Josh Benner

Category: Commentary

  • Having an “all things to all people” ministry mindset

    all things to all people.JPG

    Originally published April 6, 2016

    In 1 Corinthians 9, the Apostle Paul gives an insight into how he approached ministry. After discussing how he related to Jews, gentiles, and those whom society had looked down upon, Paul sums up how he related to each of these groups by saying that he became “all things to all people.”

    For the Jewish people, they had the Law. In the early church, there was still some uncertainty over which (if any) aspects of the Law people were required to follow.

    Paul was respectful of Jewish customs. He had been born and raised Jewish. And for the sake of building relationships, in certain circles, he would still participate in accordance with various Jewish customs. In Acts 16, Timothy is a young minster who begins doing ministry with Paul. Knowing they would be traveling in heavily Jewish areas, Paul actually has Timothy get circumcised.

    All things to all people.

    People needed to understand that adherence was not what saved a person. Faith is what saves. But it’s also important to understand that, for Paul, in ministering to Jewish people, the purpose wasn’t to get them to give up every aspect of their former life. Practicing things like circumcision or still eating in accordance with the Jewish dietary restrictions were not things that people needed to give up.

    Paul’s purpose was to preach the gospel, the salvation through faith and the work of Jesus at the cross.

    From Jews to Hindus 

    I was at a missions conference a few weeks ago and one of the presenters was talking about barriers missionaries face in evangelizing Hindus in India. India has a billion people, but is only about 2.3% self-identified as Christian. And those numbers haven’t really changed in the past 50 years, in spite of all of the money and missionary efforts in that country.

    Part of the challenge is that Hindus who convert to Christianity often times make radical changes. Not simply Spiritually, but external changes: things like changing their names, changing how they dress, essentially separating themselves from anything that has to do with Hinduism.

    Many American Christians might think that’s a good thing.

    But is it?

    Think about it like this: you know someone and they start going to a new church. And then they start dressing differently. And then they tell you they’ve changed their name….would you think “well that’s wonderful.”

    Of course not.

    You’d think they had just joined a cult!

    Coming to faith in the gospel of is always a spiritually transforming event. But depending on a person’s background, it can also be a significant social change as well. There can be stigmas in certain circles. It can be at the expense of relationships. While the gospel is worth whatever the cost, it does not need to be at the cost of lifestyle decisions that aren’t matters of sin. It can be easy to have extra-Biblical expectations of what a real Christian should act like or do. We should encourage and exhort people to turn away from sin, but not from things which are morally neutral, things like style of dress, tattoos, piercings, and smoking.

    For the Hindus, with things like the style of dress or their first name, or like the Jews to whom Paul was ministering who still practiced circumcision, these weren’t sin issues. These weren’t things that were inherently wrong for the people to be doing.

    While this passage is not an exhaustive manual on how to do ministry, I do think that it is providing an important bedrock example of how we are to spread the good news of the love and forgiveness of Christ in our world.

    All things to all people.

    We have a God who meets us and loves us where we are. And we are to love other people where they are. It’s not about a person getting things together so that we can find them lovable.

    Josh Benner is the associate pastor at Cornerstone Evangelical Free Church in Fergus Falls, Minnesota and has a Master of Divinity from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He enjoys writing about faith and culture. He lives with his wife Kari in Minnesota.

  • Major step forward for pro-life movement as Iowa passes heartbeat bill

    DcYNoxhVwAAUDilYesterday, Iowa governor Kim Reynolds signed a bill into law that will ban most abortions in that state. The law, which passed the Iowa house 51-46 .

    The new law will ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected (roughly six weeks into gestation). This is the most restrictive abortion law on the books in the country. Some women don’t even realize they’re pregnant prior to six weeks. This new law gives a very short window when a pregnancy could e terminated in Iowa.

    This law is facing backlash and criticism from abortion advocates.

    NARAL Pro-Choice America president Ilyse Hogue said that it was “a sad day for women and families in Iowa”

    In an official statement, governor Reynolds:

    “I believe that all innocent life is precious and sacred, and as governor, I pledged to do everything in my power to protect it…I understand that not everyone will agree with this decision. But if death is determined when a heart stops beating, then doesn’t a beating heart indicate life? For me, it is immoral to stop an innocent beating heart. For me, it is sickening to sell fetal body parts. For me, my faith leads me to protect every Iowan, no matter how small.”

    The law will undeniably face legal challenges and could potentially go before the supreme court.

    I applaud the Iowa governor of Iowa and the state’s legislature as they make a law that will protect unborn babies in their state.

    Josh Benner is the associate pastor at Cornerstone Evangelical Free Church in Fergus Falls, Minnesota and has a Master of Divinity from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He enjoys writing about faith and culture. He lives with his wife Kari in Minnesota.

  • 4th century theology of Athanasius still fresh today.

    athanasius

    Originally published March 18, 2016

    Why did Jesus have to die? For years, this puzzled me. I could get on board with the idea that I fell short of God’s perfect standard. But why did Jesus need to die? Couldn’t God have just forgiven me? Like some sort of Spiritual write off?

    One of the best explanations I have ever read for this comes from a fourth century bishop named Athanasius in a work he produced entitled “On the Incarnation.”

    From the beginning, Athanasius provides a treatise on Jesus’ presence in creation, his incarnation as a man, and his necessary death for the reconciliation of humanity.

    Athanasius establishes that Jesus, who created all things, is the same being who renewed the world. In arguing against the Epicureans, the Gnostics, and Plato, Athanasius uses some of his counterarguments in an attempt to further solidify his Christology. For instance, Plato’s idea of God fashioning things from pre-existent matter is used by Athanasius to argue that such a view demotes God from Creator to mere craftsman and that the matter itself was necessarily created by God. From that creation, man was created in a sinless state but had the volition to sin. When mankind fell, it forever tarnished the relationship between man and God. And the sin of man spread throughout all of creation. People began to turn their attention to other things which God had created instead of on the Creator Himself.

    In the second chapter, Athanasius gets into a salvific dilemma about how God can reconcile His glory with man’s sin. “It was impossible; therefore, that God should leave man to be carried off by corruption, because it would be unfitting and unworthy of Himself.” It is not because of any intrinsic value of man, but God’s own nature called for a means of restoration. It will later be argued that to not provide this means would have led to a superfluity of the creation of man in the first place. For man to be created solely for damnation with no hope of salvation would mean that God was ultimately not creating man for Himself. But God could not simply forgive man arbitrarily because this would again have contradicted his perfection as the Lord had already established a prelapsarian injunction which humanity had willingly disobeyed.

    Possible options are speculated as to what God might have done. Mere repentance could not go quite far enough because it wasn’t about merely avoiding a particular sin. It was about being sinful in itself. In doing away with death and corruption, Jesus became a man to conquer those enemies. It couldn’t have been a man who did this because even the most pious men were ultimately sinful. As a result, Jesus was the only means of redemption. The God who had already been intimately involved with creation and the sustenance of the world was also the only means of salvation. While creation itself provided evidence for God’s existence, Athanasius argues that if teleological observations could have had a perfecting quality, that man would not have fallen in the first place. Instead of men recognizing the glory of God through creation itself, in sin, man instead made idols of other elements of creation.

    It could not have been merely Christ coming to earth. He needed to die. To give people reason to believe in Christ’s dominion over creation, and in order to give a reason for a faith that would end the death which was caused by sin, Jesus needed to personally rise from the dead. It couldn’t have been natural. Jesus needed to be witnessed dying, so that his risen state could bring men to faith in God.

    Among his conclusions, Athanasius argues that the transformation which Jesus has had on so many lives is a testimony to the truth of his resurrection. “Does a dead man prick the consciences of men, so that they throw all the traditions of their fathers to the wind?”

    The concluding chapters focus on more in depth refutations of common worldviews. To Judaism, he argues that the Old Testament called for a Messiah, and it called for that Messiah to be martyred. Athanasius next turns his attention to making various apologetic arguments for non-Jewish readers, opposed to believing the gospel.

    At times his Christological claims sound as if written by Paul. At other instances, his matter of fact, street smart logic and gripping analogies seem more modern, perhaps as if they could have been written by C.S. Lewis. I felt like the modern elements seemed most vivid in the apologetic arguments about the transformations in the lives’ of the people who knew Jesus and their willingness to risk everything in proclaiming the truth of his resurrection. At certain points, I found this volume to be laborious. But once the flow of his argument was established, I thought this book seemed much more approachable. Even though the writing presents a long argument, I also felt that Athanasius did a good job, at points, of summarizing the main points that he had made.

    For the time in which it was written, I appreciate the systematized approach to some extremely complicated (but also important) issues. While Athanasius will not convince everyone to his line of thought, I felt that this was a great book in terms of answering the “why” Jesus needed to come. Therein lays the significance of this book. I feel that the “why” question  is so easily taken for granted.

    It’s easy to acknowledge people sin and to say that Jesus needed to die for our sins. But as if in an infantile mentality, I feel it’s so easy to keep reducing the question with “but why?” Why did things have to be as they were? Why couldn’t God simply forgive man? It’s one thing to explain why the incarnation Jesus was an option. With Athanasius, the undertaking was a more structured argument as to why it needed to happen and why it was the only way for reconciliation. In trudging through the difficulties of making the incarnation of Jesus tangible, Athanasius gave the world a true work of brilliance.

    Josh Benner is the associate pastor at Cornerstone Evangelical Free Church in Fergus Falls, Minnesota and has a Master of Divinity from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He enjoys writing about faith and culture. He lives with his wife Kari in Minnesota.

  • Beth Moore letter addresses misogyny in evangelicalism

    Over the last generation, Beth Moore has been one of the most prominent female leaders and speakers in American Evangelical circles. Her Bible studies are hugely popular among women. She’s the founder of Living Proof Ministries, a ministry for women based out of Houston.

    She’s not a pastor. She’s an author and speaker.

    Although she’s popular in Evangelical circles, she’s not universally supported. Some of the criticisms of her theology include that it’s a prosperity gospel or that it’s intellectually light theology.

    My purpose in writing today is not to argue for or against the merits of her theology. Agree or disagree with her, she’s hugely influential. And today, Moore posted an open letter on the blog for Living Proof Ministries “A letter to my brothers” where she discusses some of her experiences as a prominent speaker in circles that are generally dominated by men.

    The subject of women in ministry is one that is debated within Christian circles. Can a woman be a pastor? Can a women ever preach a sermon? Can a woman teach men in the church? People have different opinions on these issues. Some would say yes to all three, some would say no to all three. Others are in the middle.

    It’s complicated.

    In writing, Moore talks about some of the misogynistic treatment she’s received over the years. Considering the divergent opinions within Christian circles on women in leadership, Moore’s letter talks about how she had chalked up some of her treatment as being a byproduct of deeply rooted Biblical convictions among sincere Christians with whom she simply disagreed.

    From the letter:

    I accepted the peculiarities accompanying female leadership in a conservative Christian world because I chose to believe that, whether or not some of the actions and attitudes seemed godly to me, they were rooted in deep convictions based on passages from 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14.

    As Moore continues to elaborate, she talks of coming to a realization that it wasn’t simply about differences in opinion.

    I came face to face with one of the most demoralizing realizations of my adult life: Scripture was not the reason for the colossal disregard and disrespect of women among many of these men. It was only the excuse. Sin was the reason. Ungodliness.

    Our culture largely disrespects women. The #metoo movement showed the rampant sexual harassment and assault in Hollywood. As the movement spread, more and more areas of life came to light that were stained by the mistreatment of women. The #churchtoo movement showed further examples of assault and harassment from within the church. Obviously we knew that there were issues but these movements have created a national dialogue.

    While Moore’s post dealt more with misogyny than sexual assault, both are a reflection of a culture which far too often devalues women.

    The church is meant to be a light in a dark world. But we also live in society and the world is sinful. For too many Christians, misogyny and sexism are overlooked blindspots.

    I hold to a complementarian theology where I believe that preaching and teaching is reserved for men. Theologically, it’s how I see God having designed his created order. I think that’s the best way to interpret the applicable Biblical passages. I think that complementarianism can (and should) be honoring to women. Women are created in the image of God and are precious. But with a theological belief that there are certain things that men can do within the church and that women can’t do; with beliefs on submissiveness (without also understanding the self-sacrifice to which men are called), it can be easy for an Evangelical Christian male to develop a misogynistic view of women. Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying that the Bible is misogynistic. I’m saying that sinful men can distort the Bible and become sexist within our culture that often accepts sexism and misogyny. The default is just to do what the rest of the world is doing unless proactively living out a different set of values.

    Again, we can agree or disagree with what Beth Moore believes and teaches. But we shouldn’t dismiss her points. The church needs to be a leader in our society in showing honor and respect to all women.

    At the end of her letter, Moore makes a simple request:

    I’m asking that you would simply have no tolerance for misogyny and dismissiveness toward women in your spheres of influence. I’m asking for your deliberate and clearly conveyed influence toward the imitation of Christ in His attitude and actions toward women.

    Josh Benner is the associate pastor at Cornerstone Evangelical Free Church in Fergus Falls, Minnesota and has a Master of Divinity from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He enjoys writing about faith and culture. He lives with his wife Kari in Minnesota.

  • Dietrich Bonhoeffer: cheap grace vs. costly grace

    427px-Dietrich-B.jpg

    Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German pastor and theologian. He was staunchly opposed to the Nazis. Arrested in 1943, he was later implicated in being a conspirator in an assassination plot against Hitler. Bonhoffer was executed in 1945.

    His writings have been influential in the 73 years since his death. Bonhoffer’s “The Cost of Discipleship” is a book that examined what it means to truly be a follower of Christ.

    One of the ideas I really love from this book is what Bonhoffer calls “cheap grace” compared to “costly grace.” Cheap grace essentially takes sin lightly. If sin is taken lightly, then the salvation which Jesus purchased is also cheap. Costly grace comes from a realization of how great our sin was, and how great the gospel is.

    I consider this idea to be Bonhoffer’s greatest contribution to Christian thought.

    Here’s an excerpt from the book:

    “Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.

    Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it a man will go and sell all that he has. It is the pearl of great price to buy which the merchant will sell all his goods. It is the kingly rule of Christ, for whose sake a man will pluck out the eye which causes him to stumble; it is the call of Jesus Christ at which the disciple leaves his nets and follows him.

    Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock.

    Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son: “ye were bought at a price,” and what has cost God much cannot be cheap for us. Above all, it is grace because God did not reckon his Son too dear a price to pay for our life, but delivered him up for us. Costly grace is the Incarnation of God.”

    The gospel makes much of sin. Because Jesus died to redeem us from our sins, to pay the penalty for our sins. And the more we can appreciate sin, the more we can appreciate grace. The more we can appreciate the gospel and what Jesus died. Because he didn’t die a horrific death on the cross to show us that sin didn’t matter. We see the cost of sin at the cross.”


    Thanks for reading! I’d love to hear what you think, and don’t forget to subscribe, share, and comment! 

    Josh Benner is the pastor of Christian Bible Church in Cissna Park, Illinois. He has a Master of Divinity from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He enjoys writing about faith and culture. He has an awesome wife named Kari.