The History of the Jesus Trade - Conversation 4

So, these conversations have gotten me thinking, how did we even get to this point in Christian history where commercialising

Christianity is so normal and accepted? Was it always this way? No, no, it definitely wasn't always this way.

You know, the Dorian principle of freely giving, based on Matthew 10, 8 through 10, has been practised since the first century, and we can find evidence of it in the second century church as well.

So, possibly the oldest extra -biblical Christian writing we have is the

Didache, or the teaching of the twelve apostles. So this thing functioned as a manual of church practice, and it was highly respected by the early church.

So let me look this up, I think it's in Didache 11, 4 through 6 and 12, so let me read this to you.

It says, Let every apostle be received as the Lord, but if he ask money, he is a false prophet.

And whosoever shall say in the Spirit, Give me silver or anything else, ye shall not listen to him.

Sorry for the old English. So basically it's saying that if someone comes who claims to be an apostle or a prophet, if they ask for money, then they're a false prophet, and don't listen to them.

Wow, okay, that's pretty serious. Very, and there's more. Another early

Christian writing, the Shepherd of Hermas, also warns against greedy prophets and ministerial reciprocity.

In other words, giving ministry in exchange for money. So it argues that a divine spirit cannot receive money and prophesy in chapter 43 verse 12.

And on top of that, we have the writings of Apollonius of Ephesus. Yep, what did he write?

Here we go. Listen to this. Does not all scripture seem to you to forbid a prophet to receive gifts and money?

If they are convicted of receiving them, they are not prophets. And then he quotes

Christ's words from Matthew 10. For although the Lord said, provide neither gold nor silver, neither two coats, these men in complete opposition transgress in respect to the possession of forbidden things.

For we will show that those whom they call prophets and martyrs gather their gain not only from rich men, but also from the poor and orphans and widows.

Well, that's pretty clear. Indeed. And we also have Tertullian, one of the most important second century theologians, and he agreed with this as well.

Listen to what he wrote about this. There is no buying and selling of any sort in the things of God.

So what about the Protestant Reformation? Did they try to recapture this principle?

Oh, absolutely. The Reformation was sparked by Martin Luther's opposition to the commercial treatment of salvation, if you remember, such as the sale of indulgences.

So he believed that ministers should receive regular support, but not sell the message of salvation.

And other reformers shared similar concerns. Wait, but Luther published a ton of books.

Didn't he profit from any of them? Good question. So if you read Eric Metaxas's book on Martin Luther, this is what you'll find.

He writes the following, Luther received no income from his torrential publications because even though the publishers made a mint from them,

Luther refused to take a penny, nor did he take money for all of his preaching.

He simply wanted to spread the word and trust God would provide. Wow, that's incredible.

Yeah, yeah. And it's surprising to us in this cultural moment, but something like that, like Luther's example should be normal for anyone who has spent any time reading the

Bible, to be honest. And keep in mind that copyright law didn't exist back then either.

So the Reformation writings were able to go viral in a way that would never happen today.

If contemporary Christians followed the model of the Reformation, the impact for Christ would be exponentially larger than anything we see right now.

Yeah, that makes sense. And also keep in mind that until the middle of the 18th century, it was considered bad manners to write for remuneration instead of for reputation, which is crazy to think about now, right?

There's a book called 500 Years of Printing that talks about this, and the author writes the following,

Up to that time, only a few writers had ever received a fee from their publishers, and if they received it, they were anxious to hide the fact.

Erasmus, for instance, was deeply hurt when some Italian colleagues hinted that someone had paid him for a book, and he violently defended himself against any insinuations like that from others.

Well, I've never heard that before. That's completely opposite to what we see today.

Yep. But in spite of all the good the Reformers did, unfortunately, they didn't fully articulate a comprehensive ethic that distinguished between the rightful and wrongful receipt of money in ministry.

So they managed to address and counter the extremes of greed and neglect that had crept into the church, but they didn't go quite far enough in drawing clear lines for maintaining the integrity of ministry or spiritual things.

Okay, so how on earth did we get to where we are today then? Oh man, it's a complex story, but let me give you some highlights here.

Much of what I've learned about this comes from the excellent historical work edited by Mark Noll called

God and Mammon. Cool. Well, oh yes. Yeah, it's a good read. So first of all, you have to understand that America was founded on two principles, okay?

Number one, freedom. Number two, commerce. Freedom and commerce. The colonists wanted to escape from the religious oppression and economic exploitation of Europe, right?

They wanted to practice their faith freely and pursue their own interests in a land of opportunity.

Yep, yep, yep. Sounds good so far. Yeah, but there was a downside, of course. Without the state financing churches, churches began to experiment with alternative ways to get the money they needed.

And so without a regulated economy, money became the measure of success and influence.

So these two forces created a competitive and consumerist environment for religion.

Okay, how so? Well, churches began trying things like renting pews, renting the seats in the church, soliciting subscriptions, or even holding lotteries.

Lotteries? That sounds like gambling. Exactly. That's what it was. And it didn't work very well.

Most churches abandoned it after a while, along with the pew rent system. But the point is that churches sought to adapt to the market forces of supply and demand.

They had to attract and retain customers or, you know, members by offering them something they wanted or needed.

Yeah, well, like what? Well, like doctrine, worship style, social status, moral guidance, or spiritual experience.

So different denominations appealed to different segments of the population based on their theology, liturgy, class, ethnicity, or region.

And they often competed with each other for market share by criticizing or condemning their rivals.

Wow. Yeah, and it got worse as the nation grew and diversified. So you have money and religion becoming increasingly intertwined.

And money often got the upper hand when it came to deciding how to do ministry.

So what you're saying is that Christianity in the West was shaped by its commercial culture.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. And it still is today, unfortunately. That's why we need to be careful not to confuse our faith with financial pragmatism.

So Jesus was clear that we can't serve both God and money, right? And he said that for a reason.

Biblical principles have to shape our relationship to money and ministry, not capitalism.

Amen. So churches tended to adapt to the market forces of supply and demand then.

Yeah, and Protestantism also played a key role in promoting and legitimizing the market revolution in America.

What's the market revolution? Yeah, good question. It's a term that refers to the rapid economic and social changes that took place in America between 1815 and 1848.

It involved the expansion of markets and transportation and communication and industry and banking and commerce.

And it also involved the rise of new classes such as entrepreneurs and professionals and wage workers.

Okay, I see. How did Protestantism promote and legitimize this revolution?

Well, okay, one way was by preaching themes that aligned with the values and goals of the market culture.

For example, many ministers taught that Christians had a duty to prosper and that piety was an asset to success.

So they encouraged thrift as well and industry and discipline and charity as Christian virtues.

So they basically blessed the pursuit of money and materialism then?

Not exactly. They were still warning against the dangers of greed and covetousness and idolatry.

And they still affirmed that God was the ultimate source of all blessings, of course.

But they also saw wealth as a sign of God's favor and a means of advancing his kingdom.

Okay, I see. So why is that a bad thing? Well, because many people were unwittingly heading toward compromise and a contradiction between their spiritual mission and their worldly interests.

And this contradiction became more evident as religious organizations became more involved in the business of publishing and distributing books.

What kind of books? Well, mostly Bibles and tracts. So here's the deal. One of the main goals of Protestantism in America was to spread the word of God to everyone.

And one of the main ways to do that was to print and distribute Bibles and tracts as widely as possible.

Okay, yeah, that's a good goal. Oh, yeah, for sure it was. But it was also really expensive.

Really expensive. And another important piece of this puzzle that you have to understand is that they were urgently trying to usher in the millennial reign of Christ, according to the dominant eschatology at that time.

And they reached a bottleneck where they didn't have enough money to print at the speed and scale that they wanted.

Oh, right. So they decided to let the ends justify the means and get the money however they could to fund their grand vision.

Pretty much. Pretty much. At first, they had relied on donations from individuals and churches, and they gave away

Bibles and tracts for free to all. But soon they realized they needed more revenue to fund their aspirations and produce more books.

Right. So let me guess. They decided to sell some of their books instead of giving them all away for free.

Yep. To anyone who could pay for them. So they argued that selling Bibles and tracts was not contrary to their charitable mission, but rather a way of enhancing it.

They claimed that people would value the books more if they paid for them, and that selling some books would generate more funds for giving away others.

Right. And so they followed pragmatism instead of biblical principles, right?

Yeah. The irony is that the American Bible Society's founding slogan was from Revelation 22 .17,

which says, But then they changed their tune around 1830, and a lot of people got mad about it.

Yeah, well, I can imagine. So their switch to a profit model worked in some ways, but not in others.

So on one hand, it did increase their revenue and circulation, of course. But on the other hand, it created some problems and controversies.

It compromised their integrity as charitable organizations, and then it thrust them into competition with secular publishers and booksellers.

And it also favored those who could pay over those who couldn't pay.

Wow. And it showed how difficult it was for religious organizations to balance their spiritual mission with their worldly interests in a commercialized culture.

Yeah, yeah, I can imagine. You know, it's telling that during this same time,

Christians were not just defending the selling of ministry on economic grounds, but they were also defending the slave trade in the same way.

They argued that slavery was necessary for the prosperity and stability of the nation, and they used the

Bible to support their opinions. Wow, that sounds exactly the way people defend the

Jesus trade today. Precisely. And it showed how Americans could have serious blind spots when large amounts of money are at stake that could potentially fund ministry and other good things.

Once again, biblical considerations took the backseat to pragmatism and convenience.

Yeah, so what about the 20th century then? Well, since Bible societies and others had already made serious compromises in the way they funded their ministry, they just kept expanding their systems for generating profit, and nearly everyone followed suit.

So once they jumped into the river of capitalistic market forces, they were swept along by currents outside of their control and continued to make more and more compromises until, well, until they ended up looking nearly identical to the world.

I see, but didn't anyone call for reform during the 20th century?

Yes and no. Some things were confronted, like charging rent for pews, but no one ever challenged the sale of Bibles and Christian books.

Everyone became increasingly enamored with the materialistic progress around them, and they were witnessing the birth of the

American ultra -consumeristic culture. Then of course there were the two world wars, and after that came a massive economic boom that made evangelicals more concerned with how to manage money than about whether ministry should be sold as a commodity.

Manage money? Yeah, what I mean by that is more in terms of stewardship. So you have big figures like Larry Burkett, for example, who became the number one voice on Christian financial stewardship, and he had wonderful things to say, but his teaching was mostly limited to issues of giving and managing money rather than confronting the selling of Christian teaching and God's word.

And then we have Randy Alcorn, of course, who I love, who followed in his footsteps and published his fabulous book that I think everyone should read called

Money, Possessions, and Eternity in 1989, but he also was focused mainly on combating materialism and challenging the church to be generous, which are really good things, once again, but not really confronting the selling of Christian teaching and God's word.

So confronting the Jesus trade basically slid under the radar as people scrambled to help

Western Christians think more biblically about generosity and debt and tithing and those sorts of things.

Exactly. And so meanwhile, evangelicals became increasingly convinced that more money means more ministry, and however you get that money is essentially morally neutral.

So most of them didn't go so far as to promote the prosperity gospel, but they still thought like American capitalists when it came to selling spiritual things.

So they grew to believe that, well, that God cares more about the numbers, and if more money leads to more ministry, that means more success for God's kingdom.

So they learned to judge themselves by how big their ministry was.

And so the ones who had millions of dollars for their ministry were praised as having, you know,

God's approval and blessing, whether they obtained that money through the sale of ministry or not.

Wow. That's really enlightening. I mean, it helps make sense of where we are today. We sure have become complacent about the status quo of how money is accumulated for ministry purposes.

Yeah, it's the age old mistake of believing that the ends justify the means, like we've already talked about.

If you sell Bibles so that you can have Bibles to give away to the less fortunate, you know, most people would say that's a commendable thing.

No one stops to think about whether it's biblical to sell Bibles in the first place.

And obviously, I would say that it's a serious violation of biblical principles.

And at the end of the day, God is looking for faithfulness and obedience rather than big ministry numbers.

Hey, wasn't it Hudson Taylor who said that God's work done in God's way will never lack

God's supply? Yeah. And it's so true. It's so true. What we're seeing all around us are ministries that don't trust

God to supply what they need through the free generosity of his people. Many of them don't even, and this is important, they don't even give

God a chance to provide. They don't even take that first step and give God a chance to do that.

And there are plenty of people who aren't doing God's work, of course. So God doesn't supply what they need, so they look for worldly ways to get that money.

And then there are people who are doing God's work, but not in God's way. So when

God doesn't provide, well, what do they do? They resort to their own ideas for financing their aspirations.

Yeah. Yeah. And it seems as though no one even stops to think that maybe God doesn't only work through multi -million dollar parachurch ministries.

I mean, people forget that Jesus and the apostles didn't establish massive ministries with CEOs making six figures, luxurious office buildings and thousands of members.

I mean, Jesus only had 12 main disciples, which most ministries today would say is too small to really make a big impact for the kingdom.

Yeah. Preach it, man. When we force growth through ill -gotten gain, that growth is more like a cancer than a fruitful tree.

And sadly, most of the people who maintain the status quo are well -meaning. They really are sincere believers who've been deceived.

They're just simply following the way things have been done now for a century or more.

And they're unable to imagine any other practice than selling ministry in order to do ministry and expand their impact.

Well, thanks. This helps put everything into perspective. Yeah. Anytime.

And if you want to go deeper into some of these things, I also recommend this book called

Faith in Reading by Nord. And then there's another one edited by Mark Knoll called