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