Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Christian’ Category

The Virginal Conception

One of the central doctrines that has been on my mind this Christmas season has been the issue of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. According to Millard Erickson, next to His death and resurrection this doctrine has been the most controversial in the history of the church. Modernists reject the doctrine as unimportant or irrelevant while fundamentalists hold to the idea as paramount for their faith. One author has said, “the virgin birth of Jesus Christ is THE Fundamental of all Fundamentals of the entire gospel program.” A doctrine that is so dear to some and that is so easily dismissed by others warrants a discussion and careful consideration.

Biblical

There are several passages in the Old Testament which prophesy the virgin birth. Isaiah 7:14 says, “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel.” Is this son a reference to Christ? The answer lies in the rest of this prophecy that continues in the following chapters, stating:

“The people who walk in darkness will see a great light; those who live in a dark land, the light will shine on them. For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us, and the government will rest on his shoulders; and his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of his government or of peace, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and uphold it with justice and righteousness from then on and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this.” (Isaiah 9:2, 6-7 NASB)

A prophecy such as this “could not have had in view a mere man, born in the ordinary way.” This must be a reference to the birth of Christ who in Isaiah 7:14 is prophesied to be born of a virgin.

As clear as these passages are, there are still those who object to interpreting these passages as really referring to a virgin. Those who object to the virgin birth of Christ claim that, in Isaiah 7:14, “the Hebrew word almah means merely a young woman of marriageable age, not necessarily a virgin.” The word almah is used in 6 other passages in the Bible, and in all cases it is used to mean an “unmarried maiden,” or a virgin. Therefore, the use of the word almah must be referring to a virgin birth.

The New Testament also has various references to the virgin birth. The first reference in the New Testament comes in the first chapter Matthew in the form of the genealogy of Christ and the narrative of His birth. The genealogy begins in Matthew 1:2 starting with Abraham and traces the lineage through Matthew 1:16 which says, “and to Jacob was born Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” The verses that follow, Matthew 1:18-25, tell the account of the birth of Christ. Matthew 1:23 implies that this is a fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 by stating, “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel.” Matthew continues to support his point in this verse by explaining that Immanuel means “God with us.”

While I cannot list all New Testament passages which allude or refer to the virgin birth, there is another passage which clearly supports this doctrine. Luke 1:26-28 tells of the prediction of the birth of Christ prior to His conception. These verses tell the account of the conversation between the angel Gabriel and the “virgin” (Luke 1:27) Mary. Gabriel said to Mary, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35) Thus, we know that Mary conceived a child as a result of being “overshadowed” by the Holy Spirit. Many leading evangelical scholars prefer to use the term “virginal conception” rather than “virgin birth” because what is truly miraculous about the event is the conception of Christ through the Holy Spirit in Mary, completely independent of a human male.

There are many other verses in the New Testament which allude to the “virginal conception” but time will not permit me to write about all of them. Here are some references: Mark 6:3, John 1:13; 6:41-51; 7:41-42; 8:41, Romans 1:3, Galatians 4:4, Philippians 2:7. It is clear that there is plenty of evidence for this doctrine in the Bible and it should not be disputed.

Historical

Throughout the history of the church, the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ has been under attack by many who call themselves theologians. I would like to examine some of their objections to this doctrine and how evangelicals have responded to them as well of the testimony of some of the early church fathers on this doctrine.

There have been many viewpoints on the doctrine of the virginal conception. There are those feminist theologians who say that Matthew 1:1-25 and the Lukan account of the virgin birth are actually about an illegitimate conception and not a miraculous conception. There is also the objection to the virginal conception to which modernists hold; that is, they reject the doctrine based on their presupposition that excludes the possibility of miracles. Rationalists and modernists attempt to understand this doctrine but do not allow for the supernatural. They have “a new conception of God and the universe which forbids the belief in miracles” and for them “to believe in the virgin birth implies a rejection of scientific truth.”

Another objection, and one of the most frequently raised ones, is that “too many other parallels exist in ancient literature to allow us to take the Christian account seriously.” Supporters of this view hold to the notion that Greek Christians started this idea of the virgin birth as a result of the influence of pagan myths. They argue that these Greek Christians created the virgin birth story because they were influenced by myths such as the birth of Hercules. Hercules was born as a result of a union between Zeus and a human mother, and Greek Christians wanted their hero, Jesus of Nazareth, to have a similar supernatural birth. Although those who wish to deny the virgin birth of Christ use this argument, upon closer examination of the accounts, it is evident that the biblical birth narratives are quite different from pagan myths. As Robert Stein puts it, in pagan myths “the woman had no possible claim to be a virgin, and, if she was a virgin before the encounter [between the woman and god], she certainly was not considered a virgin afterward.” Paganism simply has not claims to virgin births. In addition to their lack of claims to virgin births, pagan supernatural births are all “about fornication between divine and human beings” which is in contrast to the New Testament account of the conception of Jesus Christ.

Objections to this doctrine have been raised throughout history based on biblical data as well. Let us consider several of the more weighty arguments that bring into question the virgin birth as presented by James Orr. The first of these is that “Joseph and Mary are sometimes spoken of in the Gospels as the father and mother of Jesus.” It goes without saying that if Joseph was Jesus’ biological father, there was no virgin birth. James Orr points out that these verses that speak of Jesus as the son of Joseph and Mary do nothing more than tell us that those who were speaking of Jesus in those narratives saw him and the son of both Joseph and Mary. Those around Jesus saw him grow up from birth to adulthood in the home of Joseph and Mary, so to friends and neighbors Jesus must have been though of as “Joseph’s son.” Luke, who in his Gospel tells the narrative of the virgin birth, refers to Joseph and Mary as the parents of Jesus three times. Clearly, Luke did not see the references to Joseph and Mary being Jesus’ parents as contradicting the virginal conception.

Another difficulty in dealing with the biblical data discussed by Orr has to do with the genealogies of Jesus in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Opponents of the virgin birth have argued that the authors of the gospels saw Joseph as the father of Jesus. This seems to be a strong argument since Matthew 1:16 says, “and to Jacob was born Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ,” and Luke 1:27 says that “to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.” However, Orr points out two reasons why this argument does not stand. First, Matthew and Luke, “who knew the meaning of plain terms, saw no contradiction between these genealogies and their own narratives of the virgin birth.” Secondly, the evangelists were very careful not to refer to Joseph as the father of Jesus in his genealogies but as the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

The last biblical difficulty pointed out of James Orr which warrants a discussion is the “question of Christ’s Davidic descent.” A recurrent theme throughout the New Testament regarding the genealogy is that Jesus Christ was of the lineage of David. Critics of the virgin birth claim that genealogies support Christ’s Davidic descent through Joseph, his paternal parent. However, Luke 2:4-5 tells us that Mary was also going to register for the census in Bethlehem because and Joseph were both of “the house and family of David.”

There have been, throughout the history of the church, many attacks on the doctrine of the virgin birth. And, as can be seen, the attacks have come from many sides and angles but the church has held its ground. Although this doctrine has been under attack throughout history, it has been held by many as a vital part of their faith since the apostolic fathers. Ignatius (90-150 AD), Bishop of Antioch, wrote in his epistle to the Ephesians the following, strongly in support of the virgin birth:

“Hidden from the prince of this world were the Virginity of Mary and her childbearing, and likewise also the death of our Lord–three mysteries of open proclamation, the which were wrought in the silence of God.”

Also in support of this doctrine, Justin Martyr wrote in his Apology:

“We find it foretold in the Books of the Prophets that Jesus our Christ should come born of a virgin–be crucified and should die and rise again, and go up to heaven and should both be and be called the “Son of God.”

The doctrine of the virgin birth was supported by many more of the Church Fathers and a reading of them “produces conclusive evidence that the early Christians accepted the virgin birth as an established fact.”

Theological

The doctrine of the virgin birth, as has been pointed out, has been debated at length over time, but why is that so? What makes this doctrine so vital that many believe they have to defend it? Is this an absolutely crucial doctrine for the Christian faith?

Although many people have discussed the importance of this doctrine, Wayne Grudem presents it in the most effective and concise manner. He presents the doctrinal importance of the virgin birth in three areas.

The first is that the virgin birth “shows that salvation ultimately must come from the Lord.” In Genesis 3:15, God said to the serpent, “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel.” In the same way as in Genesis 3:15, God showed through the virgin birth of Christ that salvation could not come through the effort of humans but through supernatural channels.

The second doctrinal point is that “the virgin birth made possible the uniting of full deity and full humanity in one person.” This is idea is supported by John 3:16 and Galatians 4:4 which say that God sent his son. There is no other way we can think of that would better unite “humanity and deity in one person.” This is not to say that God could not have sent his son to earth any other way but it is hard to imagine any other way that he could send his son to earth as fully man and fully God.

Grudem’s third point is that “virgin birth also makes possible Christ’s true humanity without inherited sin.” Millard Erickson disputes this point on the basis that if we too did not have a human father we would also be sinless. This argument, however, is of no value since we would not exist without a human father. We were not conceived supernaturally like Jesus. Erickson also states that “Jesus’ sinlessness was not dependent on the virginal conception.” Howard Hanke supports the opposite view of Erickson by writing, “the virgin birth is the only means through which our savior could have made entry into our world.” If Jesus had been the product of two human parents, he would have inherited original sin, and it would be impossible for him not to sin. As Tschudy points out, Psalm 51:5 says that “I [David] was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me,” and in the same way Jesus would have been conceived in sin had it not been for the virgin birth. While God could have sent his son into the world in any manner he chose, he did it this way, and he must have done it this way for a reason. We should not put limits on God, but the virgin birth is the only way one can think of someone being totally human and totally God and not tainted with original sin from the time of birth.

Grudem says that “if our beliefs are to be governed by the statements of Scripture, then we will certainly not deny” the virgin birth. In his third debate on the virgin birth with Charles Francis Potter, John Roach Straton gives us four reasons to hold to the virgin birth as an essential doctrine. First, rejecting this doctrine results in the rejection of the Bible and its authority. Second, this doctrine has been declared by all “great branches” of the church. Third, the reliability and the efficiency of the atonement rely on this doctrine. Lastly, a proper understanding of this doctrine helps us to understand the object of our worship.

This miraculous event, the virginal conception, should not be minimized, and we should not overlook this excellent gift from God to humanity. As Hanke put it, “all of the basic Christian doctrines are related to the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ.” Let us therefore continue to stand up for the biblical account of the birth of our savior, and let us not forget the impact that this doctrine can have on our theology.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

There has been much made lately on youth leaving the church. I subscribe to a lot of podcasts where this has been a topic of conversation. This is not a conversation among just Calvinists or just Arminians but is a conversation that is taking place among Evangelicals of all stripes. There is apparently some kind of data, collected by someone like Barna, that supports this position. What the experts are saying is that American Evanglicals who are active in church as a youth have a tendency to leave the church once they graduate from high school, leave home, and go to college.

I am someone who was part of church youth in high school and left home to go to college and remained in the church. I experienced college as someone who was part of a local church and am still part of a local body of believers today. I now have children who are youth-aged. In fact, I am a parent of multiple teenagers. (Feel free to pray for me. I need it.) I sit watching the youth of our day praying that I don’t screw up as a parent and that my kids will have faith in Christ that will be their own and that their faith will continue to grow into adulthood and that they would be committed lifelong disciples of Christ.

What I see from so many youth today is that they are not part of the church as young people. Their parents take them to church and drop them off with the youth group. They hang out with a bunch of youth at church. They have Sunday School with their peers — which is positive since they are all experiencing the challenges of transitioning from childhood to adulthood. While at the youth group, they usually sit around on comfortable sofas because we all know that NOBODY would come if they had to sit in uncomfortable straight back chairs (gasp)! They listen to relevant music and not that boring stuff their parents listen to. And often times, they sit around and complain about how they are not respected because of their youth all the while remaining in their youth cocoon. After Sunday School, or Bible Study, they head off to the worship center for Sunday morning worship. And guess who they sit with during worship? That’s right: they sit with youth. After worship, they find their parents and ask to go eat lunch with the their friends in the youth.

On Sunday night often times the youth have their own get together for more fellowship and study — separate from adults. On Wednesday nights they are with the youth again. They may even have some other get-together on Friday or Saturday because there isn’t enough youth fellowship time already. Yes, I am being a bit sarcastic here.

So, I’ve mentioned four meetings at church: Sunday School, worship, Sunday evening, and Wednesday evening. How many of those times do the youth at your church integrate with the church body and how many times are they with just the youth? Your answer is probably that the youth are with just youth about 75% or 100% of the time, if your church is like most American churches. If this is the case, how can we say that’s youth are leaving the church? I don’t think we can say that. I submit to you that youth are not leaving the church. I say that they were never part of the church–at least not while they were in the youth group. What they were part of during their youth years was a para-church group called “the youth ministry” but were not really part of the local church. If your church is like this, here are some critical things that your young person is missing out on.

1. First and foremost, they are missing out on worshiping with their family — particularly their mom and dad. They need to see that mom and dad are serious about worship and that they are there to worship God; not just to take their kid to the youth group. They need to see that mom and dad take the sermon seriously by taking notes and not texting and checking Facebook during the preaching.

2. They miss out on the inter-generational nature of the body of Christ. By being with youth all the time they are hanging out with those who are facing similar problems. That is true. But why not hang out (sometimes) with people who have already experienced those problems and have come through them? Why not learn lessons from people who can encourage youth as examples of those who have been through those tumultuous years?

3. They miss out on opportunities to serve and to be the body of Christ. To be part of the church they should be plugged in. They have no right to complain about being disrespected by adults due to their age if they aren’t trying to plug in and serve. Let us not encourage our youth to be spiritual navel gazers but people who are committed to building up the body of Christ by serving!

So, why shouldn’t youth drop out of church when they go to college. They don’t know what it is like to be part of the church and how beautiful the bride of Christ really is. Don’t misunderstand me. Teenagers need teenage friends. They need to know how to build friendships and develop relationships and hold each other accountable in the Lord. However, I don’t think that their relationships should be limited to those with peers. I am praying for a change in the church youth culture and that this change would take place before all of the youth that were never in the church leave the church.

Read Full Post »

Whether you move to a new community or your church decides to shut its doors, you may find yourself looking for a new church home at some point.  When you are looking for a church, what do you consider the most important issues or reasons in selecting a particular church.  As I consider this, these are what I consider the most important issues in the selection process of a new church home.

1. Agree on primary theological issues. The first and most important characteristic needs to be that we agree on the primary theological issues. That is, they must have a biblical understanding of the gospel. This is a non-negotiable point. They must understand the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ’s work on the cross. They must agree that one’s salvation is by grace and grace alone. Salvation is a work completely of God and He doesn’t need our help. You must only repent. The church must agree with the inspiration, authority, and sufficiency of Scripture. We may not always agree on how to interpret Scripture but we must at least agree that the Bible alone is the rule for all that we do.

2. Credobaptism. Any church that I join must practice believer’s baptism. I will not join a church that does not practice baptism by immersion. Sprinkling is not baptism. Baptism is, by definition, dipping someone under water. Baptism must be reserved for believers who have demonstrated a credible evidence of regeneration and who want to join the church and become part of the community of believers. They cannot baptize infants. They must baptize only believers.

3. Ministry to all ages. I need the church to minister to all ages, at least the ages of the people in my family. Since I have youth aged children, I need it to be a place where my youth aged children can live in community with other youth. I need it to be a community of believers where adults speak truth into children’s lives and show them what it means to live as an intentional disciple of Christ. I need the church to be intentional about preparing the youth biblically for a world that is hostile to Christian ideas. I don’t need it to be about parties, concerts, and amusement parks. I need it to be intentional and gospel driven. I need to it to be a church that understands the parents’ role in the youth’s lives but will alongside the parents in discipleship.

4. Expository Preaching. I believe that a church needs a steady diet of expository preaching. It is okay to depart from it on occasion but in general, expository preaching needs to be the practice of the preacher. It helps in preaching the full counsel of God and not just focusing on the favorite texts of the pastor. It also allows the text to drive the message rather than using a Bible verse for a launching pad to say whatever they want.

5. Welcomes workers. I hope that my next church would be open to having new people serve and minister in the area of their gifting. There are areas in which we could contribute to the ministry of the church but I need the church to be open to having new people get involved. I don’t want to be a part of the church that always goes to the same people to step in and minister.

6. Missions. I would hope that the church would have a biblical understanding of missions. But, if they don’t, it needs to be a church where the pastor is leading them to give financially to support missions. It should be a significant part of the budget, prayer, and preaching.  It should be a climate conducive to the church growing in this area.

7. Love in spirit and practice. Does the church have a sense of unity in spirit? Do they love on one another? Are they welcoming to visitors?

The answer to these should be a resounding “yes!” These are really the minimum of what I think should characterize a church that I join. There are several other traits that I think are important but are not must-haves such as high expectations and accountable church membership.  However, if the church is getting a steady diet of expository preaching, these other issues will eventually fall into place.

What are your thoughts?  What do you look for in a church?

Read Full Post »

If you are in the Orange County, California, area and have any youth aged people in your life this is something you don’t want to miss out on.  It is called Rethink Apologetics and it is on September 26-27 at Crossline Community Church.  Follow this link to get more information or to register.  RETHINK APOLOGETICS

It looks like a great conference that you don’t want to miss.  We need to teach the young people in our churches to defend their faith and to decide what they believe and why.  It looks like this will be a great way to help equip them.

Read Full Post »

I really enjoy Kevin DeYoung’s blog over at the Gospel Coalition called DeYoung, Restless, and Reformed.  I usually agree with him theologically on most points.  I even subscribe to his blog via email.  However, he recently published a post entitled Are Christians in America Persecuted?  He basically said that it happens all of the time but persecution happens to Christians in America “not as frequently, consistently, or with nearly the intensity that Christians are persecuted in many other parts of the world.”

While I agree with the last statement, I do not agree with his assessment that it happens all of the time.  I also do not agree with his reasons for making that statement.  I really appreciate the fact that he brings in the Bible but I believe that his exegesis is fallacious.  He equates the biblical word for persecution with “harassing someone because of beliefs.”    He points out that Old Testament prophets were reviled and spoken against and Jesus calls this persecution in Matthew.  The problems is that reviling and being spoken against is not equivalent to harassing someone.  Harassing in our modern English is very subjective.  You can consider someone calling you a “Right Wing Bible Thumping Radical” harassment or even being reviled.  But this is not being persecuted.  You don’t have to be killed or be tortured to be persecuted.  I think we are going down the road towards persecution but it does not happen all of the time to all Christians.

DeYoung argues from Scripture that persecution is not something that happens only to a few Christians.  The Bible says that it happens to all Christians.  I wholeheartedly agree but we must read the Bible in its context.  It was written to Christians in the first century who were persecuted for following Christ.  In 21st century America, I don’t know that it applies.  The context is totally different.  I think we need to count to the cost and be willing to be persecuted but we live in a culture where persecution is not widespread.

He also brings in Acts 5:41 which says that it is a privilege to suffer for the name of Jesus.  This is true.  However, that does not mean that all American Christians have this privilege.  Our Christian brothers and sisters in other parts of the world face persecution and it is our privilege to pray for them and encourage them and work for their release as we are commanded in Hebrews 13:3.  To equate what we face in America with what Christians face in places like Eritrea or North Korea is wrong.  When they are placed on the same level, we minimize the significance of real persecution.  It is like me saying to my wife about the pain she has in her back from a herniated disc, “I experience pain everyday and all the time.  In fact, I experience pain when I burned my mouth on my coffee this morning.”  To equate the two, minimizes the real pain that my wife faces.

Please, I understand people talk about you behind your back for being a Christian at work.  You may even get passed up for a promotion because you don’t work on Sundays or you won’t lie to get ahead.  Don’t equate this with someone being hung upside down and having boiling grease poured over his feet.  Don’t equate it with Christians in Ethiopia who are put in sea containers in the desert heat and don’t even have a place to go to the bathroom.  Don’t equate it with a man who is forced to watch prison guards rape his wife because they are Christians.  They are very much different in nature and degree.

Let us not overstate what happens to Christians in America.  Let’s pray for Christian brothers and sisters who face persecution.  In fact, some in American face persecution also but this is the exception and not the norm.  Let’s remember Hebrews 13:3 and “remember” those who are in prison and those who are mistreated for their faith.  For more information on how you can learn how to pray or support our persecuted family visit the website of The Voice of the Martyrs.

Read Full Post »

I really enjoy listening to J. Warner Wallace and his podcast called Cold Case Christianity.  You can find him at Please Convince Me or Cold Case Christianity.  I enjoy apologetics and listening to thinkers reason about faith and cultural issues.  I was recently listening to J Warner Wallace discuss the issue of abortion with an atheist.  Wallace mentioned to the atheist that his objections to abortion were not based on the Bible but based on pure reason.

I understand that you can’t reason with an atheist using the Bible.  You must use reason.  However, as a Christian I believe that the foundation for our convictions must be the Bible and not reason.  Reason and logic are a reflection of God’s character and the order that He has created.  On the other hand the Scriptures are direct revelation from God.  As 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (ESV) says:

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

God’s Word is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, training in righteousness that we may be complete and equipped for good works.  How can we use anything else as the foundation for our convictions?  Only God’s Word is without error.  I agree that when we are in “arguments” with non-Christians we should use reason but that is not the foundation for our convictions.  It is what we use to convince others of the reasonableness of our positions.  God’s Word is His revelation to us and should be the foundation on which we stand.  Reason is a reflection of his character and we must use reason as we look to His Word and apply it.  We should use reason in the public square but may we never say that Scripture is not the foundation for our beliefs and convictions.

Read Full Post »

I work as an engineer.  I think I am pretty good at what I do for a living but it is just that; what I do for a living.  It is not something that I am necessarily passionate about.  It is what I do in order to fulfill my biblical responsibility to work and provide for my family.  There are other things such as various ministries in which I am involved that are really my passion.  I can’t tell you how many times I have heard statements similar to the following from Christians.

“I am an accountant but my real passion is apologetics.”

“I work as a salesman in order to make money but what I really enjoy is the work I do at church.”

“I am an engineer by profession but my passion is preaching the Word.”

Have you heard this from many people?  I hear it frequently in the circles in which I am involved.  I am left with the question, “Are we supposed to enjoy our jobs or are we called to endure whatever it is we need to do in order to bring home a salary?”  Is it wrong to wish I was doing some other kind of work related to ministry?  I know the Bible tells us that we should be content in our situation.  Does this mean that it is wrong to desire to be doing something else more fulfilling or even some sort of full time ministry?  I have been thinking about this and do not have the answer quite yet but for now this is what I think.

1. Work is a blessing from the Lord.  It was something that was given to Adam and Even before the fall and is therefore a gift and a blessing.  We can do work to provide for our families while at the same time enjoying the work.  I believe that God even intends the work to benefit us and even society as a whole, especially if your job provides employment opportunities for others.

2. Work became less enjoyable after the fall.  I don’t think I need to cite verses about the curse on humanity after Adam and Eve sinned.  I believe that after the curse, work became less enjoyable and became hard.  By God’s grace some people can still do things they enjoy for the job but I don’t think that this is the norm to be expected.  For those of us who long to be involved in ministry on a full time basis we long for the new heaven and new earth but until then we are called to labor in secular work as well as in ministry.  The grass is not greener on the other side although we think it might be.  We are where God want us for now.

3. For those of us who want to be involved in full time ministry and are stuck in secular careers, we need to understand that there is not enough money to go around.  The economic times are tough.  God can use us as lay people in ministry while we keep our secular professions.  This allows us to have some income that is not dependent on the generous giving of other Christians.  It frees up money for the kingdom and it also allows us to not be beholden to those who give.  In other words, you can spend your ministry time and effort as you want and you are not accountable for what ministry you want to devote your energy to.  You also don’t have to worry about people withholding funds from you because of a controversial stand against something like homosexuality.  You have income and it is based on your work, not on what you teach.

This is where I am for now.  I am an engineer who loves to excogitate.  I would rather be out there teaching or reaching or defending the faith.  But wait, I am doing that.  I am just not doing it on a professional basis and I have an engineering job that pays my bills.

Just to add another comment.  By having a non-ministry job, we are able to come into contact with lost people and people who need to be confronted with the gospel on a daily basis.  If you were a ministry professional you would be in a Christian bubble and would only have limited access to lostness.  But as a member of the secular workforce we have ready-made relationships that are in place.  All we need to do is use those in order to share the message of hope we have within us.

What say you?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »