We think Paul may have had bad eyesight, based on several passages from his epistles, but the most important one can be found in Galatians 6:11: “See what large letters I use as I write to you with my own hand!” Similarly, in Galatians 4:15, Paul wrote this: “Where, then, is your blessing of me now? I can testify that, if you could have done so, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me.”

We know that Paul was blinded on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:8-9), when the Lord Jesus called him to be the apostle to the Gentiles. And some scholars surmise that his eyesight may never have fully recovered. This could have been what Paul was referring to when he discussed his “thorn in the flesh” in the context of his “visions.”

“We think Paul may have had bad eyesight, based on several passages from his epistles.”

Paul says the following in 2 Corinthians 12:7b-10:

“Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.” (2 Corinthians 12:7b-10)*

There we have the indomitable and resilient apostle Paul. Even his weaknesses he considers to be strengths with God on his side.

Back to Romans. The epistle to the Christians living in Rome is routinely considered the apostle Paul’s magnum opus (his “great work”). It is the longest letter, or “epistle,” in the New Testament. If someone knew only the book of Romans—as would have been the case for at least some of the early church Christians—they would be able to reach out to God, understand the gospel, and receive salvation. Yes, it is that good, and that profound.

“The epistle to the Christians living in Rome is routinely considered the apostle Paul’s magnum opus.”

Romans was written from the city of Corinth, in modern-day Greece. Paul wrote it around A.D. 56, during his third missionary journey. Of course he was evangelizing during this trip, but he was also raising funds for the church at Jerusalem. He was excited to visit the city of Rome in the near future, but events (such as a shipwreck off the coast of Malta) prevented him from doing so until the spring of A.D. 61, about four or five years later, while heading to his own trial in the capital city.

The intended audience is identified in Romans 1:7, “To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Why did Paul write Romans? There are three commonly cited reasons:

First, Paul wanted to use Rome as a hub for more evangelism, specifically to Spain, where he had long wanted to go. In Romans 15, Paul writes the following:

“But now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions, and since I have been longing for many years to visit you, I plan to do so when I go to Spain. I hope to see you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there, after I have enjoyed your company for a while.…So after I have completed this task…I will go to Spain and visit you on the way.” (Romans 15:22-24, 28)

“Of course he was evangelizing during this trip, but he was also raising funds for the church at Jerusalem.”

Second, Paul wrote Romans to give great clarity to the theology of the gospel of Jesus—that God wanted to reach not only Jews, but also Gentiles. The gospel was meant to be shared all over the world…and Paul was the chosen vessel to break down the Jew/Gentile barrier. All people were to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Third, Paul wrote Romans to bring unity to Jews and Gentiles. They were very different people from each other. Jews were God’s “chosen people,” but God’s plans were to “graft in” the non-Jews as well—known as the Gentiles. We read about this in Romans 11:11-16:

“Again I ask: Did they [the Jews] stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring! I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.” (Romans 11:11-16)

“Paul wrote Romans to bring unity to Jews and Gentiles.”

In other words, no longer are Gentiles rejected as being outside God’s plan. God wants all people to confess Him, to repent of their sins, to be baptized, to be filled with the Holy Spirit, and to become raised from the dead and enjoy eternal life with God the Father of all humankind.

What is the key passage of Romans that should capture our attention? Scholars regularly cite Romans 1:16-17 as encapsulating the core of Paul’s argument in the book:

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’” (Romans 1:16-17)

Don’t get discouraged if the book of Romans challenges you. It seems even the great apostle Peter struggled to understand Paul’s grand erudition. In 2 Peter 3:15-16, we read this personal insight from one of the members of Jesus’ core ministry team:

“Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:15-16)

“Don’t get discouraged if the book of Romans challenges you.”

We should not be intimidated, however. We ought to regularly feast at the buffet of the book of Romans. There is profound insight in there that will help you to understand what God was doing from Genesis to Revelation. The core doctrine Paul teaches is justification—that we are not justified by doing the specific doctrines of the Old Testament. Rather, we are justified by faith in Jesus. This is the case both for Jews and Gentiles.

Through Jesus Christ’s life, teachings, death, and resurrection, we can be absolved from our sins and be raised from the dead. Jesus did the work. Our job is to believe and obey. By faith, we are justified through the atonement that Jesus accomplished on the cross.

What is the atonement? It is the “at-one-ment.” It specifies that, on our own, we are separated from God due to our sin. However, because of the graciousness of God—in sending Jesus as a sacrifice—we can become “at one” with God. What was once division can become unity with God. And when we believe, get baptized into Christ, and become God’s new temples (we are the temple of God’s Holy Spirit), then we become “at one” with God.

A Tour of Romans

Let’s take a quick tour of Romans, chapter by chapter:

Part 1: The Need for Salvation (Chapters 1–3)

• In Chapter 1, Paul introduces the gospel as “the power of God for salvation.” He argues that all people are without excuse because God has revealed himself through creation, yet humanity chose to worship idols instead.
• In Chapter 2, Paul addresses those who judge others while committing the exact same sins. He clarifies that religious heritage (Judaism) or circumcision (a practice by Jews to show their identity) does not exempt someone from God’s impartial judgment.
• In Chapter 3, Paul argues that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” He introduces justification by faith as the only solution for both Jews and Gentiles.

Part 2: The Gospel and New Life (Chapters 4–8)

• In Chapter 4, Paul repeatedly cites Abraham, living 500 years before Moses, as an example, definitively proving that righteousness has always been credited through faith, not by works or the Law of Moses.
• In Chapter 5, Paul explains the results of justification: peace with God and hope despite our present suffering. He contrasts Adam (through whom sin entered) with Christ (through whom grace abounds). In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul beautifully elaborates on this central teaching: “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.…If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man” (1 Corinthians 15:22, 44b-49).

“Just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.”

• In Chapter 6, Paul addresses the misconception that grace encourages sin. He argues that believers are “dead to sin” and should now live as “slaves to righteousness.” In this chapter we read one of the most beautiful texts in the Bible, Romans 6:1-4: “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning, so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.”
• In Chapter 7, Paul describes the internal conflict between the desire to do good and the powerful pull of sin, concluding that the Mosaic Law cannot save us from our sinful nature. Only Christ’s atoning work on the cross can accomplish that.
• In Chapter 8, Paul writes triumphantly, declaring “there is no condemnation” for those in Christ. He describes life led by the Holy Spirit and the assurance that nothing can separate believers from God’s love. In Romans 8:11, Paul writes this beautiful sentence: “And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you.”

Part 3: God’s Sovereignty and Israel (Chapters 9–11) 

• In Chapter 9, Paul discusses God’s purpose in choosing Israel and his right as the “potter” to show mercy to whom he chooses. This chapter discusses a theological concept called “the sovereignty of God,” illustrated in Romans 9:14-21: “What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: ‘I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’…Who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? ‘Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, “Why did you make me like this?”’ Does not the potter have the right…?”
• In Chapter 10, Paul emphasizes that salvation is available to everyone who “confesses with their mouth that Jesus is Lord” and truly believes in their heart…culminating in baptism, which joins us to Jesus Christ.
• In Chapter 11, Paul explains that God has not rejected Israel but has used its unbelief to bring salvation to the Gentiles, with a future plan to restore Israel back to Himself.

“Paul explains that God has not rejected Israel but has used its unbelief to bring salvation to the Gentiles, with a future plan to restore Israel back to Himself.”

Part 4: Practical Christian Living (Chapters 12–16)

• In Chapter 12, Paul transitions to practical application, urging believers to offer their bodies as “living sacrifices” and to use their spiritual gifts to serve the church. This chapter is also famous for its beautiful section on love: (Romans 12:9-13): “Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.”
• Chapter 13 includes instructions on submitting to governing authorities, paying taxes, and fulfilling the law through the command to “love your neighbor.”
• In Chapter 14, Paul addresses disputes in the church over non-essential matters—like diet and special days—urging believers not to judge one another but to always act in love. He writes this famous verse in Romans 14:19: “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.”
• In Chapter 15, Paul encourages unity between Jews and Gentiles and shares his desire to visit Rome before traveling to Spain.
• In Chapter 16, Paul offers a very personal conclusion, featuring greetings to over 25 individuals, a warning against those who cause divisions, and provides a final praise to God in Romans 15:13: “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.”

“May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.”

I am overwhelmed with gratitude by the book of Romans, and now would be a great time to join in this wonderful doxology near the end of the letter:

“Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!
‘Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?’
‘Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them?’
For from him and through him and for him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.” (Romans 11:33-36)

I encourage you to read the book of Romans, and stand in awe of God for his mercy to save us from our sins. He is our Father, and he went through great pains to reconcile us to himself. If you want to understand the gospel of Jesus Christ, respond to it, and build your life on it, this book will direct you.

*All Scripture references are in NIV.

For more on the apostle Paul from Dyron Daughrity, see the free eBook Paul & His Epistles: An Introduction to the Apostle Paul’s Life, Letters, and Legacy. 

In this very last letter from Paul, he wrote from prison. Persecution for preaching the gospel was nothing new to him, but now he was also deserted. Even those whom he had considered family in Christ were ashamed of his imprisonment and had distanced themselves from him. Even still:

“That is why I am suffering as I am. Yet this is no cause for shame, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him until that day.” (2 Timothy 1:12, NIV)

In 2 Timothy, Paul appealed to Timothy to not be ashamed of him or of the gospel, and he also gave instructions on how to endure. Here are four ways we too can faithfully endure suffering:

1. Fan the flame.

“For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands.” (2 Timothy 1:6, NIV)

Whatever gifting God has given us to use for his kingdom and his glory needs to be exercised and increased. Whenever you take a bold stand for God—whether through sharing his word, helping people in need, affirming moral absolutes, or loving the unlovely—someone on the other side of that belief or action may reject you, demean you, or oppose you. I think that this is an effective tactic of the enemy in our day—that he stirs up negative and divisive people to instill in us a fear of cancel culture.

Even in writing, I have moments of apprehension about “putting myself out there” like this because I know that kingdom work invites criticism. However, I’m encouraged by this Scripture. I have a gift, and I need to fan the flame rather than walk in shame, and that goes for all of us. Fear and criticism can cause us to retreat, but our call is to use our spiritual gifts to advance Christ’s kingdom.

“Fear and criticism can cause us to retreat, but our call is to use our spiritual gifts to advance Christ’s kingdom.”

2. Stay focused.

“No one serving as a soldier gets entangled in civilian affairs, but rather tries to please his commanding officer. Similarly, anyone who competes as an athlete does not receive the victor’s crown except by competing according to the rules. The hardworking farmer should be the first to receive a share of the crops.” (2 Timothy 2:4–6, NIV)

I’d like to add an example along the lines of Paul’s illustrations of a soldier, an athlete, and a farmer. Racehorses wear headgear that many people think is for decoration—but it’s actually fitted with blinders that restrict the horse’s field of vision. The blinders help the horse not to become distracted, looking around at other horses and losing speed. They also help the horse not to veer outside of the track. This is an image I try to keep in my mind when temporal things vie for my attention. My life is not my own but centers on a kingdom-first pursuit to glorify God and to bring others to him.

“My life is not my own but centers on a kingdom-first pursuit to glorify God and to bring others to him.”

3. Handle the Word correctly.

“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15, NIV) 

This is important because, as Paul explains, some people misuse the Word of God. He also gave a good way to identify them. If someone’s use of Scripture is accompanied by malice, hurtfulness, and hatred, then they’re using it wrong. The purpose of God’s Word is to bring people to repentance.

“And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth.” (2 Timothy 2:24-25, NIV)

4. Anchor yourself in Scripture.

“But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” (2 Timothy 3:14–15, NIV)

Paul told Timothy to continue in his study of the scriptures to make him wise for salvation in Christ. What were the scriptures in Timothy’s day? Paul certainly wasn’t talking about the New Testament, which he was actually writing as he composed this letter. No, the Holy Scriptures here were the Old Testament, Genesis to Malachi. Paul affirmed what we’ve been learning all along through this reading plan: All of Scripture points to Jesus!

Paul likened his walk with Christ to a race he had run faithfully. He had fanned the flame by exercising his spiritual gifts, undeterred even by harsh persecution. He was laser focused on the mission at hand—sharing the gospel with every person he could reach. He taught the Word accurately as God’s messenger by the power of the Holy Spirit. And the Word of God was his anchor.

“The Word of God was his anchor.”

In the closing of this letter, though he had been deserted by almost everyone, he found his strength and assurance in the presence of Christ, in the Word of God, and in the gospel mission.

“But the Lord stood at my side and gave me strength, so that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and all the Gentiles might hear it.” (2 Timothy 4:17, NIV)

This is a picture of a life of faithfulness. Fight the good fight, finish the race, and keep the faith.

“Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.” (2 Timothy 4:8, NIV)

For more from Tina Wilson’s 365-day chronological Bible study, see Step into Scripture: A Daily Journey to Understanding Your Bible.

Since no official permission had been granted, they had to discreetly—Michelangelo considered it sneaking­—smuggle the statue into St. Peter’s while the populace slept. Once it had been installed, the sculptor returned to St. Peter’s and noted how few paid attention to his work. He one day listened quietly as a family argued over its creator, but made no attribution to him. In frustration, Michelangelo returned that night, hammer and chisel in hand, and, on a sliver of stone on Mary, he cut his name as the sculptor.[1]

Can anyone now imagine such artistic genius shrouding itself in secrecy? As inconsistently, can any Christian believe the greatest story ever told about the greatest man ever to live could be cloaked in secrecy?

Brought Out into the Open

Christ likely spoke these sayings about letting our light shine on the second year of ministry. The specific occasion helps reveal the same basic theme and applies the parable in distinctive ways:

“You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 5:14-16, NIV)

He said to them, “Do you bring in a lamp to put it under a bowl or a bed? Instead, don’t you put it on its stand? For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open. If anyone has ears to hear, let them hear.” (Mark 4:21-23, NIV)

“For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed.”

“No one lights a lamp and hides it in a clay jar or puts it under a bed. Instead, they put it on a stand, so that those who come in can see the light. For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open. Therefore consider carefully how you listen. Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what they think they have will be taken from them.” (Luke 8:16-18, NIV)

“No one lights a lamp and puts it in a place where it will be hidden, or under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, so that those who come in may see the light. Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eyes are healthy, your whole body also is full of light. But when they are unhealthy, your body also is full of darkness. See to it, then, that the light within you is not darkness. Therefore, if your whole body is full of light, and no part of it dark, it will be just as full of light as when a lamp shines its light on you.” (Luke 11:33-36, NIV) 

Meaning

Jesus wants his disciples to reveal his life, teaching, redemptive death, and bodily resurrection.

Insights

Matthew 5:14-16. However slight, the smallest light penetrates thickest dark. That’s why Jesus never feared sending his people into the worst pest-holes of the ancient world. The slightest expression of his presence banished Satan’s wherever his people lived boldly.

Mark 4:21-23. Jesus used the figure to explain that the purpose of parables is to reveal truth, not hide it; and that understanding parables opens our mind to understanding other teaching.

Luke 8:16-18. The emphasis Jesus drew in verse 17 is that we must carefully listen to what’s taught. In contrast to his usual emphasis, Jesus here warned disciples to listen carefully, not teachers to teach accurately. Both are essential, but this stresses our need to pay attention. It may make the difference between being puzzled by, or understanding, his teaching. The use of the figure also warns us: if we don’t produce a Christian witness at our highest level, we’ll be stripped of our gifts.

“If we don’t produce a Christian witness at our highest level, we’ll be stripped of our gifts.”

Luke 11:33-36. The context in Luke 11:29-32 contrasts Christ’s appearance in Israel with Jonah preaching to Nineveh and the Queen of Sheba visiting Solomon. The earlier visitations upgraded a prophet and a king. With Jesus, however, someone greater than either preached in Israel. Only by accepting him as God do we properly understand him. Otherwise, even what light we shed proves dark. And, even accepting Christ as God, without producing the fruit of the Spirit, minimizes his spiritual truth into moral platitudes.

“Consider Carefully How You Listen”

Christ’s light reveals, penetrates, and pervades. Exactly what he expects from our lives. If we claim the privileges of, we must accept the responsibility of our spiritual enfranchisement. We who live so briefly here will yet live forever in the next world. Once we possess that awareness, we must teach it to others.

Christ came first as a babe—and visibly. He lay in the manger when shepherds came. He comes again as King—visibly and accompanied by angels. Both comings relate to our responsibility. As we look to his first coming for direction, we look to his second for hope. As both are real, not illusory; and experienced, not imagined, in the NOW between the comings we understand and relate publicly and privately, but always clearly and persuasively, that Jesus lives.

We learn to accept sometimes difficult teaching by knowing God’s word more broadly and deeply. Those with a more comprehensive understanding of God’s word can accept what often baffles or troubles those with less experience in it. Pastors don’t have to preach simple sermons to avoid preaching listeners for profound truth. Many ministers think the people seek simpler teaching to preserve their unthinking comfort zones. Many pastors oblige, afraid to over-burden their own minds. That defeats both themselves and their listeners. Only deeper teaching broadens the teacher; only learning deeper teaching broadens the listener. That enables both teacher and student to progressively plumb ever-more challenging didache in the Gospels.

“Only deeper teaching broadens the teacher; only learning deeper teaching broadens the listener.”

Consider the response when Jesus mentally dueled and defeated the Sadducees over the question of resurrection. When Jesus replied that God is the God of the living, not of the dead, the crowds “were astonished at his teaching.” Note…they grasped the meaning, difficult as it was.

Ministers need confidence that the Holy Spirit knows how to use God’s word to enlighten, correct, convict and convert listeners, even if that word is more thought-provoking than usual.

[1] Carolyn Shields, “The Story of the Pieta,” The Young Catholic Woman, https://www.theyoungcatholicwoman.com/archivescollection/2018/3/6/pieta.

It was highly unsavory and off-putting.

And it reinforced the value of impressing other people at work.

I mean, I’d like to think that I was above all that. I wanted to believe my Christian foundation insulated me from caring about what other people thought. I told myself I was focused on serving God and couldn’t possibly care what my peers were doing; who was rising in the company, who was struggling, and who was doing a corporate face-plant.

But I was. (I mean, I was considering what my peers were doing. Although there were also plenty of corporate face-plants.)

I strove for visibility and responsibility by making sure to toot my own horn. I promoted myself as someone who could get things done. And if I just happened to look better than others, and make my bosses look good in the process, well, all the better.

Incentivized to Do That

There’s a lot of incentive in the world of work to make a name for yourself. Being known for being smart, effective, or even just easy to work with fosters promotions and the financial benefits that come with them. But it’s also about pursuing freedom: freedom from doing mundane work, freedom to implement your own vision, even the freedom to play loose with the in-office hours. “You know, we haven’t seen Tom in the office for a month. But that’s OK. He’s really productive! And he makes me look good!”

Making a name for yourself at work means your credibility is enhanced, so people may actually listen when you speak up at a meeting. Making a name for yourself means people are more likely to follow you, because you’re a known quantity. Making a name for yourself means you get to call some shots, versus just responding to shots someone else is calling.

There are many benefits to making a name for yourself.

But the Bible points to a different focus.

“Being known for being smart, effective, or even just easy to work with fosters promotions and the financial benefits that come with them.”

Foolish Tower

The clearest scriptural example of a foolhardy focus on making a name for ourselves comes from the people who decided to build the Tower of Babel. They literally used those words to justify their prideful pursuit: “Then they said, ‘Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves…’” (Genesis 11:4, NIV).

God responded to their pride by scattering them and making them incomprehensible to one another (not unlike today’s political environment).

Jesus also warned about our desire to be seen and known. In the Sermon on the Mount, he said, “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven” (Matthew 6:1, NIV). He warned the people not to make a big deal about praying in public or giving to the poor just to be seen doing those things. He calls us to pursue authentic spiritual practices, not performative gestures done to impress others.

“He calls us to pursue authentic spiritual practices, not performative gestures done to impress others.”

Embarrassing Myself

You wouldn’t think pursuit of notoriety would be an issue in retirement. I may have deluded myself that people cared what I did when I was working. But every day in retirement it’s obvious that no one gives a flying french fry what I think. There are no coworkers or bosses or customers to impress these days. So I should be beyond that, right?

Unfortunately, I still strive to be known, respected, and admired, even if the potential audience is no larger than the group of us riding the elevator together. I’m continually chagrined by my posturing for respect, when it’s clear it’s not working. It’s hard to pretend everyone at the Y is marveling at my physical fitness when I’m wheezing on a treadmill, for instance. 

A Much Smaller, but Much Bigger, Audience

As I have sought to move on from human approval in this season of life, I was excited to read R. T. Kendall’s book, “An Audience of One.” Kendall writes how seductive it is to seek the world’s validation for our own esteem. He has a chapter on our desire for vindication, which he describes as being absolved from blame or false accusation. I would paraphrase it, “being right and making sure everyone knows it.”

If we are working for an audience of one, we need to pursue God’s glory, not our own. Kendall writes:

“When we pursue the glory of God, we must remember we are pursuing whatever glorifies, honors, and pleases Him. This means we must personally bow out entirely and respect what He is pleased to do… We need to be willing to affirm His right to pass us by and bless those He chooses to bless—even when that blessing does not include what we hoped for.”

That all makes sense. God is in control, his opinion is the only one that matters, and he loves me more than anyone else could. So, his validation should be enough. But yet, I can’t help but trying to impress anyone within view. Why don’t I act like God is enough for me?

“Why don’t I act like God is enough for me?”

I added a new layer to this when I read a passage from the book Thy Will Be Done,” by Andrew Murray, commenting on the description of David in 1 Samuel 13:14 (KJV): “…the Lord hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the Lord hath commanded him to be captain over his people…”

Murray wrote, “A man after Mine own heart: that speaks of the deep unseen mystery of the pleasure a man can give to God in heaven.”

That resonated with me. Do you ever consider that what we say or do can delight God? Maybe I haven’t been motivated by God’s validation because I’ve failed to consider how rewarding it is to delight the creator of the universe. What could be more powerful than that?

So, one of my priorities in retirement is weaning myself off the approval of men, and stopping to reflect on how encouraging, rewarding, and positive it is to know God is delighted with me.

Even when I am face-planting.

Sources: 

R. T. Kendall, For an Audience of One: Seek the Praise That Comes From God Alone (Lake Mary: Charisma House, 2020). 

From Tom Petersen’s “Repenting of Work.” Used with Permission.

Argument: The first time the word “homosexual” appeared in any Bible was in 1946 with the publication of the Revised Standard Version. In the translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9, the word “homosexual” was used to render the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai. Years later, the head of the RSV translation committee admitted this translation was a mistake. Subsequent revisions of the RSV, however, didn’t replace “homosexual” with “sexual perverts” until 1971, twenty-five years after the mistranslation occurred. By then, many other translations of the Bible had followed suit with the word “homosexual” in biblical texts. The damage had been done. Also, the terms Paul uses are so narrow that they leave no space for people’s sexual orientation.

It is true that when the Bible describes homosexuality, the authors of Scripture didn’t have in mind a “homosexual” as an identity based on a person’s sexual orientation. What did the writers have in mind for passages such as 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10?

What did the writers have in mind for passages such as 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10?

The Greek term arsenokoitai was the word Paul used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 to describe men who have sex with men. Arsenokoitai is a combination of two Greek terms found elsewhere in the New Testament: arsēn (meaning “male”) and koitē (meaning “couch” or “bed” with a sexual connotation). For example, Paul used koitē in Romans 13:13 when he warned against fornication by saying, “Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality (koitē) and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy.” The author of Hebrews used the term in a similar though more positive way when he wrote, “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed (koitē) undefiled” (Hebrews 13:4a, NKJV).

Paul’s meaning, therefore, is evident when he uses the word arsenokoitai. Moreover, the likely context for Paul bringing arsēn and koite together is how the Septuagint (ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament) translates Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Both verses refer to the act of homosexual sex, both call it an abomination, and in the Septuagint translation (which Paul would have used in his day), both verses use the words arsēn and koitē. In bringing them together to form the word arsenokoitai, Paul is not being ambiguous about what he’s referencing. 

Regarding the Bible addressing sexual orientation, the biblical approach is more about the action itself than slapping a label on the person who does it. The Bible doesn’t even use nouns for homosexual people; it uses descriptions of behavior, which is why it makes sense that the term “homosexual” would not be found in the Bible.

No such thing as a speeder

Behaviors are often prohibited in the Bible without labels being slapped on those who commit the behavior. More simply, in North America, no law on the books says it is illegal to be a speeder. What the law does say is that going over seventy miles an hour on the freeway is illegal. No word has been created for those who go over the speed limit, but the behavior is condemned. I couldn’t stand before a judge and say, “Your Honor, there is nowhere in the law that says I can’t be a speeder.” The judge would immediately respond, “Well, Mr. Hammond, there is something in the law that says you cannot go over seventy miles an hour; therefore, you are guilty.”

Is it good logic to say that the behavior of homosexuality is permitted because an identity label for the behavior does not appear in the Bible? No, arguing for the ability to do homosexual acts because Paul wasn’t describing a homosexual identity is a misguided attempt to ignore what the Bible uniformly says about homosexual behavior.

“Behaviors are often prohibited in the Bible without labels being slapped on those who commit the behavior.”

What “woke” means

The truth is the meaning of arsenokoitai has remained clear throughout the years, whether it’s been translated as “homosexual” or something else. Before the word “homosexual” was used in the Bible, the KJV Bible translated the behavior of homosexuality as “abusers of themselves with mankind.” Other translations used the word “effeminate.”

In Romans 1, we have the closest thing to the Bible discussing orientation when the apostle Paul talks about men being “inflamed with lust for one another” (Romans 1:27a). But a part of the focus is on the act itself—they “committed shameful acts with other men” (Romans 1:27b). It’s worth noting that this verse negatively describes both the lustful desires and the acts themselves. If the acts themselves are shameful, then they are just as wrong whether one is a homosexual in their orientation or a straight person experimenting, to whom homosexual behavior does not come naturally. Add to this the other biblical passages that address homosexual behavior, and we find no contingency in Scripture for homosexual sex under any circumstance.

“If the acts themselves are shameful, then they are just as wrong whether one is a homosexual in their orientation or a straight person experimenting.”

Besides that, languages evolve and change. The word “homosexual” came into the English language in the late 1800s. But that hardly means there was no such thing as homosexuality before the 1890s! Men having sex with men or women having sex with women—phrases, not single words—still connote what is meant by the modern phrase “homosexuality,” even if there is no exact biblical equivalent of the English word as used today.

If I told you I was woke, that would mean one thing today. Yet only five years ago, it would mean I had just gotten out of bed. Languages evolve.

Translators are only human and make mistakes—especially when pressured to agree with others or face public academic shaming. As far as the RSV goes—which is usually an excellent translation—the mistake seems to have been made not in 1946 but in 1971, when “homosexual” was made into the more malleable term “sexual pervert.”

For more from Guy Hammond, Following Jesus in an LGBTQ+ World, click HERE.

The Restoration Movement’s theological focus, like that of many church traditions in North America, is facing challenges. There has been a breakdown in the historic sources of theological strength—schools, publications, and related institutions. It has become trendy to assimilate into generic evangelicalism, quietly leaving behind historic biblical views of baptism (as an expression of faith for the forgiveness of sins), weekly communion, and leadership by male elders, among other distinctives. In addition, the transition from legacy gatherings (such as the North American Christian Convention for Christian Church leaders or the Tulsa Soul Winning Workshop for Churches of Christ leaders) to more specialized conferences has accelerated theological homogenization with generic evangelicalism. This shift often dilutes distinctive doctrines in order to satisfy consumer-attendance scorecards and fit into the broader evangelical church culture.

These weakening theological convictions are compounded by platformed individualism (smartphones and social-media algorithms), faith deconstruction, and the compound fracturing of evangelicalism itself through the breakdown of theological, cultural, and ethical pillars.

“These weakening theological convictions are compounded by platformed individualism.”

Yet we remain hopeful and confident in our convictions. We are committed to the best in biblical theology, which we believe is also the best in Restoration Movement theology. Our hope lies in a Scripture-based, theologically-grounded focus on Jesus-style disciple making in the emerging generations.

The explicit purpose of the 24-hour gathering was to prayerfully discuss how we can present a strong case for the best of our Restoration Movement theological ideals in a cultural moment when a significant subset of young, thoughtful adults is attracted to ancient-church rootedness for answers.

In advance, all participants reviewed three documents:

1. RENEW.org Network’s leadership faith statement: https://renew.org/about/faith-statement/
2. Scripture is First and Final: A Response to Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Claims about Traditions (watch for this forthcoming eBook)
3. Renewal and the Restoration Movement—this 2-page position paper seeks to clarify our focus on eight key Restoration Movement ideals (for our churches).

These documents were foundational to our meeting. There were significant upgrades added to the two papers after the input of the group.

Participants spent significant time getting to know one another. Five hold PhDs with expertise in early church history (and teach at theological institutions); one holds a Doctor of Ministry in church consulting; two others are popular and effective preachers with master’s-level background studies in church history; one is a church-planting expert and author with expertise in the last six decades of the North American church-growth movement, etc. This summary report will not list the names of the participants, because it is not necessary for the overall summary and because of sensitivity to the academic or professional or personal relationships that may be involved.

“Our hope lies in a Scripture-based, theologically-grounded focus on Jesus-style disciple making in the emerging generations.”

The Renew Ancient Church Collective will be an ongoing, as-needed gathering to help RENEW.org Network publish blogs, position papers, and books that spread historical and theological teachings that help to answer the challenges. We will also provide teaching seminars at RENEW.org Gatherings and at conferences of partner organizations.

Here are the top six mandates that emerged from our meeting.

1. Understand Why Gen Z Is Drawn to Ancient Christianity.

There is a strong interest in rootedness and in that which is historical rather than transitory. This means a significant subset of Generation Z is drawn to early Christianity as a more solid foundation and is thus focused on exploring Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.

Participants reported frequent questions from students and young adults about Catholicism and Orthodoxy, with some interest in Anglicanism as well. One participant said they receive two-to-three inquiries at their school every week (from former students and others), and that these inquiries often lean toward Eastern Orthodoxy, though Catholic conversions also occur. Similar observations came from leaders at Ozark Christian College, Harding University, Lipscomb University, Lubbock Christian University, Pepperdine University, and elsewhere, suggesting the trend is not limited to one institution. Recent Barna research points to a similar trend.

The group identified several factors behind this interest: a desire for ancient rootedness, deeper theology and spiritual practice, and a clear account of church authority and continuity. These questions are also part of the larger breakdown in the foundations of Western civilization. Participants argued that responding effectively requires presenting Restoration ideals with historical and theological depth rather than simply dismissing the appeal found in other traditions outright. The New Testament’s authority was treated as foundational to that discussion, while the group also emphasized the need to understand early Christian sources, historical theology, and the broader biblical witness.

“A significant subset of Generation Z is drawn to early Christianity as a more solid foundation and is thus focused on exploring Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.”

2. Pursue Scripture, Not Church Tradition, as the Final Authority.

Participants affirmed their belief that Scripture serves as the primary and final authority, while debating whether sola Scriptura or prima Scriptura best communicates this reality without descending into individualistic biblicism or isolating jargon. The Great Tradition, the rule of faith, the Apostles’ Creed, and patristic documents (e.g., the Didache) provide vital historical guardrails for biblical interpretation. Alexander Campbell read the Church Fathers daily, and early Restoration Movement leaders engaged Christian history extensively. We want people to follow their example, where possible, today.

A central discussion concerned whether Scripture’s authority depends on later church councils or whether apostolic writings were authoritative from their inception. The group was in agreement that the apostolic texts carried intrinsic authority when they were first written and that the early church recognized this authority rather than creating it. Drawing on scholars such as Oscar Cullmann and Everett Ferguson, they characterized the church as a witness to the canon, not a judge that conferred authority on it.

The participants affirmed J. I. Packer’s great summary of this point:

“The Church [fathers] no more gave us the New Testament canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity… Newton did not create gravity, but he recognized it.”

There was a good discussion on how to define the final authority of Scripture. Some prefer the expression prima Scriptura—Scripture is our first and final authority, but we value the wisdom and learnings of other authorities in history. Others define sola Scriptura in the same way and prefer the articulation of Anthony Lane in his essay, “Sola Scriptura? Making Sense of a Post-Reformation Slogan.”[1] This essay is essential reading for those who want an informed presentation on how to understand this issue.

“Alexander Campbell read the Church Fathers daily, and early Restoration Movement leaders engaged Christian history extensively.”

One participant with a family member who is a well-educated Roman Catholic (PhD in theology) cautioned that critiques of Catholic authority should represent Catholic theology accurately and should refer to the whole biblical witness, not only the New Testament. Catholic theologians, he explained, may understand later doctrines and practices through the development of doctrine, with the Magisterium serving as an authoritative expression of the faith’s development. Participants described this Catholic view, in terms of how they like to present it, as seeing tradition as a vehicle that preserves and unfolds the original deposit of faith.

The discussion distinguished between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox accounts of tradition. Orthodoxy was described as rejecting the Catholic model of progressive doctrinal development and instead defining tradition as Scripture rightly understood and handed down in the life of the church.

Several times the discussion of beliefs in the early church returned to a well-known statement by Vincent of Lérins—“what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all”—which was also discussed as a traditional test of continuity with biblical teaching. Restorationist opposition to creeds, from the beginning—even in the Declaration and Address (one of the foundational documents in Restoration Movement history)—was described as historically directed at their use as divisive or binding instruments, rather than at the everyday use of creeds or confessions. As noted, Alexander Campbell read the Church Fathers regularly.

3. We Need to Define a Proper Role for Tradition.

But what actually is tradition according to Orthodoxy and Catholicism? The Collective recommended that it would be worth expanding on a positive definition of tradition. Roman Catholics place their faith in their tradition as the authoritative interpreter of Scripture, setting that tradition over against Scripture itself as the supreme authority. Restorationists, by contrast, place their faith in Scripture—drawing on the insights of tradition—while still maintaining Scripture as the final authority over against tradition.

Roman Catholicism claims that the Magisterium and Tradition function as the working out of the deposit of faith, so that “everything in Roman Catholicism derives from something that Scripture says.” Eastern Orthodoxy does not operate with precisely the same definition; their understanding of Scripture and tradition is of them fused together, with tradition understood as Scripture rightly understood. The Roman Catholic use of the word “tradition” therefore differs from the Eastern Orthodox usage.

The Collective members maintain that Scripture remains the final authority or norm for Christian belief. This point is made in the Westminster Confession of 1646:

“The supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture” (Westminster Confession, 1:10).

“The Collective members maintain that Scripture remains the final authority or norm for Christian belief.”

On the related question of whether the church is free to make church innovations where Scripture is silent, many Protestants, like Lutherans, have claimed that the church is free, provided nothing is contrary to Scripture. This is the same point made in the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. For Luther, the practices justified on the grounds that they are not contrary to Scripture include infant baptism, Sunday worship, and the retention of images in churches. Puritans claimed, by contrast, that the church is limited to what is positively commanded by Scripture. Their way of thinking has much in common with certain streams of the Restoration Movement.

As an example of a healthy tradition, the Bible contains the raw materials for a doctrine of the Trinity; our collective members believe it cannot faithfully be interpreted other than in a Trinitarian manner, yet Scripture does not contain a fully developed doctrine of the Trinity.[2]

The historic Protestant confessions affirm “the authority of tradition, creeds and the contemporary church,” yet “these should be subordinated to Scripture. They are not judges like Holy Scripture but merely witnesses and expositions of the faith.”[3] Stated differently, sola Scriptura is the assertion that the church can err. Tradition and the teaching office of the church are unavoidable and invaluable resources; they possess a real authority—but not a final authority.[4] In the words of the traditional formula, Scripture is the norma normans non normata, the norm or rule that rules but is not itself ruled.[5]

“Scripture is the norma normans non normata, the norm or rule that rules but is not itself ruled.”

The tradition of the ancient churches can look more uniform and consistent, on a surface reading, than they are in reality. Both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches must acknowledge the fragmentation of their churches: What is really catholic (i.e., universal)? Which branch of the Eastern Orthodox Church faithfully upholds the unchanging traditions? As one participant asked, “Is the institution the church, or is the church beyond the institution?”

We all have traditions. Let’s help the emerging generation by carefully defining the proper role of tradition. Let’s define it and show them how we consistently apply that understanding. We will soon publish a paper that provides an outline of how we can move in this direction. The original paper read before the meeting has also been upgraded with a preliminary guide on this point.

4. We Need Openness and Critical Evaluation of Liturgical and Catechetical Practices.

Historic creeds, structured Scripture readings, and modest church-calendar rhythms were discussed as potential countercultural resources that can root people against cultural drift—provided they are paired with heart-level relational disciple making and intentional teaching of the young. These can be evaluated as tools of spiritual formation. The aim is not High-Church traditionalism, but the use of simple, historically-rooted elements to cultivate depth and stability.

A church rock band is cool for many and a turn-off for others. Wisdom is known by her children. Where does liturgy work in an effective evangelistic church tradition? Those at the meeting could not come up with strong examples, while acknowledging that such examples may exist.

A liturgical emphasis is typically found in declining mainline denominations. In those settings, the stability of liturgy often takes the place of an emphasis on trusting, knowing, and following Scripture. At the same time, several noted examples of effective low-church liturgies—repeated sayings and statements that connect with and teach everyday people (e.g., Elevate City Church in Atlanta).

“The aim is not High-Church traditionalism, but the use of simple, historically-rooted elements to cultivate depth and stability.”

The group acknowledged the effectiveness of some forms of liturgy, even if limited. They can help participants identify with previous generations, or they can help with spiritual formation and a Christian mind (as with repeating the Lord’s Prayer and the Apostles’ Creed, which were used by Alexander Campbell and others). Liturgy can be a key to identity formation. When it comes to healthy liturgy, possible natural elements in step with the Restoration Movement tradition could include: (1) responsive Scripture reading, (2) the Lord’s Prayer, (3) the Apostles’ Creed, and (4) examining how we provide Communion.

5. We Need to Follow Alexander Campbell, Everett Ferguson, and Others to Carefully Read and Know Church History.

The participants expressed great appreciation for the work of Restoration Movement scholar Everett Ferguson, among others. Ferguson provides us with a great legacy and track record—a respected Restoration Movement leader widely regarded as one of the leading specialists in early Christianity and Patristics, with a reputation for meticulous, fact-driven scholarship that is respected by scholars of all Christian traditions. His professional honors include serving as president of the North American Patristics Society and receiving its Distinguished Service Award for more than thirty years of service. He also sat on the councils of the American Society of Church History and the Association Internationale d’Études Patristiques, and co-edited the Journal of Early Christian Studies.

His work is frequently cited across denominational lines—by Catholic, Orthodox, evangelical, and Anabaptist scholars—precisely because it is grounded in primary texts and careful historical method rather than confessional advocacy. Yet he described his work and his theological advocacy for distinctive Restoration Movement doctrines with these words:

“I have been pleasantly surprised at the acceptance of my historical work across the religious spectrum—Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, historically minded Evangelicals, Mennonites, and Church of the Brethren. That acceptance is in part due to the fact that the historical evidence is largely consistent with our ecclesiastical position.”

He is especially valued for showing that practices such as believer’s baptism, weekly communion, and plural eldership have strong continuity with second- and third-century evidence.

6. We Need to Remember and Practice the Proper Quest for Unity.

One of the scholars described how his study of early Christian spirituality initially led him to consider Orthodoxy, but he concluded that Christian catholicity—the unity of believers in Christ—does not require moving into a particular institution, especially one that claims that they alone “have the fullness” and are the “true church.” He affirmed “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” while maintaining that institutional migration was not necessary to belong to the wider church. He also could not rationalize their teaching on infant baptism in light of the New Testament teaching on this topic.

There was a significant discussion on how to present the “C” church and the “c” church. One attendee with extensive experience in the World Council of Churches noted that this can be a Trojan horse for progressivism; you must carefully define what you mean by “unity.” Is it co-laboring and partnering in practical ways of reaching lost people, disciple making, and so on? Then we should get behind those unity efforts.

Another stated, “We must pursue cooperation without compromise, because to not cooperate is to compromise.” We must carefully define the essentials—the Gospel of Jesus + Faith + Indwelling Holy Spirit. We have to pursue the right goal (telos)—for example, prioritizing evangelization or social justice. Partnerships are vital and need to be thought through, bearing in mind the collateral damage that comes without careful analysis.

“You must carefully define what you mean by ‘unity.'”

The group’s prayers emphasized fidelity to Scripture and apostolic teaching, humility, unity, mission, and lasting spiritual fruit. Participants urged the movement to focus outward and get on mission, rather than become preoccupied with internal disputes. There was a significant emphasis on relational disciple making and the hugely positive impact that RENEW.org Network churches are witnessing as more and more churches make the transition to a disciple making focus, with amazing results in terms of church health, baptisms, and life transformation. The group also prayed for struggling churches and for discussions that would strengthen the church beyond those present.

The participants saw the Restoration Movement’s response to renewed interest in ancient Christian traditions as requiring both confidence in Scripture and serious engagement with history. They argued for articulating Restoration convictions on baptism, church unity, and biblical authority without ignoring the movement’s own divisions, cultural complexity, and need for renewal.

In Summary

Everyone agreed that we need to center on disciple making with Scripture as our final authority. That is our anchor while we engage early church history, moderate liturgical tools, and understand the patristic tradition.

As a Collective, we encourage you to hold tightly to Scripture as God’s reliable Word and refuse to reshape it to fit one’s feelings or the pull of traditions or culture. Trust and follow the Jesus of Scripture as Savior, Lord, and King. Remember that salvation and disciple making belong together. Make disciple making the central priority of your church. So many people gravitate to Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism because they are looking for depth. Go deep.

God is at work doing amazing things in everyday churches that make Scripture their first and final authority. Stay resolute. Keep trusting, following, and making disciples of Jesus as we look ahead to his return.

[1] Anthony Lane, “Sola Scriptura? Making Sense of a Post-Reformation Slogan,” in A Pathway into the Holy Scripture, by Philip E. Satterthwaite and David F. Wright (Wm. B. Eerdmans-Lightning Source, 1994), 297-327.

[2] See Anthony Lane, “Sola Scriptura,” in Pathway, 319.

[3] Anthony Lane, “Sola Scriptura,” in Pathway, 323.

[4] Anthony Lane, “Sola Scriptura,” in Pathway, 324.

[5] Anthony Lane, “Sola Scriptura,” in Pathway, 324.

“Some think that science leaves less room for God and ‘evidence for God’ just appeals to gaps in our knowledge. But science actually gives positive reasons for believing in God. Also, modern evolutionary theory has not disproved that God is the Creator.”

Now, let’s walk through this answer . . .

“Some think that science leaves less room for God . . .”

Science studies the natural world. Through the scientific method, our understanding of how the world works has exploded in recent centuries. And we should all be grateful for the many great technologies and conveniences that come from science. If you like playing video games, instantly talking to friends who are hundreds of miles away, or not having to gather firewood to stay warm, you should be thankful for the scientific discoveries that made those things possible.

Because science is such a powerful tool for understanding the natural world, some people think it’s removing all the reasons humans used to have for believing in God. For example, in Norse mythology, Thor (the god of thunder) caused lightning and thunder by swinging his hammer. But now we know that lightning is caused by electrical energy building up and discharging in the atmosphere, and thunder is merely the sound produced by the rapid expansion of air as lightning heats it. Likewise, the ancient Egyptians believed the sun moved across the sky because the sun god Ra carried it in a boat. But now we know that the sun is a star that produces energy through nuclear fusion, and we see it move across the sky because our planet is rotating in relation to it.

“Through the scientific method, our understanding of how the world works has exploded in recent centuries.”

So, as science explains more and more about how the world works, does it make belief in God less necessary? The famous atheist Richard Dawkins thinks so: “Gaps [in our knowledge] shrink as science advances, and God is threatened with eventually having nothing to do and nowhere to hide.”[1] In particular, he thinks that modern evolutionary theory has explained away the appearance of design in the world. Although it used to seem obvious that living things are carefully designed, Dawkins says evolution has “made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist” because we can now give a natural explanation for the apparent design.[2]

“. . . and ‘evidence for God’ just points to gaps in our knowledge . . .”

Not only do some skeptics of God (like Dawkins) think science is removing all the reasons ancient people had for belief in God, but they often claim that the scientific evidence for belief in God that modern-day people give simply points to the remaining gaps in our scientific knowledge. Dawkins thinks that those who believe God designed the world have this mindset: “If you don’t understand how something works, never mind: just give up and say God did it.”[3] This is often called the “god-of-the-gaps” fallacy. It’s a fallacy (a mistaken way of thinking) because it relies on ignorance. It wrongly assumes that if something cannot currently be explained by natural causes, then it must be the result of a supernatural being. It fails to recognize that gaps in our knowledge may eventually be filled by later scientific discoveries, just as they have been throughout history.

But what about scientific evidences for God? Do they merely rely on gaps in our knowledge? Do they commit the “god-of-the-gaps” fallacy?

“Skeptics often claim that the scientific evidence for belief in God that modern-day people give simply points to the remaining gaps in our scientific knowledge.”

“. . . But science actually gives positive reasons for believing in God . . .”

God reveals himself in creation by speaking the universe into existence, writing nature in the language of mathematics, making the universe just right for life, and designing living things with a complex code. Notice that these scientific clues for God don’t appeal to any gaps in our knowledge at all. Rather, they are based on scientific discoveries that we do know. These clues appeal to positive evidence and not ignorance.

For example, we saw that it’s now widely accepted in science that the universe began to exist. It isn’t that we’re clueless about the history of the universe and just say “God made it.” There is a lot of evidence that points to the universe having a beginning. Then, based on this scientific fact, we think about what sort of thing could create a universe. This leads us beyond science and the natural world to the supernatural—whatever brought the entire physical universe into existence is obviously beyond the physical universe. It must be beyond space, time, matter, and energy in order to create those things. It must also be incredibly powerful.

“These clues appeal to positive evidence and not ignorance.”

So this isn’t like understanding nothing about thunder and saying a thunder god with a hammer is responsible. We start with a scientific fact and then reason to the best explanation for that fact. This is known as “inference to the best explanation,” and it’s how scientists often work—choosing the explanation that best fits the known facts. In this case, the best explanation for the beginning of the universe is a powerful cause that is beyond space, time, matter, and energy.

Likewise, we appealed to other facts that we know from science, such as how the universe is fine-tuned for life and how DNA is a highly complex and meaningful code that functions like a computer program. These are facts that are widely accepted in science today. We then reason about what best explains them. The odds of the fine-tuning happening by random chance are well understood, and the odds are so astronomically bad that chance is a poor explanation. Design is far more plausible.[4] And DNA is clearly complex and meaningful information. Whenever we see information (in a book, computer program, etc.), a mind is always responsible for it. So, concluding that these things are designed is based on established facts and reasoning based on our repeated experience.

We should also remember that there are non-scientific reasons for thinking that God exists—evidence based on things like morality and personal experience. These also appeal to things we know and not merely gaps in our knowledge.

“We start with a scientific fact and then reason to the best explanation for that fact.”

“. . . Also, modern evolutionary theory . . .”

But doesn’t evolutionary theory call into question God’s role in creation? Some argue that if evolution can give a natural explanation for the diversity of life (how there are so many different kinds of living things), it removes the need for a designer. Let’s take a look at what evolutionary theory actually says and then consider whether it eliminates the need for God.

Modern evolutionary theory tries to explain the diversity of life on earth by a natural process that happens slowly over a long period of time. The theory began with Charles Darwin in the 1800s, who proposed that species evolve through a process called natural selection. Small changes randomly occur within a population of living things (e.g., certain finches have narrower beaks than others), and these random changes sometimes provide an advantage in surviving and reproducing (e.g., the birds with narrower beaks can get to food better). It is called “natural selection” because, in nature, traits that aid in survival are “selected” (passed on from parents to children). Darwin didn’t know what caused the random changes, but modern evolutionary theory suggests that they’re caused by random genetic mutations (unexpected changes in DNA that happen by chance and can affect how living things grow or function).

“Modern evolutionary theory suggests that they’re caused by random genetic mutations.”

Evolution is also said to occur on different scales. Microevolution refers to small changes within a species, like the variation in the beak shape of finches. (A species is a group of genetically similar organisms that can mate with each other and have babies that are, when grown, also able to have their own babies—e.g., domestic dogs can be different breeds, but they are all in the same species.) Macroevolution, on the other hand, involves bigger changes that can result in the formation of new species. Little changes within a species add up over time to big changes so that an entirely new species emerges. Thus, macroevolution involves all living things sharing a common ancestry: through millions of years of gradual changes, all life forms, from plants to animals, are connected by a long evolutionary history and began with a single-celled organism (the first living thing).

Nobody denies that microevolution happens; there are small differences within a species (like skin color or beak shape). But some scientists do question macroevolution–and for good reasons. Nevertheless, some people think that if macroevolution is true, then God isn’t needed to explain why living things look designed. If all the different animals and plants resulted from a purely natural process, then we can explain it without God’s design. Let’s explore this claim.

“. . . has not disproved that God is the Creator.”

Modern evolutionary theory should not make us reject intelligent design. Let’s briefly consider a few reasons why.

First, we’ve already seen multiple good scientific clues for God, and macroevolution has nothing to do with them. Regardless of whether macroevolution is true, the beginning of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe for life, the information in the DNA code, and the mathematical language of the universe all point to an intelligent designer.

Second, even if macroevolution were true, that doesn’t explain how the first living cell began. In order for evolution to begin, there first needs to be a living cell with DNA that could copy itself and make new cells. We now know that a single cell is enormously complex, functioning much like a bustling factory with various specialized structures performing many tasks (energy production, waste disposal, communication, manufacturing, etc.). And even the simplest single-celled organisms have hundreds of thousands of base pairs of DNA (letters in their DNA code). The more we learn about the cell and the information in DNA, the more reasonable it is to think design best explains how life began. Evolution does not explain where the information in the DNA of the first living cell came from.

“We’ve already seen multiple good scientific clues for God, and macroevolution has nothing to do with them.”

Third, there are significant challenges to macroevolution as a purely natural way of explaining how we got so many different kinds of living things (the diversity of life). We can’t cover them all here, but one big challenge is the so-called “Cambrian Explosion.” This refers to a period in earth’s history in which many major animal groups appear suddenly in the fossil record rather than there being a chain of gradual changes over time. Somehow a lot of new genetic information came about rapidly. Another big problem is that random mutations to DNA code are far more likely to cause damage than anything useful. Just like randomly changing letters in a computer program will almost always break the code and almost never add new functionality, the same is true with DNA. 

Ultimately, the case for a Creator is strong. Macroevolution faces significant challenges, and it would not undermine all the great evidence for design even if it were true.

“Macroevolution faces significant challenges, and it would not undermine all the great evidence for design even if it were true.”

In fact, these clues for God—the beginning of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe for life, the information in the DNA code, and the mathematical language of the universe—would all need to be in place for macroevolution to get started in the first place.

[1] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (London: Bantam Publishers, 2006), 125.

[2] Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1996), 6.

[3] Dawkins, The God Delusion, 132.

[4] Some might argue that the fine-tuning could be explained by the multiverse theory, where multiple universes exist with different conditions. We didn’t address this theory here, as it lacks empirical support and does not eliminate the need for a fine-tuner. For a good summary on why this is the case, see Willian Lane Craig, “Has the Multiverse Replaced God?” Reasonable Faith, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-ofgod/has-the-multiverse-replaced-god.

For the full book, check out Daniel McCoy and Zach Breitenbach, God Conversations: 20 Discussions for Students on Whether God Is Real and What He’s Like. 

In this snippet, a guy named Dan got drunk on his birthday, started talking about what he really thought, and found himself transformed into a dead, head-bobbling jack-in-the-box. I suddenly felt a kinship with all the worry-prone Boomers I know—watching that as a 60s kid would have done it.

Seeing Dan turned into Jack made the other adults all the more agreeable, playing along with the six-year-old’s whims the rest of the episode.

Playing along with a wicked person’s whims. Sounds terrifying, but that’s how a lot of the world operates. When the regime calls for the same number of bricks but this time without straw, you grumble but keep ahead of the whips.

Seems to work that way in the spirit realm too. Many of the gods people serve are bound to no law but appetite, which is why their laws are so impoverishing. When the spirits are unpredictable and mischievous, we have to figure out ways to appease them or go undetected. 

“Many of the gods people serve are bound to no law but appetite, which is why their laws are so impoverishing.”

Interestingly, playing along is how trick-or-treating came about. The pre-Christian Celts celebrated the festival Samhain (pronounced saw-win), during which they believed the veil between the spirit world and ours became thin. Ancestor spirits would visit houses, looking for offerings. In anticipation of this, people would disguise themselves as ghosts for a couple reasons: first, to go undetected by the actual ghosts, and second, to visit homes and receive the offerings meant for the dead. With hungry spirits canvasing their town, they played along by pretending to be one of them.

Many people still play along to get along in a wicked, whimsical world, the same as our pre-Christian ancestors. Any of these rules sound familiar?

• Unsure if people truly love you? DO NOT stop working on your image.
• Betrayed by someone you trusted? DO NOT let anyone that close again.
• Scared by the unpredictability of this season of life? DO NOT allow your mind to rest or your body to Sabbath.
• Unable to climb social ladders because of faith commitments? DO NOT let your faith jeopardize your advancement. Know the difference between what enhances your life and what makes it worth living.
• Unable to stop feeling hurt by what someone did? DO NOT allow peace until you get even.
• Afraid others are getting ahead? DO NOT put other’s interests above your own. No one looks out for you like you can and must.
• Feeling down? DO NOT rest until you’ve found a thrill to pick you back up.

“We too play along to get along in a wicked, whimsical world, same as our pre-Christian ancestors.”

Granted, none of this is what we would do in an ideal world. But it’s a wicked world with warped rules.

Where wicked rulers and capricious spirits reign, people play along to get along. But the apostle Paul tells us we don’t have to. He describes “elemental spiritual forces of this world” that issue harsh regulations: “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!” (see Colossians 2:20-23).

The “Colossian heresy” had convinced even churchgoers to wear themselves out obeying rigid rules, mistreating their bodies, and pursuing mystical experiences. Only then, they believed, would they find fullness.

Nope, says Paul. “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and in Christ you have been brought to fullness” (Colossians 2:9-10a, NIV). He’s our hope—the soil from which springs the good life: faith in God and love for others (see Colossians 1:3-5).

“For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and in Christ you have been brought to fullness.”

Must be nice, we mutter on our way to meeting another demand by the wolfish spirit fattening us for eventual consumption.

But you don’t have to be ruled by these wannabe overlords. You can have one Lord, says Paul (Ephesians 4:5), one who is bound by goodness and brimming over with grace.

“Why,” Paul asks, “as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules?” Why keep playing along? That game is lame and it’s rigged against you. But God’s rules are made for you. “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath,” Jesus said. You don’t have to play along in the dark when he has already entered the room and flipped on the light.

• Disciples live in this world by pursuing an immersive relationship with the Holy Spirit, not just routines or techniques.
• Acts 2 presents a bold vision where God pours out His Spirit on all people to transform and equip His church.
• Through the New Testament, believers learn the Holy Spirit is a person who leads, fills, and shapes them into Christlikeness.

How do disciples live in this world? Here’s the answer we’ll explore:

Disciples live in the world, but they are not of the world. They are distinctive even as they permeate a dark world with light—and that light is the light of Christ.

Think about this passage from the “kingdom parables” or “disciple making parables.” Matthew 13:44 says:

“The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.”

So, how do we make disciples and have this kind of impact?

1. Start with Prayer

There are a lot of ideas about how to start making disciples, but let’s look at how Jesus started. Since Jesus is our model, we want to imitate him. Jesus started his ministry with 40 days of fasting and prayer. Then he invited people into his life and got to know them. Some people think there was a group of around 90 people before Jesus spent the night in prayer and, after praying all night, chose the 12 to invest in.

The first thing we want to recommend to everybody is that when you decide you want to make disciples like Jesus, start with prayer. Pray about it for a while, really seeking clarity that God would lead and guide you.

2. Invest in a Few

The second thing we would recommend, again following the example of Jesus, is investing in a few people. Not only did Jesus invest in the 12, but there were three—Peter, James, and John—whom he especially focused on. Paul gives us a similar example when he tells Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:2:

“And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.”

What you have is Paul to Timothy, Timothy to reliable people, and reliable people to others. That’s four generations of disciple making!

But it starts small. Find a few people and invest in them. 

3. Think Smaller Than Small

When we think small, we often think of a small group. And if your church is like most, a small group means 12, 14, or 16 people who meet for an hour a week and maybe do a little more.

But when Jesus thinks about disciple making, he’s thinking even smaller than that. Remember the “kingdom parables” where Jesus talks about the kingdom of heaven being like a mustard seed? He describes it as the smallest seed in the garden. It’s tiny, something you can barely hold between two fingers. But when you plant that seed in the ground and let it grow, that little beginning becomes a tree that can be 30 feet tall and 20 feet wide. Birds find shelter in its branches. All of a sudden, you can’t call it a bush anymore. It’s a tree! It starts small, but with God’s power, God’s influence, and the Holy Spirit, you begin to see that God is able to do incredible things with something small.

When we think back on our lives, we think about the investment of discipling our children. Are you discipling your children? We’re fortunate that our children follow Jesus. Then I think about the other people we’ve invested time in over the years. In some cases, I can see multiple generations of disciples making disciples. We invested in a few people, going small but going deep, and then God made it really big.

“We invested in a few people, going small but going deep, and then God made it really big.”

4. Make the Commitment to Become a Disciple Maker

At this point, the big question is: Are you convinced that disciple making is the core mission of the church? And if it is, what does that require of us?

When I discover that disciple making is what the Great Commission is all about—that it’s taking the Great Commandment and putting it into practice—I have to ask myself, “How do I go about becoming a disciple maker?”

First, pray about it. Fast and pray. Make sure that when you begin this journey, you’re committed to it and that God’s fingerprints are on it. Then find somebody at your church you can talk to about it. Maybe it’s an elder or somebody on the ministerial staff. Tell them, “I think I’m ready to do this. I’ve got to do this.”

Since disciple making is the core mission of the church, we encourage you to connect with your church about it. Hopefully, your church already has a disciple making process in place. If not, consult with your leaders and say, “I want to do this, but I want to do it in sync with you.”

Get a plan, find some people, and make the commitment.

Once you begin, it’s such an exciting journey. It’s incredibly meaningful to look at people’s lives and realize that you’re not the same person you were a year ago, and they’re not the same people they were a year ago. And quite frankly, over time, your church isn’t the same church it was a year ago either.

“It’s incredibly meaningful to look at people’s lives and realize that you’re not the same person you were a year ago, and they’re not the same people they were a year ago.”

5. Begin Making Disciples Who Make Disciples

It all begins with intentional, relational formation. We want to challenge you to make that beginning. Pray. Fast. Talk to somebody. And ask yourself this question:

What would it look like for me to be a disciple who makes disciples who make disciples?

We’re convinced that’s the core mission of the church.

This is Question #5 discussed in Disciple Making: The Core Mission of the Church, by Bobby Harrington & Scott Sager.

1. Tell a story.

Never underestimate the power of narrative. If you turn anything into a narrative, it is immediately more gripping. Rather than, “Some people feel there is no hope for society,” say, “The other day I was talking to someone at a café in Ikebukuro and they looked at me and said this: ‘I just feel there’s no hope for society.’” The same content in story form will always make people listen.

2. Illustrate with an example.

Just do a “For instance…” or “This is like when we…” or “This can be seen in.…” These real-life examples bring the Bible to life for people.

3. Use an analogy.

Parables work! Find a way to draw on a real or imagined scenario that hits close to home for the listeners. If you say, “You must obey Jesus to show you trust him with real faith,” it’s a true statement. But, once you say, “Someone who claims to trust a bridge but won’t set a foot on the bridge to cross it doesn’t actually trust the bridge,” the idea sticks.

“Find a way to draw on a real or imagined scenario that hits close to home for the listeners.”

4. Use visuals.

We are visual creatures. God gave us sight. He gave a temple of things that could be seen to communicate truth. He gave prophets visions. God showed people things. Let people see what you’re talking about and use technology to engage people’s eyeballs! Here are some easy ways to use visuals:

• Pictures – If you mention the pyramids, show a pyramid.
• Timelines – If you give a date, show the audience the date in relation to other events.
• Maps – When you state a place, throw a map on the screen.
• Artifacts – Many of the things the Bible mentions have been uncovered in archaeology. Show the images and make things come to life.
• Diagrams – Use graphs, diagrams, charts, and comparison models. They work in business for a reason.

5. Use a quote.

Show you are not the only one who sees this truth in Scripture. Bring in an expert. Have someone say it from another time, in another language, and from another country. This shows people how the Kingdom of God is big. Just saying, “Augustine from North Africa said it like this in the 4th century…” will get people to shake themselves awake.

6. Ask a discussion question.

The church is gathered. Let them talk to each other! Make the gathering a communal experience that cannot be replicated on YouTube.

“The church is gathered. Let them talk to each other!”

7. Use communal speech.

Have the audience read or say something together. Have them use their voice. Say a word. Say it in Greek. Get the audience to vocalize and they will likely remember that word.

8. Change your position in the room.

You can’t do this trick every time or people will start to expect it, but you can leave the stage from time to time. Or, move to a different location and say something away from your notes.

9. Involve the audience.

Ask for a volunteer. Prepare a volunteer to join you. It makes everyone on edge because they think they might be next so their adrenaline will keep them awake. Say someone’s name in an illustration, “That would be like if Hiro….” 

10. Use props.

Showing on a screen is good but when you hold something in your hand, it makes everyone’s eyes go straight to you. You could use the object. Or, just simply writing something on a board rather than putting it on the screen will make people perk up.

“Showing on a screen is good but when you hold something in your hand, it makes everyone’s eyes go straight to you.”

11. Give clear application.

Preachers should do this anyway. But clear, compelling application to someone’s life will make them think deeply and that will get their neurons firing.

12. Create clear contrast.

I’ve heard it said, “Contrast is the mother of clarity.” Once you give the opposite of what you’re talking about, the thing itself becomes crystal clear. Show the difference between Christianity and other religions. Give people the difference between virtue and vice. Explain the opposite of what someone says or does in the Bible, and the whole thing becomes gripping and clear.

13. Personalize the message.

I remember a preaching professor saying to me, “Personalize, personalize, personalize.” Make the story real. Make the truth real. Simply giving a “Can you imagine if you came home to find your younger sibling had stolen your most valuable possession while you were gone as Esau did?” Or, “How would you feel if your spouse said they only wanted to talk to you for 75 minutes every Sunday?” Or, “What did you do or buy at the store to make sure your baby was safe? The right pajamas, the non-BPA bottles, the 5-star safety rating stroller. Did your care for your baby ever involve setting your child in a basket in a river and hoping for the best?” Place the truth in terms that feel personal.

“Simply giving a ‘Can you imagine if you came home to find your younger sibling had stolen your most valuable possession while you were gone as Esau did?'”

14. Provide space to write or draw in the notes.

Most churches have bulletins or copy machines. Use them! Give people a place to fill in the blank, complete a diagram, take notes, or write their own reflection.

15. Vary your delivery.

For vocal patterns, one of the things that doesn’t work is the same thing. Here are four things to vary:

• Pitch – Go high and low. Most people do in normal conversation, and you want to sound natural and not robotic.
• Pace – Slow down and speed up. Say long sentences and then switch to one or two words.
• Volume – If the whole thing is yelling, people tune you out. If the whole thing is a whisper or gentle lowing, they will stop listening.
• Tone – You cannot do the heartfelt, tearful plea for 35 minutes straight. You can’t tell jokes for 35 minutes. There should be some degree of change in tone and mode of delivery. “Good morning, church. Make sure you open your Bible to Malachi 2…” should have a different tone from, “Jesus’ blood was spilled to atone for the sins we committed against a holy God.”

For more from Jay, check out his Substack HERE. Used with permission.