Reason #1: The Church Follows a Flawed Book

Use these materials to go deeper into this message on your own, or with your small group.
Small Group Guide

Classic Service | Modern Service | Sermon Audio

Good morning, Chapel family. This is my first time preaching in the new year, so happy new year to all of you. I hope you had a good Christmas and New Year’s celebration.

Today we begin a brand-new series. As we enter into 2021, more Americans than ever before are deciding that they are done with church. Let me give you a few quick statistics. The Pew Research Center did an extensive survey of millennials (that’s people who are now between 23 and 38 years old), and here’s what they found: right now, 4 out of 10 millennials consider themselves completely unreligious. No religious affiliation whatsoever. Which is four times higher than it was in the 1980s—when I was in high school. Four times higher! That’s the fastest decline in religious affiliation ever recorded. So that’s millennials; in older generations those numbers haven’t dropped that drastically; but in younger generations—people in their teens and early 20s—those numbers may be dropping even faster.

So the statistics show that more and more people are deciding “I’m done with church. I’m out.” But you probably didn’t even need to hear the statistics, right? Because you see it happening around you. We all probably know people who are done with church…or maybe they never started in the first place. And when those people are close to us, and people that we love, that can be really painful. Because for those of us who are believers—and I’ll make this personal—for me, my relationship with Jesus is the most beautiful, life-giving, life-shaping thing in my life—I mean, he’s the reason I have hope. Even if everything else is stripped away from me, I know he’s not letting go of me. Jesus is that important to me. And the church is where I worship him and pursue my relationship with him, in community with other people. So when I see people rejecting church, or deciding church is irrelevant, man that hurts. Because I love those people so much. And I know many of you can relate, and this series is for you.

This series is also for you if you’re one of the people who’s done with church. Or if you’re thinking about being done. I’m glad you decided to listen, and I hope I’m able to represent some of your concerns fairly.

So…in this series we’re going to look at six of the big reasons why people are deciding they’re done with church. Here are the six reasons: The Church Follows a Flawed Book. The Church is Racially Segregated. The Church is Too Political. The Church Hates Gay People. The Church Represses Women. And -The Church is Anti-Science.

Those are the six beliefs we’re going to look at. It’s not a perfect list. I realize you may have reasons that aren’t on this list—and by the way, I would love to hear what those reasons are. But these are some of the big ones. So for each one, we’re going to take some time to lean in and listen to the critique. And in response, as Christians, we’re going to do one of two things: First, in places where the critique is accurate, we’re going to own it. We’re going to apologize for it (or at least I am; you don’t have to agree with me). And in the places where the critique is not really fair, we’ll try to clarify that. Okay?

And then here’s the last thing, and this is the most important: we’re going to ask ourselves, “What would it look like for us to represent Jesus really well in this particular area?” Does that make sense? Because that’s the bottom line. The church is supposed to be Christ-like. So for each of these

reasons that are causing people to be done with church, if we’re not representing Jesus well, man, that’s on us. And we need to change! But if we are representing Jesus well, and someone still decides, “I’m done with that—I’m not interested,” that’s on them. And we’ll keep loving them and inviting them, but at least we know that their problem is with Jesus—not with us—and we can live with that.

So…let’s look at the first reason that many people are done with church; here it is: “The Church Follows a Flawed Book.” Every time I give a sermon at The Chapel, I start out with a Scripture reading. And I don’t just say, “This is a reading from the Bible.” I intentionally say, “This is the Word of God.” That’s a bold claim. And there are a lot of people who don’t believe it’s the Word of God. And they have some pretty strong reasons for those doubts. So that’s what we’re going to talk about today.

Today’s Scripture reading is from 2 Timothy, chapter 3, verses 16 and 17. I invite you to hear what I believe is the Word of God…

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. This is the Word of the Lord.

So today, let’s look at why many people do not believe this is the Word of the Lord. I’m going to look at four reasons: Origins, Changes, Contradictions, and Morality. Okay? Four reasons why people believe the Bible is a flawed book: origins, changes, contradictions, and morality.

So, first: let’s talk about Origins. If you asked people, “How did Christianity get started? How did they embrace certain beliefs, and choose which books to include in the Bible?”—a lot of people would say those decisions were made not for spiritual reasons, but actually for political reasons. Back in 2003, Dan Brown published a wildly popular book called The DaVinci Code, which later became a moved starring Tom Hanks. Lots of you have read the book or seen the movie—it’s actually a really exciting story. But through that book, Dan Brown was articulating a very definite view of the Bible’s origins.

Let me just read a little excerpt. The villain, Leigh Tebing, is talking to Sophie Neveau, who studies tombs. And he’s explaining an event called the Council of Nicaea, which was convened in 325 AD by Constantine, the Emperor of Rome. So follow this—here’s what Leigh Tebing says: "Until that moment, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet. … a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless." And Sophie is shocked: "Not the Son of God?" she says. Tebing says: "Jesus' establishment as 'the Son of God' was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea." "Hold on. You're saying that Jesus' divinity was the result of a vote?" "A relatively close one at that," Tebing says.

So you see what he’s doing, right? Through the dialog of the characters, Dan Brown was laying out a view that some scholars have talked about for years: that Christian beliefs and the Christian Bible were really controlled by Roman political leaders. And in this world where there is so much suspicion, and so many conspiracy theories, a lot of people assume that’s true.

Here’s why I disagree with that. That Council—the Council of Nicaea—took place in 325 AD. All of the books in the New Testament were written way earlier. In fact, they were all written in the first century. And when you read those books, here’s what you find: consistent teaching that Jesus was more than a man. He performed miracles; he called God his Father; he forgave sins; he called himself the fulfillment of Hebrew messianic prophecy; he even received worship—unthinkable for a

Jewish man! So the belief that Jesus was divine—was God—that was the consensus of the church way before Constantine was even born.

Now: is it true that sometimes politics and religion have joined forces, and it’s been destructive? Absolutely! In fact, I’m devoting an entire message in this series to that subject—the belief that the church is too political. But I am convinced that the content of the Christian Bible and basic Christian beliefs were not determined by political forces at all.

In the opening Scripture reading, I read from 2 Timothy 3:16, which says this: All Scripture is God-breathed. And that’s a radical concept, because it means that, even though human authors were writing the Scriptures, God was moving in them and inspiring them to write what they wrote. So even though church councils may have recognized certain books, the Christian belief is that the Bible’s real authority comes from God himself.

One of the reasons I believe that is this (and I learned this from Tim Keller): The teachings of the Bible offend different cultures in different ways. For example, the Bible teaches we should forgive our enemies. Western culture tends to like that—we think that’s a powerful and good idea—forgive your enemies. If you go to a more traditional culture—an honor and shame culture like the Middle East—they hate that idea. If someone hurts you, you should get revenge on them. So this one idea resonates with Westerners, and it offends Middle-Easterners. The Bible also teaches a pretty strict sexual ethic—sex is to be kept within marriage. How does our Western culture respond to that? Not so well! Americans and Europeans think that’s way too restrictive. How do traditional, Middle-Eastern cultures feel about that? They love it! They completely agree with it!

So here’s the point: if the Bible were the product of one human culture—you would think it would fit in that culture and offend everyone else. BUT, if the Bible actually came from God, and it wasn’t the product of any human culture, doesn’t it make sense that it would offend every culture in some way? Which it very much does.

I’ve been reading the Bible for over 30 years, and I am more convinced than ever that when I open that book, I’m hearing the voice of God.

Okay—here’s the second reason people feel the Bible is flawed: Changes. Lots of people believe that the Bible has been drastically changed over the centuries. Remember that game “telephone” that we used to play at kids’ parties? One kid whispers a message the kid next to him, and then that kid whispers it to the next kid, and by the time it gets to the end of the line, what happens? The message completely changes! And a lot of people assume that’s what happened with the Bible.

There’s so much I could say here. But because it’s such a vast topic, let me just focus on the four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Is it true that what we read in the Gospels is substantially different today than when it was first written down?

Well, when you’re studying ancient history, the way you learn about it is from manuscripts. So events would happen, and historians who would write down what happened. And in the years that followed, there were scribes who made hand copies of those historical records. Can you imagine a more exciting job than that? Sitting in a room, lit by an oil lamp, copying words onto a scroll? Now, over time, the originals would deteriorate, and all you would have were copies—and we call those copies manuscripts.

So when it comes to manuscripts, two questions to ask: how many do we have still surviving today, AND what’s the gap in time between when the original was written and the earliest manuscript we have. Make sense? How many, and how early?

So, for comparison, let’s talk about a famous Roman history book. Around 115 AD, a Roman historian named Tacitus wrote a 30-volume work called the Annals of Roman History. If you look in history books, you’ll see all kinds of references to the Annals of Tacitus. You know how many manuscripts we have surviving today? Of that great work? Two. Two manuscripts. You know what the earliest copy is? 850 AD. And the other one is dated around 1100AD. So at least 700 years after the original was written. That’s a big gap.

And yet, if you were in a college history class, and you were asked to write a report about the Roman Empire, and you said, “I don’t think the writings of Tacitus are reliable—we only have two surviving manuscripts, and there’s an 700-year gap between the original and the copies,” the professor might not appreciate that.

You know how many manuscripts we have containing either entire books of the Gospels or portions of Gospels? More than a thousand. You know what the earliest one is? Not 900AD; not 800; …We have a portion of the Gospel of John that archaeologists have dated to about 135 AD! That’s about 45 years after John wrote the original! And we have copies of all four Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John—in their complete form—just like they are in our Bibles—from 250 AD.

So the whole “telephone game” theory is just not accurate. Because the number of New Testament manuscripts is so high, and the dates are so close to the originals, that they are more trustworthy than any other ancient document. The probability that they changed is so small compared to just about any other document in history.

So that’s the Gospels. Real quickly—let me just say 30 seconds about the Dead Sea Scrolls. You remember they found the Dead Sea Scrolls back in the 1940s? Way back in cave in the West Bank, they found these scrolls—with large sections of the Old Testament, and they dated back to the first century BC! That was a thousand years older than any of the Old Testament manuscripts we had up to that point! So this was a major discovery. So they painstakingly compared what they found in those scrolls to what they had previously; you know what they found? No significant differences. And it gave us huge confidence that the Hebrews scribes did their job really well, and the Old Testament we have is accurate.

Look: even if you have trouble believing certain things in the Bible, here’s what you should be confident of: the Bible you hold in your hand, or on your device, is the same Bible that was written thousands of years ago.

Here’s the third reason people feel the Bible is flawed: Contradictions. There’s a widespread belief that the Bible contradicts itself. If you spend any time on atheist web sites, it’s just a given: the Bible is full of contradictions. Is that true? Well, again, for the sake of time, let’s focus on the Gospels. Four different reporters; reporting on many of the same events in the life of Christ. And sometimes the stories don’t seem to match up. So…what do you do with that?

Let me illustrate it like this: this May, Norma Jean and I will celebrate our 32nd wedding anniversary. So here we were back on May 27, 1989. I’m looking happy; she’s looking slightly bored with the whole thing. We got married in a town called Richmond, Indiana; and we were both there. We were both eyewitnesses to that same event. But…if you asked both of us to describe that day, you would not get the same story. Norma Jean might say, “Our wedding took place in the backyard of my parents’ home on Lantern Trail.” I would say, “Our wedding took place at the Old North Chapel on 11th Street.” Sounds like a contradiction, doesn’t it? Well, no. Because the wedding ceremony itself was at the Old North Chapel, but the reception was in her parents’ backyard. So who’s telling the truth? Both of us are.

She might tell you, “Dave sang to me at our wedding.” But I would say, “Two of my college friends and I sang at the wedding—it was a trio.” Who’s telling the truth? Both of us! It’s true that I sang to her, but she just didn’t mention the fact that there were other people singing at the same time. She obviously only had eyes for me.

But do you see the point? Whenever you have different witnesses reporting on the same event, you expect to get some apparent contradictions. In fact, in court, if the stories of two witnesses match up too neatly, you suspect collusion. Right? But if they’re not colluding, you naturally get different details that come out. And that’s exactly what you find in the Gospels.

For example: In Matthew chapter 20, it says Jesus came upon two blind men, and he healed them. And then in Luke chapter 18 you find the same event described by Luke, but he only mentions one blind guy. People say, “That’s a contradiction.” No! One writer simply mentions more details than the other one does.

Matthew says that when Judas realized he had betrayed Christ, he went out and hung himself. Luke says that Judas fell in a field, and his guts spilled out! Obviously, these guys didn’t get together and make sure their stories matched up—right? So how could they both be true?? I don’t think it’s that big of a stretch. The rope broke. Or the branch broke.

When I read the Gospels, I see four different versions of the same story. A central theme. Different details brought out. And when I combine that with how soon after the events they were written, and the large number and early dates of the manuscripts we have, and we don’t have time to talk about this, but when I look at how a bunch of timid fishermen suddenly became fearless leaders of the early church, all of that leads me to the conclusion that what they wrote about actually happened. Some people say, “Well, that’s not scientific proof.” And that’s true. You don’t usually get scientific proof for historical events. But for me, the evidence is strong.

Now: let’s pivot here. Because there is one more main reason that people feel the Bible is a flawed book. I’ll call it Morality. Some of you are thinking, “Wait—isn’t the Bible a book about good morals? Why would anyone have a problem with the morality in the Bible?” Well, because more and more people actually believe the Bible’s moral teachings are dangerous. They say if you send your kids off to Sunday School and youth group, don’t think it’s going to make nice, moral little boys and girls; it’s going to plant seeds of ignorance and oppression, and that’s bad for them and bad for the world. That’s a growing view.

Now: I’m going to be addressing three specific examples of this later in this series. The belief that the Bible teaches oppression against women, and oppression against LGBTQ people—those are each going to get their own message. And by the way, I will be joined by a woman, and by an LGBT person, when I give those messages. And the belief that the Bible teaches us to be anti-science—that’s going to get its own message as well.

So today, let’s talk about a very common moral accusation, and it’s this: the Bible leads to violence. Is that true? And the honest answer is, “Sometimes, yes.” 35 people were killed in the Witch Trials of Salem, Massachusetts in the late 1600s. In the name of God! That’s awful. And it was much worse in Europe. Over a period of about 300 years, between about 1480 and 1780, about 300,000 women were killed because they were suspected of being witches. That’s inexcusable. During the Crusades and the Inquisitions, up to a million people were killed in the name of Christianity. So we need to own up to those things, and admit they happened. BUT, let’s be very careful here. Because those things happened not because people were following the Bible. They happened because people were distorting the Bible. And that’s a big difference.

I saw this expose on TV about a dermatologist who made millions of dollars by falsely diagnosing people with skin cancer. So people would come in for an appointment, and he would find some little spot—like a freckle or a mole—and he’d say, “That’s pre-cancerous. We need to remove that.” And he did thousands of unnecessary surgeries and got rich before he finally got caught. And there are many other doctors who have done immoral things like that, right? So…does that mean medicine is a corrupt system? Does that mean dermatology causes lying? Of course not. In other words, listen: Don’t judge the system based on people who practice it wrongly. Right? Don’t judge the practice of medicine based on the quacks, and don’t judge the Bible based on how people have distorted it to do violent things.

People who believe the Bible causes violence have this dream of a world where you could pull religion out—just finally rise above all that superstitious nonsense, and we’d finally have a peaceful society. That’s what John Lennon said, right? Imagine there’s no heaven, and no religion, too…Imagine all the people living life in peace… It’s an inspiring thought! But when you look at the real world, it just falls apart.

When you study the violence done through history, the most egregious acts were done by governments who had done exactly what John Lennon said! They got rid of religion, and they were rational, secular regimes. Communist Russia put to death at least 20 million of its own people under Stalin. Communist China, under Mao Zedong, killed about 45 million of its own people in four years. In the 1970s in Cambodia, Pol Pot killed about 7 million people. All of those were regimes that rejected all organized religion and belief in God. And the list is much, much longer.

Let me quote Tim Keller here: “Societies that have rid themselves of all religion have been just as oppressive as those steeped in it. We can only conclude that there is some violent impulse so deeply rooted in the human heart that it expresses itself regardless of what the beliefs of a particular society might be.” He’s exactly right. When you look at the wars and violence throughout history, the common thread is not religion or the Bible! The common thread is people. So the solution can’t be removing religion; the solution is to somehow change human hearts.

And that’s really how I want to end today’s message. Everything I’ve said so far is objective data that you can research, and you can agree or disagree or argue about. Let me say something more personal: I really believe that the message of the Bible has the power to change the human heart. Listen to what it says in the New Testament, in Hebrews 4:12: For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. When I get up in the morning and I open up the Bible—and I’m not talking about Dave the pastor preparing a sermon; this is just Dave the person, preparing for life—when I open up the Bible, and I say, “Lord, take this God-breathed message—this amazingly preserved message—and speak to me,” I’m telling you, it comes alive.

And here’s the main reason it’s so powerful: because ultimately, the Bible is about Jesus. The Hebrew Scriptures anticipate him and point to him; the Gospels talk about his life and teachings and his death and resurrection; the rest of the New Testament explains what it means to follow him and continue his mission. So at the end of the day, I don’t worship and follow a Book; I worship and follow Jesus. And every time I open the Scriptures, I meet him and I reconnect with him. He’s the one who’s chipping away at my pride and my jealousy and my anger; he’s the one who’s making me a man of patience and compassion and forgiveness and generosity and courage. So I’m just thankful that the Bible keeps pointing me to Jesus.