Tag: culture

The History of Christmas: How Christendom Came to Celebrate Christ’s Birth

Brent Pollard

Consider for a moment how we came to stand where we are. The manger scene feels ancient—as though Christendom has always paused each December to marvel at the incarnation. Yet history reveals something startling: the first Christians never celebrated Christmas.

This is not a scandal but a testimony. The cherished celebration emerged slowly, like dawn breaking over centuries, as believers reflected deeply on what it means that God became man. What began as an unobserved event in Bethlehem became a worldwide moment of worship—not by apostolic command, but through man’s appreciation of glory made flesh.

The New Testament: A Conspicuous Silence on Annual Celebration

Matthew and Luke give us the nativity accounts with luminous detail: angelic announcements, shepherds startled in the night, magi following a star. These chapters overflow with wonder. Then the narrative rushes forward to Jesus’ ministry, His cross, His resurrection, His return.

What’s missing? Any instruction to celebrate His birth annually.

The apostles gathered on the first day of the week, remembering Christ’s death and resurrection through the Lord’s Supper. They proclaimed His gospel with urgency. But they left no pattern, no command, no practice for memorializing His birth each year. This was not oversight—it was simply not their focus.

Early Christianity: Avoiding Birthday Traditions

The earliest believers lived in a world where birthdays carried pagan associations. Jewish tradition paid little attention to such celebrations, and Roman birthday customs often intertwined with idolatrous practices. As a result, Christians in the first two centuries steered clear of birthday observances entirely—even Jesus’ birthday.

Origen, writing in the third century, expressed the prevailing sentiment: only the birthdays of sinners like Pharaoh and Herod were celebrated in Scripture. The righteous did not.

This wasn’t legalism. It was discernment. God’s people were learning to walk differently in a pagan world, careful not to blur the lines between sacred and profane.

The Growing Curiosity: When Was Christ Born?

By the late second and early third centuries, Christian scholars began asking a natural question:

When, exactly, was Jesus born?

Their calculations varied widely—March, May, November—but the question itself signaled something important. These believers were not merely theologians; they were people falling deeper in love with the incarnation. To wonder about the timing of His birth was to treasure it.

Yet even then, no feast day emerged. The curiosity was intellectual, not liturgical.

December 25: The First Christmas Celebration

The earliest solid evidence for celebrating Christ’s birth on December 25 appears in a Roman calendar from around AD 336. Why this date?

Two theories dominate:

Theological Calculation: Some early Christians believed Jesus was conceived on the same date He died—March 25. Counting forward nine months places His birth on December 25.

Cultural Context: December 25 fell near Roman festivals like Sol Invictus (the ‘Unconquered Sun’) and Saturnalia. Choosing this date may have offered believers a Christian alternative to pagan revelry, declaring boldly that the true Light has come into the world.

Both explanations reflect the church’s dual task: theological precision and cultural engagement. The church was not absorbing paganism—it was confronting it with truth.

East Meets West: Different Dates, Same Savior

While the West settled on December 25, Eastern Christians initially observed Christ’s birth on January 6, called Theophany or Epiphany. By the fifth century, most Eastern congregations also adopted December 25 for the nativity, reserving January 6 for celebrating Christ’s baptism and the revelation of His divine identity.

This convergence is instructive. Though separated by geography and culture, believers across the empire felt the same pull—to set aside a day each year to contemplate the mystery Paul described:

‘Great indeed is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh’ (1 Timothy 3:16).

The Medieval Church: Layering Tradition on Truth

As Christianity shaped Europe’s cultures through the Middle Ages, Christmas absorbed many traditions: nativity plays dramatizing the Bethlehem scene, carols sung in village streets, gift-giving recalling the magi’s offerings, and evergreen decorations symbolizing eternal life.

These additions were not corruptions. They were expressions—imperfect, human, sometimes misguided—of a truth too glorious to contain in words alone. The church has always been a community of storytellers, and Christmas became the story believers told again and again, in every creative form available.

The Reformation: Christmas Under Scrutiny

When the Reformation arrived, Christmas faced fresh examination. Lutherans and Anglicans embraced the celebration as a legitimate way to honor Christ’s incarnation. Puritans, however, rejected it, viewing Christmas as an invention unmoored from Scripture.

Both positions reflected sincere convictions about how to honor God. The Puritans feared idolatry and human tradition; the Lutherans treasured gospel proclamation wherever it appeared.

Modern Christmas: Sacred Truth Meets Cultural Expression

From the 1800s onward, Christmas continued to evolve. Charles Dickens’ writings awakened social conscience, Santa Claus captured children’s imaginations, and commercialization introduced both celebration and distraction.

Today’s Christmas is a complex blend: nativity scenes beside reindeer, worship services near shopping frenzies, profound theological truth intertwined with consumer excess.

Conclusion: Celebrating the Incarnation

Christmas is not commanded in Scripture. The apostles did not practice it. Its date may be symbolic rather than historical. Yet it endures because it points to something utterly real:

God became man.

In Bethlehem, divinity clothed itself in human flesh. The infinite became finite—the eternal entered time. The Creator took the form of a creature. This is the heartbeat of Christianity—not merely that God loves us, but that He came to us.

John wrote it plainly:

‘The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth’ (John 1:14).

So whether we observe Christmas or not, let us never stop marveling at what happened in Bethlehem. Let us preach it, sing it, tell it to our children and our neighbors. Let us declare with unshakable confidence that God has acted in history, that heaven has invaded earth, and that nothing will ever be the same.

This is the glory of the incarnation—and it deserves to be celebrated every single day.

Don’t Be Fooled

The real battle we face is not flesh and blood (Ephesians 6.12). We shouldn’t be surprised to find that the world is filled with people who are…

Dale Pollard

In the Screwtape Letters, written by C.S. Lewis, there’s an interesting part in the fourth letter. Uncle Screwtape is a demon writing to his nephew, Wormwood. He’s giving him advice on how to ensure the spiritual failure of his “patient” which is the term used for the human that each demon is assigned. He tells Wormwood,

“Be sure that the patient remains completely fixated on politics. Arguments, political gossip, and obsessing on the faults of people they have never met serve as an excellent distraction from advancing in personal virtue, character, and the things the patient can control. Make sure to keep the patient in a constant state of angst, frustration, and general disdain towards the rest of the human race to avoid any kind of charity or inner peace from further developing. Ensure the patient continues to believe that the problem is ‘out there’ in the ‘broken system’ rather than recognizing that there is a problem within himself. Keep up the good work,
Uncle Screwtape.”

Though Lewis wasn’t quoting the Bible, he certainly ties in biblical principles. The real battle we face is not flesh and blood (Ephesians 6.12). We shouldn’t be surprised to find that the world is filled with people who are “lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people” (2 Timothy 3.1-5). Don’t forget who the enemy is and don’t let the distractions of the world convince you that the fight is anything other than a spiritual one.

The Power Of Kindness

You don’t have to look any further than Jesus’ life. Kindness is seen in His compassionate interactions with the poor and needy. He showed kindness by healing the leper (Mark 1:40-42) and forgiving the adulterous woman (John 8:1-11).

Carl Pollard

Kindness, a fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22), is a profound expression of God’s character and a cornerstone of Christian living. The Greek word chrēstotēs is best described as goodness, generosity, and a disposition to act with compassion. When we study the idea of kindness in scripture, it is filled with theological depth and practical implications, calling us to embody Christ’s love in a broken world.

Scripture consistently portrays kindness as a reflection of God’s nature. In Titus 3:4, Paul writes of “the kindness and love of God our Savior” appearing through Christ’s redemptive work, emphasizing that divine kindness is the basis for salvation. This is also seen in Ephesians 2:7, where God’s grace is expressed “in his kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.” So kindness isn’t just a human virtue but a divine attribute christians are called to imitate! You don’t have to look any further than Jesus’ life. Kindness is seen in His compassionate interactions with the poor and needy. He showed kindness by healing the leper (Mark 1:40-42) and forgiving the adulterous woman (John 8:1-11).

The call to kindness is active and intentional. Colossians 3:12 instructs Christians, as God’s chosen ones, to “put on… kindness,” suggesting a deliberate choice to clothe ourselves in compassionate actions. This is seen with the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), where kindness transcends cultural and social barriers, demonstrating love through sacrificial care. Kindness is not passive; it requires courage to act justly and love mercy (Micah 6:8), even when inconvenient or costly.

In a world marked by division, kindness becomes a powerful tool for the spreading of the gospel. Romans 2:4 says that God’s kindness leads to repentance, suggesting that our acts of kindness can draw others to Christ. A kind word, a generous deed, or a forgiving spirit can soften hearts and reflect God’s love. 

Kindness is a daily calling to mirror Christ’s compassion. It challenges us to extend grace to the undeserving, forgive the offender, and serve the overlooked. As we practice kindness, we participate in God’s redemptive work, softening hearts to His love. 

Let’s live kindly, reflecting the Savior’s heart in every interaction.

The Lamb, Not the Seductress: Reexamining Bathsheba’s Story

So, did David not know who she was? It’s difficult to believe that a woman connected to three men in David’s inner circle was a stranger to him. More likely, the evening light and David’s rooftop vantage point allowed him to see her form but not recognize her.

Brent Pollard

July 15, 2025, seemed like an ordinary day, but it became extraordinary when a CEO was caught canoodling with a fellow employee on the kiss cam during a Coldplay concert. The intimate moment quickly went viral, especially since the CEO was married. Many likely felt schadenfreude over the fall of a wealthy individual worth between $20 and $70 million. This contemporary scandal provides a lens through which to examine how we often misread similar biblical narratives. Frankly, I believe it is best to heed the words of Paul: while we expose evil deeds, we do not speak in detail about what is done in secret (Ephesians 5.11–12). Still, I needed to establish this cultural backdrop for this article.

One of those quick to offer a take on the July 15 incident was the satirical site The Babylon Bee. I typically enjoy their brand of humor, but this time they missed the mark. They likened the scandal to the biblical account of David and Bathsheba. If Bathsheba truly were the gold-digging seductress some portray her as, then the comparison might be justified. But she wasn’t. Bathsheba was a victim of a powerful man’s abuse, which makes The Bee’s joke not only flat but also deeply inappropriate.

This article will build a case, as if in a court of law, defending Bathsheba against unjust accusations. I will argue that she was a victim of rape and that her husband was murdered to conceal the crime. The evidence is found in 2 Samuel 11.

First, the text reveals David’s negligence and sets the stage for what follows. Verse one sets the tone: it was the season when kings customarily led their troops into battle. But David stayed home. He was not where he was supposed to be. Then in verse two, we find that David is getting out of bed in the evening. The text doesn’t say why, but the timing is odd. I can’t help but think of the words attributed to David’s son: “How long will you lie down, O sluggard? When will you arise from your sleep?” (Proverbs 6.9). It reminds us of the adage that idle hands are the devil’s workshop. This context of David’s negligence becomes crucial when we examine what happens next. Had David been at the front, none of what follows may have occurred.

As David walks on his rooftop, he sees a woman bathing. The text tells us she was very beautiful (2 Samuel 11.2). Unlike Job, who made a covenant with his eyes not to gaze lustfully (Job 31.1), David does not look away. Instead, he inquires about her (v. 3). The answer he receives is revealing: this is Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, and the wife of Uriah the Hittite. Bathsheba has three direct relational ties to David. Uriah and Eliam were part of David’s elite band of mighty men (2 Samuel 23.34, 39). Additionally, Eliam was the son of Ahithophel, one of David’s counselors (2 Samuel 15.12).

So, did David not know who she was? It’s difficult to believe that a woman connected to three men in David’s inner circle was a stranger to him. More likely, the evening light and David’s rooftop vantage point allowed him to see her form but not recognize her. This is important: Bathsheba was not bathing at a time or place where she should have expected to be seen.

Second, examining Bathsheba’s actions shows she was following the Law, not acting seductively. There is debate about why Bathsheba was bathing. Some translations imply she was purifying herself from her monthly period; others suggest she was washing after intercourse with David. But here’s the key: if she were washing after sex, then both she and David would have had to bathe according to Leviticus 15.18. Yet the text only describes Bathsheba bathing.

More importantly, verse four tells us she was purifying herself from her impurity. The Hebrew word tum’ah refers to ritual uncleanness, and in Leviticus 15.19–30, this term is explicitly used for menstrual impurity. The law outlines a process of purification following menstruation, including waiting seven days and bathing before being considered clean. So the context supports that Bathsheba was obeying the Law of Moses, not reacting to a sinful encounter.

Furthermore, we are not told where Bathsheba was bathing. Was it on a rooftop, as depicted in art? We don’t know. The only specified location is David’s. He was on a rooftop with a clear, elevated view. Suggesting that Bathsheba was being immodest or trying to attract attention assumes she knew David was not at war, knew he was home, and knew he would be waking up and wandering onto the roof at that very moment—all highly improbable. The seduction theory collapses under its weight.

When we scrutinize the text, it becomes clear that Bathsheba was where she was supposed to be, doing what the Law required. David was not. He was idle, indulgent, and willfully blind. What followed was not an affair. It was an act of power and violation. We must stop blaming Bathsheba for being seen and instead call David’s sin what it truly was. I know we are uncomfortable calling David a rapist, but we don’t seem to have a problem with acknowledging his premeditated murder of Uriah.

Finally, the prophet Nathan’s parable confirms this interpretation and validates Bathsheba’s innocence. Of course, David later repented (Psalm 51), and Scripture still calls him a man after God’s own heart (1 Samuel 13.14). But his heart was not aligned with God in 2 Samuel 11. The prophet Nathan’s parable does not depict Bathsheba as a co-conspirator. She is the poor man’s beloved lamb, taken and slaughtered by one who had many (2 Samuel 12.1–4). The lamb does not seduce the butcher.

Justice for Bathsheba does not mean denying David’s restoration. It simply means telling the truth: she was not the temptress. She was the victim.

Part 1: Moral Clarity in an Age of Antiheroes

To accurately understand Isaiah 5.20 against the backdrop of modern moral ambiguity, it is crucial to comprehend its original historical and literary context…

Brent Pollard

Text: “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” — Isaiah 5.20

Expository Background: The Context of Isaiah 5.20

To accurately understand Isaiah 5.20 against the backdrop of modern moral ambiguity, it is crucial to comprehend its original historical and literary context. The prophet Isaiah shared his prophecies during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, a timeframe of around 740–686 BC. Concurrently, the kingdom of Judah experienced both material prosperity and a concerning spiritual decline.

The Literary Structure of Isaiah 5

Isaiah 5 opens with the famous “Song of the Vineyard” (vv. 1–7), in which God compares Israel to a carefully tended vineyard that produced sour grapes instead of the anticipated good fruit. The vineyard represents the chosen community, whereas the wild grapes symbolize their moral decline, despite being bestowed with plentiful spiritual blessings.

Following this parable, Isaiah announces six “woes” (vv. 8–23) that clearly illustrate how Israel has produced these “wild grapes.” Each lament tackles a particular transgression that had become prevalent in Judean society:

  1. An insatiable craving for acquiring land and possessions (vv. 8–10)
  2. A state of intoxication coupled with a lack of spiritual enthusiasm (vv. 11–17)
  3. Intentional misconduct and ridicule of the sacred (vv. 18–19)
  4. Labeling what is evil as good and vice versa (v. 20)
  5. Excessive pride and unwarranted confidence (v. 21)
  6. Corrupt authority and injustice (vv. 22–23)

The Specific Context of Verse 20

The fourth woe (verse 20) is essential in this list, underscoring its significance. The Hebrew phrasing employs four parallel clauses that form a chiastic, or mirrored, structure:

  • A: “those who call evil good”
  • B: “and good evil”
  • B’: “who substitute darkness for light”
  • A’: “and light for darkness”

This literary device underscores the significant shift in moral standards that occurred in Judean society. The messenger does not reflect accidental ethical ambiguity but rather an intentional and systematic inversion of the divine order established by the Creator.

Historical Circumstances

Archaeological evidence and scriptural records suggest that the land of Judah faced significant social unrest in the eighth century. While wealth increased and an elite class emerged, many people suffered from poverty and oppression. The political alliances of that era required concessions to the customs and beliefs of non-believing nations.

Crucially, in Judea, society developed complex justifications for actions that clearly violated divine laws. The wealthy justified their mistreatment of the poor as vital for economic growth. Religious leaders conformed to local customs to maintain political ties. Social elites altered moral standards to fit their personal goals.

Isaiah 5:20 specifically highlights the changing perspectives on morality within both intellectual and cultural contexts. The Hebrew verb amar, meaning “call,” suggests more than just a personal viewpoint; it denotes an authoritative pronouncement—key individuals were reshaping society’s moral discourse.

Theological Principles for Application

Several hermeneutical principles enable the legitimate application of Isaiah 5:20 to modern contexts:

  1. Divine moral standards are universal: The distinctions upheld by Isaiah testify to God’s immutable nature. What God deems wicked in one age remains wicked throughout all ages.
  2. Patterns of Betrayal in the Covenant: Though we do not belong to ethnic Israel, the New Testament recognizes the church as Israel’s spiritual counterpart (Galatians 6:16; 1 Peter 2:9).
  3. The Influence of Culture on Moral Understanding: Isaiah’s message targets the broader evolution of societal ethical standards, making his warnings perpetually relevant.
  4. The Weight of Leadership Endures: Isaiah’s woes address influential figures who shaped public values. Today, spiritual leaders bear a similar responsibility.

Serving Two Masters:

The ancient Samaritans believed they could negotiate with God, showing just enough reverence to escape calamity while holding tightly to their beloved idols. They did not understand that the God of Israel stands alone, not as one among many, but as the true God who rightfully demands and deserves our entire devotion.

Brent Pollard

Idolatry and the Call for Undivided Faith

The passage from 2 Kings 17.33 presents a profound reality: “They feared the Lord, yet served their own gods…” (NKJV). This ancient narrative of the people resettled in Samaria following the Assyrian captivity serves as a profound and disquieting reminder of the dangers posed by a divided heart and the subtle syncretism that can infiltrate our worship.

Following the fall of the Northern Kingdom of Israel to the Assyrian Empire in 722 BC, the Assyrians deported most Israelites. They filled Samaria with people from distant lands, including Babylon, Cuthah, and Hamath. These new inhabitants ushered in a diverse tapestry of deities and sacred traditions. When adversity, particularly lion attacks, beset them in their new territory, they ascribed it to their lack of understanding of “the god of the land.” The Assyrians dispatched a priest from Israel to instruct them in the ways of the Lord. Yet, what unfolded was not a genuine transformation of the heart but a calculated amalgamation of beliefs—a superficial acknowledgment of Yahweh that coexisted with their enduring devotion to idols. Their reverence for the Lord stemmed from a dread of punishment rather than from a place of love or genuine repentance. They desired a taste of God’s presence to feel secure, avoiding the profound commitment of total surrender.

The intertwining of genuine worship with pagan customs led to a weakened faith, a spiritual compromise where each nation erected shrines and idols alongside the reverence of Israel’s God. They paid lip service to Yahweh, yet their hearts and deeds clung to their former paths and idols. This blending of beliefs, this endeavor to serve two masters, endured through the ages, forging a spiritual legacy that, even in the time of Jesus, identified the Samaritans as possessing a distorted form of worship.

The peril emphasized in 2 Kings 17.33 transcends the boundaries of ancient history. We, too, encounter the subtle and dangerous allure of a divided heart. Though few in our time may kneel before stone figures, countless individuals unwittingly offer their allegiance to contemporary “deities” that compete for their hearts in a manner that rivals the worship of the Creator. These may reveal themselves as: 

  • The god of material prosperity: pursuing riches and material goods as the highest aspirations rather than viewing them as instruments for serving others.
  • The god of self-determination: elevating personal desires and ambitions above the clear guidance of God’s revealed will.
  • The god of cultural accommodation: compromising the unchanging truth of Scripture to align with society’s ever-changing standards.
  • The god of religious formalism: engaging in external expressions of faith while lacking genuine heart change and obedience to God’s Word.

It is all too easy to offer mere words of devotion to God while allowing other priorities to steer our daily lives and choices, much like the settlers in Samaria did. We may gather for worship and declare our faith, yet still hold tightly to the values of this world in our relationships, ethics, and allocation of time and resources. This “pious worldliness” reflects a contemporary manifestation of revering the Lord while simultaneously bowing to our idols.

With clarity and conviction, the Word of God calls us to pursue an undivided heart and offer our exclusive devotion to Him alone. From the Ten Commandments, “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20.3 NASB95), to Jesus’ bold proclamation, “No one can serve two masters… You cannot serve God and mammon” (Matthew 6.24 NKJV), the message resonates profoundly. The Lord calls us to surrender our hearts, souls, and strength (Deuteronomy 6.5; Luke 10.27).

Our Lord Jesus directly addressed this matter, declaring to the Samaritan woman that genuine worshipers will worship the Father “in spirit and truth” (John 4.23-24). This truth transcends mere external rituals or compliance driven by fear; it is a deep reverence that transforms our hearts and guides us toward righteous living. The call made by Joshua echoes throughout history: “Choose for yourselves today whom you will serve…but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Joshua 24.15 NASB95).

To steer clear of the missteps of the Samaritans, we must diligently nurture a faith that is genuine, obedient, and wholly devoted:

  1. Honest Self-Examination: We must continually ask ourselves, “What other ‘gods’ vie for our devotion?” Are there unseen idols—whether our careers, comforts, relationships or even our own opinions—that overshadow God’s supremacy?
  2. Immerse yourself in Scripture: Engaging deeply and consistently with the Word of God illuminates His expectations and safeguards against the encroachment of worldly influences into our faith.
  3. Consistent Obedience: Genuine worship is revealed not merely in our Sunday gatherings but in our daily expressions of faithfulness and submission to the will of our Heavenly Father. James instructs us to be “doers of the word, and not hearers only” (James 1.22 NKJV).
  4. Reject Man-Made Substitutes: We must anchor our faith in the truth of God’s revealed Word rather than relying on human traditions or our perceptions of what is right.

The ancient Samaritans believed they could negotiate with God, showing just enough reverence to escape calamity while holding tightly to their beloved idols. They did not understand that the God of Israel stands alone, not as one among many, but as the true God who rightfully demands and deserves our entire devotion. Let us embrace this significant truth, reflecting on our lives and committing each day to serve the Lord with sincerity and authenticity. He alone deserves our complete and unwavering devotion.

How Do You Make An Ahab?

Neal Pollard

Perhaps two kings most epitomize how bad the northern kingdom (Israel) was. The first symbol of their spiritual rottenness was Jeroboam. His legacy lives at the end of each successive king’s biography. Their epitaph all point back to him: “For he walked in all the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat and in his sins which he made Israel sin, provoking the Lord God of Israel with their idols” (26). His influence stained all the rest of them. The second symbol was Ahab, who we are introduced to in 1 Kings 16. His life is summed up starting in verse 30: “Ahab the son of Omri did evil in the sight of the Lord more than all who were before him.” The writer then goes on to elaborate with details before summarizing, saying, “Thus Ahab did more to provoke the Lord God of Israel than all the kings of Israel who were before him” (33). 

What makes for a man like this, able to stand out in an already wicked environment? 

HAVE A CULTURE OF VIOLENCE AND DIVISION. The entire nation divided in Rehoboam’s reign, and the root cause was sin (ch. 11). Now, for the second time, a dynasty is supplanted by murder and overthrow. This time, not only is Zimri killed, but there’s a division between two factions–Tibni and Omri. Omri prevails and Tibni dies. How old was Ahab as all this took place? The Bible does not say. But, the victories of his father were surely retold as he established himself on the throne.

LIVE IN A HOME WHERE SIN IS SERVED. Ahab’s father held the ignominious distinction of doing evil in God’s sight, one who “acted more wickedly than all who were before him” (25). He learned from the “best” at being the “worst.” No wonder Ahab went even further and lower. He was mighty. He built the city, Samaria, which became the capital of Israel. But God’s focus was on his disobedience and idolatry. That was the cradle where young Ahab was nurtured. 

MARRY FOOLISHLY. The writer makes a statement to the effect of, “And if that wasn’t enough…” He says, “It came about, as though it had been a trivial thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, that he married Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians…” (31). Even modern, secular people know the name “Jezebel,” synonymous with being wicked and ruinous. She was as toxic an influence as the equally infamous woman who was Samson’s foil: Delilah. Through her influence, Ahab descends more deeply into deviance and deplorability (cf. 21:25). 

Isn’t it remarkable how the more things change, the more they stay the same? What three factors do more to shape our direction and influence our eternity than our culture, upbringing, and marriage? All of these can be overcome, but usually they aren’t. Under Christ, the church and evangelism are the divine countermeasures. God’s Word is the guide that can lead us from such darkness into heavenly light. They can lead to a turnaround. We cannot choose the behavior of the culture or the home environment we are raised in. But we can change the future, if we know better and do better. Sadly, Ahab would succumb to all three influences, and others paid the price. 

An interesting postscript is found here. During Ahab’s reign, a man named Hiel rebuilt Jericho. When Joshua and the people conquered and destroyed the city, he man an oath cursing any man who attempted to rebuild it. He warned that anyone who did so would pay with the life of their oldest and youngest sons (Josh. 6:26). Hiel’s ignorance of Scripture cost him dearly (34). Maybe this is more than a historical aside and footnote. What does this story have in common with the larger downfall of Ahab, Omri, and their predecessors? Their moral and spiritual failure was due to ignoring God’s Word. As a prophet would soon say, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being My priest. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children” (Hos. 4:6). 

Spiritual?

Gary Pollard

The word “spiritual” and the concept of “spirit” is something I’ve been trying to understand for well over a decade now. I wish it was possible to say, “I now understand it,” but that would be grossly inaccurate. But with the complexity of reality, with the multidimensional nature of scripture (and Christianity in general), with its relationship to the material universe, and with the daily march of life, I was not satisfied with what seems to be the general understanding of “spiritual”. Many seem to believe (because this is how it’s taught) that “spiritual” means “otherworldly” or “preternatural” — ie., not physical, tangible, or substantive, but inaccessibly transcendent, ghostly, incompatible with this universe. It brings to mind an essentially alternate reality of spirit beings in a dimension totally foreign to our own. 

This is not a “salvation issue” or anything so serious as that. However, I don’t believe the Bible explicitly communicates the idea of “spiritual” in the way that we might understand it. This article is me thinking out loud, so please keep that in mind if you continue to read. 

The simplest definition of “spiritual” or “spirit” that I could think of is this: the sum of its parts. There are billions of people on earth, most of them far more intelligent than I could ever dream of being, so there’s a good chance someone else has already outlined this far better than I’ll be able to. 

What does this definition mean? In the following example, the object under consideration is a forest with materials of interest to many different disciplines: 

  1. The trees are examined by various scientific professionals and their findings recorded. 
  2. The soil is examined by its respective professionals, their findings recorded. 
  3. Fossils and the remains of other forms of life are studied, findings recorded. 
  4. Archaic buildings (if present) are studied, the findings recorded. 

All of these disciplines, studying the same problem, offer “up” a piece of the puzzle. A writer will eventually attempt to construct a tangible puzzle from each of those pieces, presenting to the world a tentative picture of what happened, or what the significance was, or what may happen in the future, etc. Other writers may attempt the same thing, but the result will usually be some kind of contribution to narrative. Narratives become/define culture. Culture has zeitgeist. Zeitgeist is the spirit of the times. 

Jesus “upholds the universe with the word of his power” (Hb 1.3).  

What does that mean for earth? He promotes or suppresses narratives to enact his will. He sets up governments and dismantles them. He creates the boundaries of each nation, and manages their constant evolution. He is the King of kings and Lord of lords. 

What does that mean for our local system? He ensures the continued, fixed rotation of earth, allowing us to see evidence of this stability through precession and many other processes. He keeps the planets in a predictable, steady orbit around the sun. He manages the cosmic objects we swim through in our rotation. He keeps everything just as it needs to be, and ensures that all things stay consistent. He is the creator and sustainer. 

Thinking about spiritual things means taking the highest altitude “view” with the most appropriate “resolution” for each aspect of reality. The most important command is “love the lord your God with all your heart” — that is the spirit behind everything we do. The second is like the first, “love your fellow man the same way you love yourself.” That should drive all of our decisions, imperfect as we are. 

So, “spiritual” seems to be something like “the sum of its parts” and “the highest altitude view with the most appropriate resolution for each entity’s purpose.” It is the summary of many smaller causes. It is the result of conscious input. It is the picture of a completed puzzle, rather than its individual pieces. It is our hope for immortality, sometimes dampened by our obsession with material things. It is the mind’s desire to be like Jesus, in opposition to our body’s desire to satiate physical desires. It is the complete working of God, through Jesus, in infinite specific forms. It is the system, not the cells, though composed of cells. It is really, really difficult to define in one article, or understand in one lifetime. 

Be Better This Year

Carl Pollard

Each Year towns and cities all over the country participate in New Year’s Eve parties and parades. One in particular is called the Tournament of Roses parade. Several years ago one of the floats that had entered in sputtered and died right in the middle of the parade. Turns out it was out of gas. The whole parade was held up until someone ran to get a can of gas. The amusing thing was this float belonged to the “Standard Oil Company.”

Despite its vast resources the float still ran out of gas. Even though Christians have access to almighty God, if we don’t dedicate our lives to Him, we will run out of Power. 

It doesn’t matter who you know, it matters what you do. Someone once observed that a wasted life is really nothing more than a collection of wasted days. As God gives us life, each one of us starts the new year with the same number of opportunities—365—that we can choose to either use and invest in eternal things or allow to drift by without taking advantage of the gift we have been given. 

The difference between those who succeed and those who fail is not found primarily in talent but in diligence and effort. And so the question we should constantly be asking ourselves is, “what are we doing with this new year?” Biblical Christianity requires growth. If who you are now (January 11th) is the same as you were last January, something must change!

God expects us to grow, and if we aren’t growing we have become complacent. So what will we do with this new year? We have the resources, we have the opportunities, so what’s stopping us? 

I believe what happens to many of us is we don’t know where to start. We want to be better so we make a plan to read the Bible through in a year. Then we hit Leviticus and it goes out the window. We resolve to pray more and our lives get so busy we forget. We have got to better ourselves since we know it must be a priority, but what are some ways we can be better in 2024? 

I’m glad you asked! Here are 6 ways to be better in 2024 from Philippians 4:1-9. Chapter four is where Paul brings everything to a point. Every example, every command, every prayer and request has been said in anticipation of this chapter. Paul desires nothing more than unity for this church at Philippi. He used Timothy, Epaphroditus, Christ, and himself as examples of humility and service because that is what it takes to be united as a body. 

Paul gives us ways we can be better as individuals and as a church family: 

  1. Stand firm (1)
  2. Work Together (2-3)
  3. Be Joyful (4)
  4. Learn To Be Gentle (5)
  5. Pray More (6-7)
  6. Control Your Thoughts (8-9)

Make this new year a time of growth as a Christian. Let’s be better!

Women’s Role Isn’t The Issue

Neal Pollard

Anecdotal and emotional appeals are made. Expressions of dissatisfaction with how things are “done in churches of Christ” and anxious concerns that we are in the minority seem to ignore something much more significant. What does the Bible say?

A preacher recently wrote, “I wonder how many of our members are as dumbfounded as many of our ministers about our current practices with women in our churches, but have allowed fear and caution to keep them silent as our practices remain the same. Is it groupthink? Do we have well thought out theologies supporting our current practices? Do most of us realize the oddity of our male dominated services in 21st century society? Perhaps there are more who want to ask these questions than we sometimes imagine.”

In an age when women have been allowed by society to ascend all the way to the top of the corporate ladder, assuming the heads of companies, the fields of medicine, science, politics, and education, it may seem odd to some that she does not lead singing, lead prayers, “preside” over or serve the Lord’s Supper, preach, or serve as an elder or deacon in mainstream churches of Christ. Is this a civil rights issue? Is it a cultural issue? Exactly what is the issue?

The reason that those certain preachers feel “there comes a time that silence must give way to words and actions” seems bigger than a single issue. The reason has to do with a basic approach to the Bible and an attitude toward what it is and how it serves today. If the issue was simply what the Bible has to say, the issue would be an open and shut case. In 1 Timothy 3:15, Paul tells Timothy he is writing that letter “so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.” This follows a “household of God” matter already mentioned by Paul in 1 Timothy 2:8- 15. Amid a discussion of women’s role, Paul says, “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet” (11-12). The reason he gives is not tied to first century culture. As Timothy was the preacher at Ephesus and was half-Greek himself, Paul did not appeal to ethnicity. He goes back to the creation, a different time, place, and ethnicity. Cultural practice or norm was not the issue.

Here is the issue. What is our attitude toward the Bible? Is it God-breathed, equipping man for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17)? Is the God who created each of us, our world, and the universe, with every amazing intricacy of design, smart enough and powerful enough to successfully communicate to man in written form in a way that would stand the tests of time, transmission (making copies from original documents), and translating it into different languages? Certainly, man would be incapable of this, but dare we say that God did not do this? Especially should we be careful when the Bible claims over and over again that God did communicate through inspired men.

If scripture is not reliable as the standard of religious authority and does not contain an established pattern for teaching and practice, so many other matters are up for grabs–the institution of marriage as it is, homosexuality, abortion, calling our Creator “Jehovah” rather than “Allah,” the Deity, atonement, and resurrection of Christ, and the list is truly inexhaustible. On what grounds do we reject clear teaching on women’s role in churches of Christ while accepting that there is no way to the Father but through Christ? Beware! This is bigger than a single issue. One’s attitude toward the inspiration and authority of scripture is the real, underlying issue!

Getting Authority From Tradition

Gary Pollard

In I Timothy 1.3-7, we learn more about the bad influences Timothy had to confront. Verse four suggests a group of people who couldn’t let their traditions go. They tried to establish their authority by listing their prominent ancestors, proving their superior pedigree. This was a common practice among Jewish religious teachers then and today. 

While we don’t see this in our western culture to that degree, we do still see it occasionally. In defending certain man-made traditions, we might point to someone in our family history who was highly regarded by the church, and who either prohibited or encouraged certain things. 

The most common defense we might encounter when dealing with these traditions is “my dad always said” or “my grandpa always taught that it was wrong to…” In most cases, that relative was a founding or prominent member of their church in the past. Many of us grew up in a family unit and have based our beliefs on the things our parents or other relatives taught us. 

This isn’t always a bad thing — Timothy was taught by his mother and grandmother. But that wasn’t where it ended for him; he also had apostolic teaching. Today we have the New Testament. As wonderful as our families may be, there is no substitute for an honest, unbiased study of scripture. If we rely solely on what our families or respected members teach us, we open ourselves up to serious blindspots and vulnerabilities. 

Three Traps For The Teacher

Monday’s Column: Neal At The Cross

Paul’s days as a free man are behind him, and he is awaiting execution (2 Tim. 4:6-8). Yet, his pen has not been silenced and he spends his last days encouraging a young preacher he has mentored and trained. He repeatedly calls Timothy “my son” (2 Tim. 1:2; 2:1; Phil. 2:22; 1 Tim. 1:2; 1:18). Especially in this, the last of his letters, Paul seems to reveal a sense of urgency in revealing practical wisdom to help his young protege to productively serve Christ Jesus (2:1,3,8,10). He likens the work to soldiering (2:3-4), competing as an athlete (2:5), and farming (2:6). He points to how God renders aid and assistance to His faithful proclaimers (2:7-13). 

Faithful proclamation of the truth is also something that is proven by taking the proper approach to the task. Paul is concerned about unfaithful men being entrusted with the stewardship of teaching others (cf. 2:2,14-26). Timothy is told to remind them and solemnly charge them “not to” do certain things (14) and to “avoid” (16) and “refuse” (23) certain traps that they could potentially fall into as teachers. 

It seems that as we consider the visceral, virulent tack taken by voices of influence within our culture to any number of matters–politics, race, morality, religion, education, etc.–the church, tragically, has at times emulated that tack in our dealings with one another. Whereas Paul described it more as “biting and devouring” when addressing the churches of Galatia (5:13), he is extremely concerned that such a spirit has caught hold with some in Timothy’s circle of influence. Therefore, he warns the young preacher against three traps that those tasked with preaching and teaching the gospel fall into. They are still potent and existent today.

TRAP ONE: WRANGLING ABOUT WORDS (2 Tim. 2: 14)

Paul had warned Timothy about this trap in his first letter to him. He writes in 1 Timothy 6:4 about those advocating a different doctrine, including having “a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words….” (NAS, emph., NP). The inspired Paul does more than diagnose the problem. He addresses root causes like conceit, ignorance, envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction (4-5). He diagnoses the condition of such teachers, calling them “men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth” (5). To these, religion is simply a way to make money (5). 

Now, in this second epistle, Paul warns of additional harm done by such wrangling about words (14). It does not serve a good, edifying purpose and it actually tears down. It’s useless and ruinous. 

How might we fall into that trap in the 21st Century and in the current climate? Social media is a major culprit, where people–often laboring under the guise of defense or promotion of the gospel–mercilessly criticize what others post. What motivates such contrariness? According to Paul, it could things like conceit, ignorance, envy, etc. 

Teachers and preachers might have or develop a reputation for being a gunslinger, ready to fight and argue about anything big or small. Watch or listen to their sermons and classes, and you can be fairly certain that this kind of wrangling will happen. No doubt, the gospel is adequately provocative and offensive to the sensitivities of the heart-hearted or ungodly, but God’s Word doesn’t need “help” from us through crude, sarcastic, mean-spirited attitudes and vocabulary. If we offend, let it be God’s Word presented in love rather than our vicious, sharp-tongued barbs.

TRAP TWO: WORLDLY AND EMPTY CHATTER (2 Tim. 2:16)

Again, this is a theme in Paul’s writing to Timothy. He actually warns against the profane or worldly three times in the first epistle. The law is for the “profane” (1:9; same word). He is told to have nothing to do with “worldly” fables fit only for old women (4:7; same word). Then, Paul closes warning him to avoid “worldly” and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called knowledge (6:20; same word). To define what Paul means, just look at the results. Such teaching leads to further ungodliness, spreads like cancer, and upsets the faith of some (16-18). It included claims and teaching that was outright false, in this case asserting that the resurrection had already occurred.

It can be hard to resist worldly and empty chatter in a world full of it. Our culture can get fascinated with vacuous, fruitless things from the latest trends, ideas, and causes célèbres. We consume all our time and energy on matters that ultimately will not matter. We need to examine what we teach and preach. Does it lead the worldly further down that road? Does it undermine their faith in God and His will? Whether we do that through being a devil’s advocate or encouraging wickedness (19), we do it at our own peril in addition to the peril of those who listen and follow us.

TRAP THREE: FOOLISH AND IGNORANT SPECULATIONS (2 Tim. 2:23)

These may be connected to the youthful lusts Paul has just mentioned (22) or the quarrelsomeness he is about to warn Timothy about (24). “Speculations,” depending on context, can refer to the noble act of searching for information and investigating (Acts 15:2,7; 25:20). But, almost entirely in the New Testament, it refers to matters for dispute or engagement in a controversial discussion (Arndt, et all, 429). It involves a clash of opinions (Kittel 300). 

With the call for faith in matters of doctrine sufficiently divisive, what a tragedy when people of influence in the Bible leverage that authority by dividing brethren over what, when boiled down, is nothing more than opinion, speculation, and conjecture. Romans 14 makes clear that not everything is a matter of faith. Christian living necessarily involves judgment calls, and we fall into a trap to confuse either for the other. While a world is dying lost without hope, can we afford to devolve into debates over things that do not, of themselves, affect the salvation, the work, the worship, or the nature of the church? 

The beautiful thing about Paul’s sobering words is that for each trap, there is an escape. More than an escape, it is a healthy, fruitful alternative. What is the escape for “wrangling about words”? A diligent, hard-working handling of the word of truth (15). What is the antidote for “worldly and empty chatter”? The firm foundation of God (20) and the proper preparation of self for every good work (19-21). What is the alternative to “foolish and ignorant speculations”? Labor as the Lord’s bond-servant, being “kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness corrections those who are in opposition” (24-25a). 

The world is watching and we who teach, in whatever format on whatever platform, incur an especially strict judgment (Jas. 3:1). What a privilege to get to share Jesus with the lost and our brethren! As we do, let’s be aware of these teaching landmines. They are not necessary to effectively represent God; instead, they serve the opposite. Be on the lookout for how to please our neighbor for his good and edification (Rom. 15:2). 

 Sources Consulted

Arndt, William et al. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature 2000 : 429. Print.

Kittel, Gerhard, Gerhard Friedrich, and Geoffrey William Bromiley. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 1985 : 300. Print.

Neal Pollard

Achieving Moral Purity

Wednesday’s Column: Third’s Words

I Thessalonians 4.1-8 — Moral Purity Involves Self-Control

It means avoiding sexual sins. It means being honest and ethical with each other. 

4.9-11 — Moral Purity Is Built on Love

This love is for all Christians everywhere. We’re a global family; we know from the epistles that we’re actually a unique “ethnicity”. It has nothing to do with race, since our identifying characteristic is our relationship with God. It’s far more fundamental than just culture or genetics. We’re supposed to grow our love all the time. This proves that we’re never going to arrive or perfect our love. This is why we have to always work on it. We’ll never reach God’s level, but that shouldn’t keep us from trying. 

4.11-12 — Moral Purity Means Living Peacefully

This means we don’t cause trouble. When the world thinks of peaceful people who don’t cause trouble, who do they think of? Usually Buddhists. This shouldn’t be the case. I can say from experience that Buddhists aren’t all peaceful (try converting to Christianity in lower Cambodia). But most of them keep to themselves and we never really hear anything about them — except that they have a reputation for being peaceful and living quiet lives. Satan has done a fantastic job (historically) of gaining followers who claim to be Christian, only to do horrible things like the Salem Witch Trials or condoning slavery or loudly protesting every sinful thing that happens in our sinful world. 

God expects us to stand up for morality, but he also expects us to live quiet, peaceful, unassuming lives. When people think of Christians, they should picture a low-key group of people who do good things for others and live quiet lives. This is extremely appealing to our culture, which is drowning in existential crisis and self-indulgence. They’re desperate for purpose and meaning. If we follow the commands of I Thessalonians 4.11-12 and I Timothy 2, our example alone could very well lead those people to God. 

This means we mind our own business. This means we don’t place unnecessary burdens on other people. Non-believers will at least respect our lifestyle, even if they don’t agree with it. 

4.13-18 — We Have a Reason for Pursuing Moral Purity

We have hope because Jesus came back to life, proving that death is only the beginning. Jesus will personally come back for his family and we’ll be with him forever. 

5.1-11 — We Have to Keep Living Pure Lives if We Want to Leave with Him

The world isn’t looking for the end, so it’ll catch them off guard. Luke 21.25 says everyone will panic when Jesus returns because they won’t have a clue what’s going on. The reminder to Christians in that passage is that we should look up and be strong because our rescuer is coming. We may not know the exact day, but when it happens we’ll know what’s really going on. We should always watch for his return because our hope of escaping earth’s fate is what keeps us going. 

Gary Pollard

WHY STAY MARRIED?

Monday’s Column: Neal At The Cross

Neal Pollard

Caitlin Flanagan wrote an article in TIME magazine entitled, “Why Marriage Matters.”  She begins by saying, “Buffeted by affairs and ennui, the intact, two-parent family is under assault. What America needs to get over its commitment issues. (Hint: it isn’t love)” (7/13/09, p. 45).  What was so fascinating about the article was that, whether sociologists, feminists, domestic policy-makers, or other experts, they all came to the groundbreaking conclusion that children are healthier, more successful, and more productive who come from intact, two-parent homes.  Flanagan kept returning to that conclusion, even as high profile cases of infidelity were offered to show how the guilty were selfishly putting their own ideals and needs about what their families truly needed.

While I believe that it is possible for a marriage to grow more romantic, satisfying, and enjoyable each and every day of one’s married life, such is a tangible benefit of the hard work and effort invested in marriage.  It is neither automatic nor an entitlement.  It is not to be “persevered” or patronized only so long as I am having a good time, get my way, or reap the “rewards” of it as I, subjectively, decide I should.  No doubt, God created marriage to provide companionship and suitable help (Gen. 2:18ff) and a legitimate sexual outlet (1 Cor. 7:1ff).  It is enriching and even thrilling to look back over years of partnership and see in one’s spouse the depth of intimacy built by shared time and experience.  God certainly depicts a loving, close relationship in marriage as the ideal toward which to be striven (Song of Solomon, Eph. 5:22-33; 1 Pet. 3:1-7).  However, first and last, marriage is a lifelong commitment, an ongoing fulfillment of a vow made to and before God Himself, and a relationship that can be severed with God’s approval only under extreme circumstances.

Flanagan had so much good to say about marital partners considering how vital their staying married means to raising well-adjusted, optimally-functioning children.  She hits the nail on the head regarding the deep-seated, lasting negative effects of divorce upon families and, ultimately, society.  Yet, while it may only be a matter of semantics, I disagree with her premise.  Staying married is about love.  It is about knowing how to love, God’s way, and intentionally, intensely, and indefinitely, nurturing and growing that love in the marriage.  Love involves duty, but it is so much more than that.  It is an act of the will more than a flutter of the heart. Yet, its payoff for marriage gives a man and a woman a lifelong glimmer of light that burns brighter even as the lights of our own lives gradually dim.  Let us love our spouses with biblical love and watch the seismic effects for good upon the home, the church, and the culture!

The Old Paths

Wednesday’s Column: Third’s Words

Gary Pollard

In almost every major war preceding World War I, men met face-to-face on the battlefield. The weapons used by soldiers had not changed much in thousands of years, so engagement distances were limited to 100 or so meters at most. By World War I, the bolt-action rifle had been perfected, machine guns were everywhere, some artillery pieces had a range of 80 miles, people fought in the skies for the first time, and some soldiers even had portable machine guns.

Commanding officers didn’t care, though. Soldiers always charged into battle; that was a thing. This was how they had fought for thousands of years, so why change now? They threw soldiers’ lives away over and over again, each charge being erased by the enormous volume of bullets. Why hadn’t they changed tactics after the first couple of failed charges? 9.7 million soldiers died in World War I (https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/reperes112018.pdf). A hefty percentage of them would have survived if the commanding officers had just changed tactics.

Christianity is warfare (Eph 6.12; II Cor 10.3-6; II Tim 2.3ff). We fight our own nature, the influence of evil, and the involvement of the enemy (satan). Christianity is also a rescue operation – we’re trying to save people! Just as with any war, the enemy is always trying to stay one step ahead. Ours is the most advanced threat anyone could face! No stakes are higher, no enemy more powerful, and he’s primarily concerned with causing as much damage as possible. He knows he’s doomed (cf Matt 8.29), which makes him an enemy with nothing to lose. We KNOW he’s used evolving tactics over the millennia.

The message Jesus gave us is timeless and can never be changed. The way Jesus wants his church to operate is timeless. Doctrine cannot be changed. But this gospel is not confined by an era or aesthetic. The message is relevant across time, culture, and understanding. If we confine Christianity to a form that hasn’t been in common use for a long time, do we not demonstrate a lack of faith in his timeless message? Worse yet, it would mean our rescue operation is several steps behind the enemy’s offensive.

We have the most powerful entity as our ally, but this mission is ours. What God wants to accomplish will be accomplished. Since this mission is ours, we must execute it as effectively as possible! How? The message is timeless, so it works in any culture and time. Match it to our culture and time in every way that doesn’t compromise (I Cor 9.19-23), and let God’s power do the rest.

“Our fight is not against people on earth. We are fighting powers of darkness. We are fighting against the spiritual powers of evil in the heavenly places” (Eph 6.12).

via National WWI Museum and Memorial.

“Weak, Foolish, And Afraid” 

Monday’s Column: Neal At The Cross

pollard

Neal Pollard

It’s hard to miss the unique tone of 2 Corinthians, a letter full of self-disclosure  and self-defense and written in such an intimate way. Paul’s apostleship has been questioned and his extensive work with the Corinthians undermined. But, he was willing to “spend and be spent” for them (12:15). A man who has given so much for the cause of Christ chooses not to boast, but to humble himself in an effort to persuade and encourage these brethren in their spiritual progress.

WEAKNESS (12:7-10)

Due to the “surpassing greatness of the revelations” (7) Paul had received (1-6), he was given a “thorn in the flesh.” It’s useless to speculate about what this specific “thorn” was–poor eyesight, physical pain from being stoned at Lystra, some unspecified temptation, etc. Perhaps it is better for us, not knowing exactly what it was, since many of us as Christians may have to wrestle a thorn in our own flesh. It’s interesting to note how Paul describes it: “humbling” (to keep me from exalting myself), “Satanic” (a messenger of Satan), “tormenting,” “persistent” (8), “perfecting” (9), and “empowering” (10). Is there some physical, mental, emotional, or spiritual struggle in your life that you might describe in some or all of these ways? Perhaps we’re quick to identify the negative aspects, but what about the potential positives that can come out of it? It can perfect and empower us to live a better Christian life and make us content with reverses suffered “for Christ’s sake” and say, with Paul, “when I am weak, then I am strong” (10). 

FOLLY (12:11-19)

Paul returns to a theme he has touched on several times throughout the letter (5:13; 11:16-19; 12:6). He resorted to defending his motives, position, decisions, and authority against the aforementioned charges. But, Paul points out that this was more for their “upbuilding” than for his own defense (19). He’s not some insecure preacher or missionary whose feelings have been hurt by some perceived slight; he’s fighting for the hearts and souls of relatively new Christians influenced by the culture and false teachers. He wants them to understand that neither he or his co-workers, like Titus, have taken advantage of them. They have loved and served the Corinthians, willing to bear insults, condescension, and rejection in order to help them be saved. As preaching is called “foolishness” (1 Cor. 1:21), those who preach and teach it must be willing to be thought fools for Christ. 

FEAR (12:20-21)

It’s hard to find a man more courageous than Paul. What did he fear? First, he feared failure. The time and the teaching he had done would be wasted, if they were given over to “strife, jealousy, angry tempers, disputes, slanders, gossip, arrogance, disturbances” (20). Read through the two letters Paul wrote to them and notice how he addresses all these matters. Second, he feared emotional trauma (21). His mourning over their past sins would be compounded if they had not repented. Neither of these fears was irrational. Have you ever invested a lot of time, energy, and emotion into someone only to see them teetering on the ledge of apostasy and unfaithfulness? 

God wants and needs faithful Christians who care about the church. He needs us to fully invest ourselves, to “spend and be spent” for others. The great news (and Paul not only understood this; He wrote about it) is that God gives strength for our weakness, wisdom for our folly, and courage for our fear. He will help pull us out of such figurative valleys as we hold onto His capable hands. Let us do our part and devote ourselves to one another. 

Wholesome? 

 

 

In The Princess Bride, one character questions another for the latter’s repeated use of a word telling him that he did not think that word meant what the one using it thought it meant. I have run into a little bit of that myself recently with the odd usage of the word “wholesome.” I grew up when “wholesome” described something good for the body, mind, or spirit. The folks at Lexico dot-com have my back on this one: 

  1. “Conducive to or suggestive of good health and physical well-being.”

1.1        “Conducive to or characterized by moral well-being.” 1 

However, for current usage, it sometimes helps to consult a tertiary source like Urban Dictionary dot-com. Anyone can define a word, and users vote for the meanings they think are best. User, 265daysofpatandspongebob, provided the most current and popular user-contributed definition of “wholesome.” 

“An embodiment of the following: self-less, considerate, sweet, compassionate, thoughtful, generous, genuine, doesn’t talk trash about other people,”2 

Yes, I realize that the grammar is not perfect, but that is not the point. Somehow people have come to associate this adjective with the result of having been nurtured by the wholesome. For example, it would be hard to be selfless without wholesome influences. A secondary definition offered by another contributor was essentially something or someone bringing a smile to another’s face.3 Finally, there was the usage I had encountered. The fourth most popular submission asserted that something wholesome expressed love and affection, not lewdness.4 

While I can appreciate that people realize that lewdness is not a virtue, not all love and affection are “wholesome.” The forum in which I encountered this word recently was about a story of a young adult who took in a runaway teen. Sadly, the young woman previously traded her body for a place to stay and assumed her new caretaker would desire the same type of “payment.” To his credit, he told her that she had value other than just her body and deserved good treatment with no strings attached. Those who are saying that the story was wholesome, I suppose, were expressing surprise that a vehicle of popular culture was not glorifying casual relations, especially between those of about a ten-year age difference. Thus far, the relationship presented is platonic. Perceptions of the story’s “wholesomeness” among audience members may change if a romance develops between the adult and the teen, even if the former waits to pursue romantic feelings until the latter reaches what the West considers the age of majority. 

While I would prefer people to react this way because of moral instruction, I fear it stems more from the self-righteousness associated with political correctness. In other words, it has more to do with #MeToo than God said. After finally understanding how people are using “wholesome,” I thought of how I’ve previously seen the word used by other forum members in the past. The very first time I encountered this odd definition of “wholesome” was in a story with a fantasy setting. A woman befriends a female dragon. The dragon assumes a human form and lives with the woman, and takes care of her like a maid. The dragon acts smitten with the human, but the human has no romantic interest. But with the addition of other dragons who take up residence with the human, the setting assumes the form of a non-traditional family. Like the other story, I referenced, the relationship is platonic. However, the LGBTQ+ community lifted it as a positive example of the gay lifestyle. Commentators talked about how “wholesome” it was. Again, the idea was that it highlighted love and affection without lewdness. Hence, making it more acceptable to the “straights” in the audience.  

It seems religious instruction is as lacking as English education today.  If newspeak continues replacing our language, we might see other words perverted to accommodate meanings wordsmiths never intended for them. I am mindful of the warning from God as given by His prophet, Isaiah. 

“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5.20 NASB1995) 

In the interim, take the time to teach the young people in your life what is wholesome. Let them know that being wholesome requires more than the absence of lewdness, causing others to smile, or remaining selfless. To be wholesome means you surround yourself with makes you a better, more moral person. The only thing capable of doing this is Christ, the Word, and the church.    

 

Works Cited 

 

1 “WHOLESOME: Definition of WHOLESOME by Oxford Dictionary on Lexico.com Also Meaning of WHOLESOME.” Lexico Dictionaries | English, Lexico Dictionaries, www.lexico.com/definition/wholesome. 

 

2 265daysofpatandspongebob. “Wholesome.” Urban Dictionary, Urban Dictionary , 16 May 2019,www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wholesome. 

 

3 thisisforyouemily. “Wholesome.” Urban Dictionary, Urban Dictionary , 9 July 2019,www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wholesome. 

 

  1. littlejimmybig767. “Wholesome.” Urban Dictionary, Urban Dictionary , 23 February 2018,www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wholesom
Creative Commons (Flickr)

How To Win Souls Without Compromising Doctrine

Wednesday’s Column: Third’s Words

Gary III

Gary Pollard

It’s hard to have balance while times change. Some seize current social realities and use them as opportunities to push unbiblical ideas (God’s design for marriage, leadership in worship, leadership in the home, etc.). As a result, our human nature kicks in and we’re ready to swing the other way. After all, we don’t want to be associated with groups who don’t teach or practice what God wants, right? 

Balance is way more difficult to maintain than reactionary practices in either direction. Both are extremely harmful to the church! Compromising doctrine is never acceptable, but gaining a reputation for being old-fashioned or otherwise incompatible with modern culture is equally harmful. 

I Corinthians 9.19-23 is an awesome text for this. We’ll look at a few key points in this passage briefly. 

  1. It’s About Serving Other People (9.19)
  2. It’s About Winning Them (9.19)
  3. It’s About Meeting Them Where They Are (9.20-22)
  4. It’s About the Message (9.23)

We do what we do because we want to save souls. We cannot maintain a church culture based on reaction because it does not save souls. It is not a sustainable culture and has led to many viewing the church as being incompatible with the modern world. This was never God’s design! We must never compromise doctrine, but we must always try to win souls. We need to do what we can to meet folks where they are and show them something better. 

“I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some” (9.20). 

The Lifeboat Baby

Monday’s Column: Neal At The Cross

pollard

Neal Pollard

While many today have no idea who Jesse Roper Mohorovic is, he was a celebrity from the moment of his birth on March 30, 1942, off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. The United States had entered World War II only a few months before, and German U-Boats “prowled the Atlantic sea lanes, and the waters off the Virginia-Carolina coast were ‘the most dangerous on earth'” (C. Brian Kelly, Military History, 9/05, 74). In fact, the Germans killed twice as many seamen in their U-boat campaign off the east coast than died at Pearl Harbor. 

Jesse’s mother, Desanka, was 8 1/2 months pregnant, traveling on a passenger freighter that was torpedoed. She faced peril after peril, from getting out of her cabin to the harrowing escape in a lifeboat to an overnight storm. In the middle of all of it, the freighter sunk and her doctor injured in their dramatic escape, she gave birth in Lifeboat #4 to a baby boy at 2:30 A.M. Two days later, they were rescued by the Navy destroyer Jesse Roper. 

The media covered many of the early milestones of his life, and even documented his interests and favorite baseball team. He later appeared on the TV shows To Tell The Truth and I’ve Got A Secret. He earned a law degree, served in the Navy, and had a career in marketing. He died of lung cancer about two years after his 2003 retirement (via JOC.com). 

It is no wonder that “The Lifeboat Baby” would become such a sensation, especially given the real drama behind his birth. Perhaps he would have been part of anonymous tragedy if he and his mother had been among the 5000 who perished, but his birth and life became a symbol of hope and victory. Indeed, “Newspapers heralded Jesse as living proof the Allies could not be defeated” (Kelly). 

We live in increasingly grim times. Our current battle is spiritual in nature, as sin and immorality seem to have the upper hand. Souls are perishing in infinitely greater numbers (cf. Mat. 7:13-14). While we cannot save them all, we need to be in search of those we can reach with the gospel. We must muster greater courage to share the good news and help those searching reach safety. They need to know there is hope and victory possible, and that Christ will ultimately win (1 John 5:4-5; 1 Cor. 15:24-25).  These babes in Christ are unlikely to capture the attention of the media, but each of them have the rapt attention of heaven. God is counting on you and me helping to deliver them, regardless of how stormy things may be. Each individual matters to God. How wonderful that we might partner with God and His Word, and help a soul be one whose name is written in the Lamb’s Book of Life (Rev. 21:27)!

 

Photo via Naval History and Heritage Command

“Quit Yer Whinin'”

Wednesday’s Column: Third’s Words

20638721_440919206307154_5479040032968788217_n
Gary, with his wife Chelsea

Gary Pollard

I think we’ve all been in the uncomfortable position of witnessing a couple loudly arguing in public. Whether this is at a restaurant, the store, a gas station, or any other public place, it’s downright uncomfortable. Some thoughts going through our minds might be, “Where’s their self-awareness?” or, “They might need to see someone about those issues,” or, “Why here?” We definitely would not want to spend too much time with anyone whose conflict resolution abilities are so classless. Conflict in a relationship is unavoidable and, if handled properly, is vital to the health of a relationship. Poorly managed conflict, though, is sure to destroy it! 

Unfortunately, the world is seeing this more and more. Petty arguments between Christians over matters that have absolutely no bearing on our eternal destination are commonplace. Which Bible version is best? What will heaven be like? What should we wear to worship? Which college should one attend (“that college is liberal/conservative”)? Should we meet in a building or in homes? Should a Christian wear a head covering or not? Should a Christian celebrate certain holidays or not? Should a Christian carry a gun or not? Who should I vote for? 

These are topics I have seen debated in the ugliest possible ways in public forums, whether live or over social media. There is nothing wrong with disagreement handled in a godly way (Matthew 18.15-20). In fact, it can help grow the church because it often brings members closer together. However, when the argument is both non-essential to salvation and is handled unbiblically, it destroys the church. 

If I may be very blunt, this must stop. Our behavior is not only pushing the world away but generations of the church’s own members as well. When a Christian’s blocked list on social media is primarily members of his/her own spiritual family, we have reached concerning levels of dysfunction. I realize that this is not a pleasant article to read, but it is time for us to make a change. 

It is time to stop writing or sharing articles on inflammatory or controversial topics that have no bearing on our salvation. Religious keyboard warriors and trolls need to quit. People of authority and position must stop using their voice to divide and discourage the bride of Christ over non-essential matters (some examples are listed in the second paragraph). We will be held accountable for our words and influence over the body of Christ at judgment. 

When we inevitably find ourselves in disagreement with another Christian over a matter of opinion, we should either handle it privately and with patience and love, or let it go entirely (see Romans 14, I Corinthians 8, Matthew 18, Philippians 1.27, 2.1-5; 2.12, 2.14, 15; 3.17-19; 4.2). Being correct or winning an argument at the expense of peace is not worth losing our souls. This article is just as much for myself as it is for anyone reading this. It is for everyone. 

Around 156,000 people die every day (that’s about 56,000,000 people per year) and most them die outside of Christ. Our time is limited and our influence precious. Our words are among the most powerful tools and weapons ever created. Let us use them well, as they could very well influence someone’s eternal destination – or our own.