Right beliefs do not always lead to healthy cultures.

I’ve been watching the discussion about complementarianism – “new wave” and “old wave.” It’s interesting to see how new and old waves interact with each other, build on one another, correct each other, and warn each other.

As I read the comments on some of these posts, I wonder if there’s an aspect in this conversation that has been overlooked. It’s not about the specifics of complementarian viewpoints, but the kind of culture that sometimes grows up around complementarianism. It’s a culture that goes beyond the books and pamphlets that affirm godly manhood and womanhood in an age where gender distinctives are often minimized; instead, it is a culture of silent or exaggerated expectations that crush people who color outside the extra-biblical lines.

When I say the culture of complementarianism seems “crazy” at times, I mean two things, one good and one bad.

Good Crazy

First, there is a level of craziness that comes from being outside the mainstream of American life. Just quote Ephesians 5 on television today and you’ll look crazy, but this is a craziness that we should embrace.

The image of men and women, equal before God, embracing their unique roles, where men graciously lead their wives in love, and women willingly lay aside rights and power to graciously submit to their husbands – this is a picture of the gospel. Husbands and wives, in fulfilling their different responsibilities, shine light on different angles of Christ’s work. Christ, though equal to the Father, submitted to His will. In love, He gave His life for His Bride.

Furthermore, complementarianism isn’t the only (or main) aspect of Christianity that seems crazy to a lost world. There’s our belief in absolute truth, in salvation apart from works, our affirmation of Jesus as the only way to God, our belief in eternal hell, and our view of sexuality. We’ll always be tempted to tone down the crazy, but once we shave off the distinctive edges of Christian truth, we trade the power of the gospel for a bowl of postmodern porridge. There’s an element of “crazy” in complementarianism that ought to be embraced and celebrated in the same way we embrace the craziness of the gospel itself.

Bad Crazy

But there’s another kind of crazy that we shouldn’t be so crazy about. It’s the craziness that sometimes grows up in the culture of complementarianism. I’m talking here about culture, not the beliefs.

Culture is a lot harder to pin down and define, and yet culture communicates, sometimes more than our statements. In some churches that affirm a complementarian view of manhood and womanhood, a culture develops that goes beyond the complementarian beliefs into a skewed version of manhood and womanhood that we did not discern from the Scriptures, but from previous generations of American culture.

Some examples…

Last year, I wrote a blog post intended to encourage stay-at-home wives (like my own), and I got a lot of emails from puzzled men and women who felt I had overlooked the guilty consciences of working moms. I quickly discovered there are a number of people who are sensitive to this discussion because they’ve endured scorn and judgment for having a dual-income home. Here is a sample:

My wife has been a working mom for the first years of our marriage, and although we expect to bring her home from work upon the arrival of our next child at the end of this year, she’ll probably keep working on a very part-time basis.  You can imagine in our environment that we often face explicit or implied criticism/judgment that she is a working mom.

Notice the reference to the environment of their church. The idea that it is never appropriate for a wife to work outside the home is not something you’ll see in the best scholarship of complementarian thinkers and leaders, but it is an expectation that grows up in the culture among some complementarian churches.

(As a side note, in the Romanian villages I served in, the idea of women seeing their role as either inside or outside the home didn’t make sense. Families did whatever it took to put food on the table, which meant the women were just as active outside in the garden and fields as the men were. The kitchen duties were split, depending on whatever item was going to be cooked. The man was the head of the household, but the roles were not as specific or limiting; neither were these activities extrapolated as timeless specifics for everyone everywhere.)

There are other elements of crazy culture we should be aware of:

• a reticence or hesitance to affirm and celebrate women’s contributions in local church ministry, particularly contributions that are more up-front and visible.
• a warped vision of manhood that focuses on calloused hands and physical labor and ignores other kinds of work.
• the assumption that marriage is always better than singleness, so that singles feel like their identity is wrapped up in not having a spouse.
• unwillingness to celebrate any evidence of gospel ministry or fruit among those with a more egalitarian viewpoint.
• an unexpressed expectation that the godliest women have quiet and introverted personality types, and cannot be assertive and outgoing.
• a competitive tendency that leads to unhealthy individual comparisons and rushed judgments, rather than extending grace to one another.
• a spectrum of “holy” and “holier” choices with regard to a child’s education (from public school all the way to homeschooling).

I could go on.

The human heart is constantly seeking to justify itself. Too often, we as Christians are trying to one-up each other by grasping for a sense of superiority over our brothers and sisters because of the extrabiblical laws we’ve created and now keep.

It’s the culture of complementarianism that needs to be renewed and restored. Because there’s nothing crazier than taking a beautiful picture of the gospel and making a new law out of it.

In a recent episode of Unbelievable, Andrew Wilson and Rob Bell have an engaging dialogue about the legitimacy of homosexual relationships within Christianity.

Here are some thoughts on the debate:

1. Kudos to Andrew Wilson for maintaining his composure as he gently presses Rob not only to be clear on his position, but also to reveal the grounding for the position. Too often, discussions on this issue are so focused on the tip of the iceberg that the foundational, grounding elements of the argument are assumed and never made explicit.

~~~~~

2. Rob appeals to the contemporary state of things to make his case:

It is time for the church to acknowledge that we have brothers and sisters who are gay and want to share their life with someone. This is a part of life in the modern world. And that’s how it is. And cultural consciousness has shifted. This is how the world is. 

When Andrew asks Rob if homosexual behavior is sinful, Rob answers:

I am for monogamy, I am for fidelity, I am for commitment. I think the world needs more of that. I think that promiscuity is dangerous and destructive. Some people are gay and want to share their life with someone, and they should be able to. That’s how the world is, and we should affirm that. And we should affirm monogamy, fidelity, and commitment, both gay and straight.

Note that Rob answers by appealing to the way the world is in order to make his case. He believes the church must affirm the world as it is.

What is puzzling to me is why Rob takes such a strong stance on fidelity and monogamy when so many in our culture celebrate sex before marriage, adultery, and all sorts of non-monogamous relationships. If the job of the church is to affirm the world as it is, then wouldn’t we have to affirm promiscuity too? It’s not a big jump from Rob’s comments on accepting homosexuality to accepting promiscuity:

It is time for the church to acknowledge that we have brothers and sisters who are promiscuous and want to share their life with multiple people. This is a part of the modern world and we should affirm that. Some people are promiscuous and want to share their life with more than one person, and they should be able to. That’s how the world is, and we should affirm that.

So, on the one hand, the church is to stand apart from the world and call people to repentance – a radical change of lifestyle (from promiscuity that is destructive and dangerous to fidelity that is shalom-creating). But on the other hand, the church must affirm the world and embrace the choices of our gay and lesbian friends because that’s just the way the world is. Make sense to you? Me neither.

~~~~~

3. Rob uses the commands of the Old Testament Law that Christians do not follow today (wearing different kinds of fabric, etc.) to disregard the Old Testament regulations about human sexuality (except for promiscuity, see above). For an articulate response to this line of thinking, please read Tim Keller’s blog post on “Making Sense of Scripture’s ‘Inconsistency’.”

~~~~~

4. Andrew does an excellent job of showing the beauty of repentance within the Christian community:

We just baptized a number of gay men in our church recently. It’s just wonderful.

But each one of them is saying, “But now, when I get baptized, I die to the old me. I rise again to the new me that is Christ-shaped, that’s eschatologically-informed and transformed. Resurrection life which is a completely different type of creature. A lot of the desires I have had, a lot of the things which I’ve wanted to do, I – like Paul did in the season in which he wrote 1 Corinthians, and like Jesus did – I put on hold sexual desires. I die to a lot of the things I want, in order to follow Christ. And I rise to new life…”

We look and say, “What does Christ-shaped new creation look like?” We’ve got gay guys in our church (and women as well) who say, “Dying to my old life and being risen again to new life in Christ means dying to all the acts of the flesh, including some of the sexual things that – yes, I wanted to do them, just like lots of people want to have sex with lots of people, some may want to have sex with two or three people simultaneously, that doesn’t mean I’m okay to do that. It means I am just like anyone else (greed or desires to slander or swindle) regarding any number of other sins. We say those things die with me. We repent and get baptized.”

To not put that in front of someone is to say, “You can have the kingdom, but if it costs too much, we’ll just lower the asking price…”

The Great Commission was given to a community.

Western readers have tended to read the Great Commission passages (especially Luke 24 and Matthew 28) in light of the autonomous individual. We interpret the commissioning scenes as tasks assigned to individual Christians.

But a proper focus on the corporate dimension of these accounts helps us understand the commissionings in light of the identity Jesus bestows upon a community.

Jesus does not send a Christian to the nations, but a church.

A “Fulfilling” People

By seeking and saving the lost in His ministry, Jesus has formed a new people, the true Israel, who will finally fulfill God’s purposes in the world, in light of God’s own work in fulfilling the promise He made to Abraham. Jesus sends a community to the world, in fulfillment of his work in Israel.

A Foreshadowed People

The communal witness of the church is foreshadowed and promised in the Old Testament, and it sees its arrival as the Holy Spirit descends to fulfill God’s promise in the New Testament. To interpret the commissioning texts as applying only to individuals is to miss the rich, biblical overtones throughout the Scriptures that envision a community serving as salt of the earth and light of the world.

A Gospel-Formed People

The church is united as a witnessing community, but it’s the gospel we witness to that constitutes our identity. After all, the gospel is centered on the Sent One who witnesses to the Father. The person and work of Christ make possible the existence of this witnessing body.

A God-Exalting People

The terminology of witnesses in Luke 24 likely echoes the Lord’s words to Israel in Isaiah 43:10-12:

“You are My witnesses” – this is the Lord’s declaration – “and My servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He. No god was formed before Me, and there will be none after Me. I, I am Yahweh, and there is no other Savior but Me. I alone declared, saved, and proclaimed – and not some foreign god among you. So you are My witnesses” – this is the Lord’s declaration – “and I am God.” (HCSB)

Don’t miss the high Christology on display here. By adopting the same words of Yahweh to Israel, “You are my witnesses,” Jesus is associating Himself with God, and He is associating his followers with Israel.

The implication is that Jesus is the embodiment of Yahweh and His followers are the true Israel who will finally fulfill the task given to God’s people. Witness flows from knowing Jesus.

A Spirit-Empowered People

There is an eschatological dimension to the corporate nature of the “witnesses.”

It is true that Acts 1:8 focuses on the geographical expansion to the ends of the earth, not the eschatological promise of Christ being with the disciples to “the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20). Still, there is a strong element of eschatology in Acts 1:4-8, since Christ’s last words in Acts are preceded by a question from the disciples regarding the timetable of the kingdom’s restoration to Israel. Their desire to know the timing of God’s kingdom coming in its fullness is rooted in Jewish eschatology. When Jesus brushes off their question, He does not do so because it has no validity, but because He desires to focus on what the disciples are to be (and therefore do) in the meantime.

The disciples will indeed be an eschatological people, not because they know the signs and the times, but because they are indwelled by the Spirit who empowers their witness to the ends of the earth. John Stott is right to describe the church as the “pilgrim people of God.”

The corporate witness of the church is missionary in its purpose and eschatological in its framing.

Presence and Proclamation

The most concentrated power of witness is in the corporate, common life of the church united on mission for Christ. The church that is truly “present” in a community will necessarily proclaim the gospel. The communal identity of the church is essential as an undergirding of our proclamation as we seek to fulfill the Great Commission.

You can’t obey Jesus’ command to go and make disciples if you don’t know what Jesus means by “disciple.” And you won’t know what Jesus means by disciple unless you watch the the way He portrayed discipleship in His teaching, particularly in His parables.

What do we find when we examine the portrait of a disciple in Jesus’ parables? A consistent emphasis on the disciple’s need to do two things:

1. Understand the current eschatological moment.
2. Live accordingly.

In other words, discipleship is portrayed in terms of “wisdom,” and wisdom is defined by living in light of “what time it is.”

Take a look at some examples…

The Wise and Foolish Builders (Matthew 7:24-27)

The parable that closes Jesus’ most famous sermon ends with a vision of discipleship that places final judgment front and center.

The contrast between the wise and foolish builders is the climactic finale to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, because it demonstrates the seriousness of what is at stake. The storm that threatens the two buildings is divine judgment.

Rarely do we begin our explanation of “making disciples” with the idea of final judgment. This element of Jesus’ teaching is often shuffled to the side as an unpopular component of our theological confession. But the parables of Matthew challenge viewing discipleship in these terms: knowing what time it is and bringing one’s life in line with eschatological reality.

Human lives matter. Human choices matter. Eternity hangs in the balance.

The Foolish Bridesmaids (Matthew 25:1-13)

Just as the two builders are contrasted in terms of wisdom and foolishness, the bridesmaids are also contrasted in the same manner.

The disciple of Christ is not the one who self-identifies as a Christian, but the one who is prepared for Christ’s coming. One of the lessons here is that discipleship cannot be summed up in appearances, but in the exercise of wisdom that leads one to live in light of the kingdom of God.

In both stories, judgment exposes foolishness, both the faulty foundation of the foolish builder and the lack of preparation from the foolish bridesmaids. Discipleship is formed and described within the context of eschatological preparation.

The Parable of the Talents (Matt 25:14-30)

A disciple must be a good steward of the gifts of God in the present while waiting for the Master’s return. The disciples commended as “good and faithful servants” are those who live with eschatological anticipation, choosing to invest in ways that maximize the king’s resources. Even though the primary point is stewardship, discipleship is seen through the lens of eschatological anticipation.

The Unmerciful Servant (Matt 18:21-35)

The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant is prompted by Peter’s question to Jesus about how many times he is obligated to forgive someone who wrongs him. Jesus’ reply of “seventy times seven” is not a rhetorical trick, but rather a reference to the end of exile, the “seventy-times-seven” years prophesied in Daniel (9:24-27) before God’s deliverance will take effect.

So, a disciple forgives not only because he has been forgiven, but also because of what time it is. In the eschatological day of jubilee, debts are released and debtors are freed from their burdens. The kingdom changes everything.

New Wine in Old Wineskins (Matt 9:17)

Jesus’ analogy of putting new wine into old wineskins is a reference to the overlap of eras, referring to the coming kingdom which will no longer be contained by the exclusivistic tendencies of God’s chosen people who have lost their saltiness and who have failed to be a light to the nations.

The Faithful Servant (Matt 24:42-51)

Jesus speaks of a faithful servant whose anticipation for his master’s return leads him to alter his priorities. In this analogy, discipleship is not a generic faithfulness to God’s commands, but a specific faithfulness formed by the disciple’s understanding of what time it is and what the future holds. The vision of the future affects the disciple’s actions in the present.

A fictional conversation from the first century A.D.

Stefanus: I wish you would change your mind, Gratian. You are going to be made fun of and marginalized.

Gratian: Any suffering or ostracism I may face will not compare with the glory that awaits me.

Stefanus: Glory? I fear you are losing your mental grasp of things. Have you not seen the splendor and glory of the Empire? Don’t you see how Roman principles are extending throughout all the earth?

Gratian: The Empire looks powerful, yes. But God’s kingdom will outlast it.

Stefanus: Surely, you jest!

Gratian: Jesus said so.

Stefanus: You continue to speak about this backwoods Jew who taught all sorts of strange things. I fear for what may happen to you when you refuse to pinch incense at the altar and reveal your dedication to the Empire’s gods.

Gratian: I will refuse.

Stefanus: But why? You know that the Empire is a tolerant, broad-minded place for people of good will who believe in all sorts of gods…

Gratian: As long as worshipping Caesar trumps them all…

Stefanus: Of course, but you still have the freedom to worship privately as you please -

Gratian: - as long as publicly, I bow the knee to Caesar.

Stefanus: What is the harm in recognizing the absolute authority of Caesar?

Gratian: I would be telling a lie. The emperor is under King Jesus.

Stefanus: Keep your voice down. Do you realize what you are saying?

Gratian: I will answer to King Jesus. So will you. And so will Caesar.

Stefanus: You dare challenge the ultimate authority of the Empire? Can’t you see the progress of history? Are you so blind… to ignore that history is moving in Caesar’s direction? Recent surveys show that people are not putting up with you and your silly ideas… your simpleminded way of life.

Gratian: I don’t follow Jesus because He is popular, but because He saved me.

Stefanus: Think logically for a moment about this Jesus of yours and what he taught.

• He said he was the Savior, but anyone can see that Caesar is the one in whom we have security.
• He said we should never divorce, but anyone can see it is in the best interest of men to be able to put away their wives.
• He said we should care for the least of these, but anyone can see that poor fathers and mothers should be free to abandon their newborns to the trash heap.
• He said we should love our enemies, but anyone can see that we should favor our friends and punish our opponents.
• He said we should never commit adultery or even lust after another, but anyone can see that sexual openness is more natural for human happiness.
• He said there are things that don’t belong to Caesar, but anyone can see that Caesar is in charge of everything.

Gratian: What are you saying then?

Stefanus: That Jesus is obviously on the wrong side of history. The world is moving forward and you are stuck in the past following the bizarre teachings of a Jewish leader. Recant your strange beliefs! Or at least stay quiet about them.

Gratian: I cannot, and I will not. I do not see history the same way you do.

Stefanus: Why not?

Gratian: No matter how confident you are that history is moving in an upward progression and that the Roman Empire will expand across the earth and lead all to eternal peace and harmony, you are wrong. The kingdom I belong to will outlast the Empire, despite the appearances.

Stefanus: How do you know this?

Gratian: Because my King came back from the dead. And the One who defeats death is the One who defines history.

We often think of “witness” as something we do (such as evangelism), rather than something we are.

But in the commissioning scenes in Luke (24:44-48) and Acts (1:4-8), Jesus speaks of the disciples in terms of present reality (“you are My witnesses”) and future identity (“you will be My witnesses”).

What’s the significance of being Christ’s witnesses?

Jesus is the Focus of Our Witness

First, note the emphasis in both accounts on Jesus claiming authority over the disciples’ identities and activities: My witnesses.

This could refer to the fact that the witnesses belong to the Lord —”you are the witnesses who belong to Me.” Or it could mean that the witnesses speak of the Lord in line with their identity —”you are the witnesses that speak of me.”

I’m inclined to go with the latter understanding since Luke 24:44‒48 focuses on bearing witness to all that has been fulfilled in the Old Testament (not to mention the focus in Acts on the expansion of the apostles’ witnessing speech to Jesus).

“Witnessing” is Birthed from Identity

Secondly, note how the emphasis falls on the identity of the disciples as witnesses, not the task of witnessing. The focus on the disciples’ identity doesn’t negate the task of witnessing, of course, but it does remind us that the activity of “witnessing” is birthed from the our identity as “witnesses.”

The prediction of Jesus assumes the task of witnessing, but the fact He focuses on our identity indicates a comprehensive understanding of who disciples are, not just what they do.

The disciples do not become witnesses because they engage in the activity of witnessing; rather, they engage in the activity of witnessing because they are already witnesses.

Michael Goheen writes:

We would be mistaken if we were to think of Jesus’ call to witness as merely one more assignment added to an otherwise full agenda for the people of God. Witness is not one more task among others: Witness defines the role of this community in this era of God’s story and thus defines its very identity. Its eschatological role at this point in history is to make salvation known first to Israel and then to the Gentiles. (A Light to the Nations, 127.)

Witnessing is Comprehensive

Third, Jesus’ commissioning at the end of Luke’s Gospel and at the beginning of Acts underscores the comprehensive nature of being a witness, and in light of these two scenes, we should take into account all that has been said about discipleship in the Gospel of Luke, as well as the activity of the apostles in Acts.

John Polhill explains the link between witnessing and discipleship, particularly in Acts:

In Acts the role of witness is closely linked to that of discipleship. A true disciple is a faithful witness, not only willing to bear testimony to Christ but even to suffer for Him. The word “witness” came in the later church to have just that connotation: a true witness is one who carries his or her testimony to the death. (Acts, 69)

Indicative Before Imperative

So, “you will be My witnesses” is a promise that means we have a comprehensive identity that becomes the defining factor for us as individuals and churches. It covers all aspects of life.

Witnessing cannot be reduced to one aspect of a Christian’s activity. It should be seen as the foundational aspect of a Christian’s identity.

We speak of Christ because we are of Christ.

We witness because He has declared us to be His witnesses.

The indicative precedes the imperative.

Yesterday, I summarized Rodney Stark’s The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries, which traces the sociological components that contributed to Christianity’s growth.

Today, we’re looking at what parts of Stark’s analysis may be helpful for church leaders today. The strengths of Stark’s proposal are many. His sociological analysis does not deny or minimize the supernatural elements of Christianity’s explosive growth.

Instead, we ought to see this book as an examination of the means God used to fulfill his purposes. A sociological approach should not be set against a supernatural approach. Understanding these human elements will help us make some points of application for society.

1. Understand that not everything Stark sees would be a worthwhile strategy for Christian growth in the future.

For example, Stark’s assertion that “both Peter and Paul sanctioned marriage between Christians and pagans” (111) is contested by Christian scholars. There is no doubt that Peter and Paul wrote in a way that took into consideration the presence of such marriages, but nowhere do we see such marriages prescribed.

On the contrary, one could argue that the apostles would have counseled against entering such unions. Stark is right that the early Christians displayed high levels of commitment, but it is an overstatement to assume that this commitment “made it safe for them to enter exogamous marriages” (114).

2. Note the correspondence between Christianity’s costly demands and its rapid rise.

Stark writes:

“It would seem that costly demands must always make a religion less attractive. And indeed, the economists’ law of demand predicts just that, other things remaining equal. But it turns out that other things do not remain equal when religions impose these kinds of costs on their members. Costly demands strengthen a religious group by mitigating “free-rider” problems that otherwise lead to low levels of member commitment and participation. Sacrifice and stigma mitigate the free-rider problems faced by religious groups” (177).

Why does Christianity thrive in conditions where there is a social cost to be paid?

First, it makes it harder for people to join the church and adopt Christian belief and practice. “High costs tend to screen out free riders.” Secondly, high costs are likely to increase the level of commitment and participation of those who do join the church (177).

The counterintuitive nature of this analysis is spot on. Far from making Christianity more mainstream and “easier” for people to join, pastors ought to embrace the social cost and demands as one of the most attractive features of the faith.

3. Embrace, don’t evade, the particulars of Christian teaching. 

Christian leaders today can also learn how the central elements of the faith have an inherent attraction to them that should be utilized in our evangelistic witness.

“Central doctrines of Christianity prompted and sustained attractive, liberating, and effective social relations and organizations” (211).

Doctrines such as the inclusive call to salvation for people from every ethnicity ought to be at the forefront of our witness.

Conclusion

The Rise of Christianity is a readable, engaging presentation of the sociological dynamics behind Christianity’s rapid growth. Church leaders who read this book will unlearn some common myths about our movement’s rise.

At the same time, Stark’s analysis provides us with fresh thought about how best to maximize the church’s effectiveness today, as we rely on the Holy Spirit to work through our methods in presenting the gospel message that transforms lives.

When we as Christians consider the coming of Christ and the rise of Christianity, we tend to focus on the spiritual forces at work – the powerful preaching of the gospel, the apostles’ martyrdom for the faith, and the evangelistic attraction of the early church’s common life together.

A book like The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries (New York: Harper One, 1996) by Rodney Stark may seem unusual at first, as it traces the sociological factors in the rise of Christian belief and practice.

Today, I’m going to summarize the case Stark makes for the rise of Christianity and then tomorrow, I’ll offer some points of application for our churches.

Summary

Rodney Stark wisely begins his book by acknowledging the helpfulness and also the limitations of social science.

“No sacrilege is entailed in the search to understand human actions in human terms. Moreover, I do not reduce the rise of Christianity to purely ‘material’ or social factors” (4).

Nowhere is Stark seeking to deny the Christian belief that God was at work in the beginning of the Christian movement. Instead, he wants to examine the means by which this rapid growth occurred. He believes social science will put an end to some of the common, persistent myths about Christianity’s rapid growth.

For example, examining the constant rate of growth of Christian believers, Stark questions the often-assumed link between Constantine’s conversion and the Roman Empire having a Christian majority.

“Constantine’s conversion would better be seen as a response to the massive exponential wave in progress, not as its cause” (10).

Why Does a Religious Movement Grow?

So what factors are at play in the rapid rise of a religious movement? There are certain social dynamics that must be examined.

• Networks of family and friends play a huge role in conversion. Stark sees conversion as being more likely when “people have or develop stronger attachments to members of the group than they have to nonmembers” (18).
• Stark also notes that “new religious movements mainly draw their converts from the ranks of the religiously inactive and discontented, and those affiliated with the most accommodated (worldly) religious communities” (19). 
• The implication of this migration from one religious affiliation to another is that the middle and privileged classes are more inclined to convert than the lowest classes. “New religions must always make their way in the market openings left them by weaknesses in the conventional religion(s) of a society,” Stark writes, and “religious skepticism is most prevalent among the more privileged” (37). Why is this the case? Stark believes the class of people most likely to understand the new religion and see the need for its beliefs will be the most economically privileged (39).

Christianity and Judaism

Stark’s sociological study of the rise of early Christianity would be incomplete without an in depth treatment of the relationship between Judaism and the early church. Rather than seeing the relationship as inherently hostile, Stark makes the case for an intertwined Jewish and Christian identity, as large numbers of Jews converted to Christianity from the first to the fifth centuries (49). To make this case, Stark spends an entire chapter sketching the reasons why scholars have assumed a low rate of conversion among faithful Jews. Then, in light of new sociological findings, Stark counters the conventional wisdom and makes the case that large numbers did indeed convert peacefully.

Chaos and the Need for Stability

Another role in the burgeoning Christian movement was played by social crises, brought in the wake of disastrous plagues or in the common chaos of urban life. During the early centuries of Christian growth, a series of natural disasters (including earthquakes and epidemics) disrupted the Roman Empire. Stark believes “Christianity offered a much more satisfactory account of why these terrible times had fallen upon humanity, and it projected a hopeful, even enthusiastic, portrait of the future” (74). These explanations helped Christians cope with the disasters, which in turn helped Christians survive at higher rates than pagans.

Furthermore, the massive numbers of those who died disrupted the normal social bonds that would have attached people to their families and neighbors. Because Christians were more likely to survive the plagues, pagans found new friendships with Christians whose faith would have been appealing in the midst of such turmoil (75).

Stark also points out the chaos associated with urban living during this period of history. Life in the city was one of disease, misery and fear, providing Christians with the opportunity not only to imagine a better world in the distant future but also solutions for present-day problems (149).

The Role of Godly Women

Another factor in the rise of early Christianity centers on the role of women in the early church. Because of Christianity’s prohibition of infanticide and abortion, Christian families were more likely to raise up daughters in the faith. High rates of intermarriage between Christian women and pagan men brought about “secondary” conversions to Christianity, not to mention the likelihood of children being brought up in the church (95).

What about the Martyrs?

Christian historians often point to the testimony of the martyrs as a major reason for the rise of Christianity. Stark does not discount the role of martyrdom, but he puts it into perspective.

For example, he counters the irrationalist vision of martyrdom that sees persecuted people as clinging so tightly to their personal faith they make irrational choices that lead to their demise. Stark believes the martyrs saw their sacrifice as the best choice, given their belief in the rewards they would gain in return (167). Likewise, “martyrs are the most credible exponents of the value of a religion, and this is especially true if there is a voluntary aspect to their martyrdom” (174). But Stark also counters the common Christian perspective by showing how the number of martyrs was never very large, and the persecutions that took place broke out intermittently and never focused on all Christians everywhere.

What do you think?

Tomorrow, I’ll offer some points of application for today’s church. Right now, I’m curious as to which of these contributions to the rise of early Christianity surprises you. Do you agree or disagree with Stark’s analysis?

Rob Bell has a new book coming out.

Chances are, you haven’t heard as much about this one as you did his last one, Love Wins. From the infamous “Farewell, Rob Bell” tweet to the blog reviews that detailed the book’s biblical and theological inaccuracies, Love Wins benefited from Harper One’s ability to stir up a hornet’s nest of free publicity that catapulted Bell to the best-seller list in 2011.

The trailer for Rob’s new book gives a few ideas about his next step. Too little to know much for sure. The video seems to focus on our innate sense that “there’s something out there bigger than us” and our need to get in touch with “the divine.” I expect the book will continue Rob’s journey forward (or should we say back) to 19th and 20th century liberalism.

Many evangelical readers, bloggers and pastors will skip this one. After all, there’s only so much time in a day. Why read a book you figure will frustrate you?

All that considered, I will be reading Rob’s latest. Here’s why…

1. I want to improve my ability to communicate the truth.

Whatever you might think of his theology, the guy can teach. The reason his Nooma videos and book trailers have garnered so much attention (and a long line of parodies) is because they made an impact. They were well done, and their message resonated with people.

It’s true that the more I’ve read and watched Bell, the more I sense there’s more flash than substance in his message. (And where there is substance, I often disagree.)

That said, I want to improve my skills at communicating by watching how others get their message across. I want to see how they craft their stories, assemble their analogies, and wordsmith their prose.

Yes, I know “it is better to speak wisdom foolishly rather than to speak folly wisely” (Chesterton), but heaven help us if we have to choose between dull communication of unchanging truth or compelling communication of theological error.

Seeking to better communicate the beauty of truth helps me better comprehend the beauty of truth.

2. I want to better understand the culture I live in.

A lot of people will read this book. Perhaps not as many as Love Wins. (It would be hard to repeat the media blitz that came from Bell redefining hell.) Still, a good number of people will pick up this book… which tells us that something about it appeals to them.

We gain insights into our culture whenever we look at a popular book and ask, Why is this appealing? Ultimately, this question can lead to a more productive conversation than simply pointing out the reasons a book is harmful or wrong.

I’ve had some good conversations with folks who liked The Shack. Our discussions gave me insight into fatherlessness, the feeling of abandonment in times of suffering, the idea of a God who not only loves people, but is fond of them, etc.

At some point, if a book we see as “bad” resonates with people, we ought to consider the reasons why. Asking “why” gives us insight into our culture. It helps us get to know and love our neighbors. And it helps us anticipate the objections we will need to address in our presentation of the truth.

3. I want to be challenged to paint a better portrait.

There are a number of ways to counter theological error, not least of which is a long list of the errors set against their biblical refutation. But there’s another way to defend the truth – to create a portrait more compelling than the falsehood.

The Apostle Paul didn’t pick apart the Colossian heresy in detail. Yes, he addressed it here and there, but just enough to cause consternation on the part of biblical scholars trying to piece together just what he was battling. Instead, Paul’s strategy was to wow the Colossians with the enthralling beauty and all-encompassing authority of Jesus Christ.

The reason I gave so much space in Counterfeit Gospels to talking about the true gospel is because that is the best way to counter falsehood. Here’s why these counterfeits are attractive to you, but look at how much better the biblical gospel is. Put them together, and you’ll see why the true gospel wins at ultimately satisfying your heart’s longing. 

Rob Bell’s book may turn out to be a rehash of old school liberalism and its promise of “getting in touch with the divine.” So why read it? Because I want to be challenged to say, Why is the biblical portrait better? Why is the fiery, love-filled, glory-driven untamable God of the Bible so much more compelling, attractive, than the sentimental, sappy god so many in our culture find appealing?

It’s one thing to point at a book and say, That isn’t biblical. It’s another thing to say, Here’s why the biblical view is true and better. That’s the reason I’m working on a fiction book.

I expect Rob’s book will prod me toward better and more beautiful ways of presenting the truth. Maybe after I read it, I’ll blog about it too.

What about you?

Will you be reading Bell’s new book? Will you pass on it? Recommend it? Warn people about it?

Ever notice the dissonance?

The early Christians saw their mission as global in scope, but during his earthly ministry, Jesus explicitly declared his mission to be focused only on Israel (Matt 15:24).

When traced backwards, the flow of universal mission of the early church runs into the rocks of Jesus’ striking particularity. What gives?

Here’s my brief attempt at giving an answer.

Jesus the Nationalist

The Gospels reveal a Jesus focused on Israel. In fact, his ministry appears to be focused so relentlessly on the Jewish people that many scholars have debated whether Jesus was concerned with outsiders at all. When taking into consideration the nations-focused mission of the early church as directed by the risen Jesus that was so prominent in Christian thinking, it is striking to discover that this global impulse appears to be absent from Jesus’ earthly ministry.

Furthermore, the Gospels record Jesus as being up front about his nationalistic intentions. He claimed that his mission was only to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt 15:24), a statement made upon his initial refusal of a Gentile woman who asked for healing for her daughter.

It is interesting to note the parallel between the global vision of the risen Jesus as manifested in the actions of the early church and the nationalistic vision of Jesus’ earthly ministry as manifested in the disciples’ avoidance of Gentile towns in favor of “the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt 10:5-6, 23).

Other statements reinforce Jewish priority during the ministry of Jesus, including his decision to choose twelve disciples (corresponding, most likely, to the twelve tribes of Israel) and the fact that the “God of Israel” received the glory when Jesus did engage in brief ministry in Gentile territory (Matt 15:31).

The Wrong Answer

Because of the apparent discrepancy between Jesus’ ministry focus and that of the early church, some scholars assume the evangelists had ulterior motives in the way they portrayed Jesus’ interactions with others.

For example, the Jesus Seminar chooses to pit Mark’s intentions against those of Matthew, postulating that Mark’s account of Jesus’ healing of a Gentile woman’s daughter is meant to justify the church’s Gentile mission, whereas Matthew’s account is “an effort to reinstate a narrower scope for Jesus’ activity.” While it is undeniable that each evangelist chose particular emphases in shaping the Jesus stories, this kind of speculation is wrongheaded. After all, both accounts show Jesus answering the request, and both Gospels also include an emphasis on global mission. (We could make the case that Matthew envisions the Gentile mission even more clearly than Mark does.)

Regardless of how one interprets the evangelists’ different accounts of the same event, it is clear that Jesus’ focus was on reforming Israel, not bringing his kingdom message to the rest of the world. His focus on Israel can be seen in his prophecies and pronouncements of judgment on the nation. Through symbolic, prophetic actions like cursing the fig tree (Mark 11:12-14, 20-25; Matt 21:18-22) and cleansing the temple (Mark 11:15-19; Matt 21:12-17; Luke 19:45-48, John 2:13-16), as well as strong prophetic denunciations (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21, 13:6-9), Jesus made his particular focus on Israel clear.

Christ’s Mission to Israel for the World

The messianic identity of Jesus, formed and shaped by the Old Testament promises and the Jewish prophets, leads in a direction that simultaneously complicates and resolves the issue. Instead of seeing Jesus’ messianic mindset in terms of either or, one ought to see his mission as to Israel on behalf of the nations. In other words, in narrowing his focus to Israel, Jesus does the work necessary for the entire world to be blessed.

If Jesus saw himself as Israel’s Messiah, the one who will constitute a new Israel, and if he purposefully acted in ways that fulfill the role of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah and the vocation of Israel as the light of the world, then it is no surprise that he would focus his ministry squarely on his Jewish contemporaries.

Jesus’ ministry was to the lost sheep of the house of Israel precisely, because he is the good shepherd come to gather the renewed Israel around himself and to launch their trajectory into the world with the healing grace God always intended to flow through his chosen people. Jesus ministered to the Jews for the Gentiles.

Therefore, we should say the mission of Jesus is first to Israel (through his own ministry) and then to the Gentiles (through the actions of his apostles), but this trajectory should not be reduced merely to salvation-historical terms. Instead, the mission of Jesus to the Gentiles (through his apostles) should be seen as contingent upon the success of his mission to the Jews.

Mission to the nations depends upon Jesus’ accomplishment of his mission to Israel. The particularity of Jesus’ earthly ministry serves the universality of God’s ultimate vision for the world.

Conclusion

Creating too strong a dichotomy between Jesus’ mission to the Jews and the church’s mission to the Gentiles is unhelpful. As the long-awaited Messiah who fulfills Israel’s vocation, Jesus accomplishes the mission of Israel through his own life and work, thereby bringing the blessing of Abraham to the nations, as was promised in the Old Testament.

The mission to the Gentiles was not at the expense of mission to Israel, nor was it merely an extension. Instead, Israel was to be the catalyst through which God would accomplish his promises to the world.

Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel in order that through his regathering and reconstituting the true Israel, the blessing of salvation would be released to flow from Israel and into all the world, just as God promised in the Old Testament.