Author: marklachonce

There is an old adage about tools: “When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” Of course the meaning is that wise people take different approaches to different problems, and do not try to apply only one approach to all problems.

The area in which I have most seen this done recently is in church conflicts. I am aware of a few  tense situations, and I have several times heard appeals to one and pretty much only one passage-the words of Jesus found in Matthew 18, specifically verses 15 to 20. Let’s take a look.

15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

So, our first question has to do with what Jesus means in this passage. The second is what other instructions and examples are in the New Testament dealing with church conflict. The third is examples of conflict in the New Testament and how they were managed.

In looking at the meaning, we will first zoom in on this one paragraph, and then zoom out to see the larger context. First, it’s important to remember the first phrase: “If your brother [or sister] sins against you…” Jesus is speaking of specific cases in which one Christian (brother) sins against another. Some examples might include insulting that person, tricking the person, speaking harshly, taking credit for one’s work, or not following through on a promise made. These all happen in our regular interactions, and it is healthy to deal with them in the way described by Jesus. The requirement for the offended party is to first “tell him his fault” one on one. The requirement for the offending party is to “listen.” By that I would suggest that Jesus means to listen to the impact that the behavior made without defensiveness, acknowledge the pain (even if unintended), and commit to better behavior in the future. Apologize and show repentance. If this is not done, then other witnesses should be brought in, and it can escalate to the point of casting the offender out of the church if repentance is absent.

Now, the larger context. If we look at the sayings and interactions just before this we find the following:

• A discussion of who is the greatest in the kingdom, in which Jesus says it is those who humble themselves like little children, and warns against anyone who would lead little children to sin, that we all must act in humility and depend on grace.
• A warning against sin, that it is better to lose parts of the body than to remain in sinful patterns
• A short parable of lost sheep in which Jesus shows his great concern for those who wander off and are lost, and the rejoicing when they are found.

Let me suggest that each of these has to do with leaders, those who aspire to be “great.” They must be humble, always watchful that they do not lead vulnerable people to sin, that it is better to cut off those who persist in sin, even if they are important, and that Jesus is on mission to seek and save those who have wandered away and bring them back. Leaders ought to display the most humble behavior of anyone in the church and be sensitive and caring for those who are vulnerable and struggling.

The remainder of the chapter is also relevant. Jesus tells the parable of the unforgiving servant, to illustrate the importance of forgiveness. He tells of a servant who owed a large debt to a king, begged for forgiveness, and was given it. He then proceeded to find another servant who owed him a small debt and came after him with violence to force him to pay it. The other servants saw and told the master what had happened, who then rebuked the servant and punished him severely.

So what do these sayings have to do with the passage in question? I would say first that fundamental to this teaching about interpersonal relations in the church is the importance that Jesus gives to looking out for those in the church who are struggling. Like good shepherds, church leaders have a divine mandate and responsibility to give of themselves for the sake of the “little children” and  “sheep” under their care. Sadly, we seem to be seeing an epidemic of abuse and toxic leadership in church cultures. It seems like every week I hear of a new toxic situation somewhere, often involving people I care about, or a new book that is published to try to help Christians understand such situations. And also sadly, these words of Jesus are often used by leaders and their supporters to circumvent accountability. They are used like a “get out of jail free” card so that if the witnesses to their bad behavior don’t follow this formula just right, the wrongdoers can’t be held accountable. This is a clear violation of the principle of the matter which is to care for victims.

Could it be that, rather than being gentle with toxic leaders, and letting them off on technicalities, we need to be as firm as Jesus is? That we need to be willing to cut them out of the life of the church when they cause others to sin, even if they seem “important” to the life of the body, just like an eye, foot or hand seems important? Many today seem ready to give leaders a pass when they have made “such a great impact for the kingdom.” But Jesus is saying even the most effective body parts need to be cut off if they are hurting others. 

Second, I think the parable of the unmerciful servant is also instructive. Again, the other servants saw the servant acting badly. According to those who want to apply Jesus’s words for every situation, they should have confronted him directly. They did not. Rather, they took the matter to the master. My understanding then, is that there are situations (when your brother sins against you) when you should deal with the wrongdoer directly, and there are other situations (when you witness someone mistreating others) when you are at liberty to take it to a higher level. In our day, that could be law enforcement for a criminal act, or it could be leaders of the church in the case of someone in the church mistreating someone else. When a leader of the church is mistreating someone, we may need to go to other leaders who have some authority over them.

Now, let’s look at other instructions in the New Testament.
Paul brings up the matter a few times. In Galatians 6, he writes:
“1 Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. 2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself.”
In this case, it seems the sin is done with clear evidence, and the emphasis is on gentle restoration. Clearly, the sinner repents and wants to be restored.

In 1 Timothy 5, instructions are given regarding church leaders:
“19 Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.”

Here, there needs to be evidence to entertain accusations against elders. To be truthful, in the Old Testament, all serious crimes could only be prosecuted with at least two witnesses, whether the accused is a criminal or not (Deut. 19:15; Numbers 35:30). But in any matter, there is no mention of an initial one-on-one confrontation, and there is instruction that persisting requires a public rebuke.

Then, in James 5, James gives these instructions:
“19 My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, 20 let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.”
This situation apparently has to do with someone walking away from faith, and the point is how good it is to bring them back.

Having looked at these instructions, let’s look at a few examples of conflict in the New Testament, and how the people of God dealt with them.

Several times, Jesus rebuked those who were opposed to him and his message. You can find the most clear and harsh rebukes of the Pharisees in Matthew 23 and Luke 11. Jesus rebuked the money-changers in the temple (John 2, Matt. 21, Mark 11, Luke 19). These were not fellow believers, but Jesus even rebuked his own followers at times such as Peter in Matt. 16 and Matt. 26 (when he and other disciples fell asleep in the Garden of Gethsamene). All of these rebukes were public, and even those directed at an individual were in front of others. Did Jesus fail to follow his own instructions? I don’t think so, because it was not a matter of a brother sinning against him alone.

In the book of Acts, we find several examples of conflict among believers. In Acts 5, Peter publicly called out Ananias and Sapphira for their deception of the church, and they were struck dead by God. In Acts 6, the Hellenized Jewish widows complained that they were being shortchanged in the apostles’ meal distribution program. This complaint was handled without any mention of anyone going to someone privately or a rebuke directed to them for not doing so. Matthew 18 does not seem to have been followed in these cases.

In Acts 15, there was disagreement related to circumcision and Paul and Barnabas had “no small dissension and debate” with those who taught differently, instigating a discussion and decision among the whole church. There is no evidence of a private confrontation.

In 1 Corinthians 5 Paul appears to be calling out the whole Corinthian church in writing over their proud tolerance of sexual immorality. In Galatians, he talks about his opposition of Peter’s practices and rebuked him “before them all.” Then he recorded this incident in such a way that we still read about it today. Was Paul in violation of Jesus’s instructions in Matthew 18?  Paul also wrote about the ways Demas had disappointed him (2 Tim. 4:10), and the hostility of Alexander the coppersmith (who, granted, may not have been a believer – 2 Tim. 4:14-15). He aired their dirty laundry in writing, and we still see these negative talk about them today! Was Paul in violation of Matthew 18?

Pretty much the entire epistle of Jude is a rebuke of enemies who have “crept in unnoticed.” Jude does not confront them privately, nor does he instruct others to do so. In 3 John, John also rebukes Diotrophes for his bad behavior, which seems to be along the line of domineering church leadership:
“9 I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. 10 So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church.”

So, what are the lessons we might take from this? 

First, the instructions of Jesus are not a “one size fits all” to apply to any situation, as I have heard implied at times. These are specific instructions for specific situations. It’s actually surprisingly difficult to find a situation in which Matthew 18 is applied in the New Testament.

Second, it is dangerous to strictly apply these instructions in cases of abuse and harsh mistreatment of others. It is wrong to expect people who have been bullied, manipulated and abused to confront their oppressor privately. It will make matters worse, causing harm to the victim. Someone strong needs to go with them. As one of the articles linked to later on says,

“If, for example, a group of members raise allegations of the pastor’s abusive behaviour to the elder board – they are not engaging in an activity applicable to Matthew 18:15-17. Indeed, as Kruger goes on to explore, they in fact align more closely with the urging of Paul in 1 Timothy 5:19 (that we ought ‘not [to] admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses’) which implies such charges can be brought directly to the wider church leadership.”

And I should also say:  If you have been bullied, manipulated and abused, don’t give up on Jesus. He’s ready to seek you out like the lost sheep. Do your best to handle the problems righteously, but don’t let others condemn you for speaking out.

Third, these instructions cannot be a “get out of jail free” card. This is not a situation in which following protocols are more important than truth and restoration. In the church, one should not be able to “get off on a technicality.” If there is a problem with how someone dealt with an offense, we need to handle that separately.

Fourth, there are many prescriptions and examples of ways to handle conflict in the New Testament. Why do we seem stuck on just one? We should study these instructions and situations carefully to apply wisdom for each situation today. If we keep treating Matthew 18 as the universal prescription for conflict, we wind up condemning half of the New Testament church.

So, let’s expand our set of tools, learn how to use different ones well, and when to use them.

For further reading, I recommend you check out any of these resources on use of the same passage:

Several years ago I heard about an informal survey illustrating ways in which Christians of different national backgrounds understand the well-known story of the Prodigal Son from Luke 15. I had shared these insights with a number of people, but until recently had not taken the time to look up the source and the whole story. Now that I have, I found it fascinating.

Mark Powell is a retired New Testament professor from Trinity Lutheran Seminary in Columbus, Ohio. In his 2007 book What Do They Hear? he discusses observations he has made over his career of teaching. In Chapter Two, he discusses the impact of social location and uses understandings of the Prodigal Son story to illustrate. In his seminary classes, he would pair up students, have them read a story, close the books, then retell the story to each other. They would then look and take note of the details they remembered and those they neglected. He noticed a remarkable degree of factual errors, both additions and omissions, as one might expect. As he embarked on this exercise with the Prodigal Son parable, he made some striking observations.

Powell noticed that in a group of twelve students, every student left out the mention of the famine in verse 14. Since the tendency to neglect this detail was so frequent, he looked into the matter a bit more. He surveyed one hundred students, and found that only six mentioned the famine in their retelling. Among all these American students, there was no one group that seemed to defy the trend. He then had an opportunity to interact with students in St. Petersburg, Russia, in 2001. In this survey, forty-two out of fifty respondents mentioned the famine. In learning more about that city’s history, he learned that the German siege in World War II resulted in a 900-day famine, in which 670,000 people died. This horrible ordeal was still alive in the memory of the people–even newcomers to the city, and made an impact on their thinking in many ways.

At the same time, Powell found that all of his American students mentioned that the prodigal son squandered his wealth. As for the Russians, only seventeen out of fifty mentioned this detail. They told him that squandering his wealth would only make the son poor, like everyone else. But it was the famine that made him hungry and caused the crisis for him.

What does this mean for the two groups? Powell suggests that for the Americans, the young man’s greatest sin was wasting money. It shows our values. Money is important to us and it should be used carefully. For the Russians, his sin was trying to be self-sufficient; he was acting like a fool.

Later, Powell continued his research while visiting East Africa. It seems that his time was limited, so he only asked them one question–”Why does the young man end up starving in the pigpen?” Expecting them to answer that he had wasted his money or that there was a famine, he was surprised. 80 percent of the Tanzanians wrote something along the line of “Because no one gave him anything to eat.” For them, the people of the foreign country should have treated him with kindness and shared with him. The fact that they didn’t it shows they were dishonorable, in contrast to the father’s house where he treated everyone well.

Which group is right? There is a sense in which all are. The young man did squander his wealth, there was a famine in the land, and indeed nobody gave him anything to eat. They are all in the text:

13 “Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. 14 After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. 16 He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.

The Americans focus on the personal responsibility and the value of money. The Russians rightly point out that disasters happen and cause difficulties for us. And the Tanzanians emphasize the communal responsibility to care for others, even strangers.

A few years ago, I asked a group of Jordanian Christians this same question–why was he hungry?. I received a variety of answers, but the novel one that stood out to me was that “he left the father’s house.” This is also true. The father’s house is the place where you are known and others will care for you.

I think this is a great illustration of how our “cultural lenses” can cause us to emphasize some parts of Scripture, and give us blind spots to other important teaching. We gain quite a lot when we read the Bible with others who come at it from a different “social location.” Would you agree?

It’s been a while since I’ve looked at the Sermon on the Mount and ways that we ignore or marginalize the clear teaching of Jesus. I want to get back to that and look at the subject of wealth. In Matthew 6, Jesus says the following:

“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.  But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.  For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

 The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy, your whole body will be full of light.  But if your eyes are unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

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.”

Jesus tells us clearly that our concern should not be our condition on earth, but rather our condition in heaven. People store up treasure for future security. But treasure on earth is not as secure as treasure in heaven, which cannot be taken from us.

I’ve often been confused about this bit about the eye and what it has to do with wealth. I think the best understanding has to do with the ancient idea that having a “good eye” meant someone was generous and helpful, while a “bad eye” meant someone was stingy and envious. We might say “openhanded” or “tightfisted” to mean the same. This idea is also seen in Matthew 20:15, where Jesus has told a parable in which the owner of a vineyard pays the same wage to workers who just arrived and those who have worked all day. The owner says, “Or are you envious because I am generous?” But the literal sense is “is your eye evil because I am good?” The “bad eye” of the workers meant they fell short of godly generosity.

Another sense of meaning has to do with the choice of the word for “good” which is literally “single” (as seen in the KJV). A good eye is a single eye, or to be “single-minded.” The believer with good eyes is single-minded in only caring about the concerns of God, instead of double-minded, caring about the concerns of both God and the world, which leads to the next point.

Jesus says no one can serve to masters. He makes no exceptions. No one. Both God and money hold exclusive claims over us. Neither allows a second master. Jesus said this clearly, but most of us react as if he were kidding. “You can’t serve both God and money? That can’t be true. Let me give it a try!” We seem to think we are the ones who will be the exception. Is it in any way reasonable to think this way?

It’s important to remember some other points that Jesus and his disciples made about money. In Matthew 13, Jesus told the well-known parable of the sower. You might remember that some seed fell on the path and was eaten by birds. Some fell on rocky soil, sprang up quickly but had no root and withered in the hot sun. Some fell among thorns. And finally, some fell on good soil and produced a harvest. Take heed to what Jesus said about the third type of seed: “The seed falling among the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful.” Jesus told us wealth is deceitful. Deceitful people make promises to us, and fail to deliver on them. They convince us that “this time will be different.” That is exactly what deceitful people and things do, and that is the descriptor Jesus chose to use about wealth. It will deceive you to think you can find satisfaction and security in it. That is a lie.

Jesus also spoke about wealth during an incident recorded in Luke 12. A man asked Jesus to order his brother to divide the inheritance with him. In Jesus’s reply he said,  “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.” We are to watch out and be on our guard against greed. Things we are told to watch out for are dangerous. We might consider them traps.

On the subject of traps, let’s look at one of Paul’s strongest statements about wealth. In 1 Timothy 6, he wrote:

“But godliness with contentment is great gain.  For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it.  But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction.  For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness.”

Paul says that wanting to get rich is a temptation and a trap, and those who are eager for money hurt themselves and cause themselves grief. There is more we could say about the New Testament teaching on wealth. James, for instance, says, “But the rich should take pride in their humiliation—since they will pass away like a wild flower.  For the sun rises with scorching heat and withers the plant; its blossom falls and its beauty is destroyed. In the same way, the rich will fade away even while they go about their business” (James 1:10-11). And later he says, “Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you.  Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes.  Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days.  Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty.  You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you” (James 5:1-6). But I would like to focus on the idea of wealth as deceitful and desire to gain wealth as a trap. This idea feels so counter to the way most of us in our churches act toward money. We look up to people with money and encourage our children to become wealthy. Most of us are pretty wealthy by the standards of the world and all of history, but putting that aside, why aren’t we more concerned about those who want to become more wealthy than those around them? Do we ever warn our children about this? I don’t remember being warned. Usually, we hold out different options as “a good career” and single out wealthy people as good examples. But Jesus said it is deceitful and Paul says it is a trap. We work ourselves up over things like sending our kids to public schools where they might hear bad words or have a teacher who is gay, threats which Jesus and Paul didn’t pay much attention to, while we completely ignore the huge threat of desire for wealth, which is influencing our kids everywhere. Many preachers are constantly warning Christians about all kinds of sins and threats but are silent about the trap of greed.

And that’s just the thing about traps – they are hidden. Deceitful people lie to you. You should expect it.

Let me respond to a couple objections that I can see. First, isn’t it more important where you heart is? Maybe. I suppose the condition of the heart is the most important thing. But Jesus said, “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” He didn’t say, “where your heart is, there your treasure will be.” The heart follows the treasure. And besides, wouldn’t it be just in line with a deceitful person to justify a desire for wealth by claiming it’s okay as long as your heart is good?

Another objection may be made by pointing to wealthy people in the New Testament. I can think of a few. Zacchaeus was wealthy, and meeting Jesus prompted him to give away much of his wealth. The rich young ruler was told by Jesus to give up his wealth and he refused. The women in Luke 8 who followed Jesus also gave of their means to support the community of disciples. Joseph of Arimathea provided a tomb for Jesus. In Acts 4, Barnabas and others sold their property to meet the needs of the other believers. Most likely, several leaders of New Testament house churches were wealthy enough to have a large home and open it to be used by the church. So, we see a number of people who were wealthy, came to faith in Christ, and generously gave from their wealth to provide for the needs of poor people and/or other believers. What we don’t see are believers who then set out to become wealthy.

So, the lesson in all of this is the following: There is no way you can serve both God and money. It is a lie to think that you can, and desire for wealth is a trap. If you are a believer in Jesus and already wealthy, then use that wealth for the benefit of poor people and for legitimate ministry purposes. If you are a believer and not wealthy, don’t try to become wealthy. It’s a trap.

Churches in America have recently engaged in a recurrence of an ongoing conversation about social issues – justice, racial matters, poverty, equality, are all issues which have stirred up a good deal of discussion and sometimes emotion. These discussions have been fruitful at times, and I have learned a good amount, but I have also observed that a large number of leaders and regular churchgoers prefer not to talk about these matters, insisting that we should “just preach the gospel.” That insistence leads me to wonder, what do you mean by the gospel? and what is included or excluded?

There are many facets to the gospel, among which are the love of God and the kingdom of God and resulting renewal of creation. Evangelicals like myself and many of those calling to “just preach the gospel” often focus a good deal on phrases like justification by faith and the substitutionary death of Jesus on the cross for forgiveness of sins. These concepts are indeed central to the gospel, but perhaps there is more to the gospel that many of us are tempted to neglect.

That leads me to some insights I have discovered in Paul’s letter to the Galatians. Out of all the books of the Bible, Galatians is known as one in which the gospel is defined and protected. Along with Romans, Galatians contains the idea “the righteous will live by faith,” which awakened Martin Luther and ignited the Protestant Reformation. If you want to learn what the gospel is all about, go to Galatians, Romans or Ephesians. Of course you will want to read the Gospels too, but these letters of Paul spell things out in a clear, thorough and helpful way. In Galatians, Paul is very protective of the true gospel, opposing those who preach something else, to the point where he says, “If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!” (1:9), or as an older version says more strongly, “let him be eternally condemned!”

So, if Galatians is largely about rightly defining the gospel, we should pay attention to some thinking or commands which it says are part of the gospel. This is where I have been a bit surprised recently. Somehow my education and thinking led me to deemphasize some of these important points in Galatians, but recent conversations about justice, poverty, racial matters and equality have made them stand out to me.

One of the issues which is central to the gospel is the matter of inclusion of the Gentiles, which also has to do with ethnic favoritism and divisions. Paul says in chapter 2, that some false believers were trying to force his colleagues like Titus to follow the Jewish law and customs. He says, “We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you” (2:5). Inclusion of the Gentiles, as Gentiles, and not as Jewish proselytes following the Jewish law and customs, was a gospel issue. Later, speaking of the same issue, he says that Peter and others “were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel” (2:14). Insistence that Gentiles act like Jews is contrary to the gospel. And I would propose that an imposition of any set of cultural values and behavior on believers is contrary to the gospel. Pakistanis should not have to “become British” to follow Jesus. Haitians should not have to “become American.” Black Americans should not have to take on the ways of white Americans.

The second issue has to do with poverty. In chapter 2, in the midst of this discussion of Gentile inclusion, Paul reports how the leaders of the apostles-James, Peter and John-embraced and encouraged the ministry of Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles. And then Paul says, “All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along” (2:10). “Remembering the poor,” for all of the apostles, was an essential aspect of the gospel. So, part of the church’s ministry of the gospel is to serve poor people and advocate for them. As Christians, we are to pay a lot more attention to the poor and disadvantaged people around us. When we consider potential careers, we should remember the poor. When we do our jobs, we should remember the poor and how to improve systems so they work better for poor people. When we talk about public policies, whether it be Covid responses, gun control, abortion, racism, you name it, we should remember the poor people in our communities, and how the policies that we support may effect them. And, dare I say, when we vote we should remember poor people and how the candidates we support may or may not help them. We have to continually ask ourselves – am I eager to remember the poor?

A third issue has to do somewhat with Gentile inclusion, but it seems to go further. In chapter 3, Paul talks about the importance of faith for justification before God, and he says, “Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ‘All nations will be blessed through you'” (3:8). So it’s not just a few Gentiles who are included, but all nations. The call to bring the gospel to all nations is central to the gospel. On the same theme, Paul also says “He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit” (3:14). Taking the gospel to the nations is not an optional add-on. It is essential.

A fourth issue is equality. At the end of chapter 3, Paul says, “So in Christ Jesus you are all children (sons) of God through faith, ²⁷ for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. ²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ²⁹ If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (3:26-29). Unfortunately, some of the newer English versions have chosen “children” over “sons.” This is unfortunate because it removes some of the radical nature of this statement. In Paul’s society, only sons received an inheritance. But in Christ, women are counted as sons, that is heirs. Slaves and Gentiles are also considered inheritance-worthy sons. Paul is proposing a radical equality, in which all believers were on equal footing. As Christians, our lives should be shaped in such a way that women and men are equal, slaves and free are equal, and Gentile and Jew are equal. This idea worked its way through Christian circles to the point in the Middle Ages where it was seen as wrong for Christians to keep other Christians as slaves. Once the African slave trade spread, and African slaves started accepting Christianity, this idea fell out of favor, and many Christians made space for Christians to enslave other Christians. New Testament teaching such as 1 Corinthians 7:21 should have made it clear that a Christian should not hold another Christian as a slave. But back to the point – this passage teaches us that equality is part of the gospel. All believers should be valued equally, and the cares and concerns of each are equally valued. Acts 6 and 1 Corinthians 11 show examples in which the church dealt with inequality in decisive ways. So, ethnic, status, and gender distinctions should not result in differences of value in the Christian community.

One last issue has to do with freedom. We Americans founded our country on certain ideas of freedom, and our public conversations often have to do with balances between different freedoms and between individual freedom and communal responsibility. Those with a more libertarian bent will often point to Galatians 5:1, “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.” After some discussion of circumcision, it becomes clear how Paul understands freedom in Christ: “You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.  For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’  If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.  So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh” (5:13-16). So, freedom, according to Paul, does not mean “doing whatever I want.” It means freedom from our sins and fears so that we can serve each other with humility in love. Love of neighbor is central to the gospel. We are called to lay down our own comfort and preferences so that others will be better off. To me, that has been a driving force regarding how to respond to Covid. It can be hard to wear a mask, spend more time outside when the weather is bad, and to avoid crowded spaces. Many of us have concerns related to vaccines and other measures. Many of us believe we are healthy enough to live normally and take our chances with Covid. But we are called as Christians to make the needs of others more important than our own comfort and preferences. That doesn’t necessarily mean we will all respond in the same way, but we must be acting out of a desire to serve each other with humility in love.

I conclude that there is much more to the gospel than how to “get saved.” When we closely examine Galatians, an epistle in which the meaning of the gospel is a major theme, we find that it is essential for us to: 1) reject ethnic favoritism and divisions, 2) remember the needs of poor people, 3) promote spreading the gospel to all nations, 4) embrace radical equality of each other, 5) pursue freedom for the good of others and not to gratify our own desires. Let me propose that when we “just preach the gospel,” we pay attention to these matters too. If we neglect these matters, can we really say we are preaching the gospel at all?

What did Jesus mean when he said “The poor you will always have with you”?

My understanding of this verse has undergone a progression over the years. I’d like to discuss some common interpretations along with a new insight that I discovered recently.

This saying is found in an interaction recorded in three of the four gospels – Matthew (chapter 26), Mark (chapter 14) and John (chapter 12). I’ll focus on Matthew’s version for reasons which will become evident soon. Jesus was with his disciples on the last day of his life when a woman approached and poured out expensive perfume on his head. This upset some of his disciples who thought such an action extravagant when the valuable perfume could be sold for money to give to the poor. Jesus told them that this was a beautiful thing which will be remembered by all his followers, and in the middle of this statement says, “The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.”

Interpretations of this saying can sometimes pull it out of its context a bit, but nevertheless, they are… interesting. I remember once hearing a politically conservative personality use this verse to show that there will always be poor people, so efforts to eradicate poverty will all ultimately fail. On face value, that seems true, until you remember that Jesus was all about spending time with poor people and alleviating their suffering. He himself could even be considered poor. Not only that, but when we look at Matthew’s version, we find that immediately before this incident, Jesus had told the parable of the sheep and the goats. So, he had literally just finished saying “whatever you did for the poor people around you, you did for me.” Clearly, this interpretation is flawed.

A second way of understanding this saying, which I have leaned toward for a while, is that the poor will always be with you because even sincere followers of Jesus are inherently flawed and will sometimes fail and neglect poor people and their needs. For me, this understanding stems from Jesus’s teaching about divorce. In Matthew 19:8, Jesus said that divorce was allowed in the Law of Moses “because your hearts were hard.” God knows our hearts and that He is working with poor building materials, so perfection will be tough to attain.

It’s important in looking at this passage that we also bring in where the Old Testament law speaks to the matter. In Deuteronomy 15, in a longer instruction about debt-canceling, it’s written, “There should be no poor among you” (Deut. 15:4). Later, it says, “If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need” (15:7-8). And then verse 11 says, “There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land.” The beginning of verse 11 is pretty much identical with what Jesus said in the encounter with the woman and discussion with the disciples. It was common in those times to use the first few words of a teaching as short-hand for the whole teaching. Was Jesus implying that they were to follow all of Deuteronomy 15 and be generous with the poor? I believe he was.

Additionally, if we dig into Deuteronomy 15 a bit more, we see the following: Among the commands for building a society that helps people who are poor (and helps them become less poor), there are some principles being taught. One is that there should not be poor people. God’s people should obey the Law’s economic teaching in such a way that nobody is truly destitute. They should set up their lifestyles so that poor people have a chance and are helped in improving their situation. Second, God’s people should be generous toward the poor, giving feely and lending freely. Remember, charging interest was completely forbidden to the Israelites. Third, because sinful patterns will remain, and the world is a harsh place, there will continue to be people who fall into poverty. Therefore, God’s people should be generous to them.

So, what happened later? The early church was obedient in its generosity to the poor, even at personal loss. 

Acts 4:32-35 says the following: “All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.” I love how the new version of the NIV puts it – grace worked in them in such a way that nobody was needy. This early manifestation of the Way of following Jesus was so obedient that the needs of everyone were met. That did not last long, so that already in chapter 6 of Acts there were widows whose needs were neglected. But this summary of the life of the early church gives us hope – by generosity poverty can be diminished and perhaps even eradicated. Jesus knows we will fail frequently, but we are never to close our hearts and hands and stop trying to improve the situation of poor people.

The third interpretation of this saying of Jesus is one I recently saw on Twitter and the reason why this saying has been on my mind lately. The idea is that “the poor will always be with us” because we as followers of Jesus will live such radically attractive lives that poor people will be powerfully drawn to us. They will want to join their lives with the lives of our community, not to “get stuff” in a patronizing way, but as true members of one family. This is the vision we should be working toward in our churches.

For more on these ideas, check out the following posts others have written:

https://www.craiggreenfield.com/blog/thepooryouwillalwayshave

https://www.covenantseminary.edu/you-will-always-have-the-poor-among-you-by-marty-martin-of-food-for-the-hungry

https://www.fh.org/blog/poor-you-will-always-have-with-you-meaning

If you have been around the Protestant church in America as long as I have, you may be familiar with a certain use of Acts 1:8. In fact, you may have heard it so often, that it seems normal to you and you don’t see anything wrong with it. Sadly, however, our interpretations and application of this passage are often misguided. Let me share the passage with you first, and explain my thinking.

“But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

Many of our church leaders today present this passage as teaching that each believer has a personal “Jerusalem,” (people closest and most like them) which they are called to reach first and foremost. Then there are people near them both physically and culturally (Judea). Others are near them physically, but different culturally (Samaria). Finally, there are all the faraway and different people (the ends of the earth). I’ve heard this idea in a variety of settings. A number of applications flow from this idea, some better than others, but they all stem from a misunderstanding.

Sincere believers often unknowingly promote this widespread exegetical fallacy, which is easily dismantled when you realize that the apostles were not from Jerusalem. In fact, three verses later, the angel addresses them as “Men of Galilee.” In Acts 2, the people were also amazed at the various languages spoken by the apostles and said, “Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans?” (2:7). In fact, the people of Jerusalem were able to recognize folks from Galilee just from their manner of speaking. At the end of Matthew, during the trial of Jesus, we find this: “After a little while, those standing there went up to Peter and said, ‘Surely you are one of them, for your accent gives you away.’” (Matt. 27:72). People of Galilee were different, they did not fit in, and they were probably looked down upon. Jerusalem was not “home” to the apostles. It was a place where they did not fit in, where they were normally a bit uncomfortable, and especially now, at the beginning of Acts, it was the place where Jesus had been crucified, making it the most dangerous place for them.

So, why would Jesus want them in Jerusalem? In Acts 1:4, he told them not to leave, but to wait for the promised Holy Spirit. He did this because it was the strategic, God-ordained location for them to begin the Christian movement that would spread to the ends of the earth. In Luke 24:47, in a parallel passage also before his resurrection, Jesus said, “Repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” The apostles were to begin in Jerusalem, the place where devout Jews would repeatedly come from many other places (Acts 2:5), and then return to their homes. Others like the Ethiopian eunuch would also come to the temple seeking God (Acts 8). It was an ideal place to reach the world with the new message of Christ.

It’s also important to realize that this verse provides a framework for the entire book of Acts. In the first seven chapters, the church was spreading in Jerusalem. Starting from chapter 8, pressed by persecution, they took the message to all Judea and Samaria. Peter’s interaction with Cornelius in chapter 10, and then the ministry of Paul took the message to the farthest parts of the known world to the west. Others like Thomas and the Ethiopian eunuch took the message in other directions.

Additionally, it’s worth pointing out that this statement of Jesus was a response to a question. Verses 6 and 7 read, “Then they gathered around him and asked him, ‘Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?’ He said to them: ‘It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power…” Jesus somehow needed to clarify to his followers that his resurrection was not about Making Israel Great Again, but about bringing the Kingdom of the Living God to all peoples throughout the world. And power would be demonstrated not by national greatness but by boldness in love, proclamation, and willingness to suffer.

So, what does this mean for us today? There are well-meaning but misguided applications that come from this passage. One is the assumption that our primary witness as Christians should be with those currently closest to us and most like us. Are some people called to that? Absolutely. But today, you and I live in “the ends of the earth” and are still charged with spreading the message to those who have not heard. Yes, we should absolutely be concerned about our family members and should make sure they hear the gospel and have opportunity to respond to it. But when they have had opportunity, we should be ready to move on and go to those who don’t have anyone near them who can share with them. What makes us convinced that a cousin, for example, who has heard the gospel seventy-one times, will somehow be convinced by number 72? Perhaps he will, and we should be ready. But that burden should not stop us from going to those who have never heard. As Keith Green once said, “Nowhere is the gospel more plentiful than in the United States.” I can’t say if that is true anymore, or if we have been surpassed by some other places like Uganda or Costa Rica, but it remains true that Americans have many opportunities to hear the gospel, while people in some other places have very few.

Another misguided application is that this framework is meant to be sequential today. Although it was for the apostles, we should not assume it is for us now. Many Christians are convinced that they should wait to be involved in witness to the ends of the earth until they have effectively reached those close to them. But how many people need to believe before a group can be considered to be effectively reached? Again, bear witness to them, let them hear, but don’t wait for something that may never happen. We have no promises from Scripture that all of our family members will believe, but we do have promises that people from all nations will (Rev. 5:9, 7:9, for example). We have no reason to believe that any group of people will ever have a large majority of true believers, so let’s stop striving for that.

The third misguided application is seen in some committees which allocate mission funding in churches. I have heard of churches which divide their funding destinations in three or four equal portions, solely on the basis of this verse. What they usually don’t consider is that, first, nearly all of their people are already present in their own community and can carry out a tremendous amount of witness with little to no funding, but rather spending from their time and energy. Second, these churches tend to overlook that the vast majority of their budget is already spent locally. Their building, their pastor’s salary, their youth ministry and childrens ministry, etc. all should have an outreach component, but do we spend an equivalent amount on the unreached in faraway places? Third, churches often dedicate a portion of their local “mission” budget on local ministries that are primarily for the benefit of church people. Christian schools, Christian colleges, ministries at secular universities, Christian camps and parachurch youth ministries all can and should have an outreach component, but if we are honest, they mostly serve to keep our own kids in the faith. Should they be supported? Absolutely. Just don’t call it mission support. To be clear, when there are local outreach ministries that are primarily designed for unchurched people (food pantries, pregnancy centers, homeless shelters, etc.), then by all means fund those as missions. But my concern is that church mission committees are hunting for more local ministries to fund because their people care about them and they feel they should be doing more locally, or somehow balance out their international efforts with local ones.

Those sincere Bible expositors who are teaching these interpretations are rightly calling us to pay attention to those around us as we also pay attention to the whole world. They are not wrong to do so. There are some churches that assume the people around them are fine, and direct all their energies to supporting international work, and may be happy when they can pay someone else to do it. Yes, they need to wake up to the needs around them. But is the best way of doing that by neglecting global needs? You can simultaneously care about the intense physical suffering and almost utter spiritual blindness in some parts of the world, and also care about those around you who are so wrapped up in the things of this world that they ignore and show contempt toward God. I actually think a greater danger is that most Christians are so wrapped up in their own lives that they are ignorant of both the needs around them and far away. And most churches are so obsessed with improving their facilities and flashy presentations, justifying these expenses as “efforts to reach our neighbors,” when really they mostly benefit us, that faraway people we have never met are neglected.

So, what does this verse mean? First, it is that the kingdom of God is not about restoring greatness to one ethnic group (ethnic Israel), but rather it is about renewing all of Creation beginning in the home base of that group (Jerusalem). The power of the Holy Spirit will make the followers of Jesus into bold witnesses to people near and far. Those who follow Him today are charged with the joyful duty to identify parts of the “ends of the earth” which are still lacking in a credible gospel witness, and to work together to provide a witness in those places and among those people.

For more on the neglect of the unreached peoples of the world, check out this webpage and/or the following video.

There’s a phenomenon in the American church that has been troubling me, but I haven’t been able to quite put my finger on it. Back in June, I was asked to preach a sermon on Jonathan’s relationship with David. In that sermon, I pointed to Jonathan as a model of humility, as someone who chose to support others and stepped aside and become less so that someone else who is worthy could become greater. He wasn’t sucked into the world’s ways of striving to always be at the top. I believe I was helping point people in an important direction in the church today. Later, I saw Inserra’s book advertised and thought it might give me both something beneficial personally and better insight into this phenomenon that has been plaguing me. I was not disappointed.

Inserra cuts to the core of a significant problem that he sees in the church today–Christians are being enticed by a distorted message of chasing their personal dreams and potential rather than the biblical gospel. He says of this “new prosperity gospel” that it is “a kind of pop Christianity that has lost its connection to the Servant who suffered and calls you to do the same.”

Inserra’s introduction presents the perceived problem to us – church leaders are using faith language but their focus is often “the personal potential of Christians to achieve whatever they put their minds to, as long as they didn’t doubt God and believed He had greater things in store for their lives” (11). The message is self-help, motivation and personal fulfillment. Jesus himself is not the treasured aim of our existence, but rather a means to other ends. Inserra is concerned “for other pastors and Christians who have bought into the lie that Jesus came to secure for us the American Dream” (15).

In chapter 1, Inserra asks whether Christianity is for losers, or for the “cool, trendy, and successful.” He emphasises that we come to God as failures in need, not as winners who are sufficient in ourselves. We need more than a personal life coach, but we often are tempted to project success; “We want to be able to have Jesus and the career, the finances, the body, and the influence of those who are ‘winning’ in this life” (21). “New Prosperity theology” downplays our depravity and situates our problem instead in our lack of achievement of “God’s best.”

In chapter 2, Inserra describes what happens in a “new prosperity church.” He points to the centering of the individual and one’s experiences. He compares these churches to meetings of multilevel marketing wellness companies and claims that they promote Jesus as “the one to help you live your best life” (27). Appearance is of utmost importance and positive messages about “discovering destiny,” “dreaming God-sized dreams,” etc. takes precedence over the actual promises from the Scriptures. Self-denial takes the back seat to self-fulfillment.

Chapter 3’s focus is on the draw of this type of message. It “promises a God whose chief goal is to facilitate your personal happiness” (34). In fact, “The primary error of the new prosperity theology is that it places the individual in the center of every situation and places God in orbit as a sort of powerful yet controllable satellite” (35). People believe they are elevating God, but their idea of elevating God is “emoting passionately during the service to ‘give everything to Him’” (36-37).

In Chapter 4, Inserra deals with the desire for social approval, an itch which the “new prosperity gospel” promises to scratch. He is deeply concerned that it “suggests we should want the same things after our Christian conversion that we desired before we knew Christ” (46-47). Subtle sins such as self-satisfaction, self-focus and self-absorption are actually being passed off as virtues. These teachings tell us to put God first, but only so that God will put us first and “bless” our pursuits of self-fulfillment.

The point of Chapter 5 is to show that “settling for the mundane” is a cardinal sin for the “new prosperity gospel.” Inserra describes the damage done by messages saying that God wants people to never settle, but to strive for their God-designed destiny of greatness and self-fulfillment. “Contentment is a borderline curse word in pop-Christianity, because not pursuing or desiring something ‘better’ is seen as settling for less than God’s best” (62). Inserra pleads with us to find our contentment and satisfaction in Christ.

In Chapter 6, Inserra shows how many church leaders downplay doctrine and theology in their efforts to grow the church. Growing numbers of churches are silent on deeper matters of doctrine as they don’t want to offend their congregants. At this point, Inserra takes aim at some of the popular worship songs which are “vague, repetitive, devoid of anything too specific” (72). I really resonated with this critique as I see it to be a major concern in contemporary church life. I agree with Inserra that songs would be teaching us about Christ and encouraging us in truth rather than facilitating/manufacturing emotions (72-73). “How much more comforting in times of trial are biblical promises about God’s character than vapid statements about a generic sort of feeling?” (73).

Inserra’s claim in Chapter 7 is that the “new prosperity churches” make promises that cannot be kept. Churches are trying to “sell” experiences, but Inserra reminds us that “God’s love, in Christ, is the experience… We are fooling ourselves if we think gospel-centrality isn’t enough of a ‘hook’ to keep our churches viable” (84). Inserra closes the chapter with a thought he often turns to – how does this message fit believers in totally different situations? What message will be best applied to suffering believers meeting in secret out of fear? Only the message of Jesus Christ crucified, risen, and ascended.

Chapter 8 deals with Bible verses that tend to be misinterpreted to suit the goals of the “new prosperity gospel.” Inserra refers to the “narcigesis” method,in which you interpret a Bible passage with yourself or your listeners completely at the center (89). “Narcigesis comes alive through the preaching of isolated texts to derive a completely new meaning out of a Bible story to fit your circumstances” (90). For details on the favorite texts for self-centered interpretations, and the true, contextual meanings of them, you will have to consult the book.

In Chapter 9, Inserra is concerned with the focus of our spiritual lives, asking whether it is on Christ or on ourselves. Pointing to Luke 9:23-24, Jesus’s call to deny ourselves, take up our crosses, and follow Him, he says, “God’s vision for our lives is for us to lose ourselves in service to Him and to become more like Jesus by His power” (100). “New prosperity churches” call people to focus on themselves and receiving blessing, while the Bible actually calls us to the kind of maturity that is free from self-absorption.

In Chapter 10, Inserra describes his impression of the expectations of the “new prosperity gospel,” which can be summarized as: “Christians in America too often expect that by doing all the right things, God will bless us with the American Dream” (112). Inserra urges us to center our desires instead on those things which we know God wants and promises to us: healthy churches, sound doctrine, faith among formerly unreached peoples, rather than things of this world that have never been promised to us. “God never promises us a spouse, downtown high-rise apartment, a platform, influence, children, or a church that checks every box. He did promise us that nothing can separate us from the love of Christ (Rom. 8:38-39)” (118).

In Chapter 11, Inserra describes the emphases of the “new prosperity gospel” and what messages should counteract its teachings. He discusses the emphasis placed on numbers, on self-help and on authenticity. Regarding numbers, churches often depend on marketing and “the cool factor.” In response, Inserra says, “Why would someone who isn’t a Christian decide to show up because your band does a popular secular song to open the service? Do we really think an unbeliever cares about that? I’ve learned from experience that most actually thin kthat is strange. Has an unbeliever ever cared how a pastor dressed? Are they really going to show up to church after years or even a lifetime of being unchurched because they heard about the pastor’s admirable collection of expensive sneakers? I’ve still never met that unchurched person who cares” (126). Instead of all these emphases, the message should emphasize Christ crucified and risen (131).

The focus of Chapter 12 is ambition. What is the difference between godly and ungodly ambition? Inserra says it is all about who gets the glory. Our desire for glory is always at war with our desire to give glory to God. “Our accomplishments are not the reward. God’s glory is our reward. Anything less is selfish ambition” (142).

Inserra closes this book in Chapter 13 with a discussion of our future reward. For Christians, the best is yet to come, not in this earthly life. And this is true for believers in any circumstances. “The promises of Christ are equally true of the believer locked in a jail cell for their faith and the Christian living in the suburbs scrolling through their social media feeds” (146). The great heroes of the faith that we find in the Bible endured suffering for the sake of future reward. “The answer to their cries was never to believe in themselves more, or to wait for that big comeback, or to unlock potential inside. It was always to look to God and to the deliverer He was sending” (149). Inserra also calls us to embrace God’s abundant life in the following way: 1. Ask God to help you be gospel-centered, 2. By grace, through the Scripture, seek to increase your knowledge of God, 3. Pursue the ordinary life, 4. Find godly community, 5. Pray for willingness to be marginalized. Each of these points is filled with detailed advice for living a godly life.

I highly encourage you to pick up this book. It’s only about 10 bucks, only 157 pages, and a pretty quick read, but very insightful and will warn you of some insidious thinking that has wormed its way into the thinking patterns of so many of us. And if you are near Tallahassee, check out Inserra’s church!

Sadly, to wear the mask or to not wear the mask has become a political statement in America. This thinking has spread to churches, so that some are requiring masks for in-person worship, while others are barring their staff from mask-wearing. Some churches are exploding in numbers as they become known in their region as the “no mask church.” Frequent refrains I have heard from those who refuse to wear masks are that “Covid is not that dangerous,” “God will protect us,” and “we’re not going to live in fear.”

Whether or not Covid is “that dangerous” is a question that public health experts have been discussing for over a year. Most have agreed that it is both contagious and deadly or debilitating, and that we cannot always predict who will suffer most from an infection. However, it is also true that many people have contracted Covid and survived, in many cases with not lasting effects. It’s also good to remember that there are other important factors and some people may choose to risk their own health for other concerns (job security, relationships, etc.). In fact, we take these risks in many areas of life. It becomes a different concern when my behavior could affect the health of others, and we are being told that mask-wearing is more about protecting others than the mask-wearer.

Will God protect us? Maybe. I believe in the sovereignty of God over all things. I also believe God gave us minds to protect ourselves. I wear a seatbelt and put my kids in car seats even when I live somewhere that does not require it. I drive carefully to protect myself and others, and not only because it’s the law. I don’t see how that shows a lack of trust in God.

It’s good that Christians not live in fear. After Jesus ascended into heaven, his followers seemed to be in hiding, praying, and wondering what might happen next. I would even say they were living in fear (Acts 1). When the Holy Spirit came upon them in Acts 2, they were filled with boldness and continued in that boldness for quite some time. Faith and the Spirit drove out their fear. This is the ideal set before us.

Therefore, it is very commendable that Christians not live in fear. The problem is that most of us as American Christians are afraid of all kinds of things. We may not be afraid of a virus, but we have plenty of other fears. Depending on our political leanings, we may have an irrational fear of guns, even when used safely by responsible people, or an irrational fear of people speaking in other language. Sadly, the Christians who are most insistent that they won’t wear masks because they won’t “live in fear” demonstrate a good deal of fear toward refugees, for example.

I had an interesting experience regarding fear a number of years ago. My wife and I were preparing to move to the Middle East. We had researched our destination, and it was relatively safe, in spite of perceptions. Violent crime rates are lower than in much of America, and we would receive safety training. At the same time, we knew the jobs we were sent to do were worth taking some risk. A few weeks before our departure, we bumped into a high school classmate of my wife. Upon hearing our plans, she stated, “I’m not sure you guys should be going there. It doesn’t sound safe.” We reassured her that we felt it was quite safe and that we trust God with our safety. Later, upon sharing this with my in-laws, they responded, “We heard she was working with the police, working undercover downtown to break up prostitution rings.” Well, that sounds safe! People feel fear about many different things and tend to fear most what they don’t know.

Jesus talks about fear in Luke 12. He said, “I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him! Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? And not one of them is forgotten before God. Why, even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not; you are of more value than many sparrows.” It’s perfectly acceptable to feel fear. But we should have wisdom to discern what to fear and what not to fear. What are the real threats to us as Christians?

I believe it’s important to look at fear through a risk vs. benefit analysis. Jesus said later in Luke 14, “Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.”

For me, the cost of wearing a mask at church or the grocery store is very little. At first, the biggest struggle for me was to remember to bring one with me, but now I’m used to it and it is really no big deal. Really. No. Big. Deal. There is very little cost, but if it can help, along with other measures, to keep the people around me healthy, or even alive, it’s a pretty good benefit. In fact, in the future, even if I have some cold symptoms and go out in public, I might just wear a mask like so many people in Asia have been doing for years. Meanwhile, the risk of not wearing a mask is high. If I actually am sick and don’t realize it, I could be spreading a disease to others that could seriously harm them. I don’t want to live with that.

Let’s look at another area which many of the same people who are against mask-wearing because they don’t want to “live in fear” are also vocal about: refugee acceptance. Many of these folks have expressed fears that refugees will come to America and commit acts of terrorism. But, does this fear withstand an objective look at the facts? The Cato Institute studied this issue in 2016, and found that since 1980, no American has died in a terrorist attack committed by refugees. Three were killed in the 70s, who were political enemies of the murderers, before we had the vetting system we have now. Four Americans have also been killed by asylum seekers (three in the Boston Marathon bombing). Putting all the statistics together, the odds of an American in any given year being killed in a foreign-born terrorist attack on US soil are 1 in 3.6 million. The odds that this attack would be carried out by a refugee (even including those in the 70s) are 1 in 3.6 billion. You’d be better off banning swimming pools or ladders.

But is there any benefit to welcoming refugees? In reference to proposed bans on immigration, the Cato Institute says that it would cost the US $229 billion annually and, “The costs of an immigration moratorium vastly exceed the benefits, even with very generous assumptions buttressing the pro-moratorium position.” That does not even consider the spiritual cost. What is the spiritual cost of closing our borders during the greatest refugee crisis we have seen in our lifetimes?

It’s a very good thing to trust God and decide not to live in fear. But please consider what are real threats and what are sensible measures to decrease risks. I believe Christians should show courage, but they should show it not in trying to look tough by not wearing a mask, but by taking risks that will help people. Why don’t we show our courage through actions that will really make a difference? There are organizations eager to help American Christians overcome fear and hardship and plant churches in tough places like Turkey, Somalia or Cambodia. The foster system is always eager for more Christian families to take in foster children. Many impoverished neighborhoods need people to come and teach their kids, work as social workers or start businesses that will provide good jobs. All of these activities carry a risk. But accepting that risk and living courageously will make a real difference, much more than a symbolic gesture of courage.

In this post, I read and discuss James 5.

In this post, I read and discuss James 4.