The Lord in Life and Death

Introduction

            I usually love doing research for my lessons but not this week. This week I read through countless stories from parents who recounted the loss of one or more of their children to cancer. The stories were all heartbreaking in their own unique ways. However, there was a common thread that wove its way through many of the stories; parents prayed desperately for God to intervene miraculously to save their child. But He didn’t, and the parents suffered a loss that I don’t think I could endure. The pain in their words is palpable. Let me share just one short confession by a surviving parent: “My beautiful first born daughter died three days before she turned 26 from cancer. She fought so hard for 14 months but the cancer was so aggressive and she lost her battle. Our family never lost hope and thought that God would answer our prayers and we would have our miracle, but it did not happen. We could never talk about death, just the hope that she would make it. I am having so much trouble dealing with this unbearable loss, I don’t know how I can ever be happy again and not have this sadness.” Our precious children aren’t supposed to get sick and die—but they do. With Adam’s sin, decay, sickness and death took up residence in God’s creation. However, right alongside the destruction and death caused by sin, God launched His plan of hope; His plan of redemption; He would set things right Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. However, in order to convince people that He did, in fact, have to power to redeem them from their sins, He would demonstrate that He was The Lord in Life and Death. Reading through the tragic stories of loss as part of my research, I immediately thought about the story of Jarius’ daughter told in the Gospels. That story has a happy ending but I want to demonstrate that that wasn’t really the point of the story. I want to show you that Jesus’ actions in the story will prove to a watching world the He is The Lord in Life and Death.

Subject Text

Mark 5:21-24; 35-43

            ²¹When Jesus had again crossed over by boat to the other side of the lake, a large crowd gathered around him while he was by the lake. ²²Then one of the synagogue rulers, named Jairus, came there. Seeing Jesus, he fell at his feet ²³and pleaded earnestly with him, “My little daughter is dying. Please come and put your hands on her so that she will be healed and live.” ²⁴So Jesus went with him…³⁵While Jesus was still speaking, some men came from the house of Jairus, the synagogue ruler. “Your daughter is dead,” they said. “Why bother the teacher anymore?” ³⁶Ignoring what they said, Jesus told the synagogue ruler, “Don’t be afraid; just believe.” ³⁷He did not let anyone follow him except Peter, James and John the brother of James. ³⁸When they came to the home of the synagogue ruler, Jesus saw a commotion, with people crying and wailing loudly. ³⁹He went in and said to them, “Why all this commotion and wailing? The child is not dead but asleep.” ⁴⁰But they laughed at him. After he put them all out, he took the child’s father and mother and the disciples who were with him, and went in where the child was. ⁴¹He took her by the hand and said to her, “Talitha koum!” (which means, “Little girl, I say to you, get up!”). ⁴²Immediately the girl stood up and walked around (she was twelve years old). At this they were completely astonished. ⁴³He gave strict orders not to let anyone know about this, and told them to give her something to eat.

Context

            Our subject text leads us to believe that Jesus had just returned from a trip to the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee so let’s start there. Reviewing the text preceding our subject text, we find the story of Jesus performing an exorcism on a madman living among the tombs in the region of the Gerasenes (also found in other manuscripts as “Gadarenes” or “Gergesenes”). We encounter in the exchange between Jesus and the madman that the demon named Legion has taken up residence in the man (Matthew’s Gospel records it as two men). Legion approaches Jesus with the clear knowledge of exactly who Jesus is as a person (“Son of the Most High God”) as well as His eschatological role in the final judgment and condemnation of Satan and his demons who realize that their final destination is eternity at the bottom of the “Abyss” (cf. Mt 8:28-34; Lk 8:26-39). Demons who have the power to control those in whom they reside, have no power over Jesus. As a result, we find them “begging” Jesus for mercy. The account ends when Jesus sends Legion into a nearby heard of pigs who then frantically race over a cliff or steep embankment and drown in the sea. When the people of the region witnessed the event, they pleaded with Jesus to leave. However, Jesus’ actions clearly establish his position as Lord over those residing in the spiritual realm. Our subject text moves to establish, in part, Jesus as Lord in the daily lives of people as well.

Text Analysis

            As was so often the case where Jesus appeared in public, we see in v. 21 that He is quickly surrounded by large crowds of people. “The inescapable crowd, in no hurry to disperse, gathers again about Jesus, on His return to the western shore.”[1] Also not surprising, among the crowds were the ever-present religious leaders. But something was different this time; this time there was no time for theological debates and discourse about who Jesus was claiming to be. This time, theology crashed head-on into the reality of life and death. In v. 22, Jairus, one of the rulers of the synagogue, came to Jesus, not to spar with him or try to trap him as many of the religious leaders so often tried to do. No, as important as getting the theology right may have been to the religious leaders, Jairus was preoccupied with something that was far more important at the moment—his daughter was dying. Love will drive us to extremes won’t it? And in this case, desperate times call for desperate measures. Jairus finds Jesus and “falls at his feet.” Don’t miss what just happened here; “That Jairus —a ruler or president of a synagogue and a man with great social and religious prestige—would prostrate himself before Jesus would be astonishing to a first-century reader and point to Jesus as a God-ordained prophet.”[2]

            Jairus reveals to Jesus the purpose of his visit in v. 23—his young daughter was dying. I want to point out a pattern that began with the demon, Legion, in the text immediately preceding our subject text. Like Legion who fell on his knees at the feet of Jesus and “begged” for mercy, Jairus kneeled before Jesus and “pleaded” that Jesus would save his daughter. And this won’t be the last time we see this pattern. Jairus risked much (his honor, his reputation, his social standing, his position as a synagogue ruler, etc.) prostrating himself before Jesus and pleading with him. But a desperate father who loves his child would probably do just about anything if it means saving his child. Jarius believed that if Jesus came to his daughter and laid his hands on her, she would live. We often get lost in the drama of the events as they unfold before us on the pages of Scripture and miss an important lesson lurking beyond the immediate events. “Though he is one of the rulers of the synagogue and therefore a layperson of some repute, Jairus nonetheless finds no power to heal in his position of authority and therefore humbly evinces the faith Jesus expects—recognition of Jesus’ divine authority. Jairus’s {sic} faith in Jesus’ power to heal is exemplary, whereupon Jesus without a word places himself at the disposal of the distraught father and goes with him (v. 24) to lay hands upon his little daughter.”[3]

            The text reveals that the large crowd follows Jesus as he makes his way to Jairus’ house. In fact, the text says that the crowd not only followed him but pressed around him. It is in this setting that another incident in vv. 25-34 is sandwiched between the verses of our subject text. Briefly, a woman among those crowding around Jesus who was suffering from a serious bleeding condition weaves her way through the crowd in the hopes of touching the hem of Jesus’ garment in order to receive the healing that will give her her life back; and it worked! However, Jesus immediately recognized that someone who touched him received His healing power. She was caught when Jesus asked who it was that touched Him. Notice, however, her reaction; she “fell at his feet” and trembling in fear confessed that she was the one who touched the hem of Jesus’ cloak and received healing by doing so. And there is our pattern again that began with a demon, is repeated by a religious leader of Israel, and is practiced once again this time by a social outcast trying to regain some semblance of normalcy to her life. This pattern is an important element that we must remember in order to avoid allowing our subject text to become simply about miracles of exorcism, healing and resurrection. Instead, the pattern should remind us that our subject text is about Jesus as Lord of all things.

            During all the clamor of the large crowd around Jesus and His interaction with the woman suffering from a bleeding disease, have we forgotten something? How about Jairus’ daughter who is dying! The text doesn’t indicate how much time has passed between Jairus’ original plea for Jesus’ help and Jesus’ closing discourse with the woman he healed. But v. 35 tells us that it doesn’t matter because the little girl has died according to some men who had come from Jairus’ house. Now, try and put yourself in the shoes of Jairus. It’s very easy for me as the father of two girls. I have imagined myself during this entire episode; falling to my knees before Jesus and pleading for him to save my daughter and then frantically trying to push through the crowd of people with Jesus in tow only to watch Jesus get side-tracked with a woman in the crowd seeking her own healing. As I read the story and put myself in the place of Jairus, I can sense going from feeling frantic to feeling panic as the minutes tick away. And just when I want to reach out and grab Jesus by the arm and remind him that we really have to get to my daughter, a friend taps me on the shoulder and says, “Don’t bother, she’s gone.” The news must have been like getting punched in the gut; can’t breathe; ready to vomit; the mind screeches to a stop and all you can do is stare in disbelief realizing that you were too late.

            You can almost picture Jesus standing alongside Jairus as he receives the news of his daughter’s death. Upon hearing the news in v. 36, I wonder if Jesus doesn’t put his arm around Jairus’ shoulder as he reassures him not to be frightened at the news. “Death did not make Jesus too late, however; instead, it meant that Jesus would do an even mightier miracle. Jairus must have looked in despair at Jesus, but Jesus made no indication of changing his plans.”[4] The only thing Jairus is left with is the only thing he had when he came to Jesus in the first place—belief that Jesus could and would do something to help his little girl. Jesus intends to bring Jairus’ little girl back to life. However, he wants to avoid making it a spectacle so in v. 37 he only allows Peter, James and John to follow Him; the same three who would witness his transfiguration as recorded elsewhere in the Gospels (cf. Mt 17:1-13; Mk 9:2-13; Lk 9:28-36).

            The setting described in v. 38 with people crying and wailing loudly is not unusual given the circumstances. “What was going on within the house appealed to both eye and ear; here the scene is described from the spectacular side—a multitude of people seen making a confused din, in which sounds of weeping and howling without restraint are distinguishable.”[5] However, what follows in v. 39 is quite unusual when Jesus wonders what all the commotion and wailing was about as He proclaims that the girl isn’t dead but is instead just asleep. No doubt, those present know the difference between someone who is asleep and someone who is dead. They may not have had the medical technology we enjoy today but death was no less common to them than it is to us even if we might have a deeper knowledge of its causes. The mocking laughter of those present in v. 40 would indicate precisely that they knew the difference between sleep and death. “Jesus stated that (for him) the dead persons were not dead, but asleep…Death can set no bounds on Jesus’ activity, but that the life which proceeded from him stripped death of its power, i.e. that the otherwise immutable frontier of death and time had been broken through or leaped over. The spectators’ laughter at such a statement serves best to stress the extraordinary and incomprehensible nature of this life-giving power. What the Jews at best considered possible, and to be expected, apart from their belief in eschatological resurrection, was that someone should be preserved from death…But now God, the Lord over life and death, stood in person before them.”[6]

            Undeterred, Jesus removes everyone from either the room or the residence, He takes Jairus, his wife and three disciples into the room where the dead girl lay. In v. 41 we see Jesus take the little girl by the hand and command her to get up. Keep in mind that Jesus is in the presence of a synagogue leader and he would know about the prohibition for anyone, especially a religious leader, to touch a dead body. However, “Jesus did not hesitate to touch the dead…Jesus is not defiled, but those [he touches] are cleansed and healed. This speaks theologically of Christ’s impeccable person…All four Gospels present Jesus’ touch as all-powerful over nature, sickness, and death…Jesus’ touch cured people of various infirmities and restored life to the dead.”[7]

            If you are a parent, try and picture yourself in that room with your little girl lying lifelessly before you one minute, with your life shattered into a million pieces, then suddenly she is up and walking around the room as though nothing happened. V. 42 merely says that they were astonished. “Astonished” seems like an understatement but could you put into words what you would be feeling if it were you and that were your little girl? “The unpreparedness of the parents and the disciples for what they had witnessed is expressed with emphatic language. There was, apparently, no doubt in their minds that they stood in the presence of death. God had intervened so dramatically they were left speechless with utter amazement.”[8]

            Jesus does something in v. 43 that he did quite often after he performed something miraculous or when something about his divinity was revealed, He forbade the witnesses from publicizing the miraculous event(s) or divine revelation(s). It has always seemed a bit odd to me because I still fall into the trap sometimes of thinking that if our generation were to experience more miracles or divine revelations, it would be so much easier to lead people to faith. However, I am reminded that even miracles failed to convince many of those who witnessed them that Jesus was, in fact, the long-awaited Messiah. And to complicate matters further, Jesus knew that the people’s expectation of the Messiah as a military leader sent to restore Israel to its preeminent position in the world was a misinformed understanding at best. “A better explanation for Jesus’ reluctance to have reports of his miracles and identity spread is found in Mark’s conviction that Jesus’ messiahship cannot be understood apart from his passion [suffering, death and resurrection], and thus discipleship itself cannot be properly lived until the confession ‘Jesus is the Christ’ is stripped of its misunderstandings and seen in light of the passion. Jesus’ prohibitions to demons, to those who are healed and to those who guess correctly concerning his identity reveal Jesus’ desire to guide the revelation of his own messiahship, to forestall premature declarations of his messiahship that will only be misunderstood before he faces the cross.”[9]

            Furthermore, Jesus wasn’t there to put on a show. Jesus was there to be the face of God to His creation. Jesus was there to make it possible for them to know God and be in relationship with God. Jesus knew that miracles wouldn’t convince many to put their faith in Him but it would be the narrow doorway for a few to pass through to get to Him. Jesus didn’t use miracles to insist that people in general believe in him. Jesus was all too familiar with the ridicule and unbelief that persisted following some of his other miraculous events.

“Special motivation for the injunction to silence may be found in the rank unbelief of those who had ridiculed Jesus with their scornful laughter. It is clear throughout Mark that Jesus revealed his messiahship only with reserve. It is appropriate to this consistent pattern of behavior that he was unwilling to make himself known to the raucous, unbelieving group that had gathered outside Jairus’ house. He did not permit them to witness the saving action by which the girl is restored to her parents, and he directed that it should continue to remain unknown to those outside. He recognized that the responsibility of the parents in this regard could not continue indefinitely. When the child appeared in public the facts would speak for themselves. The parents could, however, withhold what had happened and thus fulfill the intention of Jesus. Before it was known that the girl was yet alive, the purpose for which the charge had been given would have been fulfilled; Jesus would have departed and could no longer be subject to ostentatious acclaim…The resuscitation of Jairus’ daughter is both a deed of compassion and a pledge of the conquering power of Jesus over the combined forces of death and unbelief, in which the Kingdom of God was disclosed as a saving reality. It is precisely in deliverance from death that the salvation which Jesus brings finds its most pointed expression.”[10]

Application

            I have to confess that preparing this lesson gave me an uneasy feeling in light of the gut wrenching stories I researched. I was at once moved by the image of a desperate father falling at the feet of Jesus pleading for his daughter’s life only to hear of her death as he desperately waited for Jesus whose popularity necessarily demanded his attention from all sides. And again when Jesus gave the little girl her life back and reunited her with her parents. My uneasiness advanced against the backdrop of our day and so many parents who desperately pray and hope for healing; for a miracle that never comes. Perhaps you are uneasy with that as well. Did Jesus care more then, than He does now? Did He love Jairus’ daughter more than the countless children who die daily from cancer or some other heinous disease? The short answer is “no” and “no.” Let’s remember something that gets lost in the story of Jairus’ daughter—she still died; we don’t know when but she still died just like all the other people Jesus healed and raised from the dead. In fact, we have no idea how long any of the people Jesus healed or raised from the dead eventually lived. They could have lived a long life or died shortly thereafter. We just don’t know and we can’t assume that they went on to live long prosperous lives. Consequently, if the purpose of such healings and resurrections is not specifically to insure the long and prosperous life of those affected, then we must consider some other purpose for Jesus’ miracles. “The most fully attested miracle of resuscitation is the raising of Jairus’ daughter. Found in the triple tradition (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) it is intertwined in all three accounts with the healing of the woman with a hemorrhage. The movement from healing to resuscitation shows Jesus as lord over both chronic illness and death. The overriding concern is Christological, seeking to demonstrate Jesus’ lordship…In all three Gospels this story is part of a complex of miracles demonstrating the messianic authority of Jesus over all earthly and heavenly powers. Even the ultimate power of death is conquered by him.”[11]

            It is easy to get lost in the belief that illness and death is irreversible when we are the ones suffering a loss. However, if this lesson teaches anything it is that illness and death are not insurmountable obstacles for God; just because He doesn’t intervene miraculously to save someone we love doesn’t mean he can’t. We must remember that His goal is not to eliminate suffering, sickness and death in this life even though He has proven that He is able to do so. Instead, He demonstrated his power over sickness and death so that we would understand that He has the power and authority to accomplish His purpose. And His purpose was, and continues to be, to provide the means for us to be in relationship with Him. We can trust that what He says is true; that He is who He claims to be and can actually do what He says He can do based on the evidence of His miracles, which we now see was the primary purpose of those miracles in the first place. When we come to the conclusion that Jesus is The Lord in Life and Death, then we can look forward with confidence that we will have in the life to come what we so desperately long for in this life.

Revelation 21:1-5a

            ¹Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. ²I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. ³And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. ⁴He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” ⁵He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!”

---

[1] W. Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor’s Greek Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983), p. 374.

[2] Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, I. Howard Marhall, eds., Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), p. 677.

[3] Walter A. Elwell, ed., Baker Commentary on the Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1989), p. 775.

[4] Bruce Barton, Philip Comfort, Grant Osborne, Linda K. Taylor, Dave Veerman, Life Application New Testament Commentary, (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001), p. 165.

[5] Nicoll, The Expositor’s Greek Testament, p. 376.

[6] Colin Brown, ed., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 3, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), p. 280.

[7] Walter A. Elwell, ed., Baker Theological Dictionary of the Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), pp. 102, 782.

[8] William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark—The New International Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974), p.

[9] David A. deSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry Formation, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), p. 202.

[10] Lane, The Gospel of Mark, pp. 198-199.

[11] Joel B. Green, et al., eds., Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, p. 677.

Above All

Introduction

            If you are a follower of Jesus Christ, have you spent much time contemplating why? I know, it’s obvious right—died on the cross, rose from the dead, forgave our sins—the usual right. But I want you to think harder; I’m challenging you to consider not why you believe in Jesus but why are you in love with Jesus (I am assuming you’re in love with Jesus). I think about this often and I invariable wind up shaking my head at the absurdity that the Creator of the universe went to such extremes to be in relationship with me. My guess is that many of you out there feel the same way I do. I posted a lesson last week that was critical of a sociologist that wrote a book attempting to explain the original growth of Christianity. Written by an unbeliever, the author simply passed off Christianity’s growth as essentially comparable to the growth of all other religions, generally and specifically. I was critical of the author’s methodology and the fact that he neglected to consider God’s role in the growth of Christianity. The point of my criticism was that Christianity has never been like any other religion—not because of its superior theology but because of Jesus; the audacity of God to condescend to our level to demonstrate his love for us. Over the nearly 100 lessons I have posted to this point, no other single lesson has been received with as much anger and vitriol as was that lesson. Honestly, I was a little shocked. Not by the degree of venom that was being spewed but by the sheer volume of angry comments. The general tenor of the comments condemned my insistence that Christianity was not the same as other religions and that because I was critical of a secular scientific explanation, I was the “typical” anti-science Christian and an ignorant rube to boot (the actual comments about me were not nearly as polite). Well, for those of you who know me, I’m not “typical”—anything. You might call me strange, weird or odd but hopefully not typical. Furthermore, I’m not even remotely anti-science although I refuse to conform to the belief that science is the answer to every question. Finally, I don’t consider myself an ignorant rube but I will concede that I believe Jesus Christ is Above All of creation and as such places Christianity Above All other religions. More importantly, however, is the cross—I can’t get over the cross. That’s the piece that unbelievers just don’t get. God, in the person of Jesus Christ, left his throne and allowed Himself to be put to death because he knew it was the only way we could be in relationship with Him for eternity. Jesus Christ wants to be in relationship with us Above All and gave his life to prove it. There is nothing that has ever or will ever be able to compete with that message. This is the essence of the Gospel message; a message that Paul preached with regularity. Paul summarizes that message beautifully in his letter to the Church in Colosse. It is majestic in its description of Jesus’ divinity and moving as it describes the magnitude of Jesus’ sacrifice on our behalf. Let’s look at Paul’s Gospel message to the Colossians in greater detail.

Subject Text

Colossians 1:15-23

¹⁵He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. ¹⁶For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. ¹⁷He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. ¹⁸And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. ¹⁹For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, ²⁰and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. ²¹Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. ²²But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation—²³if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

Context

            Many believe our subject text is either a hymn or poem to be sung in praise and thanksgiving. Which makes it all the more amazing since Paul is writing this letter to the Colossians while under house arrest in Rome. Colosse is about 100 miles east of Ephesus which served as the epicenter for the Church in the provinces of Asia. Although not nearly as influential to Christianity’s evangelical outreach as was Ephesus, Colosse was, nevertheless, an important trading center in the region. As such, Colosse, like other trading centers, was a crossroad for new ideas and countless religions. As was the case in some of his other letters, Paul seems to be battling against the insidious religion of Gnosticism in his letter to the Colossians. Gnostics believed that a special knowledge was needed to be accepted by God, even for Christians. Paul says that since the day he found out that a church had been established in Colosse by Epaphras, he has prayed for them that they would be filled with the knowledge of God’s will through spiritual wisdom and understanding (Col 1:7-10). Paul expected their knowledge of God to be reflected in their lives through their good works. He makes it clear that there is no “special” knowledge necessary for their salvation and ours. Instead, God has revealed all we need to know for our salvation through His Son, Jesus Christ. To demonstrate that no “special” knowledge is required for salvation, Paul clarifies for them exactly who Jesus is and why knowing and believing in Him is all they would need to secure their eternal salvation.

Text Analysis

            There are many people (even enemies of Christianity) who are prepared to concede many things about Jesus; He was a great prophet; He was a good (maybe even sinless) man; He was smart, kind and compassion; He was a miracle worker. But that’s usually as far as they are prepared to go, insisting that Jesus was bestowed with his divinity hundreds of years after his death by Church leaders formally at the Council of Nicea in 325 A. D. (http://seredinski.blogspot.com/2011/10/when-jesus-became-god.html). But v. 15 doesn’t allow for that belief. We can use countless verses outside of the Gospels to build a sound theology for the divinity of Jesus which is a tremendous faith-building exercise that I challenge you to do. However, Paul allows us to cut right to the chase with this verse. Jesus is the image of the invisible God. Paul is saying that if you’ve seen Jesus then you’ve seen God. “Christ is the visible image of the invisible God—the verb is present tense, describing Jesus’ position now and forever. God as Spirit is invisible and always will be. God’s Son is his visible expression. He not only reflects God, but, as God, he reveals God to us.”[1] This verse is like a raised sledgehammer poised to strike an anvil with a force whose magnitude won’t be understood until the later verses of our subject text.

            Some additional context will help us understand the full impact of v. 16 for the Colossians. There was a fairly large Jewish population in Colosse as many Jews fled there to escape the persecutions under Antiochus III and IV nearly two centuries before Christ. The Jews would have been very familiar with the creation narrative in Genesis and God’s sovereign rule over all things in heaven and earth. Therefore, attributing the creation and sovereign rule of all things to Christ in vv. 16-17 reinforces the proclamation of Christ’s divinity in v. 15. Think about the implications of what Paul is saying. What do you suppose is the primary implication of the simple assertion that “by him all things were created?” If “all” things were created by Christ, then Christ cannot be a created being; Christ had to exist before creation. “Pre-existence was not attributed to Christ simply through a process of intellectual adaptation or speculative thought. Fundamental was the conviction, born of Jesus’ career and the subsequent powerful religious life of the earliest Christian groups, that Christ personally and uniquely embodied the divine salvific purpose and bore surpassing significance. And the Pauline writings show that the pre-existence of Christ was meaningful in the practical purposes of ethical exhortation and religious identity-formation.”[2] Having, therefore, established that Christ existed prior to creation as well as being the agent of creation, what does it mean when Paul makes the claim that “in him [Christ] all things hold together?” As the father of two beautiful girls, I can say that I participated, in part, in their creation. However, as any parent will tell you, sustaining the lives of our children after they are conceived is essentially out of our hands. That leaves parents with three options: 1) Spend our lives trying to regain control over our children in a futile attempt to sustain them throughout their lives; 2) Spend our lives trying to ignore a fact that grinds on our minds and gnaws at our guts that we have no power to sustain the lives of our children; or 3) Surrender the lives of our children to God with the understanding that He is the One that is the Sustainer of creation. “The Son is the centre of unity for the universe. He keeps all its parts in the proper place and due relations and combines them into an ordered whole. Apart from Him it would go to pieces.”[3]

            Paul goes on in v. 18 to tell us the position that Christ holds in relation to the Church, precisely what qualifies him to hold that position, and the authority that accrues to that position. Because the Church exists specifically as an outworking of the ministry of Jesus Christ, it is logical that Christ would be the head of the Church as identified in v. 18a. Furthermore, Christ is qualified to hold that position because he is the one and only one to lay down his life and by his own power, take it back up (Jn 10:17). It is one thing to be an instrument in restoring someone else’s life as Jesus so often did, it is quite another to be the instrument in restoring one’s own life. Consider what Paul is saying in v. 18b. Christ existed before creation so that he could be the agent of creation (“he is the beginning”), he became incarnate as a man so that he could lay down his life and by his own power be the first (and only) one to take his own life back up again, and because creation, life and death are completely within His control, he is by necessity supreme according to v. 18c. “The clause here is a true purpose clause, expressing God’s intention of ultimately bringing all of creation under his rule through Christ. Christ rules the church with the purpose of bringing all things ultimately within the scope of that rule. What is perhaps even more significant for the situation in Colossae is the emphasis that Christ is just as preeminent in the realm of redemption as he is in the realm of creation. Christ’s universal Lordship is not just a theoretical affirmation about the way the world is; it holds wide-ranging implications for the way Christians are to find ‘fulfillment.’ It is this focus that the ‘in all things’ may emphasize.”[4]

            We get to the apex of our subject text in vv. 19-20 where we find God’s purpose for Christ. God’s purpose is twofold: 1) God used Christ to reveal himself personally to humanity. Through Christ, we are able to “know” God; His character; His holiness; His righteousness and most of all the depth of His love. All of who God is resides in the person of Christ; to see and know Christ is to see and know God. “He is a full, not partial, embodiment of God. In the Old Testament, God chose a place for his name to dwell and to express divine care. The Lord particularly chose to dwell on Zion. God also fills heaven and earth. The ‘fullness’ is a circumlocution for God: [Now] God pleases to dwell fully and permanently only in Christ. Christ supplants the temple, or any other house made with hands, and represents God in person…‘all the attributes and activities of God—his spirit, word, wisdom and glory—are disclosed in him.’ We especially see God’s redemptive power in Christ.”[5] And it is precisely this redemption that is God’s grand objective. After Adam’s sin, God’s trajectory has always been to reconcile creation to himself at his own expense (Gen 3:15). Separation that was created by sin, an offense against an eternal God, could only be reconciled by the actions of an eternal God. Similarly, sin that inaugurated the decay and destruction of all of creation could only be reversed by the power of the One who sustains all of the created order. “In the blood lies the power for sanctification and the conquest of all powers at enmity with God. A transforming and renewing power flows from the atoning death of Jesus into the life of those who have accepted redemption in faith. Christ’s blood makes possible life in God’s presence; it gives access to God…As the blood of the covenant, it is the basis of the new divine order…the blood of Christ serves as guarantee that the promise of the New Covenant is fulfilled in the NT church. Col. 1:20 speaks of the cosmic significance of Jesus Christ’s sacrificial death. The blood makes peace both on earth and in heaven.”[6]

            Paul summarizes his gospel message; the Gospel message, to the Colossians, and by extension to us, in vv. 21-23. Many refuse to believe it while many more refuse to acknowledge it: we have been separated (“alienated”) from God as a result of our sinful behavior. However, just because we refuse to accept something as true, doesn’t make it any less true. So what is the truth? Here it is: Our sin has separated us from God and the means for our reconciliation is that God himself became incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ so that by and through his death on the cross the cause for our separation (sin) would be removed. By removing our sins, we are free to be in the presence of a perfect and holy God without fear of condemnation provided we cling to the faith that what Christ accomplished on our behalf is sufficient for all our needs in this life and the life to come. “The message of Christ’s peace-making work, which involves the reconciliation of the cosmos, has particular reference to the Colossian Christians. These readers who are now addressed directly are reminded of their pre-Christian past when they were enemies, alienated from God and his people. The gravity of their previous situation sets in bolder relief God’s gracious and mighty action of reconciling them to himself. That reconciliation which was effected in history at great cost—the death of his Son on the cross—had as its goal the fitness and preparedness of his people for the final day when they will stand before him. Continuance, however, is the test of the reality of their faith. Like a building set on a sure foundation and erected with strong supports and buttresses they are to remain true to the gospel, and not shift from the fixed ground of their Christian hope.”[7]

Application

            The reality conveyed in the poem/hymn of our subject text is the root cause of my adoration for Christ and is perhaps a reality that has lost some of its significance in the Church today. What is your response to the revelation that the Creator of the universe revealed Himself to you in the person of Jesus Christ. His mission was to fix what was broken in you and in me by sin so that we could be free to be in relationship with Him if we choose to. But what, what could He do to reconcile such an egregious offense? The cross was the answer. By shedding his blood and dying on the cross, he achieved what we had no hope of achieving—a way back into the eternal presence of a most holy God. If we were to truly understand the reality of what God did on our behalf through Jesus Christ, our only natural response as created beings would be to fall on our knees and with raised hands and voices praise the incarnate Creator who redeemed us.

            “Perhaps the best way to try to capture the mystery of creation, incarnation and redemption is in the poetry of our hymns. This poem shimmers in the exultant celebration of Christ’s creative and redemptive work. It praises who he is, what he has done, and what he will do…Unfortunately, we have become less skillful singers of praise to God and Christ and may have even forgotten how to speak the language of adoration. Those who have lost an immediate sense of God’s presence and glory tend to turn God into an object of study and the subject of theories instead of praise and adoration…‘God is not an object that we could take in our hands in order to analyze it and describe it exactly. God is always God in action, and the life and death and resurrection of Jesus specifies this as action of love.’ This love in action for us and all the world should evoke our amazement, our awe, and our praise.”[8]

            Take a moment to listen to the song at the beginning again but this time with the words in front of you and let the Spirit wash over you and remind you of the depth of God’s love revealed to us through the incarnate Creator who has redeemed us by His shed blood on the cross and resurrection from the dead—Jesus Christ who is Above All.

Above all powers, above all kings

Above all nature and all created things

Above all wisdom and all the ways of man

You were here, before the world began

Above all kingdoms, above all thrones

Above all wonders the world has ever known

Above all wealth and treasures of the earth

There's no way to measure what you're worth

Crucified, laid behind a stone

You lived to die, rejected and alone

Like a rose, trampled on the ground

You took the fall and thought of me

Above all

Above all powers, above all kings

Above all nature and all created things

Above all wisdom and all the ways of man

You were here, before the world began

Above all kingdoms, above all thrones

Above all wonders the world has ever known

Above all wealth and treasures of the earth

There's no way to measure what you're worth

Crucified, laid behind a stone

You lived to die, rejected and alone

Like a rose, trampled on the ground

You took the fall and thought of me

Above all

Crucified, laid behind a stone

You lived to die, rejected and alone

Like a rose, trampled on the ground

You took the fall and thought of me

Above all

Like a rose, trampled on the ground

You took the fall and thought of me

Above all

By: Michael W. Smith

---

[1] Bruce Barton, Philip Comfort, Grant Osborne, Linda K. Taylor, Dave Veerman, Life Application New Testament Commentary, (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001), p. 873.

[2] Gerald F. Hawethorne, Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid, eds., Dictionary of Paul and his Letters, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), p. 746.

[3] W. Robertson Nicoll, The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Vol. III, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983), p. 505.

[4] Douglas J. Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2008), p. 130.

[5] David E. Garland, Colossians/Philemon—The NIV Application Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), pp. 92-93.

[6] Colin Brown, gen. ed., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 1, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), pp. 223-224.

[7] Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon—Word Biblical Commentary, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2000), pp. 71-72.

[8] Garland, The NIV Application Commentary, pp. 104-105.

The Rise of Christianity

Introduction

            We tend to use the evidence of the rise in the number of megachurches as proof of Christianity’s continued popularity here in America. However, this evidence is anecdotal at best. In fact, the fastest growing faith groups in this country are atheists and unbelievers (yes I refer to these as faith groups because it takes just as much faith to reject the existence of God as it does to accept it). Christianity has declined steadily in relation to the growth of the American population for the last century. Currently, there are more than twice as many atheists and unbelievers as there are Evangelicals. A survey of non-Christians was recently conducted asking them to rank eleven groups in order of respect. Evangelicals ranked tenth; only prostitutes ranked lower. When pollster, George Barna, looked at seventy moral behaviors, he found little if any difference between those claiming to be born-again Christians and those who didn’t.[1] If we hope to reverse this trend, we can either try to enumerate all the things that might be contributing to the decline of Christianity in America and somehow hope we can identify them all and correct them, or we can try to gain a clear understand of the factors that served to perpetuate its growth in the first place. Author and historical sociologist Rodney Stark in his book, The Rise of Christianity, attempts to identify the primary factors responsible for Christianity’s initial popularity and growth. Because Stark is not a Christian, many believe his assessment and analysis are particularly valid because that somehow makes him more objective and less likely to artificially enhance Christianity’s historical favorability. And while that might make his analysis more credible in the minds of the non-Christian community, his failure to recognize the divine dimension in the growth of Christianity makes his analysis, I believe, less credible as a result. Nevertheless, Stark identifies many factors contributing to the growth of Christianity correctly so it is an important work, the reading of which I highly recommend. Let’s take a very broad look at some of Stark’s analysis and see where I believe he is right and where he might be wrong.

Review

Stark identifies many key aspects of Christianity’s historical rise and sociological influences. However, while Stark makes many good observations, his description of Christianity’s rise as tenuous is based in large part on the historical growth and sociological comparisons of other religions. Not only do some of Stark’s propositions seem contradictory, some of his historical information is simply incorrect. Furthermore, conspicuously absent from Stark’s analysis is any consideration of God’s divine role in Christianity’s historical growth and its transforming power on society. Upon analyzing Stark’s information in light of key scriptural passages, biblical commentaries and biblical background references, Christianity’s historical and social characteristics are unlike any other religion and when combined with divine intervention, its rise was in fact inevitable.

Much of Stark’s analysis hinges on the growth comparisons between Christianity and other religions. Stark assumes similar growth rates (40% compounding) for Christianity as other religions and then, in a somewhat circular arithmetic, goes back over his assumptions to justify his outcome in comparison to other religions. While Stark’s description of the effects of 40% compounding growth rate is accurate arithmetically, his starting basis is not accurate (p. 7). Stark builds his historical growth argument on the foundation that two months after the crucifixion, there were only 120 converts (p. 5). Presumably, Stark has taken this information from the early chapters of the Book of Acts making specific reference to the presence of 120 believers (Acts 1:15). However, there is nothing explicit or implicit in the text to mean that all believers were present.

Prior to the crucifixion, it was not unusual to find Jesus surrounded by thousands of people following him from city to city while he preached (Mk 6:30-8:13). It is important to remember that although many of those followers abandoned him in the days and hours before his crucifixion, so did the disciples. And, since the disciples became devoted followers again after their encounter with the resurrected Christ, it is not unreasonable to count a good many other prior followers in the population of converts in the months after Christ’s resurrection. If not on the strength of the witness by the disciples, then certainly on the strength of the witness by the more than five hundred people who witnessed the risen Christ. Although nothing further is said about these five hundred witnesses, Paul refers to them as “brothers” in the context of fellow believers (1 Cor 15:6). However, of greatest significance is the specific reference to the conversion of three thousand people immediately following Peter’s message at Pentecost (Acts 2:41). Thereafter, converts were being added daily (Acts 2:47). These events most likely occurred at or around the time of Pentecost, which would have been less than two months after the crucifixion. Based on this information, it is more likely that the Christian population within the first two months after the crucifixion was at least 3,620 and probably considerably higher. In addition to Stark’s miscalculation of the Church’s size and growth in the immediate two months following the crucifixion, Stark dramatically miscalculates his estimation of the Christian population by the year 100 A. D.

Stark contends that the Christian population numbered approximately 7,530 by the year 100 A. D. However, the book of Acts records a single incident before 35 A. D. where five thousand converts were added (Acts 4:4). Also prior to 35 A. D., Acts records that “the number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith”. This number of priests has been estimated to be 154 at some point. Taking all these factors into consideration, it would seem that within just five years after the crucifixion, the Christian population was at least 8,774. This alone is substantially higher than Stark’s arithmetic of 7,530 with sixty-five years to go to 100 A. D. This still does not take into consideration any believers prior to the crucifixion that continued in their faith thereafter. Also not included are any of those who are referred to in Acts as “being added daily” as referenced above. Furthermore, after the rapid growth of the Church in Jerusalem, yet still before 70 A. D., Christian missionaries planted churches in the Roman provinces of Syria-Cilicia, Cyprus, Galatia, Asia, Mysia, Macedonia, Achaia, Cappadocia and Pontus Bithynia; in Italy and in Rome; in Dalmatia; on Crete; perhaps in Illyricum; perhaps in Egypt.[2] Apart from churches planted in urban centers, there were churches in as many as fifty other towns and villages.[3] Considering the growth in Jerusalem and the Roman provinces, towns and villages, it is clear that Stark’s arithmetic that the Christian population was only 7,530 by the year 100 A. D. is grossly inaccurate.

Stark uses the ratio of the Christian population to the overall population of the Roman Empire as a comparison to other religions to justify his growth rate assumption of 40% per decade. However, Stark uses a population constant of sixty million for the Roman Empire for a period spanning more than three hundred years. Rome did not halt its efforts at conquering other nations nor did women stop bearing children altogether. While Stark identifies such things as epidemics, sexual practices, abortion practices and natural catastrophes as events that adversely affected the Empire’s population, it appears that his use of sixty million as the population count for the Roman Empire is a matter of convenience to support his arithmetic assumptions. Stark justifies all his growth rate assumptions in comparison to the growth rate of other religions. He then uses references by modern Christian writers about the Christian population reaching a majority by 350 A. D. as part of his circular arithmetic to validate his starting population count and thereafter his growth rate assumptions (p. 10). However, I believe I have demonstrated Stark’s many miscalculations prior to 100 A. D. and question the validity of his use of a constant overall population count of sixty million for the Roman Empire spanning a period of more than three hundred years. The matter of the Christian population count of approximately thirty three million being reported as the majority by 350 A. D. is only accurate if Stark’s starting Christian population count of 120 and the overall population count of sixty million is accurate. Stark’s reference to “majority” with respect to the Christian population does not necessarily imply a 55% majority (60M/33M), as his numbers would indicate. “Majority” could have been anything between 51% and 99%. The appropriate arithmetic would be to extrapolate the growth rate over a given period of time based on the starting population count relative to the ending population count. It is inappropriate the use assumptions (40% growth rate) from non-Christian comparison specimens (i.e. the Mormon church) to demonstrate the close comparison of specimens. Doing so will necessarily contaminated the results in favor of a close comparison of the specimens. All of this is not to say that Christianity’s growth rate was not rapid or that it did not enjoy the majority by 350 A. D. Instead, the purpose of demonstrating the fallacy in Stark’s analysis has hopefully served to highlight the fact that Christianity’s historical growth was not comparable to any other religion; it was different; it was special. Although Christianity’s starting populace was substantive, once comprehensive and sound theology was added, its rapid, quantitative growth was imminent.

Stark’s sociological observations of Christianity are likewise problematic with respect to contradictions and his failure to apply any theological principles as explanations for sociological behavior. Again, Stark uses his research of the sociological aspects of other religious groups as support for his assumptions about the sociological appeal and rise of Christianity. Much of Stark’s argument is built on the foundation of the theory of “deviant behavior” (p. 17) and the theory of “cultural continuity” (p. 55).

Stark asserts that conversion to Christianity has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with the theory of deviant behavior. The theory of deviant behavior states that people do not care what the message is as long as they fit in with friends and family. In our culture, this is commonly referred to as the “herd mentality.” Stark’s companion to the theory of deviant behavior is the theory of cultural continuity. In basic terms, the theory of cultural continuity implies that conversion is natural when few cultural changes are required or demanded. However, Stark could not be more wrong in applying these theories to Christianity. While I agree with Stark that the best prospective converts are close friends and family, ideology has everything to do with whether anyone becomes a convert. It is this ideology, or theology, that can either bring close friends and family together under the umbrella of a common faith or, as is often the case, build a wall between them. The divergence over ideology is in complete contrast to the theory of deviant behavior. However, it is completely consistent with Jesus’ warning in scripture that because of him, family would turn against family (Mt 10:32-39). Clearly, ideology has everything to do with conversion.

The Gospel of John records an incident when Jesus gave a brief discourse on the need to eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to follow him. The results were that; “many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him” (Jn 6:66). While some may have turned back as a result of the herd mentality, the disciples’ comments to what Jesus said reveals precisely why some turned back; “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, ‘This is a hard teaching.  Who can accept it?’” (Jn 6:60). These comments were made with ideology in mind. Furthermore, later verses make clear that ideology was the primary consideration. When Jesus asked those who remained if they too plan to turn back, Peter refuses and professes the ideology that Jesus is the Christ. These verses in John’s Gospel present the greatest opposition to Stark’s theory of deviant behavior. There is no record that Andrew had to convince Peter to stay even though they were family. Nor did John have to persuade James to stay even though they were family. Instead, as a group, the disciples clung to the ideology that Jesus was the Messiah and that drove their commitment and determination to remain when others turned away.

Stark further contends that early Christians were primarily made up of people from the privileged class (p. 33). However, this contradicts his position later that Christianity as a Sect did not complete its break between church and synagogue for centuries. As a result, Christianity would have still demonstrated the characteristics of a Sect and as such would have been made up primarily of the underprivileged class (p. 44). This is consistent with other reference data stating that early Christians consisted primarily of those in the lower class. Specifically, Paul in his first letter to the Corinthian Church clearly identifies the class of believers in Corinth as being under-privileged. Paul does not say that those belonging to the privileged class were not represented, only that they were not the primary constituents (1 Cor 1:26). This becomes even more evident through the encounter between Jesus and the rich young man in the Gospel of Mark. Jesus instructs the young man to sell all he has and follow him. At those instructions, the rich young man turned away because he had much to lose. Jesus’ words about the departing rich young man are a testament to the type of people that are most likely to reject Christianity; “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God” (Mk 10:23). The ideology that to follow Christ is to give up everything else would necessarily be easier for those who have nothing to give up. This ideology of sacrifice is in complete contrast to Stark’s theory of cultural continuity. The story of the rich young man is a perfect example of just how counter-cultural Christianity really is. Therefore, using Stark’s theory that religions requiring the least amount of cultural change would be the most popular, it should be true that no one would have been interested in Christianity. However, the contrary is in fact true. Christianity grew quite rapidly. At this juncture, Start contradicts himself again in his attempt to justify that Christianity was for the privileged class. Stark contends that those in the privileged class would have been better suited to conform to the “New Culture” of Christianity (p. 38). However, Stark claims that pursuant to the theory of cultural continuity, only those religions requiring the least amount of cultural change would have succeeded. Certainly not a religion described as a “New Culture.” Stark contradicts himself because he persists in his attempt to explain the sociological aspects of Christianity as comparable to the behavioral tendencies of other religious groups (i. e. Mormons, Moonies, etc.).  In doing so, Stark’s contradictions betray the fact that Christianity does not fit the same sociological profile of other religious groups. Primarily, and in strict contrast to other religious groups, God is the driving force behind bringing people to the point of conversion. Stark refuses to acknowledge that sound theological principles of Christianity had an unnatural transforming effect on Roman culture and its citizenry. Stark’s explanation of conversion based on his many theoretical principles does not leave room for the one thing that is foundational in Christian conversion; God’s calling on someone’s life (Rom 8:28-30). Stark’s demonstration that religious groups such as Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Moonies share certain sociological tendencies only demonstrates that people still readily accept a lie even after they have been introduced to the Truth. Paul wrote about this very thing in his letter to the Romans when he says of those who do not listen to God that; “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie” (Rom 1:25).

With respect to persecutions, it has been said that; “Many are willing to die for what they believe to be the truth, but none will die for what they know to be a lie”. The idea or ideology that God would become incarnate in the man of Jesus Christ, live a perfect, sinless life, willingly die on a Roman cross as the penalty for our sins and then rise after three days in order to freely offer eternal life to anyone who would believe in him is the essential element of a person’s salvation. Stark’s contention that there were primary converts—those who willing accepted the gift of salvation and secondary converts—those who grudgingly went along to keep the peace is ludicrous (p. 100). There is no theological basis for Stark’s supposed “secondary conversion”. Stark’s observations that Christian persecutions were infrequent and generally limited to leaders of the church seems inconsistent with Scripture itself in that “persecute” or its derivative words appears forty nine times in the New Testament.[4] Other historical documents clearly record substantive persecutions including, but not limited to, Nero blaming and then killing Christians for the burning of Rome (which fire was thought to be set by his order) to Pliny’s correspondence with Trajan (112-13 A. D.) that those who persisted in their Christian faith were to be executed (which policy was later affirmed by the emperor).[5] However, while there may be debate over the frequency and severity of Christian persecutions, it is clear that the voluntary and submissive way in which these believers accepted their persecutions had a profound impact on attracting those watching. With the exception of church leaders, historical records rarely emphasize the persecution of the rank and file. Nevertheless, historians rarely fail to voice or pen their astonishment at the submissive attitude of Christians being persecuted. This ultimate sacrifice for a belief may be the harshest critic to Stark’s theory of deviant behavior and cultural continuity. A Christian’s behavior in the face of persecution and death cannot be explained with clinical or sociological theories or propositions. It can only be explained as a personal transformation resulting from a personal encounter with God through Jesus Christ.

Stark’s historical reconstruction of the significance of healings was extreme helpful to me personally. When my daughter Meagan, who is now almost twenty-two years old, was diagnosed with a tumor in her leg, I struggled tremendously with the many biblical references to healings yet God withheld his miraculous healing in the case of my daughter. I could not understand why so much emphasis was placed on healings in the New Testament. I wondered if God cared more about people then. In the years after my daughter’s diagnosis, it became clear that God’s plan had little to do with granting my request for a miraculous healing and everything to do with stretching my daughter’s faith. Also during that time, I sat at the bedside of a friend who lost the use of his arm and eventually his life to cancer. Stark was able to put some context into the matter of biblical healings for me. His graphic description of life in ancient Roman cities and their lack of even basic medical technology make clear that miraculous healings, in God’s great wisdom, were a perfect way to get people’s attention. Although I believe God works through doctors to perform his healing work today, the miraculous effect has diminished. Perhaps not for those directly involved but certainly for those on the outside. This is always a stumbling block in my evangelism efforts; “If God were real, he’d heal miraculously today like he did two thousand years ago”. Unfortunately, the issue inevitably arises during my discussions with non-believers about Christ. Stark provides some very good historical information to work with in dealing with this matter.

Likewise, Stark’s observation that costly demands strengthen religious groups (p. 177) was a profound assessment of what I believe occurred in a church I attended more than twenty years ago. During one particular sermon, the pastor asked the congregation a simple question: “Will those people out there, driving past the church, notice that your life is lived differently from theirs because of what you believe?” The church took those words to heart and for the first few years after that, the church virtually double in size; the congregants compassionately ministered and served one another and actively sought to reach out to unbelieving neighbors; short term mission participation went from less than ten people to more than one hundred people. The pastor constantly pressed us toward a higher standard of living and sacrifice. This did much to strengthen our particular church body and, like Stark’s observation, reduced the “free-rider” element (p. 175). Stark has reinforced what I have been learning the last few years that the bond between believers is much stronger when there is a personal cost.

One of the most important observations made by Stark is that the strength of an exclusive faith is its strength as a group (p. 207). Perhaps unknowingly, it seems that Stark found the back door to what Paul was writing about to the Church at Corinth when he made his appeal that there be no division among them and that they would be united in mind and thought (1 Cor 1:10). Growing up in a Roman Catholic home, then moving to Protestantism thirty years ago and now more than twenty years as an Evangelical, I have seen first-hand the divisions brought about by the many denominations of the Christian faith. There is clearly no room for compromise with respect to the essentials of the Christian faith. However, Christians have, at a minimum, hated each other and in some cases killed one another over many non-essentials. A story is told how years ago, Leslie Flynn penned a book call, Great Church Fights. In it, he chronicled the way people in different churches go after each other—all in the name of Jesus Christ. Flynn tells the story of a young father who hears a commotion out in his backyard and goes to investigate. He looked outside and saw his daughter and several playmates in a heated argument. When he intervened, his daughter called back, “Dad, we’re just playing church!”[6] Christian apologist, or as he is more popularly known; “The Bible Answer Man”, has a wonderful principle which I have tried to apply in my own ministry: “In the essentials—Unity, in the non-essentials—Liberty, and in all things—Charity.”  Stark has identified the timeless principle ,“Unity,” as a foundational element in maintaining and building a strong Church.

I am sure Stark’s historical and sociological analysis was performed using generally accepted practices for social science. However, I do not think it is possible to assess the rise of Christianity without giving any consideration to God’s role. Validating Christianity’s growth by comparing it to Mormonism is paramount to saying that any belief can succeed provided it applies the appropriate sociological principles. I contend that neither Stark nor anyone else can or will be able to successfully put a box around God and explain with certainty the principles which have led to the success of Christianity. God himself reminds us in the book of Isaiah that his ways are not our ways nor are his thoughts like our thoughts (Isa 55:8). Stark has identified many timeless principles in his historical and sociological analyses. However, his observation that Christianity’s success was tenuous is mistaken. Very simply, no other religion before or since has offered what Christianity offers through Christ—the free gift of salvation. That distinction is the line in the sand between Christianity and all other religions with respect to salvation. Consequently, with sound theological propositions added to correct historical information and independent sociological observations, it is clear that the rise of Christianity was in fact inevitable.

Application

            I’m sure you’re wondering why I’m offering you a review of a book I disagree with on so many levels. Well I think you’ll see why shortly. I read this book many years ago because I wanted to understand the dynamics the led to Christianity’s original growth. As someone who was called to pastoral ministry, I wanted to know what it was that drew people to the Christian faith. Also, I’ve never read anything where I didn’t learn at least one thing—especially from someone I disagreed with; it makes me think critically about what I believe. However, after observing the changes in the Church in America over the last decade, I can’t shake some of Stark’s sociological propositions he tried to use to explain the growth of the Church from the beginning; specifically, the theory of “deviant behavior” and the theory of “cultural continuity.” Stark uses these sociological theories to explain, in part, the reasons behind the original growth of Christianity. However, I hope I was able to demonstrate that he is mistaken in some of his crucial assumptions. I’m not disputing the existence of those theories. In fact, I think they are at work in the Church today. However, I believe they are the primary reasons for the decline of the Church in America today.

            When my girls where young, they weren’t allowed to dress the same as the other girls; we expected them to dress modestly; they weren’t allowed to listen to the same music or watch the same television programs; we wanted them to understand that not all things are appropriate for all people at all ages. They were teased and laughed at but we wanted them to know that as Christians, we were different; we were supposed to be different. We took the Bible’s teaching seriously about not being conformed to the world but being transformed by the renewing of our minds (Rom 12:2)—that made us different. However, our churches today seem to shun the idea of being different. In fact, many work really hard not to be different; they seem to go out of their way to prove that Christians are just like everyone else in the hope that unbelievers will feel like they could just fit in. This is confirmed by George Barna’s poll I cited at the beginning showing little or no difference in morality between believers and unbelievers. The Church is behaving today exactly as Stark suggested the early Church behaved; behavior of believers does not deviate significantly from anyone else (theory of “deviant behavior”) for fear that friends and family might think they’re weird. The appearance of the Church conforms in large part to the rest of the world. Grand cathedrals with stain glass windows and prominently displayed crosses have given way to converted warehouse buildings in strip malls with professionally designed logos and sign graphics. Looking at them from the curb, the unbeliever would have no idea they are looking at a church. People inside are dressed the same as people on the outside. Sunday services at some churches could rival a first-class concert performance. Almost everything about the Church looks and strives to be just like any other professional business venture (theory of “cultural continuity”) for fear that unbelievers won’t want to fit in to something new and different; convinced that unbelievers are more likely to attend church and become believers if they can just blend in and not have to change too much. My point is not so much about buildings, clothes and music as much as it is about the Church’s conformity to the culture—whatever that might look like from time to time.

            I couldn’t see it a decade ago when I first read Stark’s book but I can see it so clearly now; what the Church is doing is having the exact opposite effect on its popularity today as Stark proposed it did at its inception. Why? Because it is in complete contradiction to what Jesus and the Bible teaches. Everything in the Bible is about being different. In the Old Testament, God gave Israel a litany of instructions for life and worship for a myriad of reasons but one very important one—to be different from all the surrounding nations. Israel wasn’t supposed to fit in; they were supposed to be an example of something different; something better. Being different; being better made them “special” and God new that the other nations would be attracted to something “special.” That theme continues in the New Testament as well. I’ll let Jesus demonstrate in his own words:

Matthew 5:17-48

            ¹⁷“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. ¹⁸I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. ¹⁹Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. ²⁰For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. ²¹You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ ²²But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. ²³Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, ²⁴leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift. ²⁵Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. ²⁶I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny. ²⁷You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ ²⁸But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. ²⁹If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. ³⁰And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. ³¹It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ ³²But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. ³³Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’ ³⁴But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; ³⁵or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. ³⁶And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. ³⁷Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. ³⁸You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. ³⁹But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. ⁴⁰And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. ⁴¹If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. ⁴²Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. ⁴³You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ ⁴⁴But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, ⁴⁵that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. ⁴⁶If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? ⁴⁷And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? ⁴⁸Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

And Paul continues in the tradition of Jesus’ teaching in his letter to the Church in Rome:

Romans 12:1-2; 9-21

            ¹Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. ²Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will…⁹Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. ¹⁰Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves. ¹¹Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. ¹²Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. ¹³Share with God’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality. ¹⁴Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. ¹⁵Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. ¹⁶Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. ¹⁷Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. ¹⁸If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. ¹⁹Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. ²⁰On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” ²¹Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

            Absolutely everything the Bible teaches contradicts Starks sociological theories of “deviant behavior” and “cultural continuity.” I am convinced that the Church is losing its influence in the world because it has aligned itself with the sociological theories of Stark and not the truths of Scripture. The Church will continue to endure throughout time. However, it has been more or less influential throughout history depending on its biblical faithfulness. Perhaps it is time for the Church to practice more deviant behavior and cultural discontinuity if it hopes to regain its influence against the evils of this world and present itself to an unbelieving world as something different; something worth pursuing; something worth giving their lives to; something “special.” I believe that if the Church would reject the sociological theories of people like Stark and commit to being faithful to the teachings of Jesus and the Bible, we will once again witness The Rise of Christianity in our own day.

---

[1] George Barna, The Second Coming of the Church, (Nashville, TN: Word Publishing, 1998)

[2] Martin, R. P. & Davids, P. H. (eds.), Dictionary Of The Later New Testament & Its Developments, (InterVarsity Press 1997), p. 757.

[3] Ibid., p. 758.

[4] Kohlenberger III, J. R., Goodrick, E. W. & Swanson, J. A., The Greek-English Concordance To The New Testament, (Zondervan Publishing House 1997), p. 941.

[5] Martin & Davids, Dictionary Of The Later New Testament & Its Developments, pp. 908-909.

[6] Online.  Available at:  http://www.sermoncentral.com/sercentral/illustration_topic_results.asp?

TopicName=Church&CategoryName=Humor