I’m right. I win. You lose.

I’m right. I win. You lose.

Although not often used in common parlance, the abbreviation QED is used in philosophical arguments, mathematical theorem proofs, and legal briefs. It is an abbreviation for the Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum which literally means “which was to be demonstrated” or “thus it has been proven.” Charitably, it means I have successfully supported my argument or belief. In real life, it has an acerbic edge to it, which translates as, “See, I’m right. There, I showed you. I win. You lose.” 

Have you ever watched a debate (i.e. a debate team, not political theater called “debate”)? Debaters (especially in high school) use their timed speaking opportunities to cite as many references as possible at a pace that approaches warp speed. They talk so fast the listener can barely make out anything they’re saying until they hit their concluding statement, spoken at the fortissimo level, which almost always goes something like, “Thus it is clear that the verdict must be awarded to the affirmative [or the negative if that is their assignment that day].” QED. Translated, that means I talked faster than you did. I cited more references than you did. My logic was flawless. I win. You lose.


Has your opinion on something or a conclusion ever been challenged? How did that make you feel? What was your response? As Christians in the 21st century, our truth claims are becoming less and less culturally plausible. We are being challenged more and more.

Do you respond with questions of curiosity—trying to understand the challenger’s position, or with an avalanche of polysyllabic prose in an attempt to bury your “discussion partner” and then end with an emphatic QED? I win. You lose.

Do you respond with humble confidence, willing to hear a different thought process, or are you so certain of your opinion that you lambast their ideas and then end with an emphatic QED? I win. You lose.

As I listen to and learn about matters of apologetics,1 I find that I need to guard my heart. I must confess a proclivity toward a less-than-charitable approach to those who disagree with me. When I listen to messages on apologetics, I need to be vigilant. I must work hard to avoid merely gathering “ammunition” to use against those who disagree with me.

Early Years

This character flaw of mine has deep and long-standing roots. During the early stages of my spiritual exploration, I was fearful of being duped. I did not want to be intellectually weak. I wanted everything to fit together in an understandable, provable set of facts. I did not want to be wrong. Chemistry had its redox reactions that could be balanced. Physics had its formulae (both Newtonian and Einsteinian) which explained and predicted motion. Pythagoras had his mathematical theorems. And as I was exploring the claims of Christ, I wanted facts—repeatable, provable facts.

My imbalanced bias toward empiricism continued through high school and got much more intense in college. I struggled. Interestingly, it was a message on probability equations associated with fulfilled prophecy that was the triggering “hook” for my exploration. When I began my personal relationship with Jesus after my junior year in college, the campus ministry with whom I participated offered training in apologetics. I gobbled that up as fast as it was offered. That was good. I grew. I became more confident in the veracity of the biblical claims. While the spiritual growth was good, the training also fed my unhealthy bias toward proving others wrong. That bias did not result in a winsome approach to evangelism.

Although the Holy Spirit has softened some rough edges over the years, that (primarily) prideful desire to be “right” and that desire to “win” linger—just ask my wife.

I am not suggesting apologetics is bad, nor am I saying I no longer love apologetics. I love every minute of study and learning. While I still want to understand and I still want to be “right,” I pray my desire to be right is rooted in a desire to know more about Jesus. May it not be rooted in a desire to win a debate.

Watch Our Motives

May we engage both sides of our brain as we listen to the truths of the Scripture. Do not eschew the facts, but keep them balanced with the existential realities of a life with the person of Jesus.

Whether we are discussing what I call external issues (e.g. the exclusivity of Jesus, the age of the earth, or the existence of evil) or internal issues (e.g. eschatological timing, sovereignty/human agency, original sin), may we know what we study and read rather than reading what we “know.” May we learn so that we can grow in our worship. May we learn so that we can do what is right, not win a debate.

In his first letter, the apostle Peter summed it up well. He admonished us to always be ready to defend our hope that is rooted in our faith in Jesus.

 “…[be] ready at any time to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you. YET [emphasis added] do this with gentleness and reverence….
I Peter 3:15-16. 

However, we need to be careful with that word translated as “defend” since it has potentially pejorative overtones in English. We need to continue reading to the next verse, as Peter describes how we are to defend—with gentleness and reverence.

As we absorb preaching and teaching and journey through the complex terrain of apologetics, may our pursuit of truth be guided not by a desire to win debates but by a gentle, reverent, and humble confidence rooted in a growing understanding of the God of Abraham.


1 The English word “apologetics” finds its roots in the Greek “apologia” which is best translated as “defense.” Combining the prefix “apo” [away from] with “logia” [speech], the word in this context contains no hint of asking forgiveness.

Coronavirus / Seasonal Flu Precautions:

Part of the mission of Christ Community is to be a caring family. With this in mind, we want to address the challenges our community is facing with the spread of the new Coronavirus (COVID-19). While there is currently no vaccine available for this disease, the CDC recommends taking the same cautious approach to this disease as we do with the seasonal flu. 

We would like your help in preventing the spread of all illnesses at this time of year by practicing the following:

  1. Stay home if you feel sick (avoid contact with others for at least 24 hours after you are fever-free).
  2. Please keep your children home if they are showing signs of illness. Again, please keep them home until they have been fever-free (without medication) for at least a full 24 hours.
  3. Diligently and frequently wash your hands using soap and hot water for at least 20 seconds (this continues to be the most helpful, effective, and important measure everyone can take).
  4. If washing your hands is not possible, we have hand-sanitizer located throughout the building for your use. Please use it often.
  5. Avoid touching eyes, mouth, and nose.
  6. Avoid close contact with individuals who are sick.
  7. Should you choose to do so, feel free to employ a “fist-bump” and a big smile rather than shaking hands with those you meet.

We will continue to utilize appropriate cleaning as we always have. Our cleaning company consistently wipes down surfaces with disinfectant, and our early childhood department regularly wipes down toys.

In a recent sermon from our series on Luke, we were reminded that our hope is in the Lord, not in the plans of man. Let’s pray together for our community and world as we deal with this virus and also remember where our hope is placed. May God use our fears to draw us to Himself.

Should the COVID-19 virus continue to spread and hit the Kansas City area to a degree that concerns health care professionals, we will respond with increased measures and preventative actions for church functions* and will consider how to best play a role in our community for good in a time of need.

*Each campus is currently assessing communion practices.

Additional Resources

Boomers, Gen X, Millennials – Where Does Premillennial Fit?

Boomers, Gen X, Millennials – Where Does Premillennial Fit?

Why did the EFCA change the Statement of Faith?

Some of you have heard there will be a Second Coming of Christ. Ever wonder when it will be? Well, that question has been captivating the minds of theologians for the last 2,000 years. 

Randy Bonifield Song

A funny parody on how our view of the end times has been shaped. Performed by Randy Bonifield at Christ Community in Aug. 2007.

Depending on how many birthdays you have had, you may be familiar with the 1972 movie A Thief in the Night. You may also have heard of the best-selling Left Behind book series by Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye in the late ’90s. Although those works were entertainment, the fact that their eschatological story lines captured the attention of many in the U.S. tells us how intriguing this topic is. 

Although eschatology (the study of end times) also deals with topics like the “rapture” of Christians (1 Thess 4:13-17) and a period of suffering known as “the tribulation” (Rev 7:14), the focus in this discussion is on the more narrow topic of Christ’s return to earth as it relates to His establishing a visible reign on earth.

For you secret theologians out there, how often do you wonder if Christ’s return is going to be premillennial or postmillennial, pre-tribulation or post-tribulation? Or if you’re a student, perhaps you simply pray that He returns before your parents see your next set of grades. 

Whatever your standing, level of interest, or belief, you should know that the Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA), the denomination of which Christ Community is a part, recently voted to make a change to the statement of faith regarding this issue.

Changing a statement of faith is a momentous event in my opinion and warrants a bit of digging. What happened in June 2019 that caused the denomination to change? Lightning bolts? Visions? New archaeological discovery of an autograph? What will they change next year? Is the EFCA going liberal or progressive?

Let’s examine a few definitions, look at a little history, and then see why the EFCA decided to alter the statement of faith in 2019.


Millennium – literally, 1,000 years with Latin roots of mille (thousand) and annus (year); in eschatology, refers to the reign of Jesus on earth between the present age and the eternal state

Premillennialism – the belief that Christ’s return will occur before the millennial reign

Postmillennialism – the belief that Christ’s return will occur only after a period of earthly blessing that will be characterized by dramatic improvement in moral conditions of the world accompanied by massive transformation of lives around the world

Amillennialism – the belief that the rule of Christ is currently operative and that His return will immediately usher in the new heaven and earth; that is, there will be no intermediate millennial reign.


Equipped with those definitions, what did the EFCA statement of faith say and what does it say now? There are ten articles in the statement. They are:

  1. God
  2. The Bible
  3. The Human Condition
  4. Jesus Christ
  5. The Work of Christ
  6. The Holy Spirit
  7. The Church
  8. Christian Living
  9. Christ’s Return
  10. Response and Eternal Destiny


 The change that was made on June 19, 2019 was to Article IX, Christ’s Return, and only one word was changed. 

Prior to the change, the article read,

“We believe in the personal, bodily and premillennial [emphasis added] return of our Lord Jesus Christ. The coming of Christ, at a time known only to God, demands constant expectancy and, as our blessed hope, motivates the believer to godly living, sacrificial service and energetic mission.”

It was changed to read, 

“We believe in the personal, bodily and glorious [emphasis added] return of our Lord Jesus Christ. The coming of Christ, at a time known only to God, demands constant expectancy…”

At this point, some historical perspective is in order. Most students of Revelation (the last book of the Bible which deals with a great deal of eschatology) adhere to the concept that there will be (or is) an intermediate period when Christ will rule. During this period, Christ’s identity as both Lord and King will be publicly vindicated and acknowledged. He may not be worshiped by all, but His credentials will be acknowledged by all.

Early on (before the Nicene Council ca. 325), most of the best-known church scholars had premillennial views, though they were vaguely defined. By the fourth century, however, most had turned away from that view. There are several suggested reasons, but the primary driver in the decline of premillennialism was Augustine and his work City of God.

The roots of modern Anglo-American eschatology germinated with the millennial resurgence of the Puritans of the seventeenth century. Once again, however, positions were not clearly articulated and both premillennialism and postmillennialism forms were common. Some of the Puritans, Jonathan Edwards included, felt that Christ would not return until after a period of peace and prosperity for the church on earth: a millennium to be ushered in by such a great outpouring of the Holy Spirit that the massive revivals of the Great Awakening (ca. 1730s– 1740s) would be viewed as but a foreshadowing by contrast. That view was called postmillennialism.

The 1800s saw a further resurgence of premillennialism, with sparks from a Scottish theologian, and the publication of the Scofield Bible in 1909. This resurgence had a slightly different interpretative metanarrative that informed the Bible school movement in this country in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, including Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. This perspective was dominant in the formative period of the Free Church circles. Much later, it shaped the thinking behind Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth (1970) and the previously mentioned Left Behind series of the late 1990s.

Thus, it is clear that over the centuries, serious students of Scripture, with high regard for its inerrancy, have differed over the timing of Christ’s return. Many ardent defenders of inerrancy have been premillennialists. But ardent defenders of inerrancy are not limited to premillennialists. Consider Augustine (4th century), Martin Luther (16th century), John Calvin (16th century), and Jonathan Edwards (18th century), for example.


Against that historical backdrop, why did the EFCA change? Why now? Do we need to be concerned? 

All are good questions.

In short, the change was made to better reflect the position that the EFCA does not want to include items in the statement of faith that are not of the top dogmatic ranks. Everyone must constantly make choices between important and essential, and after approximately thirty years of internal debate, the EFCA has decided this issue, while important, is not essential.

Just as science has historically distinguished between laws, principles, theories/hypotheses, and speculation, so has theology established categories known as “dogmatic rank.” In science, laws are inviolate—think gravity and planetary motion (Newton and Kepler) while principles are mechanisms by which phenomena are observed to operate (e.g., Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle).

In a like manner, theologians delineate matters according to levels of importance. The highest fundamental articles of faith are known as dogma and are utterly necessary to the Christian faith. These are the elements without which Christianity does not exist and the integrity of which is necessary to the preservation of the faith.

The secondary level are issues, such as those dealing with baptism, for example, that might be absent from a person’s faith, or at least lacking in accuracy but will in no way jeopardize their salvation since the forgiveness of sin rests solely in faith in Christ and His work on the cross, not on acceptance of secondary doctrines.

The third rank are those elements which are not at all fundamental to truth. An example of this third rank might be the identity of the Antichrist. These are interesting topics, important topics, but not even remotely salvific.

science                                theology                         stance

law                                       dogma                            indisputable

principle                             doctrine                         uncompromisable

theory/hypothesis            theory                             open to debate

speculation                        speculation                    passing curiosity  


There will always be debate on how to accurately categorize topics. The EFCA relies primarily on four factors:

1) exegetical certainty (to what extent does Scripture unambiguously affirm);

2) theological importance;

3) biblical emphasis (where, how often, or how forcefully emphasized);

4) historical agreement within the church over time.

Applying those categories to its public statements, the EFCA has historically adhered to a tenet called “the significance of silence.” That is, if the issue is not of the first or second rank and is not truly fundamental to salvation, they have maintained a charitable silence. The question then becomes, into what category does the timing of Christ’s return fall?

The EFCA feels strongly that premillennialism versus postmillennialism versus amillennialism comes nowhere near the first dogmatic rank. In no way does the recent amendment diminish the adherence to biblical inerrancy, nor does it change the framework of interpretation utilizing the context of the whole of canonical Scripture.


We know that…

  • His return will be personal (1 Thess 4:16)
  • His return will be visible (Matt 24:30)
  • His return will be bodily (Phil 3:20-21)
  • His return will be glorious (Matt 24:30)
  • Only God the Father knows when it will occur (Matt 24:36)
  • We need to be vigilant and expectant (Matt 24:42, 1 Thess 5:6)

The Book of Revelation is apocalyptic literature. We are told that John is temporarily whisked into heaven in order to view future events from a divine perspective. There are peculiar creatures described in vivid terms. It speaks of serpents and locust-like armies, as well as a rider on a great white horse. Wild stuff. 

The language is metaphorical, not literal. Although the book may use symbolic language, it conveys truth about what is real. The battle of good and evil is real. Will God’s earthly reign be for what we know as 1,000 years? We cannot say with certainty. But we can say that the final victory belongs to God and is real. The new heaven and the new earth are real.

The issues of end times have been a puzzlement to humans for centuries—and there is much we do not know. What I do know is that I trust in the sovereignty of God even if I do not understand it all at this point. 

To some readers that last statement could be construed as a weak-minded cop-out. Remember, however, that trust is built on a body of evidence. Given the historicity of Scripture, the unfathomable probability against the numerous perfectly fulfilled prophecies, the literary cohesiveness of Scripture, and the canonical coherence of Scripture, there is more than an adequate body of work for us to feel very comfortable in placing trust in the sovereignty of God.

We are promised that Jesus will return. May I be at my post when He does!

Whereas today, followers of Christ are liberated from the power of sin, some day we will be freed from the very presence of sin. Oh Lord, haste the day.

Charitable Giving Under 2018 Tax Reform

Charitable Giving Under 2018 Tax Reform

Are you interested in maximizing the tax benefit of giving to the church?

April 15 may be months away, but now is the time to do your planning. The U.S. tax code encourages charitable giving in several ways and it makes sense to utilize these if possible.

On December 22, 2017 the President signed legislation known as “The Tax Cuts and Job Acts.” This legislation made a number of changes to the federal tax code that had an impact on both corporate and individual taxes. This legislation was sweeping in its breadth. There were changes to tax brackets, exemptions, and itemized deductions.

Whether or not we have already seen the impact, we will all feel the effects when we file our 2018 return.

So what does that have to do with giving to my church?

For many of you, these tax changes will have no impact on your giving. However, if you have itemized your deductions in the past, you should be aware of the changes made to this portion of the law and how they might affect you. We do not want to give tax advice. Nor do we want to tell you how to structure your charitable giving. However, if the following are true, you may have an opportunity to save some money on your taxes:

  • You have given assets to a charitable organization in 2018 (including the church)
  • You have typically itemized your deductions rather than using the standard deduction on your income tax return
  • The sum of all deductions (charitable giving, state and local taxes, property taxes, mortgage interest, medical expenses, etc.) could be in the range of $10,000 to $40,000

Bunching Your Contributions

If all of those statements are true for you in 2018, you may be interested in a new strategy known as “bunching.” The term “bunching” appeared on the financial scene early this year and refers to the potential combination of multiple years’ worth of donations in a single year to maximize the tax benefits. The total of the gifts can be the same over two or three years, but the giving is “bunched” into one year. This is sometimes done through a donor-advised fund.

If this concept is intriguing, the following charts may help explain.

Double-up on tax-deductible contributions in alternating years to achieve the larger itemized deduction in those years.

This strategy is not for everyone as our personal situations vary widely. Christ Community appreciates every single gift and desires to be sensitive to everyone.

If you think a donor-advised fund might make sense for you or you are interested in learning about other strategies to maximize your charitable giving, consult a qualified financial advisor.