God. As the Apostle Paul writes in Galatians 1:3–5, which includes one of the oldest self-definitions of Christianity,

“Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”

In the twenty-plus centuries since the ministry of Jesus, Christians have willingly and sacrificially tried to reach the world for God, to continue the great commandment of Jesus Christ in their own complicated lives, changing cultures, and imperfect ways—sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. This was true in the first century, CE, and, century after century, it is still a reality for the Christian movement, 2000 years later.

Postmodern Neo-Christianity

Post-1960, Western Society has been undergoing a slow shift from conservative traditionalism, with its policed protection of permitted norms of behavior and religiosity to experiential individualism, which provides more permissiveness within and without church walls in the self-focused choices of people (and kinder judgments upon those actions). This evolution has involved the acceptance of alternative spiritual/theological avenues, divergent spiritual social norms (specifically concerning personal piety, vocational choices, gender roles, and sexual preferences), but truthfully, it has affected the whole of society. Traditional church culture is now considered anachronistic by many post-modern seekers, which the Emerging Church movement seeks to capitalize on with special attention and toleration given to the growing individualism in the post-modern world.

The majority of this paradigm change can be attributed to the post-modern emphasis on the “One,” which has progressed to such a degree that individual power vastly outweighs institutional or community authority for most religious bodies. Attesting to this is a 2007 sociological study of religious life in McMinnville, Oregon (called ‘The McMinnville Project’) that surveyed members from several churches, New Age groups, and even atheists, wherein substantial evidence was gathered and analyzed, which pointed toward a new, radical, individualized expression of faith, also termed, “Sacro-Egoism.” More than ever before, people feel religiously empowered to do what they want, regardless of former Church or biblical mandates, which is evidenced in several ways:

• First, a radical authority/priority of the self is embraced cross-culturally in Western churches.

• Second, people in post-modern churches, in general, feel an antagonism or ambivalence to institutionalism in society.

• Third in the Sacro-Egoistical approach, a personal or pragmatic commitment [implicit] to the spiritual journey (specifically concerning Jesus and the Bible) is sought after and cultivated.

• Fourth, an openness to and toleration of non-traditional beliefs and practices is promoted.

The foundation of the Postmodern church is radical individualism, which allows for the spiritual reins to be personally grasped and thereafter directed by private choice(s). In many congregations, the church or the Bible are no longer the only (or final) voice in religious matters; the individual has been awarded the right in society (or perhaps it has been forcefully grabbed) to choose keep all religious avenues open—a dangerous phenomenon considering that goal was what got humanity in trouble in the first place in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3).

Moreover (and perhaps most importantly), is it possible to call oneself a Christian following the model of Jesus Christ—who willingly submitted all His personal power and comforts to do the Will of the Father—if the main goal in one's life is "to do it MY way"? The latter seems an eternity away from the heart-felt devotion of Jesus who openly declared to the assembly around him,

"For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of HIM who sent Me" (John 6:38). 

Clearly, the Postmodern church has challenged the former religious establishment, usurped some of traditionalism’s authority in Western Society, and created personally empowering tenets based on its own interpretation of religious expression and community. A broader question is whether the lure of radical individualism will eventually eclipse all vestiges of communal and/or institutional Christianity, and what this will mean to the church culture in the future. After all, as Jesus astutely concluded,

"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money." (Matthew 6:24)

Although radical self-centeredness, creativity, experimentation, and liberation are a fashionable balm to the Postmodern soul, are they enough to satisfy the requirements of a righteous God? Do they bring parishioners closer to God or push them farther away? This is definitely a topic for Selah (contemplation).

The Spiritual Side of Life

From its outset, the story of humanity begins with God's supernatural intersection with His creation(s). God's supernatural presence and activities established the existence of all life on earth (and in the cosmos), which is evidentially proclaimed to be "Good" (Genesis 1:31, NASB). Although robust description is provided in the creation narrative, there is still much lacking in humanity's full understanding of God's mystical plans. Yet, although difficult to define sometimes, the supernatural and spiritual involvement of God in the stories of the old and New Testament is undeniable. In fact, at the very start of God's Word, Genesis 1:2 declares, "And the earth was a formless and desolate emptiness, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters." 

With this in mind, Pneumatology seeks to study the personality, deity, and activity of the Holy Spirit—the third person in the Trinity. Although a full explanation is not possible (considering our finite nature and perspective), scholars and sages throughout the ages have sought to understand who/what the Holy Spirit of God is, what He does, and how He contributes to the divine mission of the Godhead. References to the Holy Spirit can be found in the writings of the Old Testament, the New Testament, extra biblical works, the early church, the Middle Ages, the modern church, and even into postmodernity. To deny the presence of the Holy Spirit in the old and New Testaments is to (ironically) deny truth that only comes from the Holy Spirit.

Scripture Testifies to the Presence of the Holy Spirit

• "And I have filled him with the Spirit of God in wisdom, in understanding, in knowledge, and in all kinds ofcraftsmanship . . ." (Exodus 31:3)

• "The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life." (Job 33:4)

• "Now the Spirit of the Lord left Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord terrified him." (1 Samuel 16:14)

• "Do not cast me away from Your presence, And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me." (Psalm 51:11)

• "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh." (Ezekiel 36:26)

• "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit . . ." (Matthew 28:19)

• "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and remind you of all that I said to you." (John 14:26)

• "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and remind you of all that I said to you." (Acts 1:8)

• "Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption." (Ephesians 4:30)

• "For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (2 Peter 1:21)

What Does the Holy Spirit Do?

Based on biblical evidence, the Holy Spirit is the Great Counselor, the Bringer of Truth, Discernment, and Deliverer of Divine Messages. Moreover, the Holy Spirit helps God's people convey eternal truths of God to those needing to hear it. As such, the Holy Spirit is the Divine Influencer or Infuser. The Holy Spirit is God's gift at the dawn of human history and for his Christian church following the departure of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit provides wisdom, foreknowledge, judgment, spiritual gifts, and other supernatural abilities used for serving God and sharing the Good News.

As part of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit is spiritually active in the world; he is powerful, purposeful, and personal. Speaking of which, as the third person of the Trinity, He is distinct from the Father and the Son although through Perichoresis (divine envelopment), the Holy Spirit is still involved in the work and activities of the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit is coequal, coeternal, and in perfect unity with the other divine persons.

What is the Trinity?

The Trinity itself is often difficult to comprehend, which makes sense since finite minds are attempting to understand an infinite concept. In the Trinity, the Holy Spirit is paradoxical as it is for the other persons, but there are not three entities or gods. There are not three beings. One essence ultimately the trinity is one answer to God in three persons. It's not it's not modalism with a single person revealing himself historically in three different sequential  forms. The Trinitarian modes are simultaneous and not consecutive. Perhaps the clearest scriptural evidence for this is at the baptism of Jesus Christ (Matthew 3:13–17).

Then Jesus arrived from Galilee at the Jordan, coming to John to be baptized by him. But John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I have the need to be baptized by You, and yet You are coming to me?” But Jesus, answering, said to him, “Allow it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed Him. After He was baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and settling on Him, and behold, a voice from the heavens said, “This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

The Godhead is mutually indwelling, with each person "dancing around each other" (so-to-speak). God's followers join in the Trinitarian perichoresis by faith. Thus, the Holy Spirit comes to the disciples, who dwell in Jesus Christ, who dwells in God (see Gospel of John, chapters 14–17). After the Resurrection, Jesus assured the Disciples that although he was leaving, they would not be alone. Jesus promised to send a divine counselor, advocate, and guide as help them witness to the world. This Counselor was (and still is) coming to be their "Paraclete"—the Greek word for helper or aid, meaning, "One called to the side of." And what a difference the Holy Spirit makes in the lives of God's children. 

Pastor and writer Max Lucado exclaims, "You have a God who hears you, the power of love behind you, the Holy Spirit within you, and all of heaven ahead of you. If you have the Shepherd, you have grace for every sin, direction for every turn, a candle for every corner, and an anchor for every storm. You have everything you need."

Holocaust survivor Corrie Ten Boom explains, "Trying to do the Lord's work in your own strength is the most confusing, exhausting, and tedious of all work. But when you are filled with the Holy Spirit, then the ministry of Jesus just flows out of you."

Evangelist Dwight L. Moody concludes, "The work of the Spirit is to impart life, to implant hope, to give liberty, to testify of Christ, to guide us into all truth, to teach us all things, to comfort the believer, and to convict the world of sin."

To Be Filled with the Holy Spirit

Jesus's prophecy was actualized in Jerusalem in the book of Acts as prophesied by Jesus. On Pentecost, 120 followers of Jesus were baptized by the Holy Spirit in the upper room amazingly, with tongues of supernatural flames resting on the heads of each of them. The results were marvelous. These newly Spirit-filled followers began miraculously speaking in foreign tongues with those outside in the streets of Jerusalem, who were astounded to hear the Good News in their own languages. Their responses were dramatic. Thousands came to believe, the Gentiles become grafted into the family, and the early church numbers increased mightily.

Similar accounts of the Holy Spirit's power and assistance can be found in the other New Testament epistles of the Apostles Paul, Peter, James, John, and Jude. What is certain is that the Holy Spirit was alive with activity and engagement. In fact, this passage shows how the Apostles often struggled to keep up with the work/opportunities of the Holy Spirit. New believers sprung up all over the Mediterranean region—the ripple effect of the power of the Holy Spirit to unveil and obliterate the dark, empty world of paganism. Evangelist A. W. Tozer states, "If the Holy Spirit was withdrawn from the church today, 95 percent of what we do would go on and no one would know the difference. If the Holy Spirit had been withdrawn from the New Testament church, 95 percent of what they did would stop, and everybody would know the difference."

Some people (known as known as cessationists) claim that the work of the Holy Spirit was limited to the first century. Yet, resting on the Apostle Paul's discussion of spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12, the Holy Spirit is just as active today as it was in the early church. Paul writes,

"Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? Now eagerly desire the greater gifts."

Based on the living testimonies of over a billion of believers worldwide, can one say that all the gifts of the Holy Spirit have stopped? People are still convicted and comforted. Discernment still occurs. Healings still happen. People still prophesy. The Holy Spirit still calls out for people in the world to draw close to God in Jesus Christ to find true love and forgiveness. The Holy Spirit has never ceased in His efforts to implement the plan of God, and as a faithful member of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit will never abandon God's followers. Just don't forget—Jesus lovingly promised us this.

Three Reasons to Marry for Love

In the post-modern world, societal mores are changing in all aspects of life —not least of which is that of marriage, perhaps the oldest social institution of them all. Some sources (www.prb.org) suggest that close to 108 billion people have lived on the earth since life began, and no one would doubt that marriage was an important event for the majority of those people, regardless of their cultures.

Unfortunately, historians and sociologists do not have an exhaustive reservoir of cultural data to examine regarding marriage throughout history. We know about the lives of the rich and the famous, but scant about the commoners in their society. Yet, often without any evidence to back it up, one can read in the media assertions like, “For most of human history, marriage wasn’t a very romantic institution. It was more akin to a business deal between men, the bride in question had very few rights or other options” (people.howstuffworks.com), and “When love entered the picture as the reason to marry, dissolutions became more commonplace” (www.psychologytoday.com). Proclamations like these only add darkness to the matter and provide an ulterior, but not necessarily helpful explanation for the presence of divorce and annulment.

Reading the article in Psychology Today entitled, “Three Reasons Why You Shouldn’t Marry for Love” (Gadoua, 2013), it is evident that modern thinking discards traditional understanding and incentives for marriage, opting for a more self-serving agenda. Considering the individualistic spirit of the age, it is not surprising; however, shallow argumentation is evident, especially concerning marriage in the context of Christianity.

The article begins with the (incorrect) axiom of “But if you really think about it, love is a luxury.” The dictionary defines a luxury as “an inessential, desirable item that is expensive or difficult to obtain,” but if love comes from within a person’s heart and mind, then its expression and application costs nothing, materially.  

The author, Gadoua, continues, “When you marry for love, it generally means you have all—or at least most—of your other needs met (like food, shelter, warmth, etc).” Few young adults have luxurious riches when they decide to wed; typically, it is the opposite—couples with no steady job or abundant income for either, with more bills than money, but still with a long-term expectation of loving and working and struggling to survive. 

According to the article, however, “In our attempt to make marriage stronger by raising the bar to meet our higher love and romance needs, we have seriously weakened the institution. These are both highly changeable emotions: When love wanes, the marriage gets shaky; when the romance stops, the nuptials die.” The mistake in this evaluation is the author’s conflation of “love” and “romance.”

In C.S. Lewis’ book, The Four Loves, Lewis presents the basic types of love demonstrated in humanity: Storge or natural affection, Philia or friendship, Eros or romance, and Agape or charity, which is the highest, selfless form of all loves. Each one of these kinds of love has a different goal and implementation and working together can bring harmony and health to any relationship. The problem is if one embraces or exhibits only one of these in a marriage or intimate relationship; then, the union will be strained, which the article misses in its conclusions on marriage.

Instead, Gadoua offers, “People whose primary reason to marry is other than love — such as to have children with someone they believed would be a good co-parent, to have financial security, or for companionship — generally have longer and perhaps better marriages because their choices are made for a defined purpose.” Of course, the author offers no evidence or statistics to back up this jaw-dropping advice. She concludes, “I’m not saying love shouldn’t be on the list of things that need to be in your relationship, but it doesn’t need to be number one (and perhaps shouldn’t be).”

For the Christian, though, love must begin all life choices. In Matthew 22 (ESV), Jesus commands,

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Such advice negates the self-focused, problematic guidance in Gadous’ article.

Wisdom and love comes from someone outside of us—God, whose amazing love for us, once embraced, covers and flows through us to everyone else, spouses included. This good counsel is seen in other Biblical passages. 1 John 4 (ESV) states,

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.

In simplifying marriage to a mere social contract present to provide mental peace and physical comfort alone, Gadoua has missed the holistic nature and divine origins of love, which begins in and is sustained through productive, charitable actions without absolute certainty of reaping benefits for oneself. It is hard to see the big picture when you only stare into a mirror.

Marriages don’t fold because spouses are kind, affectionate, self-sacrificing, and understanding. Unions end because of self-absorption and hatred, because of an unwillingness to submit to God’s ethical design for relationships. Gadoua places the focus on what one can get from the marriage; God places the focus on what one can give to the marriage. It is doubtful that any marriage would end if spouses simply and devotedly followed Paul’s advice in 1 Corinthians 13 (ESV):

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

In contrast, Gadoua’s article reminds me of the book of Ecclesiastes, with its emphasis on human pursuits without God (and His love) in the center—vanity, vanity—a chasing after the wind. Instead, let us follow God’s lead in our relationships and in marriage, which, after all, is just a glimpse of the joy to be had for eternity in Heaven.

Thus, I end with my own three reasons why you must marry for love.

1.     God is love and expects us to be loving if we are His followers.

2.     Love is the only power that can truly heal emotional, psychological, and spiritual wounds.

3.     Love is the only force that is eternal, leaving behind a legacy, influencing others for good.

"The Didache: A Moral and Liturgical Document of Instruction"

as published with Ancient History Encyclopedia (2016) (Click here)